Global Research

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Throughout much of the Syrian conflict, the exploits of the rescue organization that calls itself the Syrian Civil Defense, better known to Western media as the White Helmets, have been a source of constant controversy. Much of this controversy stems from their multi-million dollar funding from Western governments and their documented collaboration with terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, all while purporting to be a local “first responder” organization with a neutral stance regarding the country’s conflict.

Yet now, following the recent success of the Syrian government’s campaign to rid southern Syria of both radical jihadist and foreign influence, the same Western governments that have long funded the White Helmets are seeking to evacuate their assets and resettle them abroad.

According to a report recently published in CBS News, several Western countries that have provided funding for the group – such as the Netherlands, the U.K., Germany and France – are now “scrambling” to evacuate the estimated 1,000 White Helmets and their families, claiming that they are “in danger of assassination” and “now in need of rescuing themselves.”

Several of these countries had brought up the issue with U.S. President Donald Trump at last week’s NATO summit, per CBS’ sources. However, the Trump administration – which recently restored $6.6 million in funding for the White Helmets — declined to comment on rescue efforts for the group, but did voice its concern that the White Helmets and related groups could face “reprisals” from the Syrian government.

The report asserted that, of all the leaders who had discussed the White Helmets at the recent NATO summit, U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May was the most adamant, as she also brought up the issue during her personal meeting with Trump over the weekend in London. May’s concern is unsurprising, given that the U.K. has spent more than any other government in funding the White Helmets, spending more than $80 million from the time the group was founded in 2013 through 2016. Furthermore, the group itself was founded by a former U.K. military intelligence officer turned mercenary, James Le Mesurier, which suggests that the U.K.’s connection to the group may go deeper than mere funding.

Western diplomats who spoke to CBS stated that, while no formal plan has yet been adopted, “dozens of ground escape routes” that would lead White Helmets out of Syria are currently being explored. However, if that method fails, those diplomats asserted that Russia would have to approve an aerial escape, though they openly doubted whether Russia could be trusted to aid such an effort.

Terrorists as neighbors?

Another area of confusion for those governments seeking to extract White Helmet members from Syria is where they should be resettled. While the Trump administration’s travel ban excludes the U.S., given that the ban prohibits the entry of Syrian nationals, Canada was named by CBS as a top possibility for a White Helmet “safe haven.” The report also asserted that Jordan and Israel would also likely assist such efforts.

However, resettlement may be a problem, not so much for the White Helmets as for Canadians, or the citizens of whatever nation would host the evacuees. This is because the White Helmets have been shown on several occasions to effectively be the same organization as terror group al-Nusra Front and have been caught on film aiding al-Nusra terrorists execute Syrian civilians. It is hard to imagine any Westerner who would want the White Helmets as neighbors.

Evacuation phase

Ultimately, the fact that the group’s foreign funders are acting to evacuate White Helmet operatives from Syria makes it clear that the Syrian government, thanks to its own efforts and those of its allies, clearly has the upper hand in now seven-year-long conflict. A U.S. official speaking to CBS all but confirmed this, stating:

This effort says we are in the evacuation phase. It is an admission that the regime is going to regain control of the country and the White Helmets can’t remain.”

Though this could well be the final chapter for the Syrian White Helmets, such reports should be taken with a grain of salt, as they have been used in the past to generate sympathy among the Western public in order to justify increased support for the group. For instance, a prior CBS report had spoken of the Trump administration’s “funding freeze” for the White Helmets and how this endangered the group’s activities. However, as noted above, just two months later the U.S. restored funding for the group to the tune of $6.6 million.

Thus, while the group may be finished in Syria’s south, its presence along with its activities in service to its Western paymasters is likely to continue in other areas of Syria that are controlled by terrorists and foreign occupiers, despite assertions of the group’s imminent evacuation.

*

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Global Research strives for peace, and we have but one mandate: to share timely, independent and vital information to readers across the globe. We act as a global platform to let the voices of dissent, protest, and expert witnesses and academics be heard and disseminated internationally.

We need to stand together to continuously question politics, false statements, and the suppression of independent thought.

Stronger together: your donations are crucial to independent, comprehensive news reporting in the ongoing battle against media disinformation. (click image above to donate)

*     *     *

Oil-rich Neuquén, Argentina – Site of a New U.S. Military Base

By W.T. Whitney Jr., July 18, 2018

Obsessive media focus on President Trump’s personal indecencies undoubtedly contributes to important news stories not seeing the light of day. In that regard, it’s no wonder the U.S. public is generally unaware of U.S. military interventions in parts of the world, particularly in Latin America. That way, U.S. imperial excess gets a pass.

Africa: Contradictions between Regional Security and Imperialist Interventions

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 18, 2018

This gathering took place amid the burgeoning challenges facing the African continent involving the efforts to realize a meaningful peace process in the Republic of South Sudan, an ongoing independence movement to liberate the Western Sahara from Moroccan occupation, gender equality and end to violence against women, the recently-announced African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and the role of imperialism as it relates to the question of national and regional security.

India: The Assault on Scholar and Social Activist Swami Agnivesh

By Dr. Chandra Muzaffar, July 18, 2018

The assassins are allegedly from the youth wing of the BJP, the ruling party. They had torn his clothes and hurled abuses at Agnivesh. They were angry that the activist had made a statement defending the consumption of beef. In recent months, the consumption of beef in a society where the cow is venerated has become a volatile issue with cases reported of Muslims being killed because they had eaten the meat of the animal even within the confines of their homes.     

A Short History of the Costs of Military Air Shows

By Dr. Gary G. Kohls, July 18, 2018

Pilots from the US Department of the Navy returned from World War II flush with pride at winning the war in the Pacific. So, in 1946, the Navy established a base of naval air operations on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico where the Blue Angels began doing air shows for the public, partly for recruiting future pilots and partly for raising unit morale. 

Helsinki – Trump and Putin – a Showdown for Summer Doldrums or a Genuine Attempt Towards Peace?

By Peter Koenig, July 18, 2018

President Trump, opened the meeting by saying that up to now relations between the United States and Russia were bad, and confessing that the US was to blame for it. He wanted them to improve and hoped that this meeting – he indicated that others of similar nature may follow – may be a first step towards normalizing relations between the two atomic super-powers which together, he said, control 90% of the world’s nuclear destructive force. A timely admission, but ignoring the most dangerous and unpredictable atomic power, the rogue nation of Israel.

Video: Criminalization of War, Israel’s Biggest Concentration Camp. Michel Chossudovsky

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Astro Awani, July 18, 2018

Watch the interview of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky with Malaysia’s Astro Awani on the Criminalization of War, focus on Israel’s massacre in Gaza.

According to Prof. Chossudovsky, “… the problem is in addressing the complicity of the international community in closing their eyes regarding these atrocities.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

Featured image: First Lady Melania Trump during a joint press conference between President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation | July 16, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Throughout the day before the summit in Helsinki, the lead story on the New York Times home page stayed the same: “Just by Meeting With Trump, Putin Comes Out Ahead.” The Sunday headline was in harmony with the tone of U.S. news coverage overall. As for media commentary, the Washington Post was in the dominant groove as it editorialized that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is “an implacably hostile foreign adversary.”

Contempt for diplomacy with Russia is now extreme. Mainline U.S. journalists and top Democrats often bait President Trump in zero-sum terms. No doubt Hillary Clinton thought she was sending out an applause line in her tweet Sunday night:

“Question for President Trump as he meets Putin: Do you know which team you play for?”

A bellicose stance toward Russia has become so routine and widespread that we might not give it a second thought — and that makes it all the more hazardous. After President George W. Bush declared “You’re either with us or against us,” many Americans gradually realized what was wrong with a Manichean view of the world. Such an outlook is even more dangerous today.

Since early 2017, the U.S. mass media have laid it on thick with the rough political equivalent of a painting technique known as chiaroscuro — “the use of strong contrasts between light and dark, usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition,” in the words of Wikipedia. The Russiagate frenzy is largely about punching up contrasts between the United States (angelic and victimized) and Russia (sinister and victimizer).

Countless stories with selective facts are being told that way. But other selectively fact-based stories could also be told to portray the United States as a sinister victimizer and Russia as an angelic victim. Those governments and their conformist media outlets are relentless in telling it either way. As the great journalist I.F. Stone observed long ago,

“All governments lie, and nothing they say should be believed.”

In other words: don’t trust, verify.

Often the biggest lies involve what remains unsaid. For instance, U.S. media rarely mention such key matters as the promise-breaking huge expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the brazen U.S. intervention in Russia’s pivotal 1996 presidential election, or the U.S. government’s 2002 withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or the more than 800 U.S. military bases overseas — in contrast to Russia’s nine.

An Open Letter for Sanity

For human survival on this planet, an overarching truth appears in an open letter published last week by The Nation magazine:

“No political advantage, real or imagined, could possibly compensate for the consequences if even a fraction of U.S. and Russian arsenals were to be utilized in a thermonuclear exchange. The tacit pretense that the worsening of U.S.-Russian relations does not worsen the odds of survival for the next generations is profoundly false.”

The initial 26 signers of the open letter — “Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security” — included Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, writer and feminist organizer Gloria Steinem, former UN ambassador Gov. Bill Richardson, political analyst Noam Chomsky, former covert CIA operations officer Valerie Plame, activist leader Rev. Dr. William Barber II, filmmaker Michael Moore, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen, former U.S. ambassador to the USSR Jack F. Matlock Jr., Pulitzer Prize-winning writers Alice Walker and Viet Thanh Nguyen, The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, former senator Adlai Stevenson III, and former longtime House Armed Services Committee member Patricia Schroeder. (I was also one of the initial signers.)

Since its release five days ago, the open letter has gained support from a petition already signed by 30,000 people. The petition campaign aims to amplify the call for protecting the digital infrastructure of the electoral process that is now “vulnerable to would-be hackers based anywhere” — and for taking “concrete steps… to ease tensions between the nuclear superpowers.”

We need a major shift in the U.S. approach toward Russia. Clearly the needed shift won’t be initiated by the Republican or Democratic leaders in Congress; it must come from Americans who make their voices heard. The lives — and even existence — of future generations are at stake in the relationship between Washington and Moscow.

Many of the petition’s grassroots signers have posted comments along with their names. Here are a few of my favorites:

• From Nevada: “We all share the same planet! We better learn how to do it safely or face the consequences of blowing ourselves up!”
• From New Mexico: “The earth will not survive a nuclear war. The weapons we have today are able to cause much more destruction than those of previous eras. We must find a way to common ground.”
• From Massachusetts: “It is imperative that we take steps to protect the sanctity of our elections and to prevent nuclear war anywhere on the earth.”
• From Kentucky: “Secure elections are a fundamental part of a democratic system. But this could become meaningless in the event of thermonuclear war.”
• From California: “There is only madness and hubris in talk of belligerence toward others, especially when we have such dangerous weapons and human error has almost led to our annihilation already more than once in the past half-century.”

Yet a wide array of media outlets, notably the “Russiagate”-obsessed network MSNBC, keeps egging on progressives to climb toward peaks of anti-Russian jingoism. The line of march is often in virtual lockstep with GOP hyper-hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The incessant drumbeat is in sync with what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the madness of militarism.”

Meanwhile, as Dr. King said,

“We still have a choice today: nonviolent co-existence or violent co-annihilation.”

*

Norman Solomon is the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: Yonatan Shapira (Source: The Electronic Intifada)

Yonatan Shapira says Israel’s ‘democracy’ is in fact an apartheid state led by fascist Jewish supremacists.

Watch the video below.

*

DIMITRI LASCARIS: This is Dimitri Lascaris, reporting for The Real News Network from the port of Naples, Italy. We are seated in front of the ships of the Gaza flotilla, the Freedom Flotilla, which have been docked here for a couple of days, and I’m pleased to be joined today by Yonatan Shapira. Yonatan is a former rescue pilot in the Israeli Air Force. He’s also a founding member and prominent activist of the Israeli movement Boycott From Within.

And I’d like to thank you very much for joining us today, Yonatan.

YONATAN SHAPIRA: Thank you. Thank you for coming.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: So I’d like to start by talking about your experiences within the Israeli Air Force, and your decision ultimately to become a dissenter from military service. Could you tell us about that?

YONATAN SHAPIRA: Well, there is a long story to tell here, but I’ll just try to say in a few words that in 2003, after more than 10 years of service in the Israeli Air Force, I was a Blackhawk helicopter pilot doing rescues and flying soldiers, and doing everything that I was asked. I realized together with other friends in the air force that we are fighting for the wrong side, and we are part of an organization that commits a crime against innocent Palestinians, and we do not want to be part of it anymore. So together with a group of about 27 pilots from all different squadrons of the Israeli air force, attack pilots, rescue pilots like me and others, veterans and active, we send this letter to our commander and the whole society in Israel telling them that we are no longer willing to obey the orders and be part of this illegal and criminal, immoral, occupation. That’s what started my life as an activist fifteen years ago, on the eve of the Jewish year, Rosh Hashanah.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And subsequently you became a prominent member, as I mentioned, at the outset of this movement, Boycott From Within. Can you tell us, what is it like being an Israeli citizen advocating for the imposition of a boycott given the attitude of the Israeli government towards the whole boycott movement?

YONATAN SHAPIRA: As a human being, I’m very proud of it. I feel super confident about what we, we are many activists. We are still a minority of a minority. But there are activists in Israel who are calling for boycott, divestment, and sanctions because we believe it’s for the benefit of all people; Palestinian people, and Jewish people, and everyone living there and everyone in the world. Of course, the Zionist society in Israel doesn’t like it. So you pay the [little] price of being a dissenter in an apartheid. So you get some benefit, some of your privilege away. But overall I’m still able to be there when I’m there, and lead a relatively comfortable life.

And slowly, slowly, the apartheid system is trying to make it harder and harder and more difficult on us. But again, when I look and compare my life to the life of a Palestinian or a refugee in Israel, or even a non-white Ashkenazi Israeli man in Israel, I’m still able to live quite comfortable. As we speak there are many trying in Parliament to make the apartheid in Israel more official. So different laws that are trying to constitute, that will make it even harder for us to still be free to still act.

And it’s just important to remember that Israel claims to be a democracy. It is not. It’s, it’s an apartheid. It’s led by a group of fascist Jewish supremacy people, and prime minister, and ministers. But if you’re a Zionist Jew, you can feel great democracy. If you are not a Zionist, and if you’re not a Jew, you’re living in apartheid.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: Now, you’ve participated in prior missions of the Freedom Flotilla. Could you tell me why, and also how you were received by your former colleagues within the Israeli military when the vessels were intercepted on those occasions?

YONATAN SHAPIRA: The first time I tried to break the blockade with a group of activists was 2010. About three months after what happened on the Mavi Marmara, where Israeli, the Israeli army shot and killed about 10 activists from Turkey, most of them. The helicopter that landed, the soldiers that killed and massacred people on the Mavi Marmara, were helicopters from the squadron I used to fly in, this Blackhawk squadron in the Israeli air force. And therefore I decided that I must participate in the second boat that will try to break the blockade. It happened in September 2010. We were very small, and we were intercepted by many warships, small and big. And if we were Palestinians or Turks I guess they would shoot us and kill us, maybe, but I got the better treatment of a Taser gun in my heart. So maybe they thought that they will resuscitate my Zionist behavior. My Zionist heart will start beating again.

But instead it just made me more clear about my decision, and confident about the need to struggle against apartheid and against this illegal crime of ghettoization and that concentration of two million people. The second attempt was 2011, a year, about a year later. I was on a crew of The Audacity of Hope. It was a big American boat, and we were part of the second flotilla trying to leave from the port of Piraeus in Greece. Unfortunately, the Greek government was coopted by Israel and the U.S., and with different pressure, I guess, they obeyed Bibi Netanyahu. And we had a big sign saying, who’s your commander, Netanyahu or Poseidon? Who is the god of the sea. Is it Israel, or the Greek Poseidon?

Unfortunately, it was Netanyahu and on a gun show on a gunpoint. We were stopped by the Greek coast guard just a few minutes after leaving the port of Priaeus, and we had to go back, and were detained by the, by the Greeks. And the third attempt was 2012, with the Ship to Gaza, the Swedish group that was with many international organizations, and the Finnish flagged boat. We had other Israelis on board. And we were also stopped about 40 miles from, from shore, from Gaza. This time it was a big operation. I guess they used it as a maneuver for training their forces, because they know that we are not posing any threat, like military threat, on them. So they were hundreds, maybe thousands of soldiers participating. About 15 warships, big and small. And also one Blackhawk helicopter that came in circled above us. And when I looked at it on the tail I could see that the number on the tail is 852, which is the same helicopter, tthe same piece of metal that I used to fly some years before. They again arrested us, tasered us, and took us to the Navy base of Ashdod, and we spent a few days arrested.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: I’d like, I’d like to talk to you about the future, to conclude. And you know, those of us in the West watching with trepidation what’s happening seem, it seems to be that every day the predicament of the Palestinian people is worse, and that the Israeli government’s sense of impunity is on the increase, if anything. Do you, are you feeling hopeful, based upon what you see, for the cause of Palestinian justice, justice for the Palestinian people? Do you see signs that this is a battle that is being won, ultimately, and that this is something that may actually be won within your lifetime?

YONATAN SHAPIRA: Well gives me hope is nothing about the governments and the system that controls us in your country, in my country. I see a lot of hypocrisy all over Europe and elsewhere, and also Canada. What gives me hope is to see the popular struggle of Palestinians that are showing incredible bravery. That reminds me what I grew up on, you know, the struggle in the ghettos, in the Warsaw Ghetto, in other ghettos. With the, with all the courage to walk into the fence, towards the fence of this biggest prison in the world, without bearing any arms. Walking and trying to protest this siege. It gives me a lot of hope, because I think that’s where the mighty power of the Israeli military collapses, when we have thousands and thousands of Palestinians that are uniting, holding hands and standing in front of the Israeli snipers.

That gives me hope. That means that it’s not going to be able to last forever. And things like that gives me hope to be together with the Spanish, Italians, Americans, Canadians, Norwegians, Swedish, everyone. It means that somewhere on a deep nerve of many people around the world, it’s quite clear that this symbolic struggle of the Palestinians for freedom will be won at some point. And our job is to not be deterred, and not be, not lose our hope when we see the hypocritical governments in one hand saying something against Israel’s crimes, and on the other hand still doing arms trade with them and giving them all the impunity and all the actual support to continue with this massacre and this illegality.

But it’s important to to say to everyone who listens to us that we need you. We need the person that now maybe sits in Canada, or in the U.S., or in elsewhere in Europe, or somewhere else. We need you to join this struggle. And this struggle is not just about freedom for Palestinians. It’s about the struggle against what Europe and the U.S. and other countries are doing to refugees that are trying to escape the horrors in Africa. It’s the same struggle. It’s the struggle of the people who have less to be recognized and to get their basic human right. So if you want to be part of the struggle, wherever you are, you don’t have to come all the way and join us in this flotilla. You can be active on your, in your local community, for justice for, for everyone. And then you are part of the struggle for justice for Palestine.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: I’d like to thank you very much for speaking with The Real News today, Yonatan. It’s been a pleasure.

YONATAN SHAPIRA: Thank you for coming here. And good luck with your health.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: Thank you very much. And this is Dimitri Lascaris, reporting for The Real News from Naples, Italy.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Why is Europe full of hate for Donald Trump?

Is it, perhaps, because millions could soon die in yet another of the senseless and horrible wars unleashed by the Western empire? Or is it because Europeans suddenly ‘saw the light’ and realized that they mistreated billions of innocent people throughout history; that actually all people on Earth are equal and should be left alone and be allowed to live their lives as they please?

Far from that; unfortunately, very far!

Most of the Europeans simply hate Trump because he had enough of the status quo, of what could be objectively described as sneaky and sleazy games.

Mr. Trump sees collaboration with Europe as an extremely bad business.

Not that President Trump is a saint himself. Of course, he isn’t. He is a businessman – a very ruthless one, and in the past very daring and very successful. He has already managed to break the backs of hundreds of people, and now he would not hesitate to run hundreds of countries to the ground, if they’d dare to stand in his way. When he sees that someone is trying to take advantage of him (or of the company he was allowed to manage – the United States of America), he knows perfectly well from where the stench comes, as he has been spoiling the air himself, all throughout his colorful career.

*

The main reason why Europeans are so disgusted with Donald Trump, is because, in their eyes, he is impolite, simply rude. He does not show any respect for the Western civilization; he simply doesn’t care. He snaps at everyone – Europe, Japan, China, Mexico. It is even hard to call him a racist – he seems to hate everybody, sometimes at different times, or simultaneously.

The “Old continent” likes it dandy and smooth. It adores well-mannered people who behave, no matter what their color of the skin is, precisely like Europeans.

You see, if Mr. Trump was acting as an ordinary U.S. president from the upper class, perhaps like Mr. Obama or Bill Clinton were acting just very recently, there would be absolutely no outrage and no protests in London or Berlin. Some 10 million corpses in the Democratic Republic of Congo did not outrage European masses, as long as they got plenty of coltan for their mobile phones, and enough uranium for the NATO nukes.

Millions of corpses in Iraq, Libya and Syria – it mattered very little to bon vivants in Italy, France, or Greece. As long as the gentleman in charge of the world order was polite, as long as he knew how to respect the cradle of Western ‘civilization’ – Europe – there was no reason to worry.

*

Europe used to murder tens, even hundreds of millions of people, on all continents and throughout the centuries. No matter how hard Washington tried (and it has been trying very hard), it was never able to compete with the gruesomeness of extermination campaigns that had originated in Paris, Brussels, London, Amsterdam, Berlin, Madrid or Lisbon. 

These things are, of course, never pronounced. Both Europe and the U.S. are supposed to be synonymous with ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and liberal values, not with the genocides. But of course, Western rulers know perfectly well of what stuff history is made.

To guarantee the stability of Western dogmas and propaganda, almost all U.S. presidents were accustomed to demonstrating great respect for Europe, at least publicly.

After all, Europe is where the American culture comes from, isn’t it? It is from where Christianity arrived. It is where people who slaughtered the great majority of the native Americans came from. It is where the slave owners and plantation owners came from. Europeans were people who were supplying slaves to the “New World”, hunting them down like animals in Africa, raping them, then chaining them inside the monstrously overcrowded vessels. What a legacy; what a civilization!

North America is nothing else than that wild, violent dream of the Europeans come true; a dream of open spaces and almost unopposed plunder: Kill all the natives, rob all that you can, then enslave people from other continents, and bring them to work for free on your plantations and construction sites – chained, humiliated and broken. When you digest your loot, then begin expanding again, as your ancestors – Europeans – were doing for centuries. But this time expand from your new base, from North America (new base but the same culture and the same aggressive hordes); expand towards Latin America and the Philippines, and eventually, towards the entire world.

Let us be very honest: The United States of America is just a huge extension of Europe, with several minorities living on its territory: descendants of slaves, broken native people, and the most aggressive immigrants from all parts of the planet. But it is Europe, in some places ‘diluted’, but Europe nevertheless.

When the Europeans are criticizing, even ridiculing the U.S. (without ridiculing themselves in the same breath), it is truly grotesque. Europe and North America have absolutely the same destiny, same goals and interests. For the last few decades, the U.S.A. has been doing an extremely dirty job, manipulating and plundering the world, on behalf of the entire West. It was rolling itself in filth, while Europe was stuffing itself on refined food, prostituting pristine parts of all continents with its mass tourism, and dictating to everyone how to live and even how to think.

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, it is obvious that he is very well aware of all this. He understands the correlation between Europe and the United States. And he is sick of what he sees.

The entire West is looting, plundering and raping the rest of the world; it does it in unison. Most of the world has by now been converted into a high security prison. The entire West is preventing people of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Middle East from thinking, and from living their lives as it suits them the best. The entire West is spreading propaganda, dark nihilism (read my latest book “Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism”), and it is discrediting, even overthrowing, all socially-oriented movements and governments.

But it is the United States of America that is paying for all this, while letting its workers, the elderly and minorities literally rot in deplorable conditions. It robs and gets robbed, or at least its people are.

Look at the European so-called unemployed, enjoying their sexual escapades in Southeast Asia or East Africa, all at the expense of the people living or rotting alive in countless poor nations. Look at those long vacations, short working hours, free medical care and education, while people both in the poor nations and in the United States, can hardly make ends meet.

Is Europe really ‘colonized’ by the United States? Don’t make me laugh! It appears that it is Europe, which is still colonizing the world, making it work for its lethargy and extravagance. The U.S. has been, increasingly, like an idiot, working and killing on behalf of Europe.

Donald Trump suspects that this is what is happening. I am not sure he can formulate it, but at least he knows, intuitively, that something unsavory is going on. 

Donald Trump thinks that this relationship with Europe is a damn bad deal for his country. 

One can almost hear him shouting: “If we all steal, if we all have been screwing the world, let us all enjoy the booty. Pay your share, dudes, and let my people thrive, too!”

It is undeniable, that using gangster logic, he is totally right! And the West is, by now, patently, an out of control mafia which is brutalizing the entire planet!

*

Some people in the West, even in the United States, are hoping that the present U.S. administration will manage to disgust Europe so much that ‘the Old Continent’ would crack-off, leave the alliance with the U.S. They think that it would have a very positive impact on our planet. 

This scenario could actually happen, but it would be even worse for the rest of the world than the present, already horrible, status quo setup.

It is because the foundations of the present global evil are not in the U.S., but in Europe itself.

“Independent”, rearmed Europe would mean even more suffering for Africa (just look what France has been doing recently in its former colonies), Asia (U.K. in Afghanistan), the Middle East (EU supporting Saudi Arabia in its terror drive against both Yemen and Syria) and elsewhere.

It is clear that Mr. Trump is concerned about his country. He is trying to put the interests of the U.S. first, not the interests of the West in general. Is he doing it elegantly? Definitely not. Is he a genius? Hardly.

But who knows, he may think that his people could be better off if he tries to move closer to Russia and Asia Pacific. That could be quite correct. After all, cooperating with Europe never brought many benefits to anyone. Europe is too tricky, too selfish, and too brutal. It only takes, never gives.

The entire U.S. liberal establishment is in disarray. It is totally Euro-centric. It seems to be more pro-European than Europe itself. It actually is Europe. Could the United States under Donald Trump become cosmopolitan? I am not sure. We will soon find out.

Both Europe and the former ‘U.S. pro-European regime’ are notoriously, fundamentally anti-Russian and anti-Chinese. 

Donald Trump is definitely not pro-Russian or pro-Chinese, but it appears that he dislikes Europe as much as he dislikes the others. Such a neo-egalitarian approach may actually bring some fruits and relief to our planet. 

*

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Andre Vltchek is philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s a creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, a writer of revolutionary novel Aurora and several other books.  His latest books: are Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, and The Great October Socialist Revolution. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Patients in Gaza’s hospital’s organised a sit-in in central Gaza City to appeal to the international community, Quds Press reported, Tuesday.

The sit-in included those wounded by Israel as well as rights groups. It took place in front of Erez Crossing where Gazans can pass through to receive treatment in Israel or Palestinian hospitals in West Bank.

Speakers at the sit-in said that Gaza’s hospitals suffer from shortages in medicines, lab equipment and testing materials due to the Palestinian Authority (PA) sanctions and the Israel’s siege of the strip.

First aid crews and patients lying on stretchers take part in a protest against the impairment of health due to Israel’s over a decade long blockade in front of Beit Hanoun Border Gate in Gaza City, Gaza on 17 July, 2018 [Mustafa Hassona/Anadolu Agency]

The patients called for the international community to save their lives by lifting the siege and sanctions.

Spokesman of the Ministry of Health in Gaza, Ashraf al-Qidra, called for an, “immediate and unconditional end of the suffering of the Gaza patients.”

Al-Qidra said that the Israel had killed 141 Palestinians and wounded 16,000 others during the protests of the Great March of Return. This put a heavy burden on the ministry of health and consumed most of the medical supplies.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

An unprecedented joint statement has been issued by dozens of Jewish groups in several countries offering their support to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. They affirmed that their condemnation of the Israeli state does not amount to antisemitism.

“As social justice organizations from around the world, we write this letter with growing alarm regarding the targeting of organizations that support Palestinian rights in general and the nonviolent Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, in particular,” the letter began.

“These attacks too often take the form of cynical and false accusations of antisemitism that dangerously conflate anti-Jewish racism with opposition to Israel’s policies and system of occupation and apartheid.”

The letter went on to note that history has made Jewish people “all too aware of the dangers of increasingly fascistic and openly racist governments and political parties.”

“The rise in antisemitic discourse and attacks worldwide is part of that broader trend. At times like this, it is more important than ever to distinguish between the hostility to – or prejudice against – Jews on the one hand and legitimate critiques of Israeli policies and system of injustice on the other.”

The Jewish-based solidarity campaign was initiated by the Jewish Voice for Peace, or JVP, a U.S.-based organization, along with 36 Jewish groups in 15 different countries, including South Africa, Brazil and Germany, according to The New Arab.

Activists and supporters of the BDS movement have taken inspiration from the boycott and sanctions campaign undertaken in the 1980s to help bring an end to South Africa.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

Propaganda works, proved effective time and again – why it’s a key tool in America’s deep state playbook. 

Virtually anything repeated enough, especially through the major media megaphone, gets most people to believe it – no matter how preposterous the claim.

Not a shred of evidence suggests Russia meddled in America’s political process – nothing.

Yet an earlier NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed most Americans believe the Russia did it Big Lie. A months earlier Gallup poll showed three-fourths of Americans view Vladimir Putin unfavorably.

Americans are easy marks to be fooled. No matter how many times they were deceived before, they’re easily manipulated to believe most anything drummed into their minds by the power of repetitious propaganda – fed them through through the major media megaphone – in lockstep with the official falsified narrative.

America’s dominant media serve as a propaganda platform for US imperial and monied interests – acting as agents of deception, betraying their readers and viewers time and again instead of informing them responsibly.

CNN presstitute Poppy Harlow played a clip on air of Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asking Putin in Helsinki the following question:

“Did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?”

Putin said: “Yes,” he wanted Trump to win “because he talked about bringing the US-Russia relationship back to normal,” as translated from his Russian language response.

Here’s the precise translation of his remark:

“Yes, I wanted him to win, because he talked about the need to normalize US-Russia relations,” adding:

“Isn’t it natural to have sympathy towards a man who wants to restore relations with your country? That’s normal.”

Putin did not address the fabricated official narrative notion that he directed his officials to help Trump win. Yet CNN’s Harlow claimed otherwise, falsely claiming he ordered Kremlin officials to help Trump triumph over Hillary.

He did nothing of the kind or say it, nor did any other Kremlin officials. No evidence proves otherwise – nothing but baseless accusations supported only by the power of deceptive propaganda.

Time and again, CNN, the NYT, and rest of America’s dominant media prove themselves untrustworthy.

They consistently abandon journalism the way it’s supposed to be, notably on geopolitical issues, especially on war and peace and anything about Russia.

After rejecting, or at least doubting, the official narrative about alleged Russian meddling in the US political process to aid his election, Trump backtracked post-Helsinki – capitulating to deep state power.

First in the White House, he said he misspoke abroad – then on CBS News Wednesday night, saying it’s “true,” deplorably adding:

Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election, and he “would” hold Russian President Vladimir Putin responsible for the interference – that didn’t occur, he failed to stress.

Here’s his verbatim exchange with CBS anchor Jeff Glor:

GLOR: “You say you agree with US intelligence that Russia meddled in the election in 2016.”

TRUMP: “Yeah and I’ve said that before, Jeff. I have said that numerous times before, and I would say that is true, yeah.”

GLOR: “But you haven’t condemned Putin, specifically. Do you hold him personally responsible?”

TRUMP: “Well, I would, because he’s in charge of the country. Just like I consider myself to be responsible for things that happen in this country. So certainly as the leader of a country you would have to hold him responsible, yes.”

GLOR: “What did you say to him?”

TRUMP: “Very strong on the fact that we can’t have meddling. We can’t have any of that – now look. We’re also living in a grown-up world.”

“Will a strong statement – you know – President Obama supposedly made a strong statement. Nobody heard it.”

“What they did hear is a statement he made to Putin’s very close friend. And that statement was not acceptable. Didn’t get very much play relatively speaking. But that statement was not acceptable.”

“But I let him know we can’t have this. We’re not going to have it, and that’s the way it’s going to be.”

There you have it – Trump capitulating to America’s deep state over Russia on national television.

From day one in power, he caved to the national security state, Wall Street, and other monied interests over popular ones.

The sole redeeming part of his agenda was wanting improved relations with Russia and Vladimir Putin personally – preferring peace over possible confrontation, wanting the threat of nuclear war defused.

Despite tweeting post-Helsinki that he and Putin “got along well which truly bothered many haters who wanted to see a boxing match,” his remarks on CBS News showed he’ll continue dirty US business as usual toward Russia.

Anything positive from summit talks appears abandoned by capitulating to deep state power controlling him and his agenda.

Normalized relations with Russia and world peace are anathema notions in Washington.

Bipartisan neocons infesting the US political establishment want none of it. America’s hegemonic aims matter most – wanting dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations.

Endless wars of aggression, color revolutions, and other unlawful practices harmful to human rights and welfare are its favored strategies.

Will Americans go along with sacrificing vital freedoms for greater security from invented enemies – losing both?

Will US belligerent confrontation with Russia inevitably follow? Will mushroom-shaped denouement eventually kill us all?

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

Nine hundred and seven.

That’s how many battery-electric buses  the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) is planning to purchase over the next nine years. They will cost many billions of scarce public dollars.

Sixty battery-electric buses (BEBs — also known as eBuses or zero-emission buses [ZEBs]) will be tested, with the first 30 comprising 10 each from BYD, Proterra and New Flyer.

The plan is for a flood of BEBs to arrive in Toronto very shortly after the first 60: another 67 will arrive in 2021, 80 in 2022, 100 in 2024, etc. There will be very little time for testing the first buses before orders are placed for hundreds more.

This break-neck pace is part of a move to a “zero-emission” public-transportation bus fleet in the name of TransformTO and the C40 Fossil-Fuel-Free-Streets Declaration.

In my first article, published July 18, I noted some red flags.

“So, I take it that you think we should not make these purchases?” queried councillor and TTC commissioner Joe Mihevc in an email to me after reading that article. “Methinks that electric buses are the way of the future… fossil-fuels engines just can’t continue.”

Joe, I agree that going green is necessary. And I’d be fine with the choice of BEBs if it’s arrived at through a suitable duration of testing by an objective third-party, and also via a thorough, third-party analysis of the most cost-effective greenhouse-gas-emission-reduction options from the array of choices ranging from new-generation hybrids to compressed natural gas. And if there’s attention paid to  an LA Times investigative report    that evaluators at Los Angeles Metro ranked BYD as “‘unqualified’ or ‘marginal’ in meeting quality and reliability requirements” for BEBs.

Instead, the TTC staff and board have ignored all this and prepared a largely ‘eBus or bust’ plan that includes BYD on equal footing with other BEB manufacturers.

Don’t you wonder about the Sept. 6, 2017, email I uncovered via a Freedom of Information request and mentioned in my first article? In it, Case, head of TTC’s Vehicles Programs, wrote that,

“going forward cost is not the main driver — ZEBs are the goal.”

Joe, shouldn’t cost be among the top considerations in the ultra-expensive BEB project, particularly since the TTC already is desperately short of cash?

Perhaps you’ll take notice of another email I mentioned in my first article. In that July 7, 2017, email, an extract of which I’ve posted online, Mike Macas, senior manager of vehicle engineering – vehicles program, said that the day before he had talked to “Jonathan” [likely Jonathan Li, a Toronto Hydro engineer], who “advised that there was a telephone conference between the TTC (Rick Leary), City of Toronto (Minnan-wong [sic]) and Toronto Hydro… last Tuesday. The purpose of the discussion was to ensure that TTC was collaborating with TH [Toronto Hydro] as the City wants us to expedite the studying of this [BEB] technology ASAP.” (My emphasis.)

Who is the person or people at the city is pushing for BEBs: Denzil Minnan-Wong, Mayor John Tory, and/or someone else? And why are they pushing?

Decision-makers and watchdogs should be asking these questions — but none, including our city’s auditor general, appear to be.

Minnan-Wong defends eBuses

Toronto councillor, deputy mayor and TTC Board member Denzil Minnan-Wong — who according to records on the Toronto Lobbyist Registry has been lobbied by Chinese BEB maker BYD, along with Tory and high-level officials in the Ontario and federal governments — says the e-bus-buying plan is solid. (I also reached out to Tory’s office for comment but didn’t receive a response.)

