Global Research

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

The establishment of a military force to go abroad and overthrow governments does not appear anywhere in the Constitution of the United States, nor does calling for destruction of countries that do not themselves threaten America appear anywhere in Article 2, which describes the responsibilities of the President. Indeed, both Presidents George Washington and John Quincy Adams warned against the danger represented by foreign entanglements, with Adams specifically addressing what we now call democracy promotion, warning that the United States “should not go abroad to slay dragons.”

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has proven to be particularly prone to attacking other countries that have only limited capability to strike back. North Korea was the exception that proved the rule when the Chinese intervened to support its ally in 1950 to drive back and nearly destroy advancing U.S. forces. Otherwise, it has been a succession of Granada, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, and Libya, none of which had the capability to hit back against the United States and the American people.

Iran just might prove to be a harder nut to crack. There has been a considerable escalation in tension between Washington and Tehran since the White House withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May. The JCPOA was intended to monitor Iran’s nuclear program to ensure that it would not be producing a nuclear weapon. Since that time, the U.S. and Israel have been threatening the Iranians and accusing them of both having a secret nuclear program and engaging in widespread regional aggression. In the latest incident, President Donald Trump tweeted in response to comments made on July 21st by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who had told a meeting of Iranian diplomats that war between America and Iran would be a misfortune for everyone, saying

“Mr. Trump, don’t play with the lion’s tail, this would only lead to regret. America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars.”

Trump responded in anger all in capital letters,

“NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!”

Interventionist U.S. national security adviser John Bolton added fuel to the fire with a statement on the following day that

“President Trump told me that if Iran does anything at all to the negative, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid before.”

President Trump’s warning that he would annihilate Iran missed the point that Rouhani was offering peace and urging that both sides work to avoid war. The Administration has already announced that it will reinstate existing sanctions on Iran and will likely add some new ones as well. After November 4th, Washington will sanction any country that buys oil from Iran, markedly increasing the misery level for the Iranian people and putting pressure on its government.

Iran, while recognizing the overwhelming imbalance in the forces available to the two sides, has not taken the threats from Washington and Tel Aviv lightly. Its Quds Revolutionary Guards Special Forces chief Major Generral Qassem Soleimani has now warned Trump that

“We are near you, where you can’t even imagine … Come. We are ready … If you begin the war, we will end the war. You know that this war will destroy all that you possess.”

Iran’s Guards commanders have in the past threatened to target and destroy U.S. military bases across the Middle East, and also target Israel, within minutes of being attacked. Military targets would be defended by both Israeli and U.S. counter-missile batteries but civilian targets would be vulnerable, particularly if Hezbollah, with an estimated 100,000 rockets of various types, joins in the fighting from Lebanon.

Washington argues that its pressure on Iran is intended to force its government to end its nuclear program as well as its support for militant groups in the Middle East, where Iran, so the claim goes, is engaged in proxy wars in both Yemen and Syria. The arguments are, however, largely fabrications as Iran has no nuclear weapons program and its engagement in Syria is by invitation of the legitimate government in Damascus while aid to Yemen’s Houthi’s is very limited. And there is no Iranian threat to the United States or to legitimate American interests.

Given the size of Iran, its large population, and clear intention to resist any U.S. attack, military action against the country, which many in Washington now see as inevitable, would be by missiles and bombs from the air and sea. But it would not be a cakewalk. In the past year, Iran has deployed the effective Russian made SA-20c SAM mobile air defense units as well as the S-300 VM missile system, which together have a range of more than 100 miles that could cover the entire Persian Gulf. Radar has also been upgraded. They are the centerpieces of an air defense system that could prove formidable against attacking U.S. aircraft and incoming missiles while ballistic missiles in large numbers in the Iranian arsenal could cause major damage to U.S. bases, Israel, the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.

All of which means that Americans will die in a war with Iran, possibly in substantial numbers, and the threat by Iran to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz is no fantasy. It has threatened to do so if its own oil exports are blocked after November 4th, even if there is no war. And if there were war, even if subjected to sustained attack, Iran would be able to threaten ships trying to use the Strait with its numerous batteries of anti-ship missiles hidden along the country’s rough and mountainous coastline, to include the Russian made SS-N-22 Sunburn, which is the fastest and most effective ship killing missile in anyone’s arsenal. Fired in volleys, it would be able to overwhelm the defenses of U.S. warships, to include aircraft carriers, if they get too close. With the Strait closed in either scenario, oil prices would go up dramatically, damaging the economies of all the major industrialized nations, including the United States. A major war would also add trillions to the national debt.

Iran also has other resources to strike back, including cadres ready and able to carry out terror attacks in the United States and Western Europe. American tourists in Europe will be particularly vulnerable. The reality is that the United States has no motive to go to war with Iran based on its own national interests but seems to be prepared to do so anyway under pressure from Israel and Saudi Arabia. If it does do so, Iran will certainly lose, but the damage to the United States at every level might possibly be very high.

*

This article was originally published on American Herald Tribune.

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.

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: Al Awda with snow mountain Fjiords by Elizabeth Murray

A desperate SOS message was released by crew onboard a Norwegian-flagged flotilla that was intercepted by Israel on Sunday, as activists attempts to break a more than decade-long blockade of the Gaza Strip failed.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

Featured image: Ahed Tamimi and her father with South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa [File photo]

Palestinian teen activist Ahed Tamimi – who was released on Sunday from an Israeli prison after serving an eight-month sentence for slapping an Israeli soldier – will be invited to South Africa to receive a special award for her bravery, resistance and being a symbol of hope for millions reports the Afro-Palestine Newswire Service.

This is according to Zwelivelile “Mandla” Mandela, the chief of the Mvezo Traditional Council and the grandson of Nelson Mandela. In the centennial celebration of his grandfather’s birth, Mandela has promised Tamimi that he will “continue to support and rally others to join in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign to isolate Apartheid Israel until Palestine is free.” Mandela saluted Tamimi as “a symbol of Palestinian resistance.”

Ahed Tamimi’s mother, Nariman, was also released on Sunday after being imprisoned on charges of incitement for sharing a live recording of her teenage daughter standing up to the fully-armed Israeli soldier in December.

Speaking immediately after her release from her home in the village of Nabi Saleh in the occupied West Bank, Ahed Tamimi said that while she was happy to be reunited with her family, she could not forget other young Palestinians who still languished in Israeli prisons – including her brother and two cousins.

Amnesty International has cautioned that Tamimi’s release must not obscure the Israeli military’s use of discriminatory policies to lock up Palestinian children.

“While Ahed’s freedom is welcome and long overdue, it must be followed by the release of the other Palestinian children unlawfully imprisoned by Israeli military courts,” said Saleh Higazi, head of Amnesty’s Jerusalem office.

According to the Addameer prisoner support group, of the approximately 5900 Palestinian political prisoners currently being held in Israeli jails, 291 were children.

The 17-year-old Ahed, who has since become a global icon of resistance, also relayed messages from Palestinian female political prisoners, calling on Palestinians to remain strong and united in their resistance to the Israeli occupation.

Image on the right: An Italian artist painted an image of Ahed Tamimi on the Separation Wall in occupied Bethlehem.

Hamas spokesperson, Husam Badran, said that Ahed and Nariman’s release was a “victory” and “an incentive for further efforts to expose the crimes of the Israeli Occupation and spread the legitimate Palestinian cause worldwide….We stress that we will continue taking the path of resistance until the freedom of all Palestinian detainees is achieved.”

In welcoming news of their release, Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) executive member, Hanan Ashrawi, stated that the arrest of Ahed and her mother “is further proof of the Israeli violations and crimes perpetrated against the unarmed children and women of Palestine.” Ashrawi pledged to “continue to pursue political and legal means to seek freedom and justice for all Palestinian prisoners, their families and loved ones.”

Tamimi and her mother were arrested by Israeli forces in December 2017 after a video went viral showing the young woman, then 16, hitting and slapping two armed Israeli soldiers outside her home in Nabi Saleh. At the time, the teen was reacting to news that her 15-year-old cousin, Mohammed, had been shot in the face by Israeli forces with a rubber-coated steel bullet earlier in the day, leaving him in critical condition.

The teen’s arrest drew international condemnation and put the spotlight on Israel’s arrest and imprisonment of Palestinians, especially Palestinian children.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The world of the terrifying hypothetical is programmatically standard in the Trump White House.  Periods of tense calm are followed by careless flights of fury, digs and remonstrations.  Mortal enemies become amenable comrades; reliable allies turn into irresponsible skinflints who ought to fork our more for their defence. 

For all that swirling chaos, the one constant since the 2016 election campaign for President Donald Trump is the Iranian bogey, that defender of the Shiites, the theocratic Republic.  The fear of Iran’s aspirations is an endless quarry for domestic consumption, tied, as it were with propitiating the ever hungry Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

On July 23, Trump gave a Twitter offering to Iranian President Rouhani, written in all-caps promising singular, untold of consequences of suffering should Iran ever threaten the United States again.

  “We are no longer a country that will stand for your demented words of violence and death.  Be cautious!”

This shout of indignation was the less than measured response to remarks made by Rouhani to Iranian diplomats:

“America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace and war with Iran is the mother of all wars.”

After the outburst came the milder reflection.  Before a convention in Kansas City, a cooling breeze was blowing.

“I withdrew the United States from the horrible one-sided Iran nuclear deal, and Iran is not the same country anymore,” came Trump’s explanation.  The United States was “ready to make a deal.”

This picture of dysfunctional play was further clouded by last week’s ominous revelations from Australia’s national broadcaster, the ABC.  The network had received some troubling titbits of information suggesting that the United States is intending to launch strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities next month. This has also prompted concerns about how broad the remit will be. Which allies will be called upon to be engaged in an endeavour that seems more than mildly suicidal?

One unnamed security source described in exasperating fashion by the ABC as “senior” suggests that Australia is supplying aspects of the skeletal outline for such a strike, specifically in the realm of identifying targets:

“Providing intelligence and understanding as to what is happening on the ground so that the Government and allied governments are fully informed to make decisions is different to active targeting.”

This willing source within the Turnbull government was adamant to draw distinctions between the actual strike itself (described as the “kinetic” mission), and sketching the picture itself. “Developing a picture is very different to actually participating in a strike.”

But Australia would be implicated in such a mission, should it ever get off the ground, given the role played by the misnamed joint-defence facility at Pine Gap, located in central Australia.  The virtually unknown Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation would also do its bit.

As with any such reports emerging either within the White House, or from its imperial periphery, signals vary.  The US Defence Secretary John Mattis, just to make things a touch more interesting, described the reports as lacings of fantasy.

“I have no idea where the Australian news people got that information. I’m confident it is not something that’s being considered right now and I think it’s a complete, frankly, it’s fiction.”

The subsequent response from the Australian Prime Minister was an unsurprising, vassal phrased echo.

“President Trump has made his views very clear to the whole word, but this story,” noted Malcolm Turnbull, “has not benefited from any consultation with me, the Foreign Minister, the Defence Minister or the Chief of the Defence force”.

This, on paper, looks like a decidedly appropriate Trump formula: avoid consultation; it might just cloud your judgment.

The detail supplied to the ABC over the strike plans should not be sneezed at.  Given Trump’s belligerent inner circle (Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton) steaming with the anticipation of a first strike against irreverent states, and the promptings of Israel, the issue retains an air of solemn seriousness.  Even a more moderate Mattis is ever keen to run a grocer’s list of sins perpetrated by Teheran: bolstering Bashar al-Assad in Syria, “fomenting more violence” in Yemen, Iran as regional bully.

The prospect of strikes on Iranian facilities has been further complicated by public enunciations from Netanyahu reiterating the Begin Doctrine, stressing that,

“Israel will not allow regimes that seek our annihilation to acquire nuclear weapons”.

The danger here, as ever, is that Israel will go rogue and initiate such an attack, though the spread of Iran’s facilities complicates any such enterprise.

Clio is a cruelly dogged taskmaster and a refusal to listen to the echoes of warnings she inspires imperils states and their citizens.  Invading, interfering and altering the trajectory of development in the Middle East tends to have global repercussions.  Western states have shown a pigheadedly dangerous tendency to meddle and destroy. Death inevitably follows; vacuums are created.  These latest slivers of information from Canberra on US intentions is a salutary reminder that much has not changed.

*

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]

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  

On the 14th of April 2018, as most are surely aware, the prime ministers of France and the UK assisted failed meatpacking-entrepreneur Donald Trump in violating all the most important international laws by attacking Syria in Damascus and Homs. For whatever reason, the US-led coalition thought it was a good idea to get revenge against Syria for an alleged gas-attack by blowing up any hypothetical evidence that might have proven the Syrian government was behind said gas-attack. The truth, it seems, was part of the price we pay for — well, no one can really be sure (since the evidence blew up) but dammit our freedom is safe and that’s what counts. The other part of the price is mostly really expensive bombs.

What Is the Price of Attacking Syria?

​Altogether, the Brits chipped in 8 stormshadow missiles, the French (not to be outdone) threw down 9 stormshadows plus 3 Missiles de Croisière Navals, and the US furnished 66 Tomahawk cruise missiles and 19 JASSM-ER (joint air to surface standoff missiles – extended range). The total price for all 105 bombs was a measly $177 million. And to get an idea of how staggeringly large $177 million is, think of it this way – if you filled every seat in the Fenway Park stadium, $177 million would be enough to hand out about $5000 cash to every person.

$1,048,030 × 8 Stormshadow missiles  

= $8,384,240

$1,048,030 × 9 Stormshadow missiles 

 = $9,432,270

$3,300,000 × 3 MdCN

 = $9,900,000

$1,869,000 × 66 Tomahawk cruise missiles  

= $123,354,000

$1,359,000 × 19 JASSM-ER  

= $25,821,000

$$\$8,384,240+\$9,432,270+\$9,900,000$$

$$+\$123,354,000+\$25,821,000$$

$$=$$$176,891,510 or about $177 million 

How Much Does a Tomahawk Cruise Missile Cost?

A look at the US Department of Defense’s 2017 budget request shows that each Tomahawk cruise missile costs a mere $1.869 million. According to its maker Raytheon, this hellish metal vulture “can circle for hours, shift course instantly on command and beam a picture of its target to controllers halfway around the world before striking with pinpoint accuracy.” Each time the US fires off one of these bad boys, imagine 60 full-time, living-wage jobs ripping through the air above a group of frightened Arab children…

2,087 hours per-year × $15 wage 

= $31,305

$1,869,000 ÷ $31,305 

= 59.7029 or about 60 full-time jobs per tomahawk cruise missile

Or, as an alternative, one might imagine a building in Damascus being leveled by a year’s worth of food for 1,242 of the poorest US-Americans (Avg. Yearly SNAP Benefits).

Avg. Yearly SNAP Benefits received: $1,504.8

$1,869,000 ÷ $1,504.8

 = 1,242.0255 or about 1,242 hungry US-Americans

How Much Does the JASSM-ER Cost?

While Lockheed-Martin’s joint air to surface standoff missile or JASSM may lack the Tomahawk’s added cultural-appropriation, they still get the job done (if that job is killing people) at a bargain price of $1.359 million. As Lockheed-Martin’s website says — “with superior performance and affordable price, JASSM offers the best value of any weapon in its class.” Using the same units of measurement above, each JASSM-ER is about enough to create 43 US-American jobs or to provide food for a year for 903 hungry people.

Total Cost of Trump’s Illegal Attack on Damascus

Adding the total cost for 19 JASSM-ER (“extended range”) to the 66 Tomahawk missiles Trump launched during his little terror-attack on Syria last weekend brings the total cost for US missiles to….

$25,821,000 + $123,354,000 

= $149,175,000

…about $149.2 million! Yay. For perspective, $149.2 million is equal to the yearly incomes of about 2,640 US-American households at the median. In a world that made sense, this $149.2 million might have funded coverage for 45,647 people as part of a universal healthcare program or employed 4,765 workers as part of a self-managed federal job guarantee.

Median Household Income: $56,516

$149,175,000 ÷ $56,516 

= 2639.5180 or about 2,640 US household-incomes

Avg. Per-Person Healthcare Spend in OECD Countries:

 $3,268

$149,175,000 ÷ $3,268 

= 4,5647.1848

or about 45,647 people with healthcare

2,087 hours × $15 wage 

= $31,305

$149,175,000 ÷ $31,305 

= 4,765.21322 or about 4,765 full-time, living wage jobs created

But all of this math is just a fun thought experiment. Public spending could — in theory, of course — create more jobs or ensure that people have access to healthcare or food, but then Raytheon’s stock prices would never have increased by 3.2% over the weekend. And besides, using public funds to promote the general welfare or public safety and happiness would be socialism. Where would that leave the shareholders? Think about it.

*

John Laurits is a poet, journalist, activist, and guerrilla educator residing in Oregon with a useless degree in eastern philosophy, along with the absurd debt which resulted from it and which is likely to follow him to his death.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The case of Julian Assange’s asylum has reached a critical breaking point. After being arbitrarily detained in the Ecuadorian embassy for over six years despite two official rulings by the United Nations Human Rights Council that he should be released, and having had his communications cut off over two months ago, Glen Greenwald of The Intercept and RT editor-in-chief Margarita Simonyan both confirm from an anonymous source close to the campaign that Ecuador’s president Lenin Moreno is in close talks with UK government to evict him from the embassy despite his legal asylum claim. This comes not long after the recent ruling by the Inter-American Human Rights Court that clarified that those granted political asylum have the right by the governments that granted it to them to safe passage outside of the country, which in this case could apply to Julian either back to his home country of Australia, or anywhere else that has or will grant him asylum.

A doctor that has evaluated Julian’s health has reported it to be in ‘dangerous’ condition. It was also revealed on the #Unity4J livestream vigil that he is suffering from a bad root canal infection from a broken tooth caused by a piece of metal someone slipped into his food. The online vigils have served as a live public emergency meeting of journalists, activists, politicians, whistleblowers, and celebrities all joining in with their support for his freedom and release. They also have discussed ideas for solutions like writing the Nobel Peace committee in support of Julian, and using a mass movement of protesters to surround the embassy, bringing mass awareness to the campaign, and perhaps even being used to secure his safe transport into a more suitable location. After all, who could forget how the police in Iran walked away from the protesters putting flowers in their guns in 1979?

The torture of Julian Assange must end and it must end in his immediate freedom. The vilification of a publisher with an impeccable track record of never needing to retract anything legally leaked to his organization is the vilification of the free press itself. Prosecuting him would set a dangerous and insane precedent never before seen in America and would extend to even the likes of The New York Times & The Washington Post. Those who refuse to speak out against this are the ones who may ironically find themselves targeted next down this treacherously slippery slope of the erosion of freedoms and human rights we are seeing here and all over the world today. As we all know cutting the head off of the hydra does nothing to weaken it’s function. It goes on thriving as if nothing ever even happened. Wikileaks has and will continue to live on as an inspiring symbol of truth and integrity and as a viable channel for all those with classified information that reveals illegal activity and other forms of unjust atrocities.

