Global Research

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

The spectacular rise of human civilization—its agrarian societies, cities, states, empires and industrial and technological advances ranging from irrigation and the use of metals to nuclear fusion—took place during the last 10,000 years, after the last ice age. Much of North America was buried, before the ice retreated, under sheets eight times the height of the Empire State Building. This tiny span of time on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old is known as the Holocene Age. It now appears to be coming to an end with the refusal of our species to significantly curb the carbon emissions and pollutants that might cause human extinction. The human-induced change to the ecosystem, at least for many thousands of years, will probably make the biosphere inhospitable to most forms of life.

The planet is transitioning under our onslaught to a new era called the Anthropocene. This era is the product of violent conquest, warfare, slavery, genocide and the Industrial Revolution, which began about 200 years ago, and saw humans start to burn a hundred million years of sunlight stored in the form of coal and petroleum. The numbers of humans climbed to over 7 billion. Air, water, ice and rock, which are interdependent, changed. Temperatures climbed. The Anthropocene, for humans and most other species, will most likely conclude with extinction or a massive die-off, as well as climate conditions that will preclude most known life forms. We engineered our march toward collective suicide although global warming was first identified in 1896 by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius.

The failure to act to ameliorate global warming exposes the myth of human progress and the illusion that we are rational creatures. We ignore the wisdom of the past and the stark scientific facts before us. We are entranced by electronic hallucinations and burlesque acts, including those emanating from the centers of power, and this ensures our doom. Speak this unpleasant truth and you are condemned by much of society. The mania for hope and magical thinking is as seductive in the Industrial Age as it was in pre-modern societies.

Ate and Nemesis were minor deities who were evoked in ancient Greek drama. Those infected with hubris, the Greeks warned, lost touch with the sacred, believed they could defy fate, or fortuna, and abandoned humility and virtue. They thought of themselves as gods. Their hubris blinded them to human limits and led them to carry out acts of suicidal folly, embodied in the god Ate. This provoked the wrath of the gods. Divine retribution, in the form of Nemesis, led to tragedy and death and then restored balance and order, once those poisoned with hubris were eradicated. “Too late, too late you see the path of wisdom,” the Chorus in the play “Antigone” tells Creon, ruler of Thebes, whose family has died because of his hubris.

“We’re probably not the first time there’s been a civilization in the universe,” Adam Frank, a professor of astrophysics at the University of Rochester and the author of “Light of the Stars: Alien Worlds and the Fate of the Earth,” told me when we met in New York.

“The idea that we’re destroying the planet gives us way too much credit,” he went on. “Certainly, we’re pushing the earth into a new era. If we look at the history of the biosphere, the history of life on earth, in the long run, the earth is just going to pick that up and do what is interesting for it. It will run new evolutionary experiments. We, on the other hand, may not be a part of that experiment.”

Civilizations probably have risen elsewhere in the universe, developed complex societies and then died because of their own technological advances. Every star in the night sky is believed to be circled by planets, some 10 billion trillion of which astronomers such as Frank Drake estimate are hospitable to life.

“If you develop an industrial civilization like ours, the route is going to be the same,” Adam Frank said. “You’re going to have a hard time not triggering climate change.”

Astronomers call the inevitable death of advanced civilizations across the universe “the great filter.” Robin Hanson in the essay, “The Great Filter—Are We Almost Past It?” argues that advanced civilizations hit a wall or a barrier that makes continued existence impossible. The more that human societies evolve, according to Hanson, the more they become “energy intensive” and ensure their own obliteration. This is why, many astronomers theorize, we have not encountered other advanced civilizations in the universe. They destroyed themselves.

“For a civilization to destroy itself through nuclear war, it has to have certain emotional characteristics,” Frank said. “You can imagine certain civilizations saying, ‘I’m not building those [nuclear weapons]. Those are crazy.’ But climate change, you can’t get away from. If you build a civilization, you’re using huge amounts of energy. The energy feeds back on the planet, and you’re going to push yourself into a kind of Anthropocene. It’s probably universal.”

Frank said that our inability to project ourselves into a future beyond our own life spans makes it hard for us to grasp the reality and consequences of severe climate change. Scenarios for dramatic climate change often center around the year 2100, when most adults living now will be dead. Although this projection may turn out to be overly optimistic given the accelerating rate of climate change, it allows societies to ignore—because it is outside the life span of most living adults—the slow-motion tsunami that is occurring.

“We think we’re not a part of the biosphere—that we’re above it—that we’re special,” Frank said. “We’re not special.”

“We’re the experiment that the biosphere is running now,” he said. “A hundred million years ago, it was grassland. Grasslands were a new evolutionary innovation. They changed the planet, changed how the planet worked. Then the planet went on and did things with it. Industrial civilization is the latest experiment. We will keep being a part of that experiment or, with the way that we’re pushing the biosphere, it will just move on without us.”

“We have been sending probes to every other planet in the solar system for the last 60 years,” he said. “We have rovers running around on Mars. We’ve learned generically how planets work. From Venus, we’ve learned about the runaway greenhouse effect. On Venus the temperature is 800 degrees. You can melt lead [there]. Mars is a totally dry, barren world now. But it used to have an ocean. It used to be a blue world. We have models that can predict the climate. I can predict the weather on Mars tomorrow via these climate models. People who think the only way we can understand climate is by studying the earth now, that’s completely untrue. These other worlds—Mars, Venus, Titan. Titan is a moon of Saturn that has an amazingly rich atmosphere. They all teach us how to think like a planet. They have taught us generically how planets behave.”

Frank points out that much of the configurations of the ecosystem on which we depend have not always been part of the planet’s biosphere. This includes the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water and warm air up from Florida to Boston and out across the Atlantic.

“Hundreds of millions of people in some of Earth’s most technologically advanced cities rely on the mild climate delivered by the Gulf Stream,” Frank writes in “Light of the Stars.” “But the Gulf Stream is nothing more than a particular circulation pattern formed during a particular climate state the Earth settled into after the last ice age ended. It is not a permanent fixture of the planet.”

“Everything we think about the earth just happens to be this one moment we found it in,” he told me. “We’re pushing it [the planet] and we’re pushing it hard. We don’t have much time to make these transitions. What people have to understand is that climate change is our cosmic adolescence. We should have expected this. The question is not ‘did we change the climate?’ It’s ‘of course we changed the climate. What else did you expect to have happened?’ We’re like a teenager who has been given this power over ourselves. Just like how you give a teenager the keys to the car, there’s this moment where you’re like, ‘Oh my God I hope you make it.’ And that’s what we are.”

“Climate change is not a problem we have to make go away, in a sense that you don’t make adolescence go away,” Frank said. “It is a dangerous transition that you have to navigate. … The question is are we smart enough to deal with the effects of our own power? Climate change is not a pollution problem. It’s not like any environmental problem we’ve faced before. In some sense, it’s not an environmental problem but a planetary transition. We’ve already pushed the earth into it. We’re going to have to evolve a new way of being a civilization, fundamentally.”

“We will either evolve those group behaviors quickly or the earth will take what we’ve given it, in terms of new climate states, and move on and create new species,” he said.

Frank said the mathematical models for the future of the planet have three trajectories. One is a massive die-off of perhaps 70 percent of the human population and then an uneasy stabilization. The second is complete collapse and extinction. The third is a dramatic reconfiguration of human society to protect the biosphere and make it more diverse and productive not for human beings but for the health of the planet. This would include halting our consumption of fossil fuels, converting to a plant-based diet and dismantling the animal agriculture industry as well as greening deserts and restoring rainforests.

There is, Frank warned, a tipping point when the biosphere becomes so degraded no human activity will halt runaway climate change. He cites Venus again.

“The water on Venus got lost slowly,” he said. “The CO₂ built up. There was no way to take it out of the atmosphere. It gets hotter. The fact that it gets hotter makes it even hotter. Which makes it even hotter. That’s what would happen in the collapse model. Planets have minds of their own. They are super-complex systems. Once you get the ball rolling down the hill. … This is the greatest fear. This is why we don’t want to go past 2 degrees [Celsius] of climate change. We’re scared that once you get past 2 degrees, the planet’s own internal mechanisms kick in. The population comes down like a stone. A complete collapse. You lose the civilization entirely.”

*

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, New York Times best selling author, former professor at Princeton University, activist and ordained Presbyterian minister. He writes a weekly column for the website Truthdig in Los Angeles, run by Robert Scheer, and hosts a show, On Contact, on RT America.

Featured image is from Mr. Fish.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

America’s media’s propaganda is designed to not only affect the USA, but also most of America’s allies, including Canada. A recent prime example is how Syria’s White Helmets have been groomed by the media as courageous heroes who now need a place of refuge since the war is Syria is almost over. In response to this, Canada has offered to take in about 50 of them along with 200 of their family members.

A courageous Canadian investigative journalist, Eva Bartlett, has recently reported that the White Helmets:

“Packaged as neutral, heroic, volunteer rescuers, who have “saved 115,000 lives”, according to White Helmets leader Raed Al Saleh, they are in reality a massively Western-funded organization with salaried volunteers, and have no documentation of those 115,000 saved. They contain numerous members who have participated in or supported criminal acts in Syria, including torture, assassinations, beheading, and kidnapping of civilians, as well as inciting Western military intervention in Syria.”

As renowned journalist John Pilger put it, the White Helmets are a “propaganda construct,” an Al Qaeda support group, whose prime purpose is to try to put a veneer of respectability on the vile head-chopping terrorists in Syria. The White Helmets have never operated anywhere in Syria except in areas that had been occupied by al-Qaeda affiliated groups such as Al-Nusra and Jaish al-Islam, even ISIS. In fact, their base of operations is frequently close to the headquarters of a terrorist group. 

Further on this, Vanessa Beeley, a British journalist who has often reported from nearby fighting zones in Syria, wrote a detailed article:

noting that just 200 metres from the White Helmets centre in the then terrorist occupied part of Aleppo, was the city square where in July 2016 a 12-year old Palestinian boy, Abdullah Issa, was savagely tortured and then slowly beheaded with a short knife. As she reported, “Issa begged his torturers to shoot him, but he was decapitated and his head was held aloft by his executioner standing on the back of a pick-up truck.” There was never a mention of this by the White Helmets. 

The White Helmets organization was created and funded by US and British efforts back in March of 2013, with an initial input of $23 million by USAID (US Agency for International Development). Since then they’ve received over $100 million, including at least Can$7.5 million.  Max Blumenthal has explored in some detail the various funding resources and relationships that the White Helmets draw on, mostly in the United States and Europe.  Overall, the CIA has spent over $1 billion on arming and training the so-called Syrian “rebels” who in actuality constitute a variety of Al Qaeda forces.  

Philip Giraldi in a detailed recent article stated that at the present time there is no bigger fraud than the story of the “heroic” White Helmets. The story that’s been put forth is that with the Syrian army closing in on the last White Helmet affiliates still fighting in the country, the Israeli government, aided by the USA, “staged an emergency humanitarian evacuation” of 800 White Helmet members, including their families, to Israel and then on to Jordan. Pleas were then put forth to resettle them in the USA, Britain, Germany and other countries. 

As Giraldi explains, more than likely the USA urged Israel “to rescue” these White Helmets not because they would have been killed by the Syrian forces, but because their capture by the Syrians would have produced embarrassing revelations about how the group was funded and what its affiliation with terrorists was all about. 

Giraldi continues to say that

“Israel’s celebrated rescue of the White Helmets was little more than a theatrical performance intended to perpetuate the myth that the al-Assad government was thwarted in an attempt to capture and possibly kill an honorable non-partisan group engaged in humanitarian relief for those caught up in a bloody conflict seeking to oust a ruthless dictator. The reality is quite different. The White Helmets were and are part and parcel of the attempt to overthrow a legitimate government and install a regime friendly to western, American and Israeli interests.”

With substantial irrefutable evidence indicating that the White Helmets are a dangerous and fraudulent group, how is it that Canada’s Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, addressed them as “courageous volunteers” and immediately pledged to accept 50 White Helmets and around 200 family members? There was no vote in Parliament on this or any public discussion. 

This is particularly galling, since as Eva Bartlett said in her previously cited article: 

“Why did the Canadian government refuse the entry of 100 injured Palestinian children from Gaza in 2014, a truly humanitarian effort, and yet will fast-track the entry of potentially dangerous men with potential ties to terrorists?” 

And where is the New Democratic Party on this? So far not a murmur from them on this issue has been reported in the media. But is this surprising considering that the NDP urged the federal government in 2016 to nominate the White Helmets for the Nobel Peace Prize? At that time I denounced their naïve and ill-advised action in an open letter to the party. Fortunately, at that time Canada’s Foreign Minister Stéphane Dion ignored the NDP request. 

*

John Ryan, Ph.D., is a Retired Professor of Geography and a Senior Scholar at the University of Winnipeg.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

One of the most insidious ways politicians expand government is by creating new programs to “solve” problems created by politicians. For example, government interference in health care increased health care costs, making it difficult or even impossible for many to obtain affordable, quality care. The effects of these prior interventions were used to justify Obamacare.

Now, the failures of Obamacare are being used to justify further government intervention in health care. This does not just include the renewed push for socialized medicine. It also includes supporting new laws mandating price transparency. The lack of transparency in health care pricing is a direct result of government policies encouraging overreliance on third-party payers.

This phenomenon is also observed in foreign policy. American military interventions result in blowback that is used to justify more military intervention. The result is an ever-expanding warfare state and curtailments on our liberty in the name of security.

Another example of this is related to the reaction to President Trump’s tariffs. Many of America’s leading trading partners have imposed “retaliatory” tariffs on US goods. Many of these tariffs target agriculture exports. These tariffs could be devastating for American farmers, since exports compose as much as 20 percent of the average farmer’s income.

President Trump has responded to the hardships imposed on farmers by these retaliatory tariffs with a 12 billion dollars farm bailout program. The program has three elements: direct payments to farmers, use of federal funds to buy surplus crops and distribute them to food banks and nutrition programs, and a new federal effort to promote American agriculture overseas.

This program will not fix the problems caused by Tramp’s tariffs. For one thing, the payments are unlikely to equal the money farmers will lose from this trade war. Also, government marketing programs benefit large agribusiness but do nothing to help small farmers. In fact, by giving another advantage to large agribusiness, the program may make it more difficult for small farmers to compete in the global marketplace.

Distributing surplus food to programs serving the needy may seem like a worthwhile use of government funds. However, the federal government has neither constitutional nor moral authority to use money taken by force from taxpayers for charitable purposes. Government-funded welfare programs also crowd out much more effective and compassionate private efforts. Of course, if government regulations such as the minimum wage and occupational licensing did not destroy job opportunities, government farm programs did not increase food prices, and the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies did not continuously erode purchasing power, the demand for food aid would be much less. By increasing spending and debt, the agriculture bailout will do much more to create poverty than to help the needy.

Agriculture is hardly the only industry suffering from the new trade war. Industries — such as automobile manufacturing — that depend on imports for affordable materials are suffering along with American exporters. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka (who supports tariffs) has called for bailouts of industries negatively impacted by tariffs. He is likely to be joined in his advocacy by crony capitalists seeking another government handout.

More bailouts will only add to the trade war’s economic damage by increasing government spending and hastening the welfare–warfare state’s collapse and the rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. Instead of trying to fix tariffs-caused damage through more corporate welfare, President Trump and Congress should pursue a policy of free markets and free trade for all and bailouts for none.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Trump didn’t pull $230 million worth of reconstruction assistance for Syria just because he’s stingy, but because he knew that American interests would be served better and more cost-effectively if he got Saudi Arabia and its partners to take the lead in doing this instead. 

Most people saw the writing on the wall earlier this year when Trump froze the $230 million that the US earmarked for Syria, but it was still a news event in and of itself when he tweeted over the weekend that:

“The United States has ended the ridiculous 230 Million Dollar yearly development payment to Syria. Saudi Arabia and other rich countries in the Middle East will start making payments instead of the U.S. I want to develop the U.S., our military and countries that help us!”

This was preceded by reports that Saudi Arabia committed $100 million to this project out of the total $300 million that the US said that it raised from its coalition allies for this effort.

On the surface, it might look like Trump was just being stingy and didn’t want to continue funding this program, but there’s actually a lot more to do it. The US has been advancing the “Lead From Behind” strategy in recent years whereby it seeks to have its regional partners take the lead in pertinent operations of shared interest while Washington assists them with logistics, advisory, and other forms of behind-the-scenes support. The guiding concept is for other countries to share the so-called “burden” of upholding the American-led international order, which has become increasingly expensive for the US in economic, military, and political terms to maintain.

The reprioritization of American military focus from West Asia (the Mideast) to East Asia in order to “contain” China could create a so-called “leadership void” that could be exploited by its Russian, Iranian, and increasingly, Turkish rivals if the US didn’t encourage its regional partners like Saudi Arabia to replace its presence there. To be clear, the US isn’t “withdrawing” from the Mideast, but is just scaling back its conventional footprint in this part of the world, opting instead for smaller but more strategic deployments that allow it to do more with less, such as in the case of Syria.

The US’ estimated 2000 troops and 20 or so bases there have succeeded in drawing a proverbial (and in a sense, almost literal) “line in the sand” that deterred Damascus from commencing a liberation operation in the Kurdish-controlled but nevertheless Arab-majority northeast corner of the country. It’s conceivable that the US might partially withdraw its forces in the coming future as part of a peace deal for politically ending the war, but only under the condition that this part of Syria receives “self-government” as one of the outcomes of the ongoing constitutional reform process that was originally mandated by UNSC Res. 2254.

Northeastern Syria is the most agriculturally, hydrologically, and energy-rich part of the Arab Republic, which thus makes it the key to controlling the rest of the rump state and explaining why the US won’t seriously consider decreasing its conventional military presence there unless Damascus caves in to Washington’s implied “decentralization” demands. Enticing other regional powers such as Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies to deepen their investment in this part of the country concurrent with the US decreasing its own is a clever calculation designed to make them stakeholders in the success of its “self-government” scheme during the ongoing constitutional reform negotiations.

Neither the US nor Saudi Arabia want to see Damascus reasserting its constitutional legitimacy over this strategic corner of Syria, though Washington is tired of paying the cost to keep the region de-facto independent, hence why it thought it better to convince Riyadh to invest here and obtain some “skin in the game”. Not only could the Kingdom immensely profit from rebuilding this resource-rich space, but it could also establish a strategic – and possibly eventually military – presence along the southern Turkish border as a symmetrical response to Turkey’s new base in neighboring Qatar. The self-interests driving this strategy are well-known to American decision makers and evidently exploited by them.

On its own, the US is more than capable of ensuring that Damascus doesn’t militarily liberate the northeast, but it would rather share the cost of doing so with Saudi Arabia and others. Moreover, granting Riyadh the opportunity to profit from this arrangement and simultaneously respond to Ankara’s military deal with its Qatari rival can contribute to keeping the Kingdom in the American sphere of influence despite its recent outreaches to Moscow and Beijing. As the saying goes, “why do for yourself what others can do for you?”, and Trump the businessman understands this much better than any of his predecessors, which is why he’s more than eager to get the Saudis involved in northeastern Syria.

*

This article was originally published on InfoRos.

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

There he is in my six-year-old notebook, very much alive, still demanding peace with the Palestinians, peace with Hamas, and generosity and a Palestinian state on the old 1967 borders – and he believes Israel could have peace tomorrow

***

It was somehow fitting that first news of Uri Avnery’s plight should reach me from one of Israel’s staunchest enemies, the Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt. One legend sending sad news of another, you see, a socialist preparing to mourn a fellow socialist, sending his sympathy for the 94-year-old Israeli political philosopher. That same philosopher was once a German Jewish schoolboy, originally called Helmut Ostermann, who refused to give the Hitler salute at school, but who was, when I received Jumblatt’s message – still, just – “an indispensable mind to understand the history of fascism, a major destructive element of the 20th century”. Jumblatt’s words. Avnery, he added, also understood “the history of Zionism, another despicable apartheid theory that is an offshoot of fascism”.

Uri Avnery suffered a massive heart attack at the weekend and died on Monday morning, but he was himself a Zionist, or at least a believer in a left-wing, courageous but humble “light among the nations” Israel; the kind many of us, in our heart of hearts, would like to believe in. He was the sort of Israeli that we bleeding heart liberals go and see when we arrive in Israel because they say what we want to hear.

“Tell Jumblatt that he must break up his sentences into paragraphs,” Avnery told me when I left his Tel Aviv apartment six years ago. “He says everything in one long text and I can hardly breathe.”

Lesson duly passed on to Jumblatt from a man who often wrote single sentence paragraphs, an annoying habit of tabloid journalism which does occasionally get a message across rather well.

I must admit that Uri Avnery was one of my Middle East heroes – there aren’t many – and his story is worthy of a movie, though there will be no Spielbergs to direct it: writer, journalist, leftist, veteran of the Israeli army in the country’s War of Independence – and, as he never forgot, the same war which drove 750,000 Palestinians from their home and lands. He played chess with Arafat during the 1982 siege of Beirut – be sure, this will be in the first two paragraphs of the obituaries today – and his angry but gently cynical newsletters would arrive on Friday afternoons, condemning Netanyahu for his hypocrisy and racism, Sharon for his hatred of Palestinians, missives from a book-crammed home in Tel Aviv, close to the sea but in a modest, quiet street where Avnery could ruminate and roar.

He was a wee bit deaf when I met him again – and for the last time – six years ago, but he spoke so quickly, and in perfect sentences, that my pen skidded over the pages of my notebook until it ran out of ink and I had to steal his own biro. I still have the book, and the ink changes from my black to his pale blue at a point when he is talking at high speed about Hamas, with whom he often met, furious that Gaza had turned into a storyline about rocket attacks and retaliation.

“Whenever either of the two sides want to start shooting again, they will,” he said.

The ink had just changed its colour on the page.

“In Gush Shalom [which Avnery founded], we put out a sticker five years ago, which said: ‘Talk to Hamas’.”

This is not an obituary of Uri Avnery, even though the institution has the great journalistic merit of a story with a beginning, a middle and an end. Because Avnery’s warnings and prescience were so contemporary – so absolutely on-the-ball for today’s news from the Middle East – that they can be repeated now, today, as if the great old leftist warrior is still alive. And there he is in my six-year old notebook, very much alive, still demanding peace with the Palestinians, peace with Hamas, and generosity and a Palestinian state on the old 1967 borders – give or take a few square miles – and he believes Israel could have peace tomorrow, next week. If Netanyahu wanted it. “The misfortune of being an incorrigible optimist,” is how he described his predicament to me. Or perhaps an illusionist?

His family fled Nazi Germany for Palestine and I went to see him again – he who had played chess with Arafat – after the 1982 massacre of up to 1,700 Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatila refugee camps in Beirut, a war crime committed by Israel’s Christian Phalangist allies while Israeli soldiers watched but did not intervene. I had walked across the bodies in the camp. How could the survivors of the Jewish Holocaust and their children let this happen to the Palestinians, I asked Avnery? Avnery was only 63 years old at the time. His reply is worth printing, in full:

“I will tell you something about the Holocaust. It would be nice to believe that people who have undergone suffering have been purified by suffering. But it’s the opposite, it makes them worse. It corrupts. There is something in suffering that creates a kind of egoism. Herzog [the Israeli president at the time] was speaking at the site of the concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen but he spoke only about the Jews. How could he not mention that others – many others – had suffered there? Sick people, when they are in pain, cannot speak about anyone but themselves. And when such monstrous things have happened to your people, you feel nothing can be compared to it. You get a moral ‘power of attorney’, a permit to do anything you want – because nothing can compare to what has happened to us. This is a moral immunity which is very clearly felt in Israel. Everyone is convinced that the IDF is more humane than any other army. ‘Purity of arms’ was the slogan of the Haganah army in ’48. But it never was true at all.”

And Avnery was a member of that army, badly wounded in the 1948 war; he even became a member of the Knesset, but was threatened by the Israeli cabinet after he met Yasser Arafat in Beirut. He should be tried for treason, Israeli ministers said. I think Avnery was rather proud of that. His curmudgeonly, irritating, courageous personality could embrace the occasional political martyrdom, something which modern socialists are almost all too frightened to contemplate.

Netanyahu – six years ago when I last saw Avnery and until the days before his death – enraged the old Israeli soldier of 1948. What was the Gaza war meant to achieve, I asked him in 2012 – for there always has “just been” a Gaza war in recent Israeli history, and the latest, in November of that year, had killed 107 civilians in Gaza and four civilians on the Israeli side of the line. And what was Netanyahu and his government – then and, I suppose, today – doing, I asked him?

Avnery’s eyes sparkled and he spat out his reply.

“You are presuming you know what they [Netanyahu’s government] want and you presume they want peace – and therefore that their policy is stupid or insane. But if you assume they don’t give a damn for peace but want a Jewish state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, then what they are doing makes sense up to a point. The trouble is that what they do want is leading into a cul de sac… If they annex the West Bank as they have annexed east Jerusalem, it doesn’t make much of a difference. The trouble is that in this territory which is now dominated by Israel, there are about 49 per cent Jews and 51 per cent Arabs – and this balance will become larger every year because the natural increase on the Arab side is far greater than the natural increase on our side. So the real question is: if this policy goes on, what kind of state will it be? As it is today, it is an apartheid state, a full apartheid in the occupied territories and a growing apartheid in Israel – and if this goes on, it will be full apartheid throughout the country, incontestably.”

The Avnery argument went bleakly on. If the Arab inhabitants are granted civil rights, there will be an Arab majority in the Knesset and the first thing they will do is change the name “Israel” and name the state “Palestine”, “and the whole [Zionist] exercise of the past 130 years has come to naught”. Mass ethnic cleansing would be impossible in the 21st century, Avnery assured me. I wonder.

He often pondered the demise of the Israeli “Left” – they were “hibernating”, he said after Ehud Barack, the (Israeli) Labour leader, had come back from the Camp David talks in 2000 as self-proclaimed leader of the “peace camp”, “and told us we have no partner for peace”. This was a death blow. It was not Netanyahu who said this, but the leader of the Labour Party. This was the end of “Peace Now”.

Perhaps his next words should be written on Avnery’s grave. “When I met Arafat in 1982” – he was to meet him again many times – “the terms were all there. The Palestinian minimum and maximum terms are the same: a Palestinian state next to Israel, comprising the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem as a capital, small exchanges of land and a symbolic solution to the refugee problem. But this lies on the table like a wilted flower…”

Avnery remained convinced that Hamas would accept the same. He lectured to them in Gaza in 1993, “standing there, facing 500 black-bearded sheikhs, speaking to them in Hebrew – I was applauded and invited to lunch”. For them, Avnery, explained, Palestine is a “waqf” and cannot be handed over, but a truce can be sanctified by God. “If they offered a truce for 50 years, that is personally enough for me.” Sure, he said, the Hamas manifesto wants to destroy Israel. “But abolishing a manifesto is a very difficult thing to do – did the Russians ever abandon the communist manifesto? The PLO did theirs.”

Back then, in 2012, I ended my report on the 89-year old Avnery with the observation that “there are more than a few liberals in Israel who hope that Uri Avnery lives for another 89 years”. Now there are even fewer liberals left, and Avnery lived for less than another six years. There was to have been a 95th birthday party for him in Tel Aviv next month. If they still hold it, however, Avnery’s friends – and enemies – should proclaim that Avnery is dead. But then add: And long live Avnery.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The current escalating tension between Turkey and the US has reached to crucible where from it can go worst. The war of words begun with the status of American evangelical pastor Andrew Brunson, who was arrested over links to Fethullah Gulen, alleged by President Erdogan to be the mastermind behind 2016-coup attempt. President Trump is reportedly “frustrated” over Turkey for not releasing the US pastor and has threatened Erdogan to impose additional sanctions. On the other side, Erdogan vowed not to bow before the threat of US sanctions. In fact, he retaliated against the US for imposing sanctions on steel and aluminium by boycotting American electronic goods. With both sides refusing to abate, mending strained relation between the two NATO allies is going to be a lot more complicated and difficult. 

Most of the analysts were of the view that Erdogan and Trump would align well, given their belief in populism and nationalism. Both of them not only enjoy power which they seek to enhance but also see themselves surrounded by conspiracy theories. Few even predicted that Trump’s relationship with Erdogan would be better than his former President Barack Obama. However, the case of Brunson is unique and important for Trump.

With the mid-term election approaching in November there is a growing consensus that the Republicans might lose the house and possibly the Senate due to Trump’s growing unpopularity. His inappropriate behaviour on regular basis, benefitting personally from the presidency, attempting to impasse a legitimate inquiry into Russian involvement in the 2016 election campaign, and constantly demonstrating nearly zero understanding about important issues in American politics is alarming the nation. While the Republicans are attempting to defend him, the voters are lashing out and calling for Trump’s impeachment process. Under this circumstances, the evangelical base which is the biggest and most powerful religious voting bloc in the US does not allow him to go soft on Erdogan. 

However, the worsening Turkish economy had forced Erdogan to adopt a pragmatic approach by sending a delegation under Deputy Foreign Minister Sedat Onal to the White House for the purpose of discussing the ongoing detention of Brunson. While the Turkish media stated that both the sides have reached some preliminary agreement, other media have reported that the talks went nowhere. Though the details of the discussion were not disclosed, it is fair to assume that the Turks would have involved the extradition of Fethullah Gulen and Mehmet Hakan Atilla, Turkish banker who was convicted this year in a US court over the allegations that he helped Iran evade sanctions. This surely would not have helped the Turks to brighten the tenor of the discussion. In a dispute that began during the Obama administration, the US has maintained that Ankara has failed to provide sufficient evidence against Gulen for a judge to extradite him. 

On one hand, the Turks are still hoping that the US Treasury will go easy on Ankara’s Halkbank, which is under investigation for role in a scheme to evade US sanctions on Iran.  On the other hand, the US is acting in complete contradiction. They have blacklisted Turkish Justice Minister Abdulhamit Gul and the interior Minister Suleyman Soylu. They are also planning to review Ankara’s duty-free access to their markets which could affect $1.7 billion of Turkish exports amid the currency woes. The Turkish lira hits a new low by the record of 6. 5% against the US dollar on August 10. Erdogan’s son-in-law who is also the Finance Minister and apparent successor reported that his office will begin implementing policies to counter lira’s slide. One component of this plan might have begun to take shape when Erdogan spoke about “dumping” the dollar as intermediary currency in Turkey’s commercial relations with China, Russia and Ukraine. Turkey would instead conduct its trade in national currencies. This is a punitive measure directed at the US more than a way to salvage the lira. These measures also reflect Erdogan’s belief that the lira is sliding due to US engineering and not because of economic factors. 

Here, the problem is that Turkey alone cannot have economic muscles to force the world to move away from the dollar. One must understand that in the post-World War era, the US became the main economic power, far eclipsing the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Japan etc, which had been heavily bombed and blockaded. The combination of failing economy, increasing debts, wartime expenses, and public demands for healthcare, nationalizations of industries and care for veterans all weighed down these nations at once. The US, taking advantage of the situation had lend-lease aid to these countries and considerably benefitted, especially since dollar became the main global reserve currency. In other words, if two countries want to do business with each other anywhere in the world, they must convert their money into dollar then proceed. As a result, the US became a hegemony that has decisive influence over the functions of the international monetary system.

Even today, almost all the countries are doing business by converting their currencies into the dollar. The only problem is that America has become a deranged and crumbling nation that cannot be trusted to understand elementary logic or hold its word with a modicum of decency of honour. Due to which most of the countries “no longer” consider the US as a superpower or economic hegemon.

Moreover, US’s major adversaries like China, Russia, and Iran have already begun signing their business deal with other countries in their national currencies. Now that Turkey has also joined this “anti-dollar” league, the probability to upend its economy further is inevitable. Turkish bulk of international commerce and trade with Europe runs through the dollar. And it is unclear how Erdogan’s idea of trading through national currencies can work as a stable mechanism for Europe. 

For Erdogan, the need of the hour is to take European countries onboard and convince them to stop converting their currency into dollar when it comes to Turkey-EU business. For the consistently smooth transaction, a common trading currency is essential, it just does not have to be a dollar. Only then, Turkey will succeed in its initiative of trading via national currencies. If necessary, international community like Russia-China who also played a major role during post-JCPOA can help Erdogan to bring Turkey-EU in reaching a common understanding.

While it is still difficult to predict the outcome of Ankara’s economy, the Brunson spat seems to have resonated with some positive effect on Turkish domestic politics. Erdogan has become one of the most transparent foreign policy actors who holds a regular press conference and maintains an official website that publishes statements on current political affairs and the Turkish government perspectives. Officially, its main responsibility includes global and regional security. He is viewed as a leader who fights with foreign “enemies” who are allegedly attempting to weaken Turkey through nefarious ways and means. This has increased the number of Erdogan’s supporters even among the opposition. 

*

Nagapushpa Devendra is a Researcher at the Institute of Defense Studies and Analyses, Delhi, She can be contacted through [email protected]

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Samir Amin was an exceptionally humble person. In spite of his huge influence on younger generations, he never treated them patronizingly or with condescension. Samir did not see himself as a leader, teacher or mentor. He treated younger scholars and comrades as his equals, engaging with them and critiquing them where necessary.

It was 1973. My sequel to the first essay ‘Tanzania: The Silent Class Struggle’, called ‘The class struggle continues’ (which later became Class Struggles in Tanzania) was making rounds of comrades ‘underground’ in a mimeograph form. I can’t remember if I sent it to him or somehow he got hold of it. He read it through and took time to send me his comment. 

As a young person half his age I was thrilled. It etched on me an everlasting impression. I had known Samir barely for two years. If my memory serves me right, I first met him in a workshop of the African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (IDEP) he had organised in Dar es Salaam. The fascination of listening to Samir and his colleagues was enormous. I had tried to plough through his Accumulation on World Scale but can’t claim to have understood it. Since then Samir remained a friend and a comrade, never failing to invite me although many a time I had to decline. I was among the few on the Nile cruise to celebrate his eightieth birthday. The celebration was a seminar. Every morning we would meet on the deck having read in the cabin the previous night. He was first to come, holding his partner, Isabella’s hand to help her negotiate steps, and last to leave. Isabella then was in frail health.

Samir has been variously described as a scholar, intellectual, all of which he deserves but for me, more than anything else, he was a political person. Working class politics permeated his every pore. Even during the worst of times, he did not shy away from declaring himself a Marxist, openly and proudly. He stood firm, unshakeable when many of his contemporaries and younger scholars sought refuge in mainstream intellectual fashions to become celebrities.

Neither did he covet awards, nor did he seek endorsement of Western universities, (particularly US) and scholarly organizations. But he genuinely appreciated and welcomed invitations from Third World institutions. He was enormously happy when I invited him to the University of Dar es Salaam to deliver the second Nyerere Annual Lecture in 2010. In the citation, I said:

As a militant Marxist scholar, Samir Amin has two outstanding qualities. He has been consistent and passionate throughout his life in the advocacy and defence of human emancipation from the vicious capitalist and imperialist system, regardless of the changing intellectual fashions. On this, he is uncompromising. Second, he has consciously done everything possible and seized every opportunity available to provide space, forum, and a training ground for young African scholars.

I said he was pre-eminently a political person. And now I can add what I couldn’t say then in the citation read from a scholarly podium. Once he had invited two of us to an IDEP workshop in Dakar. We needed to meet a comrade who was in exile then. We hesitatingly asked Samir if he could invite him also so that we could meet him. Without further ado or questions he did it!

The final time I met Samir Amin was last year when he came to Dar es Salaam to give a lecture. With Bashiru Ally, then a young emerging scholar, now the Secretary General of the ruling party, we had tea at my place. Samir was smoking away his cigar, copying the PDFs of his books on a flash drive for us. Samir was not one to respect intellectual property rights!

His intellectual works, scholarly contributions and political interventions have been sufficiently covered in dozens of tributes that are pouring in every day. I will not go over them. I wanted specifically to capture Samir’s attitude and treatment of younger generations, done as a matter of course and without pretense. When I first learnt of Samir’s passing on from Samia Zennadi, our mutual friend from Algeria, I could not find words to express my grief in prose. Spontaneously, the following stanza rolled out to capture the sentiment I have expressed in prose here:

A baobab has fallen

Plants will miss your shade

Shoots will miss your protection

I’ll miss your love and warmth

Yes, comrade, plants will not shrivel, and shoots will not die. They will continue to derive sustenance and inspiration from the baobab for, as Natasha wrote, you live on ‘in our imagination of a more just world and in the fight against oppression.’

*

This article was originally published on ROAPE.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

On August 20th, Gallup headlined “More in U.S. Favor Diplomacy Over Sanctions for Russia” and reported that, “Americans believe it is more important to try to continue efforts to improve relations between the countries (58%), rather than taking strong diplomatic and economic steps against Russia (36%).” And yet, all of the sanctions against Russia have passed in Congess by over 90% of Senators and Representatives voting for them — an extraordinarily strong and bipartisan favoring of anti-Russia sanctions, by America’s supposed “representatives” of the American people. What’s happening here, which explains such an enormous contradiction between America’s Government, on the one side, versus America’s people, on the other? Is a nation like this really a democracy at all?

Donald Trump understood this disjunction, when he was running for President, and he took advantage of the public side of it, in order to win, but, as soon as he won, he flipped to the opposite side, the side of America’s billionaires, who actually control the U.S. Government.

While he was campaigning for the U.S. Presidency, Donald Trump pretended to want to soften, not harden, America’s policies against Russia. He even gave hints that he wanted a redirection of U.S. Government expenditures away from the military, and toward America’s economic and domestic needs.

On 31 January 2016, Donald Trump — then one of many Republican candidates running for the Republican U.S. Presidential nomination — told a rally in Clinton Iowa, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia and China and all these countries?”  

On 21 March 2016, he was published in the Washington Post as having told its editors, that “he advocates a light footprint in the world. In spite of unrest abroad, especially in the Middle East, Trump said the United States must look inward and steer its resources toward rebuilding domestic infrastructure. … ‘I do think it’s a different world today, and I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore,’ Trump said. ‘I think it’s proven not to work, and we have a different country than we did then. We have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting, probably, on a bubble. And it’s a bubble that if it breaks, it’s going to be very nasty. I just think we have to rebuild our country.’” On that same day, The Daily Beast’s Shane Harris wrote that:

Trump’s surprising new position [is] that the U.S. should rethink whether it needs to remain in the seven-decades-old NATO alliance with Europe.

Sounding more like a CFO than a commander-in-chief, Trump said of the alliance, “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” adding, “NATO is costing us a fortune and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”

U.S. officials, including former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, have said that European allies have to shoulder a bigger burden of NATO’s cost. But calling for the possible U.S. withdrawal from the treaty is a radical departure for a presidential candidate — even a candidate who has been endorsed by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Withdrawing from NATO would leave European allies without a forceful deterrent to the Russian military, which invaded and annexed portions of Ukraine in 2014. That would arguably be a win for Putin but leave U.S. allies vulnerable.

It also wasn’t clear how Trump’s arguably anti-interventionist position on the alliance squared with his choice of advisers. …

One other Trump adviser had previously been reported. Retired Army Gen. Michael Flynn had told The Daily Beast that he “met informally” with Trump. Flynn was pushed out of his post as the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and has since spoken out publicly about the need for the U.S. to forge closer ties with Russia.  

Five days later, on March 26th, the New York Times bannered, “Transcript: Donald Trump Expounds on His Foreign Policy Views” and David Sanger and Maggie Haberman presented their discussion with Trump about this, where Trump said:

I have two problems with NATO. No. 1, it’s obsolete. When NATO was formed many decades ago we were a different country. There was a different threat. Soviet Union was, the Soviet Union, not Russia, which was much bigger than Russia, as you know. And, it was certainly much more powerful than even today’s Russia, although again you go back into the weaponry. But, but – I said, I think NATO is obsolete, and I think that – because I don’t think – right now we don’t have somebody looking at terror, and we should be looking at terror. And you may want to add and subtract from NATO in terms of countries. But we have to be looking at terror, because terror today is the big threat. Terror from all different parts. You know in the old days you’d have uniforms and you’d go to war and you’d see who your enemy was, and today we have no idea who the enemy is. …

I’ll tell you the problems I have with NATO. No. 1, we pay far too much. We are spending — you know, in fact, they’re even making it so the percentages are greater. NATO is unfair, economically, to us, to the United States. Because it really helps them more so than the United States, and we pay a disproportionate share. Now, I’m a person that — you notice I talk about economics quite a bit, in these military situations, because it is about economics, because we don’t have money anymore because we’ve been taking care of so many people in so many different forms that we don’t have money — and countries, and countries. So NATO is something that at the time was excellent. Today, it has to be changed. It has to be changed to include terror. It has to be changed from the standpoint of cost because the United States bears far too much of the cost of NATO. And one of the things that I hated seeing is Ukraine. Now I’m all for Ukraine, I have friends that live in Ukraine, but it didn’t seem to me, when the Ukrainian problem arose, you know, not so long ago, and we were, and Russia was getting very confrontational, it didn’t seem to me like anyone else cared other than us. And we are the least affected by what happens with Ukraine because we’re the farthest away. But even their neighbors didn’t seem to be talking about it. And, you know, you look at Germany, you look at other countries, and they didn’t seem to be very much involved. It was all about us and Russia. And I wondered, why is it that countries that are bordering the Ukraine and near the Ukraine – why is it that they’re not more involved? Why is it that they are not more involved? Why is it always the United States that gets right in the middle of things, with something that – you know, it affects us, but not nearly as much as it affects other countries. And then I say, and on top of everything else – and I think you understand that, David – because, if you look back, and if you study your reports and everybody else’s reports, how often do you see other countries saying “We must stop, we must stop.” They don’t do it! And, in fact, with the gas, you know, they wanted the oil, they wanted other things from Russia, and they were just keeping their mouths shut. And here the United States was going out and, you know, being fairly tough on the Ukraine. And I said to myself, isn’t that interesting? We’re fighting for the Ukraine, but nobody else is fighting for the Ukraine other than the Ukraine itself, of course, and I said, it doesn’t seem fair and it doesn’t seem logical.

The next day, March 27th, on ABC’s “The Week,” Trump said, “I think NATO’s obsolete. NATO was done at a time you had the Soviet Union, which was obviously larger, much larger than Russia is today. I’m not saying Russia’s not a threat. But we have other threats. We have the threat of terrorism and NATO doesn’t discuss terrorism, NATO’s not meant for terrorism. NATO doesn’t have the right countries in it for terrorism.” 

It’s easy to see why Trump was opposed by not only Hillary Clinton and other Democratic Party neoconservatives, but also by all Republican Party neoconservatives. The main target of neoconservatives — ever since that movement (which only in the 1970s came to be called “neoconservatives”) was founded by Democratic U.S. Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson back in the 1950s — has been to conquer Russia. That’s the ultimate objective, toward which they all and always have striven.

Even Barack Obama, despite his pretenses for ‘a reset in U.S.-Russia relations’, had had actually the opposite of that pretension in mind — a doubling-down on the Cold War. And Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, doubles down on his predecessor’s double-down, there. 

Of course, neocons aren’t only against Russia; they also are against any country that Israel and Saudi Arabia hate — and, of course, Israel and Saudi Arabia are large purchasers of American-made weapons, such as weapons from Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and General Dynamics. In fact: Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest purchaser (other than the U.S. ‘Defense’ Department itself) of their products and services. In fact, soon after coming into office, Trump achieved the all-time-world-record-largest international weapons-sale, of $350 billion to the Sauds, and it was quickly hiked yet another $50 billion to $400 billion. It’s, as of yet, his jobs-plan for the American people. Instead of Trump’s peaceing the American economy, he has warred it. Consequently, for example, the Koch brothers’ Doug Bandow, who represents his sponsors’ bet against neoconservativsm, headlined on 27 April 2017 “Donald Trump: The ‘Manchurian (Neoconservative) Candidate’?” and he itemized what a terrific Trojan Horse that Trump had turned out to be, for the war-lobby, the ‘neocons’, or, as Dwight Eisenhower had called them (but carefully and only after his Presidency was already over), “the military-industrial complex.” They’re all actually the same people; they serve the same billionaires, all of whom are heavily invested in these war-makers — all against two main targets: first, Russia (which America’s aristocracy hate the most); and, then, Iran (which Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s aristocracies hate the most). Any nation that’s friendly toward those, gets destroyed. Other people (the masses) fight, kill, die, get maimed, and are impoverished, while these few individuals at the very top in the U.S. profit, from those constant invasions, and military occupations — which Americans admire (their nation’s military, America’s invasion-forces) above all else. 

On the Bill O’Reilly Show, 4 January 2016, Trump was asked to announce, before even the Presidential primaries, what would cause him as the U.S. President, to bomb Iran, and Trump then was panned everywhere for refusing to answer such an inappropriate question — to announce publicly what his strategy, as the U.S. President, would be in such a matter of foreign affairs (in which type of matter only the President himself should be privy to such information about himself, namely his strategy) — but Trump did reveal there his sympathy for the Sauds, and his extreme hostility toward Iran, a nation which is a bête noire to neocons: 

I will say this about Iran. They’re looking to go into Saudi Arabia, they want the oil, they want the money, they want a lot of other things having to do…they took over Yemen, you look over that border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia, that is one big border and they’re looking to do a number in Yemen. Frankly, the Saudis don’t survive without us, and at what point do we get involved? And how much will Saudi Arabia pay us to save them?

The Sauds have already answered that question, with their commitment to paying $400 billion, and they’re already using some of this purchased weaponry and training, to conquer Yemen. But who gets that money? It’s not the American people; it is only the stockholders in those American war-making corporations (and allied corporations) who receive the benefits.

And what’s this, from Trump, about “at what point do we get involved” if Saudi Arabia’s tyrants “don’t survive without us”? America is now supposed to be committed to keeping tyrannical hereditary monarchies in control over their countries? When did that start? Certainly not in 1776. Today’s America isn’t like the country, nor the culture, that America’s Founders created, but instead is more like the monarchy that they overthrew. This was supposed to be an anti-imperialist country. Today’s American rulers are traitors, against the nation that America’s Foundershad created. These traitors, and their many agents, are sheer psychopaths. The American public are not their citizens, but their subjects — much like the colonists were, who overthrew the British King.

Donald Trump just wants for Europeans to increase military spending (to buy U.S.-made weapons) even more than the U.S. is doing against Russia, and for the Sauds and Israelis also to buy more of these weapons from America’s weapons-firms, to use against Iran and any nation friendly toward it. Meanwhile, America’s own military spending is already at world-record-high levels. 

That’s Trump’s economic plan; that’s his jobs-plan; that’s his ‘national security’ plan. That is Trump’s Presidency.

He lied his way into office, just like his predecessors had been doing. This is what ‘democracy’ in America now consists of: lies — some colored “liberal”; some colored “conservative”; but all colored “profitable” (for the ‘right’ people); and another name for that, in foreign affairs, is “neoconservative.”

About Russia, he’s continuing Obama’s policies but even worse; and about Iran, he’s clearly even more of a neocon than was his predecessor. However, as a candidate, he had boldly criticized neoconservatism. Democracy cannot be based on lies, and led by liars.

*

This article was originally published on The Saker.

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Introduction

The US Chamber of Commerce warns against the consequences of new tariffs on Chinese imports proposed by the administration of President Donald Trump.

The top business lobbying group said the tariffs dramatically expand the harm to American consumers, workers, businesses, and the US economy. It said the Trump administration lacks a coherent strategy to address China’s alleged “theft of intellectual property” and other harmful trade practices.

The Chamber also demanded that Washington hold serious discussions with Beijing. Trump has threatened 25 percent tariffs on 200 billion dollars of Chinese imports. He says this is in response to China’s retaliatory tariffs on 50 billion dollars-worth of US products.

PressTV: What is your take on this?

Peter Koenig: The key word is “threatened” – Trump has threatened an additional 25% import tariffs on 200 billion worth of Chinese imports – to retaliate for China’s retaliation, so to speak. Chinese retaliation was to be expected and is fully justified. It is clear, that China will not reverse their import tariffs for US goods. Why would they?

China is poised to negotiate one a one-to-one even level, but not on the basis of the US dictating the rules. Trump and his “masters” must realize that.

Then the additional reason of “China’s theft of intellectual property…” is today more a joke than reality. In many areas of technology development – especially certain precision electronics and foremost alternative energy – China is world’s ahead of the United States. But nobody talks about it. China will soon be number one in alternative energy production – which China will be exporting to the world, to the detriment of the US-led petrol industry.

Maybe that’s what Trump is focusing on – attempting to detract from what is really threatening a big junk of the US economy, the notorious dependence on hydrocarbon energy – the number one polluter an environmental destructor today.

And there is another factor, perhaps the number ONE target of Trump’s ever-increasing tariffs for Chinese exports, or rather US imports of Chinese goods: That’s the Chinese currency, the Yuan.

It is known since long to many treasuries of countries around the world, that the Chinese Yuan is a much safer investment or reserve currency than the US dollar which is based on hot air, or not even, while the Yuan is based on a solid Chinese economy and on gold.

Not only has the Yuan been admitted officially in the IMF’s basket of SDRs – Special Drawing Rights, which consists of the five key reserve currencies – US Dollar, UK pound, Japanese Yen, Euro – and now also the Chinese Yuan.

The yuan is not only for most countries around the globe a very interesting investment currency, not a bullying currency as is the US dollar, always with severe strings attached, but the yuan is also growing rapidly as a reserve currency replacing the dollar.

Levying tariffs to hurt China’s exports and economy – and the Yuan’s strength, may be the key reason behind this deconstructive tariff game Trump is playing.

However, China has a strong market dominance in Asia and tariffs will do limited harm, besides, China has many other means to further retaliate, for example, devaluating the Yuan vis-à-vis the US dollar.

So, keep tuned. There will probably be more to come.

*

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 Organizationaround 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  

Since 1990 global carbon emissions have increased by over 60%, and continue rising despite the rapidly worsening consequences of climate change. At the 1992 Earth Summit, a UN conference held in Brazil, the usual jargon was heard emanating from first world capitalist leaders.

President George Bush Sr said he desired America to become “the leaders, not the followers” on critical issues like climate change, and that his country will be “pre-eminent” in carrying out the accords signed at the summit. In the years since, the precise opposite has occurred as America’s carbon emissions continued their exponential rise, aided and abetted by successive presidents to Donald Trump. The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro failed abysmally, and America was far from alone in assaulting the earth with increasing ferocity and short-sightedness.

Britain’s then prime minister John Major said the climate conference was “proof of a dramatic shift over the last decade: the environment is no longer the specialist concern of a few – it has become the vital interest of us all”. There has certainly been “a dramatic shift” in the increasing annihilation of the planet, with “the specialist concern of a few” holding much of the blame.

There were 108 government leaders present at this meeting, almost all of whom – despite fancy words and assurances – did nothing in the elapsing time to ensure the planet’s preservation, quite the opposite in some cases. Ian Angus, a Canadian environmental activist and author, writes that,

“there was one exception, one head of state who spoke out strongly in Rio and called for immediate emergency action, and then returned home to support implementation of practical policies for sustainable, low-emission development. That head of state was Fidel Castro… After the 1992 Earth Summit, only the Cubans acted on their promises and commitments”.

Castro himself said during the Rio summit,

“An important biological species – humankind – is at risk of disappearing due to the rapid and progressive elimination of its natural habitat. We are becoming aware of this problem when it is almost too late to prevent it. It must be said that the consumer societies are chiefly responsible for this appalling environmental destruction… They have poisoned the seas and rivers. They have polluted the air. They have weakened and perforated the ozone layer. They have saturated the atmosphere with gases, altering climatic conditions with the catastrophic effects we are already beginning to suffer”.

These words were spoken over 25 years ago.

Castro’s remarks went unreported by Western mainstream outlets, who carefully avoid unloading such unwanted factual comments onto the delicate senses of their readers. One can assume that, because of statements such as these, Castro was routinely derided by the West, while being targeted for assassination across the decades. Any threat to the capitalist, profit-driven world order must be eliminated or, failing that, isolated, assaulted and placed under punishing embargos. An alternative example to capitalism cannot be allowed to spread, as it may result in the gradual decline and fall of the corporate-dominated societies, which are inflicting the vast majority of destruction upon the planet.

Following the conference, Castro led efforts to sustain the environment and safeguard the Caribbean island’s future with its 11 million inhabitants. Cuba quickly modified its constitution in order “to ensure the survival, well-being and security of present and future generations”. In the time since, the Cubans have adopted such policies as low-fertilizer agriculture, the sustained reduction of fossil fuel usage, increasing reforestation efforts with wooded areas now covering over 30% of the country’s landmass, etc.

In 2016, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) again announced that Cuba was the only country in existence fully meeting its criteria for sustainable development. The WWF reported the same fact regarding Cuba a decade previously. In December 2008, it was revealed that Cuba had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by almost 3.5 million tons, the graph since continuing along similar lines. Here is ample evidence that the Castro government – again in isolation – was taking a major stand against the most important issue in human history, climate change (along with nuclear weapons). Yet there is barely a word about Cuba’s environmental efforts ever reported in mainstream dialogue, so that it is almost unknown to the present day.

Meanwhile, in the US, after Donald Trump assumed office just over 18 months ago, the mass media have rebuked him on everything from “links to the Russian government”, to alleged involvement in scandals, to attacks from former aides, intelligence chiefs, etc. Such attempts as these to undermine Trump have been disingenuous at best.

Little has been spoken with regard easily the most important topic Trump should be criticized for: His relentless attacks on the environment starting from virtually the first day he entered the White House. On 24 January 2017, the planetary assaults began when Trump issued memoranda aiming to speed up permission for the massive oil pipelines, Dakota Access and Keystone XL. The implementation of pipeline usage, such as in Dakota, began despite fierce opposition from environmental groups and indigenous communities. Across the world, it has been the indigenous peoples in particular who have been trying to hold back the “civilized” ones from their insatiable attacks on the earth.

The following day, 25 January 2017, all reference to the words “climate change” were excised from the White House’s official website. It was an ominous sign of things to come from the Trump administration, ranging from cuts to climate science research, dismantling of crucial EPA legislation, avoidance of bans on lethal pesticides, unrestricted extraction of fossil fuels, and so on.

The reality is that climate change and environmental protection is bad for business, particularly in a capitalist society. The critical element behind Trump’s astonishing attacks on the earth is the institutionalized bid to gain as much profits and wealth as possible. Destruction of the planet is an inevitable byproduct of the corporate-driven model which is prevalent around the world. Unless the capitalist entity is dismantled as a result of dedicated, mass popular activism, and replaced with an ideology in tune with the planet’s requirements, the extermination of ecosystems will continue unchecked.

Another harmful offshoot of capitalism is the mountainous waste it produces, be it chemical, industrial, etc. With regard plastic waste, on current trends, by 2050, the substance will be more numerous than fish in the oceans. Much plastic material provided is used once, thrown away, and will remain in the environment for thousands of years. Yet plastic production by major companies continues to increase. Every 60 seconds, humans purchase around a million plastic bottles. In 2020 it is estimated that over half a trillion plastic bottles will be sold worldwide. Where is all this plastic going to go? Over 90% of plastic is not recycled, so that which is not incinerated will be cast into the environment like worthless confetti, as so much before it.

While the US merits much criticism for its environmental policies, China is over the horizon as the world’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter. China produces about twice as much carbon emissions as America, with the Asian superpower creating more than a quarter of all human-engineered greenhouse gases. Far from slowing down, China’s fossil fuel emissions are growing, and are set to reach a seven-year high as the nation’s “economy booms”. The world’s biggest importer of oil and burner of coal, China is the leading state people are looking towards in somehow rescuing the world from disaster, following Trump’s ejection of America from the Paris Climate Agreement last summer.

Just days before Trump took office, Chinese president Xi Jinping said,

“China will continue to take steps to tackle climate change and fully honor its obligations”.

In May 2017, Xi Jinping again assured the world that China “should protect the achievements of global governance, including the Paris agreement”. Over a year later, something close to the opposite is occurring as China’s already dire environmental record worsens. As 2018 advances, the Chinese consumption of coal, gas and oil is rising, a trend that will likely continue. China has much of the world’s future in its hands, but there is little sign the country is stepping up to the unprecedented tasks.

Russia, the planet’s third major power, also has a far from impressive environmental record. Extensive climate reports outline that, “Not only is Russia predisposed geographically to the impacts of climate change, but it also a major emitter of greenhouse gases and a global supplier of fossil fuels”, with its emissions “now resuming their upward trajectory”. Indeed, Russia is the fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world.

In regard fossil fuels Russia is the biggest oil producer on earth, with the country also being the second biggest exporter of oil (behind Saudi Arabia), and is by far the greatest supplier of oil to Europe. Russia is the largest gas exporter on the planet, last year supplying almost 40% of Europe’s gas, a record level. Russia also possesses by far the largest known gas reserves and has designs to extract further gas, and oil, from the resource-rich Caspian Sea. In addition, Russia has the second biggest coal reserves in the world (behind the US), and is the sixth biggest producer of coal.

Almost two-thirds of Russia’s gigantic landmass is underlain by methane-laden permafrost, which if melted will accelerate the heating of the globe. Some of this permafrost is already disappearing forever. Last month, temperatures of over 90 degrees Fahrenheit (33 Celsius) were recorded in northern Siberia, more than twice the average and a forecast that amazed meteorologists. Climate change has been gripping Russia, as extreme weather events in the country have doubled over the past generation, with signs it is deteriorating further.