“I think from a technology point of view you’ve got to know the right time when to step in, and I think the TTC’s taking the right step in terms of dipping their toe but not diving in,” said Minnan-Wong in a telephone interview. “I think that the [transit] commission is taking a balanced approach by going to three different vendors [for the first 30 BEBs].”

He added that testing the eBuses during winter conditions in Toronto is important, “because you don’t want to get an order and the things fall apart. Or they don’t start. Or there’s some mechanical problems.”

Minnan-Wong repeatedly said a 2016 a Columbia University report helped convince him BEBs are worth checking out.

The report asserts that each BEB saves $39,000/year over the 12-year lifespan of the bus compared to other types of buses because BEBs don’t use fuel and require less maintenance. There’s another possible $150,000/year savings from reduced healthcare costs due to fewer air-pollution-associated diseases among the residents of cities where BEBs are used. The report says this more than offsets the higher cost of BEBs.

But if Minnan-Wong has taken a few minutes to read the 2006 U.S. government study the Columbia University paper is based on, he knows the fuel efficiencies the 2006 study used — which are key to its conclusions — are from model-year 2002 buses. The 2006 study’s authors themselves admit that the diesel and CNG engines they studied were no longer in service in 2006, and that “newer engines from other manufacturers may have shown better results.” Moreover, the Columbia university analysis was published fully 10 years later, by which time the CNG, diesel and hybrid diesel technologies had improved even more.

Minnan-Wong and others at the TTC and its board aren’t fazed by that.

Neither are they batting an eye at a damning report on BYD’s BEBs published in the LA Timeson May 20, 2018.

LA Times investigation glossed over

The LA Times investigative report documented extensive problems with BYD’s BEBs purchased by Los Angeles Metro and transit agencies in Albuquerque, N.M., Denver, Col., and other jurisdictions.

In the article, Pulitzer-Prize-winning investigative reporter Paige St. John quoted from a Metro-commissioned 2016 expert report that concluded it would be years until battery technology was capable of replacing conventional buses, and that “currently available technology can cut most of the pollution at a tenth [of] the cost. ”

Yet St. John found a pattern of top LA officials being lobbied by BYD and then doggedly defending buying more of BYD’s BEBs, despite these buses having poor performance. For example, BYD gave one of the directors of LA Metro scripted remarks on how to convince other directors that BYD’s BEBs are superior to those of other manufacturers.

St. John also discovered that two city departments sought sole-source contracts for BYD, and “when the projects hit snags, managers told the staff that the purchases were ‘political’ and in one case to work around problems with the buses.”

She found documents showing that all Metro staff evaluators have rated BYD “as ‘unqualified’ or ‘marginal’ in meeting quality and reliability requirements.” St. John also found documentation of road tests and driving logs from a total of nine cities that “show variability in bus range, and averages below what the company [BYD] claims.” (Note that ranges are key to BEBs’ cost efficiencies.)

“[In addition], public officials in Albuquerque were so alarmed by production problems and severe range shortfalls on BYD’s newest product, a $1-million, 60-foot articulated bus, that they raised concerns about its $23-million contract,” the article said. “Mayor Tim Keller said a nearly 100-mile gap in driving range [between the range BYD promised and what the vehicles had in practice] could force the city to spend millions of dollars more on buses. ‘The whole thing is a bit of a lemon,’ Keller said, ‘and now we’ve got to learn to make lemonade.’”

Yet none of this was mentioned in a report to the next TTC board meeting, on June 12, by Vehicle Programs head Bem Case and Mike Macas. The pair recommended the TTC purchase by mid-2020 60 BEBs — including 10 from BYD as part of the first batch of 30, leaving the door wide open for buying many more buses from BYD — and another 847 BEBs by 2027.

St. John’s damning article also was the subject of only one, soft-ball question at the June board meeting. The question was from councillor and TTC commissioner Glenn De Baeremaeker, who is a fan of the BEB project, to Case.

Case replied,

“It [the article] does not give me any hesitation… to buy BYD buses. The article primarily focused on the concerns around lobbying, and… [via] our approach to buy 10 buses from each of three manufacturers, we… take… even the potential for that… out of the equation. And the other concerns raised [by] the article were around… production quality, and they were primarily focused on the earliest buses that BYD produced out of their Lancaster [Calif.] plant. They’ve since gone through a couple of generations of buses — one generation anyway — and so we would expect the quality to have improved since then.”

Case’s response ignores, among many other things, that St. John’s information encompasses some of the latest-generation BYD BEBs such as its 60-foot articulated bus.

The TTC board voted at that meeting to start buying only “zero-emission propulsion technology” starting in 2025, and to accept Case’s and Macas’s report, including the goal of purchasing 907 BEBs by 2027.

“TTC staff have TTC staff have acted with integrity and professionalism at all times as it relates to this procurement,” Stuart Green, the agency’s senior communications specialist, said in an emailed response to my request for a comment about the process for the planned BEB purchases.

Notwithstanding Green’s stance, what’s happening certainly appears to lack rigour and objectivity — particularly important attributes for such a huge project.

Low-balling BEB-cost numbers

Interestingly, the “cost-benefit analysis” section of the TTC staff report to the June 2018 board meeting does not include a cost-benefit analysis.

The staff report also shows relatively low costs for the BEBs project.

Green emailed the following information to correct per-BEB cost I quoted in my first article:

“The cost per bus is approximately $1.2 million for each of the 60 buses (including chargers). The total budget with approval as of the June 12th Board [meeting] is now $140m[illion], which includes those 60 buses, chargers, on-site energy storage systems as well as civil, mechanical and electrical work at three garages, one substation and one emergency backup generator.”

Neither Green nor the minutes or the report from the June board meeting state what design stage these estimates are from, but it is  likely 10 per cent design stage or earlier. Therefore, there’s a very high probability of an increase.

There appear to be other factors at play pulling the costs down, at least in the short term.

Steve Munro wrote in his June 11, 2018, blog entry that,

“[TTC] staff replied [to my queries by saying that] the updated figures [for the life cycle costs of BEBs in the June 2018 staff report] reflect revised estimates for power cost (lower) and capital cost (higher) that on balance produce a lower cost/km than in the November report. However, this assumes that the buses actually achieve the mileage per charge that is claimed.”

Perhaps the following sentences from an email I received from the TTC via a Freedom of Information request helps explain why the power-costs estimates are low. In that email, dated July 27, 2017, Mike Macas summarizes a meeting with Toronto Hydro that took place earlier that day.

Included in that summary:

“TH [Toronto Hydro] advised that infrastructure upgrades required should not drive TTC’s decision for making quantity of BEB’s to pilot; TH would find a way to support regardless” and “TH advised that TH owning/supplying/financing/leasing BEB batteries is possible.”

Therefore, part of the plan appears to pass some significant portions of the costs to other parties, making the TTC’s books look better in the short term. This is an old trick that unfortunately doesn’t mean taxpayers are off the hook: in fact, such interventions often end up increasing the bill to taxpayers.

What can we do to change this decision-making process? Remember that it’s an election year in Toronto. Call your councillor, particularly if he or she is one of the seven city councillors on the TTC board to say you object.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

Featured image: Survivors of the Nagasaki bomb walk through the destruction as fire rages in the background. (Source: Political Concern)

The third clause in the Bishop of Chelmsford’s motion at the General Synod Debate on the UN Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons:

(c) commit the Church of England to work with its Anglican Communion and ecumenical partners in addressing the regional and international security concerns which drive nations to possess and seek nuclear weapons and to work towards achieving a genuine peace through their elimination.

It was passed 260 for, 26 against, 21 abstentions.

The first six pages of an online search found no reference to this decision in any member of the mainstream media (MSM) secular press. Only one entry – from the Defence Journal – recorded the event.

Will MSM cloak today’s Anglican news with silence?

Political damage is being done by social media’s highlighting of the austerity-excused trials and deprivations of the poorest and most disabled. Today it has been announced that the church is now reaching out ‘primarily to people under 40-years-of-age who have no current connection with a church’ – on pioneering café-style premises in coastal areas, market towns and outer urban housing estates.

Threatening? If the basic tenets of Christianity are taken to heart, enormous damage will be done to the sales of:

• armaments,
• pornography
• illegal drugs,
• junk food,
• many TV programmes,
• gambling offers
• and some sections of the film industry.

And the legal profession’s earnings will slump.

President and former General Eisenhower would have approved of the Synod’s decision. He said:

“Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together”(farewell address)

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

From inception, democracy in Israel was pure fantasy. Now rights for Jews alone is official with Knesset enactment of apartheid rule over Palestinian citizens.

The new Basic Law, the equivalent of US constitutional law, way exceeds contentiousness.

It’s the Jewish state’s version of Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg Laws. Israel is to Palestinians what Hitler’s regime was to Jews – in both countries treated like subhumans, forced to endure virtually every type indignity, degradation and crime against humanity.

Palestinians and Israeli Arab citizens are discriminated against in virtually all aspects of their lives – their fundamental freedoms denied, their personal safety jeopardized by what the late Edward Said called “refined (Israeli) viciousness.”

Ahead of enactment of Israel’s Nation-State law, the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel said the following:

The Basic Law “falls within the bounds of absolute prohibitions under international law and is therefore illegitimate as a colonial law with characteristics of apartheid.”

Last Sunday, Adalah’s general director Hassan Jabareen said:

“The Nation-State Basic Law is illegitimate, as it establishes a colonial regime with distinct apartheid characteristics in that it seeks to maintain a regime in which one ethnic-national group controls an indigenous-national group living in the same territory while advancing ethnic superiority by promoting racist policies in the most basic aspects of life.”

Adalah attorney Sawsan Zaher earlier explained that the Nation-State Law conveys to Israeli Arab citizens that “Jewish rights are superior” to theirs.

Click here to read Adalah’s July 16, 2018 position paper on Israel’s Nation-State Law.

Separately, Adalah said

“(n)o country in the world today is defined as a democratic state where the constitutional identity is determined by ethnic affiliation that overrides the principle of equal citizenship.”

Enacting the measure illegitimately enshrines Jewish supremacy over equal rights for Arab citizens into Israeli Basic Law – what apartheid is all about.

It exceed the worst of South Africa’s version – including murder, extermination, enslavement, torture, arbitrary arrests, illegal imprisonments, denial of the right to life and liberty, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and other abusive acts imposed by Jews on Arabs.

Former UN Special Human Rights Rapporteur for Occupied Palestine, Richard Falk, earlier said

“Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid in relation to the Palestine people should be taken with the utmost seriousness by all those who affirm human solidarity and care about making visible the long ordeal of a suffering and vulnerable people.”

Writing for the Campaign to End Israeli Apartheid, Karine MacAllister earlier said:

It “involves or necessitates the denial of the other; of their presence, rights and existence on the land and reconstruction of the past, namely that the land was empty before the advent of Zionist settlement, hence the movement’s slogan, (creating the myth about) ‘a land without people for a people without land,” adding:

Zionism is “a sophisticated legal, social, economic and political regime of racial discrimination that has led to colonialism and apartheid as well as the dispossession and displacement of the Palestinian people.”

“Colonialism flourishes by separating indigenous people from their land and heritage.”

Article 7(1)(j) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court calls apartheid a crime, stating:

“For the purpose of this Statute, (a) ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

From inception, Israel stands guilty of virtually all of the above abuses and other high crimes against Palestinians – yet remains unaccountable because the world community supports the Jewish state, doing nothing to hold it accountable, nothing supporting fundamental Palestinian rights.

Apartheid is racism on steroids, institutionalized in Israel – now illegally codified under its Basic Law, defying international law, declaring the country to be the exclusive “nation-state of the Jewish people (and their) historic homeland…they have an exclusive right to…”

On Thursday, the measure was enacted by a 62 – 55 vote – officially adopting apartheid rule as the law of land, ending the myth of democratic rule once and for all.

Joint (Arab) List chairman Ayman Odeh denounced the bill, saying it

“declare(s) (Israel) does not want us here,” affirming “Jewish supremacy…tell(ing) us that we will always be second-class citizens.”

Netanyahu praised enactment of the apartheid law, calling it “a defining moment.”

Indeed so – revealing Israeli viciousness in the cold light of day, its discriminatory nature, its contempt for Palestinians rights, officially denying what’s affirmed under international laws, norms and standards.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Russia is continuing to diversify state reserves away from US debt. The latest data from the US Treasury shows that Russia’s share hit an 11-year minimum and totaled only $14.9 billion.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

As post-war Britain escaped from rationing in the 1950s a new ingredient arrived from the rainforests in Malaysia. This versatile, solid fat would provide an alternative to more expensive butter.

It was high-yielding, cheap to produce and it provided both the crunch and creaminess needed for a variety of manufactured foodstuffs.

But this miracle ingredient – palm oil – was set to ignite one of the most environmentally damaging practices of the 21st Century: deforestation.

Through deforestation, we have seen the loss of unique habitats for endangered species, premature death rates for local populations due to air pollution and a major contribution to climate change.

But with new certification schemes and corporate sustainability policies in place, palm oil is no longer linked to deforestation, right?

Wrong.

A football pitch every 25 seconds

At Ethical Consumer, we’ve been tracking the palm oil problem for over 20 years. But, as highlighted in our recent report, despite involvement from governments, the World Bank, environmental groups and certification bodies, the rate of deforestation due to the production of palm oil is increasing.

A football pitch sized patch of rainforest is lost every 25 seconds and 24 million hectares were destroyed in Indonesia alone between 1990 and 20152.

A growing global demand for palm oil and lack of control in the supply chain is allowing this deforestation to continue unchecked and it is crucial that we take action to stop it – now.

Where does the power lie?

Undoubtedly, a huge amount of the power to change this situation lies with global food manufacturers. Together they hold the purchasing power to transform the supply chain but they simply aren’t doing enough to bring about this change.

On paper, they look to be buying from certified palm oil sources and meeting their commitments to the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and other certification schemes, but this is obscuring an underlying problem.

Some of the palm oil used by the most popular brands is still being sourced from new plantations seeded after deforestation.

Spotlight on Mondelēz

We’ve put the spotlight on one of the major manufacturers known to be using this palm oil, in order to understand how deforestation palm oil is still entering the supply chain.

But they are by no means the worst offender on the issue – they score a middle ethical consumer rating. The way they report and present their palm oil usage does raise some interesting questions.

Mondelēz is a US company who owns many snack brands popular here in the UK – including Cadbury, Green & Blacks, Barny, Bel Vita, Tuc and Oreo. According to a recent WWF report into palm oil usage, they used 289,255 tonnes of palm oil in 2015 of which 96 percent was certified sustainable palm oil (CSPO).

Our investigation into Mondelēz’s 2017 RSPO filing and company policy shows that only 1.2 percent of their overall figure was segregated supply (down from 11 percent in 2016), meaning that the palm oil was kept separate from other supplies and could be fully traced back to the mills who processed it and the producers who grew it.

The vast majority of its CSPO was certified under the book and claim scheme, meaning that they bought credits through RSPO-certified suppliers.

By relying on third-party traders to take care of their supply, they have removed themselves from the checking process and therefore don’t fully understand their supply chain from producer to the factory.

We know that this book and claim process is often ineffective. Just last month Wilmar, a major trader for Mondelēz was investigated for its close family ties to Gama, a producer who was reported by Greenpeace to have destroyed more than 50,000 hectares of rainforest and tropical peatland in Indonesia in the past five years.

By devolving their role in the supply chain to a third party, Mondelēz is able to tick the CSPO box, without ensuring that the palm oil is from a deforestation-free supply.

Sadly they are not alone in doing this, and many of the companies we investigated in our recent guides to chocolate, bread, biscuits and margarine used this same method.

The clock is ticking

Mondelēz and other major brands made a commitment in 2010 under the Consumer Goods Forum (CGF) to clean up the supply chain within a decade, having faced pressure from environmental groups

With less than two years to effect these changes, Greenpeace unearthed evidence in March 2018, that none of the big food brands has yet to clean up their supply chains other than to release policies and join certification schemes.

Of the 16 global brands approached, eight refused to share the names of their traders and mills and of the other eight, including Mondelēz, there was proven evidence of palm oil sourced from producers linked to deforestation.

Mondelēz is not operating in isolation here. In truth, certification schemes are weaker than they could be and some of the palm oil in our food is still coming from land that was recently covered in virgin rainforest.

So, what needs to change?

Along with Greenpeace and other environmental action groups, we’re calling for global brands such as Mondelēz to take responsibility for their supply chains, to stop hiding behind traders and certification labels and meet their commitment to using only deforestation-free palm oil by 2020.

The power to make the biggest change sits with these brands and they must act now.

*

Mackenzie Denyer is a writer and researcher at Ethical Consumer. 

Tim Hunt is co-editor and director of Ethical Consumer. Ethical Consumer has developed the most sophisticated and simple to use, personal ethical rating system, based on detailed research of over 40,000 companies, brands and products.

Ethical Consumer gives consumers the information they need to make ethical purchasing decisions.  

Featured image is from The Ecologist.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: U.S. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, above, released the 29-page indictment of 12 Russians days before President Trump was due to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. (Internet Education Foundation / CC BY 2.0)

With great fanfare, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on Friday released a 29-page indictment, a byproduct of the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Ostensibly, this indictment cemented the government’s case against the Russians and punched a hole in the arguments of those, like President Trump, who have been labeling Mueller’s investigation a “witch hunt.” This, of course, is precisely what Rosenstein and Mueller hoped to achieve through their carefully timed, and even more carefully scripted, indictment.

The indictment was made public at a time when the FBI is under increasing scrutiny for the appearance of strong anti-Trump bias on the part of some of its senior agents. This purported bias in turn generated rational concerns on the part of the president’s supporters that it possibly influenced decisions related to investigations being conducted by the FBI into allegations of collusion between persons affiliated with the campaign of then-Republican candidate Trump and the Russian government. The goal of this alleged collusion was to interfere in the American electoral processes and confer Trump an advantage against his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

It also comes on the heels of a concerted effort on the part of the president and his political supporters to denigrate the investigation of Mueller and, by extension, the judgment and character of Rosenstein, who, since the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from the Russian investigation, has been giving Mueller his marching orders. Indeed, several conservative members of the House of Representatives are mulling the impeachment of Rosenstein,claiming he is refusing to cooperate with Congress by denying them access to documents related to the investigation that certain members of Congress, at least, deem relevant to their constitutionally mandated oversight function.

While the impeachment of Rosenstein is highly unlikely and the likelihood of the FBI being found guilty of its investigations being corrupted by individual bias is equally slim, in the world of politics, perception creates its own reality and the Mueller investigation had been taking a public beating for some time. By releasing an indictment predicated upon the operating assertion that 12 named Russian military intelligence officers orchestrated a series of cyberattacks that resulted in information being stolen from computer servers belonging to the Democratic Party, and then facilitated the release of this information in a manner designed to do damage to the candidacy of Clinton, Rosenstein sought to silence once and for all the voices that have attacked him, along with the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Mueller investigation, as a participant in a partisan plot against the president.

There is one major problem with the indictment, however: It doesn’t prove that which it asserts. True, it provides a compelling narrative that reads like a spy novel, and there is no doubt in my mind that many of the technical details related to the timing and functioning of the malware described within are accurate. But the leap of logic that takes the reader from the inner workings of the servers of the Democratic Party to the offices of Russian intelligence officers in Moscow is not backed up by anything that demonstrates how these connections were made.

That’s the point of an indictment, however—it doesn’t exist to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather to provide only enough information to demonstrate probable cause. No one would, or could, be convicted at trial from the information contained in the indictment alone. For that to happen, the government would have to produce the specific evidence linking the hacks to the named Russians, and provide details on how this evidence was collected, and by whom. In short, the government would have to be willing to reveal some of the most sensitive sources and methods of intelligence collection by the U.S. intelligence community and expose, and therefore ruin, the careers of those who collected this information. This is something the government has never been willing to do, and there is much doubt that if, for some odd reason, the Russians agreed to send one or more of these named intelligence officers to the United States to answer the indictment, this indictment would ever go to trial. It simply couldn’t survive the discovery to which any competent defense would subject the government’s assertions.

Robert Mueller knew this when he drafted the indictment, and Rob Rosenstein knew this when he presented it to the public. The assertions set forth in the indictment, while cloaked in the trappings of American justice, have nothing to do with actual justice or the rule of law; they cannot, and will never, be proved in a court of law. However, by releasing them in a manner that suggests that the government is willing to proceed to trial, a perception is created that implies that they can withstand the scrutiny necessary to prevail at trial.

And as we know, perception is its own reality.

Despite Rosenstein’s assertions to the contrary, the decision to release the indictment of the 12 named Russian military intelligence officers was an act of partisan warfare designed to tip the scale of public opinion against the supporters of President Trump, and in favor of those who oppose him politically, Democrat and Republican alike. Based upon the media coverage since Rosenstein’s press conference, it appears that in this he has been wildly successful.

But is the indictment factually correct? The biggest clue that Mueller and Rosenstein have crafted a criminal espionage narrative from whole cloth comes from none other than the very intelligence agency whose work would preclude Rosenstein’s indictment from ever going to trial: the National Security Agency. In June 2017 the online investigative journal The Intercept referenced a highly classified document from the NSA titled “Spear-Phishing Campaign TTPs Used Against U.S. And Foreign Government Political Entities.” It’s a highly technical document, derived from collection sources and methods the NSA has classified at the Top Secret/SI (i.e., Special Intelligence) level. This document was meant for internal consumption, not public release. As such, the drafters could be honest about what they knew and what they didn’t know—unlike those in the Mueller investigation who drafted the aforementioned indictment.

A cursory comparison of the leaked NSA document and the indictment presented by Rosenstein suggests that the events described in Count 11 of the indictment pertaining to an effort to penetrate state and county election offices responsible for administering the 2016 U.S. presidential election are precisely the events captured in the NSA document. While the indictment links the identity of a named Russian intelligence officer, Anatoliy Sergeyevich Kovalev, to specific actions detailed therein, the NSA document is much more circumspect. In a diagram supporting the text report, the NSA document specifically states that the organizational ties between the unnamed operators involved in the actions described and an organizational entity, Unit 74455, affiliated with Russian military intelligence is a product of the judgment of an analyst and not fact.

If we take this piece of information to its logical conclusion, then the Mueller indictment has taken detailed data related to hacking operations directed against various American political entities and shoehorned it into what amounts to little more than the organizational chart of a military intelligence unit assessed—but not known—to have overseen the operations described. This is a far cry from the kind of incontrovertible proof that Mueller’s team suggests exists to support its indictment of the 12 named Russian intelligence officers.

If this is indeed the case, then the indictment, as presented, is a politically motivated fraud. Mueller doesn’t know the identities of those involved in the hacking operations he describes—because the intelligence analysts who put the case together don’t know those names. If this case were to go to trial, the indictment would be dismissed in the preliminary hearing phase for insufficient evidence, even if the government were willing to lay out the totality of its case—which, because of classification reasons, it would never do.

But the purpose of the indictment wasn’t to bring to justice the perpetrators of a crime against the American people; it was to manipulate public opinion.

And therein lies the rub.

The timing of the release of the Mueller indictment unleashed a storm of political backlash directed at President Trump, and specifically at his scheduled July 16 summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. This summit was never popular with the president’s political opponents, given the current state of affairs between Russia and the U.S., dominated as they are by events in Syria and Ukraine, perceived Russian threats against the northern flank of NATO, allegations of election meddling in the U.S. and Europe, and Russia’s nuclear arsenal. On that last point, critics claim Russia’s arsenal is irresponsibly expanding, operated in violation of existing arms control agreements, and is being used to underpin foreign policy objectives through the use of nuclear blackmail.

President Trump has publicly stated that it is his fervent desire that relations with Russia can be improved and that he views the Helsinki summit as an appropriate venue for initiating a process that could facilitate such an outcome. It is the president’s sole prerogative to formulate and implement foreign and national security policy on behalf of the American people. While his political critics are free to criticize this policy, they cannot undermine it without running afoul of sedition laws.

Rosenstein, by the timing and content of the indictment he publicly released Friday, committed an act that undermined the president of the United States’ ability to conduct critical affairs of state—in this case, a summit with a foreign leader the outcome of which could impact global nuclear nonproliferation policy. The hue and cry among the president’s political foes for him to cancel the summit with Putin—or, failing that, to use the summit to confront the Russian leader with the indictment—is a direct result of Rosenstein’s decision to release the Mueller indictment when he did and how he did. Through its content, the indictment was designed to shape public opinion against Russia.

This indictment, by any other name, is a political act, and should be treated as such by the American people and the media.

*

Scott Ritter spent more than a dozen years in the intelligence field, beginning in 1985 as a ground intelligence officer with the US Marine Corps, where he served with the Marine Corps component of the Rapid Deployment Force at the Brigade and Battalion level.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Russia has stopped “inching towards de-dollarization” as I wrote about on July 3^rd, and has now energetically walked out of the list of largest holders of US government bonds, hence this update. For the two months ending in May 2018, Moscow has offloaded more than $80 billion in US Government debt obligations.

The $30 billion “minimum” listing Rubicon has been crossed by Russia.

As of the end of May, Russia had bonds worth only $ 14.9 billion. For comparison: in April, Russia was on the Treasury list with bonds totaling $48.7 billion. Even then it was offloading US$ debt securities as Russia owned in March over $96 billion. At the end of 2017, Russia had US treasury securities worth $102.2 billion. It is anyone’s guess what Russia will own when the June and July figures are released in August and September – probably less than today.

This simply serves as a confirmation that Russia is steadfastly following a conservative policy of risk diversification in several areas such as financial, economic, and geopolitical. The US public debt and spend is increasingly viewed as a heightened risk area, deserving sober assessment.

So where have all the dollars gone? The total reserves of the Russian Central Bank have not changed and remain at approximately the equivalent of $ 457 billion, so what we are seeing is a shift of assets to other central banks, other asset classes, just not US$ government bonds.

During the same time (April-May) as this US$ shift happened, the Russian Central Bank bought more than 1 million troy ounces of gold in 60 days, and continues.

For comparison sake, the maximum Russia investment in US public debt was in October 2010 totaling $176.3 billion. Today it is $14.9 billion.

The largest holders of US government bonds as of May are China ($ 1,183.1 billion), Japan ($ 1,048.8 billion), Ireland ($ 301 billion), Brazil ($ 299.2 billion), Great Britain ($ 265 billion).

Using the similar conservative metrics that the Russian Central Bank has been rather successfully applying through this geopolitically and economically challenging period with the US and the US Dollar, it may not stretch the imagination too much that other countries such as China may eventually follow suit. Who will finance the debt/spend then?

*

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

There are a number of elements in the recent release of an indictment of twelve named alleged Russian military intelligence GRU officers by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein looking into possible ties between Moscow and the Trump Administration that I find either implausible or even incoherent. But before considering that, it is necessary to consider the context of the announcement.

The Department of Justice, which had, based on evidence already revealed, actually interfered in the 2016 election more that Moscow could possibly have done, continued in that proud tradition by releasing the indictment three days before President Donald Trump was due to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Helsinki Summit between the two leaders was critically important to anyone interested in preserving the planet Earth as we know it and there was no reason at all to release a non-time sensitive document that was clearly intended to cast a shadow over the proceedings. In fact, the surfacing of the indictment might easily be explained as a deliberate attempt by a politicized Justice Department and Special Counsel Robert Mueller to torpedo President Trump over concerns that he might actually come to some understanding with Putin.

The 30-page long indictment is full of painstaking details about alleged Russian involvement but it makes numerous assertions that the reader is required to accept on faith because there is little or no evidence provided to back up the claims and the claims themselves could be false trails set up by any number of hostile intelligence services to implicate Moscow. From an intelligence officer’s point of view, there are even some significant areas where operational implausibility completely undermines the case being made.

The indictment identifies by name and position the twelve alleged GRU officers who “knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other, and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury (collectively the ‘Conspirators’), to gain unauthorized access (to ‘hack’) into the computers of US persons and entities involved in the 2016 US presidential election, steal documents from those computers, and stage releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 US presidential election.”

All twelve alleged GRU officers are described in detail, together with the cover mechanisms they reportedly used and the targets they pursued. But they are all in Russia and there is virtually no chance that they will be extradited to stand trial in Washington, which was certainly understood when the indictment was prepared. That means the “facts” as stated in the document will never be subjected to the normal judicial review process or discovery that takes place whenever someone is accused of a crime, which in turn means that information contained in the indictment will never be challenged.

The document itself also provides no information on how the Russian officers and their positions were identified, which suggests that it could have been a US hack or agent in place, either run by CIA or NSA, that came up with a list of those individuals connected to GRU cyber operations. That would be information involving sources and methods, codeword protected material beyond Top Secret.

If the GRU list is authentic, it would expose US ability to penetrate that organization, leading to Moscow tightening up security to the detriment of American intelligence. But it might alternatively be suggested that the drafters needed a group of plausible Russians and used a generic list provided by either CIA or NSA to come up with the culprits and then used those identities and the detailed information regarding them to provide credibility to their account. What they did not do, however, is provide the actual evidence connecting the individuals to the “hack/interference” or to connect the same to the Russian government. If the information in the indictment is completely accurate, which may not be the case, there is some suggestion that alleged Moscow linked proxies may have deliberately sought to undermine the campaign of Hillary Clinton to favor Bernie Sanders, but absolutely no evidence that they did anything to help Donald Trump.

Beyond what is or is not contained in the document itself, there is a clear misunderstanding regarding how a sophisticated intelligence organization, which certainly includes the GRU, operates. If there had been a large-scale Kremlin sanctioned plan to disrupt the US election, it would not be run by twelve identifiable GRU officers working with what appears to be only limited cover and resources. If the facts are correct, the activity might have been a routine probing, collecting and selective dissemination of information effort that all intelligence agencies engage in. The United States does so routinely in many countries, interfering in elections worldwide, far more than Russia with its limited resources, and even carrying out regime change.

If the Kremlin’s objective were truly to undermine American democracy, a task that is already being undertaken very ably by the GOP and Democrats, hundreds of officers would be involved, all working under deep cover and operating securely out of dispersed sites. And no one involved would be using computers connected to networks that could be penetrated to enable personal identification or discovery of the ultimate source of the activity. Everyone would be working in alias on stand-alone machines and the transmission of information would be done using cut-outs to break any chain of custody. A cut-out might consist of using thumb drives to transmit information from one computer to another, for example. There would be no sending or receiving of information by channels that could be identified by NSA or CIA and compromised.

So the idea that the United States government identified twelve culprits who were responsible for trying to overthrow American democracy is by any measure ludicrous, if indeed there was a major plan to disrupt the election at all. The indictment is little more than a political document seeking to undermine any effort by Donald Trump to establish rapprochement with Vladimir Putin. It will also serve to give fuel to the Democrats, who are still at a loss to understand what happened to Hillary Clinton, and Republican hawks like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Jeff Flake and Ben Sasse who persist in seeking to refight the Cold War. As Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin said in their Helsinki press conference, the coming together of the leaders of the world’s two most powerful nuclear armed countries is too important an opportunity to let pass. Cold Warriors in Washington should take note.

*

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

«Abbiamo da discutere su tutto, dal commercio al militare, ai missili, al nucleare, alla Cina»: così ha esordito il presidente Trump ieri al Summit di Helsinki. «È arrivata l’ora di parlare in maniera particolareggiata dei nostri rapporti bilaterali e dei punti nevralgici internazionali», ha sottolineato Putin. Ma a decidere quali saranno in futuro i rapporti tra Stati uniti e Russia non sono solo i due presidenti.

“Wir haben Diskussionen über alles, vom Handel bis zum Militär, von Raketen, über Atomtechnik bis hin zu China” erklärte Präsident Trump bei der Eröffnung des Gipfels von Helsinki. “Die Zeit ist gekommen, um im Detail über unsere bilateralen Beziehungen und die internationalen neuralgischen Punkte zu sprechen”, unterstrich Putin.

Aber nicht nur die beiden Präsidenten entscheiden über die Art der künftigen Beziehungen zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten und Russland.

Es ist kein Zufall, dass, gerade als der Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten im Begriff war, den russischen zu treffen, Sonderermittler Robert Mueller III Anklage gegen 12 Russen wegen Manipulation der Präsidentschaftswahlen in den USA erhoben hat, die in die digitalen Netze der Demokratischen Partei eingedrungen sein sollen, um die Kandidatin Hillary Clinton zu schädigen. Die Zwölf, die beschuldigt werden, Agenten des russischen Geheimdienstes Gru zu sein, werden offiziell “die Verschwörer” genannt und wegen “Verschwörung zur Begehung einer Straftat gegen die Vereinigten Staaten” angeklagt.

Gleichzeitig sagte Daniel Coats, Direktor des Nationalen Geheimdienstes und erster Geheimdienstberater des Präsidenten, über Russland: “Es ist ihre Absicht, unsere Grundwerte zu untergraben, die Demokratie zu untergraben”. Dann schlug er Alarm wegen der “Bedrohung durch Cyberangriffe, die sich an einem kritischen Punkt befindet”, ähnlich wie vor dem 11. September, nicht nur aus Russland, “dem aggressivsten ausländischen Agenten”, sondern auch aus China und dem Iran.

Gleichzeitig gaben britische “Ermittler” in London bekannt, dass der russische Geheimdienst Gru, der die Präsidentschaftswahlen in den Vereinigten Staaten sabotiert hat, derselbe ist, der in England einen ehemaligen russischen Agenten, Sergej Skripal, und seine Tochter vergiftet hat, die unerklärlicherweise ein extrem tödliches Gas überlebt haben.

Die politische Absicht dieser “Untersuchungen” ist klar: zu behaupten, dass der Kopf der “Verschwörer” der russische Präsident Putin ist, mit dem Präsident Trump trotz der großen parteiübergreifenden Opposition in den USA am Verhandlungstisch gesessen hat.

Nach der Anklage gegen die “Verschwörer” hatten die Demokraten Trump aufgefordert, das Treffen mit Putin abzusagen. Auch wenn es ihnen nicht gelungen ist, bleibt ihr Druck auf die Verhandlungen zwischen den USA und Russland stark. Was Putin von Trump zu bekommen versucht, ist einfach und kompliziert zugleich: die Spannungen zwischen den beiden Ländern zu lockern. Zu diesem Zweck schlug er Trump eine gemeinsame Untersuchung der “Verschwörung” vor, die dieser akzeptierte.

Es ist nicht bekannt, wie sich die Verhandlungen über die Kernfragen entwickeln werden: den Status der Krim, den Zustand Syriens, Atomwaffen und andere. Es ist auch nicht bekannt, was Trump im Gegenzug verlangen wird. Es ist jedoch sicher, dass jedes Zugeständnis benutzt werden kann, um Trump der Komplizenschaft mit dem Feind zu bezichtigen.

Diejenigen, die gegen eine Entspannung mit Russland sind, sind nicht nur die Demokraten (die mit einer Umkehrung der formalen Rollen die Rolle der “Falken” spielen), sondern auch viele Republikaner, darunter wichtige Vertreter der Regierung Trump selbst. Es ist das Establishment nicht nur in den USA, sondern auch in Europa, dessen Macht und Gewinne mit Spannungen und Kriegen verbunden sind.

Nicht die Worte, sondern die Fakten werden zeigen, ob die entspannende Atmosphäre des Gipfels von Helsinki Wirklichkeit wird. Vor allem mit einer Deeskalation der NATO in Europa, d.h. mit dem Abzug der US/NATO-Truppen, einschließlich der nuklearen Kräfte, die gegen Russland stationiert sind  und mit der Blockade der NATO-Osterweiterung.

Ø  Selbst wenn es in den Verhandlungen zwischen Putin und Trump zu einer Einigung über diese Fragen kommen sollte, wird letzterer dann in der Lage sein, sie umzusetzen?

Ø  Oder werden diejenigen, die entscheiden, die mächtigen Kreise des militärisch-industriellen Komplexes sein?

Eines ist sicher: Wir können in Italien und Europa nicht nur Zuschauer der Verhandlungen bleiben, von denen unsere Zukunft abhängt.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 17. Juli 2018

L’establishment USA dietro il Summit di Helsinki

Übersetzung: K.R.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

The governments of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, if their countries are to survive, must give up their deluded hopes of reaching agreements with the United States.  No such possibility exists on terms that the countries can accept.

American foreign policy rests on threat and force.  It is guided by the neoconservative doctrine of US hegemony, a doctrine that is inconsistent with accepting the sovereignty of other countries.  The only way that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea can reach an agreement with Washington is to become vassals like the UK, all of Europe, Canada, Japan, and Australia.  