Persecuting it’s editor has only seemed to strengthen the communities behind independent media publishing while it’s the main stream media who remains deafeningly silent in comparison and compliance. They think they can stop people from wanting and spreading the truth non-violently but as we have seen throughout history all those who have tried have failed. What Nelson Mandela, a political prisoner for over thirty years, was to the previous generation, Julian Assange is to ours. You can not exterminate the truth without exterminating yourself in the process. This is the fortune the United States intelligence agencies—who are justifiably neither—are unraveling for themselves as we speak. They’re angry and lashing out like a child or elder with dementia, making up vapid phrases like Secretary of the State Mike Pompeo’s “non-state hostile intelligence service” which serve as nothing but a smokescreen for their grand jury deliberately set up to indict Julian if the UK does indeed give him up for extradition.[1] Donald Trump spoke out in favor of Wikileaks multiple times during the 2016 presidential elections and it was only the day after this statement was made, when asked if Julian Assange should be issued an arrest warrant, he responded by saying it would be “OK by me.” Let’s look at some statistics:

“In the more than 162,500 cases prosecuted by U.S. attorneys from 2009 to 2010, grand juries voted not to return an indictment in only 11, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics equivalent to one in 14,759 cases, or 0.0068 percent.” [2]

This is not justice. This is a last ditch effort by two compartmentalized and internally dichotomic governments in collapse to save their already scarred and tarnished faces. It’s a tragic and terrible masquerade that must end immediately.

It’s unclear what the exact outcome is going to be of the high level talks Moreno will have during his scheduled visit this week to the Global Disability Summit hosted by the UK government. A statement was released on Sunday July 22nd from Qutio stating: “The Ecuadorian State will only talk and promote understandings about Mr. Assange’s asylum, within the framework of international law, with the interested party’s lawyers and with the British government. At the moment, due to the complexity of the topic, a short or long term solution is not in sight.”  A sofa was seen this morning being removed from the embassy into a white van which lead some to speculate as to why. What is clear, however, is Donald Trump now has a history of pardoning people who have gone against the FBI and other government agencies. Take for example the recent pardons of Dwight and Steven Hammond, the Oregon ranchers who have been in standoffs with BLM and the FBI for decades and were imprisoned for arson on federal land.[3] Their story is not without controversy, in some ways like Julian Assange’s case has become over the years, and he just may be Donald Trump’s only hope for finally resolving the “Russiagate” narrative that has still yet to release any real evidence to support their slanderous and unsubstantiated scapegoating propaganda once and for all.

Host Sean Hannity [Fox News]: “Can you say to the American people unequivocally that you did not get this information about the DNC, John Podesta’s emails — can you tell the American people 1,000 percent you did not get it from Russia . . . “

Julian Assange: “Yes.”

Hannity: “. . . or anybody associated with Russia?”

Assange: “We — we can say and we have said repeatedly . . . “

Hannity: “Right.”

Assange: “. . . over the last two months, that our source is not the Russian government and it is not a state party.”

— exchange on “Hannity” on Fox News, Jan. 3, 2017 [4]

On the #Unity4J emergency public meeting that was broadcasted live last night the ex-CIA whistleblower Ray McGovern referred to what is known as ‘Russiagate’ as “FBI-Gate” and also mentioned his opinion that if Julian Assange and Wikileaks were active before 9/11—it never would have happened at all—citing frustrations from the FBI in Minnesota about one of the eventual hijackers attempting to learn how to fly planes without a care for how they took off or landed just days prior to the attack. “Before you know it they’re going to take another crack at the twin towers.” A supervisor said on 9/9. Ray went back and asked the supervisor and an agent responsible for leading the red team testing airports by bringing “bomb-like” substances onto planes and succeeded 9 times out of 10 and whose superiors in Washington were also not listening to: “If Wikileaks had been available back then, would you have gone to Julian Assange, to get this word out so Americans could know how dangerous this situation was? And they said yeah, yeah, it was that bad we could see it coming.”

Robert Mueller has alleged that Guccifer 2.0, who claims to have hacked the Democratic National Committee’s and leaked the e-mails, not only did it but is also a Russian operative, which directly contradicts Julian Assange’s and Kim Dotdom’s statements that the source of the DNC emails was neither Russian nor any state party.

So who are we going to believe here?

The FBI who routinely lies and covers up their own negligence in regards to following due diligence and has yet to release a single shred of evidence pertaining any of this to be true? Or the one man whose organization has never been wrong, and who many in our corrupt government intelligence asylums have voiced their murderous intentions for?

Donald Trump, as controversial as he may be, still tries to do the right thing he says. That is ultimately, if taking his words at face value of course, why he pardoned the Hammonds: “I was just trying to do the right thing.”  He said. Giving Julian Assange a full pardon from any of the false charges brought upon by the secretive Patriot Act trainwreck known as the FISA court and the rigged grand jury indictment is not only doing the right thing, but could end this entire charade once and for all. If this could be settled entirely within the UK courts without fear of extradition over the minor allegations he skipped bail to claim asylum—a potential three months maximum charge—or contempt of court which can be two years maximum which he has already served almost four times over—it could finally lead to immediately treating his ailing health and securing his much-deserved freedom once and for all.

*

Vember is a pen name.

Notes

[1] https://www.justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html

[2] https://www.yahoo.com/news/ferguson-federal-grand-jury-indictment-statistics-history-134942645.html

[3] https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2018/07/oregon_ranchers_pardoned_by_tr.html

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/05/julian-assanges-claim-that-there-was-no-russian-involvement-in-wikileaks-emails/?utm_term=.60a0e8c464f1

Impropriety among big-pharmaceutical corporations has ranged from multi-billion dollar bribery rackets, to marketing drugs to patients for uses they were never approved for by regulators, to covering up known dangerous side-effects of medications they produce and sell.

More recently, big-pharma has been embroiled in a series of price-gouging controversies over equipment and treatments. This includes the hijacking of and profiteering from a revolutionary new treatment called gene therapy.

Gene therapy, the process of re-engineering human cells to either include missing DNA to cure genetic conditions or to arm the immune system to seek and destroy disease, has been the latest hopeful technology scooped up and plundered by big-pharma.

Gene therapy promises a single shot cure to many of the diseases that have confounded humanity the most – everything from diabetes to cancer, to blindness, deafness, and even various effects of aging.

At least two treatments using gene therapy have been approved for European markets.

A third that has proven in clinical trials to provide permanent remission for leukemia patients who were unresponsive to chemotherapy, appears to be close to FDA approval.

The Literal Cure for Cancer, Dangled Over the Dying 

While the treatment – even under experimental conditions – costs approximately $20,000 to produce, pharmaceutical giant Novartis has swooped in and industry experts anticipate a markup leaving the price tag between $300,000-600,000.

The New York Times in a 2012 article titled, “In Girl’s Last Hope, Altered Immune Cells Beat Leukemia,” reported that (emphasis added):

Dr. June said that producing engineered T-cells costs about $20,000 per patient — far less than the cost of a bone-marrow transplant. Scaling up the procedure should make it even less expensive, he said, but he added, “Our costs do not include any profit margin, facility depreciation costs or other clinical care costs, and other research costs.”

More recently, in a July 2017 Washington Post article titled, “First gene therapy — ‘a true living drug’ — on the cusp of FDA approval,” its reported that:

Novartis has not disclosed the price for its therapy, but analysts are predicting $300,000 to $600,000 for a one-time infusion. Brad Loncar, whose investment fund focuses on companies that develop immunotherapy treatments, hopes the cost does not prompt a backlash. “CAR-T is not the EpiPen,” he said. “This is truly pushing the envelope and at the cutting edge of science.”

But it isn’t Novartis that’s “pushing the envelop,” or at “the cutting edge of science.” Charity-funded university researchers are.

Stealing From Charity 

The New York Times and the Washington Post both appear to give Novartis credit for this breakthrough in their article, with NYT claiming that the company invested some $20 million on a research center to bring the treatment to market. However, that appears not to be entirely true.

It was, in fact, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society (LLS) that funded the initial work toward this breakthrough, beginning in the late 1990’s and committing some $21 million to the effort.

Novartis is indeed a partner of LLS, but according to LLS’ own annual reports (2016, PDF), it is listed under the second tier of donors – providing between $500,000-900,000 out of the total $35.6 million LLS received in direct gifts that year. In some years Novartis has donated even less.

LLS itself, in a 2014 press release, stated:

LLS has invested in the work of June and colleagues since 1998 and has committed to investing a total of $21 million through 2017 to get this first treatment to more patients. LLS first funded Grupp in 1992 through its career development program. LLS has also been funding another member of the team, David Porter, M.D. of University of Pennsylvania since 1994.

Elsewhere, LLS reports cite that this breakthrough in curing leukemia has “attracted” Novartis as a partner, never mentioning that Novartis is actually a long-term LLS partner.

In reality, it appears pharmaceutical corporations like Novartis are using charities like LLS to fund research and development that corporations themselves should be investing in. Instead, Novartis and others are poaching public and charity-funded research and breakthroughs, profiting from what is often decades of dedicated and difficult work.

Beyond LLS’ partners, it receives millions of dollars annually from other donors ranging from businesses unrelated to the pharmaceutical industry, to fundraising events held nationwide, to families and individuals who have experienced cancer either themselves or through a family member or friend.

The research and breakthroughs LLS funds belong to all of its donors. How the work it funded has ended up in the hands of a single corporation, facing a mark up of anywhere between 15-30 times its cost during experimental trials demands scrutiny and a detailed explanation.

Why Big-Pharma is Gouging Gene Therapy  

Gene therapy overall threatens the fundamental business model pharmaceutical giants are built on – that is to perpetually peddle medication that covers up the symptoms of disease rather than outright curing it.

It is a business practice that provides profits easily predicted quarter to quarter, with some medications leading to complications big-pharma also has a pill for. Something that treats a patient permanently with a single, inexpensive shot constitutes big-pharma’s worst nightmare.

MIT Technology Review in an article titled, “A First-of-a-Kind Gene Therapy Cure Has Struggled to Find a Market,” tells the tale of another pharmaceutical corporation – GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), of another revolutionary gene therapy it scooped up from research done by others, its $665,000 price tag, and why GSK – along with the rest of big-pharma – are disinterested in gene therapy.

The article notes:

[Alex] Pasteur [investor with F-Prime Capital Partners and interim CEO of Orchard Therapeutics] also says revenues for a rare-disease gene therapy might only ever add up to $100 million a year. Because GSK brings in $36 billion a year, Pasteur is not surprised the company is looking elsewhere for revenue. “These are pimples on the back of a whale,” he says. “But the assets could be very interesting for someone else.”

Indeed, a single shot that costs only a few thousand dollars and permanently cures people of virtually every human health infliction not only isn’t profitable, but will likely put these enormous, abusive monopolies out of business for good.

Obamacare vs Turmpcare: Nobody Cares, But Innovation Cures  

Education is the first step in combating the hijacking and burying of gene therapy and other innovations.

At a time when people arguing over Obamacare versus Trumpcare are realizing that no one actually cares about their health more than they themselves, innovation like gene therapy offers to make healthcare so affordable and effective, insurance schemes and government subsidies would be unnecessary.

But gene therapy will only gain traction if the wider public knows about it, including its implications for not only improving their own health, but improving the healthcare systems of their respective nations.

The public must also understand the true costs behind gene therapy and where money for research has come from – often from public funding or charity. This knowledge allows the public to call out pharmaceutical corporations attempting to seize credit and profits entirely for themselves.

While pharmaceutical corporations invest inordinate amounts of money attempting to convince the world that they are indispensable, university researchers funded by public money and charity prove they are more often than not setting breakthroughs back, not moving them forward.

If the good people involved in LLS are capable of raising the money to fund these breakthroughs, they are capable of creating a pharmaceutical trust that can bring these cures to market with greater transparency and oversight.

Healthcare debates focused purely on political solutions and debates are frustrating. Getting behind gene therapy and other tangible healthcare innovations is something people can better invest their time, money, energy, and attention into instead.

All images in this article are from the author.

President Donald Trump confirmed back in May that the U.S. will be pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal as well as reimposing a sanctions regime on Tehran.

This far-reaching decision by the White House was taken following Netanyahu’s staged presentation on Iran’s nuclear capabilities based on so-called “sound intelligence”. The accession of Mike Pompeo to the the State Department was also an important factor. His predecessor Rex Tillerson was known to be largely supportive of the US “remaining on board with the Iran JCPOA nuclear deal – along with other P5+1 countries Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia”. According to Stephen Lendman:

Replacing Tillerson with militantly anti-Iran hardliner Pompeo smooths things for Trump to pursue greater hostility toward the Islamic Republic with a key administration official on board with his reckless agenda.

Under the guidance of secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his new national security advisor  John Bolton, Trump’s decision points in the direction of military escalation. 

Already in December 2017, reports pointed to a so-called “secret plan” to destroy and destabilize Iran, the first step of which would be a color revolution. In this regard, Trump said he would relaunch the economic sanctions regime in mid-May “unless the European powers join Washington in unilaterally rewriting the civil nuclear agreement between Tehran and the world’s great powers.”

This not so secret plan to wage war on Iran has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon since the mid-nineties as outlined in my 2010 article below, written eight months prior to the onslaught of the US-NATO led proxy war directed against Syria in March 2011. 

It should be noted that there are significant divisions within the US-NATO-Israel coalition largely as a result of Turkey’s rapprochement with Russia and Iran. In turn Turkey is fighting US proxy forces in Northern Syria. Moreover, France has significant interests in Iran’s oil industry. 

While the present structure of military alliances (with Turkey sleeping with enemy) does not at this juncture favor the waging of a major military operation against Iran, there are unconfirmed reports that President Trump is currently envisaging a so-called preemptive attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities as early as next month.

US Defense Secretary James Mattis has casually dismissed the reports that the U.S. is contemplating military action against Iran.

Michel Chossudovsky, July 29, 2018

***

Global Warfare. Preparing for World War III? Targeting Iran

By Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research

August 1, 2010

Humanity is at a dangerous crossroads. War preparations to attack Iran are in “an advanced state of readiness”. Hi tech weapons systems including nuclear warheads are fully deployed.

This military adventure has been on the Pentagon’s drawing board since the mid-1990s. First Iraq, then Iran according to a declassified 1995 US Central Command document.

Escalation is part of the military agenda. While Iran [in 2010], is the next target together with Syria and Lebanon, this strategic military deployment also threatens North Korea, China and Russia.

Since 2005, the US and its allies, including America’s NATO partners and Israel, have been involved in the extensive deployment and stockpiling of advanced weapons systems. The air defense systems of the US, NATO member countries and Israel are fully integrated.

This is a coordinated endeavor of the Pentagon, NATO, Israel’s Defense Force (IDF), with the active military involvement of several non-NATO partner countries including the frontline Arab states (members of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative), Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, India, Indonesia, Singapore, Australia, among others. (NATO consists of 28 NATO member states  Another 21 countries are members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC), The Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative include ten Arab countries plus Israel.)

The roles of Egypt, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia (within the extended military alliance) is of particular relevance. Egypt controls the transit of war ships and oil tankers through the Suez Canal. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States occupy the South Western coastlines of the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz and the Gulf of Oman. In early June [2010], “Egypt reportedly allowed one Israeli and eleven U.S. ships to pass through the Suez Canal in ….an apparent signal to Iran. … On June 12, regional press outlets reported that the Saudis had granted Israel the right to fly over its airspace…” (Muriel Mirak Weissbach,  Israel’s Insane War on Iran Must Be Prevented., Global Research, July 31, 2010)

In post 9/11 military doctrine, this massive deployment of military hardware has been defined as part of the so-called  “Global War on Terrorism”, targeting “non-State” terrorist organizations including al Qaeda and so-called “State sponsors of terrorism”,. including Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan.

The setting up of new US military bases, the stockpiling of advanced weapons systems including tactical nuclear weapons, etc. were implemented as part of the pre-emptive defensive military doctrine under the umbrella of the “Global War on Terrorism”.

War and the Economic Crisis

The broader implications of a US-NATO Israel attack on Iran are far-reaching. The war and the economic crisis are intimately related. The war economy is financed by Wall Street, which stands as the creditor of the US administration. The US weapons producers are the recipients of the US Department of Defense multibillion dollar procurement contracts for advanced weapons systems. In turn, “the battle for oil” in the Middle East and Central Asia directly serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil giants.

The US and its allies are “beating the drums of war” at the height of a Worldwide economic depression, not to mention the most serious environmental catastrophe in World history. In a bitter twist, one of the major players (BP) on the Middle East Central Asia geopolitical chessboard, formerly known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, is the instigator of the ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Media Disinformation

Public opinion, swayed by media hype is tacitly supportive, indifferent or ignorant as to the likely impacts of what is upheld as an ad hoc “punitive” operation directed against Iran’s nuclear facilities rather than an all out war. War preparations include the deployment of  US and Israeli produced nuclear weapons. In this context, the devastating consequences of a nuclear war are either trivialised or simply not mentioned.

The “real crisis” threatening humanity, according to the media and the governments, is not war but global warming. The media will fabricate a crisis where there is no crisis: “a global scare” — the H1N1 global pandemic– but nobody seems to fear a US sponsored nuclear war.

The war on Iran is presented to public opinion as an issue among others. It is not viewed as a threat to “Mother Earth” as in the case of global warming. It is not front-page news. The fact that an attack on Iran could lead to escalation and potentially unleash a “global war” is not a matter of concern.

The Cult of Killing and Destruction

The global killing machine is also sustained by an imbedded cult of killing and destruction which pervades Hollywood movies, not to mention the prime time war and crime TV series on network television. This cult of killing is endorsed by the CIA and the Pentagon which also support (finance) Hollywood productions as an instrument of war propaganda:

“Ex-CIA agent Bob Baer told us, “There’s a symbiosis between the CIA and Hollywood” and revealed that former CIA director George Tenet is currently, “out in Hollywood, talking to studios.” (Matthew Alford and Robbie Graham, Lights, Camera… Covert Action: The Deep Politics of Hollywood, Global Research, January 31, 2009).

The killing machine is deployed at a global level, within the framework of the unified combat command structure. It is routinely upheld by the institutions of government, the corporate media and the mandarins and intellectuals of the New World Order in Washington’s think tanks and strategic studies research institutes, as an unquestioned instrument of peace and global prosperity.

A culture of killing and violence has become imbedded in human consciousness.

War is broadly accepted as part of a societal process: The Homeland needs to be “defended” and protected.

“Legitimized violence” and extrajudicial killings directed against “terrorists” are upheld in western democracies, as necessary instruments of national security.

A “humanitarian war” is upheld by the so-called international community. It is not condemned as a criminal act. Its main architects are rewarded for their contributions to world peace.

With regard to Iran, what is unfolding is the outright legitimization of war in the name of an illusive notion of global security.

A “Pre-emptive” Aerial attack directed against Iran would lead to Escalation

At present [2010] there are three separate Middle East Central Asia war theaters: Iraq, Af-Pak, and Palestine.

Were Iran to be the object of a “pre-emptive” aerial attack by allied forces, the entire region, from the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan, would flare up, leading us potentially into a World War III scenario.