To compound Russia’s climate situation, the nation is losing about 16 million hectares of forest each year to illegal logging, wild fires and pollution. Much of this unsustainable deforestation is occurring in Russia’s far east, which threatens the country’s magnificent Siberian tiger – already endangered, but clinging on, and one of the few iconic animals remaining on earth. This lost woodland would also have served as a sponge to absorb some of Russia’s carbon emissions.

*

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Mainstream economic policy is full of misrepresentation of reality. Propositions like ‘business tax cuts create jobs’, ‘income inequality exists because workers are not productive’, ‘free trade benefits everyone’, ‘inflation is always due to too much money chasing too few goods’, ‘the subprime mortgage crash of 2007-08 was caused by a ‘global savings glut’, ‘the US federal reserve central bank is independent of private bankers and politicians’, ‘markets are always efficient’, ‘recessions are caused by external shocks to an otherwise stable (equilibrium) system’, and so on–propositions the function of which are to justify economic policies that redistribute income and wealth to the wealthiest 5% investor class and their business institutions institutions (corporate and non-corporate). From the ideological policy propositions in turn are created even higher level theoretical concepts like ‘Phillips Curves’ and ‘Laffer Curves’ that encompass and one or more of the policy propositions and simplify them for selling them to the public and media.

This is all ‘economic ideology’, in contrast to economic science which looks at empirical data and accurately reflects and represents that data. Ideology is about mis-representation of data, facts and therefore reality. Misrepresentation is not simply about error of analyses. Errors of analysis occur in any science. They are not intentional. Misrepresentation is conscious, intentional and with a purpose. Ideology in economic policy is also always the product as well of an institutional framework, the task of which in a social system is to produce misrepresentations in the interests of a particular class or group that ultimately funds the work.

That institutional framework may be corporate think tanks, editorial pages of the major business and mainstream media, talking heads on cable tv networks, fake social media outlets created by those interests, academia that trains the future ideologists–to name just the most obvious. You know, the ‘tobacco doesn’t cause cancer’, carbon from human activity doesn’t cause global warming’, etc.

Take just one example of recent ideology in economic policy: the Trump tax cuts (and all the major tax cutting legislation since Reagan 1981–both Republican and Democrat alike).

Business-Investor Tax Cuts Create Jobs Case Example

The recent $5 trillion given to investors, corporations, and non-corporation businesses by the Trump tax cuts were ‘sold’ by the claim that business tax cutting creates jobs. In fact, every major tax cut legislation since Reagan has been entitled in part as a ‘jobs act’. Most recently, George W. Bush cut taxes by $3.7 trillion–80% of which accrued to the 1% and their institutions. Obama followed with more than $5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy from 2008 through 2013 (and the decade beyond). Trump has added another $5 trillion through 2028. (Reported as only $1.5 trillion, after a $2 trillion hike in middle class taxes and another $1.5 trillion in absurd assumptions about 4% GDP for another ten years without a recession).

But there’s no direct causation evidence of jobs created due directly to the Bush-Obama-Trump tax cuts. There may be correlations, but one of the many tasks of Ideology in Economic Policy is to manipulate statistics, logic and language to claim correlations are causation.

Jobs maybe created during the period in which the particular tax cut is enacted, but that doesn’t mean the extra income for the 1% and corporations is directed into real investment that creates new jobs. Just look at the Trump tax cuts thus far. Where has the money gone? The US Treasury, according to recent reports, has lost nearly $500 billion in corporate tax revenue alone so far in 2018. Meanwhile, corporate stock buybacks and dividend payouts to investors are on track to reach more than $1.3 trillion this year–following the last six years in a row during which more than $1 trillion was distributed each year, every year, to shareholders. Thus a credible, just as likely interpretation of where the tax cuts have been going, is they are flowing into stock markets (keeping them rising) and to investors’ capital gains rather than into job creating real investment in structures, equipment, or inventories. Jobs may have been created, but that does not mean created due to the tax cuts. Correlations are not causation–although a typical ‘language game’ and manipulation of ideology in economics is to argue that a correlation is causation.

The business tax cuts create jobs proposition has its origins in neoclassical economics of the 19th century. The logical argument then was that if business costs were reduced, it would raise business disposable income, which in turn would be committed to business real investment and expansion. Business would not sit on the extra income or hoard it. It would invest it to become more productive and thus more competitive. And investing it would create jobs. But the hidden assumption was not only would reinvestment of the more disposable income occur, but there would be no delay in time. The time factor was conveniently left out in the logical (mis)assumption that tax cuts (aka more income) would result in more investment and more jobs. This proposition showed the oft-characteristic of ideology in which it is assumed the time element plays no role. A hallmark of ideological propositions is that they are often ‘timeless’. And that’s true today as well with the proposition that ‘business tax cuts create jobs’.

Thus, assuming correlations are causation and ‘de-temporization’ are but two language games and ideological manipulation played by politicians and media in claiming that ‘business tax cuts create jobs’. There are more.

BEA’s Recent Savings Rate Change Case Example

Simultaneous with Trump tax cuts are creating jobs ideological messaging, the Government’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA, a division of the Commerce Dept.) last week reported that US households have more income than thought. Overnight, the BEA changed US households’ savings rate from a 2017 low of 3.3% of their income saved to a 7.2% rate–a more than doubling of the savings rate overnight.

What is one to make of this abrupt, radical change? Are government statisticians redefining facts to suit politicians’ demands to make US households and the economy appear far better than they actually are before national elections in November? Have they gone off the deep end of ‘false facts’ in the age of Trump? Is there a conspiracy? The answer is no to all the above. Ideological manipulation does not require blatant, outright lying. Ideology is often built around a kernel of truth. Ideological propositions may contain many truthful elements. Ideology is about manipulating those elements to produce a different meaning, sometimes fundamentally different.

The BEA data change reverses the long standing economics notion that higher savings rates mean less consumer spending and, conversely, lower savings rates reflect consumers draining their savings in order to fund their consumption. The BEA changes suggest households haven’t been steadily draining their savings in order to maintain consumption, as their wages stagnated or declined, as previously thought. If consumption continues to rise in the US, it must be because wages are rising. The high 7.2% savings rate thus supports the other media hype that rising wages must be supporting US consumption.

As a result of the savings rate increase, US households are actually $615 billion richer, “recovered from between the statistical couch cushions”, according to one Wall St. Journal report. The ideological conclusion is that workers must actually be getting richer since 2010, not struggling with stagnant wage gains as was thought the case. Consumption is rising, and its not due to households’ reducing their savings to pay for it, so it must be that wages are actually rising too. That the vast majority of US households are now at record levels of more than $4 trillion in credit card, student loan, auto loan, and installment debt is not raised as an alternate explanation of rising consumption amid stagnating wages.

Ignore the role of credit and debt. If the savings rate is high, then consumption can be explained only due to rising wages. More savings means more income and more income must mean higher wages is the logical relationship between the variables. Just exclude the debt variable altogether. That would only negate the rising wages claims being propounded by politicians and media alike.

What this shows is that logic assumptions may be used to obfuscate the facts, to cover up or distort economic reality, and not just reveal it. Manipulate the logic with language games may mis-represent reality. That’s ideology as well.

If one digs deeper into the BEA savings rate report, some interesting details appear that suggest further ideological manipulation at work. According to a recent Wall St. Journal article (August 20, 2018, p. 2), the $615 billion in additional savings for the first three months of 2018 breaks down into $129 billion more for proprietors’ (non-corporate) business income, $73 billion in interest income, and $141 billion for dividend income. Employee compensation was increased by $100 billion.

How that $100 billion was distributed among the high salaried executives and CEOs and managers in the form of annual bonuses and other salary forms, and how much went to the remaining bottom 80% of hourly wage earner, was not clarified in the media reporting. Nor was whether the $100 billion in employee compensation included stock cash outs. Even more conspicuously missing in the business media reporting was where did the remaining $172 billion ($615 minus the above) savings increase go? It appears that since corporations save too, that may have explained the simultaneous BNA upward adjustment of corporate profits.

What the missing elements in the press suggest is that Ideological mis-representation may thus take the form of omission of facts, not just committing mis-representation on reported facts. One may distort the appearance of reality not only by changing reported numbers, but by simply leaving them out. By deleting them. Ideological mis-representation functions not only by assuming correlations are causation, or by inserting new data into an original proposition, or inverting logic and arguments, but by deleting or removing data or logical arguments.

So the ideological manipulation of the household savings variable and its relationship to consumption, wages and wealth effects are thus reversed. New data is also ‘inserted’ into what was the original proposition about the relationships between the elements of the proposition. Moreover, the ideological transformation of the savings function contained in the BEA’s adjustments involves the manipulation of the ‘time’ variable as well:

Since much of the $615 billion BEA savings adjustments for the first quarter 2018 are likely associated with the Trump tax cuts, one may conclude that the hike in the savings rate from 3.3% to 7.2% is a one time effect reflecting those tax cuts. First quarter 2018 US government tax revenues declined by more than $500 billion; much of that went in the short term to boosting savings of the wealthy. But no, the BEA assumes the Trump tax effect on households’ savings is not a temporary, one time effect. The BEA has made the effect retroactive to previous years as well, before the tax cuts boosted savings. The new upward revisions in savings totals for the first quarter of this year are assumed to be permanent. This making permanent of what may be temporary is an example of ideological manipulation of time, or what’s called the ‘de-temporization’ technique that was noted previously as well in the discussion of the tax cuts create jobs ideological proposition.

*

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Adalah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, warned on Monday that the Israeli government’s response to the petition, filed to the Israeli Supreme Court, signals Israel’s intention to proceed with annexation of the occupied West Bank.

The Israeli government submitted legal materials to the Israeli Supreme Court declaring that “the Knesset (Israeli parliament) is permitted to legislate laws everywhere in the world and it is authorized to violate the sovereignty of foreign countries via legislation that would be applied to events occurring in their territories.”

This statement was declared on August 7th in a written response, which the Israeli government had submitted to the Israeli Supreme Court, regarding to the petition against the Settlement Regularization Law filed by Adalah and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights in Gaza on behalf of 17 local Palestinian authorities in the West Bank.

Adalah and fellow petitioners argued that the Israeli Knesset is not permitted to enact and impose laws on territory occupied by Israel. Hence, the Knesset cannot enact laws that annex the West Bank or that violate the rights of Palestinian residents of the West Bank.

The Israeli government’s lawyer, Arnon Harel, wrote in the legal materials submitted to that

“The Knesset is permitted to impose the powers of the military commander of the West Bank region as it sees fit. The Knesset is permitted to define the authorities of the military commander as it sees fit. The authority of the government of Israel to annex any territory or to enter into international conventions derives from its authority as determined by the Knesset.”

Harel concluded “the Knesset is allowed to ignore the directives of international law in any field it desires,” which is a direct violation of international law and international humanitarian law.

In response, Suhad Bishara and Myssana Morany, lawyers of Adalah, who filed the petition against the Settlement Regularization Law, said “the Israeli government’s extremist response has no parallel anywhere in the world. It stands in gross violation of international law and of the United Nations Charter which obligates member states to refrain from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity of other states – including occupied territories. The Israeli government’s extremist position is, in fact, a declaration of its intention to proceed with its annexation of the West Bank.”

The petition was submitted by 17 Palestinian municipalities and three human rights organizations from the West Bank, Israel, and Gaza Strip jointly petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court on February 8th 2017 to cancel the controversial Settlement Regularization Law under the pretext that it violates international humanitarian law and is labeled as unconstitutional.

The Settlement Regularization Law aims to “legalize,” under Israeli law, illegal Israeli settlement outposts, which have been built on private Palestinian land.

The law sets out a new process to legalize about half of Israel’s settlement outposts, as well as about 3,000 additional homes built illegally in settlements, which Israel recognizes as legal. Essentially, this law authorizes a further massive land theft of private Palestinian land by Israel.The European Union and the United Nations strongly condemned the law, and even Israel’s attorney general announced that he would not defend it in court.

The petitioners said “the law not only harms the private property of Palestinians, but is also intended to impinge upon their right to dignity by clarifying – without hesitation – that the interests of the settlements and the Israeli Jewish settlers in the West Bank take priority over the rights of Palestinians and therefore is permitted to dispossess Palestinians from their property.”

*

Featured image is from Ma’an News Agency.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The battle between many former intelligence chiefs and the White House is becoming a gift that keeps on giving to the mass media, which is characteristically deeply immersed in Trump derangement syndrome in attacking the president for his having stripped former CIA Director John Brennan of his security clearance. One of the most ludicrous claims, cited in the Washington Post on Sunday, was that the Trump move was intended to “stifle free speech.” While I am quite prepared to believe a lot of things about the serial maladroit moves and explanations coming out of the White House, how one equates removing Brennan’s security clearance to compromising his ability to speak freely escapes me. Indeed, Brennan has been speaking out with his usual vitriol nearly everywhere in the media ever since he lost the clearance, rather suggesting that his loss has given him a platform which has actually served to enhance his ability to speak his mind. He should thank Donald Trump for that.

Indeed, Brennan’s retaining a Top Secret code word clearance had nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with enhancing his market value for those poor sods who actually pay him to mouth off as an “expert” on television and in the newspapers. Are you listening New York Times and NBC? Brennan’s clearance did not mean that he had any real insight into current intelligence on anything, having lost that access when he left his job with the government. It only meant that he could sound authoritative and well informed by relying on his former status, enabling him to con you media folks out of your money on a recurrent basis.

It has sometimes been suggested that free speech is best exercised when it is somehow connected to the brain’s prefrontal lobes, enabling some thought process before the words come out of the mouth. It might be argued that Brennan has been remarkably deficient in that area, which is possibly why he looks so angry in all his photographs. Even John Brennan’s supporters are shy about defending the former CIA Director’s more extravagant claims. James Clapper, the ex-Director of National Intelligence, has described Brennan’s comments as “overheated.”

The John Brennan backstory is important. In 2016 he was Barack Obama’s CIA Director and also simultaneously working quite hard to help Hillary Clinton become president, which some might regard at a minimum as a conflict of interest. After Clinton lost, he continued his attacks on Trump. He apparently played a part in the notoriously salacious Steele dossier, which was surfaced in January just before the inauguration. The dossier included unverifiable information and was maliciously promoted by Brennan and others in the intelligence and law enforcement community. And even after Trump assumed office, Brennan continued to prove to be unrelenting.

In May 2017, Brennan testified before Congress that during the 2016 campaign he had “…encountered and [was] aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals.” Politico was also in on the chase and picked up on Brennan’s bombshell in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides.

What Brennan did not describe, because it was “classified,” was how he developed the information regarding the Trump campaign in the first place. We know from Politico and other sources that it derived from foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.

Since that time, Brennan has tweeted President Donald Trump, asserting that

“When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.”

He has attacked the president for congratulating President Vladimir Putin over his victory in Russian national elections. He said that the U.S. President is “wholly in the pocket of Putin,” definitely “afraid of the president of Russia” and that the Kremlin “may have something on him personally. The fact that he has had this fawning attitude toward Mr. Putin …continues to say to me that he does have something to fear and something very serious to fear.” And he then administered what might be considered the coup de main, saying that the president should be impeached for “treasonous” behavior after Trump stood next to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia at a news conference in Finland and cast doubt on the conclusion of the intelligence agencies that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump’s decision to pull Brennan’s clearance attracted an immediate tweeted response from the ex-CIA Director: “This action is part of a broader effort by Mr. Trump to suppress freedom of speech & punish critics. It should gravely worry all Americans, including intelligence professionals, about the cost of speaking out.” He also added, in a New York Times op-ed, that “Mr. Trump’s claims of no collusion [with Russia] are, in a word, hogwash,” though he provided no evidence to support his claim and failed to explain how exactly one washes a hog. There has subsequently been an avalanche of suitably angry Brennan appearances all over the Sunday talk shows, a development that will undoubtedly continue for the immediate future.

The claim that Trump is a Russian agent is not a new one, having also been made repeatedly by Brennan CIA associate the grim and inscrutable Michael Morell, who flaunts his insider expertise both at The Times and on CBS. Regarding both gentlemen, one might note that it is an easy mark to allege something sensational that you don’t have to prove, but the claim nevertheless constitutes a very serious assertion of criminal behavior that might well meet the Constitutional standard for treason, which comes with a death penalty. It is notable that in spite of the gravity of the charge, Brennan and Morell have been either unable or unwilling to substantiate it in any detail. Even a usually tone-deaf Congress has noted that there is a problem with Brennan’s credibility on the issue, not to mention his integrity. Richard Burr, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has observed that

“Director Brennan’s recent statements purport to know as fact that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power. If Director Brennan’s statement is based on intelligence he received while still leading the CIA, why didn’t he include it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017? If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel, not The New York Times.”

This behavior by Brennan is no surprise to those who know him and have worked with him. An ambitious crawler with a checkered history, he was strongly disliked by his peers at CIA, largely because of his lack of any sense of restraint and his reputation for over-the-top vindictiveness. He notoriously flunked out of spy training at the Agency, forcing him to instead become an analyst, so he went after the Clandestine Service in his reorganization of CIA after he became Director.

John Brennan has always been a failure as an intelligence officer even as he successfully climbed the promotion ladder. He was the CIA’s Chief of Station (COS) in Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers were bombed, killing 19 Americans, a disaster which he incorrectly blamed on the Iranians. He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in that intelligence failure. He subsequently served as CIA chief of staff when his boss George Tenet concocted phony stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He also approved of the Agency torture and rendition programs and was complicit in the destruction of Libya as well as the attempt to do the same to Syria.

Barack Obama wanted Brennan to be his CIA Director but his record with the Agency torture and rendition programs made approval by the Senate problematical. Instead, he became the president’s homeland security advisor and deputy national security advisor for counterterrorism, where he did even more damage, expanding the parameters of the death by drone operations and sitting down with the POTUS for the Tuesday morning counterterrorism sessions spent refining the kill list of American citizens.

After Obama was re-elected in 2012, he was able to overcome objections and appoint Brennan CIA Director. Conniving as ever, Brennan then ordered the Agency to read the communications of the congressional committee then engaged in investigating CIA torture, the very program that he had been complicit in. Brennan then denied to Congress under oath that any such intramural spying had occurred, afterwards apologizing when the truth came out. Moon of Alabama characterizes him as “…always ruthless, incompetent and dishonest.”

So the real John Brennan emerges as an unlikely standard bearer for the First Amendment. He has an awful lot of baggage and is far from the innocent victim of a madman Trump that is being portrayed in much of the media. Indeed, he should be answerable for torture, renditions, extrajudicial killing of foreigners and targeted murder of American citizens. Those constitute war crimes and in the not too distant past Japanese and German officers were hung for such behavior. One has to hope that Brennan’s day of judgment will eventually come and he will have to pay for his multiple crimes against humanity.

*

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Introduction

The alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018 led to a missile attack on Syria by the US, France and UK. This briefing note summarizes the results of further investigations of the Douma incident and explains relevant scientific issues. This note also examines the processes by which OPCW Fact-Finding Missions and the UN/OPCW Joint Investigative Mechanism reached their conclusions that chlorine had been used as a weapon in earlier alleged chemical attacks in Syria.

The primary sources for the alleged chemical attack were images from three locations:

1. a hospital scene in which children purported to be victims have water thrown over them (FFM Location 1)
2. a four-storey apartment building where images showed bodies of 35 victims and a gas cylinder lying over a hole in the roof (FFM Location 2).
3. a room in an apartment that has a hole in the roof and a gas cylinder on a bed (FFM Location 4)

Suggestions that a nerve agent had been used in Douma

The speech of the French representative (Francois DeLattre) at the UN Security Council on 9 April 2018 was reported by the UN press office:

Noting that thousands of videos and photos had surfaced in the hours following the attacks — showing victims foaming at the mouth and convulsing, all symptoms of a potent nerve agent combined with chlorine gas — he said there was no doubt as to the perpetrators, as the Syrian Government and its allies alone had the capability of developing such substances.

On 13 April US officials briefed CNN:

Biological samples from the area of the alleged chemical attack in Syria have tested positive for chlorine and a sarin-like nerve agent, according to a US official familiar with the US analysis of the test results. A western official told CNN that it is not conclusive but officials suspect the substance used in the attack was a mixture of chlorine, sarin and possibly other chemicals.

An official press release mentioned symptoms that “suggest that the regime also used sarin” but did not mention tests on biological samples. By the following day, US officials briefing the media were more confident that nerve agents had been used:

“While the available information is much greater on the chlorine use, we do have significant information that also points to sarin use,” a senior administration official said on a call with reporters, citing reports from media, nongovernmental organizations and other open sources. “They do point to miosis — constricted pupils — convulsions and disruptions to central nervous systems. Those symptoms don’t come from chlorine. They come from nerve agents.”

On 11 April the former British Army officer Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, widely quoted as a chemical weapons expert, briefed the FT:

“There’s no doubt this was a major chemical weapons attack,” he said. “The big question is whether it was chlorine or sarin. I am favouring a mix of the two.”

and on 16 April briefed the Daily Mail

‘What they’re describing is chlorine and what we suspect is a nerve agent mixed with chlorine.’

A similar opinion was expressed on 16 April by Raphael Pitti, a former French Army officer who, like de Bretton-Gordon, has had a role in collecting samples from alleged chemical attacks in Syria since 2013:

The UOSSM also concluded that the symptoms of the casualties were consistent with exposure to a nerve agent, possibly one mixed with chlorine. Dr Raphael Pitti of UOSSM France said he thought “chlorine was used to conceal the use of Sarin”, a nerve agent

Other experts noted that the images showing victims’ bodies close together in the middle of the apartment building, having made no attempt to escape the gas by leaving the building or moving to the window, were more consistent with exposure to a nerve agent than with exposure to chlorine. Alastair Hay, a member of the OPCW Advisory Board on Education and Outreach noted that: “people have pretty much died where they were when they inhaled the agent. They’ve just dropped dead” and added that “Chlorine victims usually manage to get out to somewhere they can get treatment”. The Washington Post reported “outside experts” as commenting that “the speed with which the victims died suggested that a nerve agent was used. Chlorine usually takes longer to work.”

The Prime Minister’s statement on 16 April 2018

The Prime Minister made a statement on the Douma incident in the Commons on 16 April 2018, two days after a missile attack had been launched without parliamentary approval. She alleged that Syria and Russia were delaying the FFM’s access to the alleged attack sites:

Even if the OPCW team is able to visit Douma to gather information to make that assessment — and it is currently being prevented from doing so by the regime and the Russians — it cannot attribute responsibility.

This is contradicted by the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission Interim Report which explains that although preparations were made to deploy an advance team on 12 April, this was delayed by safety considerations and that the risk assessment was shared by the representative of the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).

Given the recent military activities and the volatile situation in Douma at the time of the FFM deployment, security and safety considerations were of paramount importance. Considerable time and effort were invested in discussions and planning to mitigate the inherent security risks to the FFM team and others deploying into Douma. According to Syrian Arab Republic and Russian Military Police representatives, there were a number of unacceptable risks to the team, including mines and explosives that still needed to be cleared, a risk of explosions, and sleeper cells still suspected of being active in Douma. This assessment was shared by the representative of the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS).

Under the evacuation agreement reached on 8 April, Russian military police were to patrol Douma during a transitional period before handing control to the Syrian authorities. The FFM report explains that at the outset

the formal position of the FFM team, as instructed by the Director-General, was that security of the mission should be the responsibility of the Syrian Arab Republic. During the initial meetings in Damascus, the FFM team was informed by Syrian and Russian representatives that the Syrian Arab Republic could guarantee the safety of the FFM team only if the security was provided jointly with the Russian Military Police.

On 16 April 2018, following consultations with OPCW Headquarters, it was agreed that security within Douma could be provided by the Russian Military Police. A letter dated 18 April from the OPCW Director-General described what happened next:

The United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) has made the necessary arrangements with the Syrian authorities to escort the team to a certain point and then for the escort to be taken over by the Russian Military Police. However, the UNDSS preferred to first conduct a reconnaissance visit to the sites, which took place yesterday. FFM team members did not participate in this visit. On arrival at Site 1, a large crowd gathered and the advice provided by the UNDSS was that the reconnaissance team should withdraw. At Site 2, the team came under small arms fire and an explosive was detonated. The reconnaissance team returned to Damascus.

This incident on 17 April led to a reassessment of the security situation, and the implementation of additional measures to mitigate the risks before the FFM site visits began on 21 April:

Once the security reassessment had been concluded and the proposed additional mitigation measures implemented, the FFM team deployed to the sites of investigation in accordance with the updated priorities and proposed schedule.

The Prime Minister repeated the Pentagon’s version of the targeting, stating that missiles were “specifically targeted at three sites” [Barzeh in northern Damascus, and two sites at Him Shinsar near Homs] allegedly associated with development or storage of chemical weapons, and that 88 missiles had hit these targets. The Russian Ministry of Defence however gave a different version of the targeting, stating that “The real targets of the attacks of the US, Britain and France on April 14 were not only Barzah and Jaramani research facilities, but also Syrian military infrastructure, including airfields,” and that of the 73 missiles fired against these six heavily-defended airfields all but eight were brought down by Syrian air defences.

Without access to the flight tracks of the missiles, we have no way of establishing which of these two versions of the targeting is correct. In the version given by the Pentagon and the Prime Minister, 76 missiles were used against the research centre at Barzeh: a surprisingly large number for a strike on a single unprotected target. We note that if the US and its allies had been concerned that these sites were being used for development or storage of chemical weapons, they could have requested that OPCW inspect them. After their most recent inspection of Barzeh in November 2017, OPCW had reported that

The analysis of samples taken during the inspections did not indicate the presence of scheduled chemicals in the samples, and the inspection team did not observe any activities inconsistent with obligations under the Convention during the second round of inspections at the Barzah and Jamrayah facilities.

Interim report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission on the alleged chemical attack in Douma

The interim report of the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) did not find any trace of a nerve agent in samples taken from the site and from alleged casualties

No organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties.

The FFM did not reach a conclusion on whether a chemical attack had taken place, stating only that

The FFM team needs to continue its work to draw final conclusions regarding the alleged incident

The inability to detect sarin degradation products in environmental samples from the two alleged attack sites cannot be explained by delay in sampling as the main breakdown product of sarin — isopropylmethylphosphonic acid — is stable and persisted for more than 30 years in contaminated groundwaters at a sarin production site in Colorado.

Blood samples from witnesses allegedly exposed to toxic chemicals in this incident were obtained under FFM oversight in “Country X” (presumably Turkey), or received by the FFM.
The tests on these blood samples included tests for peptide adducts that are not affected by aging of the adduct. These tests should remain positive for several half-lives of the target protein in vivo: this half-life is about 12 days for butyrlcholinesterase and about 20 days for albumin. As the blood samples were obtained no more than 14 days after the alleged incident, delay in sampling cannot explain the negative results.

The environmental samples were reported to contain chlorinated organic molecules such as trichloroacetic acid and chloral hydrate. Such organic molecules in which one or more of the hydrogen atoms have been replaced by chlorine atoms are environmental markers of chlorine exposure, typically found in chlorinated drinking water and used to monitor water quality. As in previous OPCW reports, no quantitative results were given so we do not know whether these compounds were present in trace amounts, such as might be found in drinking water, or in high concentration as would be expected if chlorine had been released in the buildings.

Possible explanations for the Douma incident, and relevant evidence

As explained elsewhere, the formal logic of inference requires that alternative hypotheses are stated before evaluating the evidence, and that the weight of evidence favouring any of these hypothesis over the others is evaluated by comparing, for each relevant observation, how well each hypothesis would have predicted that observation. Evaluating the evidence favouring one hypothesis over another does not depend upon prior beliefs about which hypothesis is true.

The possible explanations for the Douma incident can be reduced to two alternative hypotheses:

1. A chemical attack using gas cylinders dropped from the air.
2. a managed massacre of captives, with a chemical attack staged by placing gas cylinders at the site and possibly opening them to release chlorine.

Other hypotheses are possible — for instance accidental asphyxiation of victims while sheltering elsewhere, followed by opportunistic staging of a chemical attack — but unless such hypotheses are proposed we shall consider only the two alternatives stated above.

Several witnesses to the hospital scene at FFM Location 1, including an 11-year old boy seen in the video having water thrown over him, have testified that this scene was staged. Staging of the hospital scene does not exclude a chemical attack, though it it is more probable under the managed massacre hypothesis than under the chemical attack hypothesis.

Laboratory evidence that chlorine was released is not evidence favouring one of these hypotheses over the other, as it is equally compatible with use of chlorine as a weapon as with use of chlorine to lay a forensic trail.

The most direct evidence favouring a managed massacre is the positions of victims’ bodies at FFM Location 2: of the 35 bodies seen, 18 were in a first-floor apartment and 10 in a second-floor apartment. As noted in Section 3, in the first few weeks after the Douma incident several experts commented that people exposed to chlorine would have attempted to escape. With exposure to a nerve agent subsequently ruled out by negative results on environmental and physiological samples, exposure to chlorine from a gas cylinder on the roof does not explain why the victims made no attempt to escape by moving to the windows. Under the managed massacre hypothesis, we would expect to find the bodies in positions that would be convenient for those who were carrying the bodies up the stairs.

Other lines of evidence that favour a managed massacre over a chemical attack include:

• the position of the gas cylinder at FFM Location 2, on a balcony at with its valve end lying over a hole in the roof is improbable under the chemical attack hypothesis (the balcony is only about one-twentieth of the roof area), but highly probable under the managed massacre hypothesis (the balcony is the only part of the roof that is easily accessible from inside the building).
• the visual evidence that a fire was lit in the room underneath the cylinder at FFM Location 2) on top of the rubble from the hole in the roof above (confirmed by the FFM’s inspectors who took wipes from the burnt wall) is inexplicable under a chemical attack hypothesis, but explicable on the managed massacre hypothesis as a method of releasing the contents of the cylinder.

Other evidence on the Douma incident has been reviewed by Larson

Alleged use of chlorine as a weapon in the Syrian conflict

Since 2014 it has been alleged that the Syrian armed forces were using chlorine bombs dropped from helicopters. For chlorine to be effective as a weapon, it has to be released on an industrial scale as at Ypres in April 1915 when the German army released 168 tons of chlorine from 5730 cylinders installed along their front line and at Bolimov in May 1915 when 12000 cylinders were used along a 12-kilometre front. This resort to chemical warfare was an act of desperation at a time when Germany was running out of imported nitrate for explosives as a result of the British blockade and had not yet managed to scale up the Haber-Bosch process to synthesize nitrate. Although there has been no experience with use of chlorine by a state as a weapon since 1915, there is ample experience with industrial accidents, in which fatalities have been rare unless the quantity of chlorine released exceeds one ton (creating a cloud too big to run out of) or the victims are in a confined space. This experience indicates that:

• for the same weight of payload delivered, explosives would be more lethal than chlorine.
• in a real chlorine incident, the number of casualties that were not immediately fatal would be much greater than the number of immediate fatalities. Some of these casualties would develop pulmonary oedema several hours after exposure, obvious on chest X-rays and requiring intensive medical care.

As noted by Hitchens, OPCW stated in April 2013 that they would provide a formal assessment of whether chemical weapons had been used only if their inspectors were able to visit the sites of alleged attacks:

Weapons inspectors will only determine whether banned chemical agents were used in the two-year-old conflict if they are able to access sites and take soil, blood, urine or tissue samples and examine them in certified laboratories, according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which works with the United Nations on inspections. That type of evidence, needed to show definitively if banned chemicals were found, has not been presented by governments and intelligence agencies accusing Syria of using chemical weapons against insurgents. “That is the only basis on which the OPCW would provide a formal assessment of whether chemical weapons have been used,” said Michael Luhan, a spokesman for the Hague-based OPCW.

Luhan was quoted further as saying that even if samples were provided, OPCW would never get involved in testing something that its own inspectors did not “gather in the field” because of the need to “maintain a chain of custody of samples from the field to the lab to ensure their integrity”.

Following an incident on 27 May 2014 in which despite having reached an agreement with the opposition the FFM convoy came under fire while travelling behind opposition lines to Kafr Zita and members of the team were “detained for some time” by gunmen, further visits to opposition-held areas were ruled out. The decision to continue the Fact-Finding Mission, implying that OPCW would now disregard its own precepts that they would not test samples provided by others or make a formal assessment of an alleged chemical attack without being able to visit the site, was made by the Director-General and subsequently endorsed by the Executive Council of the OPCW. The FFM’s conclusions that chlorine was used as a weapon in incidents from 2014 onwards were based on interviews, images, documents and samples provided by witnesses and NGOs and conveyed to the FFM outside Syria.

The work of the FFM was criticized by the Russian Permanent Representative to the OPCW who complained on 14 April 2017 that

Under the mandate defined for [the Fact-Finding Mission], its membership should be approved by the Syrian government, and it should be balanced. For some time, these provisions were observed somewhat, but then the mission was split into two groups. One [Team Bravo], led by Steven Wallis from Britain, works in contact with the Syrian government, while the other one [Team Alpha], headed by his fellow countryman Leonard Phillips, deals with the claims filed by the Syrian armed opposition. This latter group is working completely non-transparently. Its membership is classified, and no one knows where it goes or how it operates. They are allegedly using the same methodology as Steven Wallis’ group, but they are clearly working mostly remotely, relying on the internet and the fabrications provided by Syrian opposition NGOs, and never go to Syria. At least, we are not aware of a single such trip.

The FFM also used open-source material as evidence. The 2018 reports mention that media monitoring to identify this material was undertaken by the OPCW Information Cell. This unit is headed by the Senior Communication and Information Officer Lt-Col Leo Buzzerio whose curriculum vitae includes three years as Deputy Division Chief in the US Defense Intelligence Agency. The FFM’s reports do not describe their methods for retrieval and analysis of open source material, although methodology for conducting interviews and collecting physical evidence is described in detail. Links are listed in the appendix to each report, but there is no indication that any systematic analysis of this material was undertaken. Serious analysis of open source material entails tracing reports and images back to primary sources, geolocation and timing of images, ordering them in temporal sequence, and matching the identities of individuals in different videos or still images. When this is done carefully, clues may emerge. A model for this type of investigation is the analysis of the Douma videos described by McIntyre, which reveals many troubling details: for instance that during the night some victims’ bodies were rearranged and gold jewellery was removed.

Without on-site inspections, the credibility of the FFM’s reports into alleged chlorine attacks depends critically on the organizations that identified purported witnesses and collected physical evidence. If OPCW inspectors as neutral observers could not safely travel in opposition-held areas, this calls into question the neutrality of those who could travel in such areas. Because this is critical to the credibility of the FFM’s reports, this briefing note examines in more detail the organizations on which FFM Team Alpha relied to collect evidence.

Based on the devices alleged to have been dropped, the alleged chlorine attacks can be grouped into three phases:-

April to May 2014: chlorine barrel bombs

Following Syria’s accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention in September 2013, no further alleged chemical attacks in Syria were reported in mainstream media until 2014. The Third Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding mission by Malik Ellahi dated 18 December 2014 covered alleged attacks using chlorine barrels during April and May 2014 in Talmenes, Al Tamanah and Kafr Zita. The data and material collected by the FFM included interviews, images and documents. The FFM concluded:

The Mission has presented its conclusions with a high degree of confidence that chlorine has been used as a weapon.

The Third Report of the FFM did not give any information on how the witnesses were identified, who arranged for them to travel outside Syria, or who provided the images and documents. In an earlier interim report on the same incidents, the FFM had stated:

Independently of the individuals from the three villages who were interviewed, the FFM interviewed and received information from members of the “CBRN Task Force”, who had performed a systematic collection of data in the field following reported attacks in Talmenes and Kafr Zita.

A biographical note on Hamish de Bretton-Gordon (HdBG) states that he helped set up this CBRN [Chemical/Biological/Radiological/Nuclear(/Explosive)] Task Force.

Since the Syrian conflict started, Hamish has been deployed to the conflict area a number of times, where on behalf of OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) he has helped set up a CBRNE task force.

In a presentation to the Innovate UK Small Business Research Initiative dated September 2014, HdBG (representing the now-liquidated company Secure Bio that he set up in 2011) indicated that this CBRN task force had been trained in Gaziantep in October 2013 and was based in Aleppo. He confirmed that it had provided evidence from alleged attacks in Talmenes and Kafr Zita to the FFM and also for a story in the Daily Telegraph published on 29 April 2014. He described his role further in a talk to the All-Party Parliamentary Group Friends of Syria in September 2016:

I have covertly been in Syria collecting evidence of chemical weapons attacks and have been giving it to the OPCW and the UN. They cannot get to the places the chemical weapons attacks have happened because they’re in rebel held areas. When I present evidence with our teams from UOSSM, we are not an international body etcetera etcetera. We provided the evidence of the chemical weapons attack in a town called Talmenes in April 2014, on the 29th of April 2014, three weeks after the attack; two weeks ago, two years later, the UN Security Council announced to the world that they had conclusive evidence that the regime had attacked Talmenes in April 2014 with chemical weapons.

More information on the CBRN Task Force and its role in collecting evidence from alleged chemical attacks in Talmenes and Kafr Zita was given in an article by Houssam Alnahhas, described as the Local Coordinator of the CBRN Task Force of the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations (UOSSM). The affiliation of the CBRN Task Force to UOSSM was not described before 2016. The coverage of UOSSM’s press releases appears to have changed abruptly in April 2016 from humanitarian work to allegations of airstrikes on hospitals and chemical attacks.

HdBG has described to the All-Party Parliamentary Group and elsewhere his covert role in collecting samples from alleged chemical attacks in Syria, and has stated that this role dates back to March 2013. Press reports at this time described the collection of samples from these alleged chemical attacks as a “covert operation involving MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service” and as an operation in which “MI6 played the leading role”. If these reports are correct, then it is reasonable to infer that unless there were two independent UK-led covert operations at the same time to collect environmental samples from the same incidents for analysis at Porton Down, HdBG’s covert activity and the MI6 operation were one and the same. However admirable HdBG’s activities (no doubt undertaken at considerable personal risk) may have been, neutral observers might consider it inappropriate for the FFM to have relied on evidence gathered by a network set up by an agent of the intelligence service of a state committed to one side in the Syrian conflict. For clarity, we emphasize that the term “agent” is used here to denote someone who undertakes covert activities on behalf of an intelligence service but is not a member of that service.

Alleged attack in Talmenes on 21 April 2014

By comparing information from the three reports — the interim report of the FFM, the Third Report of the FFM, and the Third Report of the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism (Gamba, Neritani and Schanze) — it is possible to reconstruct the role of the CBRN Task Force in providing evidence from this incident.

Annex 2 paragraph 3.5 of the Third Report of the FFM states that “The first interviewee provided his testimony and data to the Mission on 22 August 2014”. The first of three groups of interviewees from Talmenes, Al Tamanah and Kafr Zita reached the OPCW interview site on 25 August, so this first interviewee was evidently not a member of one of these groups. Table A in the Third Report of the FFM shows that the materials handed over by this interviewee on 22 August 2014 included sampling forms showing collection of materials including soil (from unspecified sites) on 12, 18, 21, 22 and 23 April 2014 and also “various videos [42 in number] taken by interviewee from the incident of 21 April 2014”. The Joint Investigative Mechanism reported that soil samples had been taken from this incident on 23 April 2014 and that the results had been published in a newspaper on 29 April 2014. From the quote given in the Mechanism’s report, this newspaper article can be identified as Ruth Sherlock’s story in the Daily Telegraph which described HdBG’s analysis of soil samples collected by the CBRN Task Force. From this we can infer that the person interviewed by the FFM on 22 August 2014, who provided the 42 videos from the incident in Talmenes together with documentation that soil and other samples had been collected, was representing the CBRN Task Force.

Although the environmental samples provided by the CBRN Task Force were not used by the FFM or the Joint Investigative Mechanism, the videos of the alleged impact sites in Talmenes were a key source of evidence for the reports. More details were given in the Joint Investigative Mechanism’s report. Two impact locations 75 metres apart near the main mosque in Talmenes were reported by witnesses to have been struck with chemical barrel bombs at around 10:30 to 10:45 h.

• The videos of Location 1 (numbered v02 to v05) showed a crater in a courtyard with dead animals and remnants of a barrel bomb. Analysis of these videos showed what the Joint Investigative Mechanism’s report referred to as “inconsistencies”, leading the Mechanism to disregard Location 1 for further investigation:
  • A forensic examination of videos v02 and v03 concluded that the crater had probably been made by a small explosive charge (5-10 kg TNT-equivalent) buried in the ground. “A barrel bomb without a large explosive charge would not penetrate the hard soil to the extent seen.” Use of a barrel bomb with explosives could be excluded as there was no shrapnel damage to surrounding walls.
  • The Mechanism noted that “the bodies of the dead animals seen in v04 look clean and intact, making it highly unlikely that they were in the backyard or at close vicinity when the device causing the crater detonated.”
  • Metadata of video v04 included timestamps showing the creation date as 20 April 2014, one day before the alleged attack.
• Videos v02 and v03 showed Location 2 also, with structural damage to a house and remnants of a barrel bomb. Gamba, Meritani and Schanze decided that “there is sufficient information for the Leadership Panel to conclude that the incident at impact location #2 was caused by a SAAF helicopter dropping a device causing damage to the structure of a concrete block building house and was followed by the release of a toxic substance which affected the population.”

As the Mechanism had identified evidence of staging at Location 1, we might have expected Gamba, Meritani and Schanze to be more suspicious of the story of a chemical barrel bomb strike at Location 2, especially since there was overlap of witnesses and videos from both alleged impact sites. As the “inconsistencies” identified by the Mechanism included the timestamp of video v04, this implicates whoever recorded these videos in the staging. As shown above, the source of these videos appears to have been the CBRN Task Force.

March to May 2015: permanganate barrel bombs

A new series of incidents allegedly involving chlorine began on 16 March 2015, ten days after the UN Security Council had adopted Resolution 2209 condemning “in the strongest terms any use of a toxic chemical, such as chlorine, as a weapon in the Syrian Arab Republic” and resolving “in the event of future non-compliance with resolution 2118 to impose measures under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter”.

Images from the sites of these alleged attacks showed refrigerant canisters and half-litre plastic bottles containing a purple substance that stained the surroundings pink. This substance was identified as potassium permanganate by the FFM, which suggested that it might have been used to produce chlorine by reaction with a “chlorine-containing compound”. The Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria regarding alleged incidents in the Idlib Governorate of the Syrian Arab Republic between 16 March and 20 May 2015 by Leonard Phillips dated 29 October 2015 covered six alleged attacks, concluding that

several incidents that occurred in the Idlib Governorate of the Syrian Arab Republic between 16 March 2015 and 20 May 2015 likely involved the use of one or more toxic chemicals — probably containing the element chlorine — as a weapon.

In relation to the alleged attack on 16 March 2015 in Sarmin, the Leadership Panel of the Joint Investigative Mechanism (Gamba, Neritani and Schanze) concluded that

There is sufficient information for the Leadership Panel to conclude that the incident at impact location #2 was caused by an SAAF helicopter dropping a device which hit the house and was followed by the release of a toxic substance, which match the characteristics of chlorine, that was fatal to all six occupants.

The Sarmin incident is examined in more detail in the Appendix.

The FFM used open-source material from the internet as “supporting information”, but the methods for selection and analysis of this material were not described. Witnesses were identified and transported to “Country X” (presumably Turkey) by an NGO named the “Chemical Violations Documentation Center of Syria” (CVDCS). The FFM also received environmental samples and fragments of alleged munitions “collected by witnesses and/or representatives of the fCVDCS”. Some of those interviewed by the FFM team were White Helmets. The CVDCS met OPCW in The Hague and in Brussels. The FFM explains why CVDCS was chosen as the provider of witnesses:-

While there were several different NGOs with access to potential interviewees, only one, the Chemical Violations Documentation Center of Syria, appeared to have access to the means of arranging their transport from the Idlib Governorate and their accommodation in Country X.

The CVDCS is described on its website as “an office within Same Justice” which was founded as a not-for-profit association in Brussels on 7 April 2015. No accounts for this organization are available on the Belgian business register. The domain names cvdcs.com and samejustice.com were registered (on 11 March 2015 and 8 August 2015 respectively) by Hasan Addaher (sometimes transliterated as Hassan Aldaher), one of the founders of Same Justice who is also the co-ordinator of a pro-opposition organization. As the FFM reports from 2015 onwards relied critically on Same Justice / CVDCS to provide interviewees and samples, we might have expected them to scrutinise this organization: how did it spring into existence in 2015, with an office in Brussels and a network on the ground in opposition-held Idlib able to collect samples, identify witnesses, and arrange for their transport and accommodation in Turkey?

March 2017 to February 2018: chlorine cylinders

Two later Fact-Finding Mission reports investigated alleged chlorine attacks in 2017 and 2018 in which the alleged munitions were ordinary gas cylinders, sometimes in a metal sleeve with fins. Environmental samples provided from both incidents showed chlorinated organic compounds and sarin degradation products. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed in the Appendix.

For these investigations witnesses were identified through NGOs including CVDCS and the White Helmets. Samples were provided by the White Helmets, for whom the FFM uses the name “Syria Civil Defense” though Syria has a civil defence directorate responsible for firefighting and rescue. The reliance on the White Helmets for provision of evidence raises additional concerns. In many of the alleged chemical attacks from 2015 onwards, images showed that people dressed as White Helmets were present at the alleged attack sites or were filming the victims. To decide between the alternative hypotheses of a chemical attack or a staged incident, the FFM was relying on evidence provided by those who would be implicated if the hypothesis of a staged incident was true.

• Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria regarding an alleged incident in Saraqib on 4 February 2018dated 15 May 2018:

The FFM determined that chlorine, released from cylinders through mechanical impact, was likely used as a chemical weapon on 4 February 2018 in the Al Talil neighbourhood of Saraqib

• Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission in Syria regarding alleged incidents in Ltamenah on 24 and 25 March 2017 dated 13 June 2018. The FFM attributed the sarin degradation products to secondary contamination from a previously unreported sarin attack the day before in which two munitions had allegedly fallen on agricultural land outside the town. The FFM concluded that “sarin was very likely used as a chemical weapon in the south of Ltamenah on 24 March 2017” and that “chlorine was very likely used as a chemical weapon at Ltamenah Hospital and the surrounding area on 25 March 2017”.

Witnesses of the alleged incident on 25 March 2017 reported that a gas cylinder dropped from the air had pierced the roof of the Ltamenah cave hospital, causing the death of a doctor. One of the witnesses interviewed by the FFM was described as a physician working at a nearby hospital that had treated victims of this attack. This individual is not identified, but the list of links included in the FFM’s report includes direct and indirect links to a tweet uploaded on 25 March by the struck-off former doctor Shajul Islam from a hospital that is purportedly treating patients from this attack, stating that “we think it’s sarin” and “our doctor Ali Darwish has been killed from treating the patients from this gas attack”. There is no indication that the FFM undertook any background checks on witnesses.

Appendix

The alleged attack in Sarmin on 16 March 2015

The alleged attack in Sarmin is the most widely-publicized of the alleged chlorine attacks. Excerpts from a video recorded in the emergency room of the Sarmin hospital were shown to a closed meeting of the UN Security Council on 17 April 2015, addressed by the doctor in charge of the hospital.

Alleged munition: a permanganate barrel bomb

From the alleged site of this and other attacks, plastic drink bottles containing potassium permanganate and ruptured gas canisters labelled R22 (a non-toxic hydrochlorofluorocarbon refrigerant) were allegedly recovered. Potassium permanganate reacts with hydrogen chloride to produce chlorine. The FFM report obliquely suggested that this reaction (commonly used as a convenient way to prepare small quantities of chlorine in a laboratory) could have been used in a munition.

The samples and their analysis indicate the presence of potassium permanganate and a chlorine/chloride-containing chemical … The vapour pressure of R22 is similar enough to that of certain other industrial chemicals, inter alia chlorine, anhydrous hydrogen chloride, and anhydrous ammonia, such that the refilling of R22 containers with other chemicals for use in an improvised bomb would be feasible … Given the oxidising nature of potassium permanganate, it is conceivable that it might be used to oxidise a chlorine containing compound, resulting in the production of Cl₂.

Though the leader of FFM Team Alpha is a chemical engineer, the FFM did not comment on the feasibility of such a device being used as a weapon. The plausibility of this device is open to question:-

• If for some reason it was intended to use chlorine as a weapon delivered by air, it would be simpler to drop cylinders of chlorine than to construct a device to produce chlorine by a chemical reaction at the point of impact.
• There is no mechanism for the potassium permanganate and hydrogen chloride to mix before the device is detonated. Binary chemical munitions are designed to mix the precursors in flight or before launch.
• Although the FFM had suggested that refilling of R22 canisters with other chemicals for use in an improvised bomb would be feasible, the Joint Investigative Mechanism’s report noted that these canisters are disposable and that “their repurposing or refilling would require technical modification of the valve”. No such valve modifications were reported by the FFM, which had been provided with canisters allegedly used in these munitions.

Alleged delivery

The device, reported to have an “approximate diameter of 1 metre to 1.5 metres”, was alleged to have been dropped from a helicopter at about 11 pm and to have fallen down a ventilation shaft 1.5 metres wide from the roof of an apartment building to the basement apartment where the victims lived. A satellite image shows the ventilation shaft occupying less than 2% of the roof area of the building. Gamba, Neritani and Schanze accepted this story, adding“improbable as it may sound”. The head of the Russian delegation to the UN General Assembly was more sceptical:

Allegedly, in 2015, in the area of Sarmin town the Syrian government air force helicopter flying at a high altitude at night dropped a barrel with chlorine, which fell exactly into the ventilation shaft of an apartment building, almost of the same diameter. The [JIM] report recognizes that it “sounds improbable” and nevertheless the responsibility has been put on the government of Syria in spite of any common sense and the laws of ballistics.

Although western and Russian officials have stated that the Syrian air force does not have the capability to conduct air strikes at night, and the Syrian government had informed the Joint Investigative Mechanism that there had been no Syrian air force flights over Sarmin on 16 March 2015, Gamba, Neritani and Schanze stated that

the Mechanism obtained information from other sources, which corroborate witness statements of SAAF helicopter flights on the date and time of the incident.

Although the Joint Investigative Mechanism’s report devotes more than 2500 words to “Methodological considerations” and “Methods of work”, no information about these “other sources” is given.

Hospital images

Two videos were recorded in a hospital emergency room over a time span of about five minutes: one bearing the logo of the the White Helmets and the other a logo that includes the flag of the Nusra Front (the Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda). These showed one adult and two children apparently already dead, and one boy about one year old who stopped breathing when he was laid on a trolley. No respiratory support was provided to this child. Others have commented on the inappropriate medical treatment of this child.

The children seen in the videos have no signs of chlorine exposure: no red eyes and no signs of having coughed mucus or blood. The one-year old boy seen in the emergency room and in a previous video can be assessed on the limited evidence of these videos to have a reduced level of consciousness (does not open eyes, does not vocalize, and motor response to handling is minimal). This is consistent with an overdose of a drug such as an opiate causing respiratory depression, rather than chlorine exposure, as the cause of death. The doctor who addressed the UN Security Council described having personally attempted to save these children, but is not seen in these videos.

Suggestions that chlorine and sarin might be used as a mixture

As noted above, several government and non-government sources had suggested that chlorine and sarin might have been used in combination in Douma.

An unexplained finding in the Report of the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission regarding an alleged incident in Saraqib on 4 February 2018 was that the environmental samples contained not only chlorinated organic molecules, as would be expected if chlorine had been released, but also unchlorinated diisopropyl methylphosphonate (an impurity in sarin) and isopropyl methylphosphonate (the main breakdown product of sarin). The FFM’s only comment on these findings was this paragraph:-

The FFM also noted the presence of chemicals that can neither be explained as occurring naturally in the environment nor as being related to chlorine. Furthermore, some of the medical signs and symptoms reported were different to those that would be expected from exposure to pure chlorine. There was insufficient information and evidence to enable the FFM to draw any further conclusions on these chemicals at this stage.

Chlorinated organic molecules and sarin degradation products had been found also in samples from the alleged chemical attack on the Ltamenah cave hospital on 25 March 2017. The FFM attributed this to cross-contamination of the hospital by casualties from an alleged attack the day before in which two sarin-containing munitions were allegedly dropped on agricultural land outside the town. Environmental samples from the alleged incident on 24 March 2017 were not received by the FFM team until eleven months later, after the White Helmets had been prompted to provide them:

Based on information supplied during interviews, the FFM identified munition parts that were of potential interest in relation to the alleged incident of 24 March 2017 and arranged for their collection by an NGO. As a result, further environmental samples and remnants of alleged munition parts were received by the FFM team on 19 February 2018.

Surprisingly, despite the delay in obtaining these samples, they were found to contain intact sarin as well as sarin degradation products. The FFM does not comment on this. As no reports or images of the incident on 24 March appeared at the time, sceptics might doubt that it happened. A possible motive for fabricating the story of a sarin attack on 24 March 2017 could have been to provide an explanation for the anomalous finding of sarin degradation products in the samples provided in April 2017 from the alleged chlorine attack on 25 March.

In interviews on the BBC and RT. the journalist Seymour Hersh indicated that he had seen a US intelligence report that expressed scepticism about the alleged use of chlorine as a weapon in Syria and noted that a mixture of chlorine and sarin would not work because the sarin would be chlorinated

All I can tell you is that the American intelligence community report – I wish I could flash it here – but the American intelligence community has been very clear that there’s no evidence that the Russians, that the Syrians, the regime used a chlorine weapon because there is no such thing … They [the US Army Chemical Corps] tested, in the Fifties, they tested chlorine with nerve agent to see how – whether the chlorine would soup it up. In fact what the chlorine did is it grabbed all the hydrogen molecules and diminished it. There’s just no way you can use sarin and chlorine, as was written about all the time.

This report by Martin Chulov indicates that his source was aware that sarin cannot be mixed with chlorine.

“We’re looking at the possibility that there were separate canisters inside the cylinder,” said one regional official. “[The contents] cannot be mixed, because that would be volatile and unstable, but they can be combined. That’s a working theory – that they were in the same cylinder but kept separately. The point of detonation dispersed them together.”

No such cylinders with separate canisters have been reported from any of the alleged chemical attacks. We can find no published studies of the effect of dry chlorine on organophosphate nerve agents. If the conditions for chlorination (which include exposure to light or presence of impurities that could act as catalysts) were sufficently favourable for other organic molecules to undergo chlorination, we might expect that sarin or its breakdown products would undergo chlorination. If the sources quoted above are correct, the finding of chlorinated organic molecules and unchlorinated sarin breakdown products in the same samples suggests that the sarin breakdown products may have been added later. This casts further doubt on the integrity of the process by which these samples were provided to the Fact-Finding Mission.

*

This article was originally published on Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In August of 2017, Bulgarian reporter Dilyana Gaytandzhieva published a report in mainstream outlet Trud in her home country exposing the paper trail documenting the US, NATO, and Gulf countries were shipping weapons to terrorists in Syria. Gaytandzhieva’s reporting was the result of her own travels to Syria where she saw these documents firsthand and her subsequent follow-up investigation after her return home.

That article, “350 Diplomatic Flights Carry Weapons For Terrorists,” is still available and I highly recommend reading it now before going any further in this article.

Now, nearly a year to the day after Gaytandzhieva’s article was released (for which she was summarily fired), journalist Robert Fisk has conducted a similar investigation and come to similar conclusions. In his article for The Independent, “A Bosnian signs off weapons he says are going to Saudi Arabia – but how did his signature turn up in Aleppo?” Fisk traces back the numbers found on shell casings, mortars, and other weapons used by terrorists to their manufacturers in Bosnia and the United States. He writes,

In the basement of a bombed-out al-Qaeda arms storage building in eastern Aleppo last year, I found a weapons log book from a mortar factory in Bosnia – with the handwritten name of one of their senior officials, Ifet Krnjic, on each page. It was dispatched from the Balkans with a cargo of 500 120mm mortars in January 2016. But now, in the forested heart of central Bosnia, I have found Mr Krnjic, who says his company sent the arms to Saudi Arabia.

Sitting on the lawn of his home south of the weapons-manufacturing town of Novi Travnik, he brings his finger down onto the first page of the log book which I showed him. “This is my signature! Yes, that’s me!” Krnjic exclaims loudly. “It’s a warranty for the 120mm mortar launcher – this is Nato standard. It [the shipment] went to Saudi Arabia. It was part of a supply of 500 mortars. I remember the Saudi shipment well. They [the Saudis] came to our factory to inspect the weapons at the beginning of 2016.”

This is astonishing. Not only does Krnjic, the 64-year old newly retired weapons control director of the BNT-TMiH factory at Novi Travnik, acknowledge his signature – but he says he recalls the visits of Saudi officials and military personnel to inspect the mortars before their shipment to Riyadh, and insists all such sales were strictly in accordance with the legal end-user certificates which his company obtained from all customers, stating that the weapons were to be used only by the armed forces of the nations which purchased them.

Please note that Fisk’s article contains screenshots and photos of the documents in question. He continues,

Five-hundred mortars is a massive shipment of weapons – most European armies don’t have that many in their individual inventories – and some of them at least appear to have ended up in the hands of Bashar al-Assad’s Islamist Nusrah Front/al-Qaeda enemies in northern Syria within six months of their dispatch from Bosnia 1,200 miles away. Because the mortars left Bosnia on 15 January 2016 under a BNT-TMiH factory guarantee for 24 months – numbered 779 and with a weapons series number of 3677 – the documents now in The Independent’s possession must have reached Aleppo by late July of 2016, when Syrian government troops totally surrounded the enclave held by armed factions including Nusrah, Isis and other Islamist groups condemned as “terrorists” by the United States.