The Russians—especially the naive Atlanticist Integrationists—should take note of the extreme hostility, indeed, to the point of insanity, directed at the Helsinki meeting across the entirety of the American political, media, and intellectual scene.  Putin is incorrect that US-Russian relations are being held hostage to an internal US political struggle between the two parties.  The Republicans are just as insane and just as hostile to President Trump’s effort to improve American-Russian relations as the Democrats, as Donald Jeffries reminds us.    

The American rightwing is just as opposed as the leftwing.  Only a few experts, such as Stephen Cohen and Amb. Jack Matlock, President Reagan’s ambassader to the Soviet Union, have spoken out in support of Trump’s attempt to reduce the dangerous tensions between the nuclear powers.  Only a few pundits have explained the actual facts and the stakes.

There is no support for Trump’s agenda of peace with Russia in the US foreign policy arena.  The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, spoke for them all when he declared that

“We must deal with Putin’s Russia as the rogue state it is.” 

Russia is a “ rogue state” simply because Russia does not accept Washington’s overlordship. Not for any other reason.

There is no support even in Trump’s own government for normalizing relations with Russia unless the neoconservative definition of normal relations is used.  By normal relations neoconservatives mean a vassal state relationship with Washington. That, and only that, is “normal.” Russia can have normal relations with America only on the basis of this definition of normal.  Sooner or later Putin and Lavrov will have to acknowledge this fact.

A lie repeated over and over becomes a fact.  That is what has happened to Russiagate.  Despite the total absence of any evidence, it is now a fact in America that Putin himself put Trump in the Oval Office.  That Trump met with Putin at Helsinki is considered proof that Trump is Putin’s lacky, as the New York Times and many others now assert as self-evident.  That Trump stood next to “the murderous thug Putin” and accepted Putin’s word that Russia did not interfere in the election of the US president is regarded as double proof that Trump is in Putin’s pocket and that the Russiagate story is true.

We can see now why neoconservative John Bolton arranged the Helsinki meeting.  It set Trump up for political execution by the media and Congress, both controlled by the military/security complex. In the United States there is zero independence, with the exception of Tucker Carlson, in the print and TV media, and zero independence in Congress.  These are controlled institutions, and Tucker will not be tolerated much longer.

The lie of Russian interference is now so firmly established that even the Open Letter published in The Nation and signed by luminaries such as Daniel Ellsberg, Noam Chomsky, and Gloria Steinem states:

“We must reach common ground to safeguard common interests—taking steps to protect the nation’s elections and to prevent war between the world’s two nuclear superpowers.” 

Even the most lucid Americans have to accept Russiagate as a fact and regard protecting our elections as important as preventing nuclear war.

There is no meaningful support in the Republican or Democratic party for Trump’s agenda of normalizing US/Russian relations.  The combination of a lie made into truth and the power of political campaign combinations from the military/security complex suffice to stifle any support for normalizing relations with Russia.  Any US Senator or Representative who supports Trump’s effort to remove Russia from the enemy category will find themselves confronted in their re-election with well-financed opponents declaring them to be traitors who supported Trump’s sell-out of America, while their own campaign contributions dry up.  

The American people who are not on the military/security payroll or otherwise dependent on this powerful lobby support peace and elected Trump for that reason, only to discover that a president who stands for peace with Russia is branded a traitor. 

It has happened many times before.  For example, in his history, The First World War, A. J. P. Taylor explained that all efforts to stop the disastrous war that destroyed Europe were blocked by smearing “as a defeatist, a pacifist, probably a traitor, every advocate of peace, or even of moderation.” As Taylor writes, the “top hats” wanted the money, and the “cloth hats” paid for it with their lives.  

What we are experiencing is that democracy is weak and dysfunctional when confronted with powerful lobbies capable of controlling explanations.  In America the control over explanations is so complete that the vast majority live in The Matrix.

The Russian media has ignored the American outpouring of hatred and insult against Trump for “selling out America” and has portrayed the Helsinki meeting positively as having established a road to better relations.  This Russian view ignores that Trump has no support in the US government or in the media to help him to build this road.  The Russian media desperately needs to become familiar with the  American response to Trump’s Helsinki meeting with Putin.  I have collected together a number of these responses in my recent columns, and the link in this column to Donald Jeffries provides a good sample of the Republicans’ rejection of Trump’s effort to repair the US-Russian relationship. 

Just as the World War I British, French, German, and Russian governments could not end the slaughter because they had promised victory and would be discredited, once the Russian government encourages the Russian people that better relations with America are in the making, the Russian government will be locked into delivering the better relations, and this will require the Russian government to give up more than it gains. Russian sovereignty will be part of the price for the agreement. 

If the Russians, desperate for Western acceptance, hold on to their delusion that Washington’s hegemony is negotiable, it will not only be at their own peril but also at the peril of all of humanity.

Postscript:  The rant in this URL in Salon, which I suspect is a CIA asset, by a non-entity of no merit or achievement is devoid of fact.  But it does stand as an accurate representation of the organized, orchestrated assault in the United States on truth and on those individuals committed to truth, such as Jill Stein and Julian Assange. As the goal is to denigrate Trump, it is not possible to believe the portrayal of the unidentified Republican state senator in the Salon account who lost his faith in Trump simply because Trump did not behave provocatively when he met with Putin. Nevertheless, the portrayal, even if fictional, is accurate in the sense that it represents the controlled explanation that is being fed to the American people and the subject peoples of Washington’s empire.  

The Russian media desperately needs to accurately translate and publish the Salon article in order for the Russian people to comprehend the impossibility of any agreement with the United States that leaves Russia a sovereign nation. The hatred of Russia that is being generated in America is extraordinary.  It can only lead to war.

Throughout the Western World truth and facts have lost their authority.  The West lives in lies, and this is the West that confronts the world.  It is pathetic to watch Lavrov and Putin continue, time and again, to appeal to facts and to truth when these mean nothing in the West. 

*

This article was originally published on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

Featured image: President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation hold a joint press conference | July 16, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks)

“The Cold War is a thing of the past.” By the time President Putin said as much during preliminary remarks at his joint press conference with President Trump in Helsinki, it was clear this would not stand. Not after so much investment by American conservatives in Cold War 2.0.

Russophobia is a 24/7 industry, and all concerned, including its media vassals, remain absolutely livid with the “disgraceful” Trump-Putin presser. Trump has “colluded with Russia.” How could the President of the United States promote “moral equivalence” with a “world-class thug”?

Multiple opportunities for apoplectic outrage were in order.

Trump: “Our relationship has never been worse than it is now. However, that changed. As of about four hours ago.”

Putin: “The United States could be more decisive in nudging Ukrainian leadership.”

Trump: “There was no collusion… I beat Hillary Clinton easily.”

Putin: “We should be guided by facts. Can you name a single fact that would definitively prove collusion? This is nonsense.”

Then, the clincher: the Russian president calls [Special Counsel] Robert Mueller’s ‘bluff’, offering to interrogate the Russians indicted for alleged election meddling in the US if Mueller makes an official request to Moscow. But in exchange, Russia would expect the US to question Americans on whether Moscow should face charges for illegal actions.

Trump hits it out of the park when asked whether he believes US intelligence, which concluded that Russia did meddle in the election, or Putin, who strongly denies it.

“President Putin says it’s not Russia. I don’t see any reason why it would be.”

As if this was not enough, Trump doubles down invoking the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server.

“I really do want to see the server. Where is the server? I want to know. Where is the server and what is the server saying?”

It was inevitable that a strategically crucial summit between the Russian and American presidencies would be hijacked by the dementia of the US news cycle.

Trump was unfazed. He knows that the DNC computer hard-drives – the source of an alleged “hacking” – simply “disappeared” while in the custody of US intel, FBI included. He knows the bandwidth necessary for file transfer was much larger than a hack might have managed in the time allowed. It was a leak, a download into a flash-drive.

Additionally, Putin knows that Mueller knows he will never be able to drag 12 Russian intelligence agents into a US courtroom. So the – debunked – indictment, announced only three days before Helsinki, was nothing more than a pre-emptive, judicial hand grenade.

No wonder John Brennan, a former CIA director under the Obama administration, is fuming.

“Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to exceed the threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin.”

How Syria and Ukraine are linked

However, there are reasons to expect at least minimal progress on three fronts in Helsinki: a solution for the Syria tragedy, an effort to limit nuclear weapons and save the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty signed in 1987 by Reagan and Gorbachev, and a positive drive to normalize US-Russia relations, away from Cold War 2.0.

Trump knew he had nothing to offer Putin to negotiate on Syria. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) now controls virtually 90% of national territory. Russia is firmly established in the Eastern Mediterranean, especially after signing a 49-year agreement with Damascus. 

President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation hold a working lunch | July 16, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Even considering careful mentions of Israel on both sides, Putin certainly did not agree to force Iran out of Syria.

No “grand bargain” on Iran seems to be in the cards. The top adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei, Ali Akbar Velayati, was in Moscow last week. The Moscow-Tehran entente cordiale seems unbreakable. In parallel, as Asia Times has learned, Bashar al-Assad has told Moscow he might even agree to Iran leaving Syria, but Israel would have to return the occupied Golan Heights. So, the status quo remains.

Putin did mention both presidents discussed the Iran nuclear deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action and essentially they, strongly, agree to disagree. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin have written a letter formally rejecting an appeal for carve-outs in finance, energy and healthcare by Germany, France and the UK. A maximum economic blockade remains the name of the game. Putin may have impressed on Trump the possible dire consequences of a US oil embargo on Iran, and even the (far-fetched) scenario of Tehran blocking the Strait of Hormuz.

Judging by what both presidents said, and what has been leaked so far, Trump may not have offered an explicit US recognition of Crimea for Russia, or an easing of Ukraine-linked sanctions.

It’s reasonable to picture a very delicate ballet in terms of what they really discussed in relation to Ukraine. Once again, the only thing Trump could offer on Ukraine is an easing of sanctions. But for Russia the stakes are much higher.

Putin clearly sees Southwest Asia and Central and Eastern Europe as totally integrated. The Black Sea basin is where Russia intersects with Ukraine, Turkey, Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Or, historically, where the former Russian, Ottoman and Habsburg empires converged.

A Greater Black Sea implies the geopolitical convergence of what’s happening in both Syria and Ukraine. That’s why for the Kremlin only an overall package matters. It’s not by accident that Washington identified these two nodes – destabilizing Damascus and turning the tables in Kiev – to cause problems for Moscow.

Putin sees a stable Syria and a stable Ukraine as essential to ease his burden in dealing with the Balkans and the Baltics. We’re back once again to that classic geopolitical staple, the Intermarium (“between the seas”). That’s the ultra-contested rimland from Estonia in the north to Bulgaria in the south – and to the Caucasus in the east. Once, that used to frame the clash between Germany and Russia. Now, that frames the clash between the US and Russia.

In a fascinating echo of the summit in Helsinki, Western strategists do lose their sleep gaming on Russia being able to “Finlandize” this whole rimland.

And that brings us, inevitably, to what could be termed The German Question. What is Putin’s ultimate goal: a quite close business and strategic relationship with Germany (German business is in favor)? Or some sort of entente cordiale with the US? EU diplomats in Brussels are openly discussing that underneath all the thunder and lightning, this is the holy of the holies.

Take a walk on the wild side

The now notorious key takeaway from a Trump interview at his golf club in Turnberry, Scotland, before Helsinki, may offer some clues.

“Well, I think we have a lot of foes. I think the European Union is a foe, what they do to us in trade. Now, you wouldn’t think of the European Union, but they’re a foe. Russia is a foe in certain respects. China is a foe economically, certainly they are a foe. But that doesn’t mean they are bad. It doesn’t mean anything. It means that they are competitive.”

Putin certainly knows it. But even Trump, while not being a Clausewitzian strategist, may have had an intuition that the post-WWII liberal order, built by a hegemonic US and bent on permanent US military hegemony over the Eurasian landmass while subduing a vassal Europe, is waning.

While Trump firebombs this United States of Europe as an “unfair” competitor of the US, it’s essential to remember that it was the White House that asked for the Helsinki summit, not the Kremlin.

Trump treats the EU with undisguised disdain. He would love nothing better than for the EU to dissolve. His Arab “partners” can be easily controlled by fear. He has all but declared economic war on China and is on tariff overdrive – even as the IMF warns that the global economy runs the risk of losing around $500 billion in the process. And he faces the ultimate intractable, the China-Russia-Iran axis of Eurasian integration, which simply won’t go away.

So, talking to “world-class thug” Putin – in usual suspect terminology – is a must. A divide-and-rule here, a deal there – who knows what some hustling will bring? To paraphrase Lou Reed, New Trump City “is the place where they say “Hey babe, take a walk on the wild side.”

During the Helsinki presser, Putin, fresh from Russia’s spectacular World Cup soft power PR coup, passed a football to Trump. The US president said he would give it to his son, Barron, and passed the ball to First Lady Melania. Well, the ball is now in Melania’s court.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

Early last month, at a tiny military post near the tumbledown town of Jamaame in Somalia, small arms fire began to ring out as mortar shells crashed down. When the attack was over, one Somali soldier had been wounded — and had that been the extent of the casualties, you undoubtedly would never have heard about it.

As it happened, however, American commandos were also operating from that outpost and four of them were wounded, three badly enough to be evacuated for further medical care. Another special operator, Staff Sergeant Alexander Conrad, assigned to the U.S. Army’s Special Forces (also known as the Green Berets), was killed.

If the story sounds vaguely familiar — combat by U.S. commandos in African wars that America is technically not fighting — it should. Last December, Green Berets operating alongside local forces in Niger killed 11 Islamic State militants in a firefight. Two months earlier, in October, an ambush by an Islamic State terror group in that same country, where few Americans (including members of Congress) even knew U.S. special operators were stationed, left four U.S. soldiers dead — Green Berets among them. (The military first described that mission as providing “advice and assistance” to local forces, then as a “reconnaissance patrol” as part of a broader “train, advise, and assist” mission, before it was finally exposed as a kill or capture operation.) Last May, a Navy SEAL was killed and two other U.S. personnel were wounded in a raid in Somalia that the Pentagon described as an “advise, assist, and accompany” mission. And a month earlier, a U.S. commando reportedly killed a member of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a brutal militia that has terrorized parts of Central Africa for decades.

And there had been, as the New York Times noted in March, at least 10 other previously unreported attacks on American troops in West Africa between 2015 and 2017. Little wonder since, for at least five years, as Politico recently reported, Green Berets, Navy SEALs, and other commandos, operating under a little-understood legal authority known as Section 127e, have been involved in reconnaissance and “direct action” combat raids with African special operators in Somalia, Cameroon, Kenya, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Tunisia.

None of this should be surprising, since in Africa and across the rest of the planet America’s Special Operations forces (SOF) are regularly engaged in a wide-ranging set of missions including special reconnaissance and small-scale offensive actions, unconventional warfare, counterterrorism, hostage rescue, and security force assistance (that is, organizing, training, equipping, and advising foreign troops). And every day, almost everywhere, U.S. commandos are involved in various kinds of training.

Unless they end in disaster, most missions remain in the shadows, unknown to all but a few Americans. And yet last year alone, U.S. commandos deployed to 149 countries — about 75% of the nations on the planet. At the halfway mark of this year, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM or SOCOM), America’s most elite troops have already carried out missions in 133 countries. That’s nearly as many deployments as occurred during the last year of the Obama administration and more than double those of the final days of George W. Bush’s White House.

Going Commando

“USSOCOM plays an integral role in opposing today’s threats to our nation, to protecting the American people, to securing our homeland, and in maintaining favorable regional balances of power,” General Raymond Thomas, the chief of U.S. Special Operations Command, told members of the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year. “However, as we focus on today’s operations we must be equally focused on required future transformation. SOF must adapt, develop, procure, and field new capabilities in the interest of continuing to be a unique, lethal, and agile part of the Joint Force of tomorrow.”

Members of the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command, assigned to the 23rd Special Tactics Squadron, provide security of a landing zone during a combat search and rescue exercise in support of Eager Lion 2017. Eager Lion is an annual U.S. Central Command exercise in Jordan designed to strengthen military-to-military relationships between the U.S., Jordan and other international partners. (Source: Public Domain)

Special Operations forces have actually been in a state of transformation ever since September 11, 2001. In the years since, they have grown in every possible way — from their budget to their size, to their pace of operations, to the geographic sweep of their missions. In 2001, for example, an average of 2,900 commandos were deployed overseas in any given week. That number has now soared to 8,300, according to SOCOM spokesman Ken McGraw. At the same time, the number of “authorized military positions” — the active-duty troops, reservists, and National Guardsmen that are part of SOCOM — has jumped from 42,800 in 2001 to 63,500 today. While each of the military service branches — the so-called parent services — provides funding, including pay, benefits, and some equipment to their elite forces, “Special Operations-specific funding,” at $3.1 billion in 2001, is now at $12.3 billion. (The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps also provide their special operations units with about $8 billion annually.)

All this means that, on any given day, more than 8,000 exceptionally well-equipped and well-funded special operators from a command numbering roughly 70,000 active-duty personnel, reservists, and National Guardsmen as well as civilians are deployed in approximately 90 countries. Most of those troops are Green Berets, Rangers, or other Army Special Operations personnel. According to Lieutenant General Kenneth Tovo, head of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command until his retirement last month, that branch provides more than 51% of all Special Operations forces and accounts for more than 60% of their overseas deployments. On any given day, just the Army’s elite soldiers are operating in around 70 countries.

In February, for instance, Army Rangers carried out several weeks of winter warfare training in Germany, while Green Berets practiced missions involving snowmobiles in Sweden. In April, Green Berets took part in the annual Flintlock multinational Special Operations forces training exercise conducted in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Senegal that involved Nigerien, Burkinabe, Malian, Polish, Spanish, and Portuguese troops, among others.

While most missions involve training, instruction, or war games, Special Forces soldiers are also regularly involved in combat operations across America’s expansive global war zones. A month after Flintlock, for example, Green Berets accompanied local commandos on a nighttime air assault raid in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, during which a senior ISIS operative was reportedly “eliminated.” In May, a post-deployment awards ceremony for members of the 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group, who had just returned from six months advising and assisting Afghan commandos, offered some indication of the kinds of missions being undertaken in that country. Those Green Berets received more than 60 decorations for valor — including 20 Bronze Star Medals and four Silver Star Medals (the third-highest military combat decoration).

For its part, the Navy, according to Rear Admiral Tim Szymanski, chief of Naval Special Warfare Command, has about 1,000 SEALs or other personnel deployed to more than 35 countries each day. In February, Naval Special Warfare forces and soldiers from Army Special Operations Aviation Command conducted training aboard a French amphibious assault ship in the Arabian Gulf. That same month, Navy SEALs joined elite U.S. Air Force personnel in training alongside Royal Thai Naval Special Warfare operators during Cobra Gold, an annual exercise in Thailand.

The troops from U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, or MARSOC, deploy primarily to the Middle East, Africa, and the Indo-Pacific regions on six-month rotations. At any time, on average, about 400 “Raiders” are engaged in missions across 18 countries.

Air Force Special Operations Command, which fields a force of 19,500 active, reserve, and civilian personnel, conducted 78 joint-training exercises and events with partner nations in 2017, according to Lieutenant General Marshall Webb, chief of Air Force Special Operations Command. In February, for example, Air Force commandos conducted Arctic training — ski maneuvers and free-fall air operations — in Sweden, but such training missions are only part of the story. Air Force special operators were, for instance, recently deployed to aid the attempt to rescue 12 boys and their soccer coach trapped deep inside a cave in Thailand. The Air Force also has three active duty special operations wings assigned to Air Force Special Operations Command, including the 24th Special Operations Wing, a “special tactics” unit that integrates air and ground forces for “precision-strike” and personnel-recovery missions. At a change of command ceremony in March, it was noted that its personnel had conducted almost 2,900 combat missions over the last two years.

Addition Through Subtraction

For years, U.S. Special Operations forces have been in a state of seemingly unrestrained expansion. Nowhere has that been more evident than in Africa. In 2006, just 1% of all American commandos deployed overseas were operating on that continent. By 2016, that number had jumped above 17%. By then, there were more special operations personnel devoted to Africa — 1,700 special operators spread out across 20 countries — than anywhere else except the Middle East.

Recently, however, the New York Times reported that a “sweeping Pentagon review” of special ops missions on that continent may soon result in drastic cuts in the number of commandos operating there. (“We do not comment on what tasks the secretary of defense or chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may or may not have given USSOCOM,” spokesman Ken McGraw told me when I inquired about the review.) U.S. Africa Command has apparently been asked to consider what effect cutting commandos there by 25% over 18 months and 50% over three years would have on its counterterrorism missions. In the end, only about 700 elite troops — roughly the same number as were stationed in Africa in 2014 — would be left there.

Coming on the heels of the October 2017 debacle in Niger that left those four Americans dead and apparent orders from the commander of United States Special Operations forces in Africa that its commandos “plan missions to stay out of direct combat or do not go,” a number of experts suggested that such a review signaled a reappraisal of military engagement on the continent. The proposed cuts also seemed to fit with the Pentagon’s latest national defense strategy that highlighted a coming shift from a focus on counterterrorism to the threats of near-peer competitors like Russia and China.

“We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists,” said Secretary of Defense James Mattis in January, “but great power competition — not terrorism — is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.”

A wide range of analysts questioned or criticized the proposed troop reduction. Mu Xiaoming, from China’s National Defense University of the People’s Liberation Army, likened such a reduction in elite U.S. forces to the Obama administration’s drawdown of troops in Afghanistan in 2014 and noted the possibility of “terrorism making a comeback in Africa.” A former chief of U.S. commandos on the continent, Donald Bolduc, unsurprisingly echoed these same fears.

“Without the presence that we have there now,” he told Voice of America, “we’re just going to increase the effectiveness of the violent extremist organizations over time and we are going to lose trust and credibility in this area and destabilize it even further.”

David Meijer, a security analyst based in Amsterdam, lamented that, as Africa was growing in geostrategic importance and China is strengthening its ties there,

“it’s ironic that Washington is set to reduce its already minimal engagement on the continent.”

This is hardly a foregone conclusion, however. For years, members of SOCOM, as well as supporters in Congress, at think tanks, and elsewhere, have been loudly complaining about the soaring operations tempo for America’s elite troops and the resulting strains on them.

“Most SOF units are employed to their sustainable limit,” General Thomas, the SOCOM chief, told members of Congress last spring. “Despite growing demand for SOF, we must prioritize the sourcing of these demands as we face a rapidly changing security environment.” Given how much clout SOCOM wields, such incessant gripes were certain to lead to changes in policy.

Last year, in fact, Secretary of Defense Mattis noted that the lines between U.S. Special Operations forces and conventional troops were blurring and that the latter would likely be taking on missions previously shouldered by the commandos, particularly in Africa.

“So the general purpose forces can do a lot of the kind of work that you see going on and, in fact, are now,” he said. “By and large, for example in Trans-Sahel [in northwest Africa], many of those forces down there supporting the French-led effort are not Special Forces. So we’ll continue to expand the general purpose forces where it’s appropriate. I would… anticipate more use of them.”

Earlier this year, Owen West, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, referred to Mattis’s comments while telling members of the House Armed Services Committee about the “need to look at the line that separates conventional operating forces from SOF and seek to take greater advantage of the ‘common capabilities’ of our exceptional conventional forces.” He particularly highlighted the Army’s Security Force Assistance Brigades, recently created to conduct advise-and-assist missions. This spring, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recommended that one of those units be dedicated to Africa.

Substituting forces in this way is precisely what Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, an Iraq War veteran and member of the Armed Services Committee, has also been advocating. Late last year, in fact, her press secretary, Leigh Claffey, told TomDispatch that the senator believed “instead of such heavy reliance on Special Forces, we should also be engaging our conventional forces to take over missions when appropriate, as well as turning over operations to capable indigenous forces.” Chances are that U.S. commandos will continue carrying out their shadowy Section 127e raids alongside local forces across the African continent while leaving more conventional training and advising tasks to rank-and-file troops. In other words, the number of commandos in Africa may be cut, but the total number of American troops may not — with covert combat operations possibly continuing at the present pace.

If anything, U.S. Special Operations forces are likely to expand, not contract, next year. SOCOM’s 2019 budget request calls for adding about 1,000 personnel to what would then be a force of 71,000. In April, at a meeting of the Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities chaired by Ernst, New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich noted that SOCOM was on track to “grow by approximately 2,000 personnel” in the coming years. The command is also poised to make 2018 another historic year in global reach. If Washington’s special operators deploy to just 17 more countries by the end of the fiscal year, they will exceed last year’s record-breaking total.

“USSOCOM continues to recruit, assess, and select the very best. We then train and empower our teammates to solve the most daunting national security problems,” SOCOM commander General Thomas told the House Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities earlier this year.

Why Green Berets and Navy SEALs need to solve national security problems — strategic issues that ought to be addressed by policymakers — is a question that has long gone unanswered. It may be one of the reasons why, since Green Berets “liberated” Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has been involved in combat there and, as the years have passed, a plethora of other forever-war fronts including Cameroon, Iraq, Kenya, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, the Philippines, Somalia, Syria, Tunisia, and Yemen.

“The creativity, initiative and spirit of the people who comprise the Special Operations Force cannot be overstated. They are our greatest asset,” said Thomas.

And it’s likely that such assets will grow in 2019.

*

Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch, a fellow at the Nation Institute, and a contributing writer for the Intercept. His latest book is Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead: War and Survival in South Sudan. His website is NickTurse.com.

“Global Research is the leading research source on the fundamental issues of war and peace, imperialism and resistance, on the financial crises and the alternatives… Prof Chossudovsky has provided a forum for cutting edge critical essays which challenge the principle pundits of the mass media.” 

— JAMES PETRAS (click for full list of articles) Bartle Professor Emeritus, Binghamton Universiy (New York) Research Associate, IDS St. Mary’s University (Halifax, Nova Scotia)

The destruction of the environment, the growing deficit of social justice, civil liberties, economic depression, the gnawing of worker’s rights, media disinformation, and so many other topics are all regularly focused on by Global Research. We are committed to giving readers critical coverage on these issues and much more.

Global Research does not seek financial support from private and public foundations. This is why we value every single donation and contribution made by our readers.

We encourage you to re-post Global Research articles on social media, cite them in your work, politely talk about them to friends, using them for group discussions, etc.

Please help support independent media! Scroll down to find out how you can help.

Donate online, by mail or by fax

Become a member of Global Research

Show your support by becoming a Global Research Member
(and also find out about our FREE BOOK offer!)

Browse our books, e-books and DVDs

Visit our newly updated Online Store to learn more about our publications. Click to browse our titles:

Join us online

“Like” our FACEBOOK page and recommend us to your friends!

Subscribe to our YouTube channel for the latest videos on global issues.

A note to donors in the United States:
Tax Receipts for deductible charitable contributions by US residents

Tax Receipts for deductible charitable contributions by US residents can be provided for donations to Global Research in excess of $400 through our fiscal sponsorship program. If you are a US resident and wish to make a donation of $400 or more, contact us at [email protected] (please indicate “US Donation” in the subject line) and we will send you the details. We are much indebted for your support.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: Israeli Education Minister, Naftali Bennett [Solidarity with Palestine Walter Herrman/Facebook]

Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennet has insisted that Israeli warplanes should drop bombs over the heads of Palestinian children flying kites into Israel, Ynet Net News reported.

During the meeting of the Israeli Security Cabinet on Sunday, which convened to discuss the latest Israeli attacks on the besieged Gaza Strip, Bennet said:

“Why not shoot anyone who launches aerial weapons at our communities, and at the cells?

“There is no legal impediment. Why shoot next to them and not directly at them? These are terrorists for all intents and purposes.”

When the Israeli Army Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot responded, saying:

“I don’t think shooting teens and children – who are sometimes the ones launching the balloons and kites – is right.”

He also asked Bennet:

“Are you proposing to drop a bomb from a plane on incendiary balloon and kite cells?”

Bennett stressed that the Israeli army should do this, pushing the army chief to say:

“I disagree with you. It’s against my operational and moral positions.”

Most of the Palestinians who fly the kites during the Great March of Return, which started on 30 March, are children.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

“Talking to people in Gaza, you realise how much the drones are burrowed into their daily lives,” says Daniel Tepper, an American photographer who has been researching and documenting the production and militarisation of drones in Israel since the 2014 conflict in Gaza.

In Arabic, unmanned aircrafts are referred to as ‘zenana’, local slang for the buzzing of a mosquito; in English ‘drones’ take their name from the male honeybee, and the monotonous hum it makes in flight. The Israeli military pioneered the use of drones in combat, employing the technology during the 1982 Lebanon War, and since then people in Gaza have become accustomed to the insidious noise of drones, sounding so close “they could reside beside us”, as Dr. Atef Abu Saif writes in his first-hand account of the 2014 conflict, The Drone Eats With Me.

“It’s like it wants to join us for the evening and has pulled up an invisible chair,” he adds.

Despite this familiarity, what’s most scary about the drones is the fact it’s always unclear why they’re out – if they’re doing surveillance, if they’re armed, or if they’re about to strike. During the summer of 2014 the people of Gaza lived under constant surveillance, so much so you couldn’t distinguish a star or a satellite from a drone at night, says Vittoria Mentasti, an Italian photographer who experienced the conflict while reporting on it. According to Hamushim, a human rights group based in Gaza, drone warfare was responsible for almost a third of the 1543 civilian casualties in the 2014 war.

“The use of drones ensures a state of fear that perpetuates war,” says Mentasti, who has been working with Tepper to document drones and their use in Gaza. “All people in Gaza now suffer from the traumatic experience of war and the lack of any illusion of safety makes it impossible to heal from trauma.”

An employee of the Israeli aerospace manufacturer, Aeronatuics Defense Systems, carries an Orbiter 2 UAV after a flight demonstration for foreign buyers in southern Israel, near the border with Gaza. © Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

Keen to find out more, Mentasti and Tepper joined forces in 2015 to photograph Israeli weapons conventions, and through this work gained access to the factories that manufacture drones. Israeli companies are a top global exporter of UAVs [Unmanned Aerial Vehicles], accounting for over 60% of all international sales since 1985. The industry reportedly made $4.62 billion between 2005 to 2012, mostly from foreign sales.

Mentasti and Tepper found that, paradoxically, the fully-automated drones are put together piece-by-piece by hand by skilled technicians.

“It’s like putting together a model aeroplane,” says Tepper, who adds that the factories they work in are there to sell as much as they are to produce, with the drones displayed next to promotional videos.

Visiting the factories, Tepper and Mentasti also found that many of the people and businesses associated with manufacturing UAVs believes they are humanitarian weapons, as they help reduce military and civilian casualties.

“They certainly believe they’re doing the right thing,” says Tepper.

In 2016, the duo decided to travel to Gaza and photograph the survivors of Israeli drone strikes. Travelling from Italy, Tepper came across a small infrared camera in an Apple store in Torino, made by a manufacturer that sells similar cameras for use on UAVs. He and Mentasti decided to use this camera on the project, to give an idea of what UAV operators see from their bases while remotely manning the machines.

“With infrared images, people on the ground look like insects, like little white spots running along the ground,” he says. “We don’t really feel anything from that. It’s graphic and removed like a video game. There’s no emotional pull when you see that kind of imagery.”

“We always envisioned this project to be multifaceted,” he adds. “Whatever situation we found ourselves in, we thought about what best way to express what we wanted to say.”

And what they wanted to say encompasses much more than Israel and its use of drones alone, he adds.

“It was about looking at the technology, and saying that what’s happening in Gaza is what’s happening when nations like the US, France, the UK, all these first-world nations, are using their drones all over the world.”

Ground control stations, used to pilot large drones, built inside of camouflaged shipping containers at Israel Aeronautic Industries’ main facility, near Ben Gurion Airport, Israel. Israel Aeronautic Industries (IAI) was founded in 1953 and the state-owned company is the largest aerospace and defense manufacturer in Israel. IAI has produced fighter jets, missiles, and spacecraft for domestic and international clients and is the largest manufacturer of UAV systems in Israel. This hangar is used as a showroom, exhibiting the many UAVs and related systems produced by the company.
 © Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

The Orbiter mini UAV inside the Aeronautics Defense Systems factory in Yavne, Israel. This highly autonomous UAV can locate and track moving targets while piloting itself along a patrol route without any minimal human control. The Orbiter is flown by military forces in over 30 countries including Mexico, Ireland, and Poland.

 The company displayed a new version of the Orbiter at the Paris Air show that includes 2.2kg warhead – turning the system into a loitering munition – essentially a kamikaze drone. These types of drones can remain above a target longer than any cruise missile and are also recoverable if the strike is aborted. The drone’s warhead is designed to detonate above a target showering an area 50 meters in diameter with shrapnel. © Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

Inside a hangar at Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) main facility, near Ben Gurion Airport, Israel. Founded in 1953, the state-owned company is the largest aerospace and defence manufacturer in the country. IAI has produced fighter jets, missiles, and spacecraft for domestic and international clients and is the largest manufacturer of UAV systems in Israel.

 This hangar is used as a showroom, exhibiting the many UAVs and related systems produced by the company. The small vehicle on the right is a scale-model of the Naval Rotary Unmanned Air Vehicle – a helicopter drone used for naval ISR missions. © Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

Yavne, Israel – A flight simulator inside the Tactical Robotic factory © Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

Gaza City – A warhead from an Israeli missile that failed to detonate and was recovered by a Palestinian explosive ordinance disposal unit after the 2014 war, also known as Operation Protective Edge. The warhead is encased by a fragmentation jacket composed of thousands of tiny, metal cubes. It is most likely from a LAHAT missile, which is manufactured by Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI) and can be fired from tanks, ships, helicopters, and UAVs © Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

Al-Faraheen, Gaza © Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

© Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

Ibrahim al-Remahi shows where he was injured in a drone strike that killed three of his children and wounded other members of his family during the 2014 war, in Wadi as-Salqa, Gaza Strip. “I evacuated my house with my family and I went with my sons to pray. We finished and suddenly the drone missile targeted us directly – the type of missile that has the small metal cubes. I received one cube on my neck and beside my liver here. And then there is my son who got killed directly in front of my eyes and the other he got injured with his nerves and he started to bleed a lot. After the missile targeted us I look around to see what’s happened. I realised that my first son got killed and the other is still bleeding and suddenly I realised that also I’m bleeding. So I start to put my hand on the parts that bleed and after that there was another rocket that hit my two daughters. The other missile targeted us and killed the sisters completely. After that I just saw myself in the ambulance and I spent more than 20 days in the hospital. I had a surgery in my stomach because of the shrapnel. I didn’t see my family that got buried because I woke up after 20 days.” Ibrahim al-Remahi. © Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

Inside the home of Helmi Abu Toha, which was targeted by multiple airstrikes during the 2014 war, in Gaza City. Before the airstrikes, Abu-Toha’s neighbour received a call from an Israeli agent telling him to warn the Abu-Toha family to evacuate their house immediately. Hearing his neighbour’s shouting, Abu-Toha began moving his family out of their home when the building was hit with a small munition that exploded on the roof. This tactic, first employed by the Israeli Air Force and later adopted by the United States, is known as a ‘roof knocking’. It is used to warn those inside a targeted building to evacuate before the next strike, which is usually much more destructive. The warning shot is probably fired by a drone in most cases. Abu-Toha and his family managed to escape before the building was hit again. A bomb penetrated through four floors and ended up in the basement without exploding. The Israeli Air Force sometimes drops inert, concrete filled bombs in an effort to reduce collateral damage. Abu-Toha’s building sustained significant damage and a small food market the family ran out of the first floor was destroyed. They do not know why the building was targeted. “It’s so amazing in any moment this house could be targeted again. Any way, any clashes, when they break the ceasefire for sure I will evacuate my house because I will not feel safe anymore in this house…I just would like to know why they targeted our house. What’s the goal for targeting my house?” Helmi Abu Toha
. © Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

© Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

Shuja’iyya, Gaza – Eslam Shamali stands amid the rubble of her destroyed home. Eslam’s brother was a Hamas commander who died during the 2014 war, houses owned by their family were destroyed by the Israeli military during heavy fighting in their neighbourhood. © Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

Wadi al-Salqa, Gaza Strip. Shrapnel-damaged walls at the site of a drone strike that killed a fifteen year old boy in 2012. © Vittoria Mentasti and Daniel Tepper

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Obsessive media focus on President Trump’s personal indecencies undoubtedly contributes to important news stories not seeing the light of day. In that regard, it’s no wonder the U.S. public is generally unaware of U.S. military interventions in parts of the world, particularly in Latin America. That way, U.S. imperial excess gets a pass.

Political ramifications would be more likely if stories like two recent good examples from Argentina were known about. One of them is a warm-up to the other, which is the main show here.