The war would also extend into Lebanon and Syria.

It is highly unlikely that the bombings, if they were to be implemented, would be circumscribed to Iran’s nuclear facilities as claimed by US-NATO official statements. What is more probable is an all out air attack on both military and civilian infrastructure, transport systems, factories, public buildings.

Iran, with an an estimated ten percent of global oil and gas reserves, ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq (11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. The oil reserves of the U.S. are estimated at less than 20 billion barrels. The broader region of the Middle East and Central Asia have oil reserves which are more than thirty times those of the U.S, representing more than 60% of the World’s total reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, Global Research, December 2004).

Of significance is the recent discovery in Iran of the second largest known reserves of natural gas at Soumar and Halgan estimated at 12.4 trillion cubic feet.

Targeting Iran consists not only in reclaiming Anglo-American control over Iran’s oil and gas economy, including pipeline routes, it also challenges the presence and influence of China and Russia in the region.

The planned attack on Iran is part of a coordinated global military road map. It is part of the Pentagon’s “long war”,  a profit driven war without borders, a project of World domination, a sequence of military operations.

US-NATO military planners have envisaged various scenarios of military escalation. They are also acutely aware of the geopolitical implications, namely that the war could extend beyond the Middle East Central Asia region. The economic impacts on the oil markets, etc. have also been analyzed.

While Iran, Syria and Lebanon are the immediate targets, China, Russia, North Korea, not to mention Venezuela and Cuba are also the object of US threats.

At stake is the structure of military alliances. US-NATO-Israel military deployments including military exercises and drills conducted on Russia and China’s immediate borders bear a direct relationship to the proposed war on Iran. These veiled threats, including their timing, constitute an obvious hint to the former powers of the Cold War era not to intervene in any way which could encroach upon a US-led attack on Iran.

Global Warfare

The medium term strategic objective is to target Iran and neutralize Iran’s allies, through gunboat diplomacy. The longer term military objective is to directly target China and Russia.

While Iran is the immediate target, military deployment is by no means limited to the Middle East and Central Asia. A global military agenda has been formulated.

The deployment of coalition troops and advanced weapons systems by the US, NATO and its partners is occurring simultaneously in all major regions of the World.

The recent actions of the US military off the coast of North Korea including the conduct of war games are part of a global design.

Directed primarily against Russia and China, US, NATO and allied military exercises, war drills, weapons deployments, etc. are being conducted simultaneously in major geopolitical hotspots.

-The Korean Peninsula, the Sea of Japan, the Taiwan Straits, the South China Sea threatening China.

-The deployment of Patriot missiles in Poland, the early warning center in the Czech republic threatening Russia.

-Naval deployments in Bulgaria, Romania on the Black Sea, threatening Russia.

– US and NATO troops deployments in Georgia.

– A formidable naval deployment in the Persian Gulf including Israeli submarines directed against Iran.

Concurrently the Eastern Mediterranean, the Black Sea, the Caribbean, Central America and the Andean region of South America are areas of ongoing militarization. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the threats are directed against Venezuela and Cuba.

US “Military Aid”

In turn, large scale weapons transfers have been undertaken under the banner of US “military aid” to selected countries, including a 5 billion dollar arms deal with India which is intended to build India’s capabilities directed against China. (Huge U.S.-India Arms Deal To Contain China, Global Times, July 13, 2010).

“[The] arms sales will improve ties between Washington and New Delhi, and, intentionally or not, will have the effect of containing China’s influence in the region.” quoted in Rick Rozoff, Confronting both China and Russia: U.S. Risks Military Clash With China In Yellow Sea, Global Research, July 16, 2010)

The US has military cooperation agreements with a number of South East Asian countries including Singapore, Vietnam and Indonesia, involving “military aid” as well as the participation in U.S.-led war games in the Pacific Rim (July -August 2010). These agreements are supportive of weapons deployments directed against The People’s Republic of China. (See Rick Rozoff, Confronting both China and Russia: U.S. Risks Military Clash With China In Yellow Sea, Global Research, July 16, 2010).

Similarly and more directly related to the planned attack on Iran, the US is arming the Gulf States (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates) with land-based interceptor missiles, Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) as well as sea-based Standard Missile-3 interceptors installed on Aegis class warships in the Persian Gulf. (See Rick Rozoff,  NATO’s Role In The Military Encirclement Of Iran, Global Research, February 10, 2010).

The Timetable of Military Stockpiling and Deployment

What is crucial in regards to US weapons transfers to partner countries and allies is the actual timing of delivery and deployment. The launch of a US sponsored military operation would normally occur once these weapons systems are in place, effectively deployed with the implementation of personnel training. (e.g India).

What we are dealing with is a carefully coordinated global military design controlled by the Pentagon, involving the combined armed forces of more than forty countries. This global multinational military deployment is by far the largest display of advanced weapons systems in World history.

In turn, the US and its allies have established new military bases in different parts of the world.  “The Surface of the Earth is Structured as a Wide Battlefield”. (See Jules Dufour, The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases , Global Research, July 1, 2007).

The Unified Command structure divided up into geographic Combatant Commands is predicated on a strategy of militarization at the global level. “The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries. In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.” (See Jules Dufour, The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases , Global Research, July 1, 2007

Source: DefenseLINK-Unified Command Plan

World War III Scenario

“The World Commanders’ Areas of Responsibility” (See Map above) defines the Pentagon’s global military design, which is one of World conquest.  This military deployment is occurring in several regions simultaneously under the coordination of the regional US Commands, involving the stockpiling of US made weapons systems by US forces and partner countries, some of which are former enemies, including Vietnam and Japan.

The present context is characterised by a global military build-up controlled by one World superpower, which is using its numerous allies to trigger regional wars.

In contrast, the Second World War was a conjunction of separate regional war theaters. Given the communications technologies and weapons systems of the 1940s, there was no strategic “real time” coordination in military actions between broad geographic regions

Global warfare is based on the coordinated deployment of a single dominant military power, which oversees the actions of its allies and partners.

With the exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Second World War was characterized by the use of conventional weapons. The planning of  a global war relies on the militarization of outer space. Were a war directed against iran to be launched, it would not only use nuclear weapons, the entire gamut of new advanced weapons systems, including electrometric weapons and environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) would be used.

The United Nations Security Council

The UN Security Council adopted in early June a fourth round of sweeping sanctions against The Islamic Republic of Iran, which included an expanded arms embargo as well “tougher financial controls”. In a bitter irony, this resolution was passed within days of the United Nations Secrity Council’s outright refusal to adopt a motion condemning Israel for its attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in international waters.

Both China and Russia, pressured by the US, have endorsed the UNSC sanctions’ regime, to their own detriment. Their decision within the UNSC contributes to weakening their own military alliance, the Shanghai  Cooperation organization (SCO), in which Iran has observer status. The Security Council resolution freezes China and Russia’s respective bilateral military cooperation and trade agreements with Iran. It has serious repercussions on Iran’s air defense system which in part depends on Russian technology and expertise.

The Security Council resolution grants a de facto “green light” to wage a pre-emptive war against Iran.

The American Inquisition: Building a Political Consensus for War

In chorus, the Western media has branded Iran as a threat to global security in view of its alleged (non-existent) nuclear weapons program. Echoing official statements, the media is now demanding the implementation of punitive bombings directed against Iran so as to safeguard Israel’s security.

The Western media is beating the drums of war. The purpose is to tacitly instil, through repeated media reports, ad nauseam, within people’s inner consciousness, the notion that the Iranian threat is real and that the Islamic Republic should be “taken out”.

A consensus building process to wage war is similar to the Spanish inquisition. It requires and demands submission to the notion that war is a humanitarian endeavor.

Known and documented, the real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance, yet realities in an inquisitorial environment are turned upside down: the warmongers are committed to peace, the victims of war are presented as the protagonists of war. Whereas in 2006, almost two thirds of Americans were opposed to military action against Iran, a recent Reuter-Zogby February 2010 poll suggests that 56 % of Americans favor a US-NATO military action against Iran.

Building a political consensus which is based on an outright lie cannot, however, rely solely on the official position of those who are the source of the lie.

The antiwar movement in the US, which has in part been infiltrated and co-opted, has taken on a weak stance with regard to Iran. The antiwar movement is divided. The emphasis has been on wars which have already occurred (Afghanistan, Iraq) rather than forcefully opposing wars which are being prepared and which are currently on the Pentagon’s drawing board. Since the inauguration of the Obama administration, the antiwar movement has lost some of its impetus.

Moreover, those who  actively oppose the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, do not necessarily oppose the conduct of “punitive bombings” directed Iran, nor do they categorize these bombings as an act of war, which could potentially be a prelude to World War III.

The scale of antiwar protest in relation to Iran has been minimal in comparison to the mass demonstrations which preceded the 2003 bombing and invasion of Iraq.

The real threat to global security emanates from the US-NATO-Israel alliance.

The Iran operation is not being opposed in the diplomatic arena by China and Russia; it has the support of the governments of the frontline Arab states which are integrated into the NATO sponsored Mediterranean dialogue. It also has the tacit support of Western public opinion.

We call upon people across the land, in America,  Western Europe, Israel, Turkey and around the world to rise up against this military project, against their governments which are supportive of military action against Iran, against the media which serves to camouflage the devastating implications of a war against Iran.

The military agenda support a profit driven destructive global economic system which impoverishes large sectors of the world population.

This war is sheer madness.

World War III is terminal. Albert Einstein understood the perils of nuclear war and the extinction of life on earth, which has already started with the radioactive contamination resulting from depleted uranium. “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

The media, the intellectuals, the scientists and the politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the untold truth, namely that war using nuclear warheads destroys humanity, and that this complex process of gradual destruction has already commenced.

When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.

When war is upheld as a humanitarian endeavor, Justice and the entire international legal system are turned upside down: pacifism and the antiwar movement are criminalized. Opposing the war becomes a criminal act.

The Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.

It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.

It destroys families and people. It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow human beings.

It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and the police state as the sole avenue.

It destroys both nationalism and internationalism.

Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force.

This profit driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

Let us reverse the tide.

Challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.

Break the American inquisition.

Undermine the US-NATO-Israel military crusade.

Close down the weapons factories and the military bases.

Bring home the troops.

Members of the armed forces should disobey orders and refuse to participate in a criminal war.

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (Emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005). He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. he can be reached at the globalresearch.ca website

RECENT RELEASE BY GLOBAL RESEARCH

**NEW: Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War

click to order

by Michel Chossudovsky

________________________________________________________________________________

Related Articles 

“War without Borders”: Obama’s “Long War”
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-05-15
VIDEO: Will US-NATO Start World War III by Attacking Iran?
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2010-02-20

Any kind of military action directed against Iran would immediately lead to escalation

Obama and the Nobel Prize: When War becomes Peace, When the Lie becomes the Truth
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2009-10-11

When fiction becomes truth and truth becomes fiction. When a global military agenda is heralded as a humanitarian endeavor.

US-NATO Military Agenda: The Destabilization of Pakistan
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2009-04-17

9/11 and the “American Inquisition”
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-09-11

Anybody who opposes the American Inquisition is a heretic conspiracy theorist or an accomplice of the terrorists.
The Eurasian Corridor: Pipeline Geopolitics and the New Cold War
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-08-22

The ongoing crisis in the Caucasus is intimately related to the strategic control over energy pipeline & transportation corridors.

“Naval Blockade” or All Out War Against Iran?
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-08-13

AUDIO: “Iran: All Out War or Economic Conquest”
Radio Interview
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-07-19

Planned US Israeli Attack on Iran: Will there be a War against Iran?
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-05-14

Since the mid-1990s, as part of strategic “sequencing” of “in war theater operations”, USCENTCOM had formulated plans to invade first Iraq and then Iran.

The US-NATO Preemptive Nuclear Doctrine: Trigger a Middle East Nuclear Holocaust to Defend “The Western Way of Life”
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2008-02-11

For NATO and the Pentagon, the option of a nuclear first strike is indispensable.

Bush’s World War Three
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-10-17

The specter of a nuclear holocaust, which haunted the world for half a century has been relegated to the status of “collateral damage”.

VIDEO: America’s “Long War”. From the Truman Doctrine to the NeoCons
The History of US War Crimes
– by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-07-05

It is a profit driven military agenda. The “Global War on Terrorism” is a Fabrication.

“Islamic Terrorists” supported by Uncle Sam: Bush Administration “Black Ops” directed against Iran, Lebanon and Syria
– by Prof Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-05-31

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a “Black Op” to destabilize Iran

The War on Iran.
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-04-01

The US war games were conducted at a time of diplomatic tension and confrontation. Both the US and Iran are on a war footing

The Criminalization of US Foreign Policy
From the Truman Doctrine to the Neo-Conservatives
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-02-05

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.

Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust?.
Detailed article published in February 2006
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-07

The new nuclear doctrine turns concepts & realities upside down. It states that nuclear weapons are “safe” and their use will ensure “minimal collateral damage”.

Nuclear War on Iran
Detailed review first published in January 2006
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-07

Planned US-Israeli Nuclear Attack on Iran
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-07

The “Demonization” of Muslims and the Battle for Oil
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2007-01-04

Muslim countries possess three quarters of the World’s oil reserves. In contrast, the United States of America has barely 2 percent of total oil reserves.

First published on February 21, 2018

There is a party that, even if it does not appear, takes part in the Italian elections: the NATO Party. It is formed by a transversal majority, that explicitly or tacitly supports Italy’s membership of the Great Alliance under U.S. command.

This explains why, at the height of the electoral campaign, the main parties tacitly accepted the additional commitments undertaken by the government in the meeting of 29 Nato ministers of Defence (for Italy Roberta Pinotti), on 14-15 February in Brussels.

The ministers first participated in the Nato Nuclear Planning Group, chaired by the United States, whose decisions are always top secret.

Then the ministers met at the level of North Atlantic Council. Just two hours later, they announced important decisions (already taken elsewhere) to “modernise the NATO Command Structure, the backbone of our Alliance”.

A new Joint Force Command for the Atlantic will be set up, probably located in the United States, in order to “protect sea lines of communication between North America and Europe”. Thus they invented the scenario of Russian submarines that could sink merchant ships on transatlantic routes.

A new Command for logistics will be set up, probably located in Germany, to “improve the movement in Europe of troops and equipment essential to our collective defense”. Thus they invented the scenario of a NATO forced to defend itself from an aggressive Russia. On the contrary, it is NATO that aggressively deploys its military forces along the border with Russia. Additional land component commands will be established in Europe to “further improve coordination and rapid response for our forces”.

NATO will also set up a new Cyber ​​Operations Centre to “further strengthen our defenses”. It will be located at the headquarters of Mons (Belgium), headed by the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, who always is a U.S. General appointed by the President of the United States.

The ministers confirmed their commitment to increase military spending. Over the last three years, the European allies and Canada ncreased it by a total of $ 46 billion, but it is just the beginning. The goal is that every member country reaches at least 2% of the GDP (the US spend 4%), so as to have “more cash and therefore more military capabilities”.

The European countries that have so far reached and exceeded this quota are: Greece (2.32%), Estonia, Great Britain, Romania, Poland. The military spending of the European Union must be complementary to that of NATO. This was reiterated in a meeting with the EU foreign representative Federica Mogherini

Minister Pinotti confirmed that “Italy, respecting U.S. demand, has begun to increase spending for Defence” and that “we will continue on this road that is a road of responsibility”.

The way is therefore traced. But this is not talked about in the electoral campaign. While on Italy’s membership of the European Union the main parties have different positions, on the belonging of Italy to NATO are practically unanimous. This distorts the whole scenario.

We cannot discuss about the European Union while ignoring that 21 out of the 27 EU countries (after Brexit), with about 90% of the population of the Union, are members of NATO under U.S. command.

We cannot ignore the political and military consequences – as well as the economic, social and cultural ramifications of the fact that NATO is turning Europe into a battlefield against Russia, depicted as a threatening enemy: the new “empire of evil” attacking “the greatest democracy in the world” from the inside with its army of trolls.

Article in italiano :

Ha già votato la Nato prima di noi

ilmanifesto.it, 20 February 2018

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Were one to read the Washington Post’s article on a Russian proposal regarding the questioning of suspects in various, ongoing US and Russia investigations, they would have imagined former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul was about to be shipped to a dungeon beneath the Kremlin for interrogation.

The Washington Post’s article, “Outrage erupts over Trump-Putin ‘conversation’ about letting Russia interrogate ex-U.S. diplomat Michael McFaul” fueled anti-Russian hysteria, claiming:

At this week’s summit in Helsinki, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed what President Trump described as an “incredible offer” — the Kremlin would give special counsel Robert S. Mueller III access to interviews with Russians who were indicted after they allegedly hacked Democrats in 2016. In return, Russia would be allowed to question certain U.S. officials it suspects of interfering in Russian affairs.

One of those U.S. officials is a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul, a nemesis of the Kremlin because of his criticisms of Russia’s human rights record.

The Washington Post would compound confusion and hysteria by also claiming (emphasis added):

The willingness of the White House to contemplate handing over a former U.S. ambassador for interrogation by the Kremlin drew ire and astonishment from current and former U.S. officials. Such a proposition is unheard of. So is the notion that the president may think he has the legal authority to turn anyone over to a foreign power on his own.

In reality, the proposal never entailed the US or Russia handing anyone over for interrogation. Bloomberg in an article titled, “Trump ‘Looks Weak’ by Considering Putin’s Interrogation Idea, McFaul Says,” would more accurately summarize the deal, stating:

Putin proposed letting Russians observe interrogations of McFaul and other Americans. In exchange, U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller could send members of his team to watch Russian questioning of 12 Russian intelligence agents indicted by a U.S. grand jury last week in connection with hacking Democratic Party email accounts and disseminating those messages before the 2016 presidential election.

Americans of interest would be questioned in the United States, by Americans, merely with Russian representatives present, in exchange for American representatives travelling to Russia to watch a Russian interrogation of suspects relevant to ongoing US investigations.
Further evidence is the transcript of the actual statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself, posted by Politico, which states unequivocally (emphasis added):

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 will 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 — who have something to do with illegal actions on the territory of Russia. And we have to request the presence of our law enforcement.

Despite these facts, the hysteria has continued to spread in part due to a dishonest media eager to fan the flames of conflict with Russia and Western audiences eager to believe them.

Who is McFaul? And Why are Liberals Defending Him?

Americans convinced Russia interfered in American elections must then be acutely aware that meddling in another nation’s internal political affairs is unacceptable. Thus, McFaul’s role in doing precisely this before and during his appointment as US ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014 should elicit condemnation and outcries from these same Americans.

Instead, many Western liberals have leaped to McFaul’s defense.

The short answer as to why many in the West are defending McFaul is out of a reflexive response to their blind hatred of US President Donald Trump and Russia. McFaul has positioned himself both as a critic of President Trump and of Russia, fulfilling the only two prerequisites required to garner support among circles entertaining the current anti-Russia hysteria.

Yet McFaul represents special interests and activities that many Americans, left or right of the political spectrum, would find unacceptable – and perhaps especially for those outraged over alleged Russian meddling in American politics.