When The Independent asked the Saudi authorities to respond to the documents in its possession and their discovery in eastern Aleppo, the Saudi embassy in London replied that the Kingdom did not give “practical or other support to any terrorist organisation [including Nusrah and Isis] in Syria or any other country” and described the allegations raised by The Independentas “vague and unfounded”. It said Saudi Arabia had been a “leading voice within the international community in support of a diplomatic solution to the conflict in Syria, while at the same time working with our neighbours and allies to counter the growth of forces of extremism”. It made no comment on the weapon log book and arms control coupons, photographs of which The Independent had asked it to examine.

. . . . .

During this period, however, the city’s Islamist defenders – most of whom later departed under a promise of safe passage for jihadi-held areas of Idlib province – fired barrages of mortar shells at government-held western Aleppo.

In the weeks that followed the mid-December surrender of the fighters in eastern Aleppo, the square miles of wreckage remained sown with mines and booby-traps. There were whole districts still cordoned off when I entered three former military barracks of the Islamist groups in February 2017, rubble sometimes blocking my path; stones, bricks, sheet metal and bomb fragments strewn across the roads and inside still standing, though badly damaged, buildings. Inside one of these, lying half-concealed amid iron fragments and field dressings, I found piles of discarded documents containing firing instructions for machine guns and mortars, all of them in English.

They also included weapons shipment papers and arms instruction booklets from Bosnia and Serbia, the pages still damp from winter rains and some stained by footprints. I stuffed as many as I could in the satchel I always carry in wars, later finding – in another building – a Bulgarian weapons shipment paper for artillery shells. In a deep basement of a third building in the Ansari district, with the words Jaish al-Mujaheddin (Army of the Holy Fighters) crudely painted but still visible on the front, its upper floors clearly bombed by Syrian or Russian jets, lay dozens of empty boxes for anti-armour weapons, all marked with their maker’s name – the Hughes Aircraft Company, of California. The boxes were labelled “Guided Missile Surface Attack” with stock numbers starting with the computer code “1410-01-300-0254”.

These papers, some of them lying amid smashed guns and pieces of shrapnel, provide the most intriguing paper trail yet discovered of just who is producing the weapons that have armed the Assad regime’s most ferocious Islamist opponents – and how they apparently reach the fighters of Syria via countries ‘friendly’ to the west. While claiming that he would have to “search” for documents on the end-user of the 2016 mortar shipment, Adis Ikanovic, the managing director of the Novi Travnik factory, acknowledged to me in his head office that most of his company’s exports went to “Saudi Arabia, probably”. An email reminder to Ikanovic six days after our meeting, for copies of the 2016 end-user certificate papers for the mortar shipment, elicited no reply.

. . . . .

Milojko Brzakovic, managing director of the Zastava arms factory in Serbia, looks through the arms manuals I found in Aleppo – including a 20-page instruction document for the powerful Coyote MO2 machine gun which his company manufactures – and says “there is not a single country in the Middle East which did not buy weapons from Zastava in the past 15 years”. He agrees that the documents I presented to him, which included a 52-page manual for his company’s 7.62mm M84 machine gun, which I also found in the Aleppo ruins beneath a bombed apartment bloc which had ‘Nusrah’ painted in Arabic on its wall, were published by Zastava in Serbia, and that Saudi Arabia and the Emirates were among his customers.

Ifet Krnjic’s account of the mortar shipment from BNT-TMiH in Bosnia is both precise and detailed. “When the Saudis came to our factory to inspect at the beginning of 2016, there was a Saudi ‘minister’… and some Saudi officers who also came to inspect the weapons before receiving them. The officers wore civilian clothes. The minister was in a robe. All our production after the [Bosnian] war is under the control of the Americans and Nato who are always coming here… and they know each and every piece of our weapons which go outside our factory.”

Krnjic, who lives in the tiny village of Potok Krnjic, Bosnian hamlets sometimes carry the names of extended families, south of Novi Travnik, describes how he recognised Nato officers visiting the plant, one of them “a Canadian officer, a black guy whose name is Stephen”. Ikanovic, the BNT-TMiH boss, confirms that all weapons shipments, including those to Saudi Arabia, were checked by the European Union Force Althea (EUFOR), the successor to Nato’s SFOR, and set up under the 1995 Dayton accords which ended the Bosnian war. Ikanovic says an Austrian general visits his factory for inspections, identified to me by other employees as Austrian two star Major General Martin Dorfer, the EUFOR commander. Krnjic says weapons from the plant are exported by Tuzla airport or through Sarajevo.

The Saudis, Krnjic tells me, “were never complaining because we have had a very good reputation for a long time, not only for our weapons but for who can give the shortest delivery date… I know I should not say all of this, but Nato and the EU have given us the green light to do this. Ours is the only mortar that can shoot from asphalt. Each mortar has a base plate, but other base plates [from other countries’ mortars] break – they can only be used on soft ground. With ours, the mortars can also be carried in sacks – they are three shells, one barrel, you shoot at a building and then you disappear. Only Chinese mortars are better than ours – I saw them in Iraq.”

It transpires that although Krnjic has never visited Syria, he was employed in a weapons factory built by BNT-TMiH in Iraq in 1986, during the eight year Iran-Iraq war. “I was working inside the factory in Iraq – I wasn’t waging a war there” he says. “The factory there was more modern than ours [in Novi Travnik] – we were in Fallujah and Ramadi. By that time, we were already doing rocket launchers for Saddam, 260mm with a range of 500km. I saw Saddam three times.”

But Novi Travnik’s fortunes declined when the Bosnian war began in 1992, its once 10,000-strong workforce today reduced to fewer than 900. Much of the factory compound is now overgrown with rusted steel walls around some of its machine shops. Krnjic, a member of Bosnia’s Social Democratic Party and a veteran of the country’s civil war, retired from the company some months before Ikanovic was appointed managing director.

“I cannot export anything without a licence with the approval of five different ministers here in Bosnia, and it [the contract] is overlooked by Nato,” Ikanovic said. “We can only sell to countries which are on Nato’s ‘white list’.” Like Krnjic, and Brzakovic in Serbia, he says that his arms company must receive an internationally recognised end-user certificate for any arms export – but agrees that exporters had neither an obligation nor any way of preventing the further shipment of its weapons to third parties once they had arrived at their initial destination.

Fisk followed up his article with another entitled, “I traced missile casings in Syria back to their original sellers, so it’s time for the west to reveal who they sell arms to,” also published in The Independent. In that article he writes,

Readers, a small detective story. Note down this number: MFG BGM-71E-1B. And this number: STOCK NO 1410-01-300-0254. And this code: DAA A01 C-0292. I found all these numerals printed on the side of a spent missile casing lying in the basement of a bombed-out Islamist base in eastern Aleppo last year. At the top were the words “Hughes Aircraft Co”, founded in California back in the 1930s by the infamous Howard Hughes and sold in 1997 to Raytheon, the massive US defence contractor whose profits last year came to $23.35bn (£18bn). Shareholders include the Bank of America and Deutsche Bank. Raytheon’s Middle East offices can be found in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Egypt, Turkey and Kuwait.

There were dozens of other used-up identical missile casings in the same underground room in the ruins of eastern Aleppo, with sequential codings; in other words, these anti-armour missiles – known in the trade as Tows, “Tube-launched, optically tracked and wire-guided missiles” – were not individual items smuggled into Syria through the old and much reported CIA smugglers’ trail from Libya. These were shipments, whole batches of weapons that left their point of origin on military aircraft pallets.

Some time ago, in the United States, I met an old Hughes Aircraft executive who laughed when I told him my story of finding his missiles in eastern Aleppo. When the company was sold, Hughes had been split up into eight components, he said. But assuredly, this batch of rockets had left from a US government base. Amateur sleuths may have already tracked down the first set of numbers above. The “01” in the stock number is a Nato coding for the US, and the BGM-71E is a Raytheon Systems Company product. There are videos of Islamist fighters using the BGM-71E-1B variety in Idlib province two years before I found the casings of other anti-tank missiles in neighbouring Aleppo. As for the code: DAA A01 C-0292, I am still trying to trace this number.

Even if I can find it, however, I can promise readers one certain conclusion. This missile will have been manufactured and sold by Hughes/Raytheon absolutely legally to a Nato, pro-Nato or “friendly” (i.e. pro-American) power (government, defence ministry, you name it), and there will exist for it an End User Certificate (EUC), a document of impeccable provenance which will be signed by the buyers – in this case by the chaps who purchased the Tow missiles in very large numbers – stating that they are the final recipients of the weapons.

There is no guarantee this promise will be kept, but – as the arms manufacturers I’ve been talking to in the Balkans over the past weeks yet again confirm – there is neither an obligation nor an investigative mechanism on the part of the arms manufacturers to ensure that their infinitely expensive products are not handed over by “the buyers” to Isis, al-Nusra/al-Qaeda – which was clearly the case in Aleppo – or some other anti-Assad Islamist group in Syria branded by the US State Department itself as a “terrorist organisation”.

Of course, the weapons might have been sent (illegally under the terms of the unenforceable EUC) to a nice, cuddly, “moderate” militia like the now largely non-existent “Free Syrian Army”, many of whose weapons – generously donated by the west – have fallen into the hands of the “Bad Guys”; i.e. the folk who want to overthrow the Syrian regime (which would please the west) but who would like to set up an Islamist cult-dictatorship in its place (which would not please the west).

Thus al-Nusra can be the recipients of missiles from our “friends” in the region – here, please forget the EUCs – or from those mythical “moderates” who in turn hand them over to Isis/al-Nusra, etc, for cash, favours, fear or fratricidal war and surrender.

It is a fact, I’m sorry to recall, that of all the weapons I saw used in the 15-year Lebanese civil war (1975-1990), not one was in the hands of those to whom those same weapons were originally sold. Russian and Bulgarian Kalashnikovs sold to Syria were used by Palestinian guerrillas, old American tanks employed by the Lebanese Christian Phalange/Lebanese forces were gifts from the Israelis who received them from the US.

These outrageous weapons shipments were constantly recorded at the time – but in such a way that you might imagine that the transfers were enshrined in law (“American-made, Israeli-supplied” used to be the mantra). The Phalange, in fact, also collected bunches of British, Soviet, French and Yugoslav armour – the Zastava arms factory in the Serbian city of Kragujevac, which I have just visited, featured among the latter – for their battles.
In eastern Aleppo, who knows what “gifts” to the city’s surviving citizens in the last months of the war acquired a new purpose? Smashed Mitsubishi pick-up trucks, some in camouflage paint, others in neutral colours, were lying in the streets I walked through. Were they stolen by al-Nusra? Or simply used by NGOs? Did they arrive, innocently enough, in the lot whose documents, also found in Aleppo, registered “Five Mitsubishi L200 Pick Up” sent by “Shipper: Conflict, Humanitarian and Security Department (Chase), Whitehall SW1A SEG London”?

Of course they did – alongside the Glasgow ambulance I found next to a gas canister bomb dump on the Aleppo front line at Beni Zeid in 2016, whose computer codings I reported in The Independent at great length – five codings in all – and to which the Scottish Ambulance Authority responded by saying they could not trace the ambulance because they needed more details.

But back to guns and artillery. Why don’t Nato track all these weapons as they leave Europe and America? Why don’t they expose the real end-users of these deadly shipments? The arms manufacturers I spoke to in the Balkans attested that Nato and the US are fully aware of the buyers of all their machine guns and mortars. Why can’t the details of those glorious end user certificates be made public – as open and free for us to view as are the frightful weapons which the manufacturers are happy to boast in their catalogues.

It was instructive that when The Independent asked the Saudis last week to respond to Bosnian weapons shipment documents I found in eastern Aleppo last year (for 120mm mortars) – which the factory’s own weapons controller recalled were sent from Novi Travnik to Saudi Arabia – they replied that they (the Saudis) did not provide support of any kind “to any terrorist organisation”, that al-Nusra and Isis were designated “terrorist organisations” by Saudi Royal Decree and that the “allegations” (sic) were “vague and unfounded”.

But what did this mean? Government statements in response to detailed reports of arms shipments should not be the last word – and there is an important question that remained unanswered in the Saudi statement. The Saudis themselves had asked for copies of the shipment documents – yet they did not specifically say whether they did or did not receive this shipment of mortars, nor comment upon the actual papers which The Independent sent them.

These papers were not “vague” – nor was the memory of the Bosnian arms controller who said they went with the mortars to Saudi Arabia and whose shipment papers I found in Syria. Indeed, Ifet Krnjic, the man whose signature I found in eastern Aleppo, has as much right to have his word respected as that of the Saudi authorities. So what did Saudi Arabia’s military personnel – who were surely shown the documents – make of them? What does “unfounded” mean? Were the Saudis claiming by the use of this word that the documents were forgeries?

These are questions, of course, which should be taken up by the international authorities in the Balkans. Nato’s and the EU’s writ still runs in the wreckage of Bosnia and both have copies of the documents I found in Aleppo. Are they making enquiries about this shipment, which Krnjic said went to Saudi Arabia, and the shipping documents which clearly ended up in the hands of al-Nusra – papers of which Nato and the EU had knowledge when the transfer was originally made?

All of this information, however, was documented at least a year ago when Bulgarian reporter Dilyana Gaytandzhieva was provided leaked documents showing Azerbaijani airline Silk Way Airlines was trafficking weapons via diplomatic flights.

The report by Gaytandzhieva entitled, “350 Diplomatic Flights Carry Weapons For Terrorists,” blew the lid on a secret program to provide weapons to terrorists in Iraq and Syria as well as anti-Houthi militants in Yemen. Gaytandzhieva’s report claimed that the documents leaked to her by anonymous sources show that the Azberbaijani airline Silk Way Airlines was contracted by companies in the United States, Israel, and the Balkans to the militaries of Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates as well as U.S. Special Ops. Gaytandzhieva’s own on-the-ground reporting also uncovered many weapons related to this secret trade in Aleppo after she had traveled there to investigate the story.

PLEASE NOTE: It is important to visit Gaytandzhieva’s original article in which she presents scanned copies of the documents sent to her. 

Gaytandzhieva reported that at least 350 diplomatic flights by Silk Way Airlines (an Azeri state-run company) transported weapons all across the world to various war zones over the past three years. She writes that the planes carried “tens of tons of heavy weapons and ammunition headed to terrorists under the cover of diplomatic flights.” Gaytandzhieva stated that the documents implicating Silk Way Airlines were sent to her on Twitter by Anonymous Bulgaria.

She reported that the documents included correspondence between the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Embassy of Azerbaijan to Bulgaria. They also include documents which were attached requesting clearance for overflight and/or landing in Bulgaria and many other countries in Europe as well as the United States, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Turkey including others still.

According to Gaytandzhieva, the documents show Silk Way Airlines offering diplomatic flights to private companies and arm manufacturers in Israel, the Balkans, and the United States as well as the UAE, KSA, militaries and U.S. Special Ops Command (USSOCOM). The airline also offered its services to the militaries of Germany and Denmark in Afghanistan and to Sweden in Iraq.

According to Gaytandzhieva, the diplomatic flights were utilized because they are exempt from checks, taxes, and air bills. For that reason, she stated that the Silk Way planes transported “hundreds of tons of weapons to different locations around the world without regulation” and for free. The reporter wrote that the planes made stops ranging from a few hours up to a whole day for no logical reason i.e. repair, refueling, etc., thus lending further evidence that the planes were indeed shipping weapons as a primary mission.

Gaytandzhieva wrote that the International Air Transport Association (IATA) requires that “Dangerous Goods, Regulations, operators, transporting dangerous goods forbidden transportation by civil aircrafts, must apply for exemption for transportation of dangerous goods by air.” She stated that, according to the documents she received, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry sent instructions to its embassies in Bulgaria and other European countries requesting diplomatic clearance for Silk Way Airlines flights. The embassies then sent diplomatic notes to the Foreign Ministry of the host countries to request the exemption. The Foreign Ministry would then send back a note signed by the local civil aviation authorities granting the necessary exemption for the transport of the dangerous goods by air.

These requests, according to the documents and the report, included information about the type and quantity of the goods on board, listed as “heavy weapons and ammunition.” Still, Gaytandzhieva wrote, “the responsible authorities of many countries (Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Poland, Turkey, Germany, UK, Greece, etc.) have turned a blind eye and allowed diplomatic flights for the transport of tons of weapons, carried out by civil aircrafts for military needs.”

US Connection

The main customers of the “flights for weapons” program seem to be American companies which supply weaponry to the U.S. military and Special Operations Command. In the cases being addressed by Gaytandzhieva, however, all the weapons being transported are “non-Standard” weapons, meaning those not used by the U.S. military or Special ops.

According to the “register of federal contracts,” American companies were awarded contracts for $1 billion over the last three years under a program for “non-US standard weapons supplies.” According to the documents analyzed by Gaytanzhieva, all of these companies used Silk Way Airlines for the weapons transport. In some cases where Silk Way Airlines was too busy to accommodate shipment, Azerbaijan Air Force planes were used to transport the weapons. The weapons, however, never reached Azerbaijan.

Gaytanzhieva writes,

The documents leaked from the Embassy include shocking examples of weapon transport. A case in point: on 12th May 2015 an aircraft of Azerbaijan Air Forces carried 7,9 tons of PG-7V and 10 tons of PG-9V to the supposed destination via the route Burgas (Bulgaria)-Incirlik (Turkey)-Burgas-Nasosny (Azerbaijan). The consignor was the American company Purple Shovel, and the consignee – the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan. According to the documents, however, the military cargo was offloaded at Incirlik military base and never reached the consignee. The weapons were sold to Purple Shovel by Alguns, Bulgaria, and manufactured by Bulgaria’s VMZ military plant.

According to the federal contracts registry, in December of 2014 USSOCOM signed a $26.7 million contract with Purple Shovel. Bulgaria was indicated as the country of origin of the weapons.

On 6th June 2015, a 41-year old American national Francis Norvello, an employee of Purple Shovel, was killed in a blast when a rocket-propelled grenade malfunctioned at a military range near the village of Anevo in Bulgaria. Two other Americans and two Bulgarians were also injured. The US Embassy to Bulgaria then released a statement announcing that the U.S. government contractors were working on a U.S. military program to train and equip moderate rebels in Syria. Which resulted in the U.S. Ambassador in Sofia to be immediately withdrawn from her post. The very same weapons as those supplied by Purple Shovel were not used by moderate rebels in Syria. In December of last year while reporting on the battle of Aleppo as a correspondent for Bulgarian media I found and filmed 9 underground warehouses full of heavy weapons with Bulgaria as their country of origin. They were used by Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria designated as a terrorist organization by the UN).

Another U.S. contractor involved in the same program for non-US standard military supplies is Orbital ATK. This company received $250 million over just the past two years. Information as to what type of weapons and to whom those weapons were supplied is classified.

According to the documents, Orbital ATK transported weapons on 6 diplomatic Silk Way Airlines flights in July and August of 2015 flying the route Baku (Azerbaijan)-Tuzla (Bosnia and Herzegovina)-Baku-Kabul (Afghanistan). The weapons were exported by IGMAN j.j. Konjic, (Bosnia and Herzegovina) commissioned by Orbital ATK. The consignee was the National Police of Afghanistan. Interestingly, all these diplomatic flights with weapons had technical landings and a 7 h 30 min stop at Baku before their final destination – Afghanistan.

Military aircrafts of Azerbaijan transported 282 tons of cargo (PG-7VL and other grenades) on 10 diplomatic flights in April and May 2017 to the destination Baku-Rijeka (Croatia)-Baku. The consignor was the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan, and the consignee – Culmen International LLC, USA. This same company has been awarded two contracts ($47 million each) along with other contractors for non-US standard weapon supplies on 18 February 2016 and 19 April 2017 respectively. Culmen International LLC has also signed a $26.7 million contract for foreign weapons with the Department of Defense and a $3.9 million contract for newly manufactured non-US standard weapons.
Chemring Military Products is another main contractor in the program for non-US standard weapon supplies to the US army through diplomatic Silk Way Airlines flights. This military supplier has 4 contracts for $302.8 million in total. The weapons were purchased from local manufacturers in Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania and according to documents transported to Iraq and Afghanistan via diplomatic flights.

One of those flights in particular, on 18 October 2016, carrying 15.5 tons of 122 mm rockets bought by Chemring in Belgrade, Serbia, was diverted from its destination – Kabul, and instead landed in Lahore, Pakistan. After a 2-hour stop, the aircraft took off to Afghanistan. The only possible explanation for the extension of the flight by a thousand kilometers is offloading in Pakistan, even though documents stated that the cargo was destined for Afghanistan.

The largest non-US standard weapons supplier to the US army is Alliant Techsystems Operations-USA with contracts totalling $490.4 million. In December of 2016, this company transported tons of grenades (API 23×115 mm, HE 23×115 mm, GSH 23×115 mm) from Yugoimport, Serbia to the Afghani Defense Ministry on diplomatic flights to the destination Baku-Belgrade-Kabul.

The Saudi Connection

The United States is by no means the sole patron of Silk Way Airlines and the diplomatic cover business for arms transfers. As many as 23 diplomatic flights carrying weapons from Bulgaria, Serbia, and Azerbaijan to Riyadh and Jedda were utilized according to Gaytanzhieva’s investigation. The consignees were listed as VMC military plant and Transmobile of Bulgaria, Yugoimport in Serbia, and CIHAZ in Azerbaijan, according to the documents.

It must be noted that KSA was clearly not purchasing those weapons for itself because KSA only uses Western weapons. It seems obvious that, if the documents are accurate, the weapons were those being funneled to terrorists in Syria and Yemen. KSA also provides weapons to southern Africa where wars, civil wars, warlords, and terror are commonplace due to the region’s vast amounts of natural wealth.

Gaytanzhieva writes,

On 28 April and 12 May this year, Silk Way carried out two diplomatic flights from Baku to Burgas-Jeddah-Brazzaville (Republic of Congo). The military cargo on-board of both flights was paid for by Saudi Arabia, according to the documents leaked from Azerbaijan’s Embassy to Bulgarian sources. The aircraft made a technical landing at Jeddah airport with a 12 h 30 min stop for the first flight and 14 h stop for the second one.

The aircraft was loaded with mortars and anti-tank grenades including SPG-9 and GP-25. These very same weapons were discovered by the Iraqi army a month ago in an Islamic State warehouse in Mosul. Islamic State jihadists are also seen using those heavy weapons in propaganda videos posted online by the terrorist group. Interestingly, the consignee on the transport documents, however, is the Republican Guards of Congo.

Coyote machine gun 12,7х108 mm appeared in videos and photos posted online by militant groups in Idlib and the province of Hama in Syria. The same type of weapon was transported on a diplomatic flight via Turkey and Saudi Arabia a few months earlier.

In February and March of 2017, Saudi Arabia received 350 tons of weapons on Silk Way diplomatic flights flying to the route Baku-Belgrade-Prince Sultan-Baku. The cargo included 27 350 psc. 128-mm Plamen-a rockets and 10 000 pcs. 122 mm Grad rockets. The consignor was Tehnoremont Temerin, Serbia to order by Famеway Investment LTD, Cypruss.

On 5 March 2016, an Azerbaijan Air Force aircraft carried 1700 pcs. RPG-7 (consignor: Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan) and 2500 pcs. PG-7VM (consignor: Transmobilе Ltd., Bulgaria) for the Defense Ministry of Saudi Arabia. Diplomatic flights from Burgas Airport to Prince Sultan Airport on 18 and 28 February 2017 each carried a further 5080 psc. 40 mm PG-7V for RPG-7 and 24 978 psc. RGD-5. The weapons were exported by Transmobile, Bulgaria to the Ministry of Defense of Saudi Arabia. Such munitions and RPG-7 originating in Bulgaria can often be seen in videos filmed and posted by the Islamic State on their propaganda channels.

UAE also uses western standard weapons for its military. However, it is also another country that purchased non-standard weapons which were then apparently transferred to a third party. Gaytanzhieva writes,

On three flights to Burgas-Abu Dhabi-Swaihan in March and April of 2017, Silk Way transported 10.8 tons of PG7VM HEAT for 40 mm RPG-7 on each flight with technical landing and a 2-hour stop in Abu Dhabi. The exporter is Samel-90, Bulgaria, the importer – Al Tuff International Company LLC. The latter company is involved with Orbital ATK LLC, which is the Middle East subsidiary of the American military company Orbital ATK. Although the ultimate consignee is the UAE army, the documents of the flight reveal that the sponsoring party is Saudi Arabia.

Cash And Carry

Gaytanzhieva reported that, on February 26, 2016, an Azeri Air Force plane took off from Baku and landed in UAE. At this point, it loaded two armored vehicles and a Lexus car. The payment, according to the “request for clearance” documents showed that the payment was made in U.S. dollars cash. The plane then landed in North Sudan and, the next day, it landed in the Republic of Congo. Safe Cage Armour Works FZ LLC., UAE was listed as the exporter and the Republican Guards of the Congo was listed as the receiving entity. Saudi Arabia was the sponsoring party.

White Phosphorous

Although not specifically considered a “chemical weapon” in the traditional sense, White Phosphorous is, in effect, a chemical agent. It is used largely for its smoke screening purposes but there is also a psychological element since contact with white phosphorous results in excruciatingly painful deep first, second, and third degree burns.

The use of white phosphorous over heavily populated civilian areas is prohibited under international law. In fact, white phosphorous is only allowed if the agent is being used for the purposes of masking or camouflage. If being used as a weapon, it is banned as a chemical weapon under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

With that in mind, Gaytanzhieva writes,

White Phosphorus is an incendiary weapon whose use is very controversial due to the deadly harms it can inflict. On 31 March 2015, Silk Way transported 26 tons of military cargo including white phosphorus from Serbia (exporter: Yugoimport) and 63 tons from Bulgaria (exporter: Arsenal). On 22 March, another 100 tons of white phosphorus were exported from Yugoimport, Belgrade to Kabul. No contract is attached to the documents of those flights.

On 2 May 2015, a Silk Way aircraft loaded 17 tons of ammunition, including white phosphorus, at Burgas airport. The exporter was Dunarit, Bulgaria. The aircraft made a technical landing and a 4-hour stop at Baku before reaching its final destination – Kabul. The consignee was the Afghani police. No contract is attached as proof.

Baku – The Secret Weapons Hub For The World

Although Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense is routinely listed as the consignee for weapons, it routinely did not receive the arms it was slated to obtain. For instance, according to Gaytandzhieva, on May 6, 2015, an Azeri military plane flew to Burgas, Bulgaria to Incirlik Turkey and back to Burgas. That flight carried aviation equipment from Bulgaria to Turkey with EMCO LTD, Sofia listed as the consigner and the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan listed as the consignee. The cargo, however, was unloaded in Turkey and never even touched down in Azerbaijan.

Gaytanzhieva asserts that some of the weapons carried on diplomatic Azeri flights were used by Azerbaijan against Nagorno-Karabakh against Armenia. Back in 2016, Azerbaijan accused Armenia of using white phosphorous but Armenia denied the Azeri allegations. Armenia accused Azerbaijan of making the story up for propaganda purposes. Indeed, she writes, the only evidence that Azerbaijan could produce was one unexploded grenade discovered by Azeri soldiers. She also asserts that documents from the Embassy of Azerbaijan in Sofia, Bulgaria showed that white phosphorous weapons were transported on a diplomatic flight via Baku in 2015.

She writes,

Baku plays the role of an international hub for weapons. Many of the flights make technical landings with stops of a few hours at Baku airport or other intermediary airports en-route to their final destinations. Moreover, these types of aircrafts flying to the same destinations do not typically make technical landings. Therefore, a landing for refueling is not actually required. Despite this, Silk Way aircrafts constantly made technical landings. A case in point: in December of 2015 Silk Way carried out 14 flights with 40 tons of weapons on each flight to the destination Ostrava (the Czech Republic)-Ovda (Israel)-Nososny (Azerbaijan). The exporter is not mentioned in the documents while the receiver is consistently the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan. Strangely, the aircraft diverted and landed at Ovda airport (a military base in Southern Israel), where it remained for 2 hours.

In 2017, there were 5 flights from Nish (Serbia) via Ovda (Israel) to Nasosny (Azerbaijan). Each flight carried 44 tons of cargo – SPG Howitzer, RM-70/85. The consignor is MSM Martin, Serbia, the consignee: Elbit Systems, Israel, and the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan. All aircrafts landed in Israel and stayed for 2 hours en-route to Azerbaijan.

The same Israeli company Elbit Systems on a flight from Barno (the Czech Republic) via Tel Aviv (Israel) to Bratislava (Slovakia) re-exported armored vehicles (TATRA T-815 VP31, TATRA T-815 VPR9). They were sent by Real Trade, Prague to Elbit Systems. The ultimate consignee, however, was the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan. The aircraft landed in Tel Aviv and then in Bratislava, where the cargo was imported by another company – MSM Martin, Slovakia. It is not clear why the plane flew from Europe to Asia and then back to Europe with the same cargo on-board. Ultimately, it did not reach its final destination – Azerbaijan. This type of aircraft, IL 76TD, can carry cargo of up to 50 tons. This one carried only 30 tons according to the documentation provided. Therefore, it could carry additional cargo of 20 tons. Since the flight was diplomatic, it was not subjected to inspection.

Burkina Faso’s Military Coup

Gaytanzhieva also draws a connection between diplomatic weapons flights landing in Brazzaville, Burkina Faso, dropping off non-standard weapons. A week after the weapons were dropped a coup was attempted in the country. She writes,

Some diplomatic flights carry weapons for different conflict zones crossing Europe, Asia and Africa. Such is the case with two Azerbaijan Air Forces flights to the destination Baku-Belgrade-Jeddah-Brazzaville-Burkina Faso on 30 August and 5 September 2015. The consignors were CIHAZ, Azerbaijan, and Yugoimport, Serbia. The consignee was the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Congo. The aircraft made two technical landings – in Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

The 41.2-ton cargo from Baku and Belgrade included: 7, 62 mm cartridges, 12 pcs. sniper rifles, 25 pcs. М12 “Black Spear” calibre 12,7х108 mm, 25 psc. RBG 40×46 mm/6M11, and 25 pcs. Coyote machine gun 12,7х108 mm with tripods. The same heavy machine gun appeared in videos and photos posted online by militant groups in Idlib and the province of Hama in Syria a few months later. The aircraft also carried: 1999 psc. M70B1 7,62х39 mm and 25 psc. М69А 82 мм. On 26 February 2016, a video featuring the same М69А 82 mm weapons was posted to Youtube by a militant group calling itself Division 13 and fighting north of Aleppo.

Interestingly, the aircraft that carried the same type of weapons landed in Diyarbakir (Turkey), 235 km away from the border with Syria. Another type of weapon, RBG 40 mm/6M11, which was from the same flight and supposedly destined for Congo too, appeared in a video of the Islamic Brigade of Al Safwa in Northern Aleppo.

After Turkey, the aircraft landed in Saudi Arabia and remained there for a day. Afterwards it landed in Congo and Burkina Faso. A week later, there was an attempted military coup in Burkina Faso.

The Kurdish Connection

Gaytanzhieva also documents how Kurdish groups such as the YPG have been receiving arms transporting by these secret diplomatic flights. She writes,

In March of 2017, over 300 tons of weapons were allegedly sent to the People’s Protection Units (YPG) in Northern Syria. Six diplomatic flights transported 43 tons of grenades on each flight from VMZ Military Plant, Bulgaria, to the Defense Ministry of Iraq. There are no contracts applied, however. On 28 March, 82 tons of cargo (AKM 7,62×39 mm and AG-7) were sent from Otopeni (Romania) to Erbil (Iraqi Kurdistan). The consignor was Romtechnica S.A., the consignee – again the Ministry of Defense in Baghdad. No contracts are provided for this flight either.

On 16 March 2016, yet another Silk Way diplomatic flight carried 40 tons of military cargo from Slovenia to Erbil: the exporter is ELDON S.R.O., Slovakia, the importer – Wide City Ltd. Co, Erbil, the final consignee – the government of Kurdistan.

Wide City Ltd. Co has three offices – in Limassol (Cyprus), Sofia (Bulgaria) and Erbil. The office of the Bulgarian company Techno Defence Ltd is at the address in Sofia. On the website of the company, the owner of Techno Defense Ltd Hair Al Ahmed Saleh claims that he has an office in Erbil and that his company manufactures Zagros weapons in Azerbaijan (K15 zagros, 9×19 mm and automatic K16 zagros). These types of Zagros weapons appeared in propaganda footage posted by the military wing of the Kurdish PKK party, which is designated as a terrorist organisation by Turkey. The President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliev is also an ethnical Kurd.

Gaytandzhieva states that she reached out to all sides for questions and statements on her investigation but never received an answer or comment.

Gaytandzhieva Fired From Newspaper After Questioning

Although the report was months old, Qatari-based al-Jazeera ran the story and revealed that Gaytanzhieva had been interrogated by the Bulgarian national security services and subsequently fired from her job with the paper. The reporter later tweeted and confirmed that she had indeed been questioned by security services and fired from her job.

Conclusion

Gaytandzhieva’s report was groundbreaking to say the least not simply because she exposed the fact that Western and gulf countries are procuring weapons for conflicts across the globe but also because she exposed the direct mechanism that they have undertaken to accomplish the weapons facilitation.

Fisk’s report is also groundbreaking in that it has not only corroborated the work of Gaytandzhieva but also because it has unearthed further connections and shed light upon some of the exact players in the terrorist funding game.

*

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

British media have singled out the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party for relentless and unprecedented accusations of widespread anti-Semitism. The same media have almost completely ignored far more widespread and easier-to-prove prejudice in the governing Conservative (Tory) party. Occasional reports have not amounted to daily, hysterical attacks against the Tories, as is the case with Labour.

Former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s remarks about veiled women looking like “letter boxes” is the tip of a very large iceberg.[i] A few months ago, the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism, E. Tendayi Achiume, highlighted what she called “structural racism” at the heart of British society.[ii]

In 2015, ex-Tory advisor, Derek Laud (who is black), told British media, with specific reference to how the Tories treat the migration issue:

“There is no other party better at pointing the blame their way than the Tories. They are the ultimate racists because they deal in stereotypes.”[iii]

But Laud didn’t stop there. Referring to the treatment of black Tory candidate for west London, Shaun Bailey in 2010, Laud said:

“They saw in Shaun a stereotype of what they wanted – black, presentable, committed. But as soon as he had served his purpose they dropped him.”[iv]

In 2016 (updated this year), the British union UNITE published a dossier of alleged and confirmed racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and Islamophobia within the Tory party. The report made no recommendations and states:

“the Conservative Party is regularly beset by allegations of racism against its MPs, councillors and candidates. It’s also clear that only rarely do such instances – even when particularly offensive – result in the person being expelled from the Party.”[v]

In 2016, Dr Feyzi Ismail reported that the British Tory government was refusing to host an online petition to call for an inquiry into racism.[vi]

What follows is a chronology of allegations and confirmations of prejudice made against Tory politicians and councillors. Boris Johnson deserves a separate article of his own for the racist things he’s said and written. (For a Johnson compilation, see Chapter 2 of my book, The Great Brexit Swindle(2016, Clairview Books)). Years covered in this article are 2015 (when the Tories came into office) to the present.

2015

January: Peter Batty, Tory leader for Hinckley and Bosworth, passed on emails containing jokes about black people and Pakistani flood victims.[vii]

April: The Limbury Mead Residents Page Facebook group run by candidate David Coulter posted in reference to Irish travellers: “Red Alert! Be aware the pikies have moved the car park at the shops [sic]. LOCK YOUR DOORS- GUARD YOUR VEHICLES. It is not politically correct, but be damned, they are thieving troublemakers and we need vigilance” (emphasis in original). Coulter denies writing it and said he personally deleted it.[viii]

April: Candidate for Derby Council, Gulzabeen Afsar, was suspended after saying she’d never support then-Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, whom she referred to as “the Jew.”[ix]

May: No action was taken when councillor Thomas Crockett of Maida Vale compared local youngsters to Hitler Youth.[x]

May: Following a police investigation, no action was taken after Leicestershire Cllr Bob Fahey referred to one colleague as “the Indian” and another as a “Chink.”[xi]

June: Dover District Cllr Bob Frost tweeted that a Big Issue (homeless magazine) salesperson should “fuck off back to Romania.” Frost said it was satire. (Frost has a history of posting racist abuse, or “satire”: calling rioters in London in 2011 “jungle bunnies” and Arabs “sons of camel drivers”).[xii]

July: PM Cameron referred to refugees as a “swarm.”[xiii]

September: Cllr for East Renfreshire, Gordon McCaskill, implied that refugees are terrorists when he tweeted that he wished to see those in Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon’s house reveal themselves to be “Daesh moles.” He was suspended.[xiv]

September: It was reported that Mike Kusneraitis, Cllr for Runnymede Borough Council, Surrey, posted numerous images, including a dog with a towel over its head, presumably in relation to Arabs or Muslims in general. Kusneraitis apologised and said he never meant to cause offense.[xv]

October: Cllr Jim Buckley of Rugby tweeted about Sadiq Khan: “Your next London Mayor? You think his corner shop would be open on a Saturday?” Buckley was suspended but later cleared of wrongdoing.[xvi]

December: Then-adviser to PM David Cameron, Oliver Letwin was exposed as saying in 1985 (when working for Margaret Thatcher) that black people had “bad moral attitudes” and that employment programs would see them move “into unemployment and crime.”[xvii]

December: Bassett and Swaything Conservative Association member, Valerie Laurent, said: “You know the little brown boy who’s standing for Swaything? That should have been mine.” Laurent later resigned, denying the allegation.[xviii]

2016

January: PM Cameron referred to refugees as “a bunch of migrants.”[xix]

February: Cllr for Trafford, Manchester, Matthew Sephton (who was later jailed on child abuse charges), posted a sarcastic leaflet aimed at the welfare state inviting foreigners to “consider moving to England, The Welfare Country,” which also implies that immigrants are scroungers.[xx]

April: Tory Cllr David Whittingham was stripped of membership and sacked from the Fareham North West council borough after he told housing officers he didn’t want any foreigners living near him (by foreigners, he meant non-whites). Whittingham was expelled from the party.[xxi]

April: Abdul Zaman, deputy chair of Bradford’s Conservative Association, implied that due his area being influenced by the Biradri system, Jews and Christians will be assimilated politically. He was suspended.[xxii]

June: Cllr Heather Venter of Driffield, Yorkshire, “liked” social media posts saying: “Shouldn’t employ Muslims. Nothing but trouble” and, “Sadly, looks like Romania’s Gypsy begger/pickpockets [sic] will b [sic] soon replaced by African Muslims.”[xxiii]

August: Cllr Andrew Dransfield, vice chair of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes’ fire authority, said to a black firefighter, “You’re the first one I’ve seen …  [an] ethnic minority … Now all we need is a woman.” He was suspended.[xxiv]

2017

January: Cllr David Dean of Merton was re-admitted (in April) to the party after he allegedly said to a constituent of Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan: “as a white man … you will be a pariah in your own town. He will treat you like dirt.” Dean denies it.[xxv]

February: Cllr Alan Pearmain deputy chair of the South Ribble Conservative Association and Farington Parish Councillor posted a favourable comment about a tweet featuring Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott (who is black), as an orangutan. Cllr Pearmain describes himself on Twitter as “slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.”[xxvi]

April: Cllr Ray Bray of Shelley on Kirkburton Parish Council appeared to have published a series of tweets about “Muzzie rapists” and taxi drivers. When quizzed by the media, he said he could not remember whether or not he’d posted them. He then said that his twitter account was hacked. Bray was suspended.[xxvii]

May: Warwick District Councillor Nick Harrington was suspended after saying Ireland can “Keep your f’king gypsies! Hard border coming folks!” (his self-censorship). The Warwick District Council said that Cllr Harrington could not be sacked because he is an elected official and not an employee.[xxviii]

May: Michael R. Watson, Kirklees Cllr for the Denby Dale Ward was reported liking tweets, including pro-Nazi messages implying that “men” do not want big breasted women, but rather Nazi Aryan women. He was suspended.[xxix]

June: Following criticism of PM Theresa May over her seemingly indifferent response to the deaths of dozens of people in Grenfell Tower, Tory candidate for Coventry South, Michelle Lowe, tweeted a picture of Hitler and said sarcastically, “Politicians should go out and hug the public more. It proves they are nice people.”[xxx]

June: Gloucestershire County Councillor Lynden Stowe: “I think that some of Corbyn’s policies and the way he behaves are not dissimilar to some of the ways the National Socialist Party came about.” Calling Corbyn an anti-Semite, Stowe added: “In what he is trying to do with some of the younger people – it’s not dissimilar to Hitler Youth.”[xxxi]

July: MP for Newton Abbot, Devon, Anne Marie Morris, had the whip restored in December after she was briefly punished in July for using the anachronism, “Nigger in the woodpile” in relation to Brexit.[xxxii]

July: Tory Cllr Rosemary Carroll of Pendle Borough Council denigrated poor people, ethnic minorities and dogs by comparing poor minorities to dogs, tweeting that they “stink,” have never worked and are brown. Carroll was suspended and claims she shared the joke accidentally.[xxxiii]

August: It was reported that Stirling councillor Robert Davies tweeted of black people boarding a plane: “In the interests of security keep your loin cloths with you at all times. Spears go in the overhead locker.” Alastair Majury, Tory councillor in Stirling, tweeted jokes about Catholics: “Why is the Catholic Church against birth control? Because they’ll run out of children to molest.” Majury also called Catholics “tarriers,” an offensive term dating back to the Great Famine (1845-52). He also compared the Scottish National Party to Nazis. The Scottish Tories said: “Having served a suspension, both councillors have been readmitted to the party after offering unreserved apologies for any offence caused.”[xxxiv]

September: Jeff Potts of Solihull borough council in the West Midlands retweeted the comments of others, such as: “Deport and repatriate all muzlims [sic] from the UK or watch terrorists kill innocent people for generations to come” and, “You’ve clearly not experienced the Pakistani hospitality, having a daughter raped by men who think she’s ‘white trash’.” Potts was suspended.[xxxv]

October: Calls from opposition councillors mounted to suspend Solihull Cllr, Margaret Bassett, over retweets of some of Jeff Potts’ retweets relating to migration.[xxxvi]

November: MP Douglas Ross said of “Gypsy-travellers” that he would impose “tougher restrictions” on their movements and settlements.[xxxvii]

December: Teignmouth Cllr Robert Phipp was revealed to have liked a Facebook post by the far-right Britain First group featuring a covered dog and suggesting it could be a guide dog for blind Muslim women.[xxxviii]

December: It was reported that Cllr Eve Allison (who is black) filed a complaint against local Conservative bosses, accusing them of racism and sexism. She was sacked (a.k.a. deselected), meaning her application to stand for re-election was rejected.[xxxix]

2018

March: It was report that Derek McCabe of South Ayrshire council, who sits on the council’s equality and diversity forum, had posted jokes on Facebook denigrating poor people and black people.[xl]

April: It was reported that in 2013, Councillor Mike Payne of Sowerby Bridge, Calderdale, shared an article which described Muslims benefit recipients as “parasites.” Payne was suspended.[xli]

April: A scandal broke (Windrush) in which it was revealed that for many years, the Home Office (including under then-Home Secretary and now PM Theresa May) had a policy of denying citizenship to Afro-Caribbean-majority Britons, despite many and their parents having been invited to Britain in the 1960s to fill an alleged labour shortage. The Tory government had a policy of creating a “hostile environment” for migrants (or “illegal migrants”, as they claim).[xlii] Home Secretary Amber Rudd took the heat for May and resigned.

May: Rosemary Carroll (the councillor who shared on social media a  joke comparing Asians to dogs) was re-relected.[xliii]

May: Baroness Warsi (Tory) expressed concern about Islamophobia in her party. No action was taken.[xliv]

June: Baroness Warsi again expressed concerns about Islamophobia in the Tory party, stating: “I think that there is a general sense in the country that Muslims are fair game and it is not the kind of community … you can treat really badly and have many consequences. You can get away with it” (sic).[xlv]

July: Warsi called for a full and independent inquiry into Islamophobia in the Tory party, stating that no action had been taken since her last public statements, adding that the attitude among Tories was “fuck the Muslims”.[xlvi]

*

Notes

[i] Boris Johnson (2018) ‘Denmark has got it wrong. Yes, the burka is oppressive and ridiculous – but that’s still no reason to ban it’ Telegraph.

[ii] UN News (2018) ‘UN rights experts voice concerns about “structural racism” in United Kingdom’.

[iii] James Hanning (2015) ‘Conservative party is still racist, says a former adviser Derek Laud’ Independent.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] UNITE (2016) ‘A dossier on racism in the Conservative Party’.

[vi] Feyzi Ismail (2016) ‘No.10 website refuses to host petition calling for inquiry into Tory racism’ Counterfire.

[vii] Samantha Hadadi (2015) ‘Top Tory apologises for sending racist and pornographic emails’ Hinckley Times.

[viii] Luton Today (2015) ‘Tory council candidate David Coulter caught in row over “pikie” post’.

[ix] BBC (2015) ‘Ed Miliband Jewish slur candidate suspended by Conservatives’.

[x] Hannah McGrath (2015) ‘Political row after Maida Vale councillor compares local children to Hitler Youth on Twitter’ Kilburn Times.

[xi] Alex Arnold and Martin Fricker (2015) ‘Police investigate Tory accused of calling fellow councillor a “chink” in election night speech’ Mirror.

[xii] Eleanor Perkins (2015) ‘Councillor Bob Frost gets away with tweet’ Kent Online.

[xiii] BBC (2015) ‘David Cameron criticised over migrant “swarm” language’.

[xiv] BBC (2015) ‘Tory councillor suspended over Islamic State moles tweet’.

[xv] Tom Batchelor (2015) ‘“If Carlsberg did illegal immigrants” Tory councillor’ Express.

[xvi] Coventry Live (2016) ‘Former Tory councillor found not guilty of sending offensive tweet to Labour London mayor hopeful’.

[xvii] Matt Dathan (2015) ‘The 5 most shocking quotes in Oliver Letwin’s “racist” memo’ Independent.

[xviii] Matthew Snape (2017) ‘Exclusive: Southampton Tories’ history of racism and bullying revealed’ Blasting News.

[xix] Rowena Mason and Frances Perraudin (2016) ‘Cameron’s “bunch of migrants” jibe is callous and dehumanising, say MPs’ Guardian.

[xx] Todd Fitzgerald (2016) ‘Councillor prompts outrage after tweeting immigration poster claiming “Only Suckers Work in England”’ Manchester Evening News.

[xxi] Miles O’Leary (2016) ‘Fareham tory councillor axed from party after racist rant’ The News Portsmouth.

[xxii] Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (2016) ‘Confusion over suspension of “anti-Semitic” Conservative councillor’. This organization appears to deny that the statement was anti-Semitic.

[xxiii] Alex Wood and Stewart Paterson (2016) “Ex-Yorkshire mayor in racism storm over anti-Muslim and ‘Romania gypsy’ tweets” Yorkshire Post.

[xxiv] Milton Keynes Citizen (2016) ‘Milton Keynes councillor suspended from Tory party after claims he made racist and sexist remarks’.

[xxv] Adela Whittingham (2017) ‘Councillor David Dean re-admitted to Conservative Party after being suspended’ Your Local Guardian.

[xxvi] Lancashire Post (2017) ‘Lancashire Tory suspended in “racist” tweet row’.

[xxvii] Nick Lavigueur (2017) ‘Twitter account of Tory councillor used to post abusive Islamophobic comments’ Huddersfield Daily Examiner.

[xxviii] Simon Gilbert (2017) ‘Eurovision gypsy tweet councillor Nick Harrington “cannot be sacked”’ Coventry Telegraph.

[xxix] Nick Lavigueur (2017) ‘Second Tory caught in race-hate Twitter storm’ Huddersfield Daily Examiner.

[xxx] Sarah Morland (2017) ‘Former Conservative candidate for Coventry South criticized for Hitler tweet’ The Boar.

[xxxi] Matt Discombe (2017) ‘Tory councillor in Gloucestershire compares Jeremy Corbyn to HITLER’ Gloucestershire Live.

[xxxii] Mid Sussex Times (2017) ‘Former Mid Sussex councillor has Conservative whip restored’.

[xxxiii] Bridie Pearson-Jones (2017) ‘Tory councillor who shared joke comparing Asian people to dogs suspended’ Independent.

[xxxiv] Kevin Schofield (2017) ‘Anger as Tory councillors in anti-Catholic and racist tweets row are re-instated to party’ Holyrood (magazine).

[xxxv] Henry Zeffman (2017) ‘Tory councillor Jeff Potts suspended after sharing racist tweets’ The Times.

[xxxvi] Les Reid (2017) ‘UPDATED: Pressure mounts after “anti-immigration” tweets on Tories to suspend second councillor Margaret Bassett’ Solihull Observer.

[xxxvii] BBC (2017) ‘Tory MP Douglas Ross criticised over Gypsy remark’.

[xxxviii] Tina Crowson (2017) ‘A Muslim father who is angry at a local councillor’s use of a Britain First post calls for an apology’ Devon Live.

[xxxix] Hugo Gye (2017) ‘Tory race row: Grenfell Tower council hit with racism complaint as black Tory councillor is sacked by colleagues in “lynching”’ The Sun.

[xl] Kirsteen Paterson (2018) ‘Tory councillor Derek McCabe’s “offensive” posts revealed’ The National (Scotland).

[xli] Nick Lavigueur (2018) ‘Councillor denies he’s racist after sharing article that called Muslims “parasites”’ Huddersfield Daily Examiner.

[xlii] Sarah Pepin and Melanie Gower (2018) ‘Windrush generation’ House of Commons  Library CDP-2018-0111, London: The Stationary Office.

[xliii] BBC (2018) ‘Tories urged to act in “racist joke” row at Pendle Council’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44022663.

[xliv] BBC (2018) ‘Baroness Warsi: Conservatives must act on Islamophobia’.

[xlv] Benjamin Kentish (2018) ‘Islamophobia “very widespread” in Conservative Party, says Baroness Warsi’ Independent.

[xlvi] Dan Sabbagh (2018) ‘Sayeeda Warsi calls for inquiry into Islamophobia within Tory party’ Guardian.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The nightmares that have shaped the past and await return slightly just below the surface of American society are poised to wreak havoc on us again. America has reached a distinctive crossroads in which the principles and practices of a fascist past and neoliberal present have merged to produce what Philip Roth once called “the terror of the unforeseen.”

Since the 1970s, American society has lived with the curse of neoliberalism, or what can be called the latest and most extreme stage of predatory capitalism. As part of a broader comprehensive design, neoliberalism’s overriding goal is to consolidate power in the hands of the financial elite. As a mode of rationality, it functions pedagogically in multiple cultural sites to ensure no alternatives to its mode of governance can be imagined or constructed.

Central to its philosophy is the assumption the market drives not just the economy but all of social life. It construes profit-making as the essence of democracy and consuming as the only operable form of agency. It redefines identities, desires and values through a market logic that favors self-interest, a survival-of-the-fittest ethos and unchecked individualism. Under neoliberalism, life-draining and unending competition is a central concept for defining human freedom.

Neoliberalism: Free Rein to Finance Capital and All-Encompassing Market

As an economic policy, it creates an all-encompassing market guided by the principles of privatization, deregulation, commodification and the free flow of capital. Advancing these agendas, it weakens unions, radically downsizes the welfare state and wages an assault on public goods. As the state is hollowed out, big corporations take on the functions of government, imposing severe austerity measures, redistributing wealth upward to the rich and powerful and reinforcing a notion of society as one of winners and losers. Put simply, neoliberalism gives free rein to finance capital and seeks to liberate the market from any restraints imposed by the state. At present, governments exist preeminently to maximize the profits, resources and the power of the wealthy.

As a political policy, it empties governance of any substance and denounces any viable notion of the social contract. Moreover, neoliberalism produces widespread misery and suffering as it weakens any vestige of democracy that interferes with its vision of a self-regulating market.

Theoretically, neoliberalism is often associated with the work of Friedrich August von Hayek and the Mont Pelerin Society, Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics, and most famously with the politics of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, President Ronald Reagan in the United States and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom. Politically, it is supported by various right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and by billionaires such as the Koch brothers.

Neoliberalism’s hatred of democracy, the common good and the social contract has unleashed generic elements of a fascist past in which white supremacy, ultra-nationalism, rabid misogyny and immigrant fervor come together in a toxic mix of militarism, state violence and the politics of disposability. Modes of fascist expression adapt variously to different political historical contexts assuring racial apartheid-like forms in the postbellum U.S. and overt encampments and extermination in Nazi Germany. Fascism – with its unquestioning belief in obedience to a powerful strongman, violence as a form of political purification, hatred as an act of patriotism, racial and ethnic cleansing, and the superiority of a select ethnic or national group – has resurfaced in the United States. In this mix of economic barbarism, political nihilism, racial purity, economic orthodoxy and ethical somnambulance, a distinctive economic-political formation has been produced that I term neoliberal fascism.

Neoliberalism as the New Fascism

The war against liberal democracy has become a global phenomenon. Authoritarian regimes have spread from Turkey, Poland, Hungary and India to the United States and a number of other countries. Right-wing populist movements are on the march, spewing forth a poisonous mix of ultra-nationalism, white supremacy, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and xenophobia. The language of national decline, humiliation and demonization fuels dangerous proposals and policies aimed at racial purification and social sorting while hyping a masculinization of agency and a militarism reminiscent of past dictatorships. Under current circumstances, the forces that have produced the histories of mass violence, torture, genocide and fascism have not been left behind. Consequently, it has been more difficult to argue that the legacy of fascism has nothing to teach us regarding how “the question of fascism and power clearly belongs to the present.”¹

Fascism has multiple histories, most connected to the failed democracies in Italy and Germany in the 1930s and the overthrow of democratic governments by the military such as in Argentina and Chile in the 1970s. Moreover, the history between fascism and populism involves a complex mix of relations over time.² What is distinctive about this millennial fascism is its history of “a violent totalitarian order that led to radical forms of political violence and genocide” has been softened by attempts to recalibrate its postwar legacy to a less liberal democratic register.³ For instance, in Hungary, Turkey, Poland and a number of other emerging fascist states, the term “illiberal democracy” is used as code to allegedly replace a “supposedly outmoded form of liberal democracy.”⁴ In actuality, the term is used to justify a form of populist authoritarianism whose goal is to attack the very foundations of democracy. These fascist underpinnings are also expanding in the United States. In President Donald Trump’s bombastic playbook, the notion of “the people” has become a rhetorical tool to legitimize a right-wing mass movement in support of a return to the good old days of American Apartheid.⁵

As the ideas, values and institutions crucial to a democracy have withered under a savage neoliberalism that has been 50 years in the making, fascistic notions of racial superiority, social cleansing, apocalyptic populism, hyper-militarism and ultra-nationalism have gained in intensity, moving from the repressed recesses of U.S. history to the centers of state and corporate power.⁶ Decades of mass inequality, wage slavery, the collapse of the manufacturing sector, tax giveaways to the financial elite and savage austerity policies that drive a frontal attack on the welfare state have further strengthened fascistic discourses. They also have redirected populist anger against vulnerable populations and undocumented immigrants, Muslims, the racially oppressed, women, LBGTQ people, public servants, critical intellectuals and workers. Not only has neoliberalism undermined the basic elements of democracy by escalating the mutually reinforcing dynamics of economic inequality and political inequality – accentuating the downhill spiral of social and economic mobility – it has also created conditions that make fascist ideas and principles more attractive.

Under these accelerated circumstances, neoliberalism and fascism conjoin and advance in a comfortable and mutually compatible movement that connects the worst excesses of capitalism with authoritarian “strongman” ideals – the veneration of war, a hatred of reason and truth; a celebration of ultra-nationalism and racial purity; the suppression of freedom and dissent; a culture that promotes lies, spectacles, scapegoating the other, a deteriorating discourse, brutal violence, and, ultimately, the eruption of state violence in heterogeneous forms. In the Trump administration, neoliberal fascism is on steroids and represents a fusion of the worst dimensions and excesses of gangster capitalism with the fascist ideals of white nationalism and racial supremacy associated with the horrors of the past.⁷ Neoliberal structural transformation has undermined and refigured “the principles, practices, cultures, subjects and institution of democracy understood as rule by the people.”⁸ Since the earlier ’70s, the neoliberal project has mutated into a revolt against human rights and democracy and created a powerful narrative that refigures freedom and authority so as to legitimize and produce massive inequities in wealth and power.⁹ Its practices of offshoring, restructuring everything according to the dictates of profit margins, slashing progressive taxation, eliminating corporate regulations, allowing unchecked privatization and the ongoing commercializing of all social interactions “inflicts alienating misery” on a polity newly vulnerable to fascist ideals, rhetoric and politically extremist movements.¹⁰

Furthermore, the merging of neoliberalism and fascism has accelerated as civic culture is eroded, notions of shared citizenship and responsibility disappear, and reason and informed judgment are replaced by the forces of civic illiteracy. State-sanctioned attacks on the truth, facts and scientific reason in Trump’s America are camouflaged as one would expect when led by the first reality TV president – by a corporate-controlled culture of vulgarity that merges celebrity culture with a nonstop spectacle of violence. Neoliberalism strips democracy of any substance by promoting an irrational belief in the ability of the market to solve all social problems and shape all aspects of society. This shift from a market economy to a market-driven society has been accompanied by a savage attack on equality, the social contract and social provisions as wages have been gutted, pensions destroyed, health care put out of reach for millions, job security undermined, and access to crucial public goods such as public and higher education considerably weakened for the lower and middle classes.