On July 12, a Hercules C-130 U.S. military transport plane landed at a military base near Buenos Aires with at least eight U.S. Special Forces troops on board, along with “arms, explosives, and head gear.” They will be preparing 40 police officers from Argentina’s “Special Group for Federal Operations” to take charge of security for a two-day meeting of the G-20 group of wealthy nations set for Buenos Aires beginning on November 30. Argentina and Brazil are the only Latin American members of the G-20 group.

The U.S. government will pay most of the $1.5 million cost of the training project. The U.S. soldiers belong to the “Special Operations Command” of the U.S. Southern Command. They’ll be in the country until August 3.

Argentina’s Law 25.880 requires that the government seek congressional approval for the entry of foreign troops. That did not happen with these U.S. soldiers. A government spokesperson emphasized that they will “be strengthening relations and ties of friendship between both countries.”

As acolytes of the market economy and expropriators of natural resources, the two nations enjoy an affinity, which is oxygen for a U.S. project underway now in Neuquén. That southwestern city of 340,000 people is the largest in Argentina’s Patagonia region.

A coalition known variously as the “Multi-Sectorial [Group] for Territorial Sovereignty,” or the “Multi-Sectorial for No to Yankee Bases” held a meeting in Neuquén on June 27. The organization is made up of 60 labor, political, and social organizations. Spokesperson Marcela Escobar informed the local press the meeting was about “the imminent installation of a U.S. base in Neuquén [which was being] presented deceitfully as something humanitarian.”

The new base, said Escobar, is “at the side of the Northern Highway, next to the international airport and the Petroleum Route, the road to Vaca Muerta (Dead Cow).”

Vaca Muerta, it must be explained, is an expanse of 11,583 square miles extending across several provinces in the Pampas. Underground deposits there of shale oil and shale gas are huge. The U.S. Energy Information Administration explains:

“Argentina has world-class shale gas and shale oil potential—possibly the most prospective outside of North America—primarily within the Neuquén Basin. (emphasis added) … Significant exploration programs and early-stage commercial production are underway in the Neuquén Basin by Apache, EOG, ExxonMobil, TOTAL, YPF, and smaller companies.”

According to Buenos Aires’s Clarín newspaper,

“Global investment in the unique [Vaca Muerta] deposits will exceed $100 billion in equipment and structures over the next 10 years. U.S. companies will be providing most of that money.”

It’s by no means accidental, therefore, that a U.S. base is being constructed in such a place, and in an area too, one adds, with large aquifers of fresh water.

The base will cost $2 million. U.S. embassy spokespersons say American troops will be helping out with natural disasters. Provincial officials, however, identify the installation as a “military base.” The Southern Command was to have established a base in Neuquén in 2012, but held off in the face of protests against a base proposed for Chaco province.

Argentina’s government is transferring troops to the Neuquén area where, according to a military spokesperson, they “will…be able to move immediately in case of eventual conflict in the region, especially in the petroleum zone.”

Marcela Escobar’s June 27 meeting and her group’s subsequent press conference concerned their demonstration opposing the Neuquén base that took place on July 9, which is Argentina’s Independence Day. According to a report,

“labor union representatives, opposition political parties, and social organizations gathered at a monument to liberation hero San Martin and then traveled on the Northern Highway to the location of the new civil defense center that the U.S. Southern Command has donated.”

A document was circulated saying that,

“Today there’s nothing to celebrate…. We are met in the place where the national and provincial governments are about to install a U.S. military base.”

Speakers rejected the supposed “humanitarian” objectives of the base, because

“these can change and the base is ready to be fully activated in the event of uprisings by workers and people who may want to reclaim for themselves the production of [natural] gas and petroleum.”

Maria Ortega of the House of Friendship with Cuba reminded fellow demonstrators that the United States “invades countries to overthrow their governments, and destabilizes governments that are for the people.” Indigenous leader Jorge Nahuel declared,

“We know the United States has interests through its corporations and petroleum multinationals they need to protect.… [But] they know too that people are mobilized and they need to contain that reaction…and killings don’t matter to them.”

Other U.S. bases are on the way in Argentina. One in Misiones, in the North near the “Triple Border” with Brazil and Paraguay, is programmed to combat narco-trafficking and terrorism. Another will be in Ushuaia in Tierra del Fuego. Scientific purposes are spoken of. There’s a proposal for yet another in Jujuy province, in the country’s extreme northwest where massive deposits of lithium are located.

Very likely the role of U.S. bases, at least in Latin America, is to make real the U.S. concept of mobilizing national alliances to serve U.S. purposes. That strategy was evident at a gathering of regional military forcesin November 2017 at Tabatinga, Brazil, near the convergence of three nations’ borders. Speculation at the time had it that the training exercises were directed toward possible military action against Venezuela.

Possible scenarios for Neuquén include these: a political movement cropping up in neighboring Chile led by a latter-day Salvador Allende, indigenous rebellions nearby or across borders, and oil-worker unionists taking on old ideas of national independence and regional solidarity.

The potential exists for violent confrontations. Eventually, perhaps, the reasons why local activists, bystanders, and minders of corporate interests might die in such circumstances will be unacceptable in the United States. The U.S. citizenry, hardly anti-imperialist, might lose heart at the deaths of loved ones in the Argentine Pampas. Someday they may even reject their civilization’s addiction, no matter the toll, to fossil fuels as drivers of production.

*

W.T. Whitney Jr. grew up on a dairy farm in Vermont and now lives in rural Maine. He practiced and taught pediatrics for 35 years and long ago joined the Cuba solidarity movement, working with Let Cuba Live of Maine, Pastors for Peace, and the Venceremos Brigade. He writes on Latin America and health issues for the People’s World.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

In terms of suffering caused, there is often not, in fact, much to choose between dismembering and burning people alive with high explosives, shredding them with shrapnel, and choking them with poison gas. Modern ‘conventional’ weapons can be far more cruel and devastating than, for example, chlorine gas. But chemical weapons, prohibited by international law, are extremely potent in allowing Western ‘humanitarians’ to justify ‘intervention’ in response to crimes – real, hyped or imagined – that the West has itself far surpassed using more respectable forms of mass murder.

Noam Chomsky has observed that

‘propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state’.

This is certainly true for social control at home, but propaganda also allows nominally democratic states to wield their military bludgeons abroad in much the same way as totalitarian states.

Thus, in April, it happened again: the entire corporate media system rose up with instant certainty to damn an enemy state for crimes against humanity on April 7, in Douma, Syria.

This was not acceptable death by bomb and bullet; this was a nerve gas attack. The villainous agent on every journalist’s lips: sarin, a highly toxic synthetic organophosphorus compound that has no smell or taste, but which quickly kills through asphyxiation.

As we discussed at the time, there was no question that this was a repetition of the fake justification for war to secure non-existent Iraqi WMDs, or to prevent a fictional Libyan massacre in Benghazi. Instead, the Guardian editors insisted that this certainly was ‘a chemical gas attack, orchestrated by Bashar al-Assad, that left dead children foaming at the mouth’. From the safety of his Guardian office, assistant editor Simon Tisdall hammered the drum for a war that risked even nuclear confrontation:

‘It means destroying Assad’s combat planes, bombers, helicopters and ground facilities from the air. It means challenging Assad’s and Russia’s control of Syrian airspace. It means taking out Iranian military bases and batteries in Syria if they are used to prosecute the war.’

By contrast, Scott Ritter – a former chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq who understands the issues – was more cautious:

‘The bottom line, however, is that the United States is threatening to go to war in Syria over allegations of chemical weapons usage for which no factual evidence has been provided. This act is occurring even as the possibility remains that verifiable forensic investigations would, at a minimum, confirm the presence of chemical weapons…’

No matter, on April 14, three days after Ritter’s article appeared, the US, UK and France attacked Syria in response to the unproven allegations.

Robert Fisk of the Independent visited Douma and spoke to a senior doctor who works in the clinic where victims of the alleged chemical attack had been brought for treatment. Dr Rahaibani told Fisk what had happened that night:

‘I was with my family in the basement of my home three hundred metres from here on the night but all the doctors know what happened. There was a lot of shelling [by government forces] and aircraft were always over Douma at night – but on this night, there was wind and huge dust clouds began to come into the basements and cellars where people lived. People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a “White Helmet”, shouted “Gas!”, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning.’

When Fisk’s report wasn’t ignored, it was sneeringly dismissed. A headline in The Times read:

‘Critics leap on reporter Robert Fisk’s failure to find signs of gas attack’

The Times, which is no stranger to controversy, suggested that there were big question marks over Fisk’s record:

‘Fisk is no stranger to controversy.’

 No Organophosphates Found

On 6 July 2018, the Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), issued an interim report on the FFM’s investigation regarding the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma. The passage that jumped out of the report:

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

No sarin! But is it possible that any nerve agents had degraded and disappeared before OPCW investigators reached the site? An April 17, Guardian article had reported:

‘The OPCW has been racing against the clock to collect samples from the site of the attack, a three-storey house in Douma, in which scores of people died in a basement. Jerry Smith, who helped supervise the OPCW-led withdrawal of much of Syria’s sarin stockpile in 2013, said samples of nerve agent rapidly degrade in normal environmental conditions… The Russian military and Syrian officers have had access to the house since last Thursday, raising fears that the site may have been tampered with. However, Smith said it was likely that residual samples of nerve agent would remain for at least another week, even after an attempted clean-up.’

The OPCW later commented:

‘On 21 April 2018, after security concerns had been addressed, the FFM team conducted its first visit to one of the alleged sites of interest, and it was deemed an acceptable risk to enter Douma…’

In other words, OPCW’s race ‘against the clock’ appeared to have been successful. Charles Shoebridge a former Scotland Yard detective and counter terrorism intelligence officer, observed:

‘if OPCW find no traces, likely not due to any inspection delay’

Before we examine ‘MSM’ reaction to the OPCW report, particularly to the failure to find ‘organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products’, let’s look at their initial reaction to claims of a nerve agent attack on April 7.

Initial Response – ‘Those Symptoms Don’t Come From Chlorine’

CNN reported on April 14:

‘Senior US officials expressed confidence Saturday that both chlorine and sarin gas were used in Syria’s alleged chemical weapons attack on the Damascus enclave of Douma last week…’

CNN cited reports ‘from media, nongovernmental organizations and other open sources’ that ‘point to miosis – constricted pupils – convulsions and disruptions to central nervous systems. Those symptoms don’t come from chlorine. They come from nerve agents… It’s a much more efficient weapon, unfortunately, the way the regime has been using it, and it’s resulted in higher deaths, it resulted in terrible pictures.’

The Financial Times cited Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commanding officer of the UK’s chemical biological radiological and nuclear regiment (see here on his credibility as an impartial source):

‘There’s no doubt this was a major chemical weapons attack. The big question is whether it was chlorine or sarin. I am favouring a mix of the two.’ (David Bond and Rebecca Collard, ‘Experts say gas attack proof will take weeks: Civil war. Douma Inspectors are struggling to access site of alleged atrocity as Assad’s troops move in,’ Financial Times, 12 April 2018)

A Telegraph article opened with this harrowing line:

‘The victims were found exactly where they had been when the gas hit. Their silent killer had given little warning.’

This clearly suggested a very powerful nerve agent, as the article explained:

‘Medics on the ground reported smelling a chlorine-like substance, but said the patients’ symptoms and the large death toll pointed to a more noxious substance such as nerve agent sarin.

‘”The number of casualties is so high and that’s not typical for chlorine,” said Dr Ahmad Tarakji, president of the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), which assists hospitals in Eastern Ghouta. “Unfortunately, because of a lack of resources, we can’t take blood samples.”‘

The claims did indeed suggest something much more powerful than chlorine, as The Daily Mail made clear in a report also citing de Bretton-Gordon:

‘If it was chlorine, they could have escaped. But they died after just taking a few steps.’ (Vanessa Allen, ‘Little girl left foaming at the mouth by horrific gas attack,’ Daily Mail, 16 April 2018)

The Mail cited an ‘activist’ making the same point:

‘Ibrahim Reyhani, a White Helmet civil defence volunteer, said anyone who touched the bodies started getting sick, and said he believed a mixture of sarin and chlorine had been used.

‘He told the Sunday Times: “If it’s just chlorine, if you smell it you can escape. But sarin you breathe and it kills you.”

The Telegraph published an op-ed by de Bretton-Gordon:

‘There have been a number of chlorine attacks, but it would appear that chlorine, although outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention, is below the threshold for the UK and France to strike.

‘Saturday’s attack, with so many deaths and casualties, looks possibly to be a mixture of chlorine and the nerve agent sarin, and this atrocity must surely stretch above their threshold for action.’

It is worth reiterating again – as media responses to the OPCW’s latest report, conspicuously, have not – that chlorine was not a sufficiently deadly agent to cause either the claimed level of carnage or the claimed level of Western moral outrage. In 2015, Barack Obama noted: ‘Chlorine itself, historically, has not been listed as a chemical weapon.’

Charles Shoebridge commented:

‘while headlines of chemical weapons are undoubtedly dramatic, the relatively low lethality of chlorine makes it an ineffective – and therefore arguably also unlikely – choice of weapon…

‘Indeed, given the low toxicity of the allegedly small amounts used and the unpleasant bleach smell that always betrays chlorine’s presence, in most instances people could avoid being killed by simply walking away – another indication of its near uselessness as a weapon. Perhaps the only way it could be tactically effective is if used to drive people from trenches or bunkers to allow them to then be killed with bombs and bullets – but again, the amounts of chlorine needed would be far more than is alleged, and the accuracy needed to target in this way is unlikely to be achieved using unguided rockets as alleged this week in east Ghouta, or by dropping a “barrel bomb” from a helicopter.’

Chlorine gas was not included in the list of Syrian chemical weapons reported to the OPCW. It is an unsophisticated weapon that could also be deployed by ‘rebel’ forces and to which they have had access. The OPCW reported in August 2016: ‘Chlorine is available to all parties in the Syrian Arab Republic.’

A Guardian leader also linked the alleged attack in Douma to sarin:

‘Dozens of civilians in the Douma district were killed by Syrian government chemical attacks on Saturday.’

It continued:

‘This is not the first time this has happened. Since the use of sarin at Khan al-Assal in 2013 there have been dozens of chemical attacks by the regime.’

Peter Hitchens commented on the Guardian’s coverage in the Mail on Sunday:

‘Here is the Guardian, on 9th April 2018: “Aid workers and medics described apocalyptic scenes in the besieged city of Douma, where at least 42 people have died from what appears to be a chemical attack, as they scrambled to save the survivors of the latest atrocity in Syria…

‘”Doctors said the symptoms had been consistent with exposure to an organophosphorus substance.”‘

Hitchens asked:

‘Which doctors? Note the absence of named, checkable sources in a story written some distance from Damascus. This was typical of almost all western media reports of the episode at the time.’

Hitchens observed that OPCW had found no traces of organophosphates but that ‘The quoted “doctors”, being unidentified, cannot now be approached to ask for their response to this.’

Responding To OPCW’s July 6 Report

The skwawkbox website noted that the BBC had covered, and distorted, OPCW’s July 6 report. A BBC headline read:

‘Syria attack was chlorine gas – watchdog

‘The deadly attack in Douma in April left dozens of civilians dead and caused and international outcry.’

This was complete invention. As skwawkbox commented: ‘the OPCW report emphatically does notsay that chlorine gas was used‘. The report actually said:

‘Along with explosive residues, various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is full chain of custody. Work by the team to establish the significance of these results is on-going. The FFM team will continue its work to draw final conclusions.’ (Our emphasis)

Chlorinated organic chemicals are extremely common, found in degreasers, cleaning solutions, paint thinners, pesticides, resins, glues, and many other mixing and thinning solutions. The BBC amended the article, which later read:

‘The report said two samples from gas cylinders recovered at the scene tested positive for chlorine.’

Skwawkbox commented again:

‘This is a classic example of a technically-correct claim that is completely misleading.

‘The [OPCW] report does note the presence of chlorine in some samples tested from the cylinders – but not chlorine gas or the residues that would be expected from its reaction with other substances…

‘The relevant page of the OPCW’s full report states that no ‘relevant chemicals’ were found from a swab inside the opening of one cylinder:

‘In debris and on other items around the cylinder, chlorine compounds were found – but these are common compounds that would be unlikely to be formed simply by chlorine reacting with something on site.’

In similar vein, Alec Luhn, the Telegraph’s Russia correspondent, tweeted:

‘The April chemical attack in Douma was caused by chlorine gas, the OPCW says. Or it was completely staged, if you still believe the Russian authorities’

Sharmine Narwani, a writer, commentator and analyst covering Middle East geopolitics, replied brusquely but accurately:

‘No, the OPCW didn’t say that. It found traces of chlorine on the scene, which it would find in your house or office or water supply too, if sampled. Try actual #journalism.’

OffGuardian noted several headlines covering OPCW’s findings. Reuters reported:

‘Chemical weapons agency finds “chlorinated” chemicals in Syria’s Douma’

The Independent wrote:

‘Syrian conflict: Chlorine used in Douma attack that left dozens of civilians dead, chemical weapons watchdog finds’

As Off-Guardian noted, the headlines should have read: No nerve agents found.

Remarkably, these rare mentions aside, the OPCW interim report has been ignored by most major newspapers and media, including the Guardian.

*

Featured image is from Media Lens.

---

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  

Featured image: French President Emmanual Macron meets with African leaders at AU summit in Mauritania, July 2, 2018

On July 1-2, 2018, the 31^st Ordinary Summit of the African Union (AU) was held in the Mauritanian capital of Nouakchott under the theme of “Winning the Fight against Corruption: A Sustainable Path to Africa’s Transformation.”

This gathering took place amid the burgeoning challenges facing the African continent involving the efforts to realize a meaningful peace process in the Republic of South Sudan, an ongoing independence movement to liberate the Western Sahara from Moroccan occupation, gender equality and end to violence against women, the recently-announced African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and the role of imperialism as it relates to the question of national and regional security.

An Elusive Peace in South Sudan

Several days prior to the convening of the AU Summit, a peace agreement was signed in Khartoum, Republic of Sudan, bringing together President Salva Kiir and opposition leader Reik Machar. For over three years, the government  and ruling party, Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) in Juba, has been split leading to the declaration of the SPLM in Opposition (SPLM-IO) headed by Machar.

Under the June 23 deal which was designed to go into effect on June 27, Machar is to be reinstated as Vice President of South Sudan. Nonetheless, just hours after the ceasefire was scheduled to begin there were reports of violations from both the SPLM and the SPLM (I-O). 

During the week of July 16 the United Nations Security Council imposed an arms embargo against Juba. Nonetheless, neighboring head-of-state President Yoweri Museveni has called for the lifting of sanctions by European states on South Sudan. Museveni made this statement while he met with a visiting official delegation from Britain which included the Minister of State for the Armed Forces Mark Lancaster. 

Despite these promising developments, other opposition groups within South Sudan have complained of not being consulted by the two main tendencies, SPLM and SPLM (I-O). The South Sudan Opposition Alliance (SSOA) has stated that it is awaiting the governance agreement that was scheduled to go into effect on July 17. Meanwhile the SPLM Leaders Former Political Detainees (SPLM—FPD) is calling for greater AU involvement in the discussions expressing distrust over what they claim to be the lack of transparency in the process being primarily led by the East African Inter-regional Authority on Development (IGAD). 

Western Sahara: The Quest for National Independence

A major anti-colonial struggle being waged by the Polisario Front and the Sahwari Arab Democratic Republic (SADR), which is recognized by the AU, has become a more complicated situation in light of the readmission of the Kingdom of Morocco in 2017. Morocco had remained outside the former Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the AU for more than three decades due to its support for the liberation of the people in this former Spanish colony which has been occupied for over 40 years by the neighboring monarchy. 

According to a report on the AU Summit in Mauritania published by the Journal of Cameroon, it says:

“The African Union has renewed its resolve to seek more engagement with the United Nations to resolve the unresolved question of the Western Sahara, a territory under Moroccan control. In a communiqué at the end of the 31st AU Heads of State Summit in the Mauritanian capital Nouakchott on Monday, the 54-member continental body said its members have agreed to support ongoing efforts led by the UN to broker a lasting and mutually agreeable solution to the decades-old crisis.”

This same article continues in regard to the AU position noting the regional body is:

“encouraging parties to the crisis to demonstrate flexibility and resume talks without preconditions as the only way to addressing the protracted controversy surrounding the destiny of the enclave, which straddles Morocco in the north and Mauritania in the south. Emerging from several hours of talks on the issue, AU leaders agreed that the UN’s role will be crucial drawing up the details that would form the basis of a durable compromise between the protagonists to the conflict, which is one of Africa’s forgotten crises.”

Gender Equality and the AU

A joint session of the preliminary meetings of the 31^st Ordinary summit was held on June 30 between current AU Chairperson President Paul Kagame of Rwanda and European Union (EU) Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven Mimica of Croatia. Kagame, who heads the Central and East African state with the largest representation of women within the parliamentary system than any other country in the world, noted that women can contribute far more to society when they are empowered. 

During the “Women in Power” symposium the Rwandan leader said:

 “Women can deliver more when they are enjoying their full rights. But with men and women working together using their talents to the maximum the effect is not just additive, it multiplies.  All of society benefits. The sum is indeed much greater than the parts.”

Kagame continued by emphasizing:

“Despite the goodwill, substantial problems remain in the way of women’s whether cultural, legal and economic empowerment. There are important policy changes to advocate for and that will always be important and must continue to be a priority as will be discussed today.”

Nonetheless, the burning question today related to AU-EU relations center around the so-called “migration crisis.” Millions of Africans are fleeing the continuing imperialist war in Libya and other regions of the continent attempting to travel across the Mediterranean into southern, eastern and central Europe. African women are adversely impacted by this dislocation and displacement through violence, human trafficking and deaths.

Thousands have died annually since 2014 while the influx of large numbers of Africans and Asians in the European states has pushed to the fore right-wing, neo-fascist elements some of whom have increased their presence in parliamentary bodies as well as becoming ruling parties in the governments of Hungary and Italy. In response to this phenomenon of the backlash against migration from the Global South, EU leaders are advancing programs designed to encourage people to either remain in Africa or be repatriated. 

Such projects are inherently flawed since they do not address the underlying historical exploitation and national oppression through colonialism and neo-colonialism. Africa remains dependent upon European and North American capitalist regimes where terms of trade, commodity prices and military policy leave the continent at an extreme disadvantage. 

Economic turmoil prompted by the destruction of the Libyan state in 2011, the proliferation of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), the undermining of the international energy and strategic minerals markets and the refusal of the imperialists to open up the United Nations Security Council to permanent status for AU governments, illustrates the glaring dubious character of EU foreign policy. Despite the platitudes of EU leaders, their statements ring hollow when the overall character of relations is objectively assessed.

Free Trade and Regional Security: The Irreconcilable Contradictions

As leader of the AU, Rwandan President Kagame has motivated the adoption and ratification of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). More AU states are signing the AfCFTA and taking the initiative to their legislatures for implementation.

The economic plan would theoretically combine a $US3 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP) constituting the sum total of goods and services within the AU. The program is designed to eliminate tariffs in inter-African trade facilitating the uninhibited movement of resources across the continent. 

South African President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the agreement in Mauritania during the summit while encouraging his counterpart in the West African state of Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari, to follow suit. Buhari’s hesitation it is said derives from the trepidation among Nigerian industry fearing an undermining of their financial status both domestically and internationally. Nigeria and South Africa have the two largest economies within the AU and any effective free trade area requires their full participation.

Ironically the AU summit was visited by French President Emmanuel Macron who spoke to the members of the G5 Sahel Regional Force nations including Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Chad. These former colonies of Paris came together in 2014 under the guise of fighting terrorism carried out by Islamist rebels across these states.

G5 Sahel Regional Force map

Attacks on a French military installation in Mali at Sevare along with two other locations, and in southeast Niger, resulting in the deaths of 10 soldiers, highlighted the precarious security situation leading up to the Mauritania AU summit. France admits to having at least 4,500 troops in the Sahel region ostensibly to enhance security.

What are often not discussed are the interests of France and the U.S. within these West African nations. Both AFRICOM and French military forces are escalating their occupations creating further uncertainty among the civilian populations. The British government of Teresa May is also entering the fray assisting French and U.S. forces with surveillance drones and helicopters. 

However, the military interventions of Paris, London and Washington are not acts of charity by any means. These policies reflect the degree of underdevelopment in post-colonial Africa. The imperialists are in the region to secure the natural resources including uranium and oil. 

The pretext of fighting Islamists cannot be taken at face value in that these same elements were deployed by the EU member-states and Washington in Libya during the overthrow of the government of former leader the late Col. Muammar Gaddafi. Syria has been a focus of destabilization utilizing certain Islamist groups that are armed and trained by western governments. 

A free trade zone in order for it to reach its full potential must be secured by the African governments themselves. It would not be rationale for the AU member-states to rely on the imperialist governments to supply them with security assistance without continuing their neo-colonial policies which are the antithesis of genuine economic development and regional sovereignty.

Undoubtedly the ruling classes of Western Europe and North America understand this dilemma quite well. African states should know that the economic renaissance of the continent cannot reach its fruition at the behest of the same imperialist nations which continue to benefit from their systematic underdevelopment and dependency. 

Consequently, until the AU makes the decisive turn inward breaking its subservient ties to imperialism there will be the inevitable instability and impoverishment. Any military program aimed at sustainable security requires the formation of an All-African military force which bans the construction of bases, drone stations and open monitoring of its territories by the Pentagon and NATO forces. 

*

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

The International Movement for a Just World (JUST) is shocked to learn that the prominent Indian social activist, Swami Agnivesh, was assaulted on the 17^th of July 2018 in the Pakur area of Jharkhand State while leaving a hotel where he had participated in an event.

The assassins are allegedly from the youth wing of the BJP, the ruling party. They had torn his clothes and hurled abuses at Agnivesh. They were angry that the activist had made a statement defending the consumption of beef. In recent months, the consumption of beef in a society where the cow is venerated has become a volatile issue with cases reported of Muslims being killed because they had eaten the meat of the animal even within the confines of their homes.       

The BJP has denied that its youth workers were involved in the Agnivesh assault. One hopes that a fair and unbiased investigation will be carried out by the authorities. The culprits should be severely punished according to the law. 

It is a shame that intolerance and aggressive bigotry of this sort is gathering momentum in parts of India. It has been facilitated according to certain sources by the increasing legitimization of a narrow notion of religious identity which in a sense is a travesty of the universalism and inclusiveness of the Hindu faith. Those who wield power and influence in politics and religion should not lend credibility to such gross misinterpretations of the sacred beliefs of the majority of the populace. 

Swami Agnivesh is one of those few Indians who has always sought to combat bigotry and hatred propagated in the name of religion, any religion.  He has adopted principled positions on major controversies in his country with courage and integrity for many decades. A multi-religious, multi-cultural democracy should eulogise – not assault – such individuals. 

*

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is Founder and President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), prominent human rights advocate, author and academic, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from The Indian Express.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

This week in Toronto the largest health board in Canada which consists of local city councilors and pubic health officials voted ten to zero to decriminalize all drugs. They’re fed up. They’ve had enough. The war on drugs is a failure and one of the biggest scams of our time. So what are the alternatives, and why could this be more significant and deserve more attention than Trump meeting with Putin? 

People who have been deceived by the medical system they sought help from are dying of opiate overdoses at an unprecedented rate. The numbers grow larger every year. 3,987 died in 2017 in Canada while 92% of them were unintentional.[6] The USA in 2016 saw about 42,000 die from overdosing on prescription opiates, heroin, fentanyl and its related chemical analogs collectively. 66% of all of the 64,070 overdose deaths in the USA came from opiates in 2017 which have killed ~350,000 people here since the early ’90’s. [1]

Not long after the turn of the century the streets were flooded with cheap heroin from the flourishing poppy fields of Afghanistan as a curious byproduct of the “war”. The place I used to hike was dubbed ‘heroin hill’ and I was once stopped on my way up there by a pissed cop looking for a bust. The cost and availability of prescription opiates became out of reach for the users with their tolerances rising higher. Switching to the cheaper and stronger street heroin without the fillers was a no brainer for many addicts who never wanted to be addicted at all. The pills were initially given to them by their doctors who found the kickbacks from Big Pharma to be a nice addition to their ever-so-stressed work schedule. After all, doctors nowadays have some of the highest suicide rates among all of the professions in America. Clocking in around the rate of suicides of veterans of the Vietnam, Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan wars who take their lives on average of 120 times a year. [3] [4]

The pharmaceutical companies are actively being sued by states and counties in the US over their deliberate role in marketing this scheme to doctors. [2] Purdue Pharma lobbied for Oxycontin to be prescribed for even minor pains and injuries citing a botched study that claimed it had little to no addictive potential at all. [5] They claimed a dose every 12 hours would be enough to alleviate a patients pain.

The reality the patients who took the drug found was the dose prescribed for every 12 hours wasn’t effectively managing the pain. Or if it did it no longer was because of tolerance that develops when someone takes some types of drugs or medications daily. It not only makes their effects weaker but it can also exacerbate a persons pain levels higher than they were before they had taken the drug. Their response was to up the dosage, which didn’t do anything for prolonging pain relief, it just doped people up more, setting them up for a higher probability of becoming addicted to the drug. This is how, in stripped-down terms, the flood gates of profits and deaths were opened by the greedy sociopaths propping up the corporations who have no ethics or sense of value in us and the lives of our friends, families, neighbors, and passersby except how much money we can give them while we’re still alive.

Around 2014 fentanyl started getting popular. An opiate 100x more powerful than Oxy. You could get it shipped in from China before it was banned but a lot of it is coming in from Mexico now and will continue to regardless of the fence. Once it was banned, chemists started making very similar analogs to the compound that were technically still legal. Think of it like a drug that’s similar enough in psychoactivity to another drug but structurally different enough to not be legally classified as one thus forfeiting any liability in its production or transportation across the border. This game of chemical cat and mouse with law enforcement and laboratories continues to this day.

If say an adversarial government wanted to use a drug to decimate a nations population all they really had to do was rent out their labs over night to anyone who would pay and the buyers would line up like sheep to the ankle bites of the mangy dog. Cutting, or mixing, heroin with fentanyl became a dangerous game. Inhaling the dust could be a death sentence due to the sheer power of the substance at such a small dosage. Mishandling the powder could turn one cold and blue in a matter of hours. And this is exactly what happened and is happening to everyone trying to get their fix on cheap heroin that is now laced with fentanyl analogs for profit and for warfare. What Big Pharma started, the underground labs took over, and the addicts and dealers who are sometimes coerced into the trade by their addictions or other nefarious means and economic oppressions have paid the price with their lives. 72% of the opiate overdose deaths in Canada in 2017 were from a mixture of fentanyl or its related analogs. [6] Up from 55% in 2016.

Gabor Maté, an author and physician from Vancouver, CA made a name for himself writing about and educating others on the complexity of addiction from a psychological, physiological, and spiritual perspective. He has illustrated in books like In ‘The Realm of Hungry Ghosts’ that addiction is not something a person chooses and it is not just something that lies dormant in their genetics.

He estimated there’s a 5% genetic & 95% environmental impact on what causes a person to become an addict. Numerous factors from before they were born, after they were born, and their place in our dysfunctional society all play a pivotal part in creating the criminals we see on the streets of America who get locked up for whims largely outside of their control. They make up the millions of non-violent offenders in the private prison industrial complex that is so profitable today while our education system lies disgracefully in shambles. He also successfully treated many addicts with sessions of ayahuasca, a psychedelic tea brewed from two types of plants found in the Amazon, with variations popping up in other areas of the world throughout history, like the Sufi with their Syrian Rue. He had an unprecedented success rate that was never done before in the eyes of mainstream medicine. So of course the Canadian government forced him to stop doing it in their jurisdiction.

If seeking help for drug addiction in America doesn’t land you in the big house where guards become your new dealers, or you don’t lose your healthcare in the process, the best thing they have to offer you is daily doses of methadone or suboxone. These drugs are largely a fallacy to every person who has been coerced into addiction or finds themselves stuck and wants to get out but doesn’t know how. There is no suggested viable long term plan for the methadone or suboxone user except to try to ween off eventually somehow. They give them a half-assed version of an opiate that still binds to the same receptors in the central nervous system and keeps them hooked in some cases indefinitely. The upsides to this program are eliminating the potentially deadly and toxic hazard that comes with consuming street drugs and also some of the health care costs in terms of overdosing and the diseases from used needles, ulcers, and other ailments that result from the constant stress and poison—But this isn’t nearly good enough. Somewhere down the line they gave up and gave into the stigma and pressure of the federal government—Or is this what was deemed the most profitable solution for the homeland?

Decriminalizing all drugs, like Portugal successfully did in 2004, has been proven to be a highly effective way to implement a harm reduction policy that treats addiction like the disease that it is and puts addicts into the care they need and out of the prisons and street culture that are devastating their lives. [7] Three people out of a million die of drug overdoses there giving it the second lowest figures in all of Europe. [8] Some would argue that it creates bad precedent for the children. I say nay. Teach your children the truth. The statistics show a clear correlation between decriminalization and reduction of both teen and adult drug use and abuse. Decriminalizing drugs takes them out of the hands of dealers and shady laboratories and puts them into the hands of certified chemists with quality control measures and precise dosages to eliminate overdose deaths and the physical and mental diseases that come with their addictions.

It can create a new and better paradigm where addicts no longer have to participate in illegal activity or be subjected to detrimental stigma that comes with it and allows them to be open to seek the help they really need. If the health board succeeds in lobbying for this to Ottawa now that things have finally reached epidemic proportions they may successfully and profoundly decrease the amount of overdose deaths in their country and improve the lives of their entire population as a whole for generations to come.

*

Vember is a pen name.

Notes

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html 

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44705658 

[3] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/suicide-is-much-too-common-among-u-s-physicians/ 

[4] https://www.centeronaddiction.org/the-buzz-blog/revealing-bad-science-behind-oxycontin 

[5] https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/01/06/top-11-professions-with-highest-suicide-rates/ 

[6] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/substance-abuse/prescription-drug-abuse/opioids/apparent-opioid-related-deaths.html 

[7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/ 

[8] https://m.mic.com/articles/120403/14-years-after-decriminalizing-drugs-one-chart-shows-why-portugal-s-experiment-has-worked

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Sometimes the eyes don’t lie and what people see in front them is actually what’s happening, which in this case is the extremely unlikely partners of Russia and Croatia entering into a soft power alliance with one another that will extend far beyond the World Cup.

It would be an exercise in futility to deny that Russia and Croatia aren’t in a soft power alliance with one another after the fawning coverage that the host country’s media outlets lavished on the second-place finisher’s President, Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, despite her past work as the Croatian Ambassador to the US and NATO’s Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy. Sports are supposed to be apolitical so a simple explanation would be that the Russians were just very excited about rooting for the underdog, one which some of them regard as “fellow Slavs”, and that Kolinda’s charm offensive was successful in wooing them to her country’s side. Nevertheless, whether as part of an intentional extension of informal policy or coincidental to the aforesaid, it can’t be overlooked that this Russian-assisted public relations offensive in support of Croatia dovetails perfectly with Moscow’s new policy towards Zagreb.

Russia’s been making outreaches to this strategically positioned Balkan state and Three Seas Initiative member for the past two years, presumably encouraged by the influential “progressive” faction of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that’s been successful in advancing their country’s fast-moving rapprochements with non-traditional partners such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan. Croatia, despite its World War II-era fascist past and the glorification of this dark period by some of its leaders, isn’t judged for it any more than Turkey is for its so-called “Neo-Ottoman” vision, which is to say that it’s a non-factor influencing the course of this bilateral relationship. There are understandably some who might object to the pure pragmatism of this approach, but it’s evidently the most flexible strategy to apply in responding to the twists and turns of the emerging Multipolar World Order and being in the best possible position to shape them.

Geopolitical considerations are still very important for influencing foreign policy, but no longer in the same way as before in all cases, such as concerning Russian-Croatian relations. Without any tangible interests in a given state, it essentially loses all strategic value because its territory is deprived of any practical significance for the outreaching party, which is why one needs to understand exactly what it is that’s driving the Russian-Croatian rapprochement and possibly even the two sides’ soft power alliance. For starters, Kolinda’s former US and NATO past isn’t seen as a problem but an opportunity, with Russia believing that it could influence her to utilize those same connections as part of its backchannel diplomatic efforts for sanctions relief. Relatedly, her highly regarded status in Western circles makes her public embrace of President Putin and Russia all the more important for improving both of their images, too.