McFaul’s Role in Supporting Global Political Meddling  

Before McFaul served as US ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014 he served on the board of trustees of Freedom House (page 30, PDF).

Freedom House is a US government and corporate-financier funded front that imposes the interests of its sponsors on nations abroad under the guise of expanding “freedom and democracy around the world.” This process entails the creation and support of opposition groups to undermine and eventually either oust or overthrow targeted governments.

When McFaul served as trustee for Freedom House, its 2005 annual report indicated the US State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) as sponsors. It also included Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly.

Additionally, Freedom House is a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) which is chaired by a variety of career, pro-war Neoconservatives – Neoconservatives who promoted many of the Bush-era wars Western liberals opposed.

NED is also funded by the US government as well as corporations (page 126, PDF) including Goldman Sachs, convicted financial criminal George Soros’ Open Society, Coca-Cola, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and the US Chamber of Commerce which itself serves as a collective lobbying front for some of the largest corporations in the US.

NED and subsidiaries like Freedom House use the pretext of “democracy promotion” to pressure and even overthrow governments around the world, making way for client regimes that will serve US corporations and their expansion around the globe. In other words, “democracy” is a principle the NED and its subsidiaries hide behind, not uphold with US client regimes often being more abusive and corrupt than the governments they replaced.

One would imagine someone like McFaul involved in aiding and abetting corporations in their meddling worldwide and their subsequent exploitation of nations they undermine and overthrow would be the last person Western liberals would rush to the defense of.

McFaul Minding US-Funded Agitators in Moscow 

McFaul’s role at Freedom House would become more “hands on” when he was nominated, then appointed US ambassador to Russia from 2012-2014. During his first year as ambassador, Russian opposition figures funded by the NED and its subsidiaries would report to the US embassy in Moscow to meet with McFaul.

Present at the 2012 US embassy meeting were regular mainstays of the Western-backed Russian opposition, including Boris Nemtsov, Yevgeniya Chirikova of the NED-funded “Strategy 31″ protests, Lev Ponomarev of the NED, Ford Foundation, Open Society, and USAID-funded Moscow Helsinki Group, and Liliya Shibanova of NED-funded GOLOS, an allegedly “independent” election monitoring group that serves as the primary source of accusations of voting fraud against President Putin’s United Russia party.

Today, many of these organizations have hidden their US funding and the US NED webpage disclosing its activities in Russia describes its current meddling in the most ambiguous terms possible. Despite this, there are still nearly 100 entries on the NED’s Russian webpage covering everything from meddling in the media, education, and the environment, to interfering in Russia’s legal system and Russian elections.

We could only imagine the condemnation, outcry, and demands for action should a front similar to NED be created by Russia to interfere likewise in all aspects of American socioeconomic and political affairs, especially considering how mere accusations of “meddling” entailing e-mail leaks and social media posts have tipped off sanctions, a multi-year investigation, and even talk of treason and war.

McFaul’s association with individuals and organizations funded by the government he represented is in reality the very sort of political meddling and interference many have accused Russia of since 2016. There support of someone actually involved in political meddling in Russia, further undermines their credibility and moral authority in regards to accusations against Russia.

Pavlovian Politics  

McFaul’s involvement in the recent Russian proposal was not – however – related to his role in political meddling in Russia, but instead his alleged involvement with convicted financial criminal William Browder.

While the Western media depicts both McFaul and Browder’s conflicts with the Russian government as a result of their supposed advocacy for “democracy” and “human rights,” McFaul was clearly hiding behind such principles to advance US corporate interests, while Browder was attempting to gain leverage regarding his criminal conviction.

Interestingly enough, George Soros – who has funded subversion in Russia alongside organizations like NED – also attempted to leverage the notion of human rights to sidestep his own criminal conviction in France for insider trading, even according to the New York Times.

This troubling trend of the Western public gravitating toward and supporting individuals like McFaul and Browder solely out of their perceived hatred for President Trump and Russia is pushing Western political discourse further from rational debate and deeper toward hysteria.

That powerful special interests can easily manipulate sections of the Western public to support virtually anyone or anything, including unsavory characters like McFaul and Browder or the notion of expanding NATO or continued war abroad in nations like Syria simply by invoking “Trump” or “Russia” represents a predictable but dangerous Pavlovian phenomenon likely to leave deep scars, permanently disfiguring American politics and society much in the way the so-called “War on Terror” has.

The increasing lack of political sophistication in America is a reflection of a much wider deterioration of American economic and geopolitical strength both at home and around the globe. While one would expect sound leadership to begin preparing America for an orderly transition from a once global hegemon to a constructive member of a more multipolar world order, history has proven the lack of grace that generally accompanies an empire’s decline.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

These are some of the latest results coming from YouGov about the state of politics in Britain. Public sentiment is driven by the biggest post-war decision the country has made – Brexit – and it is now going very, very badly indeed. Much worse than anticipated.

69% of Britons saying Brexit is going badly

With 69% of Britons believing that Brexit is going badly, and with the political class pointing fingers in all directions, who does the public think is at fault? Now a new YouGov study shows that the answer is very different depending on whether people voted Remain or Leave.

The largest figure of blame for Brexit going badly – is the government. Two thirds (68%) of those who think Brexit is currently going badly say that it is the government’s fault. This includes three quarters who voted Remain (77%) and 58% of Leave voters.

With lots of talk of preparing for a no-deal Brexit, the possibilities of the Tory party completely disintegrating in 2019 becomes ever-more real. The electorate is now becoming very nervous of what Brexit may bring, given that the Conservatives have no idea themselves

The EU referendum: two years on

Slightly more of the British public think that voting to leave the EU was wrong for Britain than think it was the right decision, and on most measures, more people expect it will have a negative than a positive impact.

Despite all this negativity, most people in June, two years after the referendum still thought that the government should go ahead with Brexit, and the overwhelming majority expect that Britain will – ultimately – end up leaving. That was, until Theresa May’s Chequers plan.

The Conservative Leave vote is fracturing

“it appears to be Conservative Leave voters who are moving away from Theresa May’s Conservative party. In the week following Chequers the number saying they would stick with the Conservative party has dropped by ten percentages, with just 64% saying they would now vote for them in a general election.”

Let’s not forget what that actually means. That fall in the electorate voting Tory would prove quite a drama because the fall of ten per cent – is a fall recorded just before the Chequers plan and just after – not the overall fall. This defection has led to the voting intention changing from Tory to Labour.

Voting Intention: Conservatives 36%, Labour 41% (16-17 July)

The latest YouGov/ Times voting intention survey sees the Conservatives on 36% (from 37% in our most recent survey) and Labour on 41% (from 39%). Elsewhere, Liberal Democrat voting intention stands at 9% (from 10%) while 14% would vote for other parties (unchanged).

What this means is that the electorate is losing confidence in the party driving Britain’s Brexit negotiations. This is demonstrated quite clearly as Theresa May’s overall standing collapses.

Theresa May’s favourability score plummets to new low

With the government still reeling in the aftermath of the Chequers Brexit plan and the resignations it precipitated, new YouGov favourability polling reveals that the Prime Minister’s popularity has hit an all-time low.

It should be noted that, as stated above, those turning against the Prime Minister appear to be Leave voters. The only truly amazing statistic about Theresa May is that at the summer recess – she’s still Prime Minister. And few would have bet on that at any odds just six months ago.

The Conservatives are suffering from the events following the Chequers Brexit plan

Having now outlined their most recent Brexit plan, voters are even less clear on where the Conservatives stand on Brexit than they were before. The proportion of people who think the Tories’ policy on Brexit is “very” or “fairly” clear has fallen from 26% in mid-June to 16% now, while the proportion who find it “fairly” or “completely” unclear has risen from 58% to 69%.

The way of interpreting this is quite clear. It’s a mess. We have a lot to be fearful of because of politicians.

What Now?

Jeremy Hunt’s appointment to foreign secretary and the four biggest positions at the head of the U.K. government — prime minister, chancellor, foreign secretary and home secretary — all filled by people who voted to remain in the EU but are now tasked with negotiating a path out.

The electorate don’t believe in their plans for Brexit – even though they agree Brexit should mean Brexit.

That means a battered Britain is in for a further period of instability and more confusion, as a government led by people who don’t believe in Brexit in the first place will now finalize a framework to present to the EU who won’t agree to it anyway.

A no-deal scenario is now a stronger possibility and even the terms of that have to be agreed between the EU and the U.K. by the deadline. This would actually be an economic calamity for both the UK and the EU.

Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, said: “Politicians come and go, but the problems they have created for the people remain. The mess caused by Brexit is the biggest problem in the history of EU-U.K. relations. And it is still very far from being solved.”

As our report – The real Brexit ‘dividend’ – “a decade of economic underperformance and political crisis” from the London School of economics emphasised, “barring a vote to remain in the European Union, Britain faces the prospect of a lost decade of economic underperformance, subdued wage growth and investment and, increasingly, political crisis.”

Truthfully, in a no-deal scenario, that forecast is optimistic. Brace yourselves. It’s time for a new way to manage Britain and it isn’t the way we have right now.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In recent months Russia, as some claim, “strenuously prepared for Putin’s meeting with Trump”. What does this mean?

Firstly, in April the Central Bank of the Russian Federation dumped nearly a half of US Treasuries that it had on its balance, having reduced their stock from $96.2 billion to $48.7 billion.

In May the Central Bank continued to do this, having reduced the quantity of treasuries on its balance even more.

Certain news agencies only emphasised that Russia dropped out of the list of the largest holders of treasuries, having noted that this “is less than $30 billion”. They use students in these news agencies, and as a result such “news” appears.

Having read the full report of US Department of the Treasury, it is easy to see that the size of the Russian investments in treasuries was reduced to $14.9 billion.

I.e., more than sixfold in two months. But there still isn’t any data for June…

Secondly, some observers noticed that against this background the Central Bank of the Russian Federation continued to increase its gold reserves.

Since the Central Bank shows in its report the amount of gold in the dollar equivalent, we will have to convert it at the rate of the corresponding number.

• On April 1st 80482/1340 = 60,061 million ounces.
• On May 1st 81146/1315 = 61,707 million ounces.
• On June 1st 80511/1301 = 61,884 million ounces.

As we see, the amount of gold indeed steadily grows.

Some were stupid enough to be indignant because the Central Bank buys gold while it goes down in price. On the one hand, if it bought it at the top peak of the price, then it would be worse. On the other hand, it is possible to assume that in the near future certain events are expected that can significantly raise the price of gold.

If we work like system analysts, then we need to coordinate at least two more facts with the aforementioned.

Thirdly, the majority of Russian state corporations and a number of banks and companies with State capital switched (or are in the process of switching) to the Russian System for the transfer of financial messages of the Bank of Russia (SPFS), which actually means abandoning SWIFT.

Very recently, in June, “Gazprom Neft” also tested a transition to SPFS.

As was stated in the press release: “The use of a sole system that all Russian credit organisations are connected to instead of many local bank clients allows to considerably increase the speed, reliability, and security of carrying out financial operations and to optimise expenses”.

And fourthly, the head of “VTB” Andrey Kostin met with Putin the other day and presented to him a report on the activity of the bank. During the meeting Kostin, in particular, said two things:

“1. Since the beginning of this year, people seem to be less interested in making dollar deposits or taking out dollar loans, compared to ruble-denominated deposits and loans. We believe this to be an important step towards the de-dollarisation of the Russian finance sector.

2. VTB experts have drafted a package of proposals designed to further promote the ruble in international settlements and thus develop the Russian market for floating Eurobonds, shares and creating other derivatives that are now used only in the West. I think that we need to create our own financial tools. This would serve as an additional safeguard for the Russian financial sector against external shocks, and would give a new impetus to its development”.

As we can see, both State corporations, and State banks are actively preparing for the de-dollarisation of economy (or, if to be more exact, carrying it out with confidence) and possible problems from SWIFT, and also increase the self-sufficiency of all systems (communication, payment, and so on).

I think that if there is the desire, then it is possible to significantly add to the provided list of measures. Russia consistently and surely dumps the dollar (and, quite possibly, prepares for the “perfect storm” in the global economy that was predicted long ago), and today none of Trump’s words or actions can change these aspirations.

Because no Trump is able to stop the impending storm.

*

Translated from the Russian original by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard.

English version first published by stalkerzone.org.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

‘Arab NATO’: Trump Pursuing Regional Alliance to Confront Iran

By The New Arab, July 29, 2018

Washington is trying to strengthen cooperation between the countries on various fronts including missile defence, military training and counter-terrorism, as well as boosting regional economic and diplomatic ties, four US and Arab officials told the news agency.

Defense Secretary Mattis Dismisses Report of US Military Action Against Iran as ‘Fiction’

By Press TV, July 28, 2018

He made the remarks on Friday a day after Australian outlet ABC News published an article, suggesting military action against the Islamic Republic was imminent as early as next month.

US Preparing to Bomb Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities as Soon as Next Month: Report

By Zero Hedge, July 28, 2018

As the White House convenes a policy meeting on Iran Thursday involving senior Pentagon officials and cabinet advisers under national security adviser John Bolton, and after a week of intense saber-rattling by President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani, a new bombshell report [which remains to be fully corroborated M.Ch. GR] by Australia’s ABC says the White House is drawing up plans to strike Iran’s alleged nuclear facilities as early as next month.

Trump Regime Planning to Terror-Bomb Iran?

By Stephen Lendman, July 27, 2018

Attacking Iran would be madness, besides being another US-led high crime against peace. Much of the region would be jeopardized.

Iran can block or obstruct the key Strait of Hormuz maritime shipping route for Middle East oil producers – one of the world’s most strategically important choke points.

Iran: US Regime Change Project Is Immoral and Illegal

By David William Pear, July 27, 2018

Contemptuous of international law, the US makes no secret of its plots to overthrow the leaders of internationally recognized governments that reject the neoliberal New World Order.  Iran is at the top of the US enemies list. 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government, owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.” ― Theodore Roosevelt

There are those who would have you believe that President Trump is an unwitting victim of the Deep State.

And then there are those who insist that the Deep State is a figment of a conspiratorial mind.

Don’t believe it.

The Deep State—a.k.a. the police state, a.k.a. the military industrial complex, a.k.a. the surveillance state complex—does indeed exist and Trump, far from being its sworn enemy, is its latest tool.

When in doubt, follow the money trail.

It always points the way.

Every successive president starting with Franklin D. Roosevelt has been bought—lock, stock and barrel—and made to dance to the tune of the Deep State.

Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, the retired five-star Army general-turned-president who warned against the disastrous rise of misplaced power by the military industrial complex was complicit in contributing to the build-up of the military’s role in dictating national and international policy.

Enter Donald Trump, the candidate who swore to drain the swamp in Washington DC.

Instead of putting an end to the corruption, however, Trump has paved the way for lobbyists, corporations, the military industrial complex, and the rest of the Deep State (also referred to as “The 7th Floor Group”) to feast on the carcass of the dying American republic.

Apart from tweets that are little more than sound and fury, Trump is not a man who is raging against the machine.

He is too much a part of the machine.

Indeed, as Reuters reports, “[President] Trump has gone further than any of his predecessors to act as a salesman for the U.S. defense industry.”

Despite claims to the contrary, Trump is not advocating for peace with Russia, or North Korea or any other nation.

He is selling us out to the war hawks.

The latest squawk over Iran is just more of the same chest-thumping, sleight-of-hand intended to play into the hands of a salivating military industrial complex for whom war is merely a means to a larger profit margin.

The war hawks have no beef with Trump.

Why should they? He’s giving them exactly what they want.

With Trump’s blessing, the military’s budget—with its trillion dollar wars, its $125 billion in administrative waste, and its contractor-driven price gouging that hits the American taxpayer where it hurts the most—will continue to grow.

Borrowing a leaf from his buddies in China, Russia and North Korea, Trump is even planning a $12 million military parade on November 10 to showcase the nation’s military might.

Follow the money.

It always points the way.

The corporations are getting richer, average Americans are getting poorer, the military is getting more militaristic, America’s endless wars are getting more endless, and the prospect of peace grows ever dimmer.

This is exactly how you keep the Deep State in power.

We’ve been losing our freedoms so incrementally for so long—sold to us in the name of national security and global peace, maintained by way of martial law disguised as law and order, and enforced by a standing army of militarized police and a political elite determined to maintain their powers at all costs—that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly when it all started going downhill, but we’re certainly on that downward trajectory now, and things are moving fast.

The “government of the people, by the people, for the people” has perished.

In its place is a shadow government, a corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House.

Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats.

Rather, I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.

This is the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.

This shadow government, which “operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power,” makes a mockery of elections and the entire concept of a representative government.

So how do you recognize the Deep State when it rears its ugly head?

It’s the militarized police, which have joined forces with state and federal law enforcement agencies in order to establish themselves as a standing army.

It’s the fusion centers and spy agencies that have created a surveillance state and turned all of us into suspects.

It’s the courthouses and prisons that have allowed corporate profits to take precedence over due process and justice.

It’s the military empire with its private contractors and defense industry that is bankrupting the nation.

It’s the private sector with its 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, “a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government.”

It’s what former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren refers to as “a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies”: the Department of Defense, the State Department, Homeland Security, the CIA, the Justice Department, the Treasury, the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a handful of vital federal trial courts, and members of the defense and intelligence committees.

It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.

These are the key players that drive the shadow government.

This is the hidden face of the American police state.

Just consider some of the key programs and policies—manifestations of the police state complex—that continue to be advanced by the shadow government with the full support of its latest accomplice in the White House:

Domestic surveillance. The National Security Agency (NSA), with its $10.8 billion black ops annual budget, continues to spy on every person in the United States who uses a computer or phone. Yet the government does not operate alone. It cannot. It requires an accomplice. Thus, the increasingly complex security needs of our massive federal government, especially in the areas of defense, surveillance and data management, have been met within the corporate sector, which has shown itself to be a powerful ally that both depends on and feeds the growth of governmental bureaucracy. For instance, through its vast telecommunications network that crisscrosses the globe, AT&T provides the U.S. government with the complex infrastructure it needs for its mass surveillance programs.

On any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior. Local police have been outfitted with a litany of surveillance gear, from license plate readers and cell phone tracking devices to biometric data recorders. Technology now makes it possible for the police to scan passersby in order to detect the contents of their pockets, purses, briefcases, etc. Full-body scanners, which perform virtual strip-searches of Americans traveling by plane, have gone mobile, with roving police vans that peer into vehicles and buildings alike—including homes. Coupled with the nation’s growing network of real-time surveillance cameras and facial recognition software, soon there really will be nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

Global spying. The NSA’s massive surveillance network, what the Washington Post refers to as a $500 billion “espionage empire,” is still spanning the globe and targeting every single person on the planet who uses a phone or a computer. The NSA’s Echelon program intercepts and analyzes virtually every phone call, fax and email message sent anywhere in the world. In addition to carrying out domestic surveillance on peaceful political groups such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace and several religious groups, Echelon has also been a keystone in the government’s attempts at political and corporate espionage.