In the current historical moment, neoliberalism represents more than a form of hyper-capitalism, it also denotes the death of democracy if not politics itself. Anis Shivani’s articulation of the threat neoliberalism poses to democracy is worth quoting at length:

“Neoliberalism believes that markets are self-sufficient unto themselves, that they do not need regulation, and that they are the best guarantors of human welfare. Everything that promotes the market, i.e., privatization, deregulation, mobility of finance and capital, abandonment of government-provided social welfare, and the reconception of human beings as human capital, needs to be encouraged, while everything that supposedly diminishes the market, i.e., government services, regulation, restrictions on finance and capital, and conceptualization of human beings in transcendent terms, is to be discouraged… One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything – everything – is to be made over in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings. Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and a half centuries.”¹¹

What is particularly distinctive about the conjuncture of neoliberalism and fascism is how the full-fledged liberation of capital now merges with an out-and-out attack on the racially oppressed and vulnerable populations considered disposable. Not only do the oppressive political, economic and financial structures of casino capitalism bear down on people’s lives, but there is also a frontal attack on the shared understandings and beliefs that hold a people together. One crucial and distinctive place in which neoliberalism and fascism converge is in the undermining of social bonds and moral boundaries. Displacement, disintegration, atomization, social isolation and deracination have a long history in the United States, which has been aggressively exploited by Trump, taking on a distinctively right-wing, 21st-century register. There is more at work here than the heavy neoliberal toll of social abandonment. There is also, under the incessant pedagogical propaganda of right-wing and corporate controlled media, a culture that has become cruel and cultivates an appetite for maliciousness that undermines the capacity for empathy, making people indifferent to the suffering of others or, even worse, willing participants in their violent exclusion.

Irish journalist Fintan O’Toole warns that fascism unravels the ethical imagination through a process in which individuals eventually “learn to think the unthinkable…” followed, he writes, “by a crucial next step, usually the trickiest of all”:

“You have to undermine moral boundaries, inure people to the acceptance of acts of extreme cruelty. Like hounds, people have to be blooded. They have to be given the taste for savagery. Fascism does this by building up the sense of threat from a despised out-group. This allows the members of that group to be dehumanized. Once that has been achieved, you can gradually up the ante, working through the stages from breaking windows to extermination.”¹²

What is often labeled as an economic crisis in American society is also a crisis of morality, sociality and community. Since the 1970s, increasing unregulated capitalism has hardened into a form of market fundamentalism that has accelerated the hollowing out of democracy through its capacity to reshape the commanding political, social and economic institutions of American society, making it vulnerable to the fascist solutions proposed by Trump. As an integrated system of structures, ideologies and values, neoliberalism economizes every aspect of life, separates economic activity from social costs, and depoliticizes the public through corporate-controlled disimagination machines that trade in post-truth narratives, enshrine the spectacle of violence, debase language and distort history.

Neoliberalism now wages a battle against any viable notion of the social contract, solidarity, the collective imagination, the public good and the institutions that support them. As the realm of the political is defined in strictly economic terms, the institutions, public goods, formative cultures and modes of identity essential to a democracy disappear, along with the informed citizens necessary to sustain them.

The Crisis of Reason and Fantasies of Freedom

As more and more power is concentrated in the hands of a corporate and financial elite, freedom is defined exclusively in market terms, inequality is cast as a virtue, and the logic of privatization heaps contempt upon civic compassion and the welfare state. The fatal after-effect is that neoliberalism has emerged as the new face of fascism.¹³ With the 50-year advance of neoliberalism, freedom has become its opposite. And democracy, once the arc of civic freedom, now becomes its enemy, because democratic governance no longer takes priority over the unchecked workings of the market. Neoliberalism undermines both the social and the public and in doing so weakens the idea of shared responsibilities and moral obligations. As Zygmunt Bauman argues “ethical tranquillization” is now normalized under the assumption that freedom is limited to the right to only advance one’s own interests and the interests of the markets. Freedom in the neoliberal playbook disavows any notion of responsibility outside of the responsibility to oneself.

As Wendy Brown argues, politics and democracy are now viewed as the enemy of markets and “politics is cast as the enemy to freedom, to order and to progress.”¹⁴ Politics now becomes a mix of regressive notions of freedom and authority whose purpose is to protect market-driven principles and practices. What disappears in this all-encompassing reach of capital is the notion of civic freedom, which is replaced by securitization organized to protect the lawless workings of the profit motive and the savagery of neoliberal austerity policies. Moreover, as freedom becomes privatized, it feeds a lack of interest in politics and breeds moral indifference. As a consequence, neoliberalism unleashes the passions of a fascist past in which the terrain of politics, agency and social relations begin to resemble a war zone, a blood sport and a form of cage fighting.

In this instance, the oppressed are not only cheated out of history, they are led to believe that under neoliberal fascism there are no alternatives and the future can only imitate the present. Not only does this position suppress any sense of responsibility and resistance, it produces what Timothy Snyder calls “a kind of sleepwalking, and has to end with a crash.”¹⁵ The latter is reinforced by a government that believes truth is dangerous and reality begins with a tweet that signals the legitimation of endless lies and forms of power that infantilize and depoliticize, because they leave no room for standards of language capable of holding power accountable. Even worse, Trump’s war on language and truth does more than limit freedom to competing fictions, it also erases the distinction between moral depravity and justice, good and evil. As I have said elsewhere, “Trump’s Ministry of Fake News works incessantly to set limits on what is thinkable, claiming that reason, evidence, consistency, and logic no longer serve the truth, because the latter are crooked ideological devices used by enemies of the state. ‘Thought crimes’ are now labeled as ‘fake news.’”¹⁶

Timothy Snyder is right in arguing that “to abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle.”¹⁷ The post-truth society is a state-sponsored diversion and spectacle. Its purpose is to camouflage a moral and political crisis that has put into play a set of brutal neoliberal arrangements. Rather than view truth as the currency of democracy, Trump and his acolytes view it and democracy as the enemy of power. Such arrangements put democracy at risk and create an educational and political project receptive to the political currency of white supremacy. As a master of schlock performance, Trump tweets and speaks largely to his angry, resentful base, often using crude language in which the threat of violence and repression appears to function for his audience as a source of “romance, pleasure and fantasy.”¹⁸ These core supporters represent, at best, what Philip Roth once generously called the “uneducated and overburdened.” But they also cultivate what Erin Aubry Kaplan calls “the very worst American impulses, from xenophobia to know-nothingism to disdain for social necessities such as public education and clean water, [and their] signature quality is racism.”¹⁹

Restaging Fascism Within Democracy

Rather than disappear into the memory hole of history, fascism has reappeared in a different form in the United States, echoing Theodor Adorno’s warning, “I consider the survival of National Socialism within democracy to be potentially more menacing than the survival of fascist tendencies against democracy.”²⁰Theorists, novelists, historians and writers that include such luminaries as Hannah Arendt, Sinclair Lewis, Bertram Gross, Umberto Eco, Robert O. Paxton, Timothy Snyder, Susan Sontag and Sheldon Wolin have argued convincingly that fascism remains an ongoing danger and has the ability to become relevant under new conditions. After the fall of Nazi Germany, Arendt warned totalitarianism was far from a thing of the past because the conditions of extreme precarity and uncertainty that produce it were likely to crystallize into new forms.²¹

What Arendt thought was crucial for each generation to recognize was that the presence of the Nazi camps and the policy of extermination should be understood not only as the logical outcome of a totalitarian society or simply a return of the past, but also for what their histories suggest about forecasting a “possible model for the future.”²² The nightmare of fascism’s past cannot escape memory because it needs to be retold over and over again so as to recognize when it is happening again. Rather than fade into the past, mass poverty, unchecked homelessness, large-scale rootlessness, fearmongering, social atomization, state terrorism and the politics of elimination have provided the seeds for new forms of fascism to appear. Paxton, the renowned historian of fascism, argues in his “The Anatomy of Fascism” that the texture of American fascism would not mimic traditional European forms but would be rooted in the language, symbols and culture of everyday life:

“No swastikas in an American fascism, but Stars and Stripes (or Stars and Bars) and Christian crosses. No fascist salute, but mass recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance. These symbols contain no whiff of fascism in themselves, of course, but an American fascism would transform them into obligatory litmus tests for detecting the internal enemy.”²³

Given the alarming signs that have come into play under the Trump administration, it is hard to look away and condone the suppression of the history and language of fascism and its relevance for understanding America’s flight from the promise and ideals of a substantive democracy. This is not to suggest the only template for addressing the legacy of fascism is to point to Nazi Germany, the most extreme of the fascist states, or, for that matter, to Mussolini’s brand of fascism. Not only does the comparison not work, but it tends to understand fascist ideals only against its most extreme expressions.

While it is true the U.S. may not be putting millions in gas chambers or promoting genocide, there remain reworked elements of the past in the present. For instance, there are already echoes of the past in existing and expanding infrastructures of punishment – amounting to a carceral state – that have grown exponentially in the past four decades. In fact, the United States has the largest prison system in the world, with more than 2.5 million people incarcerated. Astonishingly, this figure does not include immigrant detention centers and other forms of encampment around the U.S. border with Mexico. The visibility of this state-sanctioned punishing apparatus and its similarity to a fascist history was on display recently with the caging of young immigrant children who were forcibly separated from their parents at the southern border for months at a time. Needless to say, such institutions and actions resonate with deeply disturbing events of a dark past for which the violent separation of families was a hallmark feature of fascist brutality.

Reports of widespread abuse of imprisoned unaccompanied migrant children separated from their parents are increasingly being reported in the press. Detained under inhumane and cruel conditions, many of these children in government detention centers are allegedly being drugged, sexually abused, and subject to a range of inhumane actions. In Texas, a federal judge ordered a detention center to stop forcing children to take psychotropic drugs such as Clonazepam, Divalproex, Benztropine and Duloxetine in order to control their behavior. Needless to say, such actions, policies, and institutions resonate with deeply disturbing events of a dark past in which the violent separation of families was a hallmark feature of fascist cruelty, barbarism and brutality.

It is against this background that I believe the current debates that dismiss whether the U.S. under Trump is a fascist society are unproductive. The argument against this recognition generally proceeds by claiming either fascism is a relic of the past, fixed in a certain historical period with no relevance to the present, or that the differences between Trump’s policies and those of Hitler and Mussolini are enough so as to make any comparison irrelevant. Many commentators denounce any references to Trump and Nazis in the past as exaggerated, extreme or inapplicable. In this view, fascism is always somewhere else, relegated to a time and a place that suggests an accommodating distance, one that runs the risk of disconnecting historical memory and the horrors of another age from the possibility of fascism resurrected in a different form, newly attuned to its moment. We live in an age in which there is a terror on the part of critics to imagine the plasticity of fascism.

The Mobilizing Passions of Fascism

Fascism is neither a static nor fixed moment in history, and the forms it takes do not have to imitate earlier historical models. It is an authoritarian ideology and a form of political behavior defined by what Paxton calls a series of “mobilizing passions.” These include an open assault on democracy, the call for a strongman, a contempt for human weakness, an obsession with hyper-masculinity, an aggressive militarism, an appeal to national greatness, a disdain for the feminine, an investment in the language of cultural decline, the disparaging of human rights, the suppression of dissent, a propensity for violence, disdain for intellectuals, a hatred of reason, and fantasies of racial superiority and eliminationist policies aimed at social cleansing.²⁴

The ghost of fascism has to be retrieved from history and restored to a “proper place in the discussions of the moral and political limits of what is acceptable,”²⁵ especially at a moment when the crisis of democracy cannot be separated from the crisis of neoliberalism. As a heuristic tool to compare forms of state power, the legacy of fascism offers an opportunity to recognize when authoritarian signposts are on the horizon.

For example, under Trump, the spectacle reigns supreme, harking back to an earlier time in history when bravado, armed ignorance and theatrical performances provided a model of community that squelched memory, domesticated thought and opened the door for a strongman’s followers to disavow their role as critical agents in favor of becoming blind, if not willful, spectators. With regards to the present, it is crucial to recognize the ascendancy of Trump politically within rather than against the flow of history.

Fascism in the United States has arrived slowly by subversion from within. Its roots have been on display for decades and emerged most visibly with President George W. Bush’s and then President Barack Obama’s war on terror. Bush, in particular, embraced unapologetically a raw display of power that sanctioned torture, domestic spying, secret prisons, kill lists, laws sanctioning indefinite detention, warrantless searches and war crimes. Obama did little to correct these legal illegalities and Trump has only breathed new life into them. Instead of the sudden appearance on American streets of thugs, brown shirts, purges and massive state violence – the state violence waged against African Americans notwithstanding – fascism has been resurrected through the enabling force of casino capitalism, which has unleashed and mobilized a range of economic, political, religious and educational fundamentalisms.

This is most obvious in the subversion of power by the financial and corporate robber barons, the taming of dissent, the cultivation of tribal identities, the celebration of orbits of self-interests and hyper-individualism over the common good, the privatization and deregulation of public life and institutions, the legitimation of bigotry and intolerance, the transformation of elections into a battle among billionaires, and the production of a culture of greed and cruelty. But, as political theorist Wendy Brown makes clear, it is also obvious in a populist revolt generated by neoliberalism’s decimation of “livelihoods and neighborhoods,” “evacuating and delegitimizing democracy,” “devaluing knowledge apart from job training,” and the “eroding of national sovereignty.”²⁶

Orthodoxy, especially under Trump, has transformed education into a workstation for ignorance in which harsh discipline is metered out to poor students and youths of color. Politics has been utterly corrupted by big money and morally deficient bankers, hedge fund managers and corporate moguls. And many evangelicals and other religious groups support, or are complicit with, a president who sides with white supremacists and trades in the language of viciousness and brutality.²⁷

The corporate state, fueled by a market fundamentalism and a long legacy of racial apartheid, has imposed almost incomprehensible cruelty on poor and vulnerable black populations. The merging of neoliberalism and fascist elements of white supremacy and systemic racism is particularly evident in the environmental racism, dilapidated schools and air pollution that have come to light recently.²⁸ The short list includes going so far as to sacrifice poor black children in Flint, Mich., to the perils of lead poisoning to increase profits, subject the population of Puerto Rico to unnecessary despair by refusing to provide adequate government services after Hurricane Maria,²⁹ and creating conditions in which “America’s youngest children, some 47 per cent” under the age of 5, “live in low-income or poor households.”³⁰ W.E.B. Du Bois’ notion of a “racial dictatorship” in his classic Black Reconstruction in America has been resurrected under Trump.

As U.N. Special Rapporteur Philip Alston reported, amid a massive concentration of wealth among the upper 1 per cent in the United States, 40 million people live in poverty and 18.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. According to Alston, such neoliberal policies are “aggressively regressive” in their promoting of harsh work requirements for welfare recipients, cutting back programs to feed poor children, and the willingness to both incarcerate young children and separate them from their parents.³¹ All the while, the Trump administration has shifted massive resources to the wealthy as a result of a tax policy that shreds $1.5-trillion from the federal budget.

Since the 1970s, wages have stagnated, banks have cheated millions out of their homes through rigged mortgage policies, and the political power brokers have imposed financial ruin on minorities of class and race.³² The war against poverty initiated by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration had been transformed into a war on poverty by President Ronald Reagan and has accelerated and achieved its apotheosis under the Trump regime. With a pathological enthusiasm, Trump’s morally bereft Republican Congress has cut crucial benefits for the poor, such as the food stamp program, while also imposing harsh work requirements on Medicare recipients. There is more at work here than the self-serving and vindictive neoliberal belief that government is bad when it gets in the way of markets and does not serve the interest of the rich. There is also willfully savage support for massive degrees of inequality, human wretchedness, the criminalization of social problems, and a burgeoning culture of punishment, misery and suffering.

One consequence is a beleaguered American landscape marked by the growing opioid crisis, the criminalization of peaceful protests, race-based environmental poisoning, shorter longevity rates for middle-aged Americans, and an incarceration rate that ranks as the highest in the world. The war on democracy has also morphed into a war on youth as more and more children are homeless, subjected to mass school shootings, inhabit schools modeled after prisons, and increasingly ushered into the school-to-prison pipeline and disciplinary apparatuses that treats them as criminals.³³ Under the long history of neoliberalism in the United States, there has developed a perverse investment in the degradation and punishment of the most vulnerable individuals, those considered other, and an increasing register of those considered disposable.³⁴

Rethinking the Politics of Inverted Totalitarianism

What is crucial to understand is that neoliberalism is not only a more extreme element of capitalism, it has also enabled the emergence of a radical restructuring of power, the state and politics, and in doing so converges with a style of fascism suited to the American context. Political theorist Sheldon Wolin, in his book “Democracy Incorporated,” was one of the first to analyze the transformation of a capitalist democracy into what he called an inverted form of totalitarianism. According to Wolin, the political state was replaced by a corporate state that exploits all but the ruling classes, empties politics of any substance through rigged elections, uses the power of capital to define citizens largely as consumers of products, and applies the power of the corporate state as a battering ram to push through policies that strengthen the power of capital.

For Wolin, neoliberalism was the endpoint of a long process “to transform everything – every object, every living thing, every fact on the planet – in its image.”³⁵ He believed that this new political formation and form of sovereignty in which economics dominated politics was hostile to both social spending and the welfare state. Wolin rightly argued that under neoliberalism, political sovereignty is largely replaced by economic sovereignty as corporate power takes over the reins of governance.

The dire consequence, as David Harvey points out, is that “raw money power wielded by the few undermines all semblances of democratic governance.”³⁶ Policy is now fashioned by lobbyists representing big businesses such as the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, going so far in the case of the drug companies to drive the opioid crisis to increase their profits.³⁷

Under neoliberalism, the welfare state has been largely dismantled, while the power of a punishing apparatus of an emerging police state has been expanded, buttressed by a pervasive culture of fear that exempts itself from the legalities and constitutional obligations of a democracy, however neutered. Wolin was keenly aware of the ruthlessness of corporate culture in its willingness to produce striking inequalities in an epical war on the promise and ideals of a substantive democracy.

Wolin’s great contribution to theories of totalitarianism lies in his ability to lay bare the authoritarian economic tendencies in neoliberalism and its threat to democracy. What he did not do is associate neoliberalism and its enervating effects closely enough with certain legacies of fascism. In this absence, he was unable to predict the resurgence of strongman politics in the United States and the ascendant fascist investments in white supremacy, racial sorting, ultra-nationalism, a war on youth, women’s reproductive rights and a race-inspired, eliminationist politics of disposability. What he underemphasized was that neoliberalism impoverished not only society economically while serving the interests of the rich, but it also created a powerful narrative that normalizes political inaction as it shifted the weight and responsibility of all social problems onto the individual rather than the society.³⁸

In the age of neoliberal myth-making, systemic deficiencies such as poverty, homelessness and precarious employment are now relegated to individual failures, character deficits and moral turpitude. Correspondingly, notions of the social, systemic and public disappear, serving to expand the base of those who feel voiceless and powerless, opening them up to the crude and simplistic emotional appeals of authoritarian figures such as Trump. In truly demagogic fashion, Trump promises a new world order that will be fashioned out of the rhetorical bombast of dehumanization, bigotry and a weaponized appeal to fear and hate. As the poor and discarded vanish from the political discourse of democracy, they become susceptible to a “volatility and the fury that [mutilates] contemporary politics that thrives on an appetite for authoritarian and fascistic impulses.”³⁹

Fascism by Trial in the Age of Trump

In a thoughtful analysis, the Irish journalist O’Toole asserts neoliberalism creates the conditions for enabling what he calls a trial run for a full-blown state of contemporary fascism:

“To grasp what is going on in the world right now, we need to reflect on two things. One is that we are in a phase of trial runs. The other is that what is being trialed is fascism – a word that should be used carefully but not shirked when it is so clearly on the horizon. Forget ‘post-fascist’ – what we are living with is pre-fascism. Rather than overthrow democracy in one full swipe, it has to be undermined through rigged elections, the creation of tribal identities, and legitimated through a ‘propaganda machine so effective that it creates for its followers a universe of “alternative facts” impervious to unwanted realities.’ …. Fascism doesn’t arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially recoil from, and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we would be fools not to see it.”⁴⁰

Ultra-nationalist and contemporary versions of fascism are gaining traction across the globe in countries such as Greece (Golden Dawn), Hungary (Jobbik), India (Bharatiya Janata Party), and Italy (the League) and countless others. Needless to say, they have been emboldened by Trump, who has displayed a close admiration for authoritarian leaders such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and China’s Xi Jinping. He recently praised North Korean leader Kim Jong-un for his “intellect and personality” and without irony stated “He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.”⁴¹

Trump also has used his power to pardon people such as right-wing pundit Dinesh D’Souza and former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who defied court orders to stop racially profiling Latinos. He has publicly accused Democrats in Congress for not standing following his State of the Union address and has conducted a foreign policy that trashes Western allies while celebrating authoritarian strongmen.

In addition, Trump consistently promotes extremist policies and surrounds himself with far- right-wing ideologues such as Attorney General Jeff Sessions, National Security Adviser John Bolton and senior adviser Stephen Miller – all hard-liners on just about every issue. Steve Bannon’s early presence in the Trump administration was symbolic of the extremism Trump brought to the White House. Bannon, who served as former senior counselor to the president, ran Breitbart, a white nationalist tabloid. Now freelancing, Bannon continues to normalize white supremacist ideas in his endless speeches and public appearances. Trump shares Bannon’s allegiance to white supremacy and has relentlessly catered to the racial fears and economic anxieties of an abandoned white working class. Moreover, he has created a new synergy between his authoritarian demagoguery and an array of fascist groups that include the alt-right, white nationalists, militia groups and others who embrace his militarism, race-based law and order agenda and his overt contempt of undocumented immigrants and Muslims.⁴²

Trump has elevated himself as the patron saint of a ruthless neoliberalism. This is evident in the various miracles he has performed for the rich and powerful. He has systemically deregulated regulations that extend from environmental protections to worker safety rules. He has enacted a $1.5-trillion tax policy that amounts to a huge gift to the financial elite and all the while maintaining his “man of the people” posture. He has appointed a range of neoliberal fundamentalists to head major government posts designed to serve the public. Most, like Scott Pruitt, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Betsy DeVos, the secretary of Education, have proved to be either corrupt, incompetent, or often both. Along with the Republican Congress, Trump has vastly increased the military budget to $717-billion, creating huge financial profits for the military-industrial-defense complex while instituting policies that eviscerate the welfare state and further expand a war machine that generates mass suffering and death.

Trump has reduced food assistance for those who are forced to choose between eating and taking medicine, and his policies have prevented millions from getting adequate health care.⁴³ Last but not least, he has become a cheerleader for the gun and security industries going so far as to call for the arming of teachers as a way to redress mass shootings in the nation’s schools. All of these policies serve to unleash the anti-liberal and anti-democratic passions, fears, anxieties and anger necessary to mainstream fascism.

Trump’s Politics of Disposability

Trump’s neoliberalism aligns with fascism particularly through his embrace of white supremacy and his commitment to an expanding notion of disposability. Trump’s view of disposability takes on a double register. First, he produces economic policies that support the neoliberal conviction that human beings without economic value, those who make no contribution to the market, are refuse, waste and excess, and have no possible social use. In neoliberalism’s survival-of-the-fittest ethos, which amounts to a form of econocide, redundancy becomes code for disposability in economic terms. The only relations that matter are those compatible with economic decision making and the imperatives of capital. As Anis Shivani observes, “Anyone not willing to conceive of themselves as being present fully and always in the market,” who presents a burden to the state, or refuses “to invest in their own future… will be subject to discipline and refused recognition as [a] human being.”⁴⁴

Trump extends the logic of redundancy and disposability beyond economic categories to all those others who cannot fit into a white nationalist script. This is the language of the police state – one fashioned by the history of U.S. apartheid. The endpoint of the language of white supremacy via a regressive crime policy is a form of social death, or even worse. What is frightening about Trump’s racist vocabulary is that it registers a move from the coded language of benign neglect to policies marked by malignant cruelty that legitimates state violence.

Trump’s allegiance to white supremacy is hard to miss, though many deny it by focusing more on his economic policies rather than his white supremacist agenda. Ta-Nehisi Coates offers an insightful analysis of Trump’s white supremacist ideology:

“It is often said that Trump has no real ideology, which is not true – his ideology is white supremacy, in all its truculent and sanctimonious power. … His political career began in advocacy of birtherism, that modern recasting of the old American precept that black people are not fit to be citizens of the country they built. But long before birtherism, Trump had made his worldview clear. He fought to keep blacks out of his buildings, according to the U.S. government; called for the death penalty for the eventually exonerated Central Park Five; and railed against ‘lazy’ black employees. … Trump inaugurated his campaign by casting himself as the defender of white maidenhood against Mexican ‘rapists,’ only to be later alleged by multiple accusers, and by his own proud words, to be a sexual violator himself… In Trump, white supremacists see one of their own.”⁴⁵

Author John Feffer goes further and argues Trump’s hatred of immigrants is clear not only in his push for “extreme measures to keep them out of the United States: a wall, a travel ban, a zero-tolerance family-separation policy” but also signifies his view of them as a “threat that transcends the political. It’s a matter of blood and soil, the touchstones of extreme nationalism.”⁴⁶ What Feffer fails to acknowledge is that Trump’s view of ethnic sorting is also reminiscent of a central policy of earlier forms of fascism. Under Trump’s “zero-tolerance” border crackdown, immigrant families in the language of a fascist past disappear, are lost or categorized as “deleted family units.”⁴⁷

The United States is in a dangerous moment in its history, which makes it all the more crucial to understand how a distinctive form of neoliberal fascism now bears down on the present and threatens to usher in a period of unprecedented barbarism in the not too distant future. In an attempt to address this new political conjuncture, I want to suggest that rather than view fascism simply as a repetition of the past, it is crucial to forge a new vocabulary and politics to grasp how neoliberal fascism has become a uniquely American model for the present. One way to address this challenge is to rethink what lessons can be learned by interrogating how matters of language and memory can be used to illuminate the dark forces connecting the past and present as part of the new hybridized political nightmare.

The Language of Fascism

Fascism begins not with violence, police assaults or mass killings, but with language. Trump reminded us of this in 2015 while announcing his candidacy for president. He stated, without irony or shame, that “when Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people…”⁴⁸ This is more than the language of polarization or a strategic dog whistle, it is an overt discourse and theatrical performance in the service of white supremacy and racist violence, a logic largely missed by the mainstream press at the time. This initial blast of racist invective served to forecast how Trump’s campaign and presidency would appeal to white nationalists, the alt-right and other neo-Nazi groups.

The language of fascist violence takes many forms, and Trump provided another disturbing example of his use of language as a tool of power and domination that expands what earlier fascist regimes had done. Early in his presidency, Trump had his administration prohibit officials at the Centers for Disease Control from using words such as “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.”⁴⁹ Banning words such as “vulnerable,” “diversity” and “fetus” signals Trump’s war on empathy, equality and women’s reproductive rights. Soon afterward, the Trump administration started erasing all references to climate change and greenhouse gases from government websites as well as information about LGBTQ Americans.⁵⁰

Such actions share a legacy of state censorship, the repression of dissent by banishing freedom of speech and book burning, all of which were part of the playbook of fascist regimes. Author Ruth Ben-Ghiat is right in stating that each of the words on Trump’s censorship list “is part of an ongoing war about the future of our democratic rights to speak and research freely, to control our own bodies and identities, and to live without fear of being targeted by the state because of our faith, skin color, or sexual orientation.”⁵¹

It is worth noting that words are not just about the production of meaning but also about how they generate consequences, especially in light of how such meanings – buttressed by state-sanctioned relations of power – function in a larger context. Some meanings have a force that others don’t, especially because power confers authority and can set in motion a range of effects. This is particularly clear in light of how Trump uses the power of the presidency at times when reacting to critics, especially those who garner some public attention through their criticism of him or his policies. His attempts to squelch dissent takes on a rather ruthless register as he often publicly humiliates those who criticize him, threatens their livelihood and uses language that functions to incite violence against his critics. We have seen too many instances in which Trump’s followers have beaten critics, attacked journalists and shouted down any form of critique aimed at Trump’s policies – to say nothing of the army of trolls unleashed on intellectuals and journalists critical of the administration.

As a tool of state repression, language holds the potential to open the door to fascism. As Rose Sydney Parfitt observed, “The language, symbols and logic of fascism are being deployed today more overtly than at any time since the early 1940s.”⁵² Trump uses language that dehumanizes and makes it more acceptable for individuals to rationalize racist beliefs and practices. Under the Republicans’ “Southern strategy” and later in the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, racism was either coded in dog-whistle discourses or rendered unspeakable in the language of color blindness. Trump discarded such formalities by making racist language overt, shockingly deployed as a badge of honor, and pragmatically used as a nod to his base of support.

Reminiscent of Nazi tactics to dehumanize enemies, he has called some undocumented immigrants “animals” and “criminals,” and has used the word “infest” in referring to immigrants on the southern border. Columnist and author Aviya Kushner asserted Trump’s tweet claiming that immigrants will “infest our country” bears an alarming resemblance to the Nazi claim that Jews were carriers of disease.⁵³ In response to Trump’s use of the term “animal” to refer to some immigrants, Juan Cole argues the Nazis used the term as a “technical term, ‘Untermensch’ or underman, subhuman” in referring to “Jews, gypsies, gays, and other groups as well as the slaughter of Russian boys at the Eastern Front.”⁵⁴ Making them appear as less than human paved the way “toward permitting their elimination.”⁵⁵A convergence between Trump’s language and the race-based ideology of Holocaust-era Nazis was clearly heard when Trump implied a moral equivalency between the violence perpetrated by white supremacists and neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville and the presence of peaceful protesters demonstrating for the removal of a Confederate statue. Trump’s scapegoating rhetoric of demonization and bigotry not only dehumanizes racialized others, it also prepares the ground for encouraging hate groups and an intensification of hate crimes.

The FBI has reported that since the 2016 election, hate crimes have increased; there have been a disturbing number of stories that include Nazi swastikas being painted on school walls, synagogues being firebombed and a spike in violent attacks on Muslims and foreigners.⁵⁶ Trump’s use of dehumanizing language invites comparisons with the insidious rhetoric of fascism’s past. Not only have his crassness, vulgarity and humiliating tweets upended traditional standards of presidential comportment (to say nothing of governance), he has also revived a language of malign violence that echoes “the early warning signs of potential genocide and other atrocity crimes.”⁵⁷

Fascism, History and Memory Work

Neoliberal fascism converges with an earlier form of fascism in its commitment to a language of erasure and a politics of disposability. In the fascist script, historical memory becomes a liability, even dangerous, when it functions pedagogically to inform our political and social imagination. This is especially true when memory acts to identify forms of social injustice and enables critical reflection on the histories of repressed others. This was certainly true given the embarrassing backlash that occurred when Ben Carson, the U.S. secretary of Housing and Urban Development, claimed slaves were immigrants, and when Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos stated black colleges and universities were “pioneers of school choice.”⁵⁸

Unsurprisingly, historical memory as a form of enlightenment and demystification is surely at odds with Trump’s abuse of history as a form of social amnesia and political camouflage. For instance, Trump’s use of the 1930s-era slogan “America First” marks a regressive return to a time when nativism, misogyny and xenophobia defined the American experience. This inchoate nostalgia rewrites history in the warm glow and “belief in an essential American innocence, in the utter exceptionality, the ethical singularity and manifest destiny of the United States.”⁵⁹ Philip Roth aptly characterizes this gratuitous form of nostalgia in his “American Pastoral” as the “undetonated past.” Innocence in this script is the stuff of mythologies that distort history and erase the political significance of moral witnessing and historical memory as a way of reading, translating and interrogating the past as it impacts, and sometimes explodes, the present.

Under Trump, language and memory are disabled as words are emptied of substantive content and the space of a shared reality crucial to any democracy is eviscerated. History and language in this contemporary fascist script are paralyzed in the immediacy of tweeted experience, the thrill of the moment and the comfort of a cathartic emotional discharge. The danger, as history has taught us, is when words are systemically used to cover up lies, falsehoods and the capacity to think critically.

In such instances, the public spheres essential to a democracy wither and die, opening the door to fascist ideas, values and social relations: Trump has sanctioned torture, ripped babies from their parents’ arms, imprisoned thousands of young immigrant children, and declared the media along with entire races and religions to be the enemy of the American people. In doing so, he speaks to and legitimates a history in which state violence becomes an organizing principle of governance and perversely a potentially cathartic experience for his followers.

At the same time, the corruption of language is often followed by the corruption of memory, morality and the eventual disappearance of books, ideas and human beings. Prominent German historians such as Richard J. Evans and Victor Klemperer have made clear that for fascist dictators, the dynamics of state censorship and repression had an endpoint in a politics of disappearance, extermination and the death camps.

Trump’s language of disappearance, dehumanization and censorship is an echo and erasure of the horrors and barbarism of another time. His regressive use of language and denial of history must be challenged so the emancipatory energies and compelling narratives of resistance can be recalled to find new ways of challenging the ideologies and power relations that put them into play. Trump’s distortion of language and public memory are part of a larger authoritarian politics of ethnic and racial cleansing that eliminates the genocidal violence waged on Native Americans, black slaves and African-Americans.

Indifferent to the historical footprints that mark expressions of state violence, the Trump administration uses historical amnesia as a weapon of (mis)education, power and politics, allowing public memory to wither and the architecture of fascism to go unchallenged. What is under siege in the present moment is the critical need to keep watch over the repressed narratives of memory work. The fight against a fascist erasure of history must begin with an acute understanding that memory always makes a demand upon the present, refusing to accept ignorance as innocence.

As reality collapses into fake news, moral witnessing disappears into the hollow spectacles of right-wing media machine, which is state-sanctioned weaponry aimed to distort the truth, suppress dissent and attack the critical media. Trump uses Twitter as a public relations blitzkrieg to attack everyone from his political enemies to celebrities who have criticized him.⁶⁰ The merging of journalism as entertainment with a culture addicted to speed, brevity and the pornographic exposure that digitization affords has emptied speech of any substance and further legitimates the unspeakable. Language no longer expands the reach of history, ethics and justice. On the contrary, it now operates in the service of slogans, bigotry and violence. Words are now turned into an undifferentiated mass of ashes, critical discourse reduced to rubble, and informed judgments a distant radioactive horizon.

Under the Trump presidency, neoliberal fascism has restructured civic life that valorizes ignorance, avarice and willful forgetting. In the current Trumpian moment, shouting replaces the pedagogical imperative to listen and reinforces the stories neoliberal fascism tells us about ourselves, our relations to others and the larger world. Under such circumstances, monstrous deeds are committed under the increasing normalization of civic and historical modes of illiteracy. One consequence is that comparisons to the Nazi past can whither in the false belief that historical events are fixed in time and place and can only be repeated in history books. In an age marked by a war on terror, a culture of fear and the normalization of uncertainty, social amnesia has become a power tool for dismantling democracy. Indeed, in this age of forgetfulness, American society appears to revel in what it should be ashamed of and alarmed over.

Even with the insight of history, comparisons between the older orders of fascism and Trump’s regime of brutality, aggression and cruelty are considered by commentators to be too extreme. There is a cost to such caution. As writer Jonathan Freedland points out in The Guardian, “If the Nazi era is placed off limits, seen as so far outside the realm of regular human experience that it might as well have happened on a distant planet – Planet Auschwitz – then we risk failure to learn its lessons.”⁶¹ Knowing how others successfully fought against elected demagogues such as Trump is crucial to a political strategy that reverses impending global catastrophe.

The story of a fascist past needs to be retold not to simply make comparisons to the present, though that is not an unworthy project, but to be able to imagine a new politics in which new knowledge will be built, and as Arendt states, “new insights … new knowledge … new memories, [and] new deeds, [will] take their point of departure.”⁶² This is not to suggest that history is a citadel of truth that can be easily mined. History offers no guarantees and it can be used in the interest of violence as well as for emancipation. For instance, as writer Ariel Dorfman observes, when the white supremacist and neo-Nazis marched in Charlottesville:

“[They carried torches] to evoke memories of terror, of past parades of hate and aggression by the Ku Klux Klan in the United States and Adolf Hitler’s Freikorps in Germany. The organizers wanted to issue a warning to those watching: that past violence, perpetrated in defense of the ‘blood and soil’ of the white race, would once again be harnessed and deployed in Donald Trump’s America.”⁶³

Trump’s selective appropriation of history wages war on the past, choosing to celebrate rather than question fascist horrors. The past in this case is a script that must be followed rather than interrogated. Trump’s view of history is at once “ugly and revealing.”⁶⁴ Such narratives undermine moral witnessing, transform agency into a weapon of violence, and use history as a tool of propaganda. All the more reason why, with the rise of neoliberal fascism, there is a need for modes of historical inquiry and stories that challenge the distortions of the past, transcend private interests and enable the American public to connect private issues to broader historical and political contexts.

The production of new narratives accompanied by critical inquiries into the past would help explain why people participated in the horrors of fascism and what it might take to prevent such complicity from unfolding again. Comparing Trump’s ideology, policies and language to a fascist past offers the possibility to learn what is old and new in the dark times that have descended upon the United States. The pressing relevance of the 1930s is crucial to address how fascist ideas and practices originate and adapt to new conditions, and how people capitulate and resist them as well.

The Disappearing Social

Since the 1970s, the social structure has been under relentless attack by an assemblage of political, economic and educational forces of organized neoliberal agendas. All the commanding institutions of corporate capitalism have enshrined a notion of citizenship that reduces individuals to consumers while promoting regressive notions of freedom and choice defined primarily through the practice of commercial exchange. Freedom, in the neoliberal edition, has been transformed into an obsession with self-interest, part of a war culture that ruthlessly pits individuals against each other while condoning a culture of indifference, violence and cruelty that rejects any sense of political and moral responsibility. This often takes the form of the freedom to be a racist, homophobe and sexist, to experience the liberty to hate and demonize others and to inflict violence and emotional harm under the guise of freedom of speech. Such values also mock any form of dependency, empathy and compassion for others.

Atomization, fear and anxiety are the breeding ground of fascism. Not only do such forces undercut the radical imagination and collective resistance, they situate language and memory in the vise of a politics of depoliticization. Neoliberal fascism insists that everything, including human beings, are to be made over in the image of the market. Everyone is now subject to a paralyzing language of individual responsibility and a disciplinary apparatus that revises downward the American dream of social mobility. Time is now a burden for most people and the lesson to draw from this punishing neoliberal ideology is that everyone is alone in navigating their own fate.

At work here is a neoliberal project to reduce people to human capital and redefine human agency beyond the bonds of sociality, equality, belonging and obligation. All problems and their solutions are now defined exclusively within the purview of the individual. This is a depoliticizing discourse that champions mythic notions of self-reliance and individual character to promote the tearing up of social solidarities and the public spheres that support them.

All aspects of the social and public are now considered suspect, including social space, social provisions, social protections and social dependency, especially for those who are poor and vulnerable. According to the philosopher Byung-Chul Han, the subjects in a “neoliberal economy do not constitute a we that is capable of collective action. The mounting egoization and atomization of society is shrinking the space for collective action. As such, it blocks the formation of a counter power that might be able to put the capitalist order in question.”⁶⁵

At the core of neoliberal fascism is a view of subjectivity that celebrates a narcissistic hyper-individualism that radiates with a near sociopathic lack of interest in others with whom it shares a globe on the brink of catastrophe. This project is wedded to a politics that produces a high threshold of disappearance and serves to disconnect the material moorings and wreckage of neoliberal fascism from its underlying power relations.

Neoliberal fascism thrives on producing subjects that internalize its values, corroding their ability to imagine an alternative world. Under such conditions, not only is agency depoliticized, but the political is emptied of any real substance and unable to challenge neoliberalism’s belief in extreme inequality and social abandonment. This fosters fascism’s deep-rooted investment ultra-nationalism, racial purity and the politics of terminal exclusion.

We live at a time in which the social is individualized and at odds with a notion of solidarity once described by Frankfurt School theorist Herbert Marcuse as “the refusal to let one’s happiness coexist with the suffering of others.”⁶⁶ Marcuse invokes a forgotten notion of the social in which one is willing not only to make sacrifices for others but also “to engage in joint struggle against the cause of suffering or against a common adversary.”⁶⁷

One step toward fighting and overcoming the criminogenic machinery of terminal exclusion and social death endemic to neoliberal fascism is to make education central to a politics that changes the way people think, desire, hope and act. How might language and history adopt modes of persuasion that anchor democratic life in a commitment to economic equality, social justice and a broad shared vision? The challenge we face under a fascism buoyed by a savage neoliberalism is to ask and act on what language, memory and education as the practice of freedom might mean in a democracy. What work can they perform, how can hope be nourished by collective action and the ongoing struggle to create a broad-based democratic socialist movement? What work has to be done to “imagine a politics in which empowerment can grow and public freedom thrive without violence?”⁶⁸ What institutions have to be defended and fought for if the spirit of a radical democracy is to return to view and survive?

*

Henry A. Giroux currently is the McMaster University Professor for Scholarship in the Public Interest and The Paulo Freire Distinguished Scholar in Critical Pedagogy. His most recent books include The Violence of Organized Forgetting (City Lights, 2014), Dangerous Thinking in the Age of the New Authoritarianism(Routledge, 2015), coauthored with Brad Evans, Disposable Futures: The Seduction of Violence in the Age of Spectacle (City Lights, 2015), and America at War with Itself (City Lights, 2016). His website is www.henryagiroux.com.

Notes

1. Federico Finchelstein, From Fascism to Populism in History (Oakland: University of California Press, 2017), p. xi.
2. Two excellent examples can be found in Lawrence Grossberg’s Under the Cover of Chaos: Trump and the Battle for the American Right (London: Pluto Press, 2018) and Carl Boggs’ Fascism Old and New: American Politics at the Crossroads (New York: Routledge, 2018).
3. Ibid. p. xiv.
4. Jeffrey C. Isaac, “Is there illiberal democracy?” Eurozine, Aug. 9, 2017.
5. For an analysis of the complex legacy of right-wing and fascist forces that have contributed to Trump’s election and his popularity among fringe groups, see Shane Burley, Fascism Today: What It Is and How to End It (Chicago: AK Press, 2017).
6. Neoliberalism has a long and complex history and takes a variety of forms. I am using the more generic elements of neoliberalism as I use the term in this essay. See Kean Birch, “What Exactly is Neoliberalism?” The Conversation, Nov. 2, 2017. For an extensive analysis of neoliberalism in terms of its history and variations, see Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval, Never Ending Nightmare: How Neoliberalism Dismantles Democracy (New York: Verso, 2019); Richard D. Wolff, Capitalism’s Crisis Deepens: Essays on the Global Economic Meltdown (Chicago: Haymarket, 2016); Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution (New York: Zone Books, 2015), Henry A. Giroux, Against the Terror of Neoliberalism (New York: Routledge, 2008), and David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford University Press, 2005).
7. John Bellamy Foster, “Neofascism in the White House,” Monthly Review, April 1, 2017.
8. Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s Stealth Revolution (New York: Zone Books, 2015), p. 9.
9. One brilliant source here is Henrich Geiselberger, The Great Regression (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017).
10. Caleb Crain, “Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy?” The New Yorker, May 14, 2018.
11. Anis Shivani, “This is our neoliberal nightmare: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and why the market and the wealthy win every time,” Salon, June 6, 2016.
12. Fintan O’Toole, “Trial Runs for Fascism Are in Full Flow,” Irish Times, June 26, 2018.
13. See, especially, Michael D. Yates, The Great Inequality, New York: Routledge, 2016 and Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality, New York: Norton, 2012.
14. Wendy Brown, “Apocalyptic Populism,” Eurozine, Sept 5, 2017.
15. Timothy Snyder, “The Study of the Impossible, not the Inevitable,” Eurozine, July 24, 2018.
16. Henry A. Giroux, “Challenging Trump’s Language of Fascism,” Truthout, Jan. 9, 2018.
17. Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century, London: Polity Press, 2017: New York, NY, p. 65.
18. Paul Gilroy, Against Race, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000, p. 141.
19. Erin Aubry Kaplan, “Presidents used to speak for all Americans. Trump speaks for his racist, resentful white base,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 5, 2017.
20. Theodor W. Adorno, “The Meaning of Working Through the Past,” Guild and Defense, trans. Henry W. Pickford (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010), pp. 214.
21. Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich: 1973). Roger Berkowitz, “Why Arendt Matters: Revisiting ‘The Origins of Totalitarianism,’” Los Angeles Review of Books, March 18, 2017.
22. Cited in Marie Luise Knott, Unlearning With Hannah Arendt, trans. by David Dollenmayer (Other Press: New York, 2011, 2013), p. 17.
23. Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), p. 202.
24. Robert O. Paxton, “The Five Stages of Fascism,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 70, No. 1, March 1998.
25. Paul Gilroy, Against Race (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 144.
26. Wendy Brown, “Apocalyptic Populism,” Eurozine, Sept 5, 2017.
27. See, for instance, Stephanie McCrummen, “Judgment Days: God, Trump, and the Meaning of Morality,” The Washington Post, July 21, 2018.
28. See, for instance, Parul Sehgal, “Toxic History, Poisoned Water: The Story of Flint,” New York Times, July 3, 2018.
29. Naomi Klein, The Battle for Paradise: Puerto Rico Takes on the Disaster Capitalists (Chicago: Haymarket, 2018).
30. Heather Koball and Yang Jiang, Basic Facts About Low-Income Children Under 9 Years, 2016, (New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, January 2018).
31. Amy Goodman, “Blistering U.N. Report: Trump Administration’s Policies Designed to Worsen Poverty & Inequality,” Democracy Now!, June 15, 2018.
32. See, for instance, Gordon Lafer, The One Percent Solution: How Corporations Are Remaking America One State at a Time (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017).
33. Elizabeth Hinton, From the War on Poverty to the War on Crime: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2017).
34. I take up these issues at length in Henry A. Giroux, American Nightmare: Facing the Challenge of Fascism (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2018).
35. Anis Shivani, “This is our neoliberal nightmare: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and why the market and the wealthy win every time,” Salon, June 6, 2016.
36. David Harvey, “Organizing for the Anti-Capitalist Transition,” Monthly Review, Dec. 15, 2009.
37. Jeremy B White, “Los Angeles sues drug companies for ‘driving opioid epidemic’; Lawsuit accuses companies of ‘borrowing from the tobacco industry’s playbook’,” The Independent, May 3, 2018.
38. Kean Birch and Vlad Mykhnenko, “Introduction: A World Turned Right Way Up,” The Rise and The Fall of Neoliberalism: The Collapse of an Economic Order (New York: Zed Books, 2010), pp. 7-8.
39. Leon Wieseltier, “How voters’ personal suffering overtook reason – and brought us Donald Trump,” Washington Post, June 22, 2016.
40. Fintan O’Toole, “Trial Runs for Fascism Are in Full Flow,” Irish Times, June 26, 2018.
41. Candace Norwood, “I want ‘my people’ to ‘sit up at attention’ like in North Korea,” Politico, June 15, 2018.
42. See David Neiwert, Alt-America: The Rise of the Radical Right in The Age of Trump (New York: Verso, 2017).
43. See, for instance, Paul Street, “Capitalism: The Nightmare,” Truthdig, Sept. 20, 2017.
44. Anis Shivani, “This is our neoliberal nightmare: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and why the market and the wealthy win every time,” Salon, June 6, 2016.
45. Ta-Nehisi Coates, “The First White President,” The Atlantic, October 2017.
46. John Feffer, “Donald Trump’s Flight 93 Doctrine,” The Nation, July 23, 2017.
47. Nick Miroff, Amy Goldstein and Maria Sacchetti, “‘Deleted’ families: What went wrong with Trump’s family-separation effort,” The Washington Post, July 28, 2018.
48. Amber Phillips, “‘They’re rapists.’ President Trump’s campaign launch speech two years later,” The Washington Post, June 16, 2017.
49. Lena H. Sun and Juliet Eilperin, “CDC gets list of forbidden words: Fetus, transgender, diversity,” The Washington Post, Dec. 15, 2017.
50. Hilary Brueck, “The Trump Administration has been quietly removing content from federal websites — here’s the before and after,” Business Insider, Jan. 11, 2018.
51. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, “Beware of President Trump’s Nefarious Language Games,” The Washington Post, Dec. 21, 2017.
52. Rose Sydney Parfitt (Cihan Aksan and Jon Bailes, eds), “One Question, Fascism (Part One): Is Fascism making a comeback?” State of Nature Blog, Dec. 3, 2017.
53. Aviya Kushner, “‘INFEST’ – The Ugly Nazi History of Trump’s Chosen Verb About Immigrants,” Forward, June 20, 2016.
54. Juan Cole, “What Have We Become? What We Have Always Been,” Common Dreams, May 17, 2018.
55. Ibid.
56. Clark Mindock, “Number of hate crimes surges in year of Trump’s election,” The Independent, Nov. 14, 2017.
57. Ibid. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, “Beware of President Trump’s Nefarious Language Games.”
58. Danielle Douglas-Gabriel and Tracy Jan, “DeVos called HBCUs ‘pioneers’ of ‘school choice.’ It didn’t go over well,” The Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2017.
59. Ariel Dorfman, “How to Read Donald Trump: On Burning Books but Not Ideas,” TomDispatch, Sept. 14, 2017.
60. Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman, “Mueller Examining Trump’s Tweets in Wide-Ranging Obstruction Inquiry,” The Washington Post, July 26, 2018.
61. Jonathan Freedland, “Inspired by Trump, the World Could Be Heading Back to the 1930s,” The Guardian, June 22, 2018.
62. Hannah Arendt, “The Image of Hell,” Commentary, Sept. 1, 1946.
63. Ariel Dorfman, “How to Read Donald Trump: On Burning Books but Not Ideas,” TomDispatch, Sept. 14, 2017.
64. Cass R. Sunstein, “It Can Happen Here,” The New York Review of Books, June 28, 2018.
65. Byung-Chul Han, In the Swarm: Digital Prospects, tr. Erik Butler (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2017), p. 13.
66. Herbert Marcuse, An Essay on Liberation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), p. 14.
67. Carl Cassegard, “Individualized Solidarity,” Eurozine, July 18, 2018.
68. Richard J. Bernstein, “The Illuminations of Hannah Arendt,” The New York Times, June 20, 2016.

All images in this article are from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

During the American Civil War, in which 620,000 people were slaughtered on the battlefields alone and hundreds of thousands more injured, the organization of the Roman Catholic Church in the American north and south remained united throughout the war and after.

The same cannot be said for the four-year-old civil war in Ukraine, which has deepened existing divisions among Orthodox Christians in the country.

Tensions are rising to the point that the Ukrainian government has been accused of suppressing the celebration of the 1030th anniversary of the coming of Christianity to ancient Rus, the proto-state of Eastern Slavs, which included the territories of modern Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. The government is being blamed for involvement in an effort to eliminate the original historic church of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (UOC-MP), because of its affiliation with Russia and the word “Moscow” in its name.

The UOC-MP currently includes more than 12,000 of about 18,000 parishes in Ukraine, and is headed by Ukrainian Metropolitan Onuphrius, under the higher spiritual authority of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus, seated in Moscow.

On July 27, a solemn march celebrating the 1030th anniversary of the baptism of Rus by Prince Vladimir the Great of Kiev in 988 AD drew 250,000 faithful of the UOC-MP in Kiev despite the attempt to sabotage it by the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko. According to numerous testimonies by UOC-MP’s priests, published in the Ukrainian press, transportation was cut off from outlying parishes and believers were intimidated.

But, if we believe the government, these actions weren’t a suppression of religion, but rather “required by a specific situation.” The Poroshenko regime, formed in the beginning of the civil war that followed the U.S.-backed 2014 bloody coup in the “Euromaidan” uprising, is favoring a split-off of the traditional church by an anti-Moscow church known as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate ( UOC-KP) headed by a self-proclaimed leader named Patriach Filaret (born, Denisenko).

Denisenko, a former cleric of the Moscow Patriarchate, left the UOC-MP in 1992 following the collapse of the Soviet Union. He had lost an ecclesiastical election and tried to form his own church. Denisenko was then excommunicated. His church is not recognized by any of the other members of the international community of Orthodox churches.

There is no single authority in the Orthodox Churches similar to the Roman Catholic pope; rather there are independent or auto-cephalic regional Patriarchs considered equal in authority, with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Istanbul (formerly Constantinople), regarded as first among equals (primus inter pares) primarily for historic reasons because Constantinople, before its takeover by Turks in 1453, was the center of Orthodox Christianity.

None of these Orthodox Patriarchates recognize either the UOC-KP or “Patriarch” Filaret Denisenko. But now the Poroshenko government, together with Denisenko, is moving to reverse that situation. They have called on Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in Istanbul to remove the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate and recognize a new, single independent Orthodox church in Ukraine, severing all ties to Moscow.

The single church in the Poroshenko-Denisenko plan would carry the UOC-KP name with the authority, according to Denisenko, to seize all churches, temples, chapels, monasteries and other properties belonging to the UOC-MP.

It would mean dispossessing the historic UOC-MP, which has direct “apostolic” continuity with the 1030-year-old original Kievan church and Christianity in the Eastern Roman empire, once brought there by Christ’s own disciples. UOC-MP said they would not pray in church together with the excommunicated Denisenko.

A Warning from Kirill

Russian Patriarch Kirill, speaking in Moscow at the celebrations of the 1030^th anniversary of Vladimir’s baptism of Rus, warned against attempts by secular authorities in Ukraine to interfere with church affairs or to split the historic church.

Orthodox faithful inside Ukraine, both ethnic Russians and ethnic Ukrainians, see the plans of Poroshenko’s government and Denisenko as an illegal assault on their tradition and religious heritage. In addition, some deputies in the Ukrainian Rada (Parliament) have warned that there could be “bloody consequences” if the properties of the UOC-MP are confiscated and its members forced to join a new church.

With a decision from Bartholomew expected next month, events took an important turn with the announcement of a planned Aug. 31 meeting between Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and the Ecumenical Patriarch in Istanbul. The announcement was made in early August through the ROC’s press service, which called the upcoming meeting a “very important talk” between the two Patriarchs.

Though the Ecumenical Patriarch doesn’t play the same role as the pope in the Roman Catholic Church, Bartholomew is nonetheless in a “make or break” position. All Russia and all of Ukraine will be anxiously watching that meeting, especially after the tensions that surrounded the UOC-MP’s celebration in Kiev of the 1030th anniversary of Christianization.

The core issue is that Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox believers have belonged to the same church since Russia’s conversion to Christianity in 988 AD. Against this powerful tradition, the government authorities in Kiev are spreading fear against the UOC-MP among some Ukrainian Orthodox believers that has been unheard of since Christianity was de facto “rehabilitated” in 1988 in the former Soviet Union during the celebrations of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism.

The 1000th year anniversary celebration took place under Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who broke the 70 years long tradition of enforced state atheism in the Soviet Union. The USSR had one legal Russian Orthodox Church (persecuted by Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev)– the same that had existed in the Russian empire toppled by Bolsheviks in 1917. Church leaders say Ukraine’s government cannot erase the united Church’s history, which goes back to Prince Vladimir and to apostolic times.

According to the historical record, the Baptism of Kievan Rus by Vladimir had the support and participation of the Greek Church in Constantinople, then the official church of the Eastern Roman Empire, later known as Byzantium. The first Orthodox bishops and metropolitans (equivalent to Western archbishops) in Russia were Greeks from Constantinople who got their “apostolic succession” from Christ’s disciples.

The petition to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to approve the invention of a new “united” Ukrainian church that eliminates the UOC-MP would violate this sacred apostolic succession, says the Moscow Patriarchate. The UOC-MP has also protested that neither Poroshenko nor the Rada are empowered to ask Bartholomew to change the church’s organization in Ukraine.

“The strength of the Russian Orthodox Church and its Ukrainian sister UOC-MP lies in the apostolic succession, which the current Ukrainian government can neither provide nor imitate,” the Russian Orthodox Church’s spokesman said. “The state cannot `create’ a church, nor should it aspire to do it. But this is exactly what the Ukrainian authorities are trying to do, urging the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to merge with Denisenko’s entity and asking from the ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople an autocephalous status for this new `united’ Ukrainian church of their own invention.”

“This initiative is an abuse of power, an interference of state into church affairs,” UOC-MP’s the spokesman said.

The UOC-MP has remained the only public organization in Ukraine which still legally has the word “Moscow” in its name, and for millions of Ukrainian citizens, ethnic Russians or not, any kind of legal linkage to Russia is still valued.

Kiev’s Moves Against Russia

Almost immediately after seizing power in 2014, the new regime in Kiev terminated air flights between the two countries and banished Russian television and radio from Ukraine’s cable networks. One of the new regime’s first acts was to ban the Russian language, an extreme move that was quickly reversed. But constant attempts are made by the Ukrainian government to shut down the Russian embassy, introduce a new visa regime between Russia and Ukraine or seal the borders, making it extremely difficult for millions of Russians and Ukrainians to see their family members.

The historic role of the Moscow Patriarchate has provided a spiritual and cultural link for tens of millions of people, who in the 1990s suddenly became divided by newly emerged borders. In the period of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991 the Russian church proved wiser and more flexible than the Soviet state.

“Russian Orthodox Church then gave its `periphery’ so much autonomy, that this prevented the collapse of the whole structure,” said Yevgeny Nikiforov, the head of the Orthodox-oriented radio station Radonezh, and a specialist in Russian church history. “The unified state might collapse in tears, but the church did not follow it. It remained alive and did not give up its right to cater to believers on all sides of the newly emerged borders.”