Still, openly courting the archrival of Russia’s Serbian ally solely out of hope that it could facilitate informal inter-elite communication and potential rewards would be much too narrow-minded of a strategy that’s completely out of character for Moscow’s diplomatic professionals, which is why there’s obviously more to it than just that. Unbeknownst to most people outside of the Balkans and the Western academic community that focuses on that region, Russian banks just secured 47% control of the bankrupt Agrokor food & retail enterprise that’s the biggest company in the Balkans following extended and recently concluded negotiations over its future. This has in turn given Russia a massive physical stake in the real-sector economic activities of the region, potentially making Agrokor altogether more important for its Balkan strategy than even the Russian-owned Serbian energy companies that the Kremlin had previously depended on for influence.

Naturally, it wouldn’t be surprising for Russia to want to “rehabilitate” the reputation of such a significant newfound partner, hence what might have been the strategic calculations that possibly contributed to the month-long public relations blitz surrounding Kolinda and Croatia. Another motivating factor might have also been that Russians are looking for a safer holiday alternative to replace Egypt and Montenegro, the first of which is a well-known terrorist target and the second is becoming increasingly hostile to Russia ever since it joined NATO in spite of that country’s impressive tourist & real estate investments there. Croatia, by comparison, is now seen by most Russians as a friendly country eager to return the hospitality that was provided to them during the World Cup, and it wouldn’t be surprising if tourist companies begin promoting it as the next main destination to be discovered.

Having discussed the most important factors contributing to the Russian-Croatian soft power alliance, it’s now possible to understand it in its proper context instead of as the stand-along political anomaly that it would otherwise be interpreted as. Although grand geopolitical motivations related to “balancing” the Three Seas Initiative through Croatian-facilitated diplomatic means and more local interests dealing with a new holiday destination for Russian tourists are important, the most pivotal one is the influence that the Agrokor settlement had on these two countries’ relations, which transformed them from being simply about symbolic gestures to acquiring a solid strategic basis that extends throughout the entire Balkans. Russia’s old Serbian ally will always have a role in Moscow’s regional policy by virtue of historical inertia and geography, but the country’s new privileged partner for the 21^st century might just end up being its Croatian rival.

*

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  

No Russian interference in America’s political process occurred in 2016, earlier, or is being cooked up for the nation’s November midterm elections.

Trump knows it and said so in Helsinki. When asked if he holds Russia accountable for anything, he said:

“I hold both countries responsible (for dismal bilateral relations). I think that the United States has been foolish. I think we’ve all been foolish…And I think we’re all to blame.”

Regarding election meddling, he said:

“There was no collusion at all. Everybody knows it. And people are being brought out to the fore. So far that I know, virtually none of it related to the campaign. And they’re going to have to try really hard to find somebody that did relate to the campaign.”

“My people came to me and some others…(T)hey think it’s Russia…President Putin…said it’s not Russia. I will say this: I dont see any reason why it would be.”

“…President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today.”

Trump is wrong about most things, not this. No evidence, nothing, proves Russian meddling in the US political process.

If it existed, it would have been revealed long ago. It never was and never will be because there’s nothing credible to reveal, Big Lies alone.

Trump’s above remarks were in Helsinki. In response to a raging Russophobic firestorm of criticism back home, he backtracked from his above comments, saying he misspoke abroad.

He accepts the intelligence community’s claim about Russian US election meddling – knowing it didn’t occur.

Russiagate was cooked up by Obama’s thuggish Russophobic CIA director John Brennan, media keeping the Big Lie alive.

DNC/John Podesta emails were leaked, not hacked – an indisputable fact media scoundrels suppress to their disgrace.

Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray earlier explained that

“(t)he source of these emails and leaks has nothing to do with Russia at all,” adding:

“I discovered what the source was when I attended the Sam Adam’s whistleblower award in Washington.”

“The source of these emails (came) from within official circles in Washington DC. You should look to Washington, not to Moscow.”

“WikiLeaks has never published any material received from the Russian government or from any proxy of the Russian government. It’s simply a completely untrue claim designed to divert attention from the content of the material” and its true source.

The Big Lie alone matters when it’s the official narrative. The Russian meddling hoax and mythical Kremlin threat to US security are central to maintaining adversarial relations with America’s key invented enemy.

It’s vital to unjustifiably justifying the nation’s global empire of bases, its outrageous amount of military spending, its belligerence toward all sovereign independent states, its endless wars of aggression, its scorn for world peace and stability, its neoliberal harshness to pay for it all, along with transferring the nation’s wealth from ordinary people to its privileged class.

America’s deeply corrupted political process is far too debauched to fix, rigged to serve wealth, power and privilege exclusively, at war on humanity at home and abroad.

It’s a tyrannical plutocracy and oligarchy, a police state, not a democracy, a cesspool of criminality, inequity and injustice, run by sinister dark forces – monied interests and bipartisan self-serving political scoundrels, wicked beyond redemption, threatening humanity’s survival.

Today is the most perilous time in world history. What’s going on should terrify everyone everywhere.

Washington’s rage for global dominance, its military madness, its unparalleled recklessness, threatens world peace, stability, and survival.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Speaking at the White House Tuesday, US President Donald Trump attempted to walk back statements he made just 24 hours earlier at his summit in Helsinki, Finland with Russian President Vladimir Putin in which he questioned claims by US intelligence agencies that the Russian government “meddled” in the 2016 election.

Trump’s about-face followed a full-court press campaign by all US media outlets, the US intelligence agencies, the Democrats, and leading figures in the Republican Party, who demanded that he reaffirm the US government’s confrontational stance toward the world’s second most powerful nuclear power.

In the weeks leading up to Trump’s meeting with Putin, the Democrats treated him like an invincible colossus. It was impossible, they said, to seriously oppose his reactionary Supreme Court nominee, and nothing could be done to hold him to account for his criminal policy of breaking up refugee families, which was called child torture by the United Nations.

In fact, the Senate had just voted with overwhelming bipartisan support to approve his massive Pentagon budget increase, which included provisions for keeping open the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and allowing the fascistic demagogue to proceed with his unprecedented military parade in Washington.

But the moment Trump did something that cut across a central pillar of American foreign policy, the Democrats and the media ferociously sprang into action.

Trump’s questioning of the unproven narrative of the intelligence agencies was met with absolute hysteria and the implication that anyone failing to hold their unsubstantiated allegations as incontestable is nothing but a Russian agent.

In the post-World War II period, even within the tradition of American cold war liberalism, the activities of the FBI and CIA were always treated with extreme skepticism: as enormous and real threats to the survival of American democracy.

For nearly half a century, it was noted, J. Edgar Hoover ran a police state-within-a-state through the FBI. The FBI and CIA, functioning as a law unto themselves, spied on and blackmailed American political figures, carried out coups around the world and were widely believed to have been involved in the assassination of an American president.

The Watergate scandal, the Church Commission of the 1970s and the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s, not to mention the intelligence agencies’ role in fabricating the “evidence” of weapons of mass destruction ahead of the invasion of Iraq, their criminal mass domestic surveillance and their role in drone murder, made clear that these are criminal organizations, willing to use any means to expand their own power at the expense of democracy.

But now, these organizations have been elevated by the media into America’s quintessential guardians, and their word declared to be the gospel truth. Any discussion of their role in torture, domestic spying and drone assassinations has been shelved.

Trump was denounced as a traitor, in language that seemed to invite a military coup. His conduct was squarely declared “unacceptable” and he was, so to speak “shown the instruments.” The warning last year by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer,

“You take on the intelligence community—they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” was demonstrated in practice.

Faced with implacable and universal pressure from within the political and media establishment, as well as the military and intelligence apparatus, Trump was forced to beat a retreat.

This entire sordid episode expresses the degree to which there is overwhelming institutional commitment within the US ruling elite for conflict with Russia, if necessary to the point of nuclear war. This war drive, which aims at the transformation of Russia into what would be for all intents and purposes a colony of American imperialism, has become an unchallengeable pillar of American foreign policy. Trump can commit any violation of human rights, can traduce constitutional norms at will, but he may not question this axial precept of American politics.

The universality with which this argument is accepted within the US political establishment makes clear, as the World Socialist Web Site has long insisted, that there exists no constituency for democracy within the American ruling elite.

It likewise vindicates the assessment by the WSWS that the fundamental dispute between Trump and the Democrats centers on foreign policy. What cannot be allowed is any divergence from what are seen as the key strategic interests of US imperialism.

In other words, the Democrats’ opposition to Trump is entirely from the right. On domestic issues, the Democrats are effectively in alliance with Trump. They support his tax cuts, his attacks on social spending, and, with minor caveats, his reactionary social and immigration policies. They distinguish themselves from Trump only in that they identify unconditionally with the US intelligence apparatus, and are more directly ruthless in the pursuit of US geopolitical interests, as opposed to Trump’s more transactional focus on economics.

The various factions of the ruling elite, in other words, are fighting out their differences through the method of the palace coup, of reactionary intrigue within the state. But one voice has not been heard in this ferocious, right-wing faction fight: that of the working class.

In addressing the crisis that has erupted within the state as the result of the coming to power of Donald Trump, the working class must bring its own methods to bear: those of the class struggle, animated by the socialist perspective of the International Committee of the Fourth International. Only through these means can the ruling class’s drive to war and dictatorship be averted.

*

Featured image is from NPR.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: The U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds perform the “Diamond pass and review” at Travis AFB, California on July 30, 2011.   (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt Richard Rose Jr.)

“Knowledge is power; but who hath duly Considered the power of Ignorance? Knowledge slowly builds up what Ignorance in an hour pulls down. Knowledge, through patient and frugal centuries, enlarges discovery and makes record of it; Ignorance, wanting its day’s dinner, lights a fire with the record, and gives a flavor to its one roast with the burned souls of many generations.” — George Eliot, from the author’s last novel, Daniel Deronda 

Pilots from the US Department of the Navy returned from World War II flush with pride at winning the war in the Pacific. So, in 1946, the Navy established a base of naval air operations on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico where the Blue Angels began doing air shows for the public, partly for recruiting future pilots and partly for raising unit morale. 

Within a few years the US Air Force established a base in Texas, where the first USAF Thunderbird team began doing air shows in 1953. 

The Gulf of Mexico has been the Blue Angels’ base of operations ever since 1946, first at Jacksonville, Florida (until 1950), then at Corpus Christi, Texas (from 1950 to 1954), and finally settled in its permanent home at Pensacola, Florida. 

The Thunderbirds started in Texas but have been based near Las Vegas, Nevada for decades. Every US military base has suffered serious environmental damage, just like every military base in the history of the world, and the Blue Angels and Thunderbird bases are no exception. Many US military bases are so seriously polluted that they have acquired the infamy of being designated EPA SuperFund sites. The process is called “fouling your own nest”.

The Blue Angels have been petrochemically poisoning the Gulf of Mexico when the Navy thought it wise to have its jets dump their excess fuel over the Gulf just prior to landing, in order to decrease the remote possibility of a lethal fireball engulfing the plane and pilot in case of a crash landing. 

No records seem to have been kept quantifying the volume or frequency of such fuel dumps, and, simply out of ignorance or arrogance, no environmental impact study was ever done or even considered. I have heard that the Blue Angels have discontinued fuel dumping a decade or so ago when the price of fuel rose dramatically; so now they only dump fuel before landing in certain emergencies.

JP-5 Jet Propellant is Highly Toxic Whether Burned or Dumped

The fuel that the Blue Angels and the Thunderbirds use is a highly toxic propellant, a recent permutation of which is called JP-5. The many additives in the fuel do not burn “clean”, no matter what the Navy or Air Force says.

Blue Angels air show

JP-5 is actually a highly refined kerosene that also contains a complex mixture of hundreds of volatile chemical additives, some of which are carcinogenic. Many of them can be toxic to liver, brain, kidney and human or human or animal immune systems.

The post-combustion exhaust from jet engines is equally poisonous to air, water, soil, animal, plant and many forms of aquatic life. 

The military personnel that handle the JP-5 fuel are at high risk of being poisoned by the chronic inhalation of either the raw fumes or the engine exhaust. Those exposed can easily develop, in a delayed fashion, chronic illnesses because of the toxicity of the volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) in the fumes.

The Sobering Economics of Military Air Shows

The fuel consumption data for the Blue Angel and Thunderbird air shows are generally kept secret – and for good reasons. The alarmingly high fuel consumption would tend to dampen the enthusiasm of all but the most patriotic, thrill-seeking or willfully ignorant ticket-buyers.

The aviation industry says that JP-5 jet fuel costs 2-3 times more than automotive fuel. A few years back JP-5 cost the Pentagon between $8 and $12/gallon!

In 2014, the Blue Angels were in Duluth, headlining the biannual air show, which many of those critical of US militarism, US imperialism and US exceptionalism derogatorily call the Dulut Hairshow). During the 2014 pre-show promotional build-up, a local reporter for the Duluth News-Tribune was given a publicity ride, and he enthusiastically wrote in his column that the jet burned 1,200 gallons of fuel per hour! That number should sober up every thinking person, for a very fuel-efficient car that gets, say, 40 mpg, could drive 48,000 miles on the 1,200 gallons.

Back in 2014, 1,200 gallons of JP-5 cost the military upwards of $12,000 (at $10/gallon). If one multiplied that consumption by 6 (the number of jets in each performing team) the fuel costs would be $72,000 per hour just for the fuel used up doing the performance. And that is not counting the essentially daily practice sessions year-round that also last an hour. Nor does that count the fuel consumption for the round trip to Florida and back for each of the 70 air shows that the Blue Angels do in a typical year. 

How much of the Pentagon’s “missing” $23 trillion dollars can be Blamed on Military Air Shows?

Do the math and you will start to reconsider the wisdom of supporting such environmentally-insensitive and earth-unsustainable entertainment events. Surely some of the “missing” $23 trillion dollars (23,000,000,000,000 dollars) that the Pentagon recently reported that it can’t account for can be blamed on fuel wastage and other expenses that air shows incur.

On Bastille Day of 2014 (July 14) eight USAF Thunderbird F-16 jets arrived in Duluth along with the obligatory C-17 cargo plane carrying 30 support staff and spare parts for the jets (for air shows the support contingent usually numbers 50-55 members). 

Three of six U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds take off simultaneously as they begin their aerobatic performance at the Duluth Airshow in 2016. (Source: Duluth News Tribune)

The next day, 6 of the 8 Thunderbird jets left Duluth to do a 10 second flyover for the start of the Major League Baseball All-Star game at Target Field in Minneapolis – the only reason for them to be in Minnesota! (No information on the economics of the event was published. Hopefully, Major League Baseball footed the bill.)

The flyover was to coincide with the last strains of the Star-Spangled Banner. The two spare jets, who made the trip for nothing except as back-ups, were left sitting on the tarmac in Duluth, thus saving us taxpayers $10,000. The News Tribune reporter covering that story wrote that “each of the multi-million-dollar fighter jets will consume about 500 gallons of fuel just to make the 30-minute round trip to and from Minneapolis”. 

The cost of the fuel just for that quick trip from Duluth to Minneapolis and back for 10 seconds of entertainment? Here’s the math: $10 dollars/gallon X 500 gallons, X 6 Thunderbirds = $30,000!! And that is not considering the costs of the maintenance and the crews of the other planes involved, the practice sessions, the salaries and pensions and health care costs of all the military personnel involved.

We’re talking big bucks and a massive amount of fuel wastage every time the two stunt-flying teams perform or practice, even if one acknowledges that a portion of the costs are covered by civilian event sponsors. But there is more to understand about US military air shows that should raise additional concerns.

More Sobering Math: How much does it Cost to Train the Pilots?

A Duluth News-Tribune reporter covering one of Duluth’s past air shows wrote that the commanding officer of one of the flight teams was required to fly a minimum of 3,000 training hours (paid for by the US taxpayer) to qualify for the role of commander. The other team members had to fly 1,350 training hours. The reporter noted in that article that there were 15 pilots in the team, although only 6 perform at a time. The team members (the subs as well as prime time flyers) practice their highly technical and dangerous stunts virtually every day of the year in order to keep their skills honed and the air shows relatively safe. 

As of 2006, there had reportedly been 230 fighter pilots since the Blue Angels started their stunt-flying for audiences. Since the Blue Angels teams began flying in 1946, about 25 of their pilots have died in crashes, which means that as many as 25 multimillion-dollar planes went down in the crashes as well (this figure does not factor in the number of planes that were demolished while the pilot survived by ejecting safely). 

In 2011, 70 Blue Angel air shows (two shows per weekend) were presented at 35 different sites, with rehearsal flights the day before each performance. When they are not touring, the Blue Angels practice their routines year-round, usually over the Gulf of Mexico at their Pensacola base of operations. The Thunderbirds practice over Nevada’s vast desert north of Las Vegas, which is where a rookie Thunderbird pilot recently died in a practice session crash on April 4, 2018, just a couple of months before he was to be in Duluth. The crash was the third Thunderbird accident in the past 22 months. 

Using the figures that the journalist obtained from the Blue Angels, the 3,000 hours of training for the single Commanding Officer (CO) used up as many as 2,400,000 gallons of jet fuel just to qualify (3,000 hours X 800 gallons/hour = 2,400,000 gallons, which at $10 per gallon amounts to $24,000,000 for every qualifying commanding officer)! Of course, this training number does not include the equally enormous amounts of fuel consumed during the air show performances, the rehearsals or the flights to and from Pensacola. 

The 1,350 training hours for the other pilots on the team (at one time there were as many as 15 pilots on Blue Angels teams) consumed as much as 1,080,000 gallons for each pilot’s training (which costs us taxpayers, at $10/gallon, $10,800,000 for each Blue Angel pilot that qualified!). For the 14 non-commander pilots, the total fuel costs expended just to qualify comes to $15,120,000! 

And those costs do not factor in the airmen’s or support crew’s salaries, the pensions or the tens of millions of dollars that each jet costs. 

I challenge readers to try to estimate in dollar figures the enormous fuel costs for all of the US military shows/year, and then try to calculate the fuel used up in the flights to and from Pensacola or Las Vegas (in the case of the Thunderbirds). And then add in the costs of the huge transport planes that carry all the repair parts and the 50-55 support crew members that work in supply and maintenance. 

Of course, the costs to the American taxpayer are impossible to calculate precisely, but surely it must be many billions of dollars per year, admittedly partly offset by ticket sales. Nevertheless, since so many of America’s military excursions are for control of oil, the burning of precious fuel for whatever reason must be taken into account if and when the future of fuel-wasting military air shows is to be re-considered.

Squandering Increasingly Scarce Fossil Fuel for our Amusement

In 2016 the USAF Thunderbirds headlined what used to be biannual Duluth air shows. But in 2017 the Blue Angels were back again. At every show there are any number of other stunt-flying participants, all using up increasingly scarce petroleum products for purposes of entertainment plus, of course, for the recruitment of starry-eyed, vulnerable young boys (and girls) who are being primed, partly because of their extensive experience with first person shooter videogames, to want to join the death-dealing military professions that make homicidal violence normal and attractive. 

The world is over-populated and heading for catastrophic economic and climate change cliffs, so isn’t it about time for people to get serious about what should be the sobering realities mentioned above? We live in a world of dwindling, irreplaceable fossil fuel resources that are already being squandered by thousands of corporate misleaders on Wall Street and War Street, including Big Oil, Big Agribusiness, Big Chemical, Big Food, Big Media and Big Armaments. Each of these industries – in one way or another – profits from wars and rumors of war, and so the mesmerizing beat goes on. 

Far too many US military veterans are physically, neurologically and/or spiritually dead or dying. Often the deaths are by suicide – 22 per day for active duty soldiers and veterans combined! These once-gung-ho wounded warriors were easily seduced by the pseudo-patriotic jingoism coming from the “military-industrial complex” often wasting the best years of their lives. And then they were sacrificed, not for American “democracy”, but for American capitalism and the money-hungry, pro-militarism, war-profiteering corporations (and the subservient politicians and presidents of both political parties) that cunningly waved the flag and dutifully wore the flag pins on their suit coat lapels. 

Now we know that these corporate entities never really cared about the well-being of their “cannon fodder” warriors who were doing the dirty work to ensure the success of their evil enterprises abroad. The flag that corporate CEOs pledge allegiance to is NOT the Stars and Stripes but the flag that has their corporate logo on it. 

Millions of dead and dying American veterans from every war since 1898 (the year that the US military captured the Philippine Islands, Puerto Rico and Cuba from Spain and started feeling their imperialistic oats) joined the US military partly out of a sense of patriotic duty, partly to “see the world” and partly to get out of their poverty; but most of them soon found themselves either

1) disillusioned by the atrocities they witnessed or had been ordered to commit; 

2) sickened from their exposures to military toxins (including the obligatory, massive over-vaccination agendas for every member, no matter how irrational); 

3) malnourished or sickened from the, toxic, non-organic, highly processed, chemically-treated, pseudo-food in their rations; 

4) neurologically and/or psychiatrically sickened from the ubiquitous overuse of alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs or the cocktails of legal psych drugs given to them by military psychiatrists, medics and the VA; and/or 

5) tormented by the post-combat demons, the nightmares and the suicidality – while at the same time earning less than the minimum wage. 

And part of the process that led many of the above victims (of America’s endless military adventurism) to think that there somehow was glory involved in killing and dying for their nation’s financial elites, may have begun with the thrill of experiencing military air shows.

America’s soldiers, airmen, seamen and Marines have been, in reality, working not for the US Constitution to which they pledged allegiance, but rather for a whole host of nefarious special interest groups that stopped supporting them when their broken bodies, their broken brains and the body bags came home under cover of darkness. 

Hopefully, acknowledging these unwelcome realities may someday set us free from the war-glorifying, war-profiteering, war-mongers on Wall Street and War Street. Good examples would include Lockheed-Martin, General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas/Boeing, the suppliers of the Thunderbird planes, who depend on wars and rumors of war to continue doing business, maintain dividend payments and ensure high stock prices for their investors.

So, while thousands of patriotic Duluthians watched in wide-eyed wonder last week-end as the highly skilled jet pilots did their breath-taking stunts, there were, at the same time, tens of thousands of Duluthians that refused to spend their time and money attending and supporting these pro-militarization air shows. 

Sadly, the Thunderbirds, their sponsors and fans are unconsciously hastening America’s impending moral, energy, climate and financial collapse by ignoring the wastefulness of burning up precious, expensive, non-renewable fossil fuel resources while simultaneously poisoning the planet and risking the health of everybody, including America’s progeny.

*

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, health, democracy, civility and longevity of the populace.

He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The attack on Hodeidah — Yemen’s fourth largest city and predominant port on the Red Sea, responsible for providing over 70 percent of Yemenis’ food, aid and medicine — has gained speed this week as the U.S.-Saudi-led coalition rejected an initiative from the United Nations envoy to Yemen, Martin Griffiths, aimed at ending the fighting in the port city and surrounding area.

Griffiths had presented a plan on June 3, during his visit to Sana’a, in an effort to stop the fighting along Yemen’s West Coast, but the plan was rejected by the Saudi-led coalition despite having been supported by the Houthi rebels.

“We have accepted that the United Nations have a technical and logistic role in the port of Hodeidah but the enemies have refused to do so,” stated Houthi leader Abdulmalik al-Houthi during a televised speech on Friday marking the anniversary of Al-Sarkha (“the slogan”) — the day of Houthis’ declaration of opposition to U.S. policies in the Middle East in 2002. “The enemies’ excuses were cut off by our initiative,” he added.

Earlier this month on July 4, Martin Griffiths said that he had held talks with al-Houthi. During a press conference that same day, Griffiths stated

“I’m greatly reassured by the messages I have received [from the Houthis], which have been positive and constructive.”

The Saudi-led coalition, however, rejected Griffiths’ efforts. The coalition, which has been waging a war against Yemen since early 2015, claims that the Houthis are using Hodeidah for weapons deliveries, an allegation rejected by Hodeidah`s local residents and the Houthis.

However, the Hodeidah port is the lifeline for the majority of Yemen’s population, which is why Saudi Arabia has make it into a target, attacking the Yemenis’ lifeline to survival. An attack against it threatens over 70 percent of the population, who are in need of relief aid like food, fuel and medicine owing to Saudi Arabia’s ongoing war against the poorest country in the Middle East.

As a result of the coalition’s rejection of the UN-backed initiative, the Houthis as well as Hodeidah`s local residents have threatened to turn Hodeidah into a graveyard of Saudi and UAE troops and their mercenaries, who are engaging in a genocidal war against Yemen that has left over 10,000 civilians dead and nearly a million injured, and who are using the blockade of humanitarian aid as a weapon of war.

The Saudi-led blockade of Hodeidah port over the last two years — which has prevented medical supplies, food and humanitarian aid from reaching Yemen — has created one of the worst humanitarian disasters of the modern era. Due to the blockade and the the Saudi-led coalition’s bombing campaign in the region, the UN estimates that over 18 million Yemenis may die of hunger by the end of 2018.

On Friday, addressing his supporters via a televised speech broadcast from the Yemeni capital city of Sana’a, al-Houthi said:

The aggressors are expending all their efforts to overrun the western coastal province of Hodeidah, but are confronted with strong popular resistance. They have dismally failed in their attacks. We will recruit more fighters to turn Hodeidah into a graveyard of enemies.”

Yemeni tribes join battle

Local tribes have gathered in the Yemeni capital of Sana’a to voice their support for the Tahamah residents and the Houthis in their fight to hold onto Hodeidah, as the city is a lifeline for the majority of Yemen’s population. Cars containing willing fighters and supplies left Sana’a for Hodeidah on Sunday, as tribal leaders pledged to take their battle to the front lines.

Nabaih Abbu Nashtan, the leader of Arhab tribes from all Houthi-controlled districts, declared during a large tribal gathering, which also included many tribal sheiks from southern Yemen:

Today, we tell the enemies that there are men headed to the coast. We are ready for the battle [of Hodeidah] on all battlefronts. We are ready for the enemies, more than they can ever imagine.”

Meanwhile, the Saudi-led coalition, supported by the United States and the United Kingdom, has stepped up its airstrikes against civilians and displaced people throughout Hodeidah, conducting five airstrikes on the Salif district and the island of Kamaran on Monday. Those strikes resulted in the deaths of six civilians when UAE airstrikes bombed a house in Zabid city.

Another civilian was killed and six more were injured when airstrikes targeted a bus in the road between Zabaid and Al Jarahi cities. Saudi-led Coalition warplanes using U.S. munitions also bombed regional farms in the city of Bajel. Another Saudi bombing in Sa’ada, in the north of Yemen, killed two children and injured two more, while artillery targeted the Shada and Baqim districts also in the northern Province of Sa’ada, where there were no immediate reports of possible casualties.

According to a statement of the Coast Guard Department obtained by MintPress, more than 97 Yemeni fishermen have been killed and 47 injured by coalition warplanes and warships around Hodeidah since the beginning of 2017. Over that same time frame, 34 fishing boats have been destroyed. Furthermore, Saudi warships have detained 477 fisherman, 100 of whom continue to be detained along with 45 of their fishing boats, according to information from Yemen’s Coast Guard.

Since 2015, when the U.S.-Saudi-led coalition launched its military campaign against Yemen, about 15,000 civilians have been killed and 3,000 injured, according new statistics made available to MintPress by The Legal Center for Rights and Development.

*

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

Featured image is from Yemenpress.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

The Helsinki Summit – or the Treason Summit, as some call it – of the 16^th of July, has come and gone. It left a smell of burning hot air behind.

President Trump, opened the meeting by saying that up to now relations between the United States and Russia were bad, and confessing that the US was to blame for it. He wanted them to improve and hoped that this meeting – he indicated that others of similar nature may follow – may be a first step towards normalizing relations between the two atomic super-powers which together, he said, control 90% of the world’s nuclear destructive force. A timely admission, but ignoring the most dangerous and unpredictable atomic power, the rogue nation of Israel.

If ever the promising dream-like sounds of Donald Trump of denuclearizing the globe were to see the light of day, Israel would have to be among the first countries to be de-nuclearized – which would be a real step towards world security and peace in the Middle East.

During the later Press Conference, Trump though voicing his appreciation for the ‘fine’ secret services of his country, he admitted that he trusted more Putin’s word on Russia’s non-interference than that of his secret service, “why would they interfere?”, for which he was trashed at home by his adversaries, the MSM, the democrats and even the Republicans. Now, back home, Trump has to accommodate the public, telling them he mispronounced ‘would’; he really meant “wouldn’t”… a first rate spectacle of idiocy that, surely, after a while will go away, as everything does that has no solution, but gambles with dishonesty.

There is no winning in the indoctrinated and brainwashed to the bones American public. It couldn’t be more obvious, how the media are rallying the American people for war with Russia. The greedy military needs war – and the economy of the US of A also needs war to boost her GDP, or rather for sheer economic survival. The topic of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Elections, will just not be dropped. After a zillion of proven false accusations, in a reasonable world it would fade away. Not in the US. It is a clear sign of the decline of the empire. It’s the desperate hopelessness of the naked emperor that speaks.

So, they call Trump treacherous towards his country – a President who dares saying the truth publicly is called by the slimy Democrats and the yet slimier Republicans – and foremost by the mainstream media – a case for impeachment.

There is an internal battle raging in the United States. It pulls the country apart. It’s the want of making America Great Again, by concentrating on internal production for local markets, versus the globalized aspirations – the drive for a dollar world hegemony and the full and total subjugation of the peoples and their resources of this globe. The latter will not be possible without an all-out war – and the elite doesn’t really want to live underground perhaps for years in protection of a nuclear fallout nobody knows how long it may last. Trump’s handlers are aware of the alternative, ‘building from within’. Is what Trump is propagating, “America First”, the right approach? – Maybe not, but the concept might be right, given the destitute state of the world, where sanctions and trade wars, also initiated by Trump, are creating havoc among former partners.

A regrouping of nations, aiming at self-sufficiency and selective trading partners according to cultural and political similarities might bring back national sovereignties, abolishing the corporate globalized approach that has been doing harm to 90% of the people. WTO, the monster made by the west to further advance corporate power over the weak, should and would become obsolete.

Trump’s contradictions are what defeats his credibility. He admonishes Madame Merkel for being enslaved by Russia for buying Russian gas instead of the US’s environmentally destructive fracking gas.

“We put NATO in Europe to protect you from the enemy, Russia, yet you prefer buying Russian gas than dealing with those who protect you”.

It didn’t occur to any of the European NATO halfwits to tell Trump that all that NATO has done so far is destroying countries throughout the Middle East and the world, and that they, the Europeans, have supported the US in their senseless destruction, creating a flood of refugees which now threatens to suffocate Europe. – There was nothing, but nothing about protection by NATO. If anything, NATO was an aggressive force, moving ever closer to Russia and flanking China on the eastern front. None of this was said, though, by the European NATO puppets.

President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation | July 16, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Trump then goes to Helsinki, meets Putin and says he likes him and he wants to be friends and make peace with Russia. – Of course. We all want peace. But who can believe him, when a few days before he accused Germany of playing into the hands of the enemy, Russia?

Remember, a year ago at the G7 summit in Hamburg, Trump was shaking Putin’s hand and said ‘I like him’. At the recent disastrous G7 conference in Canada, which turned out to be a G6+1 summit, before running off to Singapore to meet North Koreas Kim Jong-Un, Trump dropped a little bomb, “why not converting the G7 again to the G8 and include Russia?” – He left the group stunned and speechless. – So, his drive towards improved relations with Russia is nothing new. It’s just not accepted by the warriors in Washington.

The Helsinki summit looked and sounded like a summer show – just to continue the attention deviation maneuvers of the World Cup that ended the day before in Russia. – What’s going on behind the scenes? – It’s one of those hot summers when nobody wants to think, just to be entertained, never mind the farces and lies – like during Roman Empire times – it’s the modernized Colosseum, adopted to the age of cell phones, tablets and micro-chips. The Colosseum is the all-so transparent veil that should shield the world’s eyes from the empire’s auto-destruction.

Today’s gladiators are the peoples of entire countries, continents, slaughtered or made homeless by the millions, by teleguided missiles and bombs, causing the largest migration streams – by far – in modern history; 70 million worldwide and upwards are on the move. Generations without homes, education; generations without a future, drifting across the seas in desperate hope of survival.

Mr. Putin’s words in Helsinki were words of wisdom, propagating peace as a good thing and dismissing Russian interference in the American elections. Not even discussing the re-inclusion of Crimea. Period. He could have mentioned, instead, the hundreds of elections and regime changes that Washington initiated, manipulated and manufactured around the globe within the last 70 years alone, but he didn’t. Wise man; non-aggression. It is obvious, the “muttonized” world of Americans and European vassals don’t even think that far anymore. For them it’s natural that the ‘exceptional nation’ does what she wants with impunity – but the same rights wouldn’t apply to others.

President Putin handed Trump a list of steps and actions to consider to embark on a denuclearization process. Trump and those of the deep state elite who’s love for life is too great to risk a nuclear war, may just take advantage and do something about it.

The enigma Trump is perfect for the Deep Dark state – he is a roller-coaster of confusion and contradictions. To the NATO members, at the recent Brussels NATO summit, he ordered “pay up, or else’’ – which could mean, or we pull out of NATO. Though that is the desire of a large majority of Europeans, for Trump it’s a contradiction, as he pretends that NATO is supposed to defend Europe against her arch-enemy, Russia. But, then, in turn, Mr. Trump moves on, courting this very “arch-enemy’’, by responding to the peace bells Mr. Putin has been offering ever since he came to power, never a negative word against Washington, calmly calling the demonizers ‘our partners’.

Confused people can easily be taken off-guard and manipulated.

Who knows what the real agenda of the Trump handlers has in store. Trump’s bold statements on the side of President Putin, will make his demonization at home easier. Though the people at large clearly want peaceful relations between the two nations; everybody fears war, but they will continue to be indoctrinated by the CNN-NBC-BBC’s of this world. Let’s face it, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was and is no reason to make Putin and Russia America’s enemy. But Putin’s assertiveness in bringing Russia to the fore and onto the world stage again, was a good reason to upset the self-appointed Uni-Power, US of A.

The US super-power lives of wars, and this lifestyle requires enemies. Russia and China are ideal, as they control huge land masses with almost unlimited natural resources.  They have done nothing of what the mainstream accuses them of. And if the President of the United States annuls the key enemy, turning him from foe to friend, such a President becomes a liability for the swamp of Washington – a liability, indeed – “or else”.

*

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.

Thomson Reuters Foundation in its recent survey released on June 26, 2018 ranked India as the most dangerous country in the world for women.

More than 500 global experts on women’s issues took part in a survey covering areas such as healthcare, discrimination, cultural traditions, sexual and non-sexual violence and human trafficking. Not enough was being done to tackle the dangers women faced, they said. India was ranked fourth in a similar study conducted in 2011.

Afghanistan and Syria were ranked second and third in the study, followed by Somalia and Saudi Arabia. The only western nation in the top ten was the USA. The foundation said that this was directly related to the #MeToo movement.

According to government data gathered in the study, crimes against women in India rose by more than 80 per cent between 2007 and 2016. Nearly 40,000 rapes were reported in 2016, despite a greater focus on women’s safety after the fatal gang rape of a student in Delhi in 2012 that prompted nationwide protests and led to tougher laws against sexual abuse being introduced.

India recorded 539 cases of sexual harassment in the workplace in 2016, 170 per cent from 2006, a report from last year suggested. However, campaigners have said that those figures are only the tip of the iceberg; a 2017 survey by India’s National Bar Association found that nearly 70 per cent of victims did not report sexual harassment.

Manjunath Gangadhara, an official at the Karnataka state government, said:

“India has shown utter disregard and disrespect for women. Rape, marital rapes, sexual assault and harassment, female infanticide has gone unabated. The fastest-growing ecnomy and leader in space and technology, is shamed for violence committed against women.”

Some observers pointed out that the study, while it took in wider streams of figures, was primarily based on opinion.
Upasana Mahanta, of Jindal Global University in Delhi, told The Times:

“I’m not sure that India is any more dangerous now than it was six years ago. In terms of progress, having only legal provisions will not make the difference. Most studies show that women in India are mostly victims of violence from their partners or family members. Which shows they are hurt because they are women, regardless of cultural, economic or social factors. Women are basically being put in their place through violence.”

In the past year several prominent rape and murder cases involving children have led to the introduction of the death penalty for those convicted and speedier trial process for violence against females.

The Ministry of Women and Child Development declined to comment on the survey results, said the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the news network’s philanthropic arm.

*

Featured image is from WIONews.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

We have to hand it to Putin. He is the best that there is. Note the ease with which he mopped up the floor with Fox News’  Chris Wallace.