Roving TSA searches. The American taxpayer is still getting ripped off by government agencies in the dubious name of national security. One of the greatest culprits when it comes to swindling taxpayers has been the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), with its questionable deployment of and complete mismanagement of millions of dollars’ worth of airport full-body X-ray scanners, punitive patdowns by TSA agents and thefts of travelers’ valuables. Considered essential to national security, TSA programs will continue in airports and at transportation hubs around the country.

USA Patriot Act, NDAA. America’s so-called war on terror, which it has relentlessly pursued since 9/11, continues to chip away at our freedoms, unravel our Constitution and transform our nation into a battlefield, thanks in large part to such subversive legislation as the USA Patriot Act and National Defense Authorization Act. These laws completely circumvent the rule of law and the rights of American citizens. In so doing, they re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the U.S. Constitution, is the map by which we navigate life in the United States. These laws will continue to be enforced no matter who gets elected.

Militarized police state. Thanks to federal grant programs allowing the Pentagon to transfer surplus military supplies and weapons to local law enforcement agencies without charge, police forces continue to be transformed from peace officers into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, continue to keep the masses corralled, controlled, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

SWAT team raids. With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans by local police for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties continues to rise. Nationwide, SWAT teams continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activity or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession.

Domestic drones. The domestic use of drones has continued unabated. As mandated by Congress, there will be 30,000 drones crisscrossing the skies of America by 2020, all part of an industry that could be worth as much as $30 billion per year. These machines, which will be equipped with weapons, will be able to record all activities, using video feeds, heat sensors and radar. An Inspector General report revealed that the Dept. of Justice has already spent nearly $4 million on drones domestically, largely for use by the FBI, with grants for another $1.26 million so police departments and nonprofits can acquire their own drones.

School-to-prison pipeline. The paradigm of abject compliance to the state continues to be taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior. School districts continue to team up with law enforcement to create a “schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of punishment: suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile court.

Overcriminalization. The government bureaucracy continues to churn out laws, statutes, codes and regulations that reinforce its powers and value systems and those of the police state and its corporate allies, rendering the rest of us petty criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to this overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal. Consequently, small farmers who dare to make unpasteurized goat cheese and share it with members of their community continue to have their farms raided.

Privatized Prisons. States continue to outsource prisons to private corporations, resulting in a cash cow whereby mega-corporations imprison Americans in private prisons in order to make a profit. In exchange for corporations buying and managing public prisons across the country at a supposed savings to the states, the states have to agree to maintain a 90% occupancy rate in the privately run prisons for at least 20 years.

Endless wars. America’s expanding military empire is continuing to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense.

Are you getting the message yet?

The current president, much like the previous president and his predecessors, is little more than a figurehead, a puppet to entertain and distract the populace from what’s really going on.

As Lofgren reveals, this state within a state, “concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue,” is a “hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose.”

The Deep State not only holds the nation’s capital in thrall, but it also controls Wall Street (“which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater”) and Silicon Valley.

This is fascism in its most covert form, hiding behind public agencies and private companies to carry out its dirty deeds.

It is a marriage between government bureaucrats and corporate fat cats.

As Lofgren concludes:

[T]he Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change… If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock: Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda.

So let’s have no more of this caterwauling about Trump being victimized by the Deep State.

There is no conspiracy to do away with Trump.

He is doing too good a job at sowing division, creating distractions that keep Americans oblivious to the government’s ongoing power grabs, and helping to advance the profit-driven agenda of the Deep State.

Trump is no victim.

If you want to talk about the true victims of the Deep State, let’s talk about the men and women and children being shot and killed and brutalized and spied on and muzzled and jailed and robbed at gunpoint and treated as if they have no rights.

Let’s talk about the sorry state of our freedoms, which have continued their downward trajectory with no let-up.

Let’s talk about the fact that constitutional ignorance, corruption, ineptitude and cruelty are not unique to the Trump Administration. They have been hallmarks of the American police state.

So the next time you find yourselves mesmerized by Donald Trump’s latest tweets or theatrics or drawn into a politicized debate over the machinations of Congress, the president or the judiciary, remember: as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, it’s all intended to distract you from the fact that you have no authority and no rights in the face of the shadow government no matter who is in office.

As long as government officials—elected and unelected alike—are allowed to operate beyond the reach of the Constitution, the courts and the citizenry, the threat to our freedoms remains undiminished.

*

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People  (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from Steemit.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

According to the Israel Bureau of Statistics, the state has a population of 8.8 million of which 21% are non-Jewish.

That Arab population is now, tragically, an oppressed minority, the Israeli occupier having introduced racial laws to ensure that Palestinians are now 2nd class citizens in the land of their forefathers. It is a disaster for both Jews and Arabs in the Holy Land. And for democratic government.

It is also a tragic outcome for the United Nations that facilitated the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948. A state that now refuses to acknowledge the authority of the UN Security Council and insists on ignoring its own government’s deliberate violation of Resolution 2334 passed unanimously by the 14 Security Council members, with no dissensions, on 23 December 2016.

The state of Israel is an undeclared nuclear power that is currently inciting US President Donald Trump, to mobilise the United States Army to initiate an unprovoked attack upon the sovereign country of Iran in an attempt to make America’s vassal state of Israel the nuclear-armed, regional hegemon of the Middle East.

There should be no ambiguity about the dangers such an unprovoked attack would have upon the potential consequences of a nuclear conflict and the breakdown of global peace. Within the threat of an American-Israeli military strike against Iran, is the horrifying scenario of a nuclear desert extending from Tehran, through Jerusalem to Marseilles and Paris, with millions killed and/ or made fatally ill over a great swathe of the Middle East and Europe.

It is not a matter to be taken lightly, for appeasement of the appetite of an occupier is an error of great magnitude, as was proven by the action of Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in the Munich Agreement of 1938.

That brought us World War 2.

*

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Developments in London’s financial district help us understand the precise form that Brexit will take, argues Sarah Hall. She explains why London is distinct to the rest of the UK and writes that, as companies threaten to move to other European cities in anticipation of a ‘no deal’, the government’s decision making is still not reflecting the City’s strategic importance.

London, and its financial services sector in particular, provides vital insights into understanding England’s Brexit vote in June 2016. Economically, politically, culturally and socially, the capital’s 8.7 million residents are increasingly characterised by their distinctiveness as compared to those living elsewhere in the UK – a trend that has intensified following the financial crisis of 2007-8. For example, figures from the Office for National Statistics show that even after accounting for higher housing costs, gross disposable household income was highest in London in 2015 at £25,293 compared with £16,197 in the North East of England and £15,913 in Northern Ireland.

For the full data see here.

Meanwhile, the Centre for Cities revealed the extent to which the UK relies on tax receipts from the capital arguing that London generates 45% of the taxes generated in urban areas in 2014/15 equivalent to almost as much tax as the next 37 cities combined.

The distinctiveness of London in relation to the rest of the UK was also clearly demonstrated in the Brexit vote. London was one of a handful of predominately University cities to vote remain in the referendum in June 2016. This reflects the comparatively high levels of migration coupled with relatively strong economic growth enjoyed by Londoners. However, in contrast, the success of London relative to the rest of the UK was also important in driving the ultimately successful Leave vote. For authors such as Danny Dorling, this vote was driven by growing inequality following a prolonged period of austerity politics that have resulted in worsening health outcomes and declining living standards for many British citizens who wanted someone or something to blame.

In the two years since the vote, London’s distinctiveness has become increasingly significant in relation to the future development of the UK’s economy after Brexit. This stems from the fact that the economy relies on the service sector which makes up 79.6% of the UK’s GDP and is driven by financial services in London’s international financial district. Indeed, financial and related professional services – such as legal services and the insurance sector – which are overwhelmingly concentrated in London make up a significant part of this, accounting for 6.5% of UK economic output in 2017. However, the impacts of Brexit on the strategically important financial services sector are best characterised by profound uncertainty with potentially significant implications for the future trajectory of the UK economy.

There are two main causes of this uncertainty. Firstly, despite the rapidly approaching negotiation deadline, the precise nature of Brexit remains unknown. What is clear is that the financial services sector at the heart of London’s economy will not be given the special privileges that it has previously enjoyed in times of significant change. For instance, in the 1990s, the impact of joining the Euro on London’s financial district was singled out as a key criterion used in government decision making, reflecting the City’s strategic importance in the UK economy. Compare this with the 2017 New Industrial Strategy that makes very little mention of the financial services sector, viewing it far more as a way of facilitating growth in other economic sectors, particularly manufacturing.

The second uncertainty in understanding the impact of Brexit on the UK’s economy, and the role of London within this, lies in the relationship between the UK’s financial services sector and the international financial system. We now understand this relationship as highly complex and interwoven. This means that the impact of any Brexit deal on one particular part of London’s financial services ecosystem could have profound, but unpredictable, implications elsewhere in the system. As the Chairman of HSBC summarised to the Treasury Select Committee in 2017 “the ecosystem in London is a bit like a Jenga tower. We don’t know if you pull one small piece out, whether nothing happens of indeed if there is a more dramatic impact”.

These uncertainties have not been resolved in the keenly-awaited publication in July 2018 of the UK Government’s White Paper on ‘The Future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union’. On the critical issue of financial services, the White Paper recognises the interconnected nature of financial networks between the UK and the EU, but proposes a relatively unspecified “new economic and regulatory arrangement with the EU in financial services” that would “maintain the economic benefits of cross-border provision of the most important international financial services traded between the UK and the EU”.

Crucially, the Paper does not call for mutual recognition for financial services between the UK and the EU. Mutual recognition provides greater certainty than other trade options for the relationship of financial services in the EU and UK because it operates on the basis that products developed in one country can be sold across all EU member states. Reflecting his calls for a softer Brexit, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been advocating for mutual recognition for the financial services sector following the Brexit vote, most recently at his annual Mansion House speech in June 2018.

In contrast, and reflecting the fact that the financial services sector will not be singled out for special treatment within the Brexit negotiations, the Paper argues for a broader form of equivalence between financial services in the UK and EU. Typically, equivalence creates more uncertainty in trade relations because decisions on equivalence are unilateral. In this scenario, each trading partner is able to make a decision (and withdraw this) as to whether regulations in the trading relationship are the same, thereby allowing goods and services to be traded between the two parties. In order to address this, the UK Government states in the White Paper that for financial services, it seeks to develop a “reciprocal recognition of equivalence” although the precise mechanisms through which this would be developed and implemented remain far less certain.

It is this ongoing uncertainty that could have a bigger part to play in shaping the UK-EU trade relationship in financial services post Brexit than policy and regulatory pronouncements. The pace of London’s financial markets move markedly faster than that of Brexit negotiations to date. The uncertainty surrounding Britain’s future relations with the EU is already leading to a growing sense amongst financial institutions that it is prudent to take action now in readiness for a ‘no deal’ in which agreement can’t be reached by the March 2019 deadline. For example, within hours of the White Paper’s publication, the Chief Executive of Lloyd’s of London argued that the uncertainty would lead to the firm going ahead and opening a planned subsidiary in Brussels. Part of this relocation activity is to act as a lobbying force, essentially sounding a warning shot to negotiators that if the financial services sector in London does not get the type of Brexit it wants, it will take action accordingly.

Whilst the precise implications of such actions remain unknown, both in terms of any deal ultimately struck and the trajectory of London’s international financial district, it makes it clear that understanding what is happening to the City will be vital in understanding the precise form that Brexit takes. Moreover, the uncertainty of the negotiations now extends beyond the nature of financial services relations between the UK and the EU to a wider questioning of the position of London’s financial services sector economically and politically within UK plc.

*

Note: the above draws on the author’s co-authored work (with Professor Dariusz Wójcik) published in Geoforum.

Sarah Hall is Professor of Economic Geography at the University of Nottingham.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Obviously any war rhetoric either by tweet or as an official statement only helps the warmongers and limits the forces who are diligently working toward peaceful solutions to resolve conflicts. However in the recent tweet duel between the U.S. and Iranian officials, all the tough talk like the comment from the Major General Qassem Soleimani as saying: “If you [U.S.] begin the war, we will end the war” looks juvenile and really meaningless.

The strange late night tweets from President Trump have been criticized and analyzed many times, so let’s see what Mr. Rouhani’s “Lion’s tail” remark means. President Hassan Rouhani in a televised speech at a gathering of Iranian diplomats in Tehran warned the United States not to “play with the lion’s tail” and concluded the conflict with Iran would be the “mother of all wars”. “Playing with the lion’s tail” actually is a story about collaboration and friendship between two separate entities! One might say it was a Freudian slip by Mr. Rouhani, since a section of the 1% in Iran has been seeking an “equal” relationship with the U.S. and the E.U.

What is actually the story behind “don’t play with the lion tail!”?

As story goes, one day a little mouse was playing with a lion’s tail while the lion was napping. Suddenly the lion wakes up, grabs the annoying little mouse and says “don’t play with the lion’s tail!”, you have been irritating me for a while and now I’m going to kill you. The little mouse (in fear of its life) begs for mercy and promises that he wouldn’t bother the lion anymore. The lion listens to the desperate plea of the regretful little mouse and decides to allow the mouse go free. A few days later, a skillful hunter captures the lion alive with a net trap. The lion unable to release himself from the net starts roaring loudly. The faithful mouse nearby hears the lion’s roar, rushes towards the sound and finds the lion in distress. The little mouse instantly starts chewing on the net until lion is able to escape from the hunter’s trap.

However considering the Iranian official’s spin on the “Lion’s Tail” message, the fact is that President Rouhani’s response to President Trump is not really wise or helpful. Iran’s classical revolution in 1979 (in which all layers in society participated and supported historical change) toppled the monarchy and Pahlavi Dynasty once and for all. Workers in cities and framers in rural area, women and youth joined forces and ended a corrupted ruling class. They opened the gate of freedom in hope for a new form of governance, a Democratic Republic. However the Islamic leadership of the late Ayatollah Khomeini was the only force who understood the nation’s demand and he was the only leader who declared that the “Monarchy (SHAH) Has To Go!” The Stalinist communist Party, the “Liberal” National fronts were too weak to even imagine of taking the leadership. Offshoot organizations of the major parties were running around, creating drama like a chicken without head. Meanwhile a new 1% in conjunction with the old wealth formed a new government: The Islamic Republic of Iran.

The new establishment in Tehran under the cover of the National Security, started arresting the Iranian intellectuals, artists, leaders and members of the independent parties and workers Union (Etehadieh). They were incarcerated in the harshest inhuman conditions in Evin, an infamous prison in Iran.

Source: author

The new government’s justification in banning the opposition’s voices was the unexpected Iraq war against Iran which was directed and supported by the U.S. and the European military powers. Soon Democracy, Freedom of Speech, the fruits of revolution were forbidden and taken away. However the 99% pushed their demands forward, making progress here and there. The 1% after the revolution rather to respond to the Iranian people domestic needs, aimed to become a military power player in the region. They thought this would be the only way that guarantees their power and keeps Iran secure and strong. Meddling in Iraq and Syria’s affairs was justified as a “defensive” strategy. The majority of the 99% in Iran, although sympathetic to their sisters and brothers’ dire situation in Iraq, Syria and most of all occupied Palestine were dissatisfied with the high cost of military operations while the corrupt officials and financiers were sucking dry the blood of hard working people.

The fact is that the “Lion’s Tail” message is not a message from the majority of the people in Iran. Iranian working families have enough problems of their own to become pawns in a war of empty words or destructive weapons! They decisively reject this notion that “If you begin the war, we will end the war”! It will be the young generation who must fight the next unnecessary war of old politicians and the youth in Iran (like any other country) are looking for a peaceful world. Beside, how can you put an end to a war against the most insane and powerful military on earth? The U.S. has been the only military power in the world that already has dropped atomic bombs on Japan to claim its victory in WWII as the Super Power. What the Iranian officials are really hoping is that if the U.S. starts a war against Iran, the Russian and Chinese miraculously will end it!

But the reality is the people in the U.S. and Iran are not in the mood for war! More than anything they want CHANGE. Today people are on street demanding a change to the miserable status quo. The massive participation of youth and women in the recent Pakistan Presidential Election is the most recent testimony to people’s desire for change. However, it is needless to say that the election of Mr. “Imran Khan” (a political character similar to Mr. Sanders in the U.S. or Mr. Corbyn in U.K.) will not be a decisive victory.

Peace activists around the world are not impressed by those who try to intimidate their opponents by tough talk or tweets about war. As singer David Byrne in his latest album “American Utopia” says:

There’s only one way to read a book
And there’s only one way to watch TV
Well there’s only one way to smell a flower
But there’s millions of ways to be free

Does Winter follow Spring
Like night follows day
Must a question have an answer
Can’t there be another way

There are “millions of ways to be free” and prosperous – choosing military confrontation as an option only take us to the world of darkness and destruction. We already have seen plenty of death and destruction in WWI, WWII, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen. There must be another way other than war to resolve the differences.

What would follow after the “Mother of All Wars” begins will be unimaginable. For sure, DEATH would be a blessing if a nuclear war is unleashed upon us.

*

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

“Think about what you will tell your grandchildren in many years from now and not about what your friends will say about you today. Refuse to take part in this ongoing war crime. Refuse to continue murdering people who are locked in the biggest prison in the world. I was once one of you and I know that among you there are some who can still think. Refuse to be the guards of the Gaza ghetto.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

There’s a visible pattern amid the European media voicing ever increasing concern over malfunctions and all sorts of emergencies occurring lately at nuclear power plants.

A very real possibility of a second Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster occurring in Europe has recently been reported by Italian news service Gli Occhi Della Guerra. In particular, it reported that the authorities of Germany and the Netherlands made a decision to hand out to the population iodine tablets capable of reducing the effects of radiation poisoning in an the event of a grave nuclear emergency. This panic-provoking move was made by Berlin and Amsterdam reflecting their severe concern over the condition of two nuclear power plants: the Doel Nuclear Power Station and the Tihange Nuclear Power Station, which are technically located on the the territory of Belgium, but are really close the borders of the two above mentioned nations. The last time there was a major malfunction at the third reactor of Belgium’s most powerful nuclear power plant, Tihange, it was announced a couple of days ago by Le Soir. However, Doel is no less troublesome, as those two nuclear power stations were built back in the 70s and have been a major headache for nuclear scientists operating them ever since. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the decision to distribute anti-radiation pills in Aachen and The Hague came on the back of a number of scientific publications shedding light on the security conditions at the two of Belgium’s nuclear power stations. Basically speaking, both environmental groups and scientists tend to agree that they represent a time bomb ticking right in the heart of Europe.

However, this is hardly the only source of concern for the EU, as analysts from the British magazine Energy Research & Social Science say that Europe is about to face a nuclear incident much more devastating than the Chernobyl disaster, as on top of the poor state of the two Belgian nuclear power stations, there’s an 80% probability of a nuclear disaster occurring at one of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants before 2020. In the event of such a nuclear disaster, the European Union will be dealing with both the unimaginable environmental damage, but due to the introduction of a visa-free regime between the EU and Ukraine, a mass exodus from the contaminated region of Ukrainians to Western Europe.