Even in Soviet days the Moscow Patriarchate allowed sister churches in Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova to have their own budgets, to appoint their own bishops and to run all their “earthly” activities (education, manufacture of church items, etc.) without consulting Moscow. In return, the Russian Orthodox Church remained in “eucharistic union” with them, with representatives of these churches participating in the election of the Russian Patriarch of the ROC. Believers in all of these countries were treated as equals.

It seems clear why Poroshenko’s regime is opposed to the UOC-MP. The church openly condemns the ongoing civil war in Ukraine, refuses to call it “Russian aggression” and retains the word “Moscow” in its name. In addition, pro-government Ukrainian nationalist organizations often accuse the UOC-MP of being “a pro-Moscow group of separatists in priests’ attire.”

Patriarch Kirill denounced the attempts by Ukrainian authorities to divide and subdue the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-MP while speaking to a convention of the world’s Orthodox churches’ representatives in Moscow on July 27. He underscored what the attempt by the Poroshenko government’s religious takeover means and how it could further inflame the Ukrainian civil war.

“For our church,” Kirill said, “Kiev is the same … holy place as Jerusalem is for Christians of all creeds.”

*

Dmitry Babich is a multilingual Russian journalist and political commentator. Born in 1970 in Moscow, graduated from Moscow State University (department of journalism) in 1992. Dmitri worked for Russian newspapers, such as Komsomolskaya Pravda and The Moscow News (as the head of the foreign department). Dmitri covered the Chechen war as a television reporter for TV6 channel from 1995 to 1997. Since 2003 he has worked for RIA Novosti, RT, and Russia Profile. Dmitry is a frequent guest on the BBC, Al Jazeera, Sky News and Press TV. 

All images in this article, except the featured, are from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s announcement of the creation of a new Iran Action Group at the White House–almost exactly on the anniversary of the CIA-led coup against Iran’s elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 no less–was as usual short on substance but heavy on on accusations and demands. Yet, it may still be quite significant precisely because of the growing fissures within the Trump administration in regards to Iran policy.

Hawks on Iran were caught off guard when Donald Trump announced last month that he would be willing to meet with Iran’s leaders “any time they want to” and without preconditions. The Israeli intelligence community–who otherwise have claimed authorship of Trump’s Iran policy–were “struck dumb for two days” amid fears that Trump might abandon the pressure strategy and instead seek to mend ties with Tehran. Steadfast supporters of kinetic action against Iran, such as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), nervously took to twitter to warn Trump that he should be ready “to be taken to the cleaners” unless he approached the Iranians from a position of strength.

Trump’s surprise provided some insight into the fissures within his administration regarding Iran policy. Trump, who mindful of his fondness for summits and his desire to be seen as a deal maker probably does want to meet with the Iranians, appears rather alone in favoring a pivot to diplomacy. Here, he certainly does not have backing from John Bolton, Mike Pompeo or Brian Hook, who all the offer of negotiations as yet another instrument of pressure, rather than a genuine offer.

This group has already walked back Trump’s offer for dialogue with Iran without preconditions. And John Bolton famously wrote in a memo to Trump that as the US would increase the pressure on Iran, it should also consider “rhetorically leaving that possibility open in order to demonstrate Iran’s actual underlying intention to develop deliverable nuclear weapon.”

Against this background, one purpose the new Iran Action Group may serve is to escalate matters with Iran to the point in which any pivot to diplomacy by Trump may be rendered impossible.

Proponents of confrontation with Iran such as FDD have already once seen their pressure policy (which was designed to be irreversible) be dialed down by a President who pivoted to negotiations. This happened in 2013 under Obama, and led to many bitter public exchanges between FDD’s leadership and Obama officials. After all, the Obama administration worked closely with FDD to sanction Iran. Once Obama pivoted to diplomacy, however, FDD fell out of favor. Hawks on North Korea must have felt similarly frustrated when Trump suddenly shifted to talk to Kim Jung Un rather than threatening him with nuclear strikes.

Moreover, what has been clear from Trump’s Iran policy thus far is that much of it is rarely publicly acknowledged. But we know now per the reporting of Reuters that the Trump administration has been destabilizing Iran and that the goal with its pressure policy is to “foment unrest in Iran.” (It remains to be seen whether the US also has directly provided funding to entities involved in the unrest in Iran.)

The Iran Action group will likely lead and intensify efforts to foment unrest in Iran, further creating tensions with the EU, who view the destabilization of Iran as a direct national security threat to Europe.

Despite the absence of substance in Pompeo’s press conference, this move is yet another escalatory step by neoconservatives in the Trump administration, who are deliberately moving the US closer to war with Iran, despite Trump’s offer for talks. Trump has in the past shown himself quite capable of replacing advisors and officials who cross purpose with him. But on Iran, a pivot to diplomacy would not only cause a break with senior members of his inner circle, but also with the Prime Minister of Israel and the King of Saudi Arabia.

The neoconservatives in the White House and outside proponents of war with Iran have Trump in a corner and they want to keep him there. The Iran Action Group seems aimed at achieving just that.

*

Trita Parsi is the president of the National Iranian American Council and author of Losing an Enemy – Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy.

Featured image is from Flickr.

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

“We must make peace with our planet.”

Navdanya means ‘Nine seeds’ or ‘New Gift’, which is a means of educating farmers of the immense advantages in the practice of having various and individualized crops rather than receiving offers from mono-culture food producers. The initiative brought about the establishment of over 40 seed banks across India for diversified agriculture. Shiva also set up ‘Bija Vidyapeeth’ which is an international College for sustainable living, in Doon Valley, in 2004.

Her first book entitled ‘Staying Alive’ was published in 1988 and it helped redefine perceptions of Third World Women. Also, Shiva has written copious reports for FAO and the UN on mainly women rights issues and sustainable agriculture and even manufacturing.

Besides, she has worked for the Promotion of biodiversity in agriculture to increase productivity, nutrition and farmer’s incomes.

.

It is for this work that Time magazine recognized her as an ‘Environmental Hero in 2003. In an interview with David Borsamian, Shiva argues that the Seed-Chemical Package promoted by Green revolution agriculture had depleted soil, destroyed living ecosystems, and negatively impacted people’s health. In her work, she cites data allegedly demonstrating that today there are over 1400 pesticides that may enter the food system across the world because only 1% of pesticides sprayed act on the target pest.

Vandana Shiva, alongside her sister, Dr Mira Shiva, argues that the health costs of increasing pesticide and fertilizer use range from cancer to kidney failure to heart disease. Also, on what she calls ‘biopiracy’, Shiva has fought against and won attempted patents of several indigenous plants in India, such as basmati by the US Department of Agriculture and the Corporation WR Grace. Moreover, her activitism included the struggles against the promotion of the Sale and consumption of ‘Golden rice’ (a breed of rice that has been genetically engineered to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of Vitamin A) in India by GMO corporation of India, around 2013. However, there have been several and severe criticisms of Vandana Shiva’s views and methods by some reputed solid analysists notably investigative Journalist Michael Specter of the New Yorker in an article on 25 August, 2014 entitled ‘Seeds of Doubt’ and journalist Kerth Kloor in an article published in ‘Discover’ on 23 October, 2014 entitled ‘The Rich allure of a Peasant Champion. Notwithstanding, all the criticisms have not reduced the personality and achievements of Vandana Shiva as a first-rate, world-class environmentalist.

Prof. Vandana Shiva is a physicist, ecofeminist, philosopher, activist, and author of more than 20 books and 500 papers. She is the founder of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and has campaigned for biodiversity, conservation and farmers’ rights, winning the Right Livelihood Award [Alternative Nobel Prize] in 1993. She is executive director of the Navdanya Trust.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

At the end of July, as the American wildfires began to take hold in California, British oil giant BP made its biggest financial deal in nearly twenty years.

In retrospect it would have been hugely symbolic if one of the largest oil companies in the world, BP, which had so badly devastated the Gulf of Mexico eight years earlier with the Deepwater Horizon spill, had taken this moment to say it was investing in renewables.

All you had to do was look at the flames burning – and listen to the experts saying this was climate change in action –  to know that urgent action was needed.

But BP did not do that. As Reuters reported, BP agreed to buy U.S. “shale oil and gas assets from global miner BHP Billiton for $10.5 billion, expanding the British oil major’s footprint in some of the nation’s most productive oil basins”.

That’s a whopping $10 billion invested in more climate failure. BP Chief Executive, Bob Dudley, said in a statement:

“This is a transformational acquisition for our (onshore U.S.) business, a major step in delivering our upstream strategy and a world-class addition to BP’s distinctive portfolio.”

Dudley told analysts in July:

“I can’t remember when it has looked this good,” referring to the growth opportunities he saw for BP over the coming decade.

What is a “world class” reserve of oil to BP, is “world destroying” to everyone else. It may look good to Bob Dudley, as long as he doesn’t look at the news regarding soaring temperatures and wildfires ripping parts of California to burnt shreds.

Remember this is the company that promised to go “beyond petroleum” nearly twenty years ago. But still it just keeps on drilling.

And here lies the disconnect the oil industry is in. No matter how many scientific papers there are warning about climate change, no matter how many scientists there are saying that climate change made this summer’s heat-wave twice as likely, no matter how many financial experts are warning about stranded assets and that the oil industry is risking billions of share-holders’ money, the oil industry carries on drilling.

It is not as if BP doesn’t know the financial penalties of reckless oil exploitation: it is still paying off some $66 billion nearly in penalties and clean-up costs, related to the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010.

There are other warning signs too. As Reuters expands:

“The sale ends a disastrous seven-year foray by BHP into shale on which the company effectively blew up $19 billion of shareholders’ funds. Together, that is $85 billion of funds destroyed by investing in oil and gas.”

Even the FT noted that:

“The poor record of international companies in making successful acquisitions in US shale is a reason for investors to be wary.”

Not content with burning $85 billion, they want to risk another $80 billion. As a recent report from Wood Mackenzie outlined this week, the industry is also about to splurge another $80 billion on upcoming mega projects in LNG development in Mozambique, the Arctic, Papua New Guinea, and Canada, and oil projects in Nigeria, Brazil, the Gulf of Mexico, Senegal, and the North Sea, as well as the Caspian, and Uganda

The oil industry carries on burning money, oblivious that they are driving us all over a “climate cliff”. Since BP’s announcement, new scientific research about the dangers of positive feedbacks on climate change, which I blogged about here, and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has received huge media attention. And rightly so.

As Dr. John Abraham, a professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas in the US, noted two days ago in the Guardian,

“The problem is, humans collectively are not doing enough … There still is time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. But, it is far too late to avoid all climate change – it is already here. What we are hoping for now is enough wisdom and will to at least stop short of going off these cliffs.”

The oil industry is full of very well-paid people who should understand the science and risks of climate change. They may be rich, but they do not seem to be wise. They drive blinkered towards the cliff.

*

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Silver used to be a significant part of the monetary base in many countries. You could find it as part of monetary reserves together with gold, as well as coinage in circulation.

Over the years that silver was demonetized (at least from the 1870s to roughly the 1960s), significant amounts of silver coins (official currency coins) were melted down and sold on the markets, together with silver bars (used as reserves). This brought us to today, where the amount of silver that is part of the monetary base is basically immaterial.

This had the effect of enormous downward pressure on silver prices, even unto this day. This will only be reversed when silver is again part of monetary stock or held as a key investment by the masses.

Silver basically has to be used the way the US dollar was/is used (in the US and on an international basis), and other national currencies in their respective countries.

Now, people (especially central banks) are not going to willingly restore silver to being a monetary asset, and neither are the masses going to just go out and buy silver for the fun of it.

Instead, what is likely to happen is a collapse of the current debt-based monetary order will bring people back to using silver as money (out of need), as well as, stack silver like they stack stocks, bonds and other major investment classes, in order to protect against the fallout from the crisis.

Below, is a chart that shows how the silver price has fallen against the monetary base (in billions of dollars) of the US:

The silver price is at an all time low when measured against the US monetary base. In 1980, the all-time high was 0.361, whereas the ratio is currently at around 0.004. The US monetary base is currently around 3 651 billion dollars (or 3.651 trillion). Therefore, if silver was today at its 1980 value, relative to the monetary base, it would be around $1 318 (3651*0.361).

As high as this value is, it is not the US dollar value silver will be when it reverts to being a significant part of the monetary base, since the 1980 high did not represent silver reverting to being used as money.

In fact the silver’s US dollar value will be far in excess of this, since the US dollar will virtually lose it’s main reason for being.

2^nd Phase of the Silver Bull Market

The silver correction since 2011 appears to be forming a similar pattern to the one from 1980 to 2001. I have marked the two patterns (1 to 7) to show how they could be similar. The move from 1 to 5 is typical of a major correction (from top to bottom).

If the comparison is correct, then we appear to be at a bottom for silver (a secondary bottom, since point 5 was the lowest). Higher silver prices over the next few weeks could confirm that silver prices has really turned (from the long correction), and are ready to make great advances during the 2^nd phase of the silver bull market.

*

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Hubert Moolman on Silver and Gold.

“This is the same machine that has always been there and available and had available to it enormous amounts of resources – a tsunami of resources – to throw at a disinformation campaign to muddy the waters and confuse people’s perception, the purpose of which was to overwhelm, drown out in noise the people who were carrying the real message.”

– Michael C. Ruppert, (from the April 13, 2014 program)

The Global Research News Hour has striven over the course of the past six years to provide listeners with access to substantive analysis which challenges the dominant narratives furthering war, repression and despoiling of planet Earth. Putting together a weekly radio program in addition to the regular GRTV video productions takes considerable time, research, energy, and other resources.

Global Research, which podcasts the program, depends on the support of its audience to stay afloat at a time when courageous voices of dissent are coming under attack. Please consider becoming a member, or making a donation to Global Research to help guide independent journalism through these turbulent waters. All Hands on Deck!

Our finances remain in deep waters. The support of our readers is much appreciated. Please click below to make a donation now.

For the duration of the summer, the Global Research News Hour is highlighting past shows. Broadcasters are welcome and encouraged to use the repeat broadcasts on this webpage. However, broadcasters are free to avail themselves of any of the shows on the Global Research News Hour webpage.

Thanks again to our faithful listeners and supporters. And a very special thanks to the various community and internet stations (listed below) who carry the show.

My Lai 50 Years Later: Reflections on the Vietnam War and Its Meaning Today

Seymour Hersh was the reporter who broke the story and brought it to the attention of the world twenty months later. The news shocked a nation and gave a dose of adrenaline to the burgeoning anti-war movement, which would largely succeed in bringing an end to this dreadful, deadly foreign policy blunder.[1]

As disturbing as My Lai and similar incidents at the time may have been, U.S. sponsored military violence in the post 9/11 period is no less gruesome and barbaric than what was confronted in the 1960s and 70s. [2][3]So, why has the anti-war movement withered to the point of irrelevancy?

This week’s Global Research News Hour program begins to address this and other related questions in a feature commemorating the 50th anniversary of My Lai.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Originally aired March 16, 2018.

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Plot to Kill Martin Luther King: “We All Knew He [Ray] Was Not the Shooter”. A Conversation with William Pepper on Global Research

William Pepper’s account of King’s death, as encompassed in three books, including his latest, The Plot to Kill King: The Truth Behind the Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., provides an indispensable resource for those not content with the official story of King’s Murder. Not only does his work lay out more than 3 decades of diligent research into the assassination, including an under-reported wrongful death civil trial in 1999, it provides a notable case study on how and why high-level conspiracies, involving government entities, carry out crimes and successfully conceal them from the public.

In this 50th anniversary commemoration of the death of one of America’s most inspiring crusaders for social and economic justice, the Global Research News Hour is proud to present this exclusive feature-length interview with Dr. William Pepper.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Originally aired April 6, 2018

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

9/11 Truth and the Legacy of Michael C Ruppert: Connecting the Dots Like No One Else

This week, the Global Research News Hour radio program marks the fourth anniversary of the death of an independent journalist and alternative media figure who served as an inspiration to many in the post 9/11 period. His name was Michael C Ruppert.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW 

Originally aired April 13, 2014.

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . Excerpts of the show have begun airing on Rabble Radio and appear as podcasts at rabble.ca.

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 4pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time. 

Notes:
1)  https://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massacre

2) ibid

3) http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-wikileaks-iraq-logs-a-protocol-of-barbarity-a-724026.html

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Washington can and does use its “jihadi” mercenaries wherever Washington pleases. Washington has deployed these terrorists in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Bosnia, Kosovo, and beyond. 

Prof. Tim Anderson provides a graphic analysis below.

Sometimes assets/proxies are not aware that they serve Washington “interests”, but they are still proxies nonetheless. Washington seeks global hegemony, hence, it imposes destabilization/destruction” strategies on non-compliant nations.  Terrorist proxies are excellent instruments for destruction, and they play a central role.

A recent UN document acknowledges that the U.S is giving ISIS “breathing space”:

“Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a having been defeated militarily in Iraq and most of the Syrian Arab Republic during 2017, rallied in early 2018. This was the result of a loss of momentum by forces fighting it in the east of the Syrian Arab Republic, which prolonged access by ISIL to resources and gave it breathing space to prepare for the next phase of its evolution into a global covert network. By June 2018, the military campaigns against ISIL had gathered pace again, but ISIL still controlled small pockets of territory in the Syrian Arab Republic on the Iraqi border. It was able to extract and sell some oil, and to mount attacks, including across the border into Iraq.”

The areas referenced by the document are controlled by illegal U.S occupation forces. It is from these protected areas that ISIS continues to launch attacks against Syria and its peoples, and from which it plunders Syrian resources.

The culture that Western-supported terrorists impose on occupied areas of Syria is largely foreign to Syria and the Levant.  Women, for example, must dress in black abas, in accordance with Sharia law.

In contrast, the real Syria, that the West seeks to erase, looks something like this:

Clearly, the notions that Canada and its allies seek to impose “democracy and freedom”, or that their “regime change” wars of conquest are “humanitarian”, are absolutely ridiculous.

*

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. R and U Videos, “War Diary Project”.( https://www.facebook.com/timand2037/videos/10215310579850700/) August 2018. Accessed 19 August, 2018.

2. “Twenty-second report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team submitted pursuant to resolution 2368 (2017) concerning ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities.” 27 July, 2018. (http://undocs.org/S/2018/705). Accessed 19 August, 2018.

3. Whitney Webb, “UN Report Finds ISIS Given ‘Breathing Space’ in US-Occupied Areas of Syria.” Global Research, August 16, 2018, MintPress News 15 August 2018. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/un-report-finds-isis-given-breathing-space-in-us-occupied-areas-of-syria/5650819) Accessed 19 August, 2018.

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

This week, the Trump military parade, planned for November 10, was canceled for 2018. In February, a coalition of groups went public, announcing we would organize to stop the military parade and, if it went forward, to mobilize more people at the parade calling for peace and an end to war than supporting militarism. The coalition called for “ending the wars at home and abroad.”

The No Trump Military Parade coalition intended to show the world that the people of the United States do not support war. The coalition has been meeting regularly to build toward organized mass opposition to the proposed parade. People were working to make this protest a take-off for a renewed peace movement in a country exhausted by never-ending wars and massive military spending, but our first goal was to stop the parade from happening.

We say No to War sign seen at a 2007 anti-war protest. (Photo by Thiago Santos on flickr)

Momentum Builds For Mass Opposition To Trump Military Parade, As Costs Mount

The protest turned into a weekend of activities linked with the October 21 Women’s March on the Pentagon. The Women’s March was planning to include a daily vigil at the Pentagon until the military parade protest weekend. The theme of the weekend was “Divest from War, Invest in Peace.” On Friday, November 9, we planned a nonviolent direct action training for those who could risk arrest to stop the parade. That evening, CODE PINK was organizing a peace concert, “Peace Rocks”, on the mall. And, throughout that weekend, we were going to participate in Catharsis on the Mall: A Vigil for Healing, where we were going to create art for this Burning Man-like event to demonstrate the transformation of ending war and creating a peace economy.

On November 10, the day of the military parade, the ANSWER Coalition, part of the No Trump Military Parade coalition, had permits for both possible parade routes where peace advocates would hold a concentrated presence and rally alongside the parade. A work group was planning nonviolent direct actions, called “Rain on Trump’s Parade,” to stop the parade. On Sunday, November 11, a group of veterans and military family members were planning to lead a silent march through the war memorials on the mall to reclaim Armistice Day on its 100th anniversary.

The No Trump Military Parade was building momentum. On Tuesday, we published a letter signed by 187 organizations that called for the parade to be stopped. It read, in part, “We urge you now to do all in your power to stop the military parade on November 10. The vast majority of people in the US and around the world crave peace. If the parade goes forward, we will mobilize thousands of people on that day to protest it.” We sent copies of the release to the corporate and independent media and made sure the National Park Service, DC City Council, and Pentagon were aware of our planning.

On Thursday, the Pentagon leaked a new $92 million cost for the parade, more than six times the original estimate.  The cost included $13.5 million for DC police for crowd control and security. This alone was more than the initial $12 million cost estimate for the total parade. DC officials noted the parade would “breed protests and counter-protests, adding to city officials’ logistical headaches.”  Kellyanne Conway also took jabs at protesters when she discussed the cancellation of the parade on FOX and Friends.

Coalition members were quickly alerted to the new cost estimate and people went on social media spreading the word, expressing outrage and sharing our sign-on letter. That afternoon, the coalition issued a statement on the cost and the momentum building to oppose the parade, as  by then, more than 200 organizations had signed on. That evening it was announced that the parade was postponed for 2018 and would be considered in 2019.

There was super-majority opposition to the military parade and it was becoming the national consensus of the country that there should not be a military parade. Army Times conducted a poll of its readers; 51,000 responded and 89 percent opposed the parade responding, “No, It’s a waste of money and troops are too busy.” A Quinnipiac University poll found 61 percent of voters disapprove of the military parade, while only 26 percent support the idea.

In addition to the financial cost, the Pentagon knew there was a political cost The cancellation is a victory for the No Trump Military Parade Coalition, but also a victory for the country – glorifying militarization was exactly the wrong direction for the country to be going.

Photo: Debra Sweet/flickr/cc

How Do We Build On This Success?

The question members of the coalition are asking themselves now is how to build on the success of stopping the Trump military parade. We started a new Popular Resistance Facebook Group where you can join a conversation about where we go from here. Coalition members are in ongoing dialogue about possible next steps. We share some of those ideas below and would appreciate hearing your views on them.  Some ideas:

1. Continue with the plans for the weekend. The Reclaim Armistice Day silent march will still be held. This is the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day, also known as Remembrance Day. It marks the end of World War One, which ended at 11 am on the 11th day of the 11th month, in 1918. A two-minute silence was held at 11 am to remember the people who died in wars and reflect on the horror of war and the need to work for peace. It was changed to Veterans Day in 1954. The Reclaim Armistice Day march will begin at 11 am at the Washington Monument.
2. Help build the Women’s March on the Pentagon. The march was called for by Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey died in the Iraq War, to put an antiwar agenda back on the table. The march is being held on the anniversary of the 1967 march on the Pentagon when 50,000 people marched in opposition to the Vietnam War.
3. Make war, militarism, and military spending an issue in the 2018 election campaigns. People can ask all candidates about the never-ending wars and the record spending on the military budget, now approximately 60 percent of federal discretionary spending.
4. Stop military escalation with Iran. This week Mike Pompeo announced the Iran Action Group, almost exactly on the anniversary of the CIA-led coup against Iran’s elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. This is part of a broader escalation, eg. the CIA created an “Iran Mission Center” in January. The Trump administration has been working to destabilize Iran, scapegoating Iran and to “foment unrest in Iran.” John Bolton was promising regime change in Iran before he became National Security Adviser. Trump violated the nuclear weapons treaty by withdrawing for no cause. This new effort will intensify efforts to foment unrest in Iran, the peace movement should work for de-escalation and normalization of relations with Iran to prevent another war-quagmire.
5. End the longest war in US history, Afghanistan. The Trump administration has escalated US involvement in the war in Afghanistan. This 17-year war has been one of constant failurebut now the US is losing badly to the Taliban which has taken over more than 50 percent of the country and can attack Afghan forces in the capital, Kabul. It’s time to bring the troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq.
6. Stop the US and Saudi Arabian slaughter and starvation of civilians in Yemen. The forced famine and cholera epidemic killed more than 50,000 children last year, a US-approved genocide. The silence in response to this unauthorized war needs to end. The recent bombing of a school bus of children with US weapons may help galvanize the public.
7. End escalation of nuclear weapons, extend the nuclear weapons treaty and work to rid the world of nuclear weapons. The US has embarked on a massive upgrade of nuclear weapons, begun under President Obama and extended by Trump. A year ago, the UN announced the beginning of a process to ban nuclear weapons. The Trump-Putin meetings should continue, despite the Russiagate allegations, and include ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

These are just some of the conflicts deserving attention. There are of course, more, e.g.cut the outrageous military budget, stop the militarization of space, end the war in Syria, remove troops and bases from Africa, negotiate peace with North Korea, create a detente with Russia, end support for Israeli apartheid, stop the economic wars and threats of militarism against Venezuela and Nicaragua, and deescalate-don’t arm Ukraine. While many groups have their own focus, what can a coalition campaign work together on?

New York City from SpringAction2018.org

Antiwar Autumn Continues

We have been calling this fall the Antiwar Autumn because there is so much going on. Even with the cancellation of the military parade, it is going to be a busy fall.

Some of the major activities that are already scheduled include:

The Veterans for Peace annual conference in Minnesota, August 22-26.

On August 25, the Chicago Committee Against War and Racism is holding a protest against war and police violence on the anniversary of the 1968 protest at the Democratic National Convention against the Vietnam War.

The World Beyond War #NoWar2018 conference in Toronto, Canada on September 21-22 on how to re-design systems to abolish the institution of war.

The October 21 Women’s March on the Pentagon.

The effort to reclaim Armistice Day march on November 11.

The Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases’ first international conference in Dublin, Ireland on November 16-18, 2018.

Beyond these activities, what can we do to build on the successful organizing around stopping the Trump military parade? We need to celebrate this victory and build on it.

We also want to highlight Class 7 of the Popular Resistance School on How Social Transformation Occurs, which focuses on the infiltration of political movements by the government, big business interests, and other opposition groups. We have written in the past about infiltration, i.e., Infiltration to Disrupt, Divide and Mis-Direct Are Widespread in Occupy and Infiltration of Political Movements is the Norm, Not the Exception in the United States. In this class, we broaden those discussions but also examine how to deal with infiltrators and informants.

*

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Syria once again finds itself at another critical juncture. Having secured virtually all territory in the nation’s southwest, Damascus’ attention is now fixated on Idlib in the north.

Reuters has recently reported on a so-called “National Army” based in northern Syria that appears poised to confront Syrian efforts to restore peace and security nationwide.

In an article titled, “Syrian rebels build an army with Turkish help, face challenges,” Reuters would claim:

A “National Army” being set up by Syrian rebels with Turkey’s help could become a long-term obstacle to President Bashar al-Assad’s recovery of the northwest…

Reuters would also report:

The National Army compromises some 35,000 fighters from some of the biggest factions in the war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and forced some 11 million people from their homes over the last seven years.

And:

Assad, backed by Russia and Iran, has vowed to recover “every inch” of Syria, and though he has now won back most of the country, the Turkish presence will complicate any government offensive in the northwest.

The idea of having NATO military forces on the ground in Syria, providing protection for Western-backed militants in safe-havens has been stated US policy since the beginning of the Syrian conflict.

Seeking Safe-Havens Since 2012

The Brookings Institution – a US-based corporate-financier funded policy think tank – in its March 2012 “Middle East Memo #21″ titled, “Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change” (PDF), stated explicitly that (emphasis added):

An alternative is for diplomatic efforts to focus first on how to end the violence and how to gain humanitarian access, as is being done under Annan’s leadership. This may lead to the creation of safe-havens and humanitarian corridors, which would have to be backed by limited military power. This would, of course, fall short of U.S. goals for Syria and could preserve Asad in power. From that starting point, however, it is possible that a broad coalition with the appropriate international mandate could add further coercive action to its efforts.

The document would also state in regards to a NATO invasion of Syria that:

Turkey would have to be willing to provide the logistical base and much of the ground troops for the operation. Turkey is best placed of any country to intervene in Syria: it has a large, reasonably capable military; it has vital interests in Syria; and its interest is in seeing peace and democratic transition. 

While Brookings policymakers noted Turkey’s hesitation to do this in 2012 due to fears that Syrian Kurds might be used in some form of retaliation, the dynamics have since shifted due to Turkey’s incremental occupation of northern Syria and Washington’s minding of Kurds east of the Euphrates River.

Building a Better Proxy Army

Another more recent Brookings paper titled, “Building a Better Syrian Opposition Army” (PDF), published in 2014 would designated both Jordan and Turkey as potential bases from which to train and deploy a US backed “Syrian opposition army.”

The plan included the seizure of a significant swath of Syrian territory after which the US could recognize the militants as the “new provisional Syrian government,” then lend them more direct military, political, and economic support. In northern Syria, particularly around the city of Idlib, a slow-motion version of this plan has been unfolding for years, under the protection of the Turkish military.

Of course, both Brookings papers were written before Russia intervened directly in the Syrian conflict in 2015. Iran also has a sizable presence in Syria. Militant-held territory has been retaken all the way up to the Syrian-Jordanian border and Syrian forces are reportedly mobilizing for operations against Idlib itself.

Ankara and Washington also appear to be at odds, while at the same time, Ankara has been making overtures toward Moscow and Tehran. Of course, all of this could be geopolitical theater. It is not unprecedented for nations – particularly those aligned to the US – to feign a shift in policy only to backtrack and double down. Turkey is heavily dependent on Europe in particular economically and the vector sum of its foreign policy still appears to favor Western interests.

Turkey Created and Backed Terrorists. Turkey is Still Harboring Terrorists 

Turkey still finds itself overseeing a nearly verbatim execution of stated US foreign policy in northern Syria. The militant groups it has consolidated and harbored under its protection have been refitting and rearming – many of them having been flushed out from across Syria as Damascus and its allies retake the country. These are groups that have rejected peace deals and have rejected offers to join Syrian forces in the fight against extremists still holding out across the country.

In many cases, these militants come from groups either fighting under Al Qaeda’s banner, or alongside it.

Turkey still finds itself overseeing one of the last bastions of anti-government militancy in Syria – the other being US-occupied eastern Syria.

Only Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran’s intelligence services can know for sure what Ankara’s intentions are, what its true disposition is in northern Syria, and what if anything Turkish forces can or will do if Syrian forces begin retaking Idlib.

For Damascus and its allies, promises and good will from Ankara must be coupled with realist provisions to ensure good will is the only good option Ankara has to choose from.

Ultimately, one of the last showdowns in Syria’s long-fought war to foil Western-sponsored terrorism and subversion will be in territory Turkey has harbored US-backed anti-government militants in. Only time will tell if these militants are incrementally disbanded and Turkish forces withdraw thus bringing this conflict one step closer to an end, or a dangerous standoff with Turkey – mirroring Israel’s illegal occupation of Syria’s Golan Heights – begins.

*

Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

With the ongoing crisis involving Turkish lira, the Indian rupee fell to an all-time low on Tuesday. The Indian currency dropped to the level of 70.1 to the US dollar and ended at 69.93 at the end of the day, recording its largest one-day fall in five years.

Indian officials have attempted to downplay the severity of the crisis confronting the Indian economy and its currency. Economic Affairs Secretary Subhash Chander Garg told the media on Tuesday that there was “nothing at this stage to worry” about the fall of the rupee as it was due to “external factors.” He claimed that India had sufficient foreign exchange reserves to withstand the decline.

At the same time, Garg admitted that the country’s central bank, known as the Reserve Bank of India, was limited in what it could do to contain the fall. He said:

“As currencies of other economies are also depreciating, intervention by the Reserve Bank of India, by selling dollars in the country, will not help much at this stage for stabilising the rupee.”

Indian officials have been forced to admit their inability to control “external factors” on the country’s economy. According to Garg, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has spent about $US23 billion so far in this year in its attempt to stabilise the rupee.

The fall of the Indian rupee has been unfolding over several months, in response to moves by the US Federal Reserve to lift interest rates and end its “quantitative easing,” thus reversing the flow of relatively cheap dollar-denominated loans. The Indian currency has declined about 8 percent so far this year. Now, amidst the sharp fall of the Turkish lira, which underscores the far-reaching implications of an upward movement of the dollar as a result of the US Fed’s moves on so-called emerging markets, the decline of the Indian rupee is accelerating.

Pointing to the role of foreign investors in the fall of the rupee, B. Prasanna, group executive and head of ICICI Bank, said:

“The swift move [of the rupee] past 69 happened due to foreign portfolio investor (FPI) outflows and the need to hedge existing short dollar positions in the market, driven by global market sentiment rather than actual importer demand.”

The decline of Indian rupee is a part of global rush by investors away from so-called emerging markets. Radhika Rao, an economist at DBS Bank in Singapore, said:

“The fall in rupee was not in isolation, rather a part of the broader sell-down in emerging markets currencies.”

As a further indication of the growing economic crisis confronting the Indian elite, the country’s trade deficit rose to $18 billion last month, from $16.6 billion in June. The major factor was the increase in oil prices. India imports more than 80 percent of its crude-oil needs.

Some sections of Indian big business welcome a weaker rupee as a favourable factor for exports, arguing that it will make the country’s products competitively cheaper in the world market. Anand Mahindra, the executive chairman of the Mahindra Group, which has interests ranging from cars to construction equipment to insurance, tweeted:

“With this boost to India’s export competitiveness could we now convince global companies that it’s time to switch to India for world-scale, export-focused manufacturing?”

However, a weaker rupee will not favour all sections of Indian industries as argued by Mahindra. Those which rely on imported raw materials, component parts and machinery will face increases in their manufacturing costs in rupee terms.

Moreover, a weaker rupee could lead to higher inflation under conditions of increases in import bills of crude-oil, commodities, electronic items and engineering equipment. According to the Indian oil ministry, every rupee change in the exchange rate against the US dollar makes a change of 108.8 billion rupees ($1.58 billion) in the country’s crude-oil import bill, which reached $12.4 billion in July, 57.4 percent higher than a year ago.

While Indian officials boast the country’s foreign reserves are sufficient to push back against the downward pressures on the rupee, the current level of about $402 billion would not cover import costs for a year.

The global economic shocks will intensify the political crisis confronting the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janatha Party (BJP) will face national elections next year. Its ability to allocate spending toward some cosmetic social policies, in an effort to retain support, is increasingly limited.

The higher inflation resulting from the depreciation of the rupee will intensify the already immense burden on the working people and rural poor in the form of increasing prices for fuel, food and other essential goods and services. It will lead to a further escalation of class struggle.

This year, significant sections of workers and the oppressed have engaged in strikes and mass protests over the attacks on their wages, jobs and working conditions, by both the national BJP government and administrations at state level. Bank employees throughout the country, public-sector bus workers in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, cab drivers attached to major taxi companies Uber and Ola, and farmers in western, eastern and northern India were among them.

Immense class antagonisms exist due to the poverty and widening social inequality caused by the pro-investor economic reforms carried out by successive governments since 1991. The top 1 percent of country’s population enjoys nearly a quarter of all income and owns 60 percent of the country’s total wealth, under conditions where about 70 percent of the population lives on less than $2 a day. Only a tiny minority of big bourgeoisie and privileged section of upper middle class has benefited from more than a quarter century of economic reforms in the expense of vast majority of workers and oppressed masses.

India’s social powder keg is on the verge of explosion under conditions where the main opposition Congress Party and the Stalinist parliamentary parties—the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPM and the Communist Party of India (CPI)—are discredited among the workers and oppressed masses due to their role in imposing pro-investor economic policies and associated austerity measures. These organisations will not be able to contain working-class resistance as they have in the past.

First published by GR on October 26, 2017. In recent developments, several countries are repatriating their gold holdings held in the U.S.

The Central Bank of Russia has more than doubled the pace of its gold purchases, and tripled its gold reserves—from around 600 tonnes to 1,800 tonnes—bringing its international gold reserves to the highest level since Putin became president 17 years ago, according to the World Gold Council.

The impetus for the massive increase in Russian gold reserves is their desire to break away from the hegemony of the U.S. petrodollar and dollar-based payment systems. Currently, over 60 percent of global reserves and 80 percent of global payments are denominated dollars, according to James Rickards, author of Currency Wars.

Additionally, the U.S. is the only country with veto power at the International Monetary Fund, known as the global lender of last resort. Thus, one of the most crucial weapons wielded by Russia, in its war to free itself from the hegemony of the petrodollar, is gold.

The reason gold is so critical is that it cannot be manipulated by U.S.-based economic warfare, as it cannot be frozen out as other forms of digital and paper fiat can be.

Gold can simply be loaded onto pallets and shipped to another state to make a payment, thus bypassing targeted economic sanctions that are often used by the United States as a means of attempting to force geopolitical compliance by Russia and other countries. The strategic significance of gold is so great, that even when oil prices and Russian financial reserves were collapsing in 2015, they continued to acquire gold.

In fact, during the second quarter of 2017, Russia accounted for 38 percent of all gold purchased by central banks. The massive increase in Russian gold reserves has taken place while simultaneously abstaining from purchasing foreign currency for more than two years.

Even as global demand for gold fell to a two-year low in the second quarter, Russia maintained its strong position due to gold being one of the most geopolitics-proof investments in the world. In a time of increased economic warfare, with the petrodollar being utilized as a weapon by the U.S., gold is a means of bypassing U.S. sanctions.

“Gold is an asset that is independent of any government and, in effect, given what is usually held in reserves, any Western government,” said Matthew Turner, metals analyst at Macquarie Group in London. “This might appeal given Russia has faced financial sanctions.”

In addition to being the largest international purchaser of gold, Russia is also one of the three biggest gold producers in the world, as the Central Bank of Russia purchases gold from domestic mines using commercial banks and not in the open market.

Russia’s accelerated pace of gold bullion purchases began in 2007, with Russian gold holdings now having quadrupled to 1,556 tonnes at the end of June. In terms of total reserves, Russian now comes in just behind China and has more gold reserves than India, Mexico and Turkey combined, with a total of nearly $427 billion in reserves.

Additionally, Russia is simultaneously pursuing other strategic dollar alternatives besides gold. Russia and China have built a non-dollar payment system for regional trading partners.

One of the most threatening uses of U.S. financial influence has been its utilization of the SWIFT payment system, which acts as a hub of global money transfer message traffic, as the U.S. threatens to cut other nations off from the system if they refuse to be subservient to U.S. hegemonic dictates.

Russia clearly understands its vulnerability to U.S. domination and has worked diligently to reduce that vulnerability. In turn, Russia has created an alternative to SWIFT.

“There was the threat of being shut out of SWIFT. We updated our transaction system, and if anything happens, all SWIFT-format operations will continue to work. We created an analogous system,” Elvira Nabiullina, head of Russia’s central bank, reported to Vladimir Putin.

Russia is also part of a reported Chinese plan to install a new international monetary order that excludes U.S. dollars. Under that plan, China could buy Russian oil with yuan and Russia could then exchange that yuan for gold on the Shanghai exchange.

Jay Syrmopoulos is a geopolitical analyst, freethinker, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at the University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs and holds a BA in International Relations. Jay’s writing has been featured on both mainstream and independent media – and has been viewed tens of millions of times. You can follow him on Twitter @SirMetropolis and on Facebook at SirMetropolis.

Featured image is from TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

Turkey’s Financial Crisis Raises Questions About China’s Debt-driven Development Model

By James M. Dorsey, August 19, 2018

The latest crisis in Turkey’s boom-bust economy raises questions about a development model in which countries like China and Turkey witness moves towards populist rule of one man who encourages massive borrowing to drive economic growth.

Complicity with Saudi Crimes Limits Canada’s Response

By Yves Engler, August 19, 2018

The Trudeau government has largely maintained the Conservative government’s pro-Saudi policies and support for Riyadh’s belligerence in the region. They’ve mostly ignored its war on Yemen, which has left 15,000 civilians dead, millions hungry and sparked a cholera epidemic. Rather than oppose this humanitarian calamity, Ottawa armed the Saudis and openly aligned itself with Riyadh.

Dangerous Meddling – Spy Games in Iran

By Catherine Shakdam, August 18, 2018

Washington’s distaste of Iran is rooted in Tehran’s commitment to stand free and independent against the call of unfettered neo-imperialism.

To put it more plainly Iran disturbs America’s established world order by the principle it exercises, represents, and encourages others to enact: freedom of choice.

Revolt in Iraq. The Lion of Babylon Roars Again

By Dirk Adriaensens, August 18, 2018

July was always a politically turbulent month in Iraq. But the violent protests that have swept South Iraq over the past weeks are unseen, both in terms of size and targets. Ports were blocked, airports closed, provincial government buildings besieged and most striking: the local headquarters of Islamic Shiite parties and Allied militias were attacked. In a recent International Crisis Group report, the death toll is estimated at fifty, and hundreds are injured. 

Sanctions, Sanctions, Sanctions – The Final Demise of Dollar Hegemony?

By Peter Koenig, August 18, 2018

Sanctions left and sanctions right. Financial mostly, taxes, tariffs, visas, travel bans – confiscation of foreign assets, import and export prohibitions and limitations; and also punishing those who do not respect sanctions dished out by Trump, alias the US of A, against friends of their enemies.

Article from our Asia-Pacific Research site:

Kerala Flood Is Thousands of Times the Magnitude of Thai Cave Rescue! Yet Still…

By Binu Mathew, August 18, 2018

The Kerala floods is a disaster thousands of times more vast in its magnitude. Tens of thousands of people are stranded in remote areas, in the upper floors of the houses, on trees and even on roof tops. Reports of people dying in their shelters of starvation and disease have started coming out. Dead bodies are floating around in flood waters. And nobody moves.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Societies are best judged by how they treat children, the elderly, the infirm, their most disadvantaged and prisoners. 

America fails on all counts under Republicans and undemocratic Dems – violator of core international and constitutional, and US statute law principles.

Torture and abuse are illegal at all times, under all conditions, with no allowed exceptions.

The UN Convention against torture defines the practice as:

“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain and suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity…”

Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or de- grading treatment or punishment.”

Article 10 states:

“All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the dignity of the human person.”

America and Israel are the only developed nations officially permitting the practice.

The Bush/Cheney regime “Torture Memo” discarded all legal restraints.

It authorized extreme interrogation methods amounting to torture, including infliction of “intense pain or suffering” short of what would cause “serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, (loss of significant body functions), or permanent damage.”

It swept away habeas rights, due process, and equal protection under law – core legal protections for everyone charged, detained or imprisoned.

The Obama regime continued  illegal torture and abusive practices. So do hardliners in charge of Trump regime’s geopolitical policies.

America’s gulag prison system operates at home and abroad, including unknown numbers of global black sites in numerous countries.

Torture is standard practice by various means, including silently in solitary confinement – substituting punishment for justice.

Longterm isolation and other forms of torture are constitutionally banned cruel and unusual punishment.

Isolation is emotionally destruction. Prisoners become zombies, others sociopaths. PTSD symptoms are commonplace – including paranoia, hallucinations, depression, anxiety, anger and suicide.

Short and longer-term cruel and unusual punishment encourages a death wish to end pain and suffering.

Other abusive practices in US prisons include detainees and inmates savaged by dogs, brutally shocked with cattle prods, burned by toxic chemicals, harmed with stun guns, raped, beaten, repeatedly stripped naked, denied adequate medical care, subjected to extreme cold or heat, and abused in various other ways.

A 2008-released “Omar Broadway Film” documented abuse of inmates in one US prison, typical of most others, saying the following:

“As the prisoners stand motionless next to each other and cover themselves with plastic bags to protect themselves from chemical weapons, the riot squad bursts in, spraying torrents of mace and freely swinging their batons.”

“The inmates offer no resistance. They later sport black eyes and broken jaws. One disappears for months after being dragged by his shackles down the stairs and across the floor, bleeding and screaming.”

“Disturbingly, these scenes are also often filmed by ‘Internal Affairs’ agents – employees of the prison in charge of procedural enforcement – who can be seen pointing their cameras toward the ceiling as the blows start raining down.”

“The other prisoners who are locked in their cells also choke on the gas. No preparations are made for their safety.”

“When this happens on Thanksgiving, the styrofoam- encased dinners sit undistributed all night in full view of the inmates. They are stacked behind two canisters of Mace.”

These practices are commonplace in America nationwide at federal, state and local facilities – state-sponsored brutality, torture by any standard, unreported by major media.

Communication Management Units (CMUs) in some US prisons segregate Muslims from the general prison population for exceptionally harsh treatment,  violating US Bureau of Prisons regulations – prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or political beliefs.

Countless numbers of political prisoners in America and abroad endure unlawful cruel and unusual punishment.

Maria Butina is one of a number of Russian nationals unlawfully incarcerated in America as political prisoners.

RT said her mistreatment amounts to “borderline torture.” Falsely charged with operating as unregistered Russian agent, she’s been unlawfully detained since mid-July under harsh conditions.

She was moved from a Washington facility to an Alexandria, VA prison without warning or explanation.

Before transfer, she “was subjected to a ‘degrading full strip search,’ and all her (possessions) were taken away, including books, shoes, towels and other hygiene items,” RT explained.

She’s isolated in “administrative segregation.” After visiting her, Russia’s embassy sent an official protest to the State Department.

A separate one accused the Trump regime of “cruel and inhumane treatment,” including frequent humiliating strip searches.

While awaiting unwarranted trial, Butina has been subjected to “psychological pressure and humiliation,” including isolation and sleep deprivation, aiming “to break her will,” brutalizing her to confess to the false charge against her.

Her lawyer said brutality in confinement harmed her health, proper medical care denied her.

Russia’s embassy equated her mistreatment to earlier Salem witch trials in America. She remains “determin(ed) to prove her innocence,” the embassy said.

She’s one of countless numbers of political prisoners in America’s global gulag – operating at home and abroad.

*

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  

When Turkish diplomats pencilled this week’s conference in Ankara into their diaries, little did they know it would be the epicentre of a dramatic diplomatic and economic crisis.

They arrived in the big luxury hotel in the centre of capital city on Sunday, and one day later they saw the country’s currency hit an all-time low against the US dollar.

Though the lira subsequently steadied, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan‘s rhetoric against the United States did not, accusing the Nato ally of stabbing his country in the back by doubling key tariffs in response to Turkey’s refusal to free US pastor Andrew Brunson.

Attending the week-long conference – dubbed “Enterprising and Humanitarian Foreign Policy in the Presidential System of Government” – they listened to briefings by many of Turkey’s ministers and also by the chairmen of some trade organisations, in a big hall surrounded by dozens of security guards.

After all the presentations, reflected on the big screen in the windowless hall, around 250 ambassadors were given a 10-minute break. That’s when they went out of the hall and, while having a cup of coffee, exchanged views on the issues they were dealing with.

That smaller hall was surrounded by foreign ministry employees in addition to the security guards, to prevent any journalists or any hotel guests entering it. Behind the big glass door, you could see the ambassadors from the same regions gathering together to discuss their country’s policies on that specific region. Or sometimes old friends from very different points of the world got together, hugging each other and chatting to catch up.

In another part of the hall, you could see a recently appointed young ambassador asking questions to her predecessor.

They spent most of their week in the big hall, sitting next to old colleagues, listening to new foreign and economy policies. For the ambassadors attending the conference, it has been a front-row seat to a nail-biting moment in Turkish history, and many had a thing or two to say about the crisis, under condition of anonymity.

Turkish diplomats attend a wreath-laying ceremony in Ankara (MFA)

One of the calmer envoys said that economic and diplomatic crises are bound to arise from time to time, and reminded Middle East Eye that it was their job to solve them.

However, the conduct of US President Donald Trump, who has not shied away from a confrontational approach to the crisis, seemed to ruffle some feathers.

 “Trump’s attitude doesn’t help,” he said.

In fact, according to the diplomat, representatives from many countries told each other that they were worried by the US president’s hardline approach to diplomacy.

“In the country I work, officials told me Trump has bigger problems with their leader, and they are just waiting for him to target their country.”

Another Turkish ambassador was keen to highlight that the economy has been signalling a downturn for a while due to the large amount of international debt.

“It would be wrong to see Trump as the only reason, but of course we cannot deny the fact that he is attacking our already worsening economy,” he said. “But Trump’s tone is not helping, he is closing the ways for diplomacy.”

However, he stressed, such attacks from the White House would do little if better economic policies had been pursued.

His colleague, an ambassador working in a Western country, agreed:

“We need to cool down the tension with the US first for a relief in our economy. And this is only possible through diplomatic channels. But the heated statements are damaging these channels and making it even harder to turn back where we started.”

Not all the diplomats placed the blame on Trump or previous fiscal issues. One believes the largest problem is the expenses caused by Ankara’s entanglement in the Syrian war to the south.

“I think the financial problems started with the wide-ranging military operations in Syria. I am not discussing if they were necessary or not, I am only saying we spent big. And now, with the crisis with the US, the economy is getting worse,” he said.

The experienced diplomat was also concerned about the refugees in the country.

“In such periods of economic crisis, people might look for somebody to blame and it would easily be the refugees in the country. I hope the refugees, especially the Syrians, won’t be affected by this crisis,” added the ambassador.

Positives

Not all the envoys MEE spoke to had words of doom and gloom to offer.

One, who used to work in one of Turkey’s high-level economic councils, avoided giving any opinions altogether, saying only:

“I am hopeful it will get better. They [the Turkish government] actually know what they need to do.”

Another, who is assigned to a European country, even saw positives in the crisis.

“The crisis with Trump helped us to ease the tensions with Europe, and now we are getting closer. Not only do they want a stable Turkish economy, they are now open for more defence and security cooperation.”

He also said that the European countries which have been critical of Turkey’s purchase of an air-defence system from Russia see that now as an issue of  minor importance.

For one Turkish diplomat, the most important thing was that everyone pulls together and helps take their country out of this economic mess.

“It’s getting harder for us to tell the business people in our countries that the Turkish economy is solid and Turkey is still safe to invest in. But we have to keep doing this because when any of them talk about recession scenarios the lira is being affected,” he said.

“We have to work hard to prevent this kind of talk. And this crisis should be solved as soon as possible.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Turkish government has made the decision to repatriate all of its gold reserves that are currently housed in the US Federal Reserve System (FRS). Overall Turkey was storing 220 tonnes, valued at $25.3 billion, in the US, which it repossessed on April 19, 2018.

Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has toughened his stance against the US dollar (USD), declaring that international loans should be made in gold instead of the American currency. Ankara is seeking to reduce dependence on the US financial system. The gold’s homecoming was partly prompted by the US threats to impose sanctions if Turkey goes through with the signed deal to purchase Russian S-400 missile defense systems.

This is a dramatic move reflecting an international trend. Venezuela repatriated its gold from the US in 2012. In 2014, the Netherlands also retrieved its 122.5 tonnes of gold that were stored in US vaults. Germany brought home 300 metric tonnes of gold stashed in the United States in 2017. It took Berlin four years to complete the transfers. Austria and Belgium have reviewed the possibility of taking similar measures.

Few people believe the US Treasury’s assurances that the 261 million ounces (roughly 8,100 tonnes) in official gold reserves that are stored in Fort Knox and other places are fully audited and accounted for. The Federal Reserve has never been fully and independently audited. The pressure for a full, independent audit of all US gold reserves has always been resisted by the government and in Congress. Nobody knows if the gold is really there. What if the vaults turn out to be empty? It’s wiser to bring your gold home while you can, rather than to just keep on wondering.

The gold bars that the US claims to hold are of low purity and do not conform to international industry standards. Even if the US has the amount of gold it claims to have, most of it would not be acceptable for trading on the international market. While other countries are pulling their gold out of the FRS banks, Russia and China are boosting their reserves, creating gold-backed currencies for themselves and thus moving the world away from the dominance of the USD.

The US dollar’s status as the global reserve currency has been called into question. It faces some tough competition. The tariffs introduced by the US administration as an instrument of coercion against other countries are failing to bolster the greenback, which may soon face headwinds. An international currency war looms as a possibility. This makes investors look for other options. Indeed, why should other countries rely on a US dollar that is not backed by gold or anything but “the good faith and credit of the American worker,” when America itself is not trusted internationally?

For instance, the Chinese yuan is going strong. Russia, Turkey, and Iran are considering the prospects for making payments in their national currencies. Iran has recently announced it is switching from the dollar to the euro as its official reporting currency. Russia and China have a currency swap agreement that avoids settlements in the USD.

The quest to reduce dependence on the dollar was provoked by the ongoing use of sanctions as a political weapon, a kind of foreign-policy tool of choice. Even America’s closest allies are threatened by these restrictive measures. The recent attack on the Nord Stream 2 gas project is a good example. It’s only natural for other countries to be looking for ways to resist the US policy of twisting arms. Using alternative currencies and bringing gold home are ways to do that.

America has always opposed such efforts. Any methods would do. Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, was toppled and killed after he came up with the idea to introduce a golden dinar to be used as an international currency in the Middle East and Africa. Iran has recently banned the use of the USD in trade. It refuses to sell its oil for the US currency. President Trump is likely to kill the Iran deal in May, provoking Tehran into reviving its nuclear program.

An armed conflict with Iran might be much closer than generally believed. The nuclear deal has been honored, to everyone’s satisfaction but to Washington’s chagrin. Iran undoubtedly has no military capability that would be a threat to the US. It has never been responsible for any terrorist acts committed abroad or things like that. But it has done something unforgivable in the eyes of the US. It has threatened the USD. That’s what Washington cannot accept, because if it does not support the dollar, there will be problems financing the US government’s huge federal debt. A war with Iran would eliminate the largest non-USD oil exporter. One thing leads to another. The gold repatriations are a precursor to a currency war and armed conflict. That’s what drives US foreign policy.

*

Peter Korzun is an expert on wars and conflicts.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: A view of the Gran Chaco as it naturally appears in Paraguay. Photo by Ilosuna licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 1.0 Generic license.

The Gran Chaco ecosystem is in trouble, though the threats to this biodiverse region have been little publicized. This vast semi-arid subtropical plain covers 1.28 million square kilometers (494,210 square miles) and encompasses parts of Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia and a tiny portion of Brazil.

It is home to an estimated 3,400 plant species, 500 birds, 150 mammals and 220 reptiles and amphibians, as well as threatened wildlife including jaguars, giant anteaters, the Southern Three-banded Armadillo (Tolypeutes matacus), and the Endangered Chaco Side-necked turtle (Acanthochelys pallidipectoris).

Bounded to the west by the Andes Mountains, and to the east by the Brazilian Plateau, this immense plain was once covered in grasslands, wet palm savannahs, upland and dry thorn forest. But soy producers and global commodities traders recently moved in, bringing massive deforestation, and destroying the rich biodiversity and ways of life of local indigenous peoples.

Gran Chaco ecosystem devastated to make way for soy fields. Image by Jim Wickens, Ecostorm via Mighty Earth.

South American deforestation provides EU with meat

Much of the soy grown in the Gran Chaco — a word that means vast “hunting territory” in the Quechua indigenous language — is destined for the European market, the second biggest global consumer of the oily bean after China.

The European Union (EU) imports 97 percent of the soy it consumes. In 2016, it bought 46.8 million tons in total, with 27.8 million tons, or 59.4 percent, imported from South America, according to the English think tank Chatham House. The figures for 2017 are not yet available.

Last year, a team from Mighty Earth, an environmental NGO, traveled 4,200 kilometers (more than 2,600 miles) through the Argentinean and Paraguayan Gran Chaco to determine “how soy raised for European animal feed drives deforestation in two of the leading South American soy-producing countries.”

Their overall finding is summarized in the title of their recent report “The Avoidable Crisis.” The NGO’s analysis shows that the Gran Chaco needn’t be sacrificed for the sake of industrial agribusiness or to feed European poultry. Rather, much of the remaining native vegetation could be protected with less than a million dollar investment, according to Mighty Earth.

The Bolivian Gran Chaco and the Brazilian Cerrado were the subject of previous research by the Washington, D.C.-based Mighty Earth, with findings published in February 2017 in a report called the “Ultimate Mystery Meat.” That document identified deforestation and cleared land totaling 697,592 hectares (2,693 square miles) in the Brazilian Cerrado between 2011 and 2015 associated with the transnational trading companies Bunge and Cargill. In Bolivia’s Gran Chaco, 289,000 hectares (1,115 square miles) were deforested on average per year between 2010 and 2015, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) are the most active traders in that country.

The NGO’s reports identify transnational commodities firms as the key drivers of deforestation in these regions:

“In addition to their role in trade, these companies also play a more direct role in driving ecosystem conversion by providing [soy] plantation owners with financing, fertilizer, infrastructure, and other incentives for new deforestation to expand their supply base.”

Anahita Yousefi, Mighty Earth’s Latin America campaign director, told Mongabay:

 “Very little attention has been given to areas such as the Gran Chaco. Without public scrutiny, many of the same companies that have committed to protecting the forest and respecting human rights in the Amazon are operating in the Gran Chaco without safeguarding local communities or wildlife.”

In the foreground, land in Argentina cleared for a soy plantation; in the background, more forest burns to make way for more soy, for which there is a tremendous global demand. Image by Jim Wickens, Ecostorm via Mighty Earth.