What is wrong with the US media that it cannot produce a second competent journalist as company for Tucker Carlson? Why are America’s remaining good journalists, such as Chris Hedges, now in the alternate media?

All I can say, and Putin probably already knows it, is that there is more going on than presstitutes holding the relationship between Russia and the US hostage to an internal political struggle between the Democratic Party and President Trump. It is not just that the corrupt US media is serving as propagandists for the Democratic Party against President Trump. The presstitutes are serving the interest of the military/security complex, which has ownership interests in the highly concentrated US media, to keep Russia positioned as the enemy that justifies the huge $1,000 billion budget of the military/security complex. Without the “Russian enemy,” what is the justification for such a waste of money when so many real needs go underfunded and unfunded?

In other words, the American media are not only stupid, they are corrupt beyond all measure.

Source: Fox News

Today at 12:40 Eastern time NPR had a collection if Trump-bashers doing their utmost to prevent the Trump/Putin meeting from leading to a normalizing of relations between the two governments.

For example, as every informed person knows, the US intelligence community has most certainly not concluded that Russia interferred in the presidential election. That conclusion was reached by a few hand-picked members of 3 of the 16 intelligence agencies and was expressed not as a proven fact but as “highly likely.” It other words, it was nothing but an orchestrated opinion given by cooperative agents who no doubt expect promotions in return.

Despite this known fact, the NPR propaganda team said that Trump had believed Putin instead of an unanimous US factual intelligence report that proved Russia interfered. The NPR Trump-bashers said that Trump had believed the “thug Putin” and not his own American experts. The NPR Trump-bashers went on to compare Trump’s “siding with Putin” with Trump’s opinion that the Charlottesville violence had contributors from both sides. The NPR Trump-bashers equated Trump’s factual statement about violence from both sides into “siding with the neo-nazis” in Charlottesville.

NPR’s point is that Trump sides with Nazis and Russian thugs and is against Americans.

What Trump said in fact about alleged election interference was that whether there was or was not any election interference, it had no effect as Comey and Rosenstein have admitted, and is certainly not as important as two nuclear powers getting along with one another and avoiding tensions that could result in nuclear war. One would think that even an NPR idiot could understand that.

The Trump-bashing on NPR has gone on all day intermixed with an occassional bashing of Russia for killing Syrian civilians in air attacks on the Washington-supported jihadists that are, as instructed by Washington, trying to hold on to a bit of Syria so that Washington and Israel can restart the war. One wonders at the stupidity of those who give money to NPR so that NPR can lie to them all day long. Like George Orwell foresaw, people are more comfortable with Big Brother’s lies than with the truth.

NPR was once an alternative voice, but it was broken by the George W. Bush regime and has become completely corrupt. NPR still pretends to be “listener-supported,” but in fact is now a commercial station just like every commercial station. NPR tries to disguise this fact by using “with support from” to introduce the paid advertisements from the corporations.

“With support from” is how NPR traditionally acknowledged its philanthropic donors. The real question is: how does NPR hold on to its 501c3 tax-exempt status when it sells commercial advertising? No need for NPR to worry. As long as the presstitute entity serves the ruling elite at the expense of truth, it will retain its illegal tax-exempt status.

It is obvious that the indictments of the 12 Russian intelligence officers immediately prior to the Trump/Putin meeting was intended to harm the meeting and to give the presstitutes more opportunities for more dishonest shots at President Trump. In my day, journalists would have been smart enough and would have had enough integrity to understand that. But Western presstitutes have neither intelligence nor integrity.

How much proof do you want? Here is presstitute Michelle Goldberg writing in the New York Times that “Trump shows’s the world he’s Putin’s lacky.” The presstitute says she is “staggered by the American president’s slavish and toadying performance.” Apparently Goldberg thinks Trump should have beaten up Putin.

The Washington Post, formerly a newspaper, now a sick joke, alleged that “Trump just colluded with Russia. Openly.”

It is not only the presstitutes. It is the so-called experts, such as Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, a self-important group, financed by the military/security complex, that presides over American foreign policy. Haass, sticking to the official military/security line, declared erroneously:

“International order for 4 centuries has been based on non-interference in the internal affairs of others and respect for sovereignty. Russia has violated this norm by seizing Crimea and by interfering in the 2016 US election. We must deal with Putin’s Russia as the rogue state it is.”

What is Haass talking about? What respect for sovereignty does Washington have? Surely Haass is familiar with the ruling neoconservative doctrine of US world hegemony. Surely Haass knows that the orchestrated troubles with Iraq, Libya, Syria, North Korea, Russia, and China are due to Washington’s resentment of their sovereignty. What is Washington’s unilateralism about if Washington respects the sovereignty of countries? Why does Washington want a unipolar world if Washington respects the sovereignty of other countries? It is precisely Russia’s insistance on a multi-polar world that has Russia in the propaganda crosshairs. If Washington respects sovereignty, why does Washington overthrow countries that have it? When Washington accuses Russia of being a threat to world order, Washington means that Russia is a threat to Washington’s world order. Is Haass demonstrating his idiocy or his corruption?

As the American media has conclusively proven that it has no independence but is a mouthpiece for Democrats and corporate interests, it should be nationalized. The American media is so compromised that nationalization would be an improvement.

The armaments industry should also be nationalized. Not only is it a power greater than the elected government, it also is vastly inefficient. The Russian armaments industry with a tiny fraction of the US military budget produces far superior weapons. As President Eisenhower, a Five-Star General, said, the military-industrial complex is a threat to American democracy. Why are the presstitute scum so worried about non-existant Russian interference when the military/security complex is so powerful that it can actually substitute itself for the elected government?

There was a time when the Republican Party represented the interests of business, and the Democratic Party represented the interests of the working class. That kept America in balance. Today there is no balance. Since the Clinton regime, the rich one percent has been getting vastly richer, and the 99 percent has been getting poorer. The middle class is in serious decline.

The Democrats have abandoned the working class, which Democrats now dismiss as “Trump deplorables,” and support instead the divisiveness and hatreds of Identity Politics. At a time when the American people need unity to stand up to warmongering and greed, there is no unity. Races and genders are taught to hate one another. It is everywhere you look.

Compared to the America I was born into, the America of today is fragile and weak. The only effort at unity is to create unity that Russia is the enemy. It is just like George Orwell’s 1984. In other aspects the current American dystopia is worse than the one Orwell described.

Try to find an American public or private institution that is worthy of respect, that is honorable, that respects truth, that is compassionate and strives for justice. What you find in place of compassion and demand for justice are laws that punish if you criticize the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians or leak information showing the felonies committed by the US government. With all of their institutions corrupted, the American people become corrupted as well. Corruption is what the young are born into. They know no different. What future is that for America?

How can Russia, China, Iran, North Korea reach a compromise with a government that does not know the meaning of the word, a government that requires submission and when submission is not given destruction follows as Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen learned.

Who would be so foolish as to trust an agreement with Washington?

Instead of pursuing an agreement with Trump, who is being set up for removal, Putin should be preparing Russia for war.

War is definitely coming.

*

This article was originally published on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Watch the interview of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky with Malaysia’s Astro Awani on the Criminalization of War, focus on Israel’s massacre in Gaza.

According to Prof. Chossudovsky,

“… the problem is in addressing the complicity of the international community in closing their eyes regarding these atrocities.”

If video screen does not work, click the image below

http://www.astroawani.com/video-malaysia/100-hari-malaysia-baharu-kriminalisasi-peperangan-235896
 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies have liberated the settlements of Al-Harra, Nimer, Umm al-Awsaj and the hills of Harra and Ahmar as well as some other points in the area north of Daraa city in southern Syria from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) and the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The town of Nawa has remained one of the key militant defense points in the area east of the Golan Heights. Once it falls, the defense of militant groups will fully collapse.

Meanwhile, reports appeared that some FSA units in the area have requested a ceasefire and negotiations with the Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance to reach a comprehensive reconciliation agreement. According to reports, a moderate part of the militants want to surrender their weapons and to settle their legal status with the Damascus government. However, agreement has not yet been reached.

On July 16, US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin held a face-to-face meeting in the Finnish capital of Helsinki. The situation in Syria was among the topics discussed by the leaders.

During a joint press conference after the meeting, Putin said that the key goal is to establish peace in the war-torn country and this effort could become an example of successful Russian-US cooperation. He emphasized the need to return displaced people to their homes and to improve the humanitarian situation.

In turn, Trump once again showed the key place of Israeli interests in his administration’s policy in the Middle East. He said that the US is closely coordinating with Israel and that “creating safety for Israel” is among the key goals of his country.

Regarding the situation in southern Syria, Putin said that following the defeat of the terrorists, the situation in the Golan Heights “must be brought into full compliance with the 1974 disengagement of forces agreement between Syria and Israel.”

The joint press conference showed that the sides may have found at least a partial understanding on the situation in southern Syria and may have set a foothold for reaching a comprehensive agreement on employing a political solution for the crisis in the war-torn country. However, only real steps from the sides can show how close this is to reality.

Meanwhile, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have resumed their advance on the ISIS-held town of Hajin in the Euphrates Valley. According to pro-Kurdish sources, the SDF has entered the town capturing some buildings inside it. Clashes are ongoing.

*

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

BTC: 13iYp9CDYZwgSnFXNtpEKgRRqaoxHPr2MH,

BCH:1NE49pQW8yCegnFCMvKuhLUnuxvTnxNUhf,

 ETH: 0x962b312a9d41620f9aa0d286f9d7f8b1769bfae6

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Far from the seemingly “invincible” player that the Western Mainstream Media has propagandistically portrayed it as for years, “Israel” is actually so weak right now and extra vulnerable to Iranian-initiated destabilization operations that the New Cold War Great Power rivals of the US and Russia are putting their many differences behind them and historically joining forces to ensure its security.

Declaring The Joint Protectorate

Everything that the Western world previously assumed about “Israel’s” supposed “invincibility” has been exposed as a discredited propaganda operation that not even the US is capable of conducting anymore after the on-the-ground facts have disproven its very basis. Long thought of as the “Sparta” of Mideast affairs because of its military’s ability to punch well above its weight in regional conflicts and the efficient capabilities of its intelligence services in catalyzing the MENA-wide Yinon Plan of the so-called “Arab Spring”, “Israel” has now been exposed to have several glaring vulnerabilities that have put it in such a position of weakness vis-à-vis Iran that it’s now compelled to seek joint American and Russian assistance in ensuring its security.

During the joint press conference in Helsinki, President Putin proclaimed his long-known desire to protect “Israeli” interests by telling the world that:

“I would also like to note that after the terrorists are routed in southwest Syria, in the so-called ‘southern zone’, the situation in the Golan Heights should be brought into full conformity with the 1974 agreement on the disengagement of Israeli and Syrian forces. This will make it possible to bring tranquillity to the Golan Heights and restore the ceasefire between the Syrian Arab Republic and the State of Israel. The President devoted special attention to this issue today.”

Trump took it even further by adding that:

“We’ve worked with Israel long and hard for many years, many decades. I think that never has any country been closer than we are. President Putin also is helping Israel, and we both spoke with Bibi Netanyahu. And they would like to do certain things with respect to Syria, having to do with the safety of Israel. So, in that respect we absolutely would like to work in order to help Israel, and Israel will be working with us, so both countries would work jointly.

 And I think that when you look at all the progress that has been made in certain sections with the eradication of ISIS – we’re about 98–99 percent there – and other things that have taken place that we have done and that, frankly, Russia has helped us within certain respects. But I think that working with Israel is a great thing, and creating safety for Israel is something that both President Putin and I would like to see very much.”

Beyond any shadow of doubt, the two Great Powers have made “Israel” their joint protectorate, and this surprising state of affairs has far-reaching implications for not just Syria, but the entire Mideast and especially Iran.

Yinon Gone Bad

To be succinct, the Yinon Plan dramatically backfired by creating the conditions for Iranian military “advisors” in Syria to creep closer to the occupied Golan Heights, a pressing security threat of the highest importance that could only be temporarily staved off by Russia’s greenlighting of “Israeli” bombing raids against them. Still, this isn’t a sufficient solution because it’s unclear exactly how many of these forces are in the region and whether or not they’re operating incognito as part of the “National Defense Forces” militias or even members of the Syrian Arab Army itself. Furthermore, Russia barely has any influence on Iran’s military plans in Syria no matter how much pressure Moscow has put on Damascus to curtail what the Kremlin views to be a regionally destabilizing factor.

The only way to sustainably secure “Israel’s” existence from the asymmetrical threat that Iranian forces and their Hezbollah allies pose near the occupied Golan Heights was for Tel Aviv to strike an indirect deal with Damascus through Russian mediation whereby the self-proclaimed “Jewish State” would implicitly recognize the continued leadership of President Assad in the Arab Republic so long as he could guarantee that his sworn enemy’s foes will be kept an uncertain distance away from the de-facto “border”. Getting “Israel” to back down from its years-long unofficial policy of regime change in Syria would be even more of a game-changer than when Saudi Arabia recently did the same, with Russia being responsible for both previously unthinkable policy reversals.

The Quid-Pro-Quo

The US is brought into the equation because it and “Israel” are essentially the same political entity on different continents, meaning that any Russian deal with one of them in Syria must naturally be cleared with, or at the very least coordinated with, the other. Moreover, the US is just as opposed to Iran’s direct and proxy military involvement in Syria as “Israel” is, which gives it a natural stake in ensuring that any speculated deal in southern Syria is respected by all the parties involved, especially Damascus. In exchange for President Assad’s cooperation, it’s conceivable that the US will put pressure on its Kurdish-led “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF) underlings to enter into talks with Damascus, which is about to happen according to recent reports.

The pieces of President Putin’s unofficial peace plan for Syria are gradually coming into place, with the most important component being Iran’s dignified “phased withdrawal” from the country, which has yet to happen in full but is evidently being advanced to a degree by its “containment” from southwestern Syria per the most likely terms of the US-Russian deal. Unlike the US, Russia is the only Great Power realistically capable of “balancing” Iran in a peaceful manner, which it was already doing even before the Putin-Trump Summit, but now Moscow is also playing a key role in doing the same with “Israel” as well by participating in a joint protectorate over it together with the US and therefore smashing all of the Mainstream Media’s stereotypes about its “invincibility”.

“Israel” is simply incapable of fighting what it fears could become a three-front war against another Palestinian Intifada inside of its “borders”, Hezbollah along the Lebanese one, and Iran in the Syrian one, so for the first time in its history it has to pick and choose its battles. Its leadership apparently decided that Syria is the least of its concerns and is the easiest to indirectly manage so long as it compromises on its position of regime change against President Assad as part of a Russian-mediated deal, which therefore makes Moscow a guarantor of its security via its predominant influence over Damascus’ compliance with this arrangement. To be clear, no party is “selling out” to any other, but it’s just that they’re all advancing their own interests.

Trust No One Except Your Own Interests

President Putin put it best when responding to a question during his news conference with Trump, when he wisely said that:

“Should you or should you not have trust in someone? Can you trust anyone in general? No you can’t. Why on Earth do you think the President [Donald Trump] trusts me and I fully trust him, too? Donald Trump defends the interests of the US and I defend Russia’s interests. We have some common interests and points of contact. Along with it, we have the issues on which we still differ and we’re looking for ways of bridging these differences and making our efforts fruitful.”

The same principle of Hyper-Realism that’s influencing Russia’s decisions on the “19^th-Century Great Power Chessboard” could also be applied towards Syria, which has no reason to trust President Putin or especially Netanyahu, but is bridging the differences that it has with “Israel” through Russian mediation in order to expand their common interests and points of contact in such a way that their efforts will be fruitful. From theory to practice, this means that President Assad wants “Israel” to strategically surrender by abandoning its regime change plans and resultantly relieving the Arab Republic of the immense Zionist-backed pressure that it’s been incessantly under, with the trade-off of denying Iranian forces the freedom to operate in southwestern Syria apparently being acceptable to Damascus under these conditions.

Weak, Weaker, And The Weakest

While Syria might look “weak” for “caving into” the “international community’s” demands, it’s actually “Israel” that comes out looking weaker by comparison because it had to rely on Russia to protect its interests by facilitating this development, which not even its decades-long American ally was capable of achieving. Keeping Iran away from the occupied Golan Heights is the first step in its dignified “phased withdrawal” from Syria, and the fact that this is even happening shows just how little influence Tehran has over Moscow nowadays when considering that the Ayatollah’s influential advisor Ali Akbar Velayati was just in the Russian capital lobbying for this exact same scenario not to happen. If anything, Iran is emerging from all of this looking weaker than both Syria and “Israel” because its rhetoric was just exposed as theatrics.

As a perfect example, the second-in-command of the IRGC boasted in June in response to “Israel’s” bombing of the T4 base in April that (underlined emphases are the author’s own):

“They imagined that they would not receive any response; they thought that they can intimidate the Resistance Front with US and British support, and that no one would respond to them. As you all witnessed, they said if we (the Resistance Front) retaliated, they would put an end to the Syrian government; but they received a response in the Golan, and dozens of missiles flew over the region. A message was sent to them that if they responded, we would raze to the ground the heart of Tel Aviv; they were forced to shut up, and haven’t done a damn thing since then.”

This might go down in history as one of the most premature statements ever because “Israel” just bombed northern Aleppo right after Netanyahu’s latest visit to Moscow and it was actually Iran which “was forced to shut up, and hasn’t done a damn thing since then”. If “over-zealous” Alt-Media “perception management” operations attempt to portray Syria as being weak for quietly agreeing to keep Iran away from the occupied Golan Heights , then they’d do best to consider exactly how weak it makes Iran look that it would taunt “Israel” for not responding to a certain event but then not even give its own response when Aleppo is bombed or its forces are pushed back from the “Israeli” frontier. Syria might look “weak”, “Israel” even “weaker”, but Iran appears to be the “weakest” in this ignoble “hierarchy”.

Turning The Tables

Actually, however, it might be that the tables are turning because Iran has been pretty strong up until now, and it exerts such a powerful sway over Mideast affairs at the moment after masterfully exploiting the many failings of “Israel’s” Yinon Plan that Russia felt compelled to “balance” against it to Tel Aviv’s favor. It’s still too early to say whether the perception of Iran being the weakest in comparison to Syria and “Israel” is true or not, but it might just be that the Putin-Trump deal is designed to “correct” what both Great Powers feel is this regional “imbalance”. It should be remembered that Trump told reporters before the summit that Iran would be on the agenda, and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov praised the two leader’s talks by describing them as “better than super”, implying that they saw eye-to-eye on this topic too and probably agreed to secretly coordinate on it as well.

If there’s indeed another strategic reversal taking place (or rather, a counter-reversal or “correction”) whereby “Israel” is regaining its regional influence with the help of its American and Russian protectors, then it’ll still take some time to fully unfold, and the process itself leaves Russia in an excellent position full of strategic flexibility to shape the final outcome. Being the only country in the world that has great relations with both of these rival parties, Russia is the only player capable of managing their competition and guiding it in the direction of its own envisioned interests, which is to make Moscow the supreme “balancing” force in the Mideast by preventing either party from ever getting to the point where one of them regains their previously dominant role in the region. Rather, if Russia gets its way, then it will be Moscow –not Tel Aviv nor Tehran – that determines the contours of the “New Mideast”.

Concluding Thoughts

The Russian and American leaders’ de-facto declaration that “Israel” is now their joint protectorate is a watershed event in Mideast history because it disproves the Mainstream Media narrative about that entity’s supposed “invincibility” while simultaneously confirming the success of Moscow’s regional “balancing” strategy, which is now being put to use against “Israel” just as much as it is against Iran. President Putin has finally obtained his goal of making Russia the ultimate arbiter of regional affairs by making both rival parties dependent on Moscow for their security, which in turn has resulted in the Kremlin replacing the White House as the architect of the “New Mideast”. That’s not to say that it’ll be “smooth sailing” from here on out, but just that a game-changing process is currently underway, one which caught many observers completely off guard.

It’s difficult – and for some, almost painful – at first thought to even countenance “Israel” as being anything other than an American protectorate, but the times have surely changed and Russia’s alliance with that entity is more solid than ever, with the strength of their ties now on public display by having the US President himself openly agree to giving his geopolitical “competitor” joint management over his country’s most valuable piece of real estate in the world. Iran must understandably be feeling restless after seeing this happen and realizing that its rhetoric was exposed as theatrical bluster, to say nothing of the failure of the Ayatollah’s top envoy to prevent this from happening during last week’s panicked visit to Moscow. The tables are turning on the Islamic Republic, slowly but surely, but that shouldn’t be interpreted as though Russia itself “turned” on its partner.

Like President Putin emphasized during the press conference, interests are all that matter, and he will always do whatever he can to support what he sincerely believes is the best course of action for his country, even if this ends up seeing Russia’s position on some issues align with America’s like the US has been trying very hard to have happen since Trump entered into office. The same principle is just as applicable for Syria, “Israel”, and Iran, with none of their leaders “selling out”, but each competing with one another in the Hyper Realist “19^th-Century Great Power Chessboard” to advance and protect their interests, though in this context through Russian mediation and other methods of influence over the “rules of the game”. The outcome of this grand struggle is uncertain, but one thing is clear, and it’s that Mideast geopolitics will never be the same again now that the US and Russia jointly established a protectorate over “Israel”.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Featured image is from JerusalemOnline.

“Temos que discutir sobre tudo, do comércio ao militar, aos mísseis, à energia nuclear, à China”: assim fez a sua estreia, o Presidente Trump, em 16 de Julho, na Cimeira de Helsínquia. “Chegou a hora de falar detalhadamente sobre as nossas relações bilaterais e sobre os  pontos nevrálgicos internacionais”, salientou Putin. Mas a decidir quais serão, no futuro, as relações entre os Estados Unidos e a Rússia, não são só os dois presidentes.

Não é coincidência que, assim que o Presidente dos Estados Unidos estava prestes a reunir-se com o Presidente da Rússia, o Procurador especial, Robert Mueller III, incriminava 12 russos sob a acusação de manipularem as eleições presidenciais nos EUA, penetrando nas redes de computadores do Partido Democrata por prejudicar a candidata Hillary Clinton. Os doze, acusados de serem agentes do serviço secreto GRU, são oficialmente denominados “os conspiradores” e indiciados por “conspiração contra os Estados Unidos”.

Na mesma altura, Daniel Coats, Director da National Intelligence  e principal Conselheiro do Presidente sobre esta matéria, acusou a Rússia de querer “minar os nossos valores básicos e nossa democracia”. Lançava, assim, o alarme sobre a “ameaça dos ataques cibernéticos alcançarem um ponto crítico” semelhante ao que precedeu o 11 de Setembro, da parte não só da Rússia, “o agente estrangeiro mais agressivo”, mas também da China e do Irão.

Ao mesmo tempo, em Londres, os “investigadores” britânicos comunicavam que o serviço secreto russo GRU, que sabotou as eleições presidenciais nos Estados Unidos, é o mesmo que em Inglaterra envenenou um e antigo agente russo, Sergei Skripal, e a sua filha, inexplicavelmente sobreviventes a um gás extremamente letal. O objectivo político destas “investigações” é claro: sustentar que o chefe dos “Conspiradores” é o Presidente Putin, da Rússia, com quem o Presidente Trump se sentou à mesa das negociações, apesar da vasta oposição bipartidária nos USA.

Após a incriminação dos “Conspiradores”, os Democratas pediram a Trump para cancelar o encontro com Putin. Mesmo que não tenham conseguido, permanece forte a pressão sobre a negociação. O que Putin tenta obter de Trump é simples, mas, ao mesmo tempo, complexo: aliviar a tensão entre os dois países. Para isso, ele propôs a Trump, que aceitou, uma investigação conjunta sobre a “conspiração”.

Não se sabe como se desenvolverão as negociações sobre questões cruciais: o estatuto da Crimeia, as condições da Síria, as armas nucleares e outras. Nem se sabe o que Trump vai perguntar. No entanto, é certo que toda concessão pode ser usada para acusá-lo de conivência com o inimigo. Opõe-se a um afrouxamento da tensão com a Rússia, não só os Democratas (que, com uma inversão dos papéis formais, desempenham o papel de “falcões”), mas também muitos Republicanos, incluindo representantes importantes da própria Administração Trump.

É o establishment não só nos USA, mas também na Europa, cujos poderes e lucros estão ligados às tensões e às guerras. Não serão as palavras, mas os factos a demonstrar se a atmosfera descontraída da Cimeira de Helsínquia se tornará realidade. Acima de tudo, com uma não escalada da NATO na Europa, isto é, com a retirada das forças nucleares USA/NATO enviadas contra a Rússia e o bloqueio da expansão da NATO para Leste.

Ø  Mesmo que, sobre estas questões, fosse alcançado um acordo entre Putin e Trump, seria este último capaz de o concretizar?

Ø  Ou serão decididas, na realidade, pelos poderosos círculos do complexo militar-industrial?

Uma coisa é certa: não podemos, em Itália e na Europa, permanecer meros espectadores das negociações das quais depende o nosso futuro.

Manlio Dinucci

ilmanifesto, 17 de Julho de 2018

Artigo em italiano :

L’establishment USA dietro il Summit di Helsinki

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

«Abbiamo da discutere su tutto, dal commercio al militare, ai missili, al nucleare, alla Cina»: così ha esordito il presidente Trump ieri al Summit di Helsinki. «È arrivata l’ora di parlare in maniera particolareggiata dei nostri rapporti bilaterali e dei punti nevralgici internazionali», ha sottolineato Putin. Ma a decidere quali saranno in futuro i rapporti tra Stati uniti e Russia non sono solo i due presidenti.

Non è un caso che, proprio mentre il presidente degli Stati uniti stava per incontrare quello della Russia, il procuratore speciale Robert Mueller III incriminava 12 russi con l’accusa di aver manipolato negli USA le elezioni presidenziali, penetrando nelle reti informatiche del Partito Democratico per danneggiare la candidata Hillary Clinton. I dodici, accusati di essere agenti del servizio segreto GRU, vengono ufficialmente definiti «i Cospiratori» e incriminati per «cospirazione ai danni degli Stati uniti ».

Contemporaneamente Daniel Coats, direttore dell’Intelligence nazionale e principale consigliere del Presidente su tale materia, accusava la Russia di voler «minare i nostri valori basilari e la nostra democrazia». Lanciava quindi l’allarme sulla «minaccia dei cyberattacchi giunta a un punto critico» analogo a quello che precedette l’11 Settembre, da parte non solo della Russia, «l’agente straniero più aggressivo», ma anche della Cina e dell’Iran.

Allo stesso tempo, a Londra, gli «investigatori» britannici comunicavano che il servizio segreto russo Gru, che negli Stati uniti ha sabotato le elezioni presidenziali, è lo stesso che in Inghilterra  ha avvelenato un ex agente russo, Sergei Skripal, e sua figlia, inspiegabilmente sopravvissuti a un gas estremamente letale. Lo scopo politico di queste «indagini» è chiaro: sostenere che a capo dei «Cospiratori» c’è il presidente russo Putin, col quale il presidente Trump si è seduto al tavolo negoziale nonostante la vasta opposizione bipartisan negli USA.

Dopo l’incriminazione dei «Cospiratori», i Democratici avevano chiesto a Trump di annullare l’incontro con Putin. Anche se non ci sono riusciti, rimane forte la loro pressione sulla trattativa. Ciò che Putin cerca di ottenere da Trump è semplice ma allo stesso tempo complesso: allentare la tensione tra i due paesi. Per questo ha proposto a Trump, che ha accettato,  una indagine congiunta sulla «cospirazione».

Non si sa come si svolgerà la trattativa sulle questioni nodali:  status della Crimea, condizione della Siria, armi nucleari e altre. Né si sa che cosa chiederà Trump.  E’ però certo che ogni concessione potrà essere usata per accusarlo di connivenza col nemico. Si oppongono a un allentamento della tensione con la Russia non solo i Democratici (che, con un rovesciamento dei ruoli formali, svolgono la parte di «falchi»), ma anche molti Repubblicani tra cui importanti esponenti della stessa amministrazione Trump.

È l’establishment non solo statunitense, ma anche europeo, i cui poteri e profitti sono legati alle tensioni e alle guerre. Saranno non le parole ma i fatti a dimostrare se il clima distensivo del Summit di Helsinki diverrà realtà. Anzitutto con una de-escalation NATO in Europa, ossia con il ritiro delle forze anche nucleari USA/NATO schierate contro la Russia e con il blocco dell’espansione della NATO ad Est.

Ø  Anche se su tali questioni fosse raggiunto un accordo fra Putin e Trump, sarà in grado quest’ultimo di attuarlo?

Ø  O saranno in realtà a decidere i potenti circoli del complesso militare-industriale?

Una cosa è certa: non possiamo, in Italia ed Europa, restare semplici spettatori delle trattative da cui dipende il nostro futuro.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 17 luglio 2018

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

President Lenin Moreno betrayed his supporters by transforming Ecuador into a US vassal state, reversing Rafeal Correa’s more progressive agenda.

In cahoots with Washington and Britain, Moreno appears headed toward expelling Julian Assange from his country’s London embassy, a move to extradite him to America for the crime of reporting hard truths its ruling regimes want suppressed.

On July 15, the London Sunday Times reported UK and Ecuadorian ministers at the highest levels are conspiring to evict Assange from the South American country’s embassy, given safe haven there in 2012.

Moreno lied calling Assange a “hacker.” He a publisher of vital truths imperial America, Britain, and their NATO partners in high crimes want suppressed.

Rafael Correa protected Assange from kangaroo court injustice in Britain and America. Moreno considers him an “inherited problem,” a “stone in the shoe.”

According to the London Times,

“(s)ources close to the Australian-born Assange said he was not aware of the talks but believed that America was exerting ‘significant pressure’ on Ecuador, including threatening to block a loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) if the Latin American state did not evict him from the embassy.”

Indicting 12 Russian nationals on fabricated US election meddling charges increased US pressure on Ecuador to hand over Assange to Britain as a conduit for permitting his extradition to America.

For first time weeks earlier, two Australian High Commission officials visited Assange in London at the Ecuadorian embassy.

He’s an Australian national, abandoned by his native country in deference to Washington. It’s unclear if the first time visit suggested a possible policy change – very doubtful.

Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson she couldn’t reveal details of the meeting because of the “delicate diplomatic situation.”

According to an Inter-American Court of Human Rights days earlier ruling, nations are obliged to uphold inviolable asylum rights, guaranteed under international law, including the right of safe passage to the country granting asylum.

The US and Britain consistently and repeatedly breach fundamental international laws – Moreno an apparent co-conspirator with regard to Assange. He could be expelled from Ecuador’s London embassy any time.

According to WikiLeaks legal advisor Geoffrey Robertson, the Trump regime concocted a “new legal theory” with no validity, circumventing First Amendment free expression/free press rights in cases involving foreign journalists.

It’s a flagrant misinterpretation of what this vital right is all about, excluding no one for any reasons, notably bogus ones in the case of Assange.

Friday’s indictment of 12 Russian nationals on fabricated charges didn’t mention WikiLeaks by name. It referred instead to “Organization 1,” falsely claiming it hacked into and stole “documents…from US persons, entities and the US government” – a bald-faced lie.

WikiLeaks is a media organization, publishing information it’s provided, operating legally, stealing nothing, committing no crimes. Yet it’s unjustly targeted anyway.

Assange explained information WikiLeaks obtained relating to the US 2016 presidential election came internally from a whistleblowing DNC source legally. No evidence proves otherwise.

No Kremlin interference in America’s political process occurred – a US specially, occurring scores of times worldwide in the post-WW II era.

Assange’s fate is up for grabs. Despite having committed no crimes, he could end up imprisoned in America longterm – solely to silence him and discourage others from revealing disturbing truths Washington wants suppressed.

*

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In the July 16th joint press conference between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the question arose of U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s recent indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officials for allegedly having engineered the theft of computer files from the Democratic National Committee and from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. Here is that part of the press conference, in a question that was addressed to both Presidents (and I boldface here the key end part of Putin’s presentation, and then I proceed to link to two articles which link to the evidence — the actual documents — that Putin is referring to in his response):

REPORTER (Jeff Mason from Reuters): For President Putin if I could follow up as well. Why should Americans and why should President Trump believe your statement that Russia did not intervene in the 2016 election given the evidence that US Intelligence agencies have provided? Will you consider extraditing the 12 Russian officials that were indicted last week by a US Grand jury.

TRUMP: Well I’m going to let the president [meaning Putin] answer the second part of that question.

As you know, the concept of that came up perhaps a little before, but it came out as a reason why the Democrats lost an election, which frankly, they should have been able to win, because the electoral college is much more advantageous for Democrats, as you know, than it is to Republicans. [That allegation from Trump is unsupported, and could well be false.] We won the electoral college by a lot. 306 to 223, I believe. [It was actually 304 to 227.] That was a well-fought battle. We did a great job.

Frankly, I’m going to let the president speak to the second part of your question. But, just to say it one time again and I say it all the time, there was no collusion. I didn’t know the president. There was nobody to collude with. There was no collusion with the campaign. Every time you hear all of these 12 and 14 — it’s stuff that has nothing to do — and frankly, they admit, these are not people involved in the campaign. But to the average reader out there, they are saying, well maybe that does. It doesn’t. Even the people involved, some perhaps told mis-stories. In one case the FBI said there was no lie. There was no lie. Somebody else said there was. We ran a brilliant campaign. And that’s why I’m president. Thank you.

PUTIN: As to who is to be believed, who is not to be believed: you can trust no one. Where did you get this idea that President Trump trusts me or I trust him? He defends the interests of the United States of America and I do defend the interests of the Russian Federation. We do have interests that are common. We are looking for points of contact.

There are issues where our postures diverge and we are looking for ways to reconcile our differences, how to make our effort more meaningful. We should not proceed from the immediate political interests that guide certain political powers in our countries. We should be guided by facts. Could you name a single fact that would definitively prove the collusion? This is utter nonsense — just like the president recently mentioned. Yes, the public at large in the United States had a certain perceived opinion of the candidates during the campaign. But there’s nothing particularly extraordinary about it. That’s the normal thing.

President Trump, when he was a candidate, he mentioned the need to restore the Russia/US relationship, and it’s clear that certain parts of American society felt sympathetic about it and different people could express their sympathy in different ways. Isn’t that natural? Isn’t it natural to be sympathetic towards a person who is willing to restore the relationship with our country, who wants to work with us?

We heard the accusations about it. As far as I know, this company hired American lawyers and the accusations doesn’t have a fighting chance in the American courts. There’s no evidence when it comes to the actual facts. So we have to be guided by facts, not by rumors.

Now, let’s get back to the issue of this 12 alleged intelligence officers of Russia. I don’t know the full extent of the situation. But President Trump mentioned this issue. I will look into it.

So far, I can say the following. Things that are off the top of my head. We have an existing agreement between the United States of America and the Russian Federation, an existing treaty that dates back to 1999. The mutual assistance on criminal cases. This treaty is in full effect. It works quite efficiently. On average, we initiate about 100, 150 criminal cases upon request from foreign states.

For instance, the last year, there was one extradition case upon the request sent by the United States. This treaty has specific legal procedures we can offer. The appropriate commission headed by Special Attorney Mueller, he can use this treaty as a solid foundation and send a formal, official request to us so that we could interrogate, hold questioning of these individuals who he believes are privy to some crimes. Our enforcement are perfectly able to do this questioning and send the appropriate materials to the United States. Moreover, we can meet you halfway. We can make another step. We can actually permit representatives of the United States, including the members of this very commission headed by Mr. Mueller, we can let them into the country. They can be present at questioning.

In this case, there’s another condition. This kind of effort should be mutual one. Then we would expect that the Americans would reciprocate. They would question officials, including the officers of law enforcement and intelligence services of the United States whom we believe have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.

For instance, we can bring up Mr. Browder in this particular case. Business associates of Mr. Browder have earned over $1.5 billion in Russia. They never paid any taxes. Neither in Russia nor in the United States. Yet, the money escapes the country. They were transferred to the United States. They sent huge amount of money, $400 million as a contribution to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. [He presents no evidence to back up that $400 million claim.] Well, that’s their personal case. It might have been legal, the contribution itself. But the way the money was earned was illegal. We have solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers guided these transactions. [This allegation, too, is merely an unsupported assertion here.] So we have an interest of questioning them. That could be a first step. We can also extend it. There are many options. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.

REPORTER (Jeff Mason from Reuters): Did you direct any of your officials to help him [Trump] do that [find those ‘options’]?

PUTIN: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the US/Russia relationship back to normal.