Today, Ukraine has four nuclear power plants: Zaporizhzhya (the largest in Europe, with six reactors and a total electricity generation output of 6,000 MW), Rivne (four reactors with a total electricity generation output of 2,880 MW), Khmelnitskaya (two reactors with a total capacity of 2000 MW) and the South-Ukraine (three reactors and a total electricity generation output of 3000 MW). The fifth one, the infamous Chernobyl nuclear power station with four reactors was sealed off completely back in 2000.

Out of the 15 operational nuclear reactors in Ukraine, a total of 12 were introduced into service before 1990, with all of them sharing a maximum operational service life of 30 years. The fact that a total of 10 of these reactors have already exceeded their lifespans sends cold shivers down one’s spine. However, those reactors have been used to produce an ever increasing amount of electricity to meet Ukraine’s growing demand caused by a sharp decline in the number of operational thermal power plants that have no access to the coal produced in Donbass. This breakaway region has been on the defense ever since Kiev authorities launched military operations against its Russian-speaking population. Now those Soviet age reactors are being run into the ground so that they fulfill more than 60% of Ukraine’s total electricity needs, which leads to nuclear scientists operating them being forced to to the limits of these thoroughly worn-out nuclear facilities.

The situation is aggravated by political pressure applied by Washington on the current Kiev government, demanding them to find a quick substitute to the nuclear fuel produced by the Russian company TVEL. Therefore, time and time again reactors are loaded with fuel produced by the American-Japanese corporation Westinghouse Electric Company. It seems that Kiev and Washington are too willing to ignore the traumatizing experience of the Soviet era Czech Temelín Nuclear Power Station, which signed a deal with Westinghouse on the supply of its fuel as early as 1996. But the use of American fuel led to a series of major failures at the power station eventually resulting in severe structural damaged being inflicted upon its reactors. Nuclear scientists operating the Temelín station failed to address the problem, which led to the decision to break the deal with Westinghouse Electric Company after yet another major incident in 2007. Finally, the Czech Republic refused to purchase any other form of fuel other than fuel produced in Russia, resulting in the Temelín Nuclear Power Station being fueled by Russia once again since 2010.

However, Kiev’s authorities have gone so far in their Russophobic that they continue playing with fire, testing all sorts of substitutes to Russian fuel formulas produced in America since 2005. One can remember how a series of malfunctions at the South-Ukraine Nuclear Power Station back in 2013 resulted in a number of Ukrainian inspection organizations introducing a complete ban on the use of any form of American-produced nuclear fuel in Ukraine.

However the American sponsored coup d’etat in Kiev reopened the door for the use of American fuel in Ukraine, which has already resulted in a number of failures and emergency reactor shutdowns at various Ukrainian nuclear power plants.

To be more specific, since the 2014 coup, Zaporizhzhya NPP has already experienced a dozen emergency shutdowns. At South-Ukraine NPP, extensive use of American-produced fuel resulted in a 24 hours shutdown of the whole station back in 2016. As a result, only two out of six reactors at Zaporizhzhya NPP remain fully operational. The total amount of nuclear emergencies across Ukraine has increased by 400% since 2010. The Energy Research & Social Science report has repeatedly stressed that an abnormal level of emergency nuclear situations in Ukraine has been deliberately omitted in official international reports for a number of years, even though local media report them on a regular basis.

However, nobody seems to be concerned in Kiev. Last May, the official website of Ukraine’s Energoatom reported that a total of four reactors of the Zaporizhzhya NPP in Ukraine will only be fueled by products of Westinghouse Electric Company, with only two remaining reactors still being operated on Russian fuel. In addition to the use of sub-quality fuel, there’s yet another reason for the mounting incidents and risk at Ukrainian power plants and that is chronic under-funding of this sector, since there’s been not a single Euro invested in the sector since the collapse of the USSR.

Meanwhile, reactors that have worked longer than the planned 30-year service life must either be decommissioned or be modified for their service life to be extended. Both of these options are rather expensive for debt-ridden Kiev, yet the second option looks more favorable from its point of view. Ideally, these reactors have to undergo a major overhaul and modernization, but the estimated cost of such operations is estimated to reach as much as 150 million euros. But neither the state-run Energoatom nor Kiev itself has the resources to go down that route, so Kiev is arbitrarily prolonging the service life of all operational reactors.

Upon doing this it sends reports to neighboring countries and international organizations operating in the field of environmental protection. However, such actions simultaneously violate a total of two UN Conventions that require its signatories to obtain bilateral and international approvals before service life of a reactor is prolonged, but not the other way around. Those are the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment and the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

As it’s been announced by Ukrainian PM Viktoriya Voytsitskaya, as the nuclear industry collapses in Ukraine, nuclear scientists are being laid off or quit work voluntarily to seek employment in other countries. Additionally, the total number of emergency situations at Ukrainian nuclear power plants in 2017 reached a total of 17 cases against 12 cases a year earlier.

All these facts show that Ukraine’s remaining nuclear power plants represent a real threat to the security of Europe, but against the backdrop of the current economic situation and political instability in Ukraine, there is no chance to reverse this negative trend. The question of how to address this situation effectively must be a topic of urgent negotiations between Ukraine and the authorities of leading EU states.

*

Grete Mautner is an independent researcher and journalist from Germany, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” 

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Walking along the shoreline, with the sun shining, the blue sky smiling and the crashing waves creating a myriad of pollution destroying negative ions. You look out at the horizon and feel like this must be ‘The Edge of Heaven’. Aesthetically it is, but it is we the caring who very often stand by that same wonderful edge. Those, like my wife, who make sure to recycle everything possible to avoid the garbage can… and the poison soaked landfill, are on that edge. The millions of us who volunteer to help others in physical, emotional  and economic need also stand by that edge of heaven. The many great writers who deny the empire’s mainstream media and keep on telling the truth… and of course the fine websites like Global Research, Information Clearing House, Greanville Post, Nation of Change, Consortium News, Black Agenda Report, Off Guardian, World News Trust… just to name a few. They all stand by the Edge of Heaven.

Anytime a person turns away from the crowd whenever that crowd is either mislead or non caring, they really find the edge. It was heroes like Sophie Scholl who almost all of us could not even come close to emulating. She was inside the Nazi beast in Germany while her nation did such horrors. She risked her life, and literally ‘lost her head’ because of her need to speak ‘Truth to Power’. During the decade long debacle of USA imperialist meddling in the Vietnamese Civil War millions of my fellow citizens got off their duffs and marched for its end.

Before the Bush/Cheney cabal orchestrated their illegal and immoral invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, February 15, 2003 saw multi millions of people throughout the entire world stand and march in the streets of their respective cities against it. Once again, we all stood by that edge of heaven.

Imperialism sucks, regardless of what nation institutes it. World Wars 1 and 2 were simply wars between imperialist nations, all fighting to either preserve or obtain lands of other peoples.

As an American, this writer must focus, out of true and genuine patriotism, on what the country I love has been and is doing to so many others in so many countries for so long. As with most military expressions to further imperialist aims, those who make up what we now label ‘The Deep State’ are slowly bankrupting us. Of course, the mega millionaires will never worry about balancing their individual family budgets. It is only the 99+ % of us who will suffer. Between the major corporations in all the key industries squeezing every dime out of us, and the military spending now sucking over 50% of our federal tax revenues, we all will soon face not ‘The Edge of Heaven’ but the ‘Abyss of Hell on Earth’.

*

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn , NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The address by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei at the annual gathering in Tehran of top foreign ministry officials and envoys in foreign capitals is always a keenly watched event when vital clues to the trajectory of the country’s foreign policy and diplomacy could be gleaned. Things said openly are no doubt important, but things unsaid could at times be even more important. Besides, the entire Persian way of saying things obliquely adds to the mystique. All in all, therefore, Khamenei’s speech in Tehran on Saturday will be read and reread in chancelleries abroad as far apart as Moscow and Washington or Beijing and Brussels. (IRNA)

This year’s speech assumes particular interest as the Middle East politics is at an inflection point and great issues of war and peace are agitating the mind – and, Iran, of course, happens to be at the epicenter. Khamenei’s guidelines contained the following key elements:

• Iran’s national interests should be the fundamental principle in foreign policies. The Islamic Revolution’s ideological moorings and national interests overlap.
• Iran should network actively with the international community.
• Commitment to the 2015 deal continues; negotiations will also continue with EU+EU3.
• Talks with the US are “useless” so long as American intentions remain hostile and policies are inconsistent. (However, Khamenei didn’t slam the door shut and throw away the key, either.)
• Let there be no doubt that Iran will retaliate strongly against any US attempt to physically stop its oil exports, by blocking the flow of all oil from Persian Gulf region to the world market.
• Iranian presence in the region is integral to the country’s security interests and regional influence.

Khamenei’s speech makes it clear that in the pursuit of national interest, Iran will have to navigate its path on its own steam, as has been the case during its past 4-decade old history. The diplomacy will be supple but purposive (“wise and oriented”).

Khamenei didn’t mention the Syrian conflict but hinted that Iran will keep its presence in Syria. The Russian presidential envoy on Syria Alexander Lavrentiev was in Tehran in the weekend to brief the Iranians on Helsinki summit. But he was received only at the level of Deputy Secretary in Iran’s national security council, Amir Saeid Iravani (No. 2 to Ali Shamkhani, who is also is concurrently Iran’s point person on Syria.) Interestingly, Iravani criticized Israel’s “negative role” in Syria and its attempts to interfere in Iran-Russia relations.

Iran disclosed last week that Trump made 8 attempts to contact President Hassan Rouhani but Tehran spurned these overtures. The ‘red line’ for Tehran is the US’ espousal of the ‘regime change’ agenda and renewed ties with the Mujahadeen-e-Khalq (MEK) organization (which used to be in US state department’s watch list of terrorist groups.) The present US National Security Advisor John Bolton and Trump’s lawyer Rudy Guiliani have been in MEK’s payroll.

No doubt, these are early days and Khamenei’s speech avoided hard-hitting remarks. It couldn’t have escaped Tehran’s attention that twice in recent past, White House signaled that it could sense moderation lately in Iran’s regional policies. Trump himself mentioned this (twice) during his press conference in Singapore following the summit with Kim Jong Un, while Bolton repeated it after his visit to Moscow two weeks ago in the run-up to the Helsinki summit.

So, could it have been just a coincidence that Iran’s official news agency IRNA carried a commentary on Saturday (which was also featured in Tehran Times) analyzing Trump’s flexible approach toward the North Korean nuclear issue? The commentary titled ‘US resilience toward North Korea’s nuclear program’ analyses that Trump “opted to withdraw from his previous hardline stance” once he understood that bullying and pressure tactic wouldn’t work with Pyongyang.

The commentary concludes that the US cannot hope to extract “constructive results” by imposing sanctions against North Korea “or any other countries” and such pressure tactic is “not going to help solve critical issues.” What it didn’t say, but seemed to imply is that Trump is quite capable of pragmatism to engage adversaries in result-oriented negotiations. Curiously, the commentary appeared on the day Khamenei was slated to address Iran’s top diplomats.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

President Donald Trump and his neocon advisors have been trying to provoke a war with Iran and Syria for many months.

The neocons are echoing Cato the Elder’s cry, ‘delenda est Carthago!’.  Iran must be destroyed.

So far, Tehran and its ally Damascus have refused to respond to US naval and air incursions or Israel’s growing air attacks in Syria. But the war of words between the US and Iran has now reached a critical phase.

Last week, Trump, who evaded military service during the Vietnam War, made his loudest threats yet against Iran, bringing the danger of war to the boiling point.  On 21 May, the hard-line US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a thunderous ultimatum to Iran during an address to the US Heritage Foundation, a rich, influential arm of America’s Israel lobby.

Pompeo made 12 totally unacceptable demands on Iran that were clearly designed to be rejected by Tehran.  Not since Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum against Serbia in 1914 have we seen such a clear effort to bring about war. Tehran quickly dismissed Pompeo as ‘a gangster.’

We are by now used to blood and thunder rhetoric between Washington and Tehran.  But this time White House policy is clearly being directed by pro-Israel American neocons who want the US military to crush Iran as it did Iraq.

Crushing Iran will leave Israel with unfettered control of the Mideast and its oil – unless Russia or Turkey intervene against Israel, which is most unlikely.  Some think Russia and Israel – and the US – have already made a deal to divvy up the central Mideast.

‘Let the Americans come,’ one Iranian militant told me, ‘they will break their teeth on Iran.’  Very colorful but hardly accurate. The US and Israel will surely avoid a massive, costly land campaign again Iran, a vast, mountainous nation that was willing to suffer a million battle casualties in its eight-year war with Iraq that started in 1980 . This gruesome war was instigated by the US, Britain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Iran’s new popular Islamic government.

The Pentagon has planned a high-intensity air war against Iran that Israel and the Saudis might very well join.  The plan calls for over 2,300 air strikes against Iranian strategic targets:  airfields and naval bases, arms and petroleum, oil and lubricant depots, telecommunication nodes, radar, factories, military headquarters, ports, water works, airports, missile bases and units of the Revolutionary Guards.

Iran’s air defenses range from feeble to non-existent.  Decades of US-led military and commercial embargos against Iran have left it as decrepit and enfeebled as was Iraq when the US invaded in 2003.  The gun barrels of Iran’s 70’s vintage tanks are warped and can’t shoot straight, its old British and Soviet AA missiles are mostly unusable, and its ancient MiG and Chinese fighters ready for the museum, notably its antique US-built F-14 Tomcats, Chinese copies of obsolete MiG-21’s, and a handful of barely working F-4 Phantoms of Vietnam War vintage.

Air combat command is no better.  Everything electronic that Iran has will be fried or blown up in the first hours of a US attack.  Iran’s little navy will be sunk in the opening attacks.  Its oil industry may be destroyed or partially preserved depending on US post-war plans for Iran.

The only way Tehran can riposte is by staging isolated commando attacks on US installations in the Mideast of no decisive value, and, of course, blocking the narrow Strait of Hormuz that carries two thirds of Mideast oil exports.  The US Navy, based nearby in Bahrain, has been practicing for decades to combat this threat.

China vows to keep buying Iranian oil in spite of the US blockade to be imposed this fall.  This could put the US and China on a collision course.

While Iran may be able to interdict some oil exports from the Arab states, and cause maritime insurance rates to skyrocket, it’s unlikely to be able to block the bulk of oil exports unless it attacks the main oil terminals in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf with ground troops.  During the Iran-Iraq war, neither side was able to fully interdict the other’s oil exports.

Direct western intervention in a major ground campaign seems unlikely.  But the US and Israeli war plan would aim to totally destroy Iran’s infrastructure, communications and transport (including oil) crippling this important nation of 80 million and taking it back to the pre-revolutionary era.  That was the plan for Iraq, the Arab world’s most industrialized nation. Today Iraq still lies in ruins.

One recalls the words of the great Roman historian, Tacitus: ‘they make a desert and call it peace.’

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The consequences of the Brexit self-delusion are now becoming obvious, as Britain’s government finds itself unable to get a parliamentary majority for any realistic plan to leave the EU. If this situation persists, Britain will have only one alternative: another referendum to reconsider the impossible result of the 2016 vote.

If something is impossible, it does not happen. If a country votes to make two plus two equal five, this “democratic decision” will eventually be overridden by the rules of arithmetic, no matter how large the majority or how loudly “The People have spoken.” This is the story now playing out in Britain as Theresa May’s government stumbles toward the final act of the Brexit tragi-comedy.

In 2016, the British people voted to leave the European Union while keeping “the exact same benefits” they enjoyed as EU members. David Davis, May’s former minister responsible for negotiating Brexit with the EU, used that phrase repeatedly in Parliament, and it was then taken up enthusiastically by May herself. The promises by former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, the chief Brexit campaigner, were even more fulsome: Britons would have complete freedom to live, work, and study throughout Europe; untrammeled access to the EU single market; and full participation in whatever political institutions a post-Brexit government might feel like cherry-picking from the EU orchard. In short, the 2016 referendum was a vote for two plus two equals five.

The consequences of this self-delusion are now becoming obvious, as Britain’s government finds itself unable to get a parliamentary majority for any realistic Brexit plan. If this situation persists, Britain will have only one alternative: another referendum to reconsider the impossible result of the 2016 vote.

The Times now estimates that there is a 50% probability of such a referendum. When Justine Greening, one of May’s recently sacked cabinet ministers, became the first senior Conservative to propose this option, the objections raised to it were no longer about the principle of a second referendum, but about the difficulty of deciding the right question and method of casting votes.

A new referendum is rising to the top of Britain’s political agenda because of the self-defeating behavior of the Conservative Party’s hardline Brexiteers. When Davis and Johnson resigned from May’s cabinet, chaotic parliamentary rebellions – from both the Euroskeptic and pro-European factions of the party – ensued. As a result, the main opposition Labour Party now sees a realistic chance of bringing down May’s government and triggering a general election by uniting with either hardline Brexiteers or pro-European Conservative rebels to kill whatever Brexit plan May ultimately puts to Parliament. Labour opposition makes every Brexit option almost certain to be blocked.

Start with the threat of a “no deal” rupture, whereby Britain would crash out of the EU with no agreement at all on a new relationship. This is now totally implausible, because all of Britain’s opposition parties, plus the clear majority of Conservative MPs whose primary loyalty is to business interests, would block it.

Almost as improbable is a “hard Brexit,” in which Britain and Europe agree to an orderly separation, but with no preferential arrangements for future trade. This, too, would be voted down by all the opposition parties, along with dozens of centrist Conservatives. Some of the Brexit hardliners also would oppose any such agreed separation, because it would force Britain to pay a large EU exit fee and to follow European rules for an open border with Ireland, in exchange for no commercial privileges at all.

May’s latest plan for a more cooperative “soft Brexit” now also faces insuperable opposition from Johnson and Davis, plus several dozen followers. These hardliners have denounced May’s new plan as “Brexit in Name Only” and a plot to turn Britain into an EU “vassal state.” Labour is now willing to enter an unholy alliance with them in the hope of precipitating a government collapse.

This leaves one final option: a parliamentary rebellion to stop Brexit. “Exit Brexit” is the official policy of the Liberals, the Greens, and the Scottish National Party. But all serious Brexiteers, plus the vast majority of Conservative MPs and the Labour leadership, who feel obliged to follow the “instructions” of the 2016 referendum obviously will not support this option.

If May finds herself unable to muster a parliamentary majority for any version of Brexit, resignation and a general election will not be her only recourse. One goal unites all the Conservative factions, regardless of their views on Europe: to avoid a general election and the risk of Labour winning power. This means that May could attach a referendum proposal to her preferred version of Brexit, justifiably claiming that Parliament’s response to the 2016 referendum should either be ratified or rejected by another popular vote. The criminal investigations launched recently into illegal spending by Johnson’s official Leave campaign, and allegations of Russian funding for former UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage’s parallel campaign further justify a final referendum.