An EU supply chain with deforestation as its first link

Yousefi said that Mighty Earth is in dialogue with some of the traders mentioned in the report (which also include Wilmar International and the Louis Dreyfus Company), and has written letters to major marketing companies in Germany and France, but noted that most of these firms have not been proactive in preventing deforestation.

“Although many state that they have sustainability policies for their soy, most fail to be able to even track where it comes from,” she added.

The soy grown in the Gran Chaco and Cerrado doesn’t flow directly into the bellies of European consumers, she explained.

“While the chickens, pigs, and cows that [producers] sell are normally raised in Europe, the feed consumed by the livestock often comes from thousands of miles away [in South America]. As such, the locally grown labeling [on EU pork, beef and chicken] only represents half the truth about the origins of this meat.”

This is the case with the English retailer Marks & Spencer, among others, who have a history of buying EU grown meats fed on foreign soy. The company’s food department attests on its website:

“From corned beef to fillet steak, every single piece of beef that M&S sells has two things in common – it can be traced back to the farm and animal it came from AND it is British.”

English fast food restaurants and grocery chains, including Tesco, Morrisons and McDonald’s, successfully helped pressure Cargill and other transnational commodities companies to stop sourcing soy from newly deforested land in the Amazon in 2006. However, they still buy their chicken from Cargill, which feeds its poultry with imported soy, much of it apparently coming from the Bolivian Amazon, the Cerrado and the Gran Chaco — areas rapidly being deforested for new soy plantations.

Starting in 2017, a voluntary Cerrado Manifesto Statement of Support (SoS) was signed by many EU and U.S. supermarkets and fast food chains, including McDonalds, Walmart, Marks & Spencer and Unilever, that proposes the elimination of soy producers who cause deforestation from their supply chains. However, large commodities firms such as Cargill, Bunge, and ADM have yet to sign the SoS.

Stark comparison between Gran Chaco native vegetation (right) and forest burned during conversion to soy planting (left). Image by Jim Wickens, Ecostorm via Mighty Earth.

The promise of sustainability

Contacted by Mongabay, Marks & Spencer, along with the German supermarket chain Aldi Süd and France’s Carrefour did not respond to interview requests. Carrefour informs through its website that:

“soya is frequently imported from Brazil, where it is one of the causes of deforestation” while “The Group’s policy on forests sets out to ensure the sustainable management of soya,… giving priority to… Non-GMO soya for Carrefour’s ‘fed on GMO-free feed’ animal product brand.”

Mighty Earth, however, found little evidence of sustainable growing practices. In their investigation, they determined that

“soy grown [in the Gran Chaco] is genetically modified and requires vast amounts of chemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides like the herbicide glyphosate [produced by Monsanto and known as Roundup. These chemicals] are transforming the Chaco. Waterways have become polluted, and local community members report a surge in birth defects, cancers and respiratory illnesses.”

Aldi Süd, with stores in several European countries, the United States and Australia, maintains a sustainability page on its website, but it doesn’t say how it tackles the soy deforestation and chemical fertilizer and pesticides problem.

These giant retailers belong to the largest single business sector in Europe, the food and beverage industry, with sales of over € 1 trillion (US $1.14 trillion) in 2016. In order to constantly supply their shelves with meat and dairy goods, livestock producers in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Italy, Spain and England all buy foreign soy, mainly from Cargill and Bunge, which, in turn, are increasing their presence in the Gran Chaco.

A tractor clears still smoldering burned forest in the Gran Chaco, Argentina. Image by Jim Wickens, Ecostorm via Mighty Earth.

“In several places [in the Gran Chaco] where deforestation was occurring, the farmers we interviewed said they sold to these two traders. Although competitors like Louis Dreyfus Company and Wilmar International have expressed willingness to extend the Brazilian [Amazon Soy Moratorium’s] success across South America, Cargill and Bunge have bitterly resisted efforts to expand deforestation-free production,” according to Mighty Earth.

“ADM operates in regions that are less exposed to deforestation, but has recently backtracked on its previous support for industry-wide conservation measures. ADM has told Mighty Earth that they’ve resisted action because they ‘don’t want to break ranks’ with their competitors – prioritizing industry solidarity over both the environment and fair marketplace competition,” said the NGO.

Contacted by Mongabay, Susan Burns, Bunge’s director of global media relations and agribusiness communications, stated:

“Our first priority is applying our commitment to eliminate deforestation from our supply chains globally. Our plan is public and we are reporting on our progress transparently. We are also working alongside SoS [Cerrado Manifesto] signatory companies, peers, NGOs and others in the Cerrado Working Group, which is focused on achieving collective agreement on how to eliminate deforestation and go even further.”

Cargill also responded to Mongabay’s questions regarding Gran Chaco and Cerrado deforestation via email:

“Cargill supports the goal of eliminating deforestation in South America. We agree with the intent of the Cerrado Manifesto and support the Cerrado Working Group’s (GTC) commitment to end the conversion of natural habitats in the Cerrado in the shortest amount of time considering the social and economic realities of the region.”

Cargill continued:

“It is imperative that we balance forest protection with inclusive growth and sustainable development. Solutions for forest protection must also promote farmers’ economic livelihoods, community wellbeing, indigenous rights, and global food security needs.”

Importantly,

“Cargill and the GTC itself believes that a moratorium on soy in the Cerrado isn’t the answer.  A moratorium risks driving further agricultural expansion – and deforestation – into new areas. We need the buy-in of all local stakeholders as part of an effective land use planning process. We participate in the GTC with the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and other partners to identify local, broad-based, solutions.”

ADM did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

Illegal forest clearance in the Gran Chaco as seen from the air in Argentina. Image by Jim Wickens, Ecostorm via Mighty Earth.

Can the Gran Chaco be saved?

An article published in the journal Science in February 2017, “Forest Conservation: Remember Gran Chaco,” summarizes the state of the world’s largest continuous dry forest: “This region is a global deforestation hotspot. Yet, only 9 percent of the Gran Chaco is currently protected. For these reasons, the Gran Chaco is one of the most threatened ecoregions worldwide.”

Faced with destruction by industrial agribusiness, this little known South American region is not just biodiverse. It is also home to numerous indigenous groups, including the Ayoreo, Chamacoco, Enxet, Maka’a, Nandeva and Wichi. Unfortunately for these indigenous communities, and for the region’s unique flora and fauna, there seems to be little movement toward conservation by agribusiness, commodities traders, or national governments in South America and Europe.

Mighty Earth asserts that protecting the Gran Chaco would be relatively inexpensive:

“Technical experts administering a successful system that has virtually eliminated deforestation for soy in the Brazilian Amazon estimate that extending forest monitoring to other soy growing regions in Latin America, including the Gran Chaco, would cost only [between] US $750,000 and US$ 1,000,000 to establish.” That seems like a small price to pay to help make South American soy, and the soy supply chain, more sustainable and to preserve the unique people, plants and animals of the Gran Chaco.

Bulldozers clear Gran Chaco forest. Home to an estimated 3,400 plant species, 500 bird, 150 mammal, and 220 reptile and amphibian species, the Gran Chaco is fast being converted to soy. Image by Jim Wickens, Ecostorm via Mighty Earth.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

After 17 bloody years, the longest war in US history continues without relent or purpose in Afghanistan.

There, a valiant, fiercely-independent people, the Pashtun (Pathan) mountain tribes, have battled the full  might of the US Empire to a stalemate that has so far cost American taxpayers $4 trillion, and 2,371 dead and 20,320 wounded soldiers.  No one knows how many Afghans have died. The number is kept secret.

Pashtun tribesmen in the Taliban alliance and their allies are fighting to oust all foreign troops from Afghanistan and evict the western-imposed and backed puppet regime in Kabul that pretends to be the nation’s legitimate government.  Withdraw foreign troops and the Kabul regime would last for only days.

The whole thing smells of the Vietnam War.  Lessons so painfully learned by America in that conflict have been completely forgotten and the same mistakes repeated.  The lies and happy talk from politicians, generals and media continue apace.

This week, Taliban forces occupied the important strategic city of Ghazni on the road from Peshawar to Kabul.  It took three days and massive air attacks by US B-1 heavy bombers, Apache helicopter gun ships, A-10 ground attack aircraft, and massed warplanes from US bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar and the 5^th US Fleet to finally drive back the Taliban assault.  Taliban also overran key military targets in Kabul and the countryside, killing hundreds of government troops in a sort of Afghan Tet offensive.

Afghan regime police and army units put up feeble resistance or ran away.   Parts of Ghazni were left in ruins.  It was a huge embarrassment to the US imperial generals and their Afghan satraps who had claimed ‘the corner in Afghanistan has finally been turned.’

Efforts by the Trump administration to bomb Taliban into submission have clearly failed.   US commanders fear using American ground troops in battle lest they suffer serious casualties.  Meanwhile, the US is running low on bombs.

Roads are now so dangerous for the occupiers that most movement must be by air.  Taliban is estimated to permanently control almost 50% of Afghanistan.  That number would rise to 100% were it not for omnipresent US air power.  Taliban rules the night.

Taliban are not and never were ‘terrorists’ as Washington’s war propaganda falsely claimed.  I was there at the creation of the movement – a group of Afghan religious students armed by Pakistan whose goal was to stop post-civil war banditry, the mass rape of women, and to fight the Afghan Communists.  When Taliban gained power, it eliminated 95% of the rampant Afghanistan opium-heroin trade. After the US invaded, allied to the old Afghan Communists and northern Tajik tribes, opium-heroin production soared to record levels.  Today, US-occupied Afghanistan is the world’s largest producer of opium, morphine and heroin.

US occupation authorities claim drug production is run by Taliban.  This is another big lie.  The Afghan warlords who support the regime of President Ashraf Ghani entirely control the production and export of drugs.  The army and secret police get a big cut.  How else would trucks packed with drugs get across the border into Pakistan and Central Asia?

The United States has inadvertently become one of the world’s leading drug dealers.  This is one of the most shameful legacies of the Afghan War.  But just one.  Watching the world’s greatest power bomb and ravage little Afghanistan, a nation so poor that some of its people can’t afford sandals, is a huge dishonor for Americans.

Even so, the Pashtun defeated the invading armies of Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, the Mogul Emperors and the mighty British Raj.  The US looks to be next in the Graveyard of Empires.

Nobody in Washington can enunciate a good reason for continuing the colonial war in Afghanistan.  One hears talk of minerals, women’s rights and democracy as a pretext for keeping US forces in Afghanistan. All nonsense.  A possible real reason is to deny influence over Afghanistan, though the Chinese are too smart to grab this poisoned cup.  They have more than enough with their rebellious Uighur Muslims.

Interestingly, the so-called ‘terrorist training camps’ supposedly found in Afghanistan in 2001 were actually guerilla training camps run by Pakistani intelligence to train Kashmiri rebels and CIA-run camps for exiled Uighur fighters from China.

The canard that the US had to invade Afghanistan to get at Osama bin Laden, alleged author of the 9/11 attacks, is untrue.  The attacks were made by Saudis and mounted from Hamburg and Madrid, not Afghanistan.  I’m not even sure bin Laden was behind the attacks.

My late friend and journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave shared my doubts and insisted that the Taliban leader Mullah Omar offered to turn bin Laden over to a court in a Muslim nation to prove his guilt or innocence.

President George Bush, caught sleeping on guard duty and humiliated, had to find an easy target for revenge – and that was Afghanistan.

by Michel Chossudovsky

ISBN Number: 9780973714715

List Price: $24.95

click here to order

Special Price: $18.00

In this new and expanded edition of Michel Chossudovsky’s 2002 best seller, the author blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by “Islamic terrorists”.  Through meticulous research, the author uncovers a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration.

The expanded edition, which includes twelve new chapters focuses on the use of 9/11 as a pretext for the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, the militarisation of justice and law enforcement and the repeal of democracy.

According to Chossudovsky, the  “war on terrorism” is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The “war on terrorism” is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the “New World Order”, dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex.

September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington’s agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

This article was first published in October 2017

The shift in political and military alliances is not limited to Turkey, a profound shift in geopolitical alliances is occurring which tends to undermine US hegemony in the broader Middle East Central Asian region as well as in South Asia. 

Several of America’s staunchest allies have “changed sides”. Both NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are in crisis. 

Turkey and NATO

NATO is characterized by profound divisions,  largely resulting from Ankara’s confrontation with Washington.

Turkey –which constitutes NATO’s heavyweight– is now fighting US-supported Kurdish rebels in northern Syria, –i.e  the US which is member of NATO is supporting and financing Kurdish rebels who are fighting a NATO member state.

While Turkey formally remains a member of NATO –which has an integrated and coordinated air defense system–, the Erdogan government has purchased Russia’s S400 air defense system which is slated to be used against America’s Kurdish proxies in Northern Syria.

A NATO member state is now using the air defense system of an enemy of US-NATO against US-NATO supported rebels.

In turn, Turkey has dispatched troops to Northern Syria with a view to eventually annexing part of Syria’s territory. In turn, Moscow and Ankara have established an alliance of convenience.

Israel is a firm supporter of the formation of a Kurdish state in Iraq and Northern Syria, which is considered as a stepping stone to the formation of Greater Israel.  Tel Aviv is considering the relocation from Israel of more than 200,000 Jewish ethnic Kurds to the Kurdistan region of Iraq.

In turn the bilateral military cooperation agreement between Turkey and Israel is in jeopardy. Needless to say these developments have also led to the reinforcement of US-Israeli military cooperation including the setting up of a US military base in Israel.

Meanwhile, Turkey  has established closer links with Iran, which ultimately contributes to undermining US-NATO strategies in the broader Middle East.

The New Middle East

Washington’s strategy consists in destabilizing and weakening regional economic powers in the Middle East including Turkey and Iran. This policy is also accompanied by a process of political fragmentation (see map below)

Since the Gulf war (1991), the Pentagon has contemplated the creation of a “Free Kurdistan” which would include the annexation of  parts of Iraq, Syria and Iran as well as Turkey (see US military academy map below). 

Under these circumstances, will Turkey remain an active member of NATO?

Ralph Peters Map: The Project for the New Middle East

Qatar and Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia’s economic blockade directed against Qatar has created a rift in geopolitical alliances which has served to weaken the US in the Persian Gulf.

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is profoundly divided, with the UAE and Bahrain siding with Saudi Arabia against Qatar. In turn Qatar has the support of Oman and Kuwait. Needless to say, the GCC which until recently was America’s staunchest Middle East ally against Iran is in total disarray.

While the largest US military base in the Middle East is located in Qatar, the Qatari government has close links to Iran. Moreover, Tehran came to its rescue in the immediate wake of the Saudi blockade.

While US Central Command (USCENTCOM) has it’s headquarters at a US military base outside Doha, Qatar’s main partner in the oil and gas industry including pipelines is Iran. In turn, both Russia and China are actively involved in the Qatari oil and gas industry.

Iran and Qatar cooperate actively in the extraction of  maritime natural gas under a joint Qatar-Iran ownership structure. These maritime gas fields are strategic, they constitute the World’s largest maritime gas reserves located in the Persian Gulf.

In other words, while actively cooperating with Iran, Qatar has a military cooperation agreement with the US, which in practice is directed against Iran. US Central Command based in Qatar is responsible for military operations against enemies of  US-NATO including Iran, which happens to be Qatar’s main partner in the oil and gas industry. The structure of these cross-cutting alliances is contradictory. Will the US Seek regime change in Qatar?

Meanwhile, Turkey has established a military base in Qatar.

These new alignments also have a direct bearing on oil and gas pipeline routes. Qatar has abandoned the pipeline route project through Saudi Arabia and Jordan (initially sponsored by Turkey) in favor of the Iran based pipeline route out of Asuleyeh through Iran, Iraq and Syria, which is supported by Russia.

Russia’s geopolitical control over gas pipelines going to Europe has been reinforced as a result of the Saudi blockade.

In turn, Qatar is also slated to integrate the pipeline routes linking Iran to Pakistan and China via Iran’s port of Asaluyeh.

Pakistan, India and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

Another major shift in geopolitical relations has occurred, which has a profound impact on US hegemony in both Central and South Asia.

On June 9, 2017, both India and Pakistan became simultaneously members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Eurasian economic, political and mutual security organization largely dominated by China and Russia. Needless to say, the membership of India and Pakistan in the SCO affects their military cooperation agreements with the US.

While the SCO with headquarters in Beijing is not officially a “military alliance”, it nonetheless serves as a geopolitical and strategic “counterweight” to US-NATO and its allies. In the course of the last few years, the SCO has extended its cooperation in military affairs and intelligence. War games were held under the auspices of the SCO.

With Pakistan and India as full members, the SCO now encompasses an extensive region which now comprises approximately half of the World’s population.

SCO Enlargement

The simultaneous instatement of both countries as full members of the SCO is not only symbolic, it marks a historic shift in geopolitical alignments, which has a de facto bearing on the structure of economic and military agreements. Moreover, it has also a bearing on the inner-conflict between India and Pakistan which dates back to the countries’ Independence.

Inevitably, this historic shift constitutes a blow against Washington, which has defense and trade agreements with both Pakistan and India.

While India remains firmly aligned with Washington, America’s political stranglehold on Pakistan (through military and intelligence agreements) has been weakened as a result of Pakistan’s trade and investment deals with China, not to mention the accession of both India and Pakistan to the SCO, which favors bilateral relations between both countries as well as cooperation with Russia, China and Central Asia at the expense of  their historical links with US.

In other words, this enlargement of the SCO weakens America’s hegemonic ambitions in both South Asia and the broader Eurasian region. It also has a bearing on energy pipeline routes, transport corridors, borders and mutual security, maritime rights.

With the development of Pakistan’s bilateral relations with China, since 2007, the US clutch on Pakistan politics — which largely relied on America’s military presence as well as Washington’s links to Pakistan’s military-intelligence establishment– has indelibly been weakened.

Pakistan’s full membership of the SCO, its links with China and Iran should contribute to reinforcing the powers of the Islamabad government.

Concluding Remarks

History tells us that the structure of political alliances is fundamental.

What is unfolding is a series of contradictory cross-cutting coalitions both “with” the US as well “against” the US.

We are witnessing shifts in political and military alliances which largely contribute to weakening US hegemony in Asia and the Middle East.

Is Turkey intent upon opting out of NATO? It’s bilateral relationship with Washington is in disarray.

Meanwhile, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) which constitutes America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East is no longer functional. Qatar has not only aligned itself with Iran, it is actively cooperating with Russia.

In turn, America’s bilateral military cooperation agreements with both Pakistan and India are also affected following the accession of both countries to the SCO, which constitutes a de facto military alliance dominated by China and Russia.

The Globalization of War is undoubtedly one of the most important books on the contemporary global situation produced in recent years. 

In his latest masterpiece, Professor Michel Chossudovsky shows how the various conflicts we are witnessing today in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq and Palestine are in fact inter-linked and inter-locked through a single-minded agenda in pursuit of global hegemony helmed by the United States and buttressed by its allies in the West and in other regions of the world.   Dr Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

The Book can be ordered directly from Global Research Publishers. 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Bridges are the great symbols of human connection. They suggest a certain animal pride in the human race, a technological capacity to trick, and even subordinate nature.  Across ravines, rivers and bodies of space, the bridge suggests the raising and linking of the miraculous, a suspension that facilitates contact and speed.  They also suggest power, triumph, and continuity.

Little wonder then, that such disasters as the collapse of the Morandi Bridge in Genoa on August 14 cripple pride and shock the senses.  On this occasion, nature was not going to be tricked.  A storm did its work, and duly brought down a 100 metre section of the viaduct, inaugurated in 1967, with ferociously lethal consequences.  Decades of maintenance had failed to stem the fall, and 35 cars and heavier vehicles plummeted some 45 metres below. This beast of Italian structural engineering was gone.

Almost 40 people are dead, several lie in critical condition and more bodies promise to be found.  In the words of fire fighter Stefano Zanut,

“We are trying to find points where we can penetrate these incredibly heavy slabs.  Then the earthmoving equipment moves in to create a passageway where dogs can enter.”

The Italian government duly blamed the operator of the viaduct, Autostrade per l’Italia, promising mild retribution in the form of stripping contracts and revoking operating licenses.

“It is the company that holds the license who is responsible for maintenance and safety,” explained Transport Minister Danilo Toninelli, an observation that suggested more than a hint of hand washing of responsibility.  “If a bridge like this one collapsed it means this maintenance hasn’t been carried out.”

The process of revocation began over the weekend, with Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte promising in a statement that the government had “formally sent to Autostrade per l’Italia the letter of complaint that launches the process of revoking the concession.”  The company, for its part, is claiming that it did all that was necessary to ensure monitoring “with highly specialised technology.”

But the broader picture was hard to ignore: creaking infrastructure is back on the cards, and various agents are being viewed as catalysts.  Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has issued an irate order to the company to pay 500 million euros to assist the families and local government.  In a move that suggests that the horse has all too readily bolted, the Ministry of Infrastructure will be given more intrusive powers of monitoring and inspection and compel motorway operators to shift more profits from their enterprise towards safety and maintenance.

A number of the grieving families of the dead showed little interest in participating in a state funeral duly run in the hall in Genoa on Saturday.  They have pointed fingers in fury at state authorities who have all too readily divested their obligations on safety, favouring the good graces of the private sector.

“It is the state who has provoked this; let them show their faces, the parade of politicians is shameful,” came the remarks of one aggrieved mother, whose views of resigned fury were noted in La Stampa.

Where there is crisis, there are those willing to speculate and exploit.  Crisis breeds chances and prospects.  Large dollops of blame are being handed out to a range of players, much of it done with calculated effect.  More reactionary elements of the British press, ever keen to suggest traces of primitive provincialism in Italy, suggested that the mafia might have had a hand in it, notably in its link to using an inferior form of cement known as “cemento depotenziato”.  No hard evidence has been adduced on that specific connection in the Genoa disaster, but that hardly stops speculation from flapping its wings.

Rescue workers are seen at the collapsed Morandi Bridge in the Italian port city of Genoa (Source: PBS)

Italian authorities have also found their handy alibi: spending constraints stemming from Brussels in the name of budgetary prudence.  Salvini is certainly convinced, linking the bridge collapse in Genoa to EU budget rules.

“If external constraints prevent us from spending to have safe roads and schools, then it really calls into question whether it makes sense to follow these rules.”

Ever sniffing a populist chance, Salvini insisted that there could be “no trade-off between fiscal rules and the safety of Italians.”

The EU budget commissioner, Günther Oettinger, dismissed Salvini’s remarks as being “very human”, which was another way of claiming he was being erringly foolish.

“It is very human to look for somebody to blame,” he tweeted with dripping condescension, in the face of such disasters.

Nor could the EU be accused of being miserly on the issue of funding.  It had already forked out some 2.5 billion euros to fund Italian roads and trains for the current budgetary cycle.

Commission spokesperson Christian Spahr felt a need to issue a clarification over the remarks of the interior minister.

“Under agreed fiscal rules, member states are free to set specific policy priorities, for instance, the development and maintenance of infrastructure.”

The Commission had also been generous, approving in April 2018 “under European state aid rules an investment plan for Italian motorways.”

The shoe, came the implication, was actually on the other foot.  Indigenous factors had come into play.  Italy needed to ensure that infrastructure such as motorways needed to be monitored and inspected on a regular basis.  Neither Salvini nor his populist ally Luigi Di Maio of the Five Star Movement, have much time for such paperwork niceties. A point worth noting here is that the Five Star Movement citizen’s committee in Genoa had declared, in an April 2013 release, that any potential collapse of the Morandi bridge was the stuff of fairy tales.  For them, the EU looms like a chiding, despotic behemoth, dictating budgetary rules of prudence that have duly sacrificed efforts to keep Italian infrastructure in good hands.

On the home front, the Italian government will be facing a bind.  Autostrade is hardly going out of pocket, nor will it do so without a fight.  Cancellation of the license will result in compensation – some 20 billion euros is one estimate.  Where infrastructure fails, death might ensue, but money payments will always follow.  In the meantime, the problems of funding ailing infrastructure will continue to give the government profound headaches.  The battle over irresponsibility will continue to be fought.

*

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  

Financial injections by Qatar and possibly China may resolve Turkey’s immediate economic crisis, aggravated by a politics-driven trade war with the United States, but are unlikely to resolve the country’s structural problems, fuelled by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s counterintuitive interest rate theories.

The latest crisis in Turkey’s boom-bust economy raises questions about a development model in which countries like China and Turkey witness moves towards populist rule of one man who encourages massive borrowing to drive economic growth.

It’s a model minus the one-man rule that could be repeated in Pakistan as newly sworn-in prime minister Imran Khan, confronted with a financial crisis, decides whether to turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or rely on China and Saudi Arabia for relief.

Pakistan, like Turkey, has over the years frequently knocked on the IMF’s doors, failing to have turned crisis into an opportunity for sustained restructuring and reform of the economy. Pakistan could in the next weeks be turning to the IMF for the 13^th time, Turkey, another serial returnee, has been there 18 times.

In Turkey and China, the debt-driven approach sparked remarkable economic growth with living standards being significantly boosted and huge numbers of people being lifted out of poverty. Yet, both countries with Turkey more exposed, given its greater vulnerability to the swings and sensitivities of international financial markets, are witnessing the limitations of the approach.

So are, countries along China’s Belt and Road, including Pakistan, that leaped head over shoulder into the funding opportunities made available to them and now see themselves locked into debt traps that in the case of Sri Lanka and Djibouti have forced them to effectively turn over to China control of critical national infrastructure or like Laos that have become almost wholly dependent on China because it owns the bulk of their unsustainable debt.

The fact that China may be more prepared to deal with the downside of debt-driven development does little to make its model sustainable or for that matter one that other countries would want to emulate unabridged and has sent some like Malaysia and Myanmar scrambling to resolve or avert an economic crisis.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is in China after suspending US$20 billion worth of Beijing-linked infrastructure contracts, including a high-speed rail line to Singapore, concluded by his predecessor, Najib Razak, who is fighting corruption charges.

Mr. Mahathir won elections in May on a campaign that asserted that Mr. Razak had ceded sovereignty to China by agreeing to Chinese investments that failed to benefit the country and threaten to drown it in debt.

Myanmar is negotiating a significant scaling back of a Chinese-funded port project on the Bay of Bengal from one that would cost US$ 7.3 billion to a more modest development that would cost US$1.3 billion in a bid to avoid shouldering an unsustainable debt.

Debt-driven growth could also prove to be a double-edged sword for China itself even if it is far less dependent than others on imports, does not run a chronic trade deficit, and doesn’t have to borrow heavily in dollars.

With more than half the increase in global debt over the past decade having been issued as domestic loans in China, China’s risk, said Ruchir Sharma, Morgan Stanley’s Chief Global Strategist and head of Emerging Markets Equity, is capital fleeing to benefit from higher interest rates abroad.

“Right now Chinese can earn the same interest rates in the United States for a lot less risk, so the motivation to flee is high, and will grow more intense as the Fed raises rates further,” Mr. Sharma said referring to the US Federal Reserve.

Mr. Erdogan has charged that the United States abetted by traitors and foreigners are waging economic warfare against Turkey, using a strong dollar as ”the bullets, cannonballs and missiles.”

Rejecting economic theory and wisdom, Mr. Erdogan has sought for years to fight an alleged ‘interest rate lobby’ that includes an ever-expanding number of financiers and foreign powers seeking to drive Turkish interest rates artificially high to damage the economy by insisting that low interest rates and borrowing costs would contain price hikes.

In doing so, he is harking back to an approach that was popular in Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s that may not be wholly wrong but similarly may also not be universally applicable.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) warned late last year that Turkey’s “gross external financing needs to cover the current account deficit and external debt repayments due within a year are estimated at around 25 per cent of GDP in 2017, leaving the country exposed to global liquidity conditions.”

With two international credit rating agencies reducing Turkish debt to junk status in the wake of Turkey’s economically fought disputes with the United States, the government risks its access to foreign credits being curtailed, which could force it to extract more money from ordinary Turks through increased taxes. That in turn would raise the spectre of recession.

“Turkey’s troubles are homegrown, and the economic war against it is a figment of Mr. Erdogan’s conspiratorial imagination. But he does have a point about the impact of a surging dollar, which has a long history of inflicting damage on developing nations,” Mr. Sharma said.

Nevertheless, as The Wall Street Journal concluded, the vulnerability of Turkey’s debt-driven growth  was such that it only took two tweets by US President Donald J. Trump announcing sanctions against two Turkish ministers and the doubling of some tariffs to accelerate the Turkish lira’s tailspin.

Mr. Erdogan may not immediately draw the same conclusion, but it is certainly one that is likely to serve as a cautionary note for countries that see debt, whether domestic or associated with China’s infrastructure-driven Belt and Road initiative, as a main driver of growth.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Daily Reckoning Australia.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The US army has announced a new proposal for what really looks like a program to develop supersoldiers and wonder-dogs capable of fast healing, optimized physiological and mental performance, withstanding extreme environments, and wearing high-tech bio-enhancements and other gear. 

According to documents from the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the “primary emphasis of the USSOCOM Biomedical, Human Performance, and Canine Research Program is to identify and develop techniques… for early intervention in life-threatening injuries, prolonged field care, human performance optimization, and canine medicine/performance.”

The project will allocate $15 million on bio-enhancement studies which could result in soldiers with “enhanced physiological performance” that require a fraction of a normal night’s sleep, as well along with other “human performance optimization,” according to documents from the Defense Department.

The scope of the project includes:

1. Damage Control Resuscitation
   • Global Treatment Strategies and Next Generation Wound Management
   • Analgesia
   • Far Forward Blood, Blood Components, Blood Substitute, & Injectable Hemostatic
   • Austere Surgical Stabilization
2. Prolonged Field Care (PFC)
   • Medical Sensors and Devices (includes rapidly deployable medical sensors and/or devices for extended care beyond initial trauma resuscitation; wireless biosensors that demonstrate physiological monitoring capabilities; see FOA for details)
3. Portable Lab Assays and Diagnostics
   • Occupational and Environmental Health (OEH) Hazards
4. Force Health Protection and Environmental Medicine
   • Optimal Acclimatization Strategy
   • Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) Rapid Diagnostics, Treatment, and Prophylaxis
   • Operational Monitoring (wireless biosensors in extreme environments and/or hazards materials exposure)
5. Medical Simulation and Training Technologies
6. Human Performance Optimization
   • Improve Sleep
   • Diagnostics for Performance Sustainment
   • Nutritional Status
   • Enhanced Physiological Performance
   • Enhanced Mental Performance
   • Optimal Performance Strategy
   • Pharmaceutical and Nutritional Supplement interactions
   • Wearable Devices
7. Canine Medicine
   • Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) Canine Decontamination, Treatment, and PPE from possible exposure
   • Sensory Optimization and Protection
   • Trauma Resuscitation
   • Non-Traditional Anesthesia Protocols
   • Optimizing Canine Performance and Nutrition
   • Pre and Post Trauma Training / Behavioral Issues
   • Environmental Extremes

This won’t be the first such program to enhance the US military’s assets. In 2017, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) announced a plethora of plans to create an elite fighting force.

One of the projects on the horizon is to create software which could be uploaded directly to the brain to give their soldiers heightened senses while also attempting to cure ailments such as blindness, paralysis and speech disorders creating an army of Captain Americas. –Express

Darpa said the program – known as the Neural Engineering System Design (NESD) “aims to develop an implantable neural interface able to provide advanced signal resolution and data-transfer bandwidth between the brain and electronics.”

Program manager Phillip Alvelda said that the brain-computer interface (BCI) “program looks ahead to a future in which advanced neural devices offer improved fidelity, resolution, and precision sensory interface for therapeutic applications.”

Another DARPA program aims to give super-human sight to soldiers.

The Soldier Centric Imaging via Computational Cameras (SCENICC) program is attempting to create a small contact lens which would improve fighters vision tenfold.

Research began on this project in 2011, and DARPA hopes to “develop novel computational imaging capabilities and explore joint design of hardware and software to give war fighters access to systems that greatly enhance their awareness, security and survivability.”  –Express

They’re also working on exoskeletons, such as the XOS2 – currently being developed in conjunction Raytheon – which could make soldiers up to 17 times stronger.

Apparently battery technology is the limiting factor for now.

Business Insider also provides this list of 8 technologies the Pentagon is pursuing to create supersoldiers: 

1. Bulletproof clothes made of carbon chainmail

Researchers tested the potential ballistic protection of graphene by firing tiny bullets of gold at it. They found that the material was stronger, more flexible, and lighter than both the ballistic plates and the Kevlar vests troops wear. And, a million layers of the stuff would be only 1 millimeter thick.

MIT’s Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies is working on an effective manufacturing method for graphene-based chainmail, potentially giving troops better protection from a T-shirt than they currently get from bulky vests.

2. Synthetic blood

Synthetic blood would be much more efficient than natural cells. The most promising technology being investigated is a respirocyte, a theoretical red blood cell made from diamonds that could contain gasses at pressures of nearly 15,000 psi and exchange carbon dioxide and oxygen the same way real blood cells do.

Super soldiers with respirocytes mixed with their natural blood would essentially have trillions of miniature air tanks inside their body, meaning they would never run out of breath and could spend hours underwater without other equipment.

3. Seven-foot leaps and a 25 mph spring

Scientists at MIT and other research universities are looking for ways to augment the human ankle and Achilles tendon with bionic boots that mimic kangaroo tendons. Humans equipped with such boots would be able to leap seven feet or more, sprint at inhuman speeds, and run all day without wearing out their muscles.

4. Pain immunizations

DARPA’s Persistence in Combat initiative aims to help soldiers bounce back almost immediately from wounds. Pain immunizations would work for 30 days and eliminate the inflammation that causes lasting agony after an injury. So, soldiers could feel the initial burst of anguish from a bullet strike, but the pain would fade in seconds. The soldiers could treat themselves and keep fighting until medically evacuated.

5. Freedom from sleep

Not all animals sleep the same way. DARPA wants to find a way to let humans sleep with only half of their brain at a time like whales and dolphins or possibly even skip sleep for long periods of time like ENU mice, a genetically-engineered species of mouse, do.

6. Telepathy

Not all brain implants look very comfortable.US Patent Application Richard A. Normann

Part of DARPA’s “Brain Machine Interface” project is the development of better computer chips that can directly connect to a human brain via implants. In addition to allowing soldiers to control robotics with thought alone, this would allow squads to communicate via telepathy.

While the chips are already improving, the project has some detractors. One offshoot of the research is the ability to remote control mice via implanted chips, and some defense scientists worry about the risk of troops having their minds hacked.

7. Powered underwear

While the Harvard researchers working on it prefer the term “soft exoskeleton,” the DARPA-funded robotic suit is essentially a series of fabric muscles worn under the clothes that assist the wearer in each step or movement. This reduces fatigue and increases strength without requiring the huge amounts of power that bulkier, rigid exoskeletons need.

8. Gecko-like climbing gloves and shoes

Geckos use tiny hairs on their feet to grab onto surfaces on the molecular level. While the “Z-Man” project wouldn’t necessarily give humans the ability to crawl along a ceiling like a gecko, special climbing gloves and shoes would allow soldiers to easily climb sheer rock faces or up skyscrapers without any other equipment, drastically easing an assault on the high ground.

We can picture it now…

*

All images are from Zero Hedge.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Governments, like gardeners, reap what they sow. Trudeau’s continuation of Harper’s Conservative Mideast foreign policy has reaped the current mess with Saudi Arabia.

The Liberal brain trust must be wondering, “what do we have to do? We slavishly back the odious Saudi regime and they freak over an innocuous tweet.”

The Trudeau government has largely maintained the Conservative government’s pro-Saudi policies and support for Riyadh’s belligerence in the region. They’ve mostly ignored its war on Yemen, which has left 15,000 civilians dead, millions hungry and sparked a cholera epidemic. Rather than oppose this humanitarian calamity, Ottawa armed the Saudis and openly aligned itself with Riyadh.

Some of the Saudi pilots bombing Yemen were likely trained in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Since 2011 Saudi pilots have trained with NATO’s Flying Training in Canada (NFTC), which is run by the Canadian Forces and CAE. The Montreal-based flight simulator company trained Royal Saudi Air Force pilots in the Middle East, as well as the United Arab Emirates Air Force, which joined the Saudi-led bombing of Yemen.

As Anthony Fenton has demonstrated on Twitter, Saudi backed forces have been using Canadian-made rifles and armoured vehicles in Yemen. Saudi Arabia purchased Canadian-made Streit Group armoured vehicles for its war, which have been videoed targeting Yemeni civilians. The Trudeau government signed off on a $15 billion Canadian Commercial Corporation Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) contract with the kingdom. Over a decade and a half, General Dynamics Land Systems Canada is to provide upwards of a thousand vehicles equipped with machine guns and medium or high calibre weapons. The largest arms export contract in Canadian history, it includes maintaining the vehicles and training Saudi forces to use the LAVs.

With the LAV sale under a court challenge, in late 2016 federal government lawyers described Saudi Arabia as “a key military ally who backs efforts of the international community to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and the instability in Yemen. The acquisition of these next-generation vehicles will help in those efforts, which are compatible with Canadian defence interests.” In a further sign of Ottawa aligning with Riyadh’s foreign policy, Canada’s just-expelled ambassador, Dennis Horak, said in April 2016 that the two countries have had “nearly similar approaches on Syria, Yemen, Iraq and the Middle East Peace Process” and the Canadian Embassy’s website currently notes that “the Saudi government plays an important role in promoting regional peace and stability.”

Within six weeks of taking up his new post, Trudeau’s first foreign minister Stéphane Dion met his Saudi counterpart in Ottawa. According to briefing notes for the meeting, Dion was advised to tell the Saudi minister,

“I am impressed by the size of our trade relationship, and that it covers so many sectors …You are our most important trading partner in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.”

The Trudeau government also sought to deepen ties to the Saudi-led Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), whose members almost all intervened in Yemen. Announced in 2013, the Canada–GCC Strategic Dialogue has been a forum to discuss economic ties and the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. Dion attended the May 2016 meeting with GCC foreign ministers in Saudi Arabia.

Canada is a major arms exporter to the GCC monarchies. Canadian diplomats, the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC), and the Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries (CADSI) promoted arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the rest of the GCC. With support from Global Affairs Canada and the CCC, a slew of Canadian arms companies flogged their wares at the Abu Dhabi-based International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX) in 2016, 2017, 2018 and are already preparing for 2019.

Canadian companies and officials sold weapons to monarchies that armed anti-government forces in Syria. In an effort to oust the Bashar al-Assad regime, GCC countries supported extremist Sunni groups, which have had ties to Daesh/Islamic State.

The Trudeau government continued with the previous government’s low-level support for regime change in Syria. It provided aid to groups opposed to Assad and supported US cruise missile strikes on a Syrian military base in April.

With the Saudis, Israel and the US generally antagonistic to Iran, there has been only a minor shift away from the Harper government’s hostile position towards that country. The Trudeau government dialed down the previous government’s most bombastic rhetoric against Tehran but has not restarted diplomatic relations (as Trudeau promised before the election) or removed that country from Canada’s state sponsor of terrorism list. One aim of the Canada-GCC Strategic Dialogue is to isolate Iran. A communiqué after the May 2016 Canada-GCC ministerial meeting expressed “serious concernsover Iran’s support for terrorism and its destabilizing activities in the region.” An April 2016 Global Affairs memo authorizing the LAV export permits noted that “Canada appreciates Saudi Arabia’s role as a regional leader promoting regional stability, as well as countering the threat posed by Iranian regional expansionism.”

The Trudeau government continued to criticize Iran for their human rights abuses while regularly ignoring more flagrant rights violations by the rulers of Saudi Arabia. In the fall of 2017, Canada again led the effort to have the United Nations General Assembly single Iran out for human rights violations.

Saudi Arabia’s over the top response to an innocuous tweet has given the Liberals a unique opportunity to distance Canada from the violent, misogynistic and repressive regime. If there were a hint of truth to Trudeau’s “feminist”, “human rights”, “Canada is back”, etc. claims the Liberals would seize the occasion. But the Saudis are betting Canada backs down. Based on Trudeau’s slavish support for the kingdom so far it is a safe bet.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Many Americans who think their country is unquestionably the greatest have been chagrined by recent events that brought them to a new low point. The treatment of families seeking asylum at our southern border with forced separation of children from parents, some shipped to distant parts of the country, is shocking, embarrassing and reprehensible. Overwhelmingly, whatever their political leanings, people want that policy reversed. Some blame the Trump administration, others runaway ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) procedures, others inept management. 

Do those gross measures mark the end of what was known as The American Dream? Most Americans are unwilling to see the morality of the policy, but a conservative British weekly views this immigration fiasco though a moral lens, referring to an “ill-fated moral debasement of American values”. The article attributes that state of disgrace specifically to the current US administration, pointing to the nation’s “moral shortcomings…. under Trump… Though America has experienced many moral corrections, from abolitionism to the civil rights movement, they have never come (to this) emetic moment…”, the feeling of revulsion, it charges. Notwithstanding many Americans’ disgust over the caging and separation of children, The Economist’s invocation of moral standards is largely unvoiced within the USA. Even though morality underlies many of our current woes. 

Why is it impolite to speak about moral markers in our society? Maybe morality is simply redundant today. Yet, without a moral compass, we may be becoming lost. Consensus is impossible; so too, any dignified leadership. Anything seems acceptable, evidenced by the ongoing gun violence and unattended massacres, uncontrolled police shootings of Black men and ugly online dialogue.

We’re not talking about sin with its theological connotations. Morals can operate in the secular sphere too, within culture. Ask any parent, journalist or teacher. 

Right and wrong is a hard business for anyone to address nowadays, especially in so-called liberal circles. The perceived immorality of the US leader is answered by Robert DeNiro shouting “F..k You Donald Trump”, on stage at the Tony Awards. Is DeNiro exhibiting moral strength by this declaration? Did he reflect on his action beforehand? There were cheers from his audience; but then what? Did the Hollywood star suffer any retaliation? Would DeNiro have made the same declaration against movie mogul Harvey Weinstein or fellow actor Morgan Freeman when their crimes and misdemeanors were exposed? Has DeNiro now become an activist? And is this all his declaration signifies?

And what about Roseanne Barr’s ugly tweet, her racist statement about former White House advisor Valerie Jarrett? Oh that’s different. Is it? Yes, to many of ‘us’, such utterances are offensive. Yet we are told Barr was already known for her indiscretions and personal attacks. With that tweet, she crossed a line and her show was cancelled. Yet Barr is still sought after by TV hosts and to many she remains a hero.

Everyone seems to be pushing the envelop—to test today’s moral limits. How much can we offend? How wild can we look? How much dare we share of our phone snaps? How much violence can be created and tolerated as entertainment, or art? How much verbal abuse in the name of free speech; how much sexual or racial abuse to get or to keep a job?

The current occupant of the White house is a moralistic man. Yes. Calling others boorish names and winning accolades for his rudeness is nasty and insulting, but at the same time moralistic—to some. Your and my disgust is matched it seems, by others’ applause. Strange times. 

All this has me wondering: What is activism? And what’s the relation of political activism to cultural morality? I’m trying to understand this as a student of culture as well as a citizen of a country known for its openness. Can a healthy culture have no moral limits, whether it’s the behavior of its immigration officials, soldiers or celebrities?

We speak about social behaviors as unethical or corrupt, decent or distasteful, respectable or dishonorable, progressive or illiberal (whatever illiberal means). Morality itself seems to be absent from our vocabulary, although it surely underlies all these attributes. Is there just too much borderline conduct flowing through our fluid, censor-free culture, that no mooring can contain it? 

Perusal of the Moral Monday campaign of Rev. William Barber started my reflections on morals. Moral Monday evolved into The Poor People’s Campaign (PPC): A National Call for Moral Revival led by Barber. Bruce Dixon writes critically of Barber, faulting him for blaming everything on immoral persons and policies, on lack of moral commitment. Barber calls for a cleansing of America with a “massive moral rest”, a “moral resistance”. 

“The problem”, Dixon maintains, “is that labeling your political opponents, their leaders, their misguided values and their persons as “immoral” is never a persuasive political tactic. It might make those already on your side feel nice and comfy to know they’re all moral and the other guys are not”.

Dixon makes a worthy point. Especially today, when Americans are more aware than ever of increasingly economic, social and ideological polarization. So-called liberals have become sacrosanct about their own access to ‘truth’ while so-called conservatives, angry at how they are regarded and maligned, aggressively promote their own truth. 

Let’s not forget how yesterday’s immoral activists are later sanctified. Behavior (e.g. homosexuality) once attacked as sick and immoral eventually becomes codified into law. Our most esteemed American (moral) leader Martin Luther King Jr. was for many years vilified; then, when King moved beyond domestic injustices and called the American war in Vietnam immoral:– well, that was unpatriotic which in some circles is treasonous. That charge was leveled at another memorialized leader, Malcolm X. He crossed a moral line when he defined Black Americans’ struggle for justice as not their civil right, but their ‘human right’. In that declaration Malik Shabazz (X) challenged American moral standards.

During that same era when cultural standards were in flux, as they are today, and when military conscription was in force, boxing champion Muhammad Ali refused to be drafted into the US military to fight against Vietnamese: “Shoot them for what? They never called me Ni..er; they never lynched me…never set dogs against me…”, he argued. Ali’s stand so challenged American morals that he was stripped of his boxing titles and banned from boxing– punishment hard to fathom today. 

Or is it? Ali’s now forgotten moral stance is in my view comparable to football star Colin Kaepernick’s decision to place a knee on the ground instead of a hand on his heart as others do for the US national anthem. The moral principle on which he acted – injustice, specifically police brutalization of Black and Latino citizens–was eclipsed in the ensuing controversy. (In time, it will become enshrined in US history.)

Try to put yourself in Kaepernick’s position leading up to his declaration. He felt compelled to speak, somehow. Did he consult others–his religious guide, his family, fellow players? Did he ask others to join him? Did he consider the repercussions? What a supreme moral act! It made Kaepernick a hero for many (including this non-football fan); he was Amnesty International’s 2018 Ambassador of Conscience. Meanwhile he was fired from his job, and, I would argue, in its moralist retort, the National Football League banned players from ‘taking a knee’ in public. Although we don’t hear any charge of immorality against Kaepernick, some call his action unpatriotic– a grave allegation in the USA. Kaepernick himself, accepting the AI award, invokes moral issues behind his action, just as Ali did in his defense after his banishment from boxing in 1966.

That the names of music, sports and film celebrities come into our discussion of activism and morality may not be accidental. Favorable or not, celebrity is where morality today is defined and disseminated. Author Peter King has 4.8 million followers; actor Anne Hathaway has 12+ million instagram fans; Sean Hannity’s FB friends may exceed those numbers. Then there’s The Donald. And don’t forget what his celebrity led too.

*

This article was originally published on www.RadioTahrir.org.

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

While there may be no lost love in between Iran and the United States of America; more so since President Donald Trump moved to the White House – thus ushering the era of hyper neoconservatism, to have a US Secretary of State profess regime change as a mean to cancel out a political threat on a public forum somewhat broke that proverbial glass ceiling.

Only this July a belligerent Mike Pompeo told the world how Trump’s America would sow unrest in Iran to finally disappear what has been a thorn in the ‘Establishment’’s thigh: the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Sovereign on its land Iran’s greatest sin … from a western perspective, always has been its claim to political and territorial independence. The idea that Washington would object to Iran’s system of governance on the basis it does not fit its democratic paradigm is not only ludicrous but intellectually fallacious.

Readers will recall that before Iranians took it upon themselves to enact their right to political self-determination – something the US claims to be a champion of, they laid at the mercy of the Shah, an absolute  despot who squandered Iran’s wealth to his benefit and that of his political allies.

America has entertained too many friendships with autocrats and self-professed war criminals for anyone to remain under the illusion that its agenda is anything but pecuniary. 

Washington’s distaste of Iran is rooted in Tehran’s commitment to stand free and independent against the call of unfettered neo-imperialism.

To put it more plainly Iran disturbs America’s established world order by the principle it exercises, represents, and encourages others to enact: freedom of choice.

Speaking at a press conference Mike Pompeo announced that the US Broadcasting Board of Governors is taking steps to circumvent internet censorship in Iran, and creating a round-the-clock Farsi channel across television, radio, digital and social media formats, “so that ordinary Iranians inside Iran and around the globe will know that America stands with them.”

To which he added:

“To our Iranian American and Iranian friends,” Mr Pompeo said, “tonight I tell you that the Trump administration dreams the same dreams for the people of Iran as you do, and through our labours and God’s providence, that day will come true.”

If anything Pompeo made clear that Washington was intent on using whichever measures it deemed suitable to achieve its goals: regime change in Iran. If we consider that the US already played such games in countries such as Libya, Iraq, and Syria … to only name a few, one can easily imagine just what length the US will go to to score victory against its most defiant self-appointed enemy.

For the sake of accuracy, and to offer real context to this article I  must insist that if not for America’s insistence to threaten Iran’s sovereign integrity the two nations could quite easily resume all diplomatic and political ties. Tehran’s ire is tied to Washington’s illegal claim on world politics and America’s exceptionalism.

Although Pompeo was blunt when declaring Trump’s administration’s intention towards Iran and how it will push for unrest within Iran’s borders, he only enounced one mean of pressure: the media, leaving out America’s most insidious plan: deception through social manipulation. 

Alongside its media campaign, the US is also working on disrupting Iran’s socio-political fabric by directly targeting NGOs – turning such organisations into organisational asymmetrical weapons of war.

A report by Professor Vladimir Prav for SouthFront defines such agenda as follow:

“It entails two sets of activities. The first is establishing the pressure from above, in the form of planting “agents of influence” into the government and into associated organizations dealing with analysis and information dissemination, and pressure from below by creating a range of legal and shadowy societal and organization organizations to influence public opinion, organize mass protests, and  coordinate anti-government activities.”

America is doing just that and few are paying attention.

I give you Thomas Kaplan, the founder and president of Panthera, an organisation “devoted exclusively to the conservation of the world’s wild cats,” or so its front page reads.

While Panthera may indeed be instrumental in saving big cats, it also doubles as a convenient cover for less ‘holistic’ activities … spying being one of them.

To begin with, and to offer context to the above statement, readers will be interested to know that Kaplan is also one of the main financial supporters of UANI (United against Nuclear Iran), an organisation that has long petitioned for a series of punishing sanctions against Tehran. A close ally of Israel and Washington’s most fervent neocons, Kaplan has also closely worked with David Petraeus, a former CIA chief and Sheldon Adelson, the financier of America’s embassy move to Jerusalem.

Under Panthera’s umbrella Kaplan pushed his acolyte: George Schaller to work in Iran. Acting the devoted environmentalist Schaller traveled throughout Iran in collaboration with the Persian Wildlife Heritage, gathering along the way sensitive informations and photographs.

Alerted to the potential security breach Iran’s authorities proceeded to the arrest of several Panthera’s employees, among whom Kavous Seyed-Emami, who committed suicide soon after his arrest.

But let’s look closer still as some may argue that the above is circumstantial.

Panthera’s president, Fred Launay doubles as a close relation of no other than Iran’s most devoted enemy: Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ), himself a ‘special’ friend of US President Donald Trump.

Back in February 2018 following a meeting in between President Trump and MBZ the White House issued the following statement:

“The president thanked the Crown Prince for his leadership in highlighting ways all Gulf Cooperation Council states can better counter Iranian destabilising activities and defeat terrorists and extremists.”

One can deduct from the above that both the US and the UAE have an interest in seeing Iran lose its footing.

Launay, not content of his position at Panthera, moonlights as MBS’s head of the Mohamed bin Zayed Species Conservation Fund.

It is rather clear that Panthera’s immediate interests in Iran exist far beyond their desire to protect endangered species. To use NGOs as convenient cover to promote shadowy political agendas are nothing out of the ordinary … after all such tactics have given way to the expression: coloured revolutions.

The risk here remains that of manipulation. If it is unlikely America will succeed in destabilising Iran by playing up the NGO card, it can still do quite a lot of damage as far as public opinion goes by presenting Tehran as a vindictive power.

Trump’s belligerent stand against Turkey over the detention of Andrew Brunson, an American pastor that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government accuses of being involved in an attempted coup in 2016 only emphasises such point.

One can only hope that the experience of the past few years will serve enough of a warning for the public to see beyond smoke and mirror.

*

Catherine Shakdam is a senior researcher at Al Bayan Centre (Iraq), and a PhD candidate.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Imprisoned in Turkey since October 2016 on charges of involvement in the failed months earlier coup attempt against President Erdogan, the Trump regime’s demand for Andrew Brunson’s release conceals what’s really behind the US/Turkey rift.

It’s all about what Michel Chossudovsky calls a “Russia-Turkey-Iran ‘triple entente,’” – growing Ankara ties with Washington’s main adversaries.

The US doesn’t give a hoot about the safety and well-being of its ordinary citizens at home or when abroad – only its privileged ones, no others.

Turkey is a key NATO member, its military second largest in the alliance to Washington’s.

The Trump regime wants Erdogan allied with its anti-Russia, anti-Iran agenda. He rejects US sanctions on both countries, intends maintaining normal political and economic relations.

Days earlier, Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu said his government

“never supported any sanctions against Russia. We have already said that we are not going to support sanctions against Iran either.”

He called on the Trump regime to rescind sanctions on Turkey, adding

“(t)hey must drop their threats, otherwise there can be no progress in (bilateral) relations.”

His relationship with Washington deteriorated in the wake of the aborted 2016 coup attempt.

He blamed it on ex-pat cleric Fethullah Gulen, living in Pennsylvania. Washington refuses to extradite him. No evidence indicates his involvement in what happened. He denies accusations against him.

While his relations with America soured, they’ve grown stronger with Russia since a Turkish F-16 downed a Russian Su-24 warplane in Syrian airspace in November 2015.

His political and economic ties to Moscow and Tehran are growing. Washington treats Turkey as both ally (in NATO) and Eurasian adversary.

Erdogan is playing the Russia/Iran, and US cards simultaneously, increasingly shifting his allegiance East, away from the West – another body blow to Washington’s imperial agenda.

On August 17, Trump disgracefully tweeted:

“Turkey has taken advantage of the United States for many years. They are now holding our wonderful Christian Pastor, who I must now ask to represent our Country as a great patriot hostage. We will pay nothing for the release of an innocent man, but we are cutting back on Turkey!”

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin threatened more US sanctions on Turkey on top of others imposed “if they don’t release (Brunson) quickly.”

Erdogan’s foreign minister Cavusoglu responded, saying

“(t)he US does not know, it cannot see who its true friend is. We can easily solve problems with the US but not with its current mindset.”

Both countries sharply increased tariffs on each other’s products – on Turkish steel and aluminum, on US alcohol, tobacco and vehicles.

Ankara began selling off US sovereign debt, reduced from $32.6 – $28.8 billion in June, according to a US Treasury report. In November 2017, Turkey held $61.2 billion worth of US treasuries, less than half that amount now.

In 2018, Russia dumped over 80% of its US sovereign debt holdings, holding less than $15 billion now.

The Trump regime slammed Ankara’s agreement with Russia to buy its S-400 missile defense systems. It threatened non-delivery of contracted for US F-35s to its military.

Erdogan expressed ire over US support for Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria he wants removed or eliminated near Turkey’s border.

Washington wants all nations bending to its will. Erdogan’s support for what the Trump regime opposes lies at the root of the deep rift between both countries.

It’s got nothing to do with pastor Brunson the Trump regime didn’t give a hoot about until recent weeks.

*

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 

*

Dear Mr. Birnbaum,

You write Trump “made no mention of Russia’s adventures in Ukraine”. Well, neither he nor Putin nor you made any mention of America’s adventures in the Ukraine, which resulted in the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, which led to the justified Russian adventure. Therefore …?

If Russia overthrew the Mexican government would you blame the US for taking some action in Mexico?

William Blum

***

Dear Mr. Blum,

Thanks for your note. “America’s adventures in the Ukraine”: what are you talking about? Last time I checked, it was Ukrainians in the streets of Kiev who caused Yanukovych to turn tail and run. Whether or not that was a good thing, we can leave aside, but it wasn’t the Americans who did it.

It is, however, Russian special forces who fanned out across Crimea in February and March 2014, according to Putin, and Russians who came down from Moscow who stoked conflict in eastern Ukraine in the months after, according to their own accounts.

Best, Michael Birnbaum

***

To MB,

I can scarcely believe your reply. Do you read nothing but the Post? Do you not know of high State Dept official Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador in Ukraine in Maidan Square to encourage the protesters? She spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who were soon to overthrow the govt. She and the US Amb. spoke openly of who to choose as the next president. And he’s the one who became president. This is all on tape. I guess you never watch Russia Today (RT). God forbid! I read the Post every day. You should watch RT once in a while.

William Blum

Click to listen to Nuland’s “F*ck the EU Leaked Phone Call

To WB,

I was the Moscow bureau chief of the newspaper; I reported extensively in Ukraine in the months and years following the protests. My observations are not based on reading. RT is not a credible news outlet, but I certainly do read far beyond our own pages, and of course I talk to the actual actors on the ground myself – that’s my job.

And: yes, of course Nuland was in the Maidan – but encouraging the protests, as she clearly did, is not the same as sparking them or directing them, nor is playing favorites with potential successors, as she clearly did, the same as being directly responsible for overthrowing the government. I’m not saying the United States wasn’t involved in trying to shape events. So were Russia and the European Union. But Ukrainians were in the driver’s seat the whole way through. I know the guy who posted the first Facebook call to protest Yanukovych in November 2013; he’s not an American agent. RT, meanwhile, reports fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time. By all means consume a healthy and varied media diet – don’t stop at the US mainstream media. But ask yourself how often RT reports critically on the Russian government, and consider how that lacuna shapes the rest of their reporting. You will find plenty of reporting in the Washington Post that is critical of the US government and US foreign policy in general, and decisions in Ukraine and the Ukrainian government in specific. Our aim is to be fair, without picking sides.