President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump with President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation and President Sauli Niinistö and Jenni Haukio of Finland | July 16, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

The evidence regarding that entire matter, of Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act, can be seen in the links and the other evidences that are presented in two articles that I published on that very subject, earlier this year. One, titled “Private Investigations Find America’s Magnitsky Act to Be Based on Frauds”, summarizes the independently done private investigations into the evidence that is publicly available online regarding Bill Browder and the Magnitsky Act. The Magnitsky Act was the basis for the first set of economic sanctions against Russia, and were instituted in 2012; so, this concerns the start of the restoration of the Cold War (without the communism etc. that were allegedly the basis of Cold War I). The other article, “Russiagate-Trump Gets Solved by Giant of American Investigative Journalism”, provides further details in the evidence, and connects both the Magnitsky Act and Bill Browder to the reason why, on 9 June 2016, the Russian lawyer Nataliya Veselnitskaya, met privately at Trump Tower, with Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner — the reason was specifically in order to inform them about the documentation on this case, so that Trump, if elected, would be aware of the contents of those documents. She had used the promise of dirt on Hillary so as to enable Trump, who effectively became the Republican nominee on 26 May 2016, to learn about the actual documents in this crucial case.

The Russian government has been legally pursuing Mr. Browder, for years, on charges that he evaded paying $232 million taxes that were due to the Russian government. These private investigations into this matter — regarding whether or not the Magnitsky Act was based on fraudulent grounds — have all found that Mr. Browder has clearly falsified and misrepresented the actual documents, which are linked to in those two articles I wrote. These might be the very same documents that she was presenting on June 9th.

So: this is a matter of importance not only to the validity (or not) of the Magnitsky Act economic sanctions against Russia, but to the Russiagate accusations regarding U.S. President Donald Trump. In my two articles, the general public can click right through to the evidence on the Magnitsky case.

*

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  

Featured image: President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation | July 16, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

The summit started with Vladimir Putin saying:

“As nuclear powers, we bear special responsibility” for international security.

Putin said Russia (as a devout Christian country) considered it necessary for the two countries to work together on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation – and to avoid weapons being placed in space.

Donald Trump correctly reiterated the significance and importance to hold a meeting with Vladimir Putin, despite the wide spread criticism from within his own Country and most notably from the mainstream media who are very now clearly controlled entirely by what has popularly become known as the ‘Deep State’.

Trump, in the follow on Press Conference, said

“Even during the tensions of the Cold War, the US and the Soviets were able to maintain a strong dialogue but our relations (now with Russia) have never been worse than they are now. However that changed as of about four hours ago.”

He added

“nothing would be easier politically than to refuse to engage” which would “appease partisan critics, the media” and the opposition.”

“As President, I will always put what is best for America and what is best for American people,” Mr Trump said.

And what was the response in America to the summit?

The most vitriolic insult came from former CIA Director, John Brennan.

The not so funny irony is that Brennan literally voted for the then Soviet Union dominated US Communist Party to take power in the United States of America. Incredible, almost beyond belief. If you look at Brennan’s extremely insulting tweet repeated below, the full irony of his being a communist in the Soviet era should hit home.

Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???

— John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) July 16, 2018

So what are the facts? Well John Brennan was accepted into the CIA in 1980 even though he admitted voting Communist in 1976. Something inexplicable and astounding for any thinking person to understand of itself.

President Obama’s CIA chief, John Brennan, first publicly revealed this at the Annual Legislative Conference of the Congressional Black Caucus, on 15 September 2016, in Washington DC, saying that when he had applied in 1980 to join the CIA, he admitted to them that in the 1976 Presidential election, at the height of the Cold War against the ‘Godless’ Soviet Union, when a strong Christian candidate, Jimmy Carter was running against Gerald Ford, Brennan had voted instead for the candidate of the US Communist Party, Gus Hall, and that he was then greatly relieved to find that this information didn’t cause rejection of his CIA-application. One must ask why as it happened 11 years before ‘the alleged’ end of the Cold War by the West in 1991.

The Caucus made no mention of Brennan  having spoken there, nor did the CIA include in its public archives any indication that he had spoken there, though, for example, they did include the complete transcript of “Director Brennan Delivers Keynote at Miles College” on 13 September 2016, in Birmingham Alabama, at which event he said nothing at all that the main stream media considered was newsworthy; incredible!

Furthermore, though there is online a webpage devoted to, and covering each day of, the 2017 Annual Legislative Conference, on 20-24 September of last year, the webpage for the 2016 Conference, on September 14th-18th, mentions events only on September 14th and September 17th, as if Brennan hadn’t even appeared there at all. The entire day’s events on September 15th are missing. So: both the Caucus, and the CIA, redacted his 15 September 2016 presentation, and the transcript of it isn’t publicly available neither is any video or audio of it available publicly.

At the risk of being repetitive, take this in; John Brennan literally voted for the Communist Party, the Soviets, to take power in the United States of America!

The Soviet Union no longer exists and lasted less than a 100 years. Its Russia a centuries old deeply Christian nation.

As a Brit, a keen observer of American politics for decades, I find it astonishing that a father and son, Americans Ron and Rand Paul seem to be representative of a few sane voices that debate logically and objectively on the subject of Russia, acknowledging, as Trump put it, that they are our competitors not enemies.

On Monday on CNN, committed Zionist, the famous Wolf Blitzer, was aghast that Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul spoke on his programme saying that critics of Trump, Putin summit have “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.

Blitzer almost angrily asking the Senator

“Let me get right to the questioning. Do you believe that President Trump’s meeting with Putin made America safer?”

The Senator answered

“You know, I think engagement with our adversaries, conversation with our adversaries is a good idea. Even in the height of the Cold War (with the Soviets), maybe at its lowest ebb when we were in the midst of the Cuban missile crisis, I think it was a good thing that Kennedy had a direct line to Khrushchev. I think it was a good thing that we continued to have Ambassadors to the Soviet Union even when we really objected greatly to what was going on, especially during Stalin’s regime. So I think, yes, that it is a good idea to have engagement.”

The Senator added

“I think there are people that hate the President so much that this could have easily been President Obama early in the first administration setting the reset button and trying to have better relations with Russia and I think it’s lost on people that they are a nuclear power.”

The Kentucky Senator concluded his answer with this keen observation,

“They (Russia) have influence in Syria. They’re in close proximity to our troops in Syria. They are close to the peninsula of North Korea and may have some influence that could help us there. The other thing that’s lost and people forget this completely, the Russians tried to help us stop the Boston marathon bombing. We actually did help them stop a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg because we were communicating and exchanging. All of those things are good, and because people hate Trump so much, all of that’s being lost.”

I feel compelled to quote the Senator’s father from a few days ago, the former Congressman and medical Dr. Ron Paul, who himself described the phenomenon we call the ‘Deep State’ best when he said ‘the ‘Deep State’ is no vast and secret conspiracy theory. It is real; it operates out in the open, and it is far from monolithic. The ‘Deep State’ is simply the permanent, unelected government that continues to expand its power regardless of how Americans vote.

There are hundreds of billions of reasons dollars mostly, why the Beltway military-industrial complex, the EU and even Israel is terrified of peace breaking out with Russia and will do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.

That is why Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s indictment on Friday of 12 Russian military intelligence officers for allegedly interfering in the 2016 US Presidential election is so immediately suspicious.” Former Congressman Paul went on

“Unfortunately most Americans don’t seem to understand that indictments are not evidence. In fact they are often evidence-free, as is this indictment.”

In conclusion Dr. Ron Paul added

“Did the Russian government seek to interfere in the 2016 US presidential elections? It’s certainly possible, however we don’t know!”

So from the outside as a Brit, the question I ask is why haven’t the Clintons, Brennan and their like been arrested already for the countless crimes that have been revealed to the public… with evidence? I ask because it is only when these spoilers and traitors are brought to justice that America can come to peace with itself. Constant wars are not the answer to stability.

In the words of Winston Churchill, and I paraphrase, “Jaw, jaw, jaw not war, war, war” is the solution.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The West’s “Regime Change” war against the legitimate government in Syria, based upon fake humanitarian pretexts, is a war of Supreme International War Crimes, packed in lies and deceptions. 

Mark Taliano and Tate Ulsaker unpack the lies and point at our complicity on “Truthseeker’s Path”.

As Christians in the West, through our political passivity and quiescence, we are offering tacit consent to terrorists in Syria who slaughter and ethnically cleanse Christians — in the land which gave birth to Christianity.

Beneath the lie of “freedom and democracy”, we are giving consent to undemocratic terrorist mercenaries who are and have been destroying Syria – against the will of Syrians. We are giving consent to chaos, totalitarianism, and fundamentalist, distorted interpretations of Sharia Law.

Under the false pretext of a “War on Terror” we are supporting ISIS and al Qaeda.

In the name of “helping refugees”, we are creating refugees.

We are impoverishing ourselves, and the entire world, by supporting the War Machine.

The policymakers who have successfully fabricated consent for their megalomaniacal and criminal ventures are hollow men and women, empty shells. And we are duty bound to resist.

Source: Truthseeker’s Path

*

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

---

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

A reconciliation process is developing in the areas recently liberated by the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in southern Syria.

According to the Russian Reconciliation Center for Syria, since the start of the implementation of the reconciliation deal militants have surrendered 20 battle tanks, 13 armoured vehicles, 6 anti-aircraft automatic guns, 13 anti-aircraft guns, 29 mortars, 3 artillery pieces, 83 shoulder-launched anti-tank rocket-propelled grenade launchers, 55 heavy machine guns and 301 automatic rifles.

Militants are set to surrender more wepons and equipment in the coming days.

Additionally, the SAA and  its allies have continued attacking positions of radical armed groups, including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda), in the provinces of Daraa and Quneitra.

Government troops have liberates the villages of Sarmin, Inkhil, Khirbat Siryah, Jasim as well as nearby points. According to local activists, SAA units are moving towards the town of al-Harah.

On July 14, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan voiced concerns over an expected military operation of the SAA in the province of Idlib during a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a Turkish presidential source said, according to Reuters. The phone call took place two days after the liberation of Daraa city.

Despite formal participation of the Astana talks format alongside with Iran and Russia, Ankara is not hurrying up to combat Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in the province of Idlib. If the SAA launched own operation, Turkey may make attempts to stop it.

The Popular Resistance of Raqqa (PRR), an anti-coalition resistance group operating in northeastern Syria, has carried out a bomb attack on a building, in which a meeting between representatives of the US-led coalition and commanders of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) was allegedly taking place, the PRR claimed in a statement.

There are no reports on casualties in the attack. Nor the US-led coalition nor the SDF has commented on the PRR’s claims.

Meanwhile, reports appeared that the SDF may hand over the Omar oil field, located on the eastern bank of the Euphrates, to the Damascus government. While these reports remain unconfirmed, it is possible that Damascus will get access to the oil fields area.

The SDF, which is dominated by the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) and their political wing – the PYD, has no capabilities to run oil fields within the controlled area. So, it does it involving government specialists and sharing the revenue with Damascus.

*

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

For many weeks much of the mainstream media world-wide, including broadcasters, been warning of potential concessions in the negotiations between the US and North Korea and between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, lest vital interests of the west are compromised. In the process little has been said about the alternative for such negotiations and potential agreements, namely a nuclear holocaust on a regional to a global scale, with consequences that belong to the unthinkable (see this, this and this). In this context, a picture is emerging regarding the priorities of the US President: On the one hand he tends to favor authoritarian undemocratic leaders and regimes; on the other hand he may wish to form a pact with Russia, avoiding a suicidal nuclear war.

The Castle Bravo Hydrogen bomb

It is not clear what some of the mainstream media is concerned about?

The assumption is made as if the world is split into light and dark, good and bad, with a total demonization of one of the adversaries with whom no agreements should be trusted?

Or, are peace agreements less newsworthy and sell fewer newspapers than conflict and wars? Or is it connected with vested interests, namely a reduction in the global armament production and trade reducing profits, consequent to peace agreements? One thing is clear, once a pro-war atmosphere is promoted, as for example prior to WWI, the chances of a war happening are multiplied, 

Rarely do the mainstream media report the full consequences of a nuclear war, just as they rarely report on the full consequences of runaway global warming. 

A summary of the consequences: U.S.-Russian war producing 150 million tons of smoke follows 

• 2600 U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear weapons on high-alert are launched, in 2 to 3 minutes, at targets in the U.S., Europe and Russia and other targets considered to have strategic value. Some fraction of the remaining 7600 deployed and operational U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear warheads/weapons are also launched and detonated in retaliation for the initial attacks.
• Massive amounts of radioactive fallout would be generated and spread both locally and globally. The targeting of nuclear reactors would significantly increase fallout of long-lived isotopes. 
• Hundreds of large cities in the U.S., Europe and Russia are engulfed in massive firestorms which burn urban areas of tens or hundreds of thousands of square miles/kilometers. 150 million tons of smoke from nuclear fires rises above cloud level, into the stratosphere, where it quickly spreads around the world and forms a dense stratospheric cloud layer. The smoke will remain there for many years to block and absorb sunlight.
• Gigantic ground-hugging clouds of toxic smoke would be released from the fires; enormous quantities of industrial chemicals would also enter the environment.
• The smoke blocks up to 70% of the sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface in the Northern Hemisphere, and up to 35% of the sunlight is also blocked in the Southern Hemisphere. In the absence of warming sunlight, surface temperatures on Earth become as cold as they were 18,000 years ago at the height of the last Ice Age. There would be rapid cooling of more than 20° Celsius over large areas of North America and of more than 30° Celsius over much of Eurasia, including all agricultural regions
• Average global precipitation would be reduced by 45% due to the prolonged cold. Growing seasons would be virtually eliminated for many years.
• Massive destruction of the protective ozone layer would also occur, allowing intense levels of dangerous UV light to penetrate the atmosphere and reach the surface of the Earth.
• It would be impossible for many living things to survive the extreme rapidity and degree of changes in temperature and precipitation, combined with drastic increases in UV light, massive radioactive fallout, and massive releases of toxins and industrial chemicals.
• Already stressed land and marine ecosystems would collapse.
• Unable to grow food, most humans would starve to death.
• A mass extinction event would occur, similar to what happened 66 million years ago, when the dinosaurs were wiped out following a large asteroid impact with Earth (70% of species became extinct, including all animals greater than 25 kilograms in weight).
• Even humans living in shelters equipped with many years-worth of food, water, energy, and medical supplies would probably not survive in the hostile post-war environment.

See this. 

Perhaps the mainstream media, the tail which commonly wags the dog, ought to worry about some of the consequences of nuclear war as much as they worry about potential concessions inherent in peace talk between the world’s superpowers.

*

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

An independent Chinese refiner has suspended crude oil purchases from the United States and has now turned to Iran as one of its sources of crude, media reports cited an official from the refiner, Dongming Petrochemical Group, as saying.

The source said Beijing is planning to slap tariffs on US crude oil imports and replace them with West African and Middle Eastern crude, including crude from Iran, Oil Price reported. China has already said that it will not comply with US sanctions against Iran and it seems to be the only country for now in a position to do this.

US crude oil exports to China reached 400,000 barrels per day at the beginning of this month, but now Beijing is planning to impose a 25% tariff on these as part of its retaliation for Trump’s latest round of tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods. The retaliation began with tariffs on 545 US goods worth another $34 billion, but Reuters reports that oil tariffs will be announced at a later date.

Energy analysts seem to believe that these oil tariffs are more or less a certainty, and now expect a reshuffle of crude oil imports to Asia. With China turning to Iran for its crude, US oil could start flowing in greater amounts to another leading importer in the region, South Korea.

“If China retaliates with tariffs on US crude, that could improve South Korea’s terms of buying US crude … because the US would need a market to sell to,” an analyst from the Korea Energy Economic Institute said.

Meanwhile, South Korea’s Embassy in Iran this weekend rejected media reports that the country had suspended oil purchases from Iran under pressure from the United States.

The US has pressed South Korea and some other nations to cut down its purchase of Iranian oil to zero or face so-called secondary sanctions. The deadline is Nov. 4 when the 180-day grace period ends.

In May, the US announced its exit from the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran, formally dubbed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and plans to reinstate harsh sanctions on the OPEC member.

The country is the third-biggest buyer of Iranian crude in Asia, buying Iranian crude at an average daily rate of almost 300,000 barrels since March this year.

*

Featured image is from Financial Tribune.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Protests have been happening for more than two months by Palestinians along the Gaza Strips. Their demands: to be allowed to return home and to have their lands returned after the expulsion from 70 years ago.

Since the beginning of the protests on March 30^th, Israeli forces have wounded more than 15 000 people and have killed as many as 135 Palestinians, according to the health officials in Gaza.

The situation in recent months has gone from bad worse, mostly due to the US President Donald Trump recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Palestinians are left to look for international support to stop what it sees as a destruction of its last hopes to defend their interests and to achieve statehood.

What makes the situation worse is that recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, as well as the move of the US, Guatemala and the soon-to-follow Uruguay embassies to the city show the complete abandonment of the Palestine Cause. The US, Israel, Saudi Arabia among others seek their own agendas in the region, they do not always contribute to the stability and long-lasting peace. The US and Israel provide no solution or real offer, just demands in the form close to an ultimatum that has no hope of being welcomed.

During the escalation, after the March 30^th Israel carried strikes on Gaza on April 27^th, May 4^th, May 5^th, May 11^th, followed by one of the largest incidents after the recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel by the US. The most recent exchange happened on the July 14^th when Israel sent an air raid and several rockets were targeted by Hamas at Israel.

On June 29^th, Yasser Abu al-Naja, a 11-year-old boy who sustained a gunshot wound to the head was killed, announced by Ashraf al-Qidra, spokesperson for Gaza’s health ministry. Mohammad Fawzi Hamaydeh, 24, was also killed by a shot to the abdomen and foot by Israeli Forces. There were 415 wounded, 11 of whom children, 3 cases of injuries were severe.

On the 15^th consecutive Friday of Great March of Return a Palestinian man – 22-year-old  Mohammad Jamal Abu Halima was killed and 396 were injured, among whom were 13 children, fifty seven people were injured by live ammunition. The Palestinians marched on July 7^th, Saturday to mourn the victim.

On July 9^th Israel announced its decision to seal off trade border crossing. Hamas dubbed the decision a “crime” and a “death sentence” for Palestine traders. It is a crossing that was not only used as a trade route, but also as a way to deliver foreign aid to the Gaza Strip. The closing will, however, allow for humanitarian aid to move, stated Al Jazeera by confirmation from Gaza. The materials which will be refused entry will be clothing goods and construction materials. In the recent weeks Palestinians have protested against the land, naval and aerial block imposed by Israel and Egypt since 2006. This heavy strike on citizens of Gaza comes after Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority’s decision to impose financial sanctions on Gaza in an attempt to isolate Hamas, who currently run the Strip.

On July 14^th, Israel sent air raids over al-Kateeba, Gaza in retaliation to rockets fired by Hamas with the biggest daytime assault on Gaza since 2014, killing two teenagers – Amir al-Nimra, 15, and Luay Kaheel, 16, who were playing on a rooftop – and wounding at least 30 people.

Following the attacks, thanks to international and regional mediation efforts an all-out war was avoided, and a ceasefire was established. Reports by Al Jazeera dub the ceasefire an Egypt-brokered one.

The ceasefire, however, is threatened and Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu states that it may be lifted if Palestinian Protesters’ attacks with flaming kites which burn Israeli land do not end. Thousands of hectares of land were burned, however there have been no deaths.

As of the morning of July 16^th the ceasefire seems to be holding, however anger and frustration seem to be increasing as the 12-year-long Gaza Strip siege does not show any signs of ending soon and threatens a renewal of an all-out war.

The recent launching of war games by Israel over the occupied territories may also be the spark of war, they began on July 15^th, Sunday and are expected to continue throughout the entire week. According to the Walla news website, the drill is supposed to simulate the capture of Gaza City. United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) media adviser Adnan Abu Hasna said that the threat of a new Israeli war is more real than ever before since at this point denizens of the Gaza Strip “have nothing to lose.”

After the beginning of the war games, Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s executive committee came forward and said that Israel is “deliberately targeting and killing Palestinian children.” She also added that

”The targeting of public places and playgrounds constitutes a war crime and violates international law and international humanitarian law.”

However, as the world turns its back on Palestine, Israel will continue its campaign of brutality and terrorism against the innocent, according to Ashrawi.

Human rights groups have claimed that Israel troops use excessive force, to which Israel responded that all actions it takes are in self-defense or against people who, disguised as demonstrators, aim to infiltrate their country.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

For two months, Nicaragua has been through a major political crisis, fueled by clashes between law enforcement and an insurgency. Humanitarian organizations report a terrifying record of nearly 200 deaths. This violence, compromising the attempts of political negotiations, makes it necessary to understand who has an interest in paralyzing this Central American country. What are the motivations of protesters and opposition forces? Is the Nicaraguan government the symbol of absolute tyranny?

It was a pension reform project that started the fire. To avoid privatizing social security as recommended by the IMF, the government wanted to increase contributions for both workers and employers. Faced with a public outcry, the government backtracked and withdrew its reform plan. But the protests continued without anyone being able to understand what was their objective. In order to stop the cycle of violence, government spokesmen called on the protesters to participate in peace commissions. They insisted on their willingness to listen to the various demands and to promote the expression of political opposition. To no avail. Calls for dialogue from the government have been shunned.

They were even perceived as a sign of weakness, galvanizing the young protesters of the M-19 movement. With no program, this movement simply calls for overthrowing the “dictatorship” accused of being at the origin of the “repression”. Moreover, the international media aligned themselves without reserve with these demonstrators, regarded as the quintessence of the civil society, in spite of their nihilism and extremism. But the attitude of the M-19 raises questions. By refusing any political solution and promoting violence, the movement offers an ideal motive for the proponents of “regime change” and “constructive chaos” already applied in countries like Libya, Iraq or Ukraine

On 14 June, the M-19 operation consisting of deploying “tranques” (barricades) in certain areas of the capital Managua, as well as in nearby cities such as Masaya or Granada, was supported by a “national strike” of 24 hours. This strike was convened by COSEP, the main employers’ organization. Yes, in Nicaragua, it is the bosses who call to strike! The world upside down? The fact remains that neither the majority of workers, nor the small and medium-sized enterprises followed suit. But it allowed an evaluation of the balance of power as well as maintaining the pressure until the next phase. On June 16, the day when the peace dialogue between the opposition and the government was to be revived, a new episode of extreme violence made the front pages of the international media.

The macabre fire of the Velasquez house

First, the facts. On June 16, a group of hooded people set fire to a building in Managua using Molotov cocktails, causing seven deaths, including a two-year-old child and a five-month-old baby. A mattress store occupied the ground floor of the building while the owner and his family lived on the first floor. Neighbors said they saw hoodlums throw their cocktails at the building, and said some shooters would have prevented the family from escaping. Accident as a possible cause was therefore immediately rejected.

But private media like Televisa or BBC immediately seized the case to blame the authorities for the crime. According to their information, paramilitaries on government payroll wanted to use the roof of the building to post snipers; the paramilitaries, having been denied access by the homeowner, would have locked him up in his residence with his family before setting it on fire. This is the same thesis defended by the Nicaraguan Center for Human Rights (CENIDH), which pointed out “their complicity with the national police”. For other governments, this argument would appear simplistic, implausible and irrational. Who would have defended the idea that the British government was behind the fire of the Grenfell tower for example? But in the case of Nicaragua, the complicity or even the responsibility of the government is put forth as a matter of fact.

To give credit to the story, the BBC used the testimony of the only survivor in the family:

“Hooded people came with police officers and locked up nine people in a room on the second floor and burned us alive.”

According to the same testimony, the offenders carried “mortars, weapons, and Molotov bombs”. We can only respect the bereavement of the survivor. But it cannot be dismissed that under shock, and calling for divine justice, she felt the need to find an immediate culprit. This is why it cannot be excluded that her testimony has been influenced in any way so as to channel her anger and to politically exploit it. In an effort to get closer to the truth, it is necessary to look for additional information and to cross-check them with other testimonies and documents.

The problem is that observers are facing a real war of images. Filmed from the balcony of the house burned, an amateur video was immediately relayed on social media. It aims at reinforcing the thesis of police forces and para-police organizations participation. Filmed by the eldest son of the family, Alfredo Pavon, one of the victims of the fire, this video is certainly interesting. But we see only a convoy of five police vans stopping near the house after a motorcycle chase, after which the police fires some warning shots and arrests a young biker. Hard to turn this into evidence. This document is nevertheless used to sow doubt, or even to point at the authorities as being responsible for the crime. Widely shared by the media in the aftermath of the crime, the video continues to be broadcast in a loop and feed hate comments…

However, these images have in fact been taken out of context: the recording was made on April 21, that is, at the very beginning of this crisis. What it reveals above all is that this precise area had been the scene of clashes between the two camps since the beginning of the crisis. This corresponds to information sent by Nicaraguan citizens, which indicates that the Carlos Marx district is controlled by the opposition. Indeed, it is hard to believe, as the opposition says, that police forces have surrounded the same neighborhood for two months, without being able to quell the protest movement until June 16, when they finally decided to use the roof of the Velasquez family to post snipers. And that’s not all. According to the same version, short of obtaining the family’s approval, the authorities acted brutally by setting the house on fire, without anticipating that it would cause a resurgence of tensions instead of calming them down.

Not really intimidated by the crime in the Velasquez house, four members of the M-19 were present on the scene the same day, to record a video where they accuse the government of “state terrorism” and call to support their movement. They take the opportunity to send a message to the negotiation table:

“We are not going to remove the barricades, they are in our hands and those of the people, and we will not take them off. I want you to know: if the people do not unite, it will end up in new massacres like this one”.

But have their accusations, carried by certain media and Internet users on social media, been the subject of a real inquiry gathering enough facts?

Retaliation against the right to work?

A journalist at TeleSur, Madelein Garcia reports a completely different version: the people responsible for the fire are “delinquents recruited by the opposition”, “hooded men who attacked with mortars and Molotov cocktails the family home, after reading in a media that snipers of the police were hiding there.” Garcia explains that according to a friend of the family,

“the hooded men asked for mattresses, the owner refused and that’s when they burned the house for revenge.”

Moreover, a disturbing screen shot of the April 19 movement was relayed via social media, including several photos of the owner of the premises, the father Velasquez Pavon, accompanied by explicit threats against him. The document dates from 2 days before the fire, that is to say at the time of the strike organized by COSEP. The commentary indicates that he did not respect the strike directive, preferring to continue working. In the eyes of his attackers, that would have been enough to make him automatically suspicious of sympathy with the government. The M-19 would have then relayed the identity and address of one of the future victims, threatening to “disappear” these “infiltrated” Sandinistas who “refuse to strike by pretending to support the people”.

Since the release of this document, it appears that the text and photos have been removed from the account, the group administrators explaining that it could be a forgery. An explanation that did not convince everyone: some remember seeing these photos before the day of the fire, and point out that the area was under the control of the opposition, including through the “tranques” (barricades).

Who to believe? We only have amateur videos published by Velasquez Pavon on his Facebook account in recent months. He proudly presents his mattress making workshop and says he works tirelessly. Would the small business owner Velasquez Pavon have been the target of opposition or paramilitary forces? Two days after the employers’ strike, would there have been any reprisals against the right to work of the Nicaraguan people? The dead do not speak; it is difficult to answer these questions. But respect for the victims requires a real independent investigation, which is incompatible with political and media manipulation.

Who wants to eliminate the Sandinistas?

Without the same outrage from the media, other killings and attacks have clearly targeted citizens and buildings associated with Sandinismo.

On the same day that the Velasquez house was burned, a funeral home located a few meters from the house was also ransacked and set on fire.

Still near the scene of the incident, two men were spotted in the street dismantling the barricades of the opposition. They were shot dead on the spot. The killers sprinkled gasoline on one of the corpses and set it on fire. Before leaving, they put objects on the burned body to create a macabre scene. It was Francisco Aráuz Pineda, from a historical family of the Sandinista Revolution.

Here is a non-exhaustive timeline sequence of violent actions that took place in just three weeks:

• On May 28, the public prosecutor’s office in Masaya was subjected to arson, while the police reported an attack on their offices.
• On May 29 protesters set fire to the offices of Tu Nueva Radio Ya, considered a pro-government media.
• On May 31, the offices of Caruna, a financial services cooperative, were set on fire.
• On June 9 it was Radio Nicaragua’s turn, destroyed by the flames. That same day, a young Sandinista activist died in a motorcycle accident while trying to dodge a trap in a barricade in San José de Jinotepe, Carazo.
• On June 12, a gang kidnapped and brutally tortured 3 workers at San José College in Jinotepe. In the context of the clashes, 2 historic Sandinista militants were murdered. Also that day, the mayor’s house was ransacked and burned.
• On June 13, another group held captive and brutally tortured Leonel Morales, a leader of the National Union of Students of Nicaragua (UNEN). The emergency doctors at Bautista Hospital treated serious wounds caused by a bullet lodged in the young man’s abdomen, which would indicate a clear intention to kill. The authors of this attack had come from the vicinity of the Polytechnic University of Managua.
• On June 15, the day after the employers strike, Sandinista lawyer and activist Marlon Medina Tobal was shot dead while walking beside a barricade in the city of Leon. On the same day, demonstrators armed with mortars were spotted in Jinotepe town.
• On June 18, criminals threw a burning tire inside the house of Rosa Argentina Solís, a 60-year-old communal leader … for “totally supporting the government of the constitutional president Daniel Ortega and reminded that he had won the elections by a majority of votes.” The same day, the house of the mother of Sandinista MP José Ramón Sarria Morales was the subject of arson. Then nine members of his family were held captive and tortured.
• On June 18, Sandinista activist Yosep Joel Mendoza Sequeira, a resident of Simón Bolivar Matagalpa neighborhood, was held captive and savagely tortured. The same day, a video was relayed via social media, where a young woman accused of sympathy with the government is humiliated and tortured during an interrogation.
• On June 21, after being held by men manning barricades in Zaragoza, Stiaba, a young Sandinista youth activist named Sander Bonilla was savagely tortured under the impassive gaze of a priest.
• On June 22, an anti-Sandinist group fired at the house of the teacher Mayra Garmendia in Jinotega and burned the building where her family was, who managed to escape.

The similarities with the crimes perpetrated in Venezuela by the anti-Chavista opposition a year ago suggest that this wave of violence is primarily motivated by a deep ideological hatred that goes beyond the framework of ordinary crime.

When the dead are brought back to life

To these brutal attacks that speak for themselves, we can add the confusion maintained by the protesters themselves with the complicity of the private media.

• Thus, on April 23, at the very beginning of the protests, motorcyclists carrying Molotov cocktails shot at point blank range Roberto Carlos Garcia Paladino, a 40-year-old man who died on the spot. His mother, Janeth Garcia, denounced the opposition for using his image by making him a student victim of repression. “They are carrying the flag with his image, as if it were a flag of struggle, but he was not a student, you can verify it without problems.”
• On May 4 a video with the testimony of José Daniel García is broadcast. He denounces the use of his own photo in a demonstration, looking as if he was killed in the clashes. Alerted by his mother, García demands that his photo be removed. According to him, this “manipulation is intended to deceive the people”. Similar cases where the dead are resurrected have been identified:
• On May 13, a Frente Sandinista activist, Heriberto Rodríguez, was shot dead in the head near a cinema in Masaya. The private media say he was murdered during a protest, portraying him as a martyr of the anti-government struggle, while Sandinismo’s Voice media claims he was killed by gangs of criminals allied with the right.
• On May 16, a group of demonstrators near the Metrocentro Mall in Managua threw down a metal art installation called “The Tree of Life”. After demolishing it, they stomped on it. The filmmaker of Guatemalan origin Eduardo Spiegler, who was there at the time of the incident, was crushed by the weight of the metal construction and died on the spot. His picture will be used to make it look as if he was a student victim of the repression, which some will denounce as manipulation.
• On May 30, the 18-year-old Mario Alberto Medina’s family, who died in September 2017, condemnsthe “unscrupulous actions of people who are using the young man’s photographs to add them to the list of dead”.

Other people also discovered the presence of their name or photo in a list of dead claimed by the protesters: Christomar Baltodano, Karla Sotelo, Marlon Joshua Martinez, Marlon Jose Davila, William Daniel Gonzalez … Much like in Venezuela in 2014, the public was intoxicated by a massive campaign of fake news via social media.

Observers on the “good side” of the barricade

If we want to broaden the perspective, short of exposing the long history, it is necessary to return to the chronology of the facts. On June 15, the Catholic Church’s peace dialogue had just resumed after the talks had been interrupted since May 23. The new agenda between the government and the opposition renewed the authorization granted to a list of international organizations to participate in observation missions in the country, in order to identify all murders and acts of violence as well as their leaders, with an integral plan of care for victims in order to achieve effective justice. They included observers from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), as well as the EU.

An organization dependent of the Organization of American States (aligned with Washington), the IACHR had already carried out a mission between May 17 and May 21. Then it continued to issue reports, the last of which coincided with the day of the strike. Its record attributed to the government of Daniel Ortega the central responsibility in this crisis, while recognizing the presence of armed groups with “homemade mortars filled with gunpowder” in the ranks of the demonstrators. The wording is not very eloquent: the reader of the release is unlikely to imagine the scenes of horror that these groups were responsible of.

On June 14, the Nicaraguan Foreign Ministry replied in a letter that the work of the IACHR had still not taken into account “evidence of atrocious crimes, cruel and degrading treatment, kidnapping and other acts of violence committed against the population and especially against public officials and persons known to be Sandinistas“. Given the biased stance it is accused of, the authorization to visit the premises that the Ortega government granted to the IACHR on June 26, must be considered as a concession in the framework of peace negotiations between the two parties. Especially since institutions like Amnesty International have clearly shown that they are on the other side of the barricade, turning a deaf ear to the testimonies that are not aligned with the dominant narrative.

Caution is therefore required. If we assume the hypothesis of a political motive behind the frightening crime of the Velasquez house, the arrival of the investigators of the IACHR could have constituted a special motivation, in order to attract the international public opinion’s attention. Be that as it may, it did not take long to happen.

First, on June 18 the Civic Alliance, the political opposition movement engaged in dialogue with the government, announced its withdrawal from the negotiation table and demanded the presence of external observers. The reactions were immediate, notably that of the representative of the OAS Luis Almagro and the IACHR… and finally the unavoidable press release of the spokesperson of the US Department of State Heather Nauert, condemning the ‘current violence sponsored by the government, including the attack on June 16 against the residence and trade of a family…”. Nauert recommended that the government should carry on according to the points on the peace agenda, including the planned visit of observers of the IACHR. Her conclusion is quite significant: the

United States “takes note of the general appeal of Nicaraguans for new presidential elections” and “considers that the elections would be a constructive way forward”!

This statement contains a thinly veiled threat: it is an interference with the sovereignty of Nicaragua. It relies on a new balance of power, starting from the mid-June sequence – the strike and the peace agreement, undermined by the new violence of the weekend, which has had as a result the opposition leaving the negotiation table. Nauert therefore puts pressure on the Ortega government, which is now confronted on the one hand with increased street violence and lack of dialogue with the political opposition, and on the other hand with the arrival of the observation missions – who have probably already decided in advance the conclusion of their report.

Is “regime change” a thing of the past?

Unless one is uncontrollably naive, everyone will have noticed that the United States continues to regard Latin America as its backyard. For we cannot dismiss the role played in Nicaragua by a certain international activism, which is centered on the United States Congress, where the Nica Act was approved last November. Under the initiative of Ros-Lehtinen, a Cuban anti-Castro elected member of the Republican party, this law aims to stifle the Nicaraguan economy, blocking international loans. The reason? “Human rights violations, the regression of democracy in Nicaragua, and the dismantling of the free elections system in this country”.

When the United States presents itself as the defender of human rights and the champion of democracy in the world, it should be remembered that in recent years bodies dedicated to “promoting democracy”, such as USAID or the NED, showered opposition movements with dollars (support that the protesters do not hide). Simultaneously, Senator Marco Rubio proposed to use the Magnitsky Act as a weapon of financial sanctions against the Vice-President of the mixed enterprise Albanisa. What was Rubio’s aim?

“Not only to support the desire for new elections as soon as possible to change the government, but also change the constitution, because a new government on the basis of corruption and dictatorship is more or less the same thing.”

Helping to overthrow the government elected by the Nicaraguan people is not enough, so you have to write directly a new constitution in its place, to prevent these latinos from returning to bad habits!

All these mechanisms of destabilization correspond to the different phases of a real hybrid war. In the view of the neoconservative strategists, “constructive chaos” is far better than the loss of the areas of direct influence of yesteryear. If Nicaragua is again in the line of sight of US imperialism, the real reasons are mostly economic.