The Labour leadership would probably oppose a new referendum, because it would derail their efforts to force a general election. But, crucially, the Liberals and Scottish Nationalists would enthusiastically support a referendum as long as it offered voters the option of keeping Britain in the EU. As a result, May would have no trouble assembling a parliamentary majority for a legislative package that bundled her Brexit plan with a referendum to decide between it and the status quo alternative of remaining in the EU.

Logic suggests that such a referendum would reverse the 2016 decision to leave the EU, because any specific Brexit proposal presented by the government would be far less attractive than the utopian delusions that managed to secure only a narrow majority two years ago. But, by next year, the British people could be so angry with Europe that they vote Leave again. If so, Brexit could go ahead on whatever terms May negotiates, and nobody could complain about the consequences or costs.

Whatever the outcome, voters would have made an honest choice between genuinely and properly articulated options. That would be true democracy, instead of the demagoguery of two plus two equals five.

*

Anatole Kaletsky is Chief Economist and Co-Chairman of Gavekal Dragonomics. A former columnist at the Times of London, the International New York Times and the Financial Times, he is the author of Capitalism 4.0, The Birth of a New Economy, which anticipated many of the post-crisis transformations of the global economy. His 1985 book, Costs of Default, became an influential primer for Latin American and Asian governments negotiating debt defaults and restructurings with banks and the IMF.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: Vallejo has been hit hard by poverty, unemployment, and drug problems and was nearly devastated by the housing market crash of 2008, but its mayor believes the transformational power of beauty will help the city turn around. (photo by Patrick Nouhailler)

Bob Sampayan believes in the transformational power of beauty.  Now in his sixties, Sampayan is the mayor of Vallejo, California, a primarily working-class city at the north end of San Francisco Bay that once built ships for the American Navy and for two brief periods in 1852 and 53, was the capital of the state.  Vallejo has been called “America’s most diverse city.” A Brown University study found its population to be one-quarter white, one-quarter African-American, one-quarter Hispanic, and a final quarter Asian or Pacific Islander. 

“Ever since I was a little kid I have admired nature’s beauty,” he told me, “everything from the coastal waters to the highest peaks.  I carry that philosophy with me wherever I go… When I was young I’d go to Fremont Peak State Park near Salinas. I’d climb to the top for the beautiful view and the sense of peace I felt.  It was my place.  I’d spend nights there, just sitting looking at the stars.”

With his crisp mustache and short-cropped, salt-and-pepper hair parted down the middle, Sampayan is a small man, but muscular, vigorous, and loquacious.  An infectious smile frequently lights his tanned face. Mayor Bob, as he is often called, takes his job seriously, but himself less so. He is sometimes seen in parades wearing a Victorian top hat and aviator goggles, accessories of a style called “Steampunk.” In fact, Sampayan bills himself as “America’s first steampunk mayor.”

But his job is no laughing matter. Sampayan took over the reins of a city that had been hit hard by poverty, unemployment, and drug problems and was nearly devastated by the housing market crash of 2008. Mayor Bob understands the need for economic development and welcomes business, but with a caveat.

“I get business and industry,” he says.  “They keep our city alive, but some companies are gross polluters and I’m not going to stand for that. I want clean, safe and responsible energy, and I’m concerned about our waterways. A lot of chemicals are coming down the Sacramento River. I used to catch striped bass and flounder where the river comes into the Bay, but [the California] Fish and Game [Commission] is saying you can’t eat them anymore.”

Sampayan often takes his grandchildren for hikes in the local hills. They were a lush green after the winter rains and dotted with wildflowers when I visited him in April.

“You get up there on the peaks and you overlook Vallejo,” he says, gesturing with arms opened wide.

But his excursions remind him that the lovely natural areas around his city bring ideas of a different kind of green to developers.

“There’s a possibility that the dollar will be worth more than the Earth itself, and that scares me,” he laments. “Unfortunately, as the Bay Area has grown, we’re encroaching on our last remaining open space and my prayer is that we don’t. Vallejo hasn’t had good stewardship of open space. We’ve focused on places to play baseball and fly kites.  It’s another thing to have parks that celebrate the beauty of the land.”

Suburban sprawl has reached into Vallejo’s hills, and its mayor lives at the edge of open space.  Recently, some of his neighbors demanded that he call animal control to do something about the many coyotes, and even cougars, that residents had spotted not far from their homes.  They were afraid for their children and pets.

“People freaked out,” he recalls with a grin. “‘Well mayor, what are you going to do about this?’”  His reply: nothing.

Sampayan, who lives near these rolling hills is concerned that suburban sprawl is eating into the city’s remaining open spaces. (photo by Steven Dunsky)

“We’ve taken their land and you’re angry because there are indigenous creatures there,” he told them. “You’re out there with your little dog off the leash. We should say we’re sorry we took their land. It belongs to everything from the red-legged frog to the mountain lion. If you don’t want Fluffy to get eaten, you’d better put him on a leash.”

Some people were angry, but when word got out about Sampayan’s defense of wildlife, he was flooded with mail.

“They were writing to tell me, ‘Thanks for saying that!’”  “We have to respect what nature we have left,” he adds, “but most of all we have to celebrate it.”

Given his views, it’s perhaps no surprise that Mayor Sampayan supports And Beauty for All, a celebratory new national campaign to unite polarized Americans around environmental restoration, rural revitalization, and people-friendly urban design, including more parks, and greater preservation of open space and natural areas in and around cities.

In March, Vallejo, with a population of 120,000, became the largest city to officially endorse the campaign, proclaiming that “beautiful places to live, work and play should be a birthright of all Americans, no matter their origin or income,” because “beautiful surroundings and graceful urban design call us to awe and stewardship, reduce polarization and anger, make us kinder and less aggressive, awaken generosity in our hearts, and move us toward justice.”

The idea for the campaign came from a wager by Doug Tompkins, the co-founder of the giant clothing chains North Face and Esprit.  A climber, kayaker, skier, and all-around adventurer, Tompkins once declared that:

“If anything can save the world, I’d put my money on beauty.”

He did just that, using earnings from the sale of his companies to buy up millions of acres of wild land in South America. When he died in a kayaking accident in 2015, his widow donated most of the land to the governments of Argentina and Chile to create a national park three times as big as Yellowstone and Yosemite combined.

I’ve seen firsthand how a fight to preserve beauty can unite a community in conflict in Nevada City, California, where so-called “hippies” and “rednecks” joined forces to prevent a power dam from destroying the spectacular South Yuba River, leading to many ongoing efforts toward sustainability.

The And Beauty for All campaign is based on previous eras in our history when beautification efforts improved quality of life and saved land for future generations. Drawn to the call of beauty, the Olmsteds created magnificent city parks. The City Beautiful Movement brought grace into grim metropolitan areas. In 1912, poet Vachel Lindsay walked across much of America preaching “the Gospel of Beauty,” and calling for a “new localism” that would revive the American countryside.

John Muir and David Brower fought for national parks and wilderness areas.

“Everybody needs beauty as well as bread,” wrote Muir, who lived only 12 miles from Vallejo in Martinez, California. “Bread and beauty grow better together,” observed ecologist Aldo Leopold, adding that human actions were right when they enhanced “the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community,” wrong when they didn’t.

More recently, Interior Secretary Stewart Udall and President Lyndon Johnson’s wife Lady Bird convinced LBJ to launch a comprehensive “beautification campaign” in the 1960s. In February 1965, Johnson delivered a “Special Message to Congress on Conservation and Restoration of Natural Beauty.”  He began:

For centuries Americans have drawn strength and inspiration from the beauty of our    country. It would be a neglectful generation indeed, indifferent alike to the judgment of history and the command of principle, which failed to preserve and extend such a heritage for its descendants.

Johnson went on to talk of population growth “swallowing” natural beauty, urbanization crowding out nature, and new technologies “menacing the world” with the waste they created.  The problems, he argued, required a “new conservation” based not only on protection, but on “restoration and innovation.” Its concern was not only nature, but the human spirit.

  “Beauty,” Johnson said, “must not be just a holiday treat, but a part of our daily life,” and provide “equal access for rich and poor, Negro and white, city dweller and farmer.”

The campaign included beautification of Washington DC and other cities, Clean Air and Water Acts, the Land and Water Conservation Fund (now in danger of elimination), reforestation and restoration programs, removal of billboards from federal highways and the addition of many new national parks and wilderness areas.

On October 2, 1968, Johnson signed “Conservation’s Grand Slam,” four “beauty bills” creating the Redwoods and North Cascades National Parks, and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers and Scenic Trails systems.  This year, on the 50^th anniversary of those Acts, some American cities will celebrate And Beauty for All Day.  Vallejo will be one of them.

Steve Dunsky, a video producer with the US Forest Service on Mare Island in Vallejo, has helped catalyze much of the move to beautify the city.

“With support from the State of California,” Dunsky says, “Vallejo teens are planting trees in some of its poorer neighborhoods. Local nonprofits and government agencies are restoring wetlands and managing citizen science projects.  We also hold an annual Visions of the Wild festival to connect our residents, and especially our children, more closely with parks and nature. This year’s, running from September 20-23, will include a photography exhibit called On Beauty, honoring the work of Doug Tompkins.”

Sampayan is passionate about bringing nature into the city and getting Vallejo’s children outside, one of the goals of Visions of the Wild. “We need to do everything we can to connect kids with nature,” he says.

“These young people are going to be the stewards of our beauty and if we don’t reach them, we’ll lose it.”

When I asked Mayor Sampayan if he thought focusing on beauty could reduce polarization when America is more divided than at any time since the Civil War, his immediate response was: “Let me tell you a story.” As a boy his family took him to Yosemite on vacation.  He fell in love with the place. After high school, he and his brother bought a car and often returned to Yosemite Valley on weekends. They would pump up the volume on their music in the campground. “We were being stupid,” he admits now.  Other campers clearly didn’t like it, and one evening a man came over to talk with them.

“He didn’t yell at us,” Bob remembers. “If he had, we’d probably have yelled back and escalated the whole thing.  He just calmly asked us why were there. We said we loved it because it was a beautiful place. He told us he did too, and for his family, a quiet escape from the city and the sounds of nature were part of the beauty.  He asked us to respect that. We thought about it and had to admit he was right. We ended up becoming friends with his whole family. So, yes, I know what beauty can do.”

As part of its Beauty for All campaign, the city is now actively involved in historic preservation of its lovely century-old Victorians. (photo by Wayne Hsieh)

But beauty, he’s quick to point out, is about more than nature. Vallejo is actively involved in historic preservation of its lovely century-old Victorians.

“The revitalization of our downtown includes an emphasis on public art, a Second Friday Art Walk, and a self-guided Art and Architecture Walk.”

In lower-income areas like Vallejo, beautification sometimes leads to gentrification and displacement of poor residents. Sampayan hopes to prevent that by concentrating efforts in less advantaged neighborhoods, on home ownership and upkeep requirements for landlords. It’s a matter of environmental justice.

“We have paint grants, mending grants, “he explains. “We went through bankruptcy but helped people keep their homes through neighborhood loans. We have many absentee landlords who neglect their properties, so we established a specialized Multi-Agency Response Team to address blight and we filed suit against some property owners for causing it. We want more disadvantaged people to become homeowners because then they’ll care more about keeping their homes beautiful. We also don’t want homes torn down to create high-rise concrete jungles.  And we want to move toward landscaping that is beautiful but not wasteful of resources.”

It’s an ambitious plan, designed for beauty and harmony with nature and wildlife.  It will keep the mayor busy for the foreseeable future, but he still plans to find time to observe beauty outside of Vallejo too.

“I climbed Half Dome three years ago,” he says with pride. “It was on my bucket list. I just can’t get enough of Yosemite.”

John Muir should be smiling.

*

A version of this article will appear in the magazine Wild Hope this coming fall.

John de Graaf is an author, documentary filmmaker, speaker and activist. His newest film, Redefining Prosperity: The Gold Rushes of Nevada City, will screen on selected PBS stations early next year. He co-founded the And Beauty for All campaign. He is currently writing a book about the lessons of backpacking.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

This is my 25-minutes piece about the DPRK (North Korea) – country that I visited recently; visited and loved, was impressed with, and let me be frank – admired.

I don’t really know if I could call this a ‘documentary’. Perhaps not. A simple story, a poem, you know: I met a girl, tiny and delicate, at the roller-skating ring in Pyongyang. How old was she? Who knows; perhaps four or five. She was first clinging to her mom, then to a Korean professor Kiyul, even to a former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark. Then she began skating away, waving innocently, looking back at me, at us, or just looking back…

Suddenly I was terribly scared for her. It was almost some physical fear. Perhaps it was irrational, like panic, I don’t know… 

Image on the right: DPRK traffic controller

I did not want anything bad to happen to her. I did not want the US nukes start falling all around her. I did not want her to end up like those poor Vietnamese or Iraqi or Afghan children, victims of the Western barbarism; of the chemical weapons, depleted uranium, or cluster bombs. I did not want her to starve because of some insane sanctions pushed through the UN by spiteful maniacs who simply hate “the Others”.

And so, I produced a short film, about what I saw in North Korea. A film that I made for, dedicated to, that little girl at the roller-skating ring in Pyongyang.

When I was filming, collecting footage in DPRK, the war, an attack from the West or from Japan or South Korea, looked possible, almost likely.

Watch the short film below:

When, some time later, I was editing, in Beirut, with a Lebanese editor, US President Donald Trump was threatening to “take care of the North Korea”. What he meant was clear. Trump is a ‘honest man’; honest in a mafia-style way. In the film I call him ‘a manager’. He may not be an Einstein, but he usually says what he means, at each given moment. You know, again, the Yakuza-style.

Now when I am releasing this humble work of mine, things look brighter after the Singapore Summit, although I really do not trust the West, after more than 500 years of barbaric colonialist wars and crusades. The ‘manager’ is perhaps honest when he says that now he likes President Kim, but then again, tomorrow he could be ‘honest’ again, declaring that he changed him mind and wants to break his arm.

Time to hurry, I feel. Time to hurry and to show to as many people as possible, how beautiful North Korea is, and how dignified its people are.

*

I can “sell” footage or “sell rights” and make some money for my other internationalist projects, but the whole thing would get delayed, and only limited number of people would see it in such case.

By releasing it like this, the film will make nothing, zero, but I guess it is my duty to do it this way. Hopefully, the film, or ‘a poem’, will be seen by many and the pressure on the West and on Japan will grow – pressure to stop intimidation of the people who already suffered so tremendously much!

If someone wants to support my films, including my works in progress (two big documentary films I am working on right now, one about Afghanistan after almost two decades of the NATO occupation, another about almost total environmental destruction in Kalimantan/Borneo), it can be done HERE. But no pressure. Just enjoy this particular film and other films that I will be soon and gradually releasing.

*

In the meantime, North Korea is standing.

While the West is calculating, what to do next. I don’t have a good feeling about all this. I hope I am wrong. I hope this is just a beginning of the serious peace process…

But I guess I have seen too many ruins of the cities, of countries and entire continents. Most of them were bombed, reduced to rubble after various ‘peace processes’. Mostly the bombs and missiles began flying after some sound agreements were reached and signed.

I don’t want the same thing to happen to North Korea. I don’t want this girl whom I spotted at the roller-skating ring, to vanish.

What I did this time is not much, but it is something. In this dangerous situation, almost everything counts. Let’s all do “something”, even if it is just a tiny bit. Rain is made of water drops, but it can stop a big fire. This time let us try to stop the madness by tiny drops of sanity and tenderness.

*

This promotion was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

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

All images in this article are from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Trump administration is reportedly developing plans for a new security and political alliance with six Gulf Arab states, Egypt and Jordan, in a bid to unite against Iran’s increasing presence in the region, according to Reuters.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Former cricketer, National Assembly member, head of Tehreek-e-Inaf (Pakistan Movement for Justice – PTI – an anti-mainstream party in contrast to dominating Pakistani ones from inception), Imran Kahn looks poised to be his nation’s next prime minister.

Independent analyst Mahboob Khan (MK below) praised him, saying he’s “the ONLY leader in the history of Pakistan who has genuinely worked his way up to the top.”

Instead of allying with mainstream politics, he declined offers to go another way.  He “wanted to change the system that was destroying the country,” said MK, adding:

He “want(s) to uplift the life of (ordinary) Pakistan(is) as his own mother, Shaukat Khanum, lost her life to breast cancer since there was no quality hospital in Pakistan to treat such patients…because the rulers and the filthy rich opt to go abroad for their medical treatment.”

MK said Khan “chose to fight the cabal of corrupt politicians alone,” a near impossible daunting task never before achieved.

“(H)e is the best man, the only man for the job” of Pakistani prime minister, MK believes.

He seeks peaceful coexistence with India, deplores endless US war on neighboring Afghanistan, and wants America’s exploitation of his country ended.

Unofficial results show Kahn holds a commanding plurality lead over Shehbaz Sharif and Bilawal Bhutto, his two main rivals for prime minister.

Unofficial results show his party won 116 of 272 contestable seats, compared to Sharif’s 63 and and Bhutto’s 43 – 45 other candidates winning parliamentary seats – 137 needed for a majority. Short of it requires coalition government.

Kahn’s party winning more contestable seats than his two major rivals combined justifies his claim to be Pakistan’s next prime minister.

In declaring victory, he said:

“Thank god we have been successful and got a mandate.”

Following a unanimous Supreme Court ruling to remove him from office on corruption charges, defrocked Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif resigned last July.

Weeks earlier, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He and family members were charged with laundering government funds to pay for four luxury apartments in central London’s exclusive Park Lane area.

Rigging charges followed Wednesday’s election. Scrupulously free, fair and open ones are uncommon in the West and most other countries.

In Pakistan, losing parties often cry fraud, likely so in a military-run nation since its artificial creation in 1947. Yet Khan’s commanding lead is too great to deny him the office he won.

Ruled as a US-vassal state from inception, it’s been called a military with a country, not the other way around.

US forces operate out of Pakistani bases with de facto control of its airspace to terror-bomb parts of the country and neighboring Afghanistan.

As prime minister of a coalition government ahead, Khan’s best efforts aren’t likely to change how Pakistan has always been run, other than perhaps modestly around the edges.

Benazir Bhutto’s 2007 assassination contributed to the country’s destabilization. So has its alliance with Washington’s global war OF terror, not on it.

Challenging the status quo could lead to Khan’s elimination. The same is true for leaders in most countries seeking positive change – in the West and elsewhere.

*

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 10 villages of the Rovno region cows are producing radioactive milk. Thus, the Chernobyl catastrophe that took place 32 years ago is still having an effect.

Ukrainian scientists know how to fight against radioactive milk, but the villagers don’t follow the advice of radiologists, reports “Glavnovosti” with reference to “112 Ukraine “.

Farmers learnt from local radiologists exploring the area of the Chernobyl catastrophe that cows start to give milk with an high level of caesium. The radioactive milk doesn’t go on sale.

Radiological control takes place at least once per year in the village of Drozdyn. From the 2,000 residents of the village, nearly a half are children.

It is one of ten villages of the Rovno region where radiation contamination in food – in mushrooms, berries, and milk – is still being detected.

Local cows graze on swamps and forests where there is grass with radionuclides.