Best, Michael Birnbaum

***end of exchange***

Right, the United States doesn’t play indispensable roles in changes of foreign governments; never has, never will; even when they offer billions of dollars; even when they pick the new president, which, apparently, is not the same as picking sides. It should be noticed that Mr Birnbaum offers not a single example to back up his extremist claim that RT “reports fabrications and terrible falsehoods all the time.” “All the time”, no less! That should make it easy to give some examples.

For the record, I think RT is much less biased than the Post on international affairs. And, yes, it’s bias, not “fake news” that’s the main problem – Cold-War/anti-Communist/anti-Russian bias that Americans have been raised with for a full century. RT defends Russia against the countless mindless attacks from the West. Who else is there to do that? Should not the Western media be held accountable for what they broadcast? Americans are so unaccustomed to hearing the Russian side defended, or hearing it at all, that when they do it can seem rather weird.

To the casual observer, THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA indictments of July 14 of Russian intelligence agents (GRU) reinforced the argument that the Soviet government interfered in the US 2016 presidential election. Regard these indictments in proper perspective and we find that election interference is only listed as a supposed objective, with charges actually being for unlawful cyber operations, identity theft, and conspiracy to launder money by American individuals unconnected to the Russian government. So … we’re still waiting for some evidence of actual Russian interference in the election aimed at determining the winner.

The Russians did it (cont.)

Each day I spend about three hours reading the Washington Post. Amongst other things I’m looking for evidence – real, legal, courtroom-quality evidence, or at least something logical and rational – to pin down those awful Russkis for their many recent crimes, from influencing the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election to use of a nerve agent in the UK. But I do not find such evidence.

Each day brings headlines like these:

• “U.S. to add economic sanctions on Russia: Attack with nerve agent on former spy in England forces White House to act”
• “Is Russia exploiting new Facebook goal?”
• “Experts: Trump team lacks urgency on Russian threat”

These are all from the same day, August 9, which led me to thinking of doing this article, but similar stories can be found any day in the Post and in major newspapers anywhere in America. None of the articles begins to explain how Russia did these things, or even WHY. Motivation appears to have become a lost pursuit in the American mass media. The one thing sometimes mentioned, which I think may have some credibility, is Russia’s preference of Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this doesn’t begin to explain how Russia could pull off any of the electoral magic it’s accused of, which would be feasible only if the United States were a backward, Third World, Banana Republic.

There’s the Facebook ads, as well as all the other ads … The people who are influenced by this story – have they read many of the actual ads? Many are pro-Clinton or anti-Trump; many are both; many are neither. It’s one big mess, the only rational explanation of this which I’ve read is that they come from money-making websites, “click-bait” sites as they’re known, which earn money simply by attracting visitors.

As to the nerve agents, it makes more sense if the UK or the CIA did it to make the Russians look bad, because the anti-Russian scandal which followed was totally predictable. Why would Russia choose the time of the World Cup in Moscow – of which all of Russia was immensely proud – to bring such notoriety down upon their head? But that would have been an ideal time for their enemies to want to embarrass them.

However, I have no doubt that the great majority of Americans who follow the news each day believe the official stories about the Russians. They’re particularly impressed with the fact that every US intelligence agency supports the official stories. They would not be impressed at all if told that a dozen Russian intelligence agencies all disputed the charges. Group-think is alive and well all over the world. As is Cold War II.

But we’re the Good Guys, ain’t we?

For a defender of US foreign policy there’s very little that causes extreme heartburn more than someone implying a “moral equivalence” between American behavior and that of Russia. That was the case during Cold War I and it’s the same now in Cold War II. It just drives them up the wall.

After the United States passed a law last year requiring TV station RT (Russia Today) to register as a “foreign agent”, the Russians passed their own law allowing authorities to require foreign media to register as a “foreign agent”. Senator John McCain denounced the new Russian law, saying there is “no equivalence” between RT and networks such as Voice of America, CNN and the BBC, whose journalists “seek the truth, debunk lies, and hold governments accountable.” By contrast, he said, “RT’s propagandists debunk the truth, spread lies, and seek to undermine democratic governments in order to further Vladimir Putin’s agenda.”

And here is Tom Malinowski, former Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor (2014-2017) – last year he reported that Putin had “charged that the U.S. government had interfered ‘aggressively’ in Russia’s 2012 presidential vote,” claiming that Washington had “gathered opposition forces and financed them.” Putin, wrote Malinowski, “apparently got President Trump to agree to a mutual commitment that neither country would interfere in the other’s elections.”

“Is this moral equivalence fair?” Malinowski asked and answered: “In short, no. Russia’s interference in the United States’ 2016 election could not have been more different from what the United States does to promote democracy in other countries.”

How do you satirize such officials and such high-school beliefs?

We also have the case of the US government agency, National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has interfered in more elections than the CIA or God. Indeed, the man who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, Allen Weinstein, declared in 1991:

“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

On April 12, 2018 the presidents of two of NED’s wings wrote:

“A specious narrative has come back into circulation: that Moscow’s campaign of political warfare is no different from U.S.-supported democracy assistance.”

“Democracy assistance”, you see, is what they call NED’s election-interferences and government-overthrows. The authors continue:

“This narrative is churned out by propaganda outlets such as RT and Sputnik [radio station]. … it is deployed by isolationists who propound a U.S. retreat from global leadership.”

“Isolationists” is what conservatives call critics of US foreign policy whose arguments they can’t easily dismiss, so they imply that such people just don’t want the US to be involved in anything abroad.

And “global leadership” is what they call being first in election-interferences and government-overthrows.

What God giveth, Trump taketh away?

The White House sends out a newsletter, “1600 daily”, each day to subscribers about what’s new in the marvelous world inhabited by Donald J. Trump. On July 25 it reported about the president’s talk before the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Missouri:

“We don’t apologize for America anymore. We stand up for America. And we stand up for our National Anthem,” the President said to “a thundering ovation”.

At the same time, the newsletter informed us that the State Department is bringing together religious leaders and others for the first-ever Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom.

“The goal is simple,” we are told, “to promote the God-given human right to believe what you choose.”

Aha! I see. But what about those who believe that standing for the National Anthem implies support for America’s racism or police brutality? Is it not a God-given human right to believe such a thing and “take a knee” in protest?

Or is it the devil that puts such evil ideas into our heads?

The weather all over is not just extreme … It’s downright freakish.

The argument I like to use when speaking to those who don’t accept the idea that extreme weather phenomena are largely man-made is this:

Well, we can proceed in one of two ways:

1. We can do our best to limit the greenhouse effect by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere, and if it turns out that these emissions were not in fact a significant cause of the widespread extreme weather phenomena, then we’ve wasted a lot of time, effort and money (although other benefits to the ecosystem would still accrue).
2. We can do nothing at all to curtail the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and if it turns out that these emissions were in fact the leading cause of all the extreme weather phenomena, then we’ve lost the earth and life as we know it.

So, are you a gambler?

Irony of ironies … Misfortune of misfortunes … We have a leader who has zero interest in such things; indeed, the man is unequivocally contemptuous of the very idea of the need to modify individual or social behavior for the sake of the environment. And one after another he’s appointed his soulmates to head government agencies concerned with the environment.

What is it that motivates such people? I think it’s mainly that they realize that blame for much of environmental damage can be traced, directly or indirectly, to corporate profit-seeking behavior, an ideology to which they are firmly committed.

*

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: The Anti-Empire Report.

Notes

1. Washington Post, November 16, 2017
2. Ibid., July 23, 2017
3. Ibid., September 22, 1991
4. William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower, chapter 19 on NED
5. Washington Post, April 2, 2018

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

A border search-and-rescue group, Aguilas del Desierto, or “Eagles of the Desert,” found over a dozen remains of migrants after it was given special permission to search for a missing person within a limited southern section of the Barry Goldwater Air Force bombing range in Welling, Arizona, along the US/Mexico border.

The bombing range is a vast 70-mile vast swath of land that stretches from Southeast of Yuma, Arizona stretching all the way to the Sonoran Desert National Monument. The range crosses through well-known migrant routes and has remained inaccessible to human aid groups or forensics teams.

Eagles of the Desert (EED) was the first group ever allowed to perform searches on the high security bombing range which is utilized for air-to-ground bombing practice by A-10’s, F-16s and F-35 Lighting II Air Force Jets. The base is also used for Marine Corps and NATO allied flight crews while deployed to any of the aforementioned bases for training.

EED was allowed limited access to an unused area to search for the individual for whom they had a missing person’s report. The migrant was never found, but in the short time frame of searching, the group came across 13 human remains in a very small section of the bombing range.

The concentration of remains in the limited area leaves little doubt to EED that the numbers of remains are likely in the hundreds, if not thousands. Last year a Texas sheriff commented that,

“For every one [body] we find, we’re probably missing five.”

The treacherous deserts along the Southwest have taken the lives of untold tens of thousands of migrants coming to the United States.

Investigative reporter John Carlos Frey helped break the story, which points unmistakably to negligence by the authorities, as well as the utter disregard by officials for the lives of migrants.

Frey told Democracy Now that,

“for the most part, sheriffs, police departments, police agencies in the United States do not count migrants who are missing as missing persons. So these individual names are not being turned over to the database. So there’s no way for someone in Latin America to search for their loved ones through a DNA sample, because those names have not been entered in the database….The federal government has washed its hands of these individuals and is not assisting, either financially or by allowing names to be put into the database.”

Frey also commented on the direct correlation between the denial of asylum at the border and the high volume of those perishing while crossing. Hundreds of asylum seekers have continued to camp out for days and weeks, only to be turned away by Border Police citing the June announcement by US Attorney General Jeff Sessions that Washington will no longer consider victims of domestic or gang violence for asylum status.

“Individuals who are trying to make a claim of asylum have fled their countries because they don’t have a choice. They’re fleeing for their lives. If we are not allowing them in to make a claim of asylum, they will go another way. And the route that’s available to them are the deserts of the American Southwest. It is most likely now that individuals who cross that desert will be put in peril. They will suffer just going through, especially this time of year. We can count on the fact that many of these individuals may perish,” Frey told Democracy Now .

Refusing to accept asylum applications is a flagrant violation of international human rights law. The 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees “provides that no one shall expel or return a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom.”

The reality is that Washington’s policies of denying asylum have forced many migrants to partake in the brutal 7-10 day journey across scorching desert in temperatures that soar over 110 degrees Fahrenheit. The endless lines at the border and outright denial of asylum is a truth which explodes all of the noxious rhetoric that immigrants should be crossing “legally.”

In 2015 revelations of another mass grave in Brooks County, Texas came to light, which contained the remains of more than 300 immigrants which Federal agents gathered from the desert. At that time, a reporting team that included Frey found that many of the migrants had died after waiting hours for Border Patrol to respond to their 911 calls.

It can only be concluded that Washington relies on great numbers perishing in the treacherous conditions. Revelations early this year detailed the systematic destruction of lifesaving aid by Border Patrol agents and the increasing harassment and surveillance of humanitarian organizations such as No More Deaths (NMD) and Border Angels.

Organizations reported that between 2012 and 2015, on average occurring more than twice a week, 3,586 gallons of water were vandalized.

In addition, this year nine members of NMD faced federal prosecution for the supposed “crime” of leaving water and medical aid to migrants on the verge of death in the Arizona desert. Scott Warren, an instructor at Arizona State University, faces a felony charges for harboring two people and providing “food and water for approximately three days,” according to the US District Court of Arizona.

Warren could face up to five years in prison. These charges harken back to the harboring of Jews during the Holocaust or of Japanese in California during internment. Increasingly, Washington continues to pursue the working class as it mounts an offensive to protect refugees and immigrants across the globe.

The devastation immigrants flee is the result of decades of US involvement throughout Central and Latin America, which have created violent conditions and maintain the high levels of poverty reflected in state and gang violence. The same process on the other side of the globe results in the death of countless hundreds and likely thousands who have drowned in the Mediterranean fleeing Washington’s wars.

Only the fight for socialism, predicated on internationalism and opposition to imperialist war, can break apart the violent, militarized borders and the nation state, finally allowing humanity to move freely across the globe.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

From the moment that she came to public attention Aretha Franklin appeared to be an anointed figure, elevated to a pantheon of greats that include Bessie Smith, Ma Rainey, Billie Holliday and Sister Rosetta Tharpe. Songs such as Respect, Natural Woman and I Say A Little Prayer testify to the power of her artistry.

Like Ray Charles and Sam Cooke -the key progenitors in transforming Gospel music into Soul music- she succeeded in working out an innovative hybrid of Black American music styles. But unlike Charles and Cooke, she was able to return to her gospel roots and receive popular and critical acclaim in 1972 by creating the seminal Amazing Grace, the highest selling album of her life, and the greatest selling live gospel album of all time.

She showed great versatility by recording songs for a cross-over audience such as her remake of Ben E. King’s Spanish Harlem and for the Disco-Funk era offered the classic Jump to It in 1982.

Aretha Franklin with her father and Martin Luther King

An indicator of her significance in popular music was the fact that like Elvis Presley, she became one of the few artists to be known by first name alone. As a celebrity stories of her marriages, weight battles as well as her loss of innocence at an early age under the parental regime of her father, the Reverend C.L. Franklin became the staple of news magazine gossip and book revelations.

It is true to say that she reflected the era that she lived in. Her afros spoke to the ‘Black Pride’ movement and her songs about freedom and respect attested to her commitment to the Women’s Liberation and Civil Rights movements. She helped finance several civil rights programmes and participated in fundraisers. Of her willingness to post bail for Angela Davis, the black, feminist radical in 1970, Franklin said the following:

Jail is hell to be in. I’m going to see her free if there is any justice in our courts, not because I believe in communism but because she’s a black woman and she wants freedom for black people.

The wealth of connections provided by her father meant that she had known the Reverend Martin Luther King since she was a young girl and he presented her with an award in Detroit only shortly before his assassination in 1968.

As a singer, Franklin was seemingly always on a pedestal and remained there until her death. Needless to say that she was the quintessential soul and gospel singer. She was, is and will be the standard by which serious singers will be appraised and defined.

Aretha Franklin was born on March 25th 1942 in Memphis, Tennessee and died on August 16th 2018 in Detroit, Michigan.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has appointed Brian H. Hook, the State Department director of policy planning, to head a coordinated “Iran Action Group.”

Hook served in several important posts in the George W. Bush administration, indicating his support for lying the country into war with Iraq and the years-long US military occupation of that country. Putting a Bushie Neoconservative in charge of the Iran Action Group can fairly be seen as a signal that Pompeo wants to do to President Hassan Rouhani what Bush did to Saddam Hussein.

The Iraq War led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, the wounding of millions, the creation of hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans, the displacement of 4 million Iraqis, the complete destruction of the Iraqi economy, and the rise of the ISIL terrorist group.

A Neoconservative, Hook has argued for coddling dictatorial regimes favorable to US interests such as the absolute monarchy Saudi Arabia and the brutal military junta in Egypt, rather than pressing them in any way on human rights or democracy. He blamed Jimmy Carter’s human rights policy for the revolutions in Nicaragua and Iran (an allegation almost completely divorced from any historical fact). He seems to imply that pressing a country over democratization should be reserved as a tactic for governments the US does not like.

Hook was likely involved in the memo for Trump arguing for promoting an “Islamic reformation,” which State Department experts on the Middle East privately castigated:

““These people are curating crap” from the far-right, anti-Muslim blogosphere, said a separate senior U.S. government official, referring to the unnamed authors of the State Department paper,” according to The Intercept.

Hooks appears to equate the government of Iran with the terrorist group al-Qaeda. You don’t have to like the Iranian government to think that that is ridiculous.

So we’ve got someone who has defended Bush’s war of aggression on Iraq but who thinks it was naive and dangerous for Carter to cut aid to the Argentinian colonels who were throwing dissidents out of airplanes.

Nice.

*

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment and Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan. Follow him at @jricole

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

Detroit artist and social activist Aretha Franklin passed into her ancestral realm on Wednesday morning August 16 while surrounded by family and friends in her Detroit Riverfront condominium downtown.

It had been announced the previous week that Aretha was gravely ill and was hospitalized. 

Later press accounts indicated that she was checked out of the hospital and sent home possibly under hospice care. These were difficult reports for many people in the Detroit area to accept at their face value. 

The Queen of Soul had been ill in the past and hospitalized. Several years before, media accounts claimed she was suffering from pancreatic cancer and was terminal. However, contradictory claims publicized through television, radio, print and internet platforms said these reports were unsubstantiated.

Several weeks later Aretha was seen attending a Piston’s basketball game at the Palace in Auburn Hills. Although she had lost considerable weight, her appearance and activity illustrated that the Queen was by no means making an immediate exit from the stage.

Just last year in June (2017), Aretha was honored in downtown Detroit through the renaming of a street after her while on the same day performing a free concert for the people of the city. Long term friends of Aretha such as Mary Wilson, formerly of the Supremes, Freda Payne, solo vocalist, the boxing champion Tommy Hearns and the Rev. Jesse Jackson accompanied the Queen of Soul when she entered the concert venue and while leaving.

Her passing has left a tremendous void in the social and cultural atmosphere in the city, nationally and internationally. The loss could be especially felt in Detroit because the landmarks of her upbringing and public celebrity ascendancy are still in existence and constitute key elements of the historical legacy of the African American community.

Origins and Catapulting to World Notoriety

Aretha Franklin was the second daughter and third child of Rev. C.L. Franklin and Barbara Siggers. She was born in Memphis, Tennessee on March 23, 1942 during World War II. 

Her father, originally from the Delta region of Sunflower County, Mississippi, began preaching as a teenager in small rural churches. Aretha’s mother, Barbara Siggers, was a musician and vocalist who was born in Shelby, Mississippi. In later years renowned gospel singer Mahalia Jackson said Aretha’s mother had one of the most beautiful voices in the field of sacred music.

Rev. C.L. Franklin was an effective public speaker and vocalist as well. He was brought to Memphis to preach at New Salem Baptist Church where he remained until 1944. For the following two years he served as pastor at Friendship Baptist Church in Buffalo, New York. 

In late 1945 Franklin visited Detroit to address the National Baptist Convention where he so impressed members of New Bethel, a church formed 14 years earlier as a women’s prayer group, that they invited him to pastor their congregation in the city. It was during this period of the late 1940s and early 1950s that Aretha’s father would become a nationally known religious figure.

His sermons were broadcast over radio on Sunday evenings directly from New Bethel which was located at the time on Hastings Street and Willis on the eastside. Music store and studio owner Joe Von Battle would be the first person to record and produce Franklin’s sermons and songs on vinyl. The circulation of his records on a mass level along with the broadcast of his sermons over W-LAC radio in Nashville, a station with a powerful range during evening hour, could be picked up in various regions of the United States.

Aretha and Rev. Franklin’s other children were brought up in the church where they participated in the choir. By 1956, Aretha had released her first recordings through the JVB label based on Hastings in the heart of the African American community at the time.

Detroit and the Convergence between National Liberation and Working Class Struggles

Rev. C.L. Franklin had selected the right municipality to launch a successful public career. The city had been a center of migration for African Americans since the early years of the 20^th century with the development and expansion of mass production utilizing the assembly line.

This migration accelerated after the beginning of World War I and continued from the 1920s through the period of WWII. The growth of heavy industry and parallel service sectors created a large working class which was divided along racial lines.

It was in 1942-43, the two years after the entry of the U.S. into the War, that racial unrest erupted in the city. Competition over scarce housing resources and public accommodations fueled by the exploitative character of industrial racialized capitalism, resulted in one of the deadliest outbreaks of racial unrest in June 1943. 34 people were killed, 25 of whom were African Americans, in the unrest which lasted for several days where 6,000 federal troops were deployed in an ostensible effort to restore order.

At least 17 of the African Americans killed fell victim to police and Michigan National Guard attacks. Others were murdered by blood thirsty white mobs which accosted African Americans along Woodward Avenue and other areas. African Americans retaliated against whites by destroying white-owned businesses in the heavily-populated Paradise Valley area on the near eastside which was a residential and business district occupied by Black working class people.

The white political establishment including the-then Mayor Edward Jeffries blamed African Americans for the violence. They described African American youth as “hoodlums” hell bent on committing crimes against whites. After the conclusion of WWII, two major urban renewal projects destroyed large swaths of the African American community on the eastside, both Paradise Valley and Black Bottom. These forced removals were implemented by Mayors Albert Cobo (1950-1957) and Louis Miriani (1957-1961).

Nevertheless, African Americans resisted national oppression, institutional racism and national oppression through organizational efforts. Although most were initially excluded from trade unions on a racial basis numerous organizations were founded or enjoyed engagement with the Black masses. The Nation of Islam (NOI) was founded in Detroit in 1930. Later African Americans played a pivotal role in the UAW campaign to win recognition by Ford Motor Company in 1941. 

Later in 1957 African American labor activists formed the Trade Union Leadership Council (TULC) which supported the struggle for Civil Rights in the South and the North. On the cultural front, Motown Records began in the late 1950s under the African American leadership of Berry and Esther Gordy. The music company grew to prominence during the early to mid-1960s.

The urban renewal program of the racist city administration directly impacted New Bethel Baptist Church and JVB Records located on Hastings. During the course of the 1950s, the African American community was slated for demolition under the guise of slum clearance. By 1961, most of the remaining neighborhoods and institutions were forced to relocate under imminent domain when they were later demolished for the construction of the Chrysler I-75 and Fisher Freeways. Tens of thousands of African Americans living in these communities moved further north and to the west side neighborhoods along 12^th, 14^th, Linwood and Dexter streets. Hundreds of small businesses, churches and social organizations were destroyed by the city administrations holding power in the 1950s and early 1960s. 

New Bethel eventually re-located in 1963 through the repurposing of a large movie theater on Linwood and Philadelphia in the Virginia Park District. JVB Records re-opened up on 12^th Street. The Virginia Park and surrounding communities, due to racial segregation policies in housing, was characterized by pockets of overcrowding in multiple-dwellings owned by absentee white landlords dividing up spacious apartments into additional units which were allowed to fall into disrepair.

City administration officials refused to enforce building codes designed for safety and quality of life in the Virginia Park District and other similar communities. Tensions escalated in the early 1960s prompting a radicalization of the African American people. 

Aretha Franklin with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and her father Rev. C.L. Franklin in Detroit at Cobo Hall in 1968.

On June 23, 1963, the largest Civil Rights demonstration in U.S. history was held in Detroit along Woodward Avenue mobilizing hundreds of thousands of residents. The march was made possible by the role of Rev. Franklin along with an alliance of community organizations. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), had backed Franklin’s leadership role in the march mobilization. Franklin was very much involved in SCLC and advocated the elimination of racial discrimination in Detroit. King would deliver one of his early renditions of the “I Have a Dream” speech which was recorded and later issued by Motown Records. 

Irrespective of these valiant nonviolent efforts, the general atmosphere became far more volatile as the predominantly white police force became notorious for their racial profiling, arbitrary arrests, brutality and murder of African Americans. By August 1966, the seeds of an urban rebellion occurred in the Kercheval Street area on the eastside. This rebellion was contained at the time.

Nonetheless, the following year, on July 23, 1967, the largest urban rebellion up until that time in U.S. history, was led by African Americans having been sparked by a police raid on 12^th Street in the early morning hours. The unrest continued for five days, when in the first 12 hours, the-then Democratic Liberal Mayor Jerome Cavanaugh and Republican Governor George Romney jointly agreed to send in thousands of National Guardsmen. By the second day of the rebellion, Romney appealed to Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson to send in 5,000 federal troops from the 82^nd and 101^st airborne division of the U.S. Army. 

43 people were officially reported killed as a result of the July 1967 rebellion. That same year similar incidents of civil unrest occurred in over 160 cities according to the finding of the Johnson administration appointed National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorder. The Commission headed by Illinois Governor Otto Kerner concluded that billions in redevelopment funding was necessary to correct the problems of a divided society, one black and one white.

Johnson, facing a rebuke of his War on Poverty, Model Cities and Great Society programs from a coalition of both Republican and Democratic lawmakers refused to accept the findings of the Kerner Commission. In the aftermath of the Detroit rebellion other organizations were founded in Detroit which sought revolutionary solutions to the problems of national oppression and economic exploitation.

Detroit Rebellion July 23, 1967 at the corner of 12th Street and West Euclid

Two of the most well-known were the Dodge Revolutionary Union Movement (DRUM), in 1968, which later expanded into the League of Revolutionary Black Workers (LRBW) the following year (1969). Also in late March 1968, the Provisional Government of the Republic of New Afrika (RNA) was formed in Detroit bringing together Black Nationalists and other revolutionary forces from around the country to demand the creation of a sovereign nation in five southern states. 

New Bethel Baptist Church was located in the center of the 1967 rebellion where Linwood was the second hardest hit area second only to 12^th Street. That same year, Aretha Franklin released her first album on Atlantic Records entitled “I’ve Never Loved a Man.” The album catapulted her meteoric career to new heights. That same year she was designated as the Queen of Soul at the age of 25. 

The hit single “Respect”, written by the legendary Stax recording artist Otis Redding and later rearranged by Aretha, rose swiftly up the Rhythm and Blues and Pop Music charts in the spring and summer of 1967. The song was viewed as an anthem of resistance to the oppression of African Americans and women in particular. Aretha appeared on numerous local and national television programs. In early 1968, the city administration proclaimed a day of recognition for Aretha Franklin. She would later make a triumphant tour of Europe where she packed halls to the delight of Soul music fans throughout the continent. 

Aretha’s older sister, Erma Franklin, and younger sibling, Carolyn, too enjoyed commercial success and recognition in the popular music field. The rise of Aretha and her sisters in the cultural arena further enhanced the celebrity status of Rev. C.L. Franklin.

Later in 1969, the RNA convened its second national conference at New Bethel Baptist Church on March 29. As the meeting was breaking up around 11:00pm that evening, a shooting incident involving Detroit police and RNA security forces took place outside of the church on Linwood. Two white police officers were shot, one fatally. Just a few minutes later, dozens of Detroit police entered New Bethel firing live ammunition at those leaving the RNA gathering. At least four people were wounded and approximately 150 were detained and taken to area police lock-ups.

Soon enough Rev. Franklin, Recorder’s Court Judge George Crockett, Jr., who had just been elected in 1966, and educator, real estate businessman and politician James Del Rio, went to the police stations where the arrestees were being held. None of them had been properly read their rights or charged with specific crimes. Judge Crockett held court in the police stations and released the detainees. 

The shooting of the police officers and the subsequent release of the African Americans attending the RNA conference infuriated the white establishment in Detroit. A campaign by the corporate media, organized racists groupings and the police department sought to launch efforts to impeach Judge Crockett. The move to forced Crockett out of office failed as a broad coalition of political groups rallied under the banner of the Black United Front in defense of the community. 

No one was ever convicted in the shooting and killing of the police officers in the trials that followed. Within the next four years, in response to vicious police misconduct emanating from a decoy unit called Stop the Robberies Enjoy Safe Streets (STRESS), the African American community mobilized behind the-then State Senator Coleman A. Young who became the first Black mayor of the city elected in November 1973. 

Mayor Young relied on institutions such as New Bethel and the Shrine of the Black Madonna, formerly Central Congregational Church, pastored by the-then Black Power advocate and philosopher Rev. Albert B. Cleage, to secure his victory and a continuing political base for him to remain in office for the next two decades (1974-1994). Under the Young administration, significant reforms were enacted such as the implementation of an affirmative action program within the police department and among other municipal employees in general, championing African American political, proletarian and professional leadership. By 1977, Young had been re-elected easily for a second term being joined by a majority Black City Council including social democrats and Marxist lawyer turned politician Ken V. Cockrel, Sr. 

Detroit was undoubtedly the leading center for African American political leadership on an official level as well as through interventions in the labor movement and grassroots community organizations. The heritage of African Americans and other national minorities were recognized through various cultural and political gatherings. 

Contravening Forces and the Crisis in Modern Day Capitalism

These were times of monumental achievements for African Americans and women in the city of Detroit. However, other contradictory forces were in operation. 

The restructuring of industrial production which began in the mid-to-late 1950s caused a drop in the city’s population. Plant closings, automation, the suburbanization of metropolitan Detroit, discrimination in lending and insurance policies fueled the outmigration from the city. Two major recessions in the mid-1970s and the early 1980s took their disproportionate toll on Detroit. Under the perceived progressive leadership of Young and the majority Black City Council, sizable levels of disinvestment was carried out against Detroit.

These aspects of the political and economic crisis in Detroit during the 1970s directly impacted New Bethel Baptist Church and Rev. Franklin in a deadly fashion. The rise in street crime and homicide rates gained Detroit the reputation as “The Murder Capital of the World.” Heroin was flooded into the African American communities breaking up families and neighborhoods.

In June 1979, the Franklin home on LaSalle Blvd. in the Virginia District, where the rebellion had begun just twelve years before, was broken into by burglars. Rev. Franklin was shot by assailants. He was left bleeding for an extended period of time before help arrived. While being treated in an area hospital he stopped breathing but was revived. Nevertheless, due to the loss of blood, the most prominent African American minister of the period suffered irreversible neurological damage. For the following five years of his life (1979-1984), Rev. Franklin was never able to speak let alone deliver a sermon. The golden voice of the Black Church was silenced.

Aretha, who was living in California at the time of the shooting, was forced to relocate back to Detroit to supervise, along with her siblings, other relatives and church members, the around the clock medical care for Franklin. He remained in his home until just a few days prior to his death. After being moved to a nursing home on Grand River on the west side, Franklin died in July 1984. 

With the death of Rev. Franklin in 1984, the retirement of Mayor Young in early 1994, the continuing economic decline of the city of Detroit, many could ask: where is the Black Political Power movement in the city? The Great Recession of 2007 and beyond took a devastating toll on Detroit. The city was targeted through predatory lending by the financial institutions turning Detroit from being a municipality leading in home ownership for African Americans to its present-day status of a majority renter’s city. Homeownership, stable industrial and professional employment, had distinguished the African American community from other cities across the U.S. 

Today in 2018, under a white corporate-imposed mayor from Livonia who came into office under questionable circumstances during an illegally crafted system of emergency management and bankruptcy (2013-2014), the largest municipal re-organization in U.S. history, the people of Detroit are still struggling against property tax foreclosures, poverty, substandard wages, a state-looted and beleaguered educational system, environmental degradation, government-facilitated tax captures for the benefit of multi-national corporations, among other issues.

Yet there remains a social and political determination to resist. In response to the severe illness and later death of Aretha Franklin, people have come out in their thousands to express sincere condolences and to evoke the memories of times past where the struggle for survival, equality, self-determination and political power took precedent over all other concerns. This is the genuine legacy of the Queen of Soul, the Franklin family, along with the African American people as a whole and their allies.         

*

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  

Before the violence that started mid-April, Nicaragua had been the most peaceful, safest, and by far the most progressive country in Central America. Now that a semblance of peace has been restored in Nicaragua, the US government continues its campaign for regime change joined by some who formerly supported Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and his Sandinista party.

While much has been written for and against Ortega, what might replace him were he to leave is less well fleshed out. Latin Americanist academics Dan La Botz and Benjamin Waddell, both with extensive experience in and knowledge of Nicaragua, give us some insights into what might be expected were the opposition to take over.

US Regime Change Activities in Nicaragua

Although La Botz and Waddell are firmly in the “Ortega must go” camp, they are not naïve about US government interference in the internal affairs of Nicaragua. They are not among those that claim, incorrectly, that the uprising was simply a spontaneous phenomenon.

“International press has depicted the rapid escalation of civil unrest in Nicaragua as a spontaneous explosion of collective discontent.”

But Waddell contends

“it’s becoming more and more clear that the US support has helped play a role in nurturing the current uprisings.”

La Botz provides the background:

“US organizations such as USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and no doubt the CIA had for decades, of course, worked in Nicaragua as they do everywhere in the world.”

La Botz is not indifferent to US interference in Nicaragua. He was in fact critical of Washington’s early tepid reaction. US Vice President Pence, La Botz complained, “only demanded that the Ortega government protect its citizens and their rights,” but did not make a “general condemnation of the Ortega government, only a call for reform.”

La Botz concludes his article with the demand “the US must keep out.” But his evidence suggests that he should be demanding that the “US get out” of Nicaragua.

Waddell is more favourable to the efficacy of the US’s efforts in Nicaragua, reporting:

“Since 2014, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was established in 1983 to promote democratic ideals in developing countries, has spent $4.1 million on projects in Nicaragua.”

Waddell describes,

“US Congress created the NED—as a non-profit, private NGO—in 1983 at the height of the Cold War.”

From “1984 to 1990, the US NED spent roughly $15.8 million dollars to fund civil society groups and to political parties, most of them opposed to the Sandinista government.” Waddell explains how this led to success for the US:

“In 1990, against all odds, Chamorro defeated Daniel Ortega, and ushered in three consecutive terms of conservative leadership.”

Waddell provides documentation on the US funding through NED to groups active in today’s opposition to the elected government of Nicaragua, including over half a million USD to Hagamos Democracia. Waddell commends these soft coup efforts by the US:

“Regardless of whether Mr. Ortega is removed from power, the NED’s involvement in Nicaragua reveals the potential for transnational funding to contribute to the cultivation of the type of skill sets, networking, and strategies necessary for civil society to successfully challenge authoritative (sic) governments.”

Composition of the Opposition to Ortega

“The Nicaraguan popular rebellion of this spring and early summer,” La Botz describes, “developed as a broad multi-class movement.” However, this movement “lacked a common political program.”  “The strongest organization with the clearest political ideas,” is not even remotely progressive, but has “fundamentally conservative, pro-capitalist ideas.” That leading organization “is COSEP (Consejo Superior de la Empresa Privada en Nicaragua), the leading business organization.”

The opposition leadership was joined by the “powerful” Catholic Church with its “conservative hierarchy,” according to La Botz. Other elements within the Catholic Church included “a theology of liberation current led by some university professors and parish priests, and the mass of pious believers.”

The third major group in the opposition are a diverse amalgam of students. In his brief overview, La Botz does not explain that prominent among the students are those from conservative private universities. Nevertheless, La Botz holds on to the wish that “a student ‘left’ could be emerging.”

Developments to date give little credence to the hope for a student opposition that is leftist. For instance, a delegation of opposition students went to Washington financed by the rightwing Freedom House to lobby for US sanctions against their own people. According to NACLA, these students “shared pictures on social media posing with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who represent most conservative, right-wing and hawkish sectors of the Republican Party.” More recently the Nicaraguan opposition student voice was heard on a regime change panel at the Koch brothers-funded, rightwing Hudson Institute. These are not leftists.

What’s Left in Nicaragua

“Two left opposition groups with social democratic politics do exist,” La Botz reports, “the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS) and the Movement to Rescue Sandinismo (MPRS).”

The MPRS or Rescate, an on-and-off left split from the MRS, is a minor actor. It is composed mainly of Mónica Baltodano and Henry Ruiz, who are active on the web and doing interviews.

The more prominent MRS broke from the main Sandinista party in the 1990s. The MRS, heavily composed of intellectuals, never developed a popular base among the Nicaraguan people. Starting off as a left opposition to the Ortega wing of the Sandinistas, the MRS has since shifted to the right. MRS leaders are partly supported by their connections to the US-funded NGO world and are in alliance “with parties with a neo-liberal agenda.” MRS national president Ana Margarita Vijil and Managua president Suyén Barahona hobnob with rightwing US politicians.

Calling the MRS left is like the Tea Party’s claim that Obama is a socialist; it’s a matter of perspective.

La Botz laments the absence of opposition left social movements: “they remain small and marginal to the society as a whole.” In a curious convolution of logic, La Botz blames Ortega for the failure of an anti-Ortega left opposition to emerge:

“Ortega’s FSLN has discredited the idea of socialism and repressed rival democratic socialist currents.”

This has not, however, prevented the emergence of a right opposition. The left-leaning, well-organized labor and agrarian unions in Nicaragua, according to La Botz, have largely avoided the opposition.

In a revolution, there are only two sides. Despite the highly polarized situation in Nicaragua, La Botz conjurers a third way:

“There is, however, the possibility that the democratic struggle could open up a social struggle that would create a new left.”

In sum, the picture presented by La Botz is that presently the opposition to Ortega is not democratic or left, but that he hopes it could be, despite troubling ties to US intelligence agencies and NGOs.

NACLA reports reactionaries, not progressives, are emerging from the opposition:

“In fact, many in the (opposition) movement and the civic alliance are fervent anti-Sandinistas. These are people who do not just oppose Ortega and Murillo in the current context but also pro-capitalists who have attacked the Sandinistas since their emergence. This group includes Somocistas (those who defend the legacy of the Somoza dictatorship), Liberals, Conservatives, and former Contras. There is growing evidence that from the ranks of anti-Sandinistas such groups are arming themselves and gaining momentum.”

The Lesson of Libya

The trajectory of the anti-Ortega opposition is to a rightist putsch. Were it to succeed, handing direction of the pension plan over to the IMF would not be socialism. Leaving the enforcement of Nicaragua’s anti-abortion laws to the tender mercies of the Catholic bishops would not be feminism. And this would not be the solution that long-time solidarity activists such as Dan La Botz seek. If we are to learn from history, the overthrow of the Libyan government did not result in the utopian emergence of a socialist third way. Nor would such an outcome transpire with regime change in Nicaragua.

La Botz criticizes what he calls the “neo-Stalinist left” who oppose US intervention in Nicaragua. These same people that La Botz criticizes were also opposed to US intervention in Libya, which left that formerly thriving country a disastrously failed state where slavery is now practiced. There is a lesson to be learned about consistent anti-imperialism, and it is not supporting US-backed regime change.

Nicaragua has been tragically destabilized, threatening to reverse the major social gains achieved by the Ortega government. The North American left should unite around “US out of Nicaragua.” Let the Nicaraguan people choose their own government through elections as they have in 2006, 2011, and 2016 when they returned Ortega to the presidency with ever increasing voting margins.

Beyond the US-backed interests and their NGO-activists are undoubtedly genuine social elements in opposition to Ortega. Likewise any political party, especially one that has been in power as long as the Sandinistas, could benefit from rectification. But these are agenda items to be addressed by the Nicaraguan people without outside interference. The ossification of polarized positions in a climate of opposition-provoked violence guarantees nothing gets rectified and everyone loses.

The US is the world’s hegemon, imposing global neoliberalism. The Ortega government in Nicaragua has been targeted by the hegemon precisely because it has not served as an unquestioning client state. The fall of the Ortega government would close one more space for any alternative to the empire to survive.

*

Roger D. Harris is on the board of the Task Force on the Americas, a 32-year-old anti-imperialist human rights organization.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

“Sanctions are war by other means, invisible to most eyes.”

Corporate media in this country deliver a steady onslaught of anti-Venezuelan propaganda. The Washington Postfumes about Venezuelan “pirates ” while the New York Times reports that Ecuador is overwhelmed by desperate Venezuelan migrants . Unfortunately the propaganda has succeeded to a large degree. “Socialism doesn’t work, just look at Venezuela,” is an all too common trope. It is rare that anyone with a public platform reveals a simple truth. Venezuela’s problems were created by the United States government, first during the Obama administration and now continuing under Trump’s.

It is sanctions against the Venezuelan government and its people that have created hyperinflation, hunger, and a devastated health care system that was once the envy of that region. Sanctions are war by other means, invisible to most eyes. There are no troops, bullets, bombs, drones or military weaponry. But sanctions are as deadly as any military invasion, and Trump may do that yet.

“Venezuela’s problems were created by the United States government.”

In 2015 Barack Obama issued an executive order declaring Venezuela to be “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” That decree is necessary in order to impose economic sanctions. But sanctions do not only mean that American corporations and individuals cannot do business with the targeted country. Any country that conducts economic transactions with Venezuela will also be subject to sanctions. Even in its state of decline the United States is the 800-pound financial gorilla that can’t be ignored.

When the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and the rest report on Venezuela’s depredations they never reveal that it is the United States which brought about it crisis condition. Because of sanctions Venezuela has oil that it can’t sell. Even individuals are prohibited from doing something as simple as sending money there.

A federal judge recently ruled that creditors can seize CITGO , Venezuela’s U.S.-based petroleum subsidiary. The creditors are Canadian mining company Crystallex and ConocoPhillips. They may get the chance to scavenge because sanctions make Venezuela unable to renegotiate any of its debts. This is the epitome of criminality brought about by international capital. Venezuela was deliberately impoverished, and then robbed of what little it has left.

“Even in its state of decline the United States is the 800-pound financial gorilla that can’t be ignored.”

Venezuela is isolated financially and is now surrounded by right wing governments in Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador. The United States could overthrow Maduro without sending even one soldier. The reliable crime of funding proxies could work as well on Venezuela as it did on Libya.

What have Venezuelans done to bring on this draconian punishment? They have dared to vote for socialist governments, first under the late president Hugo Chavez and again when he was succeeded by Nicolas Maduro. The corporate media derisively refer to Maduro as a “hand picked successor.” That means he was vice president and, just as in this country, succeeds a president who dies in office. The attempt to discredit his legitimacy is yet another example of how the state and media work closely together in a country that claims to have a free press.

Now the social media corporations have colluded with government to make certain that anyone who is interested in the Venezuelan perspective will be isolated as well. Facebook temporarily removed the Venezuela Analysis page claiming violations of terms of service. It was not the first time that Facebook has removed Venezuela Analysis and it may not be the last.

“Social media corporations have colluded with government to make certain that anyone who is interested in the Venezuelan perspective will be isolated.”

Black Agenda Report predicted that Russiagate would be the pretext for censoring the left. Social media platforms are as much a part of corporate media as the networks or major newspapers. The day may come when Venezuela’s presence is erased there altogether.

Barack Obama issued executive orders imposing sanctions in 2015 and 2016. In 2017 the order was renewed early in January in order to provide “a smooth transition ” to Donald Trump.

“This will ensure that the new administration will not need to immediately undertake renewals necessary to safeguard our national security as it works to put its national security team in place and secure Senate confirmation of relevant appointees.”

The security state is nothing if not consistent.

But is the anti-war movement consistent? Are people who claim to be on the left consistent? If Trump were to make good on threats to take military action, how many people would be in the streets protesting against U.S. aggression? Venezuelans impoverished by American dictates have no lobby to speak for them. No member of Congress takes to the floor and expresses outrage on their behalf. Even alleged socialist Bernie Sanders dismissed Chavez as “a dead communist dictator.” Unfortunately he isn’t alone in his assessment.

Anyone who claims to be anti-war must also oppose the ongoing horrors visited upon the Venezuelan people. They are suffering and dying because of decisions made by the bipartisan war party. If the left were consistent in its analysis and actions no president would dare to attack Venezuela or any other country in this manner. Let the whole world sanction the United States for its continuing aggressions that devastate so many people.

*

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

GR Editor’s Note

It was Obama who launched the bombing campaign in 2014 allegedly against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria. This operation was presented to public opinion as a bona fide counter-terrorism operation rather than a war of aggression.

According to Stephen Lendman, the US is not fighting the ISIS. Quite the opposite. ISIS-Daesh, namely the Islamic State is supported and financed by the U.S. and its allies. 

M. Ch. August 18, 2018

****

US support for ISIS is an open dirty secret – undiscussed by media, pretending it’s not so.

Washington actively arms, funds, trains, and directs ISIS and other terrorists – backing the scourge they pretend to oppose. 

Obama and Trump’s vow to degrade and destroy ISIS was and remains a bald-faced lie, using these and other cutthroat killers as proxy fighters in Syria and other countries where they’re deployed – their presence unjustifiably justifying illegal US occupation of northeast and southwest Syrian territory.

Last November, Russia’s Defense Ministry said the following:

“The Abu Kamal liberation operation conducted by the Syrian government army with air cover by the Russian Aerospace Force at the end of the last week revealed facts of direct cooperation and support for ISIS terrorists by the US-led ‘international coalition.”

“Americans peremptorily rejected to conduct airstrikes over the ISIS terrorists on the pretext of the fact that, according to their information, militants are yielding themselves prisoners to them and now are subject to the provisions of the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War.”

US-led “coalition’s aviation tried to create obstacles for the aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces in this area to safely shield militants of the Islamic State.”

“There is indisputable evidence that the United States pretends it is waging irreconcilable struggle against international terrorism in front of the international community, while in reality it provides cover for the combat-ready Islamic State groups to let them regain strength, regroup themselves and advance US interests in the Middle East.”

Washington directly aids ISIS and other terrorist fighters, deploying them where Pentagon commanders want them used, relocating them to new conflict zones in Syria and other countries.

Iran has credible documents showing US support for ISIS. Its armed forces deputy chief of staff Major General Mostafa Izadi earlier said

“(w)e are facing a proxy warfare in the region as a new trick by the arrogant (US-led) powers against the Islamic Republic,” adding:

“We possess information showing direct support by US imperialism for (ISIS) in the region which has destroyed Islamic countries and created a wave of massacres and clashes.”

Separately, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani condemned Washington for “align(ing) itself with ISIS in the region.”

So-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are infested with ISIS and other terrorists. Washington’s objective in Syria remains regime change – why the Obama regime launched naked aggression in the country, continued by Trump regime dark forces in charge of Washington’s geopolitical agenda.

A new Security Council report showed renewed ISIS strength in parts of Syria controlled by US forces and allies, saying:

ISIS terrorists have “breathing space to prepare for the next phase of its evolution into a global covert network.”

Aided by the Trump regime and allied forces, they control “small pockets of territory in the Syrian Arab Republic on the Iraqi border.”

Russia’s General Staff earlier accused the Pentagon of training ISIS and other terrorists at its illegally established At Tanf base in southwest Syria – calling it a staging ground for US armed struggle against the Syrian government.

ISIS and other terrorists infest the Rukban refugee camp controlled by US Forces, holding tens of thousands of defenseless Syrians hostage, using the camp to recruit anti-government terrorists.

On August 15, AMN News said US-led forces “transported over 250 trucks filled with weapons (and other military hardware) to the Euphrates River Valley this morning” – intended for Syrian Democratic Forces terrorists in Deir Ezzor province, adding:

Washington is “expand(ing) (its) bases and airports in northern and eastern Syria” – indicating US forces will remain in the country, not leave, as Trump earlier said.

Separately on August 18, AMN News said Washington and its allies “sent reinforcements to their military bases in the towns of Tal Tamer, Al-Houl, and Al-Shaddadi.”

Syria’s liberating struggle continues, no end of it in sight as long as US regime change intentions remain unchanged.

*

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

Criticism of Pakistan’s anti-money laundering and terrorism finance regime by the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG) is likely to complicate incoming Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan’s efforts to tackle his country’s financial crisis.

Addressing the criticism of the 41-nation APG, which reports to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism watchdog that earlier this year put Pakistan on a grey list with the prospect of blacklisting it is key to a possible Pakistani request for a US$ 12 billion International Monetary Fund (IMF) bailout.

A US demand that any IMF package exclude funding for paying off Chinese loans coupled with the APG/FATF criticism, against a backdrop of the Pakistani military’s efforts to nudge militants into the mainstream of Pakistani politics and the incoming prime minister’s mixed statements on extremism, could push Mr. Khan to turn to China and Saudi Arabia for rescue, a move that would likely not put Pakistan in the kind of straightjacket it needs to reform and restructure its troubled economy.

The APG criticism followed Pakistani efforts to demonstrate its sincerity by passing in February the Anti-Terrorism Ordinance of 2018, which gave groups and individuals designated by the UN as international terrorists the same status in Pakistan for the first time.

Pakistan, however, has yet to implement the ordinance by for example acting against Hafez Saeed, a leader of the banned group Lashkar-e-Taiba and the alleged mastermind of the 2008 attacks in Mumbai, who despite having been designated a global terrorist by the United Nations Security Council and having a US$ 10 million US Treasury bounty on his head, fielded candidates in last month’s election.

The APG, which just ended talks with Pakistani officials, has scheduled follow-up visits to Pakistan in September and October to monitor Pakistani progress in addressing its concerns, which focus on legal provisions governing non-profit and charitable organisations, transparency in the country’s beneficial ownership regime and the handling of reports on suspicious financial transactions.

Those concerns go to the heart of the effort by the Pakistani military and intelligence to mainstream militants who garnered just under ten percent of the vote in last month’s election but have a far greater impact on Pakistani politics. The military and intelligence have in the past encouraged militants to form political organizations with which mainstream political parties have been willing to cooperate and establish charity operations that have had a substantial social impact.

Similarly, Mr. Khan, who earned the nickname Taliban Khan, is likely to have to counter his past record of allowing government funds to go to militant madrassas, his advocacy for the opening in Pakistan of an official Taliban Pakistan office, and his support of the Afghan Taliban. His Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-headed government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, gave in February US$2.5 million to Darul Aloom Haqqania, a militant religious seminary.

Dubbed a “jihad university,” Darul Aloom Haqqania, headed by Sami ul-Haq, a hard-line Islamist politician known as the father of the Taliban, counts among its alumni, Mullah Omar, the deceased leader of the Taliban, Jalaluddin Haqqani, the head of the Haqqani Network. Asim Umar, leader of Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent, and Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, Mullah Omar’s successor who was killed in a 2016 US drone strike.

Those may be policies that, at least initially, may be less of an obstacle in assistance on offer from China and Saudi Arabia to replenish Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves that have plummeted over the past year to US$ 10.4 billion, enough to cover two months of imports at best. Pakistan’s currency, the rupee, has been devalued four times since December and lost almost a quarter of its value.

Chinese loans have so far kept Pakistan afloat with state-owned banks extending more than US$5 billion in loans in the past year. PTI officials said this week that China has promised the incoming government further loans to keep Pakistan afloat and enable it to avoid reverting to the IMF, which would demand transparency in the funding of projects related to China’s US$50 billion plus investment in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a crown jewel of its Belt and Road initiative.

And that is where the rub is. Despite Chinese officials reportedly urging Pakistan to reduce its deficit, neither China nor Saudi Arabia, which has offered to lend Pakistan US$4 billion are likely to impose the kind of regime that would put the country, which has turned to the IMF 12 times already for help, on a sustainable financial path.

Relying on China and Saudi Arabia would likely buy Pakistan time but ultimately not enable it to avoid the consequences of blacklisting by FATF, which would severely limit its access to financial markets, if it fails to put in place and implement a credible anti-money laundering and terrorism finance regime

Moreover, relying on China and Saudi Arabia, two of Pakistan’s closest allies could prove risky. Neither country shielded Pakistan from FATF grey listing in February. A Chinese official said at the time that China had not stood up for Pakistan because it did not want to “lose face by supporting a move that’s doomed to fail.”

*

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

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

At some point last weekend, America decided its First Amendment was outdated – that Free Speech was no longer as important as protecting the vulnerable from the menace of Hate Speech. This decision came down from on high amidst a whirlwind of banning, deplatforming, and terminology-redefining, the product of years of collaboration between Big Tech and Big Government on how to break down the resistance to censorship that was so stubbornly encoded in this country’s DNA.

Alex Jones was merely the test case – a toe dipped in the public stream of consciousness to gauge the effectiveness of the propaganda we’re being fed. Outside the conservative media sphere, the response to Jones’ un-personing – removed from YouTube, Facebook, Google, Apple, Spotify, Stitchr, MailChimp, LinkedIn, Vimeo, and finally Twitter in the course of a few days, a heavy blow the companies claim was not coordinated among themselves at all (wink, wink) – was tepid, with only a few brave commentators willing to bridge the partisan divide to defend Infowars’ right to free speech on principle. Some reprehensible shills even cried that the censorship hadn’t gone far enough. Big Tech took the Left’s cowardice as a green light and turned their censorship ray on the other end of the political spectrum. Telesur, the Caracas-based network home to Abby Martin, was booted from Facebook yesterday, an act the media greeted with a deafening silence far more terrifying than all the anti-speech “liberals” baying for Jones’ blood.

Telesur and Martin were logical choices to launch Big Tech’s un-personing on the Left. Facebook’s partner in silencing dissent – now lumped in with “fake news” – is the Atlantic Council, whose board of directors reads like a who’s-who of western imperialism, with Henry Kissinger, Michael Chertoff, and Michael Hayden rubbing shoulders with CrowdStrike founder Dmitri Alperovitch, the man behind the Russiagate conspiracy theory. Martin figured prominently in the Russiagate intelligence community assessment, which devoted several pages to wringing its hands about her old RT show “Breaking the Set,” even though it had been off the air for years before the 2016 election; a woman-on-the-street piece she recorded last year that revealed the shocking bigotry of average Israeli citizens was banned in 28 countries on YouTube. Venezuela, of course, sits on the largest oil reserves in the western hemisphere and has long been on the war machine’s “to do” list (Venezuelanalysis.com was also dropped from Facebook, but later reinstated). Together, they represent everything that keeps the NATO-backed Atlantic Council awake at night.

For all the hundreds of articles weighing in on the Passion of Alex Jones, hardly anyone mentioned Telesur’s disappearance – or the deletion of State Department whistleblower Peter van Buren, who was banned from Twitter for a relatively mild argument while all eyes were on Infowars; or the double vanishing act of Scott Horton and Daniel McAdams, two anti-war journalists whose Twitter accounts were yanked and then restored for defending van Buren. The narrative we are being fed is that Jones was out of line for his behavior – that questioning the facts of the Sandy Hook shooting is morally equivalent to yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre – so Big Tech made a Big Decision and silenced Infowars, in a precedent-setting move that won’t ever have sinister repercussions for anyone elsewhere on the political spectrum. Anyone capable of mustering a few scraps of historical context or even basic critical thinking understood that Jones was just the red-faced canary in the totalitarian coal mine, and that every alternative media content creator is now in peril. But the establishment media is telling us to move on – after all, Trump is attacking the press, and we have to stand with them! Pardon me while I puke on your solidarity.

The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Enemy

Big Tech’s Big Crackdown was driven not by social media platforms themselves, but by establishment media and their backers, who see the writing on the wall as the lion’s share of Americans now get their news from Facebook and Google. When Jack Dorsey dragged his feet on censoring Infowars, dozens of articles from the Verge and Vox shrieked about Twitter’s “amorality,” but it was CNN that actually deployed a reporter to dig through Jones’ old tweets in search of something that violated the platform’s terms of service. Facebook, instructed by the Atlantic Council, has begun removing “misinformation that contributes to violence” – fake stories it “believes” (after consultation with local “threat intelligence agencies”) are “created or shared with the intent of causing violence or physical harm” – but even this Orwellian overstep would not disqualify Infowars. The tech platforms and their ruling class manipulators are belatedly realizing their control grid is still full of holes, and the establishment media – another tentacle on the same octopus – is offering up some almost-clever solutions in a bid to regain its masters’ favor. Facebook could take a page from YouTube’s book and link to Wikipedia pages on the disputed topic (because Wikipedia is such an authoritative source)! They could draft a constitution (since they clearly respect the existing one so much)! Anything but positioning themselves as a neutral content platform like Twitter, enmeshed in “amoral, as well as regressive, terrible decision-making.”  

 The Hate Speech Trap

The not-so-secret weapon in the new-media censorship wars is Hate Speech – a nebulous term whose meaning is constantly shifting to suit the whims of whoever is using it. Since the 2016 election, Hate has been the domestic bogeyman of choice, the enemy within while Russia plays the role of enemy without. The Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League and other fearmongering groups tell us Hate is on the rise, that Hate Crimes have skyrocketed since Trump’s election, that Haters are being radicalized online at a breakneck pace – and that only drastic, even unconstitutional measures will stop the insanity. The establishment media have rushed to cover anything that looks remotely like a white supremacist gathering, often outnumbering the actual participants with their camerapeople and reporters. Only by exposing the Haters, they say, will America free itself of the scourge of white supremacy – clearly the #1 problem in a country where the national debt is 940% of GDP and most of us live paycheck to paycheck, falling asleep to the lullaby that we live in the richest nation in the world.

Hate speech is the ideal weapon for the deplatforming aggressive precisely because the term has no universally agreed-upon definition even as it provokes an emotional reaction. Nearly all of the platforms that banned Infowars cited “hate speech” as their rationale without claiming a specific example, though Facebook claimed Jones’ account was full of anti-Muslim and anti-trans bigotry. YouTube was the first to block Jones, making it impossible for those unfamiliar with his material to ascertain the truth of these claims. A political performance-artist who took a hard ideological swerve right with Trump’s candidacy, Jones has replaced much of the anti-police-state rhetoric that endeared him to his early audience with more typical conservative talking points, including a reprehensible knee-jerk Zionism that sets him in clear opposition to Islam. Still, a rational mind would be hard-pressed to classify his words as “hate” unless one radically redefined “hate.” Which is precisely the idea. Liberals, unaware of Infowars content, take Big Tech’s word that it is hateful and repugnant – he questioned Sandy Hook! – but don’t bother evaluating it for themselves because of their visceral aversion to anything deemed “hate speech,” and his relatively anodyne comments retroactively come to embody hate speech, since no one is sure what the term means anyway. Definition creep sets in, and overnight half the conservative media finds itself on the wrong end of Big Tech’s terms of service.