Nicaragua, theater of a long US strategic war

As early as 1825, the Federal Republic of Central America, a political entity stemming from the wars of independence, had commissioned a study on the creation of a canal on the Lake Nicaragua Canal route. It was a strategic project for the economic development and survival of the young republic. But following the creation of the Independent State of Nicaragua in 1838, the Central American Federation broke out, dividing it into six different political entities (Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica). What about the economic integration project in the region? It fell into oblivion.

For the United States, the break-up of Central America was therefore very advantageous from a strategic point of view. In 1846, the Colombian government signed with the United States the Mallarino-Bidlak Treaty, by which Colombia was to ensure free circulation in this region, where the United States planned to create an inter-oceanic canal. Following the vision of US Marine Corps Captain Alfred Thayer, the goal was to better control maritime trade. The new agreement offered US troops the pretext to intervene militarily 14 times, relying on the legal foundations of the treaty. Thus the United States played a decisive role in the separation of Colombia and the Department of Panama on November 3, 1903.

As a reminder, as early as 1823, the United States had issued a warning to the European powers who would be tempted to regain control over the young emerging republics. It was the famous Monroe Doctrine: “America for Americans”. Translation: The United States were keeping a “right of interference” on its southern neighbors. Well, in 1850 the United States signed a similar treaty with England, which since 1661 had established a protectorate over the coastal region of Mosquitia, allying itself with the indigenous Mosquito people against the Spaniards. The agreement between the two powers provided for the shared control of the coast and the circulation of goods in the future canal. But in 1860, Nicaragua signed another agreement with England, by which it formally renounced the protectorate. In its place, the Kingdom of Mosquitia was created, with a constitution based on English laws. In 1904, Mosquitia was finally incorporated in Nicaragua.

On December 6, 1904, facing the US Congress, President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed the “Big Stick” doctrine, also known as the “Roosevelt Corollary.” This foreign policy was practiced in the period between 1898 and 1934 where, in order to protect its commercial interests, the United States occupied several Latin American countries, in what would become known as the “banana wars”. William Howard Taft, who had been appointed Secretary of War in the Roosevelt administration, did not hesitate to use force in several countries. Significantly, the same Taft was responsible for overseeing the construction of the Panama Canal, which was finally inaugurated in 1914.

It must be remembered that the initial project for the construction of the Panama Canal was first granted by Colombia to France thanks to the signing of the Salgar-Wyse agreement. The works, led by Ferdinand de Lesseps, the engineer responsible for the Suez Canal in Egypt, began in 1878 and lasted ten years, but was abandoned in 1888. The abandonment of the project by the French led to the United States resuming the idea of the canal and commissioned a study of the American Congress at the Walker Commission. Finally, the choice was on Nicaragua and a construction treaty was signed. But this country opposed the granting of a route planned by the United States, and envisaged the possibility of granting it to Germany. In retaliation, in August 1912, the United States sent troops to Nicaragua. They would only return home after 21 years of occupation, turning the country into some sort of protectorate. The invasion served the purpose of preventing another country from building a canal in the area. In 1916, the newly elected Adolfo Diaz government, with the kind support of the US Marines, signed with the United States the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty, through which that country obtained the concession for the canal for a period of 99 years and the authorization to install a naval base.

The success of the Panama Canal and the long invasion of Nicaragua by the United States threw the other canal project into the dustbin of history. But not forever. Daniel Ortega, the historical leader of the Sandinista Revolution who was president of Nicaragua in the 1980s and re-elected in 2006, brought back the project. In 2013, the National Assembly approved a law granting the concession of the new Transoceanic Canal to the private Chinese company HKND. If it saw the light of day, it would be three times the size of the Panama Canal. In other words, there would be a serious competition issue.

*

Translated from French by Tamarvlad

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The first official meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his counterpart Donald Trump was a fairly casual, unpeopled affair, absent bureaucrats and note takers.  This was what both wanted in Helsinki, men who believe in the gold weighting authority commands.  According to Masha Gissen of The New Yorker, their meeting reflected “their shared understanding of power: the triumph of nothing over everyone.”

The Helsinki meeting, on the surface, did more for Putin than Trump, though the details about the actual discussions are scant. 

“Why did Trump,” inquired former director of the Central Intelligence Agency John Brennan, “meet one on one with Putin? What might he be hiding from Bolton, Pompeo, Kelly, and the American public?” 

Left, instead, was a joint press conference that had the intended rumbling effect, filled with distraction and fury inspiring titbits.   

Trump, showing his traditional hostility to the US intelligence community, fell a touch short of publicly believing the Russian president over his own aides. 

“They said they think it’s Russia.  I have President Putin – he just said it’s not Russia.”   

His own director of national intelligence Dan Coats is of the contrary view. 

“We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy, and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security.”   

Even more defiantly, Trump’s views were being aired in the aftermath of indictments against twelve Russian intelligence agents accused of interfering in US politics, a reminder that Robert Mueller has every intention of keeping the issue of Russia and the 2016 election in the news.  This is standard fare for Trump; prior to breakfast at Mäntyniemi Palace, he took the opportunity to fire a few broadsides at the special counsel investigation, characterising it a “Rigged Witch Hunt”.   

The glacial state of US-Russian relations also came under scrutiny, and for that, claimed the president, one need only look to the poisonous well of US foreign policy.  Such audacious instances of self-inculpation are rare.  

The Democrats, certain Republicans and the anti-Trump fraternity, were not amused.  The reaction was one of stunned derision laced with jaw-dropping consternation.  Former House speaker, Newt Gingrich assessed it as “the most serious mistake of his presidency” which needed correction “immediately”.   

Senator minority leader Chuck Schumer resorted to hyperbolic comparison:

“In the entire history of our country, Americans have never seen a president of the United States support an American adversary the way President Trump has supported President Putin.”

Siding with Putin “against American law enforcement, American defense officials, and American intelligence agencies is thoughtless, dangerous and weak.” 

Policy establishment wonks former and current screamed treason.  Brennan, who has made it a habit to attack the elected head of his country, shows the yawning and disconcerting gap between Trump the populist and the intelligence services who seem to, in some quarters, fantasise about a coup d’état. 

“Donald Trump’s press conference in Helsinki,” came Brennan’s assessment, “rises to and exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanours’.” 

Casting the pale light on Trump in such a way – that such conduct was “nothing short of treasonous” – feeds the desperate drive for impeachment. 

Some of the responses have been unmoored from any sense of proportion. 

“I’m ready to call this the darkest hour in the history of the American presidency,” tweeted a despairing Garry Kasparov, a person who has vainly railed against the Putin apparatus for years.  “Let me know if you can think of any competition.” 

The contenders are surely more plentiful than Kasparov admits; the corruption of Watergate, the inglorious elections that gave two terms of the Bush administration; decisions made to expand warrantless surveillance and the catastrophic invasion of Iraq in 2003 – all these provide concrete examples of ruination and battering that have given us the shoddy Republic we have today.  The Trump-Putin show is simply that, a boys’ own gathering where dreams and delusions can be exchanged with minimal impact.  Showing fury and frothing rage at such acts is precisely what the Trump complex feeds off, drawing in critics and supporters alike.   

In Russia, the details of the meeting matter less than its fact, supplying a totally different angle on proportion.  Agendas are less significant than performance, and no one is going to remember anything past the bromide exchanges in Helsinki.  Relations between the countries remain on their icy settings, with Trump unmoved to change US policy towards Crimea’s annexation in 2014 and the Iran nuclear deal.  A new era in US-Russian relations has been proclaimed without script or object. 

Apoplectic critics of Trump, having fallen for what they regard as the grotesque and sinister, ignore the actual machinery of policy making that is this administration.  The capital now runs on a set of parallel lines that never threaten to meet, one set in the White House as a televisual production with Making America Great Again as its pitch, and others running through traditional establishments in the State Department, the Pentagon and security annexes who continue feathering the National Security State.  Such aides as national security advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are certainly not softening to Putin.   

The Trump show remains one of goggles and screen rather than substance and product; and while Putin will have a damn good go at convincing Trump to wind back the Magnitsky sanctions and embrace the visage of authoritarian confidence, that is something reserved for domestic consumption.  This show of nothingness, as Gissen deems it, has yielded nothing. 

* 

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

Featured image is from NPR.

Who holds the purse strings to the majority of the world’s wealth? There is a new global elite at the controls of our economic future, and here former Project Censored director and media monitoring sociologist Peter Phillips unveils for the general reader just who these players are. The book includes such power players as Larry Fink, Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Jamie Dimon, and Warren Buffett.

As the number of men with as much wealth as half the world fell from sixty-two to just eight between January 2016 and January 2017, according to Oxfam International, fewer than 200 super-connected asset managers at only 17 asset management firms—each with well over a trillion dollars in assets under management–now represent the financial core of the world’s transnational capitalist class. Members of the global power elite are the management–the facilitors–of world capitalism, the firewall protecting the capital investment, growth, and debt collection that keeps the status quo from changing. Each chapter in Giants identifies by name the members of this international club of multi-millionaires, their 17 global financial companies—and including NGOs such as the Group of Thirty and the Trilateral Commission—and their transnational military protectors, so the reader, for the first time anywhere, can identify who consitutes this network of influence, where the wealth is concentrated, how it suppresses social movements, and how it can be redistributed for maximum systemic change.

*

What People Are Saying About This Book

“This book will be a blockbuster. Looking very forward to using it in my courses and circulating it through my lists.” William I. Robinson, Professor of Sociology and University of California-Santa Barbara

“This book is a must read for community college and university students. Phillips’ Giantsis a much-needed book for our times”. Mickey Huff, director of Project Censored; professor of social science and history, Diablo Valley College

“This remarkable inquiry lifts the veil, providing detailed and often shocking revelations about the astonishing concentration of private wealth and corporate power, its institutions and integrated structure – and not least, its threat to civilized and humane existence.” Noam Chomsky, Emeritus Professor of MIT

“This book is a fearless expose of the ascendancy of a class of global elites and the power they wield around the world.” Robin Andersen, Professor, Communication and Media Studies Fordham University

“Peter Phillips thoroughly identifies the members of the “transnational capitalist class” that largely runs the world today, through the mammoth instruments of Western military force, and the international intelligence community, and—not least—our free press.” Mark Crispin Miller PhD, Professor Media Studies New York University

---

(Pre-Order) Giants: The Global Power Elite

Price: $19.95

Click here to order!

PDF copies are available now for review for academia and media at [email protected] or [email protected].

.

.

.

.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: President Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, walk together to their one-on-one bilateral meeting, Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at the Capella Hotel in Singapore. (Official White House Photo by Stephanie Chasez)

The Singapore Summit was a dramatic turn-around from the adolescent name calling that Trump and Kim had engaged in only months before. Trump had labelled Kim as “Little Rocket Man,” and Kim had labelled Trump as “Dotard.” Having gotten through this, the summit was on for June 12, then it was abruptly cancelled by Trump when Mike Pence had referred to the “Libya model” for North Korean nuclear disarmament, and a North Korean official had called Pence a “political dummy.” North Korean officials were understandably sensitive to the Libya model reference. They view Gadhafi’s demise as a direct result of his giving up Libya’s nuclear program. Then, in the midst of the chaos, something happened behind the scenes and suddenly the summit was back on for June 12, as originally planned.

It was a summit of smiles and handshakes. Little Rocket Man and Dotard seemed very happy in each other’s company.  They smiled incessantly, shook hands many times and, at one point, Trump gave a thumbs up.

The most obvious result of the summit was the change in tone in the relationship of the two men. Whereas the tone had once been nasty and threatening, it was now warm and friendly. The two men appeared to genuinely like each other and be comfortable in each other’s company. For both, the new warmth of their relationship seemed likely to play well with important domestic constituencies. Although the summit elicited a lot of skepticism from US pundits, the optics were those of a breakthrough in a relationship once considered dangerous and a possible trigger to a nuclear conflict. Both men viewed the summit as a major achievement.

They each committed to a rather vague Summit Statement, which said in part: “President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK (North Korea) and Chairman Kim Jong-un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” Trump added as an unexpected sweetener that he would put a halt to the joint US-South Korean war games, which the North Koreans had long complained were highly provocative.

Each was being promised what he most desired: security for Kim and his regime, and complete denuclearization of North Korea for Trump. They were also gaining in stature in their home countries. Prior to the summit, Trump was asked by a reporter if  he thought  he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, to which he coyly responded, “Everyone thinks so, but I would never say it.”

There was much, however, that didn’t emerge from the Singapore summit, and it can be summarized in a single word: “details.” The ultimate value of the summit will be found in the details that are agreed to and acted upon going forward. Will these details build or destroy trust? Will Kim truly believe that he can trust Trump (or a future American president) to give security to the Kim regime? Will Trump (or a future American president) truly believe that Kim is following up on denuclearizing? The answers to these questions will depend upon details that have yet to be agreed upon, including those related to inspections and verification.

While the summit has relieved tensions between the two nuclear-armed countries, nuclear dangers have not gone away on the Korean Peninsula or in the rest of the world. These dangers will remain so long as any country, including the US, continues to rely upon nuclear weapons for its national security. Such reliance encourages nuclear proliferation and will likely lead to the use of these weapons over time – by malice, madness or mistake.

We can take some time to breathe a sigh of relief that nuclear dangers have lessened on the Korean Peninsula, but then we must return to seeking the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. An important pathway to this end is support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by the United Nations in 2017 and now open for state signatures and deposit of ratifications.

*

David Krieger is a founder of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org) and has served as its president since 1982

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In January 1941, with the prospect looming of US involvement in another European war, President Franklin Roosevelt spoke of America’s purpose in the world: to protect and promote “four freedoms.” FDR drew a clear link between US security and the fulfillment of human rights at home. “Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all of our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small.”

In another speech he underscored the point:

“unless there is [human] security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.”

Among the extraordinary backward steps Donald Trump is taking to transform America, none is more shameful than his calculated trampling on human rights at home and abroad. To my mind, the two are interrelated: A government that does not respect the human rights of its own citizens will also show no respect for human rights in other countries—and will work with other governments that seek to repress their citizens’ rights. Moreover, a government that fails to promote human rights in its own backyard will lack credibility should it criticize others’ repression of human rights.

Undermining Rights at Home

On the home front, two recent surveys show how the US has declined as a repository of human rights, in particular adherence to political rights and civil liberties. These are the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index, whose ranking is based on 44 indicators of lawfulness; and Freedom House, which makes annual assessments based on implementation (not claims) of rights enumerated in the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The WJP ranks the US 19th of 113 countries in its 2018 survey. Among the weakest dimensions for the US are labor rights, an effective correctional system, discrimination, respect for due process, and accessibility and affordability of the legal system. For comparison sake, note that Germany (6th), Canada (9th), and Britain (11th) all rank higher than the US. Freedom House ranks the US 86th of 100 countries (100 being “most free”); Canada (99), Germany (94), and Britain (94) again rank higher. Trump’s corruption, evasion of legal and institutional norms, and low regard for certain human rights help account for a lower Freedom House ranking of the US than in previous years. The US ranked 90th in the 2016 report, for instance.

On the human-security side, a recent report by Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur for extreme poverty and human rights, documented growing problems of poverty in America. Before Trump, the rich-poor gap was already wide and the number of people, especially children, living in poverty was pitifully large. In Alston’s view, Trump’s policies amount to “a systematic attack on America’s welfare program that is undermining the social safety net for those who can’t cope on their own. Once you start removing any sense of government commitment, you quickly move into cruelty” (see here). Nearly 23 million people, according to Alston, are living in extreme or absolute poverty. And the US has the highest rate of infant mortality, the highest rate of youth poverty, and the highest income inequality among all rich countries. Poor people are especially vulnerable in the Trump era because they are being deliberately targeted for political advantage, while a sliver of the US population benefits more than ever from tax cuts, subsidization of the fossil fuel industry, and voter restrictions.

Human security and basic human rights are under assault in other ways: by reducing government responsibility for the health and welfare system; putting energy interests and private profit ahead of action to address climate change and respect for scientific findings; subjecting immigration policy to outright racist priorities, such as by denial of due process, separation of families, and blatant disregard for the rights of children (the US is the only country in the world that has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child); moving away from support of public education; and undermining the right of labor to organize. The Supreme Court, now with a far right-leaning majority that will soon be further strengthened by a new Trump appointee, is a handmaiden of his attack on labor unions, women’s, gay people’s, and immigrants’ rights.

Trump’s immigration policy is especially troubling. UN human rights special rapporteurs from various countries have condemned it, pointing out that his Muslim ban and rejection of legitimate asylum requests based on “a well-founded fear of persecution” violate international and US law and conventions. (A US district judge on July 3, 2018 slammed the administration for violating its own regulations on asylum seekers, and ordered that these detainees be either freed from detention or granted asylum.) Trump’s executive order of June 20, 2018, said these UN experts, “does not address the situation of those children who have already been pulled away from their parents. We call on the Government of the US to release these children from immigration detention and to reunite them with their families based on the best interests of the child, and the rights of the child to liberty and family unity. Detention of children is punitive, severely hampers their development, and in some cases may amount to torture. Children are being used as a deterrent to irregular migration, which is unacceptable” (see here).

“State-sanctioned child abuse” is the way Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) put it on MSNBC on July 5 in light of the separation of some 3,000 children from their parents at the US-Mexico border.

Of course such criticism will not move a president who touts “America first” and believes a harsh immigration policy is the key to his reelection.

He has already withdrawn the US from the UN Human Rights Council and rejected the critique of poverty in America by the special rapporteur, with US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley deriding it as “patently ridiculous.” These actions, along with reduced US contributions to the UN budget, put the US on China’s and Russia’s side. Beijing and Moscow likewise want to force major reductions in the human-security side of the UN budget, including peacekeeping missions and protection of women and children from sexual exploitation (see here).

Dancing with Dictators

Meantime, the Trump administration has continued the sordid US practice of supporting authoritarian regimes, making the US party to repression of human rights abroad and, on occasion, a collaborator in crimes against humanity and war crimes. The usual pretext for such support is to maintain “stability,” counter terrorism, or align against some other equally authoritarian regime. Vietnam reflects the latter case: Washington, backing Vietnam’s territorial case against China, hasn’t said a word about repression of dissent and trials of human-rights activists there (see here). “Support” often takes the form of selling arms, as in the cases of Turkey despite widespread repression and the dismantling of democratic institutions, Saudi Arabia in its bombing campaign in Yemen (see here), and the Philippines despite its unrestrained drug war.

Israel should be added to this list, since the far-right Netanyahu government receives about $1.5 billion annually in US arms that give it license to violently suppress Palestinian protests. Not surprisingly, the equally far-right US ambassador to Israel has said Israel should be exempt from US law that requires a State Department report on whether or not US-supplied weapons are being used to repress human rights (see here).

“Israel is a democracy whose army does not engage in gross violations of human rights,” Ambassador David Friedman said.

Evidently, neither he nor the administration he serves regards attacks on Gaza demonstrators this past spring, which killed at least 135 Palestinians and wounded perhaps 15,000, as “gross violations” (see here).

Even when serious violations of human rights are occurring in adversarial countries that have something to benefit Trump, such as China, North Korea, and Russia, expect very little comment from him. Yes, he said he had brought up human rights when he met with Kim Jong-un, and insisted that US missile attacks in response to Assad’s use of chemical weapons were motivated by concern about Syrian children. But does anyone take those assertions seriously in light of his undermining of human rights at home? After all, Trump has publicly excused Kim, Xi Jinping, Putin, and other authoritarian leaders he has called great friends for their bad behavior, noting that they have a tough job and that there are “bad guys” in all political systems. Trump’s beef with China is mainly about trade and the South China Sea; human rights has yet to get a hearing. And how about Russia? While several of Trump’s top officials have criticized Putin over arbitrary arrests and even assassinations of critics, Trump has been silent. (Remember how he ignored the advice of his national security council—“Do Not Congratulate”—when he telephoned Putin on his reelection?) Or Poland, Hungary, and Turkey, where Trump-like leaders are busy burying democracy while the European Union looks on, aghast but powerless?

Trump reserves his professed concern about human rights for antagonistic rivals, notably Cuba and Iran—the very countries, not coincidentally, that Obama successfully engaged. Those countries are important either because of their domestic political value (Cuba) or (for Iran) because of Trump’s ties to Israel and Saudi Arabia. But aligning against Cuba and Iran only worsens human rights conditions in those countries. In a word, the more antagonistic US policy becomes—imposing sanctions and promoting regime change—the more are human rights threatened, first because of their often devastating impact on ordinary people’s lives, and second because hard-line elements in Cuba and Iran have ammunition to increase repression in the name of national security. (For example, in Iran: see here).

Discussion of sensitive human-rights cases often gets relegated to the annual state department report on conditions around the world, a report required by Congress. Even here the Trump administration has downplayed human rights. When the 2016 report was prepared, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson rejected the usual practice of presenting it to the press, evidently to discount its importance (see here). The 2017 report, which came out this April, “sugarcoated” several controversial issues, as one human rights NGO leader put it. These deceptions include Israel’s conduct in the Occupied Territories (no longer labeled as such), high civilian casualties from Saudi Arabia’s indiscriminate bombing in Yemen (referred to as “disproportionate collateral damage”), and women’s reproductive rights (no longer mentioned). (See here.) Little wonder that so many senior diplomats have quit over Trump’s disdain for human rights, including John Feeley as US ambassador to Panama, Elizabeth Shackelford as chief political officer in the US embassy in Somalia, and Jim Melville as ambassador to Estonia.

A Declining Example

The United States has always claimed to be an exemplar of respect for human rights—for liberty, democracy, and the rule of law—and has deplored (and occasionally sanctioned) outrageous human conditions in some other countries. That stance was the foundation of Roosevelt’s argument for US entry into World War II—as well of Eleanor Roosevelt’s role in crafting the UN Universal Declaration. Every postwar US administration since has had a very inconsistent record in that regard, but Trump’s is the worst of the lot by far: He rarely even makes reference to human rights, much less takes action on its behalf. But then again, any action he might take would lack credibility, because as FDR observed, improving human rights at home is central to protecting it abroad.

Trump does not make that connection. He is riveted on two things, money and power, the core concerns of a big businessman who never has enough. The lure of money hardly needs explanation. First come the receipts: Trump and his family see gold in foreign officials’ visits to his US and overseas properties, in potential hotel and golf sites for his brand, and in (secret) transfers of funds to support his election and help pay his debts. Then there are the costs: Trump has declared that certain military exercises, alliances (read: NATO, Japan, and South Korea, among others), and overseas bases are too expensive. Human rights concerns do not figure in such a bottom-line calculus (see here).

Trump’s aim to expand his personal power may be seen in his affection for certain autocrats. Democracy, the rule of law, and transparency are among the least interests to this president. Trump looks for inspiration to dictators because they display the kind of raw, unchallenged political power he would like to have—the power, that is, to defy behavioral. policy and legal norms, behave brutally with those who are disloyal or disagree, and go it alone without consequences. Granted, talking with dictators is sometimes necessary and useful, especially if there is a deal in the works. The Singapore summit with Kim Jong-un is a prime example. But admiring dictators is another matter entirely: It betrays a disturbing personal characteristic of Trump’s.

We see the dictator’s playbook at work in Trump’s stance on immigration—a direct appeal to popular fears and long-denied racist impulses. Paul Krugman contends here that Trump must stir up unreasoning hatred of “the other.” Krugman writes: “the atrocities our nation is now committing at the border don’t represent an overreaction or poorly implemented response to some actual problem that needs solving. There is no immigration crisis; there is no crisis of immigrant crime. No, the real crisis is an upsurge in hatred — unreasoning hatred that bears no relationship to anything the victims have done. And anyone making excuses for that hatred — who tries, for example, to turn it into a ‘both sides’ story — is, in effect, an apologist for crimes against humanity.”

And now the US Supreme Court, far from helping stem this tide, has endorsed a president’s power to claim a national security threat that will keep Muslims out of America. The founders of this country, who looked for it to be a “shining example” to the world, must be turning over in their graves. So, surely, is FDR.

*

Mel Gurtov is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University, Senior Editor of Asian Perspective, and author most recently of Engaging Adversaries: Peacemaking and Diplomacy in the Human Interest(Rowman & Littlefield, 2018). He blogs here.

All images in this article are from the author.

Many media outlets claim to be “independent” and therefore different in their coverage from well-funded corporate media, but what does this truly mean?

To maintain our independence, Global Research does not seek financial support from any private or public foundations. It’s not that we don’t answer to anyone — rather, we answer to everyone. We have been able to develop our activities thanks entirely to contributions from our readers.

However, maintaining our projects, websites and operations does involve some very real costs, and the fact that we are independent means that we operate on a shoestring budget. We would not survive a day without the support of our readers.

Please consider making a (one time) donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member. Any amount large or small will make a difference.

Need more reasons to support us? Consider the following:

“Global Research is key to understanding socio-economic political issues in the world.  The transnational corporate class of the global one percent is protected by the US/NATO Military Industrial Media Empire. Political propaganda released by the corporate media in service to Empire is exposed daily in articles by the writers at Global Research.

Democracy, Human Rights, and Social Justice continue as progressive values for most people in the world.  Providing the truth about Empire and repression is something Global Research does very well. I fully endorse their work for my students and all thinking people.”

– Peter Phillips, PhD
Professor Sociology—Sonoma State University
Former President, Media Freedom Foundation/Project Censored

Without the support of our readers, Global Research would not exist.

Please scroll down to find out how you can support 100% independent media!

Donate online, by mail or by fax

Become a member of Global Research

Show your support by becoming a Global Research Member
(and also find out about our FREE BOOK offer!)

Browse our books, e-books and DVDs

Visit our Online Store to learn more about our publications. Click to browse our titles:

Join us online

“Like” our FACEBOOK page and recommend us to your friends!

Subscribe to our YouTube channel for the latest videos on global issues.

A note to donors in the United States:
Tax Receipts for deductible charitable contributions by US residents

Tax Receipts for deductible charitable contributions by US residents can be provided for donations to Global Research in excess of $400 through our fiscal sponsorship program. If you are a US resident and wish to make a donation of $400 or more, contact us at [email protected] (please indicate “US Donation” in the subject line) and we will send you the details. We are much indebted for your support.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Through to the back of the cremation grounds where the fields of sugarcane begin, Ko Soe and I coast our bicycles to a stop. It is mid-December, and the sugarcane stocks are tall now, taller than us. Somewhere amid these fields Myanmar migrant workers from the nearby Apex garment factory are hiding. We know this because Ko Soe had only minutes ago been talking with one of them by phone, but then the connection had died; presumably this worker’s phone had run out of power. So now we dismount and look around for an entrance into the fields. The sugarcane is far too dense to walk through, even if we were to leave our bicycles behind. Uncertain how to proceed, we soon spot a man standing, looking at us from the edge of the fields where some car tracks come to an end. Ko Soe calls out and, as we approach, explains to the man that he, too, had worked at Apex, having quit only a few months prior. “We’ve come to see the workers’ situation,” he adds.

The man, whom we now see to be in his early twenties, leads us down a narrow path walled by stocks of sugarcane. When the trail reaches a small stream, we lift our bicycles and carry them along the watercourse until, as directed by our guide, we lay them aside and jump across the brook to an isolated patch of banana trees. It is here that we begin seeing the migrants, bunched together with their baskets of food and clothing, standing, idling, chatting with each other, and reclining on woven mats laid out on the ground. Some of the men are smoking. Others chew quids of betel. A few young children are milling about, and I even spot a couple of babies being held. To my left a young women lies on her back reading a Burmese romance novel. An older woman, speaking by phone to a migrant friend elsewhere, laughs as she explains her predicament. Someone else brings out a tin of biscuits and passes it around to share. The migrants waiting here smile and greet us, thanking us for coming.

Hiding in the Fields

There are, perhaps, about fifty migrants here – mostly women – crowding out small patches of open ground among the banana trees. Although Apex had, I was told, employed upwards of three hundred workers only a few years earlier, the workforce seriously declined when large groups quit in a series of disputes over unpaid wages; others left following the recent closure of the factory’s weaving department. Hence, the migrants hiding here are all that are left, among whom are a handful I know from my previous visits to the factory.

In response to our enquiries about their situation, the migrants tell us that they fled into the sugarcane field this morning while it was still dark, taking with them supplies of rice, boiled eggs, pickled tea, and packaged snacks they had prepared the night before. Initially, they say, the Apex factory owner, who is based in Bangkok, had given instructions that the workers were not to stop production despite news of impending raids. At the last minute, however, the personnel manager got cold feet and told the workers they should temporarily hide out in the nearby sugarcane fields because neither he nor the owner could guarantee their security. The migrants we are speaking with ask us, in turn, what we know of the raids elsewhere, and they name a factory nearby where they have heard the police who came up yesterday from Bangkok have already arrested the workers.

Today is December 15, 2012, one day after the deadline for undocumented migrants in Thailand to register for temporary passports and work permits, thereby escaping their status of illegality. Like the vast majority of the more than 200,000 Myanmar migrants in Mae Sot, in northwest Thailand’s Tak Province, those hiding here amid the sugarcane lack documentation for legal residence and work in Thailand. And like most everyone else in Mae Sot’s migrant community, they knew the registration deadline was approaching; billboards had been put up, and loudspeaker-toting pickup trucks had toured the town, announcing in both Burmese and Thai that those not registered by December 14 would face up to five years in prison, with fines up to 50,000 baht (just over $1,600 U.S.). Government officials in Bangkok had further announced that over one million undocumented migrants would be deported. At other factories in Mae Sot, workers had fled across the nearby border to Buddhist monasteries in the Myanmar town of Myawaddy to wait until the Bangkok police departed. Everyone seemed to know it would only last a few days; this was not the first registration deadline to pass, nor was it the first time raids had been conducted in Mae Sot.

Although most Mae Sot migrants knew in advance of the registration deadline, only a small minority had actually applied for passports and work permits. For the majority, the cost of obtaining these documents through any of the area’s many private passport companies was prohibitive – more than they could save in a year. While it was possible for employers to advance the money to cover the cost, this was not a common practice in Mae Sot. Most factories, such as Apex, simply avoided immigration hassles and potential raids by paying off the local police with monthly fees deducted from the wages of the undocumented migrants they employed. This was, presumably, why the Bangkok (and not Mae Sot) police had been entrusted with the task of enforcing the current registration deadline. In the end, however, very few raids actually occurred in Mae Sot when the registration deadline passed. Out of some four to five hundred factories in the area, I heard mention of only two where such raids apparently took place. And shortly thereafter, the Thai Ministry of Labour announced a three-month extension to the registration period.

Had the threats of raids, arrests, and deportations all been for show? Or had the Thai government heeded humanitarian appeals for an extension to the registration period, such as that voiced by the head of the International Labour Organization? Perhaps policymakers in Bangkok had recognized that mass deportations would have severely undermined Thai industry. In any case, the migrants I met in the sugarcane field went back to work a few days later. They did not, to my knowledge, ever register for passports or work permits while employed at the Apex garment factory, despite the extension granted.

The Social Production of Border Capitalism

The central contention of this book is that the Mae Sot industrial zone, as a spatialized regulatory arrangement, has shaped and made possibly certain forms of class struggle – the effects of which have disrupted and transformed the site’s border capitalism. This argument contrasts with analyses that would see the regulatory arrangement of such zones as being fixed in advance by state policies – developmentalist, neoliberal, or otherwise. I therefore analyze Mae Sot as a dynamic social space – a politically charged space – whose movement is born of the site’s internal contradictions. This is, moreover, a movement that persistently threatens to disrupt the site’s existing social relations, whose conditions of possibility were, in part, born of antecedent class struggles.

The on-the-ground regulation of migrant labour in Mae Sot can thus not be read off of official state policies. Rather, the everyday regulation of migrants in Mae Sot remains contested at the local level, persistently reshaped, and often ambiguously understood by the migrants to whom it applies. As a designated Special Border Economic Zone, Mae Sot’s spatially bounded regulatory arrangement, proximity to the Myanmar border, and distance from central Thailand have enabled a particularly acute situation of despotism organized around the optimization of low-wage, flexible labour for the purposes of capital accumulation and border industrialization. Yet the ways in which migrants have responded to the forms of regulation they confront have forced regulatory actors – such as employers and local government officials – to adjust their regulatory practices accordingly. It is in this way that border capitalism, as both situated relations of production and a spatialized regulatory arrangement, is socially produced.

The argument I advance here is clearly inspired by the work of Henri Lefebvre. But I draw more specifically from the operaista (workerist, often glossed as autonomist Marxist) tradition that grew out of Italian factory workers’ struggles in the 1960s. Writing in an early issue of the workerist journal Classe Operaia, Mario Tronti laid out a critical approach to understanding capitalist development – whether it be technological change, capital relocation, regulatory reform, or the reorganization of the labour process. The particularities of capitalist development, argued Tronti, were best understood not as neutral technical innovations but as reactions to the threats to capital accumulation and managerial prerogative being posed by concrete working-class struggles. As Tronti maintained,

“We too have worked with a concept that puts capitalist development first, and workers second. This is a mistake. And now we have to turn the problem on its head, reverse the polarity, and start again from the beginning: and the beginning is the class struggle of the working class. At the level of socially developed capital, capitalist development becomes subordinated to working-class struggles; it follows behind them, and they set the pace to which the political mechanisms of capital’s own reproduction must be tuned.”

Building on Tronti’s innovations about the primacy of workers’ struggles in catalyzing capitalist development, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri have extended the argument to account for multiple cycles of restructuring: “Workers’ struggles force capital to restructure; capitalist restructuring destroys the old conditions for worker organization and poses new ones; new worker revolts force capital to restructure again; and so forth.” It is along such workerist lines that I analyze in this book the transformations that have occurred in Mae Sot’s regulatory and industrial landscape.

Taking stock, however, of workerism’s achievements and shortcomings, Steve Wright has pointed out that workerist analysis (at least in its earliest years) was limited by an often narrow focus on collective struggles at the point of production, thereby neglecting “the world beyond the factory wall.” How, we therefore need to ask, are the struggles of subordinate classes outside the workplace related to the reproduction and transformation of capitalist relations at the point of production? And further, how do such struggles affect the broader regulation of proletarian populations? To address these questions I bring into the analysis of capitalist restructuring, along with factory strikes and workforce socialization, struggles over migrants’ mobility outside the workplace, and migrants’ everyday evasion of – and engagement with – the police. The book’s overarching narrative presents these various struggles as constitutive moments in the transformation of Mae Sot’s regulatory geography, at the scale of the workplace and at the scale of the industrial zone.

It needs to be stressed at this point that labour struggles on the border have never been wholly spontaneous outbursts – automatically generated, as it were, by Mae Sot’s regulatory arrangement. Rather, they have emerged out of gradual processes of migrant subjectification and class formation – what I refer to in chapter 5 as everyday recomposition – that are grounded in the relations and experiences of migrants along the border. Particular workplace struggles in Mae Sot have also typically entailed extensive deliberation and planning “behind the scenes” among the workers involved, as in the case I examine in chapter 6. For these reasons, within the circuit of regulation → struggle → new regulation, there are countless agentive moments in which individuals have intervened and influenced the process of Mae Sot’s regulatory transformation.

*

This was excerpted from the book Border Capitalism, Disrupted, Cornell University Press (2018), with the author’s permission.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

Featured image: Human rights campaigners protest against Farnborough International arms fair (by Campaign Against Arms Trade)

Farnborough International arms fair to take place from 16-22 July

93 military delegations attended in 2016, including representatives from the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Philippines and Turkey

*

This week, between July 16-22, the UK will be hosting Farnborough International 2018, an arms fair with a particular focus on aircraft.

The event will bring some of the world’s biggest arms companies together with a number of government and military delegations that have been accused of serious human rights abuses.

The list of the military delegations invited to attend has not been published yet, but among those invited to attend the event in 2016 were military reps Bahrain, Egypt, Oman, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

1500 companies will be displaying at Farnborough, including many of the world’s biggest arms companies. The weapons on display will include missile systems, fighter jets and drones. The companies in attendance include BAE Systems, MBDA and Raytheon, which make the combat aircraft and bombs that are being used by Saudi forces in Yemen.

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

 “Farnborough International is a key part of the arms industry calendar. A lot of the regimes in attendance have been linked to terrible human rights abuses, and events like Farnborough International only make them more likely in future.”

Military delegations are invited by the Department of International Trade’s Defence & Security Organisation, the civil service trade body that exists to promote arms exports.

Andrew continued:

“We don’t know how the arms being promoted at Farnborough might be used in the future, or who they will be used against. Right now, Saudi Arabian forces are using UK fighter jets and bombs in their brutal bombardment of Yemen. The arms sales being negotiated this week could be used to enable atrocities for years to come.