Twitter clone Gab, the favored platform of the alt-right ever since it welcomed victims of the 2016 “Twitter purges,” was threatened by Microsoft with the cancellation of its web domain last week because of two anti-Semitic posts made a month ago by Republican Senate candidate Patrick Little. Why Microsoft would take down the entire platform because of two objectionable tweets was never properly explained – certainly, the platform is home to plenty of other objectionable messages by less-well-known users. The threat may have been an effort to force Gab to betray the principles that originally attracted users like Little who’ve been expelled from other platforms – “free speech, individual liberty and the free flow of information online” – principles sure to attract more users as Twitter begins purging anew. Little removed the offending tweets, and Gab survived to offend another day. Meanwhile, PayPal has been quietly dropping users linked to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s infamously inaccurate “hatewatch” list since last year.

“Pre-Hate,” Brought to You By Google

Banning the “haters” is only the first step in Big Tech’s Big Crackdown. Google’s shadowy Jigsaw arm recently developed a tool called Perspective which aims to root out “hate speech” before it spreads. Built in collaboration with the New York Times and Wikipedia, Perspective uses “machine learning” to “spot abuse and harassment online,” analyzing the flow of online conversations in the hope of predicting (and preemptively redirecting) their trajectory. The tool could presumably be deployed against content creation on Big Tech platforms in real time, though the PR materials limit their discussion to its potential in moderating comments sections. A similar initiative is in development at the ADL, which is working with UC-Berkeley to develop an “online hate index” to “better understand the growing amount of hate on social media,” uncovering and identifying trends in “hate speech” across different platforms. The goal is a “community-based” definition of hate speech – but they never say whose community gets to do the defining. Given the ADL’s rabid demonization of anything with a whiff of criticizing Israel as “anti-Semitism,” such a tool in their hands should worry political analysts and anyone who comments on world events.

Jigsaw is already looking beyond “hate speech” to influence real-world behavior. Its Redirect Method began as a beefed-up AdWords aimed at convincing potential ISIS recruits to think twice about joining the US/Israeli-backed terror group; the program is now being positioned as the perfect tool for countering the uniquely American specter of White Hate. Instead of merely pointing the hapless would-be terrorist to YouTube videos debunking ISIS propaganda, Redirect’s successor Moonshot follows up the ideological rebuttals with messages from “undercover social workers” embedded in extremist forums. The infiltrators “discreetly message potential recruits to dissuade them,” an act that takes on sinister implications considering the vast wealth of personally identifying information Google hoards on its users. Given that the program has no way of distinguishing between an individual looking to be radicalized and someone doing research for a film or journalistic piece, the privacy ramifications are – as with everything Google – disturbing. It is one thing to be concern-trolled by an online do-gooder; another entirely when the concern-troll is armed with your home address, your phone number, and your bank account information. A Wired article on the program also suggests that Google readily supplies the incriminating search data to authorities, dispelling any illusion of the tech giant’s concern for the well-being of wannabe extremists.

Lest you believe the Great Deplatforming is really about “hate,” recall that Facebook also removed 32 pages it suspected of “inauthentic behavior” last weekend, pages devoted to the counter-protest against the Unite the Right 2 rally, pages populated mostly by anti-racist groups planning a big show of opposition to the white nationalist gathering that was supposed to be the very embodiment of “hate.” Why? They were suspected of having been created by Russian trolls. This is the Atlantic Council, after all – if you aren’t losing sleep over the possibility of Russian “meddling” in the midterm elections, they’re not doing their job. Israel’s Knesset just passed the first draft of a bill that would empower courts to order the removal of social media posts for “safety” reasons – not merely hide the posts from Israeli users, but remove them globally. This is a country that regularly arrests people based on their social media content, having criminalized such violations as “glorifying Palestinian martyrs” or “disclosing Israeli crimes.” Don’t think the deplatforming will stop with the perpetrators of “hate.”

“Freedom” Isn’t Free, and Other Lessons from Orwell

Led by the Boston Globe, 300 newspapers have colluded in Sinclair-media-esque fashion to publish editorials in defense of a “free press,” as if Trump’s disparaging remarks about “fake news” represent the most significant threat to their ossified business model. The Globe published a poll indicating 48% of Republicans believe “the news media is the enemy of the American people” – but this is a situation for which the establishment media has only itself to blame. Decades of biased pro-corporate warmongering have taken their toll, and the average American has had their fill of lies. The best journalism has long since migrated online and away from the big legacy names, and social media platforms have assumed the role once held by the television. Meanwhile, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has threatened the entire old-media establishment with economic death if they do not work with his platform to “revitalize journalism.” It is difficult to tell whether establishment media or Big Tech poses a greater threat to press freedom – both are chillingly effective tools of control wielded by the ruling class against the people, and Zuckerberg’s idea of a “revitalized” journalism is the stuff of nightmares – but as the online platforms increasingly come to resemble establishment media with their unhealthy appetites for gatekeeping and censorship, it is clear that neither see themselves as friends to independent journalists.

Some have naively called for the government to step in and regulate Big Tech, reasoning that their platforms operate as monopolies and should be treated as such under the law. While it’s tempting to call in Big Brother to clip the wings of Twitter & co., such an act would trigger a slide down yet another slippery slope. Corporations are already the willing partner of the US government in enacting almost-laws that violate our pesky constitution – Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the other tech platforms have been discussing the banning of Infowars in meetings with congresspeople for months. The Deep State knows it can’t openly strip citizens of their First Amendment rights just yet, so Big Tech is deployed to do their dirty work. Once the government legally has its hands on social media, there is nothing stopping them from exerting even more control over these platforms, bringing full circle the process that began when the Pentagon’s Orwellian “LifeLog” project was scrapped and reanimated in the corporate sector as “the Facebook.” Fascism is characterized by an alliance at the highest level between corporations and the government, and further defined by heavy-handed censorship. This – not a mere figurehead like Trump – is the greatest threat to press freedom today.

*

Helen Buyniski is a journalist and photographer based in New York City. She covers politics, sociology, and other anthropological/cultural phenomena. Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

July was always a politically turbulent month in Iraq. But the violent protests that have swept South Iraq over the past weeks are unseen, both in terms of size and targets. Ports were blocked, airports closed, provincial government buildings besieged and most striking: the local headquarters of Islamic Shiite parties and Allied militias were attacked. In a recent International Crisis Group report, the death toll is estimated at fifty, and hundreds are injured. 

Rebellion of the Shiites

The end of the occupation by the Islamic State (ISIS) of a third of Iraq and the recaptured control by government troops of the entire territory, has not brought peace and stability to Mesopotamia.

The ruling elite of Iraq has survived Kurdish separatism and Sunni jihadism, but the uprising of its own Shiite base could well become the biggest threat. Since July 8, the oil-rich south is in turmoil. In the scorching heat, tens of thousands of Iraqis are protesting against a shortage of jobs, electricity, water, basic services and unbridled corruption. They have set fire to government buildings and political party offices, blocked roads to oil fields, Najaf airport and the oil port of Um Qasr, the main route from Basra to the Persian Gulf, from where almost all oil tankers depart with Iraqi oil. Also, the two most important border crossings in the south, Safwan with Kuwait and Shalamcheh with Iran, were occupied by the demonstrators.

Hundreds of demonstrators tried to block access to major oil-producing facilities, including the West Qurna-1 oil field, operated by Exxon Mobil, the West Qurna-2 oil field, run by the Russian firm Lukoil, and Rumaila, one of the world’s largest oil fields, managed by the Iraqi oil company. The demonstrators also tried to block the main entrance of Siba’s natural gas field in Basra.

Protest in Basra

When the prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, went to Basra to appease the mood with the promise of 10,000 new jobs, demonstrators shouted him away. Since then he has deployed the army and militias against the demonstrators, he has issued a curfew and closed down the internet. More than a dozen people have been killed and more than 700 injured, most of them by bullets from the security forces, according to the mainstream media. But the International Crisis group reported in its Global Overview for July 2018:

“Protests swept across southern Iraq, with demonstrators bemoaning poor services and unemployment and attacking government and party offices. Security forces responded harshly, in some places shooting at protesters, and killing around 50.”

Again the western press has been guilty of serious undercounting.

Such unrest, in the areas of the Islamic Shiite parties that dominate Iraqi politics, does not predict much good. The size and targets of the latest protests indicate displeasure that is much deeper than just simple frustration about a lack of services and jobs. The demonstrators are angry about the failures of the Iraqi political system after 2003 and the lack of competent leadership. So the current crisis is the most serious existential challenge that the Iraqi political elite has to face since the US invasion.

Signs of popular annoyance have been visible for a long time. Increasing dissatisfaction with the pitiful state of local services and bad governance has led to periodic demonstrations throughout the country – including the southern Shiite areas – in recent years. Protests in Basra spread rapidly to other southern provinces in 2015 and culminated in massive demonstrations in Baghdad, where Muqtada al-Sadr and his supporters stormed the Green Zone. Since then there have been smaller demonstrations in the South, which have increased in the past few months. 

Another sign of the Iraqi disillusionment in the political system was the low turnout at the 12 May elections: officially more than 55 percent of voters boycotted the election, but the real figure will have been considerably higher because many Iraqi have become cynical and voiced their dissatisfaction by voting with their … .. feet.

The causes of the alienation with politics are easy to interpret. Years of maladministration, corruption, malfunctioning public facilities, including education and health care, a non-existent rule of law, sectarianism, return to a feudal state, such as the erosion of women’s rights, have undermined confidence in the political elite and their inability to solve the problems of the country. In practice, ‘government of all’ means ‘government for the few’, led by a green zone elite that is no longer trusted by the public.

Generational change also contributes to the schism. For the increasingly young population of Iraq, of which nearly 75 percent are younger than 35 years and 60% younger than 24 years, the memories of the Saddam era and the repression are vague. Their political awareness has evolved since 2003 and since then they have been assessing their leaders on government performance. Because the political Islam of the Shiites has lost much of its prestige and influence, not identity, but solid administration has become of the utmost importance for this electorate.

The government is watching and doing nothing. The politicians think that in September the popular anger will decrease if the temperatures drop. Behind the walls of the vast green zone of Baghdad, business continues as usual, in air-conditioned palaces. Leaders of Shiite factions quibble about the results of the controversial elections in May and demand a recount. The party bosses meanwhile negotiate about the most lucrative ministries.

The Shiite middle class awakens

The story of the uprisings began, simply explained, as a spontaneous uprising in the Shiite militia controlled provinces in the South of Iraq, similar to the Arab Spring of 2011, with the difference that the social layers that have been silent or even benefited from the political preferential treatment of the Shiites over the past 15 years, have now also come into action. The fuse was mainly put to the fire by the middle class and unemployed graduates. Their anger was mainly directed against the ruling Shiite parties in the provinces, because the country does not have a properly functioning central authority. Lawyers, doctors and academics and officials in Najaf and Nasiriyah, for example, participated in the demonstrations.

On 8 June there was a demonstration in Basra after a long power outage and a shortage of potable water in a heat wave that reached 50 degrees celsius. The protests escalated when the official authorities ignored the demonstrators, which was seen as an insult to the dignity of the people (especially the notables among them). some government members accused the demonstrators of being Da’ish (IS) supporters and Baathists. Some people then launched an attack on the buildings and party offices of those politicians. The protests quickly spread to 12 of the 18 Iraqi provinces, including Baghdad.

This intifada does not appear to have a uniform or clear leadership or slogans, even at the local level. It really looks like an explosion of anger where different currents act together and compete with each other. The governing faction at national level is fragmented within each province, within each institution, within the security forces and militias.

The regime has not been able to control the events so far. Rapid reform measures are not possible to help the Shia middle class professionals get to work and provide a prospect of a better life. There seems to have been a new phase in which no one can intervene outside the local communities and the situation in every province varies enormously.

Income from the oil does not benefit the population

Basra is located on a gigantic oilfield, the largest in the world, with large gas reserves. Basra produces an average of 3.2 million barrels per day and Iraq exports an estimated 4.6 million barrels per day via the southern port. The Rumaila field in itself, one of the largest fields in Basra (with 340 oil wells), contains the best oil in the world. Despite the high oil yield in the south of Iraq (in the provinces of Basra, Dhi Qar, Maysan, Muthanna and Wasit), the population has seen little of this wealth.

The news agency Reuters reacted rather panicky:

“Local officials said demonstrations would not affect the production and transportation of oil in Basra, which accounts for more than 95 percent of Iraq’s state revenue, and any disruption could have serious consequences for the waning economy of the country. the country and global oil prices may increase. “ 

But the news agency Bloomberg hastened to reassure the oil farmers and the stock markets:

“Iraq pumps oil at normal levels, even now the protests spread across the southern region, from which the second largest producer of OPEC exports the largest part of its crude oil, according to a government spokesman. “

Political parties in Iraq are calling on the government to break free from OPEC and go for unlimited daily production.” The country needs money because it has invested hundreds of billions in fighting and defeating IS, and there is not much left to meet the most basic needs of the population.

Shiites have to choose between Iraqi nationalism and loyalty to Iran

The leader of the Shiite clergy in Iraq, great Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, expressed his sympathy with the demonstrators during the Friday prayer in Karbala, the holy city of the Shiites. Basra was one of the “most miserable areas in Iraq”, his representative told the press. The people of Basra “suffer from a lack of public services”, adding that al-Sistani urged the “federal and local authorities to take the demands of the citizens seriously and to find solutions urgently.”

However, in an ominous warning some Shiite media channels associated with Iran denounced the demonstrators as “infiltrators”, mirroring the Tehran regime’s labeling of popular protests about the bad economic situation in Iran at the beginning of this year.

There may be some links between Iranian protests and the protests that are now raging in Iraq. Only a week before the protests in Basra began, there were violent clashes between police and demonstrators in the cities of Abadan and Khorramshahr, less than two hours driving east across the border between Iraq and Iran, about the same problems. Four people were shot by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on 30 June in Khorramshahr.

Demonstrators have accused Abadi of being unable to control the violence of the police, military and paramilitary units, including Iranian Shiite militants supported by Iran in the popular mobilization units (PMF) – a militant group that is now formally part of the Iraqi armed forces. The PMF or Hashd al-Shaabi and its constituent militias often follow only the orders of their own local commanders, or Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), and completely undermine the role of the prime minister as commander-in-chief.

PMF militants, including the notorious sectarian Asa’ib Ahl ul-Haq militia, the Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba group and Kata’ib Hezbollah, all participated in the violent suppression of the protests. This happened after the offices of the authoritative Dawa party and those of the IRGC-affiliated militias had been set on fire by demonstrators in the first week of the protests.

Shiite demonstrators cursed various political parties and militant groups as “Iranians” and not as Iraqis, and called them “Safavids”, a reference to the Shiite Persian empire that for centuries fought against the Ottoman Turks for control of Iraq. The use of the term ‘Safavid’ is more associated with Sunni groups that remain critical of the former Persian Empire because of their sectarian pogroms in Baghdad and other cities. The use of this term by Shiite Iraqis is indicative of the extent of the anger against Iranian interventionism in Iraq.

A misjudgment of Iran?

Uday al-Zaidy from the province of Dhi Qar, veteran of the 2011 demonstrations, tortured, convicted, imprisoned and laureate of the BRussells Tribunal prize for resistance in 2010, has on 22 July explained the unusual trajectory of the current uprising in the southern provinces. In his usual enthusiastic way, he said that the start was inspired by Iran because of the American embargo against Iranian oil and meant to paralyze Iraq’s oil production. Activists have used the momentum and turned it into an Iraqi nationalist anti-sectarian struggle and the current Intifada is the result. 

Several observers seem to confirm this. They point out that Iran is responsible not only for reducing electricity and water in the south, but also for inciting the inhabitants of Basra to revolt against the oil companies that recruit too few Iraqi workers. After all, although the Iraqi oil sector accounts for 99 percent of the country’s exports, it represents only 1 percent of jobs in Iraq, and the vast majority of jobs are held by foreigners. Those same observers say that Iran is playing a “dirty game” because the country has promised to create chaos in the region to disrupt oil production and exports in the Gulf as a reaction to Trump”s embargo.

No electricity

South Iraq, despite its wealth of oil and gas, has a major lack of electricity. Basra and other provinces buy electricity from Iran. Iraq has suffered from a shortage of electricity since 1990. Many Iraqis regularly experience power outages – households only get a few hours of electricity a day – despite the fact that billions of dollars have been spent since the US invasion in 2003. Because of mismanagement, corruption and wasting 40 billion dollar to rebuild the electricity grid, Iraq is to date still unable to be self-sufficient. 

The Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi fired his minister of electricity on 29 July. The demonstrators had demanded his departure. It is the umpteenth minister who is being fired. At least two previous ministers of electricity have been accused of corruption, including the signing of many fake contracts for billions of dollars. This resignation will again probably not change anything. With a cosmetic embellishment operation the endemic problem of corrupt politicians is not resolved.

Mohamed Fathi, the spokesperson for the Iraqi Ministry of Electricity, announced on 8 July that Iran would cut off its electricity supply to Iraq as a result of Baghdad’s default of more than $ 2 billion in debt to Iran.

It is not the first time that Iran has cut off the electricity supply to Iraq. At the beginning of 2017, Iran had already closed its electricity supply to Iraq for not paying debts. In July 2016, debt accrual also led Iran to cut off its electricity supply to Iraq for two months. The power supply was only resumed after Iraq paid part of that debt.

Another reason for shutting down the electricity supply is that Iran also suffers from electricity shortages in the capital and some southern cities as a result of the increased electricity consumption in the summer.

Saudi Arabia agreed to build a solar power plant and sell the electricity to Iraq at a steep discount to supplies the war-torn country previously bought from the kingdom’s regional arch-rival Iran. The deal, which hasn’t been approved yet by Iraqi authorities, includes building a 3,000-megawatt plant in Saudi Arabia within a year of the signing of the agreement, Iraq’s Ministry of Electricity spokesman Mussab Serri said by phone. Iraq will buy the electricity for $21 per megawatt-hour, or a quarter of what it paid Iran for the imports, Serri said.

The question arises why Iraq does not build a solar power plant in its own country? 

No water

The hostility towards Iran was also caused by the diversion and damming of rivers that originated in Iran.

Rice farmers in the areas of Salahiya, Mhanawiya and al-Shamiya in the province of Diwaniyah held protests on June 25, to express their dissatisfaction about their difficult situation, caused by the drought.

The farmers’ protests were directed against the decision of the Minister of Agriculture on 17 June to ban the cultivation of eight summer crops: rice, white and yellow corn, sesame, cotton, millet, sunflower seeds and mung beans. According to the ministry, this was due to the reduced water levels of the rivers Tigris and Euphrates.

A government decision was also issued on 12 June to suspend rice cultivation in Diwaniyah province. Water can only be used for drinking and garden purposes. In the southern province of Dhi Qar, the Ministry of Agriculture already reduced the area for rice cultivation to half in 2017. Before the invasion by the US, Iraq had abundant water supplies. Not anymore.

The neighboring countries, Turkey and ally Iran, started large projects that create serious water scarcity in Iraq through various projects on the two main rivers, the Euphrates and Tigris and their tributaries.

“There is no agreement between the countries about sharing the water resources of the two rivers,” said Fadel Al Zubi, Iraqi FAO responsible (the UN Food Organization). “Every neighboring country, whether it is Turkey, Iran or Syria, controls the flow of water to Iraq on the basis of its interests, needs and circumstances, without considering any quota, and in the end the person who pays the price is always the land where the river ends – in this case Iraq, “he said.

The water crisis is expected to increase when Turkey starts work on the Ilisu dam on the Tigris. Turkey says that its decades-long project to build 22 dams will be completed by the end of next year.

The actions of Iran are also of particular concern for Iraq, according to the Iraqi Deputy Minister of Water Resources Mahdi Rasheed. In total, according to experts, Iran carried out some 14 projects on all tributaries of the Sirwan River. The Sirwan flows into the Tigris. Tehran has also carried out projects on the tributaries that feed the Dukan dam in northern Iraq. 

The Tigris and the Euphrates contain the most important water resources in Iraq. After having defeated ISIS this year militarily, maintaining peace depends mainly on providing a better future for the Iraqi population. Water is a crucial issue in that effect: more than 80 percent of Iraq’s water goes to agriculture, which feeds more than a third of the population of 37 million people.

On 16 July protesters in Basra burned photos of Khomeini and stormed the political offices of the Islamic, Iran-backed Dawa party, Badr organization and the National Wisdom Movement. They demonstrated against Iranian drainage of the Shatt al-Arab stream (the merger of Tigris and Euphrates) that causes salinization of the water in southern Iraq. The total length of Shatt Al Arab is 192 km, and there are Iranian projects on several tributaries that flow into the Shatt al Arab, especially the Karkheh and the Karun.

A failing legal system

“On three days at the end of May, the president of the counter-terrorism court in Baghdad handled on average 12-13 cases a day and sentenced to death at least ten suspects accused of being members of IS”, according to the news agency Associated Press.

The legal system of Iraq remains a joke. Trials only take a few minutes. Few defendants have adequate defense. Evidence is not required for a conviction. Women whose ‘crime’ consists of being married to a member of IS or someone who is suspected of being a member of IS can be locked up and sentenced to death.

IS processes are often based on personal resentment and not on actual events. The whole system is a mess. AP reports: “Any allegation that someone has taken up arms for IS can be sentenced to death, even if the evidence is paper thin. The strong dependence on informants is particularly striking, given that some allegations are motivated by personal resentment. Informants never appear before the court Their claims are passed on to the judges in written reports from intelligence services without any form of investigation.

Thousands of defendants are quickly dragged through the court, with court cases lasting 10 to 15 minutes, and a third of the cases end with the death penalty. Witnesses are rarely heard and no forensic evidence is presented, which is likely to sent many innocent people to their death.

Where are the Sunnis?

The demonstrations have spread to many provinces, as well as the capital Baghdad. But there have been no comparable protests in the provinces with a majority of Sunni Muslims – and that despite the fact that living conditions are not better in central and northern Iraq, on the contrary. So why are there no protests?

“We share the concerns of our people in the south,” Abdul Rahman al-Fahdawi, one of the Sunni community leaders from Ramadi in Anbar, told NIQASH. “Our living conditions are not better than those in Basra or Dhi Qar, probably even worse, our homes have been destroyed and there is no infrastructure because of the military operations against ISIS, but we can not participate in the demonstrations because we will be accused accused of being terrorists and Baathists who want to destroy the government. “

When people in Sunni areas started anti-government protests end of 2012, they were peaceful, al-Fahdawi added.

“But the government has never responded to our legitimate demands, more than a year,” he says, ultimately enabling the rise of the extremist Islamic State, or ISIS, which base their ideology on a particularly extreme and perverse interpretation of Sunni Islam.

ISIS responded to the dissatisfaction of the Sunnis with the Iraqi government, which was then led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose government shot the demonstrators.

After the Iraqi army brutally suppressed the protests and peaceful sit-ins, the IS group offered itself as a protector of the Sunnis against the threat of the Shiite-led government. The locals only later discovered the brutal level of extremism practiced by the IS group.

“The Iraqi government made the mistake of not listening to the demonstrators before,” says Al-Fahdawi. “This means that extremists, anarchists, or even politicians can join the demonstrations, so demonstrators’ motivations are considered not pure, so today we can only watch the demonstrators from a distance and wish them good luck and security. The government should listen to their very legitimate demands. ”

“Our living conditions are not different from theirs,” says Iman al-Qaysi, a civil society activist from Mosul who wrote a comment to support the protests on Facebook. “We only get a few hours of water a day and the water is not pure because of the destruction of water purification plants, we only get about three hours of electricity per day and the garbage from the city piles up in the streets because there are no municipal collection services.”, he says.

There are also no jobs, al-Qaysi adds, and the people here need work urgently because they need money to rebuild their homes.

But he and his neighbors also know that if they dare to protest, they will be greeted with usual insults and threats: terrorists, Baath supporters, extremists.

“I was so disappointed with the answers to my comment,” says al-Qaysi. “People said things like:” why would you protest? “” You should thank God the Iraqi army saved you. “It seems like you would like IS to return to your region.”

The situation is not so different in other parts of the Sunni provinces. In the province of Salahaddin, the local population has seen the demonstrations in the south, but for the same reasons they have not organized their own protests. They are afraid of the consequences, says Hussam al-Jibouri, a Tikrit resident.

“People here still have bad memories of their own anti-government protests from 2013,” he says, “after which the IS group arrived. Any form of chaos can bring the extremists back. People are worried. Moreover, the security forces will just call us Baathists, “explains Al-Jibouri.” Because Saddam Hussein originally came from Tikrit. “

And the Kurds?

The inhabitants of the semi-autonomous Kurdish region have not joined the protests so far. But the region has already seen violently protests at the end of last year because of the same grievances: 

at least six people were killed and more than 70 injured on Tuesday, December 19, 2017. They were killed during demonstrations about unpaid civil service salaries, the increasing tensions with Baghdad, for better electricity and water distribution and other public services, in the Kurdish cities of Rania, Sulaymaniyah and Halabja.

Government buildings and political party offices were the target and were set on fire and plundered, resulting in injuries and material damage.

Videos on social media showed how demonstrators government buildings were burning, as well as party buildings of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iraq (KDP) in Sulaymaniyah, Kuya and Taktak. Tires and cars were also ablaze. Some videos showed cheering crowds as demonstrators burned posters of former Kurdish president Masoud Barzani. 

The uncertain fate of Prime Minister Haider al Abadi

And as if the situation is not bad enough: the rivalry between Iraq and the US has also increased. The current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi is no longer the favorite candidate of Iran, but he remains the best choice for the US and their regional partners in the Middle East. The big question is then: whose candidate will be the winner, the one of Iran or the one of the USA? Both are determined not to lose and use all available means to promote their own candidate.

US ambassadors in the Middle East and the US Special Envoy in Iraq, Brett McGurk, are doing their best to convince the Gulf States of the need to support Haider al-Abadi and Moqtada al-Sadr and to promote them, so they would come to power in the new government, in direct opposition to Iran and its allies in Iraq. The US is asking neighboring countries of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to provide electricity to Iraq so that the Iranian economy would not benefit from it.

“US envoy Brett McGurk visited us in Baghdad and asked us to support Moqtada and Abadi in one coalition to re-elect the current Prime Minister, telling him that Moqtada al-Sadr is unpredictable and can not be considered as reliable. ) policy in Iraq has never been successful and your choices are not in our interest,” said the top two Sunni political authorities in Iraq who were visited by the American envoy.

Ambassador McGurk apparently did not like this unexpected answer: if the Iraqi leaders do not stick to the ‘recommendations’ of the US, he threatens with reprisals.

The reply of the Sunni leaders was short:

“We told Ambassador Brett that if he threatens us, he will not receive any cooperation from us and will create a negative outcome for everyone”.

The Sunnis are not the only ones who refuse to support Moqtada and Abadi. The American envoy visited Kurdistan and received similar answers from the Kurdish leaders.

The US also calls on Shiite party leaders to cooperate, but only Sayyed Ammar al-Hakim, the most docile of all those who have been contacted, is very willing to do so.

Iraq must remain weak and divided

It seems that the chances of Haidar Abadi to extend his mandate for another four years are decreasing by the minute. Iran and its allies, or rather the anti-American parties in Iraq among the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, still have the upper hand. There was a time when both Iran and the US agreed on the same candidate. Today the US has declared an economic war against Iran, with disastrous consequences for the Iranian people and the local currency. The embargo will start in early August and will be tightened in November.

Therefore, Iran can not accept a hostile government in Baghdad, and the US finds it difficult to leave Iraq under Iranian influence, especially as this will negatively affect the outcome of their unilaterally declared embargo. After all, Iraq can help sell Iran’s oil and expand trade with Tehran, eroding Donald Trump’s plan to force the “Islamic Republic” into submission.

In addition, the US feels very uncomfortable with the Iraqi militias, the Hashd al-Shaabi, who were set up in 2014 to fight IS, following the appeal of the Great Ayatollah Sistani. These irregular troops are – rightly or wrongly – accused of being under the command of Iran. They took positions along the border between Iraq and Syria and on June 18, Israeli jet fighters bombed and destroyed the headquarters of that Hasd al-Shaabi at the borders with Syria. 

In any case, there is a strong suspicion that the politicians of the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia have agreed to keep Iraq weak and politically divided. After all, a stable Iraq could become a power again in the region, which neither of these countries wants.

After all, a strong Iraq could be a threat to Israel and neighboring countries in the Middle East, mainly Saudi Arabia. Iraq can not – in the eyes of the Saudis – become strong again while it is in the grip of the Shiites and under the influence of Iran. It is therefore more desirable to have a divided Iraq, so that a coalition of Iraq with Iran and Syria against the Saudis in the region is less powerful.

Iran is also afraid of Iraqi politicians who are enthusiastic buyers of American weaponry. After all, these weapons could turn against Iran. After all, American troops, mercenaries and observers are still numerous. So Iran supports some of the strong militias within the Popular Mobilisation Units, who can defend Iraq against American hegemony.

Iraq threatens to get a shaky and divided government. The parliament is already under the control of the militias in most key positions, a scenario that most foreign players involved (US, Iran, Saudi Arabia) like, because each of these countries now has strong allies in the Iraqi political forum, allies who can drink each other’s blood.

Conclusion

The Iraqi people remain at the mercy of the interests of geopolitical forces, the hunger for profit of the oil companies and corrupt politicians in an occupied country. Iraqis continue to bear the full burden of 28 years of sanctions, wars, misery, death, destruction, chaos and extreme neoliberalism. However, the population remains alert, stands up again and again against the inhumane situation in which it was forced and wants a fairer redistribution of the available resources. The demonstrators also repeatedly resisted the division of the country, against the sectarianism imposed from above and against foreign interference. The peace movement and all progressives have the duty to support the legitimate aspirations of the Iraqi people in resistance, even though the situation in Iraq is presented as “complicated” in the media. The claim for reparations remains necessary and any support for the corrupt Iraqi regime by Western governments must be rejected.

David Romano argues,

“These people’s frustrations, if not addressed, could turn into a more potent enemy of the regime in Baghdad than even ISIS. Just like when it comes to Sunni Arab areas newly liberated from ISIS and in Kurdish areas recently coerced away from any moves towards independence, the government in Baghdad has a limited window of opportunity to address problems. If Baghdad fails to give Sunnis and Kurds their promised shares of governing power and wealth, if it goes on pumping oil from places like Basra and Kirkuk while the people there continue to live in poverty, the next big Iraqi crisis will not be long in coming. The past week’s protests in the south are simply a warning that people’s patience – whether they be Shia, Sunni, Kurdish or other – has limits.” 

And he’s probably right.

*

Dirk Adriaensens is a member of the executive committee of the BRussells Tribunal. Between 1992 and 2003 he led several delegations to Iraq to observe the devastating effects of the UN sanctions. He was a member of the International Organising Committee of the World Tribunal on Iraq (2003-2005). He is also co-coordinator of the Global Campaign Against the Assassination of Iraqi Academics. He is co-author of Rendez-Vous in Baghdad, EPO (1994), Cultural Cleansing in Iraq, Pluto Press, London (2010), Beyond Educide, Academia Press, Ghent (2012), Global Research’s Online Interactive I-Book ‘The Iraq War Reader, Global Research (2012), Het Midden Oosten, The Times They are a-changin ‘, EPO (2013) and is a frequent contributor to Global Research, Truthout, Al Araby, The International Journal of Contemporary Iraqi Studies and other media.

Sources

https://www.iraqinews.com/features/observatory-mass-protests-in-iraq-left-831-people-killed-wounded/

http://www.niqash.org/en/articles/politics/5957/Haunted-By-History-Iraq%E2%80%99s-Sunni-Muslims-Won%E2%80%99t-Join-Shiite-Led-Protests.htm

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2018/7/24/iraqi-forces-fire-on-and-beat-up-peaceful-protesters

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2018/7/22/fresh-protests-in-iraq-as-death-toll-rises

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180724-iraqs-southern-rebellion-defies-defeat-in-the-face-of-state-violence/#.W1dP6c0emdM.facebook

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/Protests-continue-rock-Iraq-rights-groups-report-beatings-killings-2008778061

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/07/iraq-security-forces-deliberately-attack-peaceful-protesters-while-internet-is-disabled/

http://www.gicj.org/positions-opinons/gicj-positions-and-opinions/1439-demonstrations-in-iraq-july-2018

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mec/2018/07/18/iraqs-humpty-dump ty-challenge-who-can-put-the-country-together-again/

https://musingsoniraq.blogspot.com/2018/07/government-crackdown-shuts-down-many.html?m=1

https://www.iraqinews.com/features/iraqi-expert-expects-sweeping-protests-says-government-untrusted/

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2018/7/12/the-iraq-report-mosul-a-dystopian-wasteland-after-is

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/indepth/2018/7/19/the-iraq-report-basras-fury-spreads-to-baghdad

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180718-iraqs-southern-uprising-could-ignite-the-largest-revolt-the-country-has-witnessed-in-recent-memory/#.W08-VzgE0FU.facebook

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/iraq-protests-bad-government-roads-weather-people-haider-abadi-sadr-oil-a8451736.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/18/protests-spread-through-cities-in-iraqs-oil-rich-shia-south?CMP=share_btn_fb

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/protests-in-southern-iraq-to-demand-better-services-jobs/2018/07/15/8e3be8a4-87ff-11e8-9e 06-4db52ac42e05_story.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-15/iraq-says-oil-safe-as-government-cuts-social-media-amid-protests

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-5953697/Two-killed-southern-Iraq-protests-spread.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/widespread-unrest-erupts-in-southern-iraq-amid-acute-shortages-of-water-electricity/2018/07/14/b9077b90-86c2-11e8-9e06-4db52ac42e05_story.html

https://www.axios.com/protestors-storm-provincial-iraqi-government-building-in-kerbala-543e01f0-e22c-46ee-8904-d4bada075e97.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-protests-port/iraq-protests-spread-to-najaf-in-fifth-day-of-unrest-over-services-corruption-idUSKBN1K31OP

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/07/iraq-basra-oilfield-protests.html

https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2018/07/iraq-protests-south-demands-abadi-government.html

https://www.dw.com/en/iraqs-protests-what-you-need-to-know/a-44779555

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-us-is-in-cons tant-arm-wrestling-with-iran-over-iraq-and-syria/5648568 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/a-weak-and-divided-iraq-is-stumbling-towards-an-unbalanced-future/5643777 

https://www.ft.com/content/82ca2e3c-6369-11e8-90c2-9563a0613e56 

https://www.dw.com/en/iraqs-electricity-minister-fired-after-weeks-of-protests/a-44867913 

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis-news/analysis-iraq-demonstrations-from-basra-to-baghdad/1207386

https://thearabweekly.com/unrest-grows-iraq-south-health-system-broken-northern-city-mosul

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/7/17/headlines

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/07/17/iraq-j17.html

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-07/18/c_137331375.htm

http://www.rudaw.net/english/opinion/17072018

https://thearabweekly.com/deadly-iraq-protests-put-social-problems-spotlight

https://gulfnews.com/news/mena/iraq/iraq-protests-continue-for-the-sixth-day-1.2251775

https://www.thenational.ae/world/mena/iraq-protests-spread-fuelled-by-anger-and-hopelessness-1.750922

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-29/iraq-says-saudis-to-sell-it-power-at-a-fraction-of-iran-s-price 

https://www.crisisgroup.org/crisiswatch (Global Overview of July 2018)

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/08/10/on-the-iraqi-protests-now-in-their-second-month/ (Mundher al Adhami)

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

After the liberation of the provinces of Daraa and Quneitra, the Syrian civil war entered a new phase.  The available land that was up for grabs by any new liberator — without the need for negotiations with outside actors — was shrinking (one section of the desert under ISIL control does not count – it will soon be cleared out).  Only Idlib is left, which is controlled (albeit only in spots and to a limited extent) by Turkey, as well as the environs of al-Tanf and the Kurdish regions located within the American protectorate.  And their liberation must be preceded by diplomatic agreements with the protector states.

Decentralization without the Kurds

Negotiations with Turkey took place in Sochi at the very end of July.  Those were conducted by Russia and Iran, because Damascus and Ankara have officially severed their diplomatic ties.  The Syrian authorities emphasize that the territory of Idlib will eventually be returned to Damascus’s jurisdiction.

No one’s arguing with that. Turkey is not planning on an eternal occupation of Syrian territory, because any benefits from that would be completely outweighed by the financial, PR, and potential military costs Ankara would incur.  At some point, the Turkish troops will be forced to quit Syria.  But Erdogan has no desire to pull out for free and is demanding a number of conditions be met in return.

These conditions are obvious yet at the same time contradictory. On one hand, Ankara wants to maintain its leverage over post-war Syria, so it is pressing for the local communities (some of which in northwestern and western Syria hold pro-Turkish sentiments) to be granted more rights and powers.  On the other hand, the Turks do not want those rights and powers to be extended to the Syrian Kurds, whom Erdogan currently views as one of the biggest threats to Turkey’s national security.

At present it is not possible to meet Turkey’s demands – the constitutional committee is just now getting down to work, and no one understands how to exclude the Kurdsfrom the decentralization process anyway.  And ultimately the Iranians are not particularly eager to yield any zones of influence to the Turks — it is clear to everyone that for the foreseeable future, Tehran and Ankara will very likely be competing for the upper hand in the Middle East.  In turn, the Turkish authorities are threatening that if Moscow and Tehran give Damascus the green light to conduct a military operation in Idlib without taking Ankara’s interests into account, then Turkey will abandon its attempts to find a resolution under the auspices of the Astana negotiations and could potentially resume military and political assistance to the militants, which might even include sending aid in the form of the Turkish army.

The weak link

As a result, a compromise was apparently reached in Sochi.  Damascus, Tehran, and Moscow agreed to temporarily postpone the offensive in Idlib and give Turkey some latitude to handle the threats posed by certain terrorist groups in the region (for example, Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, which is the latest reincarnation of the al-Nusra Front).  In order to do battle against them, the Turks have already established a coalition of militants under Ankara’s control.

However, this compromise is not likely to last long.  First of all, because Turkey has thus far been conspicuously unable to cope with the situation (as can be seen, for example, in the regular drone attacks on the Hmeimim air base that originate in Idlib), and there is no guarantee that the situation will change.  Second, Damascus is already engaged in a dialog with the Kurds (who have finally become firmly convinced that the Americans will continue to sell them out to the Turks) over the idea of reconciling in exchange for the promise of decentralization.  In this, the interests of Damascus and Ankara are partially aligned – the Kurds will not be granted any broad autonomy – but the Syrian authorities are prepared to concede some extremely limited autonomy. And if the Turks object, then – faced with the choice between compromising with the Kurds vs. satisfying the Turks, the Syrians are likely to choose the Kurds.

The Kurds will be chosen because — and this is the third reason — Turkey is the weakest link in the Syrian “triumvirate.”  The end of the civil war is not far off, and if Iran and Russia are seeing their own positions strengthening as that day draws nearer, Turkey, on the other hand, is growing weaker.  This is being expedited by the rapidly unraveling relationship between Erdogan and the West, as a result of which the Turkish president has been left in a state of semi-isolation, and he cannot afford to damage his relations with Moscow and Tehran as well.  Therefore, it is possible that once the desert enclave and the concentration of troops near Idlib have been cleared out in the autumn, the Syrian army will find some pretext for an offensive in the rebel province, and Turkey will remain on the sidelines.  The best Ankara can hope for is to have some minor concessions granted.

Syria without Iran?

As for the US — it played no role in the talks in Sochi.

“We are sorry that our American colleagues chose to absent themselves from the work aimed at achieving a long-term political settlement in Syria,” noted Alexander Lavrentiev, Russia’s special envoy to Syria.  “We remain confident that mutually acceptable solutions can only be worked out through an open dialog.”

However those can also be worked out through a “closed” dialog, which is something that is held regularly (including during the meeting between Putin and Trump).  Washington’s position is easy to understand.  Donald Trump is ready to pull American troops out of the environs of al-Tanf (in southern Syria), because now that Syrian troops have liberated Deir ez-Zor and the province of Daraa, that base of operations is no longer needed.  Trump is also prepared to entertain the possibility of abandoning support for the Syrian Kurds, because they are ill-suited for their role as a force to hold Iran in check and are also creating a host of problems with the Turks.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif meet with diplomatic representatives of Iran, in Tehran, on July 22, 2018

The only question is — what does Washington want in return? Some media outlets have been circulating the idea that the US and its partner Israel are demanding Iran’s complete withdrawal from Syria.  But everyone is well aware that this is unrealistic — the losers cannot order the winner to admit defeat.  So it will most likely be an issue of the Iranians having to accept responsibility for pulling their troops and military bases out of the area near the Golan Heights, and Russia having to be responsible for ensuring that Tehran abides by this condition.

So far the negotiations seem to be in their early stages, and one of the key obstacles is the uncertainty of the US and Israel that the Russians will be able to shoulder the responsibility for Iran’s compliance with its obligations once the US troops have been gone from Syria for one, two, or three years.  The West believes that Russia’s continued presence in Syria will be on shaky ground, since Iran regards the country as its own domain and will push for outside forces to leave, even friendly ones.

Moscow partially shares this concern (despite being on friendly terms with Tehran), and that is precisely why it is trying to do all it can to use diplomacy to resolve the issue with the Turks themselves, while also pulling Europe into the process of returning the Syrian refugees and restoring the country’s infrastructure.  After all, the more outside actors there are in Syria, the less chance that the Iranian leaders in that country will become an undesirable dominating force (which would inevitably happen otherwise).  And it makes it even more likely that the process of national reconciliation — which will take more than just a year or two — will culminate in not just an end to the civil confrontation, but also in the long-term peaceful coexistence of the varied peoples and religious sects within Syria.

*

All images in this article are from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

Have you ever considered the possibility that almost everything that you have been told about the world by the Western mass media is a lie and fabrication?

I am sure you have, at least lately, when the insanity of Western propaganda is becoming very clear and obvious. But what about the extent of indoctrination you were subjected to?

If you live in Europe or North America, how poisoned are you by the lies about Cuba and Venezuela, Russia and China, North Korea and yes – about Iran? Are you beyond recovery? If you see the truth, if you were confronted by reality, would you still be able to recognize it, or would you perceive it as propaganda and lies?

I have just left Tehran, a city with a tremendous history and culture, overflowing with museums, theatres, wonderfully kept parks dotted with modern art sculptures. It is a city with modern and fully subsidized public transportation, consisting of high-tech metro, ecological bus ways, as well as suburban trains. A city of tall trees, and quiet squares, of elegant cafes, and extremely educated and kind people.

A city that could easily be part of the ‘top ten’ cities on Earth, were it not the capital of a country that the West is trying to ruin, first with unjust and draconian sanctions, and then, who knows, even by a militarily invasion.

What do most Westerners know about Iran; what were they told? I think the image the mass media outlets want to project is of “Iran – a radical Muslim country, some sort of Shia Saudi Arabia”, or perhaps worse. Much worse, as Saudi Arabia, the closest Arab ally of London and Washington, cannot be touched in the West, no matter what barbarity and terror it spreads all around the world.

Those who know both Jeddah and Teheran would laugh at such a comparison. Saudi Arabia, and its semi-colony Bahrain, despite their wealth from oil, are some of the most compassionless societies on the planet, misery rubbing shoulders with repulsively vulgar and extreme showing off of wealth.

Iran is in its essence a socialist country. It is internationalist, in full solidarity with many oppressed and struggling nations on our planet. No, I am not talking about Syria, Yemen or Palestine only; I am talking about Cuba and Venezuela, among many others. You did not know? It is not surprising: you are not supposed to know!

You are also expected to remain ignorant about Iran’s social system, clearly socialist. Free education and medical care, greatly subsidized public transportation and culture, huge public spaces and to some extent, strong government and at least partially, central planning.

Local traditional dancers

Despite those absolutely unjust, terrible sanctions imposed, with some interruptions, from Washington and its allies, Iran is standing tall, trying as much as it can to take care of its people. And despite the terrible ordeal Iranian people are being put through, they do not cheat and do not steal. The exchange rate collapsed after Washington imposed another round of bizarre sanctions, triggering frustration, even protests. But the majority of Iranians understands who the real culprit is. And it is no secret that the so-called opposition is often financed from the West.

Most visitors do not understand anything about the local currency or exchange rates. I am no exception. I simply give taxi drivers or waiters my wallet, and they only take what is due. I checked with my Iranian colleagues: and the amount that is being taken is always fair. 

Iranians do not display ‘arrogant pride’; they only show the determined, decent and patriotic pride of a nation with thousands of years of great culture which knows perfectly well that it is on the right side of history.

Young filmmakers working on the streets of Tehran

You were told ‘how religious Iran is’; I am sure you were. But unlike in Saudi Arabia or Indonesia, religion is not ‘being thrown into your face’ here; it is not waved as a flag. In Iran, religion is something internal, deep, which is expressed humbly and without noise. While the mosques of Jakarta broadcast, for hours a day and using powerful loudspeakers, entire sermons, while people are now being thrown into jail for even criticizing this brutal imposition of religion on the general public, in Tehran I could hardly even detect Adhan (call for prayer). Most of the local female Teheran city-dwellers only cover their hair symbolically – one third or even just a quarter, keeping most of their hair exposed.

But the West would never inflict sanctions on Indonesia or antagonize it in any other way, no matter how brutal it is to its own people: Washington, London and Canberra already ruined its socialist direction after the US-orchestrated coup of 1965. Jakarta is now an obedient, turbo capitalist, anti-Communist, West-junk-food-and-crap-entertainment-loving society. It has nothing public left. The elites have fully robbed the country on behalf of the West. Religions in Indonesia are used to uphold the pro-Western fascist regime.

Iran is totally the opposite: its interpretation of religion is ‘traditional’, as it used to be before the West managed to derail its essence in so many parts of the world. It is socialist, compassionate, spiritual and yes – internationalist. 

Unlike in places like Jeddah or Jakarta, where going out to eat is now the height of cultural life (and often the only option of how to ‘enjoy the city’), Tehran offers high quality art cinemas (Iranian films are some of the greatest and most intellectual in the world), world-class museums and galleries, vast public spaces, as well as a great number of sport and amusement public facilities, including beautifully maintained parks.

You want to hang from a rope and fly over a valley, near one of the tallest TV towers on Earth – you can do it easily in Teheran. You want to see a series of the latest Chinese art films –you can, at the magnificent palace called the Cinema Museum. Or maybe Chekhov or a Tennessee Williams theatre play, if you understand some Farsi? Why not?

Of course you can sit in a horrendous traffic jam, if you are in love with your car, as you would in Riyadh or Jakarta, but you can also zip through the city in comfort and cheaply, on board the super modern metro system. You can walk on beautiful sidewalks, under tall trees, some of which grow from the clean creaks that separate driveways from pedestrian areas.

What else were you told; that you cannot look into a woman’s eyes or you will be stoned to death? Couples are holding hands everywhere in Tehran, and annoyed girls are slapping the faces of their men, teasingly and sometimes even seriously.

But would you believe it, if you saw it? Or is it too late; have you reached the point of no return?

One day, a driver who was taking me from my hotel to the Press TV television studio, exclaimed in desperation:

“Europeans who come here, even for the first time: they don’t want to learn. Even if they come to Iran for the first time, they land at the airport, get into my car, and begin preaching; teaching me about my own country! They all come with the same story, with the same criticism of Iran. There is no diversity! How can they call themselves democratic countries, if they are all thinking the same way?”

In Teheran, the diversity of thought is absolutely striking. With my colleagues and comrades, we discuss everything from the war in Yugoslavia, to Latin America and of course, Iran itself. They want to know about Russia and China. I love what I see and what I hear – when people are curious and respectful of other cultures, it is always a great start!

Iran is bleeding, suffering, but it is strong. Not everyone agrees with government policies here (although most of them do support their government), but everybody is determined to fight and defend his or her country, if it is attacked militarily or by other means. 

Whenever I come here, I have this impolite urge – I want to shout at my readers: Come here and learn something! Iran is not perfect, but this is real – here, life is real and so are the people. Thanks to their culture and history, they somehow know how to separate precious stones from junk, pure thoughts from propaganda, cheap and deadly capitalism from the great strive for a much better world. If you don’t believe me, just watch their films; one masterpiece after another.

Perhaps that is why the West wants to first ruin, and then to totally destroy this country. For the West, Iran is ‘dangerous’. Iran is dangerous, even deadly, for the imperialist arrangement of the world, as China is dangerous, as Russia is, as Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Bolivia are.

To ruin Iran will not be easy, I would even say: it could prove impossible. Its people are too smart and determined and strong. Iran is not alone; it has many friends and comrades. And even Iran’s neighbors – Turkey and Pakistan – are now quickly changing direction, away from the West.

Don’t take my word for all this. Just come and see. But do no preach: ask questions, and then, please sit, listen and learn! This country has more than 7,000 years of tremendous history. Instead of bombing it, read its poets, watch its films, and learn from its internationalist stand! And then, only then, decide, whether Iran is really your enemy, or a dear comrade and friend.

*

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 the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Sanctions left and sanctions right. Financial mostly, taxes, tariffs, visas, travel bans – confiscation of foreign assets, import and export prohibitions and limitations; and also punishing those who do not respect sanctions dished out by Trump, alias the US of A, against friends of their enemies. The absurdity seems endless and escalating – exponentially, as if there was a deadline to collapse the world. Looks like a last-ditch effort to bring down international trade in favor of — what? – Make America Great Again? – Prepare for US mid-term elections? – Rally the people behind an illusion? – Or what?

All looks arbitrary and destructive. All is of course totally illegal by any international law or, forget law, which is not respected anyway by the empire and its vassals, but not even by human moral standards. Sanctions are destructive. They are interfering in other countries sovereignty. They are made to punish countries, nations, that refuse to bend to a world dictatorship.

Looks like everybody accepts this new economic warfare as the new normal. Nobody objects. And the United Nations, the body created to maintain Peace, to protect our globe from other wars, to uphold human rights – this very body is silent – out of fear? Out of fear that it might be ‘sanctioned’ into oblivion by the dying empire? – Why cannot the vast majority of countries – often it is a ratio of 191 to 2 (Israel and the US) – reign-in the criminals?

Imagine Turkey – sudden massive tariffs on aluminum (20%) and steel (50%) imposed by Trump, plus central bank currency interference had the Turkish Lira drop by 40%, and that ‘only’ because Erdogan is not freeing US pastor Andrew Brunson, who faces in Turkey a jail sentence of 35 years for “terror and espionage”. An Izmir court has just turned down another US request for clemency, however, converting his jail sentence to house arrest for health reason. It is widely believed that Mr. Brunson’s alleged 23 years of ‘missionary work’ is but a smoke screen for spying.

President Erdogan has just declared he would look out for new friends, including new trading partners in the east – Russia, China, Iran, Ukraine, even the unviable EU, and that his country is planning issuing Yuan-denominated bonds to diversify Turkey’s economy, foremost the country’s reserves and gradually moving away from the dollar hegemony.

Looking out for new friends, may also include new military alliances. Is Turkey planning to exit NATO? Would turkey be ‘allowed’ to exit NATO – given its strategic maritime and land position between east and west? – Turkey knows that having military allies that dish out punishments for acting sovereignly in internal affair – spells disaster for the future. Why continue offering your country to NATO, whose only objective it is to destroy the east – the very east which is not only Turkey’s but the world’s future? Turkey is already approaching the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and may actually accede to it within the foreseeable future. That might be the end of Turkey’s NATO alliance.

What if Iran, Venezuela, Russia, China – and many more countries not ready to bow to the empire, would jail all those spies embedded in the US Embassies or camouflaged in these countries’ national (financial) institutions, acting as Fifth Columns, undermining their host countries’ national and economic policies? – Entire cities of new jails would have to be built to accommodate the empire’s army of criminals.

Imagine Russia – more sanctions were just imposed for alleged and totally unproven (to the contrary: disproven) Russian poisoning of four UK citizens with the deadly nerve agent, Novichok – and for not admitting it. This is a total farce, a flagrant lie, that has become so ridiculous, most thinking people, even in the UK, just laugh about it. Yet, Trump and his minions in Europe and many parts of the world succumb to this lie – and out of fear of being sanctioned, they also sanction Russia. What has the world become? – Hitler’s Propaganda Minister, Joseph Goebbels, would be proud for having taught the important lesson to the liars of the universe: “Let me control the media, and I will turn any nation into a herd of Pigs”. That’s what we have become – a herd of pigs.

Fortunately, Russia too has moved away so far already from the western dollar-controlled economy that such sanctions do no longer hurt. They serve Trump and his cronies as mere propaganda tools – show-offs, “we are still the greatest!”.

Venezuela is being sanctioned into the ground, literally, by from-abroad (Miami and Bogota) Twitter-induced manipulations of her national currency, the Bolívar, causing astronomical inflation – constant ups and downs of the value of the local currency, bringing the national economy to a virtual halt. Imported food, pharmaceuticals and other goods are being deviated at the borders and other entry points, so they will never end up on supermarket shelves, but become smuggle ware in Colombia, where these goods are being sold at manipulated dollar-exchange rates to better-off Venezuelan and Columbian citizens. These mafia type gangs are being funded by NED and other similar nefarious State Department financed “NGOs”, trained by US secret services, either within or outside Venezuela. Once infiltrated into Venezuela – overtly or covertly – they tend to boycott the local economy from within, spread violence and become part of the Fifth Column, primarily sabotaging the financial system.

Venezuela is struggling to get out of this dilemma which has people suffering, by de-dollarizing her economy, partly through a newly created cryptocurrency, the Petro, based on Venezuela’s huge oil reserves and also through a new Bolivar – in the hope of putting the brakes on the spiraling bursts of inflation. This scenario reminds so much of Chile in 1973, when Henry Kissinger was Foreign Secretary (1973-1977), and inspired the CIA coup, by “disappearing” food and other goods from Chilean markets, killing legitimately elected President Allende, bringing Augusto Pinochet, a horrendous murderer and despot, to power. The military dictatorship brought the death and disappearance of tens of thousands of people and lasted until 1990. Subjugating Venezuela might, however, not be so easy. After all, Venezuela has 19 years of revolutionary Chavista experience – and a solid sense of resistance.

Iran – is being plunged into a similar fate. For no reason at all, Trump reneged on the five-plus-one pronged so-called Nuclear Deal, signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015, after almost ten years of negotiations. Now – of course driven by the star-Zionist Netanyahu – new and ‘the most severe ever’ sanctions are being imposed on Iran, also decimating the value of their local currency, the Rial. Iran, under the Ayatollah, has already embarked on a course of “Resistance Economy”, meaning de-dollarization of their economy and moving towards food and industrial self-sufficiency, as well as increased trading with eastern countries, China, Russia, the SCO and other friendly and culturally aligned nations, like Pakistan. However, Iran too has a strong Fifth Column, engrained in the financial sector, that does not let go of forcing and propagating trading with the enemy, i.e. the west, the European Union, whose euro-monetary system is part of the dollar hegemony, hence posing similar vulnerability of sanctions as does the dollar.

China – the stellar prize of the Big Chess Game – is being ‘sanctioned’ with tariffs no end, for having become the world’s strongest economy, surpassing in real output and measured by people’s purchasing power, by far the United States of America. China also has a solid economy and gold-based currency, the Yuan – which is on a fast track to overtake the US-dollar as the number one world reserve currency. China retaliates, of course, with similar ‘sanctions’, but by and large, her dominance of Asian markets and growing economic influence in Europe, Africa and Latin America, is such that Trump’s tariff war means hardly more for China than a drop on a hot stone.

North Korea – the much-touted Trump-Kim mid-June Singapore summit – has long since become a tiny spot in the past. Alleged agreements reached then are being breached by the US, as could have been expected. All under the false and purely invented pretext of DPRK not adhering to her disarmament commitment; a reason to impose new strangulating sanctions. The world looks on. Its normal. Nobody dares questioning the self-styled Masters of the Universe. Misery keeps being dished out left and right – accepted by the brainwashed to-the-core masses around the globe. War is peace and peace is war. Literally. The west is living in a “peaceful” comfort zone. Why disturb it? – If people die from starvation or bombs – it happens far away and allows us to live in peace. Why bother? – Especially since we are continuously, drip-by-steady drip being told its right.

In a recent interview with PressTV I was asked, why does the US not adhere to any of their internationally or bilaterally concluded treaties or agreements? – Good question. – Washington is breaking all the rules, agreements, accords, treaties, is not adhering to any international law or even moral standard, simply because following such standards would mean giving up world supremacy. Being on equal keel is not in Washington’s or Tel Aviv’s interest. Yes, this symbiotic and sick relationship between the US and Zionist Israel is becoming progressively more visible; the alliance of the brute military force and the slick and treacherous financial dominion – together striving for world hegemony, for full spectrum dominance.  This trend is accelerating under Trump and those who give him orders, simply because “they can”. Nobody objects. This tends to portray an image of peerless power, instilling fear and is expected to incite obedience. Will it?

What is really transpiring is that Washington is isolating itself, that the one-polar world is moving towards a multipolar world, one that increasingly disregards and disrespects the United States, despises her bullying and warmongering – killing and shedding misery over hundreds of millions of people, most of them defenseless children, women and elderly, by direct military force or by proxy-led conflicts – Yemen is just one recent examples, causing endless human suffering to people who have never done any harm to their neighbors, let alone to Americans. Who could have any respect left for such a nation, called the United States of America, for the people behind such lying monsters?

This behavior by the dying empire is driving allies and friends into the opposite camp – to the east, where the future lays, away from a globalized One-World-Order, towards a healthy and more equal multi-polar world. – It would be good, if our world body, the members of the United Nations, created in the name of Peace, would finally gather the courage and stand up against the two destroyer nations for the good of humanity, of the globe, and of Mother Earth.

*

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; 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.