“Cows graze on natural grounds where no anti-radiation measures have been carried out since the catastrophe happened. If cattle graze on artificial grass, then there will be no radionuclides,” said the head of the Center for radiological control of the agricultural-industrial complex of the Rovno region Vasily Zil

To reduce the effect of radiation, farmers add to the forage grass from land that is less infected with radiation.

The local government knows about the existence of radioactive milk, but it cannot provide land that makes it possible to grow clean feed for cattle. They say that currently there is no free land.

*

Translated by Ollie Richardson & Angelina Siard, republished from stalkerzone.org.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Speaking in Madrid on Friday, Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno told an audience that WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief Julian Assange would need to leave Ecuador’s London embassy “eventually.” Moreno offered no time-table for Assange’s possible exit, which several sources just last week asserted could take place within “weeks” or even “days.” Assange has spent over six years in the embassy after being granted political asylum by Ecuador in 2012.

However, Moreno asserted that Assange’s “departure [from the embassy] should come about through dialogue.” He went on to state that “for a person to stay confined like that for so long is tantamount to a human rights violation” and affirmed his commitment to reach a resolution to Assange’s situation that did not “pose a danger” to the journalist’s life.

Moreno’s sincerity in his concern for Assange’s “human rights” is dubious at best, given that on March 27, Moreno cut off Assange’s access to the internet and all visitors — aside from his legal team. Former Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa — who originally granted Assange’s request for asylum in 2012 — denounced the restriction on Assange’s visitors as “basically torture” and a “clear violation of his rights,” adding that “without communications to the outside world and visits from anyone, the [Ecuadorian] government is basically attacking Julian’s mental health.” The official reason for Assange’s isolation, given by the Moreno-led government at the time, was to prevent Assange from “interfering in the affairs of other sovereign states.”

Thus, Moreno’s concern for the WikiLeaks editor’s “human rights” might easily be mistaken for an attempt to deflect recent criticism that has accused him of acquiescing to U.S. demands that Ecuador revoke Assange’s asylum and evict him from the embassy. Indeed, the U.S. has sought Assange’s extradition from the U.K. to the United States to face charges of espionage and treason for years, and this very effort was the impetus behind Assange’s receipt of asylum in Ecuador’s London embassy.

Moreno’s recent statements continue to add to the speculation that Ecuador will soon give in to those U.S. demands, particularly given the increasing pressure the Trump administration has placed on Ecuador regarding Assange’s situation. According to some reports, the U.S. has threatened to block an International Monetary Fund loan to Ecuador over the Assange case. In addition, over the last two weeks, the U.S. has imported a record amount of Ecuadorian oil, leading to speculation that a deal or pay-off may have been made to ensure Moreno’s cooperation with Washington’s long-standing efforts to have Assange arrested and extradited.

If Moreno does give in to U.S. demands, he will be rejecting not only his nation’s sovereignty but also the rights of all Ecuadorian citizens, given that Assange became a citizen of Ecuador this past January. Were Assange anyone else, the Ecuadorian government would be forced to act to remedy his situation and protect him from extradition in order to, at the very least, maintain appearances. However, Assange is no “normal” individual in this sense: his arrest is a “priority” to the U.S. government, which is now seeking to maximize pressure to extradite Assange while his protected status is at its weakest.

*

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.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The frequency with which US President Donald Trump holds out threats to other countries is such that he is no longer being taken seriously. The list of countries threatened by Trump so far includes North Korea, Germany, Canada, China, Venezuela, Pakistan, Syria, Iran and Turkey.

In all fairness, Trump makes no distinction between enemies, adversaries, friends or allies. Turkey, a NATO ally, holds a record of sorts as the country most threatened by the Trump administration. In separate tweets on Thursday, Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence gave an ultimatum to Turkey that unless Andrew Brunson, an American evangelical pastor of a small Protestant church in western Turkey, is released from detention immediately, Ankara should be “prepared to face the consequences” in the form of “significant sanctions.”

Source: Religion News Service

For the benefit of the uninitiated, Brunson who has been living in Turkey for 23 years was arrested in the aftermath of the failed 2016 coup attempt to overthrow Erdogan, charged with spying and involvement in the failed coup. The Turkish government had probably hoped for a tradeoff – Brunson in exchange for the Islamist preacher Fetullah Gulen who is living in Pennsylvania whom Ankara regards as having masterminded the 2016 coup attempt to overthrow Erdogan. Ankara has been pressing Gulen’s extradition and Washington has been stonewalling. It’s a complicated case history, since Gulen has had links in the past with the CIA.

Turkey has shrugged off the latest threat from Trump and Pence. However, for Trump, Christian groups form a core constituency politically, and taking a tough stance on the high-profile Brunson case has endeared him to those groups.  Dr. Ronnie Floyd, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention, recently made the following remark in praise of the White House effort:

“I thank God we have an administration that cherishes the freedom of religion as our founders hoped we would.”

Trump’s latest threat puts Erdogan in a fix because releasing Brunson without a reciprocal move on Gulen’s extradition means a loss of face. Erdogan is acutely conscious of his strongman-image. He must be wondering whether Trump is serious about the ultimatum on Brunson’s release. Brinkmanship comes naturally to Trump. Indeed, with Trump one really doesn’t know what happens next.

But Erdogan can be more than a match for Trump in the ‘art of the deal’. At a meeting today with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Souh Africa, Erdogan added disdainfully that Trump’s real grouse in giving such an ultimatum yesterday could be that Turkey has drawn close to Russia in the recent times. That is a spin, of course. But then, Erdogan is also hoping to extract a big concession from Putin – deferment of the planned military operation to liberate the northwestern Syrian province of Idlib on the Turkish border from Ankara’s proxy groups. Turkey is keen to retain Idlib as its zone of influence.

Does Putin feel impressed that US-Turkish ties are deteriorating? There are no easy answers here. Nonetheless, Erdogan sees no harm in playing Trump against Putin. After all, who knows, Putin may hold back on the assault to liberate Idlib…

Yet, the chances are that this time around, Trump probably intends to carry out his ultimatum to impose sanctions on Turkey. The point is, US patience with Turkey seems to be wearing thin. Turkey is no longer a ‘swing’ state in the US’ Middle East strategies, given the poor state of Turkish-Israeli relations, Erdogan’s ‘pivot to Russia’ and the overall trust deficit in Turkish-American relationship. Erdogan snubbed the US threat of sanctions and upheld his decision to purchase S-400 missile defence system from Russia. Last week, Erdogan bluntly rejected the demarche by Washington that Turkey should cut back its oil imports from Iran.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Global Research Editor’s Note: This report remains to be fully corroborated.

In an important first step towards fulfilling a commitment made by Kim Jong Un at the June 12 Singapore Summit, new commercial satellite imagery of the Sohae Satellite Launching Station (North Korea’s main satellite launch facility since 2012) indicates that the North has begun dismantling key facilities. Most notably, these include the rail-mounted processing building—where space launch vehicles are prepared before moving them to the launch pad—and the nearby rocket engine test stand used to develop liquid-fuel engines for ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles. Since these facilities are believed to have played an important role in the development of technologies for the North’s intercontinental ballistic missile program, these efforts represent a significant confidence building measure on the part of North Korea.

Dismantlement at the Launch Pad

Commercial satellite imagery of the launch pad from July 20 shows that the rail-mounted processing/transfer structure has been moved to the middle of the pad, exposing the underground rail transfer point—one of the few times it has been seen in this location. The roof and supporting structure have been partially removed and numerous vehicles are present—including a large construction crane. An image from two days later shows the continued presence of the crane and vehicles. Considerable progress has been made in dismantling the rail-mounted processing/transfer structure. One corner has been completely dismantled and the parts can be seen lying on the ground. In both images the two fuel/oxidizer bunkers, main processing building and gantry tower remain untouched.

Figure 1. By July 20, dismantlement had begun of the rail-mounted transfer structure on the Sohae launch pad.

Figure 2. Closeup of the partially dismantled structure.

Figure 3. By July 22, significant progress had been made in dismantling the rail-mounted transfer structure on the Sohae launch pad.

Figure 4. Closeup of the partially dismantled structure.

Work at the Vertical Engine Test Stand

Imagery of the vertical engine test stand from July 20 shows the presence of a crane and a number of vehicles. The rail-mounted environmental shelter—which hadn’t been moved since December 2017—has been razed and removed, the older fuel/oxidizer bunkers are in the process of being razed, and portions of the test stand’s upper steel framework have been dismantled and its paneling removed.

Two days later fewer vehicles are present and the test stand superstructure has been completely dismantled, leaving only the base, which is also in the process of being removed. No additional progress is noted on the demolition of the older fuel/oxidizer bunkers. In both images, the two newer fuel/oxidizer bunkers and vehicle garage remain untouched, as does the concrete foundation of the test stand. Given the state of activity, work is likely to have begun sometime within the past two weeks.

Figure 5. Environmental shelter removed and other dismantlement activities underway at the engine test stand by July 20.

Figure 6. Closeup of the engine test stand activities underway.

Figure 7. Test stand superstructure completed dismantled by July 22.

Figure 8. Closeup of the engine test stand activities underway.

*

This article was originally published on 38 North.

Featured image is from The Intercept.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Former US President Jimmy Carter: “I think it is hard for some people to understand how fearful North Korea is that they will be attacked by the United States.” (Following his successful negotiation of a peace agreement with North Korea in 1994)

*

It is doubtful that there is confusion about the meaning of “denuclearization,” which, according to many western media reports, is a word which allegedly means one thing to the DPRK, and has an entirely different interpretation by the US. The Singapore Summit Agreement signed by President Trump and DPRK Chairman Kim Jong Un specifies:

“3: Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward Complete Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.” “President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.”

In a written document signed by President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un, the Singapore Summit explicitly speaks of denuclearization of the ENTIRE Korean peninsula. At no point does the document specify unilateral denuclearization of the DPRK. What is clear from the meeting between Pompeo, Haley and the UN Security Council, on July 20, is that the US has no intention of negotiating the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, nor is there any evidence that the US intends to honor the second commitment of the Singapore Summit, as signed by Trump and Kim:

“2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean peninsula.”

The US obviously does not intend to negotiate with North Korea, it intends to dictate to North Korea, and pressures the UN Security Council to further the strangulation of the DPRK by halting all additional oil shipments to North Korea. Fortunately, at last, China and Russia blocked this aggression by the US, stating they need more information. Haley stated she had “photographs of proof” of 89 ship-to-ship transfers of oil in violation of the sanctions. Haley’s “photographs” are reminiscent of Colin Powell’s fraudulent photographs of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which he displayed before the UN Security Council, and which were later exposed as fabrications.

Ambassador Haley stated:

“We don’t need any more information. The problem that we are encountering is that some of our friends have decided that they want to go around the rules.”

Haley, who “needs no more information,” is perpetuating the “shoot first, ask questions later,” approach to the DPRK, which North Korea legitimately described as “gangster-like, and cancerous.”

Haley states that “some of our friends have decided that they want to go around the rules.” As the US has imposed “the rules,” and bullied, threatened and bribed the Security Council to support these malignant sanctions, Haley is in no position to reprimand Russia and China for acting honorably, and refusing to be dominated by “rules” forced upon them by the US. It is a tragedy that Russia and China supported these barbaric sanctions for many years, and if they have now discovered their own dignity and honor, and refuse to be bullied into further annihilating the DPRK, that is to be admired, finally. Like a kindergarten teacher patronizing recalcitrant students, Haley stated:

“We put pressure today on China and Russia to abide and be good helpers through this situation and to help us continue with denuclearization.”

Contrary to Haley’s preposterous allegations, the Security Council sanctions exacerbate the deadly conflict that catapulted the world toward the abyss of nuclear war within the past twelve months. There is absolutely no reason why North Korea should denuclearize before a peace treaty between the US and DPRK is signed, replacing the armistice, which imperils the DPRK up until this very moment. Though the DPRK has not tested any missiles for almost a year, and the US has postponed the provocative US-ROK military exercises recently, those terrifying military exercises, entitled “Decapitation of the Government of the DPRK,” and other alarming designations can be resumed at any point. In an interview with Channel 13, following his successful negotiation of a peace agreement with North Korea in 1994, former President Jimmy Carter stated:

“I think it is hard for some people to understand, in fact including me, how fearful North Korea is that they will be attacked by the United States.”

The US failure to agree to a peace treaty is a venal posture perpetuating the recent crisis situation. One must ask why the US is refusing to sign a peace treaty, and the refusal suggests an intention, at some point, near or in the future, to resume to monstrous war inflicted on North Korea and China from 1950-1953. In 1950 the US attacked North Korea before a UN resolution was passed authorizing the attack. John H. Kim, a US Army veteran and the Chair of the Korea Committee of Veterans for Peace, stated that during the Korean War “the U.S. Army, Air Force and Navy were directly involved in the killing of about three million civilians at many locations throughout Korea,” and predominantly in the North. The US dropped almost one million tons of bombs, and more than 50,000 tons of napalm on North Korea. In addition to the massacre of millions of North Koreans, more than one million Chinese were killed by US-UN armed forces. The US-UN forces used biological warfare against both North Korea and China, and both North Korea and China were threatened with annihilation by atomic bombs.

One of the greatest historic documents exposing the criminality of the US-UN attack on North Korea is the brilliant July 4, 1950 statement by Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister, Andrei Gromyko. His scathing denunciation of the US violation of the UN charter, and connivance in manipulating the Security Council to obtain a resolution supporting their violation of international law, was circulated as an official document of the UN Security Council, and is excerpted here :

“It is known that the United States government had started armed intervention in Korea before the Security Council was summoned to meet on June 27, without taking into consideration what decision the Security Council might take. Thus the US government confronted the United Nations with a fait accompli, with a violation of peace. The Security Council merely rubber-stamped and back-dated the resolution proposed by the US government, approving the aggressive actions which this government had undertaken. Furthermore, the American resolution was adopted by the Security Council with a gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations. ….It is also known that the UN Charter envisages the intervention of the Security Council only in those cases where the matter concerns events of an international order, and not of an internal character. Moreover, the Charter directly forbids the intervention of the United Nations in the internal affairs of any state when it is a matter of an internal conflict between two groups of one state. Thus the Security Council by its decision of June 27 violated also this most important principle of the United Nations….”

“It follows from the aforesaid that this resolution, which the US government is using as a cover for its armed intervention in Korea, was illegally put through the Security Council with a gross violation of the Charter of the United Nations. This only became possible because the gross pressure of the US government on the members of the Security Council converted the United Nations into a kind of branch of the US State Department, into an obedient tool of the policy of American ruling circles who acted as violators of peace.”

“It is impossible not to note the unseemly role played in that whole affair by the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Trygve Lie. Being under the obligation, by virtue of his position, to observe the exact fulfilment of the UN Charter, the Secretary-General, during discussion of the Korean problem in the Security Council, far from fulfilling his direct duties, on the contrary obsequiously helped a gross violation of the Charter to be committed by the government of the US and other Security Council members. Thereby the Secretary-General showed that he is concerned not so much with strengthening the UN organization and with promoting peace, as with how to help the United States’ ruling circles to carry out their aggressive plans with regard to Korea.”

Almost identical nefarious tactics are currently being used to pressure the Security Council to support the multiple sanctions resolutions against the DPRK, sanctions which demonstrably constitute crimes against humanity. It seems that nothing has changed during the 68 years since Andrei Gromyko exposed the Machiavellian methods by which the US obtained “authorization” for the war crimes committed against North Korea.

Nuclear expert Siegfried Hecker has stated that safety requires that denuclearization should be phased over a 10 year period or longer. To state, as Pompeo and Haley, and, indeed Trump have reiterated that “UN Security Council sanctions will remain until the complete denuclearization of the DPRK” is a psychopathic demand, consigning the people of the DPRK to slow, agonized deaths by starvation, disease, and other atrocious consequences of the hypocritical and covertly homicidal sanctions policies. When Pompeo said: “They need to completely, fully de-nuclearize, that’s the steps that Chairman Kim committed to and that the world has demanded through UN Security Council resolutions,” Pompeo falsified the reality. Kim committed only to the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula under conditions of “lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.” Pompeo’s and Haley’s and Trump’s distortion of Kim’s position is a betrayal of the Singapore agreement, and the DPRK rightly described their position as “cancerous.”

And in a tiny paragraph, barely noticeable in a recent Washington Post article, was the admission that:

“UN sanctions announced last August stepped up the pressure by removing the parts of prior sanctions that had attempted to avoid humanitarian consequences.”

On July 23, CNN reported:

“North Korea wants US to make ‘bold move’ toward peace before denuclearization…and agree to a peace treaty with Pyongyang…If the US is unwilling to replace the armistice agreement that ended the Korean War with a permanent peace that would ensure the survival of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s regime, Pyongyang will likely not proceed further with denuclearization talks, according to an official with close knowledge of North Korea’s position on the matter.”

*

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at the United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.

Featured image is from The Algemeiner.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Russian version of the visit by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Chief of Staff General Valery Gerasimov to West Jerusalem on July 23 became available, finally, on Wednesday in the nature of a terse TASS report quoting a ‘military-diplomatic’ source in Moscow as saying that the visiting Russian officials “looked into the tasks of completing the anti-terrorist operation in Syria’s South.”

An unnamed Israeli official had earlier floated a story that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did some tough talking with Lavrov and “rebuffed” a Russian offer to create a 100-kilometre buffer zone adjacent to Golan Heights. Netanyahu reportedly insisted that he won’t be satisfied with anything short of Iran ending its presence in Syria conclusively.

The first indication that the talks didn’t go well came when Israel shot down a Syrian jet on July 24 in Quneitra bordering Golan. It was a calculated act of belligerence by Israel. (The Islamic State fighters who are present in the region have since released the photograph of the wreckage and the mutilated body of the Syrian pilot.)

The TASS report on July 25 punctures the Israeli version that the two Russian officials were deputed by President Vladimir Putin specially to discuss with Netanyahu the future of Iranian presence in Syria. (It now transpires that the Russian officials were on a tour of Israel, Germany and France.) The Israeli bravado can only be seen as a desperate ploy to cover up its humiliating defeat in Syria with the terrorist groups that were its proxies surrendering lock, stock and barrel in Daraa and Quneitra to the Syrian-Russian forces – especially the hasty exfiltration of the controversial group known as the White Helmets to Jordan via Golan Heights with the logistical help from the Israeli military.

Quite obviously, Moscow does not want to get entangled in the Israel-Iran tensions. This is also the American assessment of the Russian thinking, as articulated by the Director of the National Intelligence Agency Daniel Coats on Thursday:

“We have assessed that it’s unlikely Russia has the will or the capability to fully implement and counter Iranian decisions and influence (in Syria.) Russia would have to make significantly greater commitments [in Syria] from a military standpoint, from an economic standpoint. We don’t assess that they’re keen to do that.”

Nonetheless, the Israeli propaganda has gone overboard in attempting to create a wedge between Russia and Iran. (Read a fine piece, here, by Moon of Alabama on the Israeli disinformation campaign.) This couldn’t have gone down well in Moscow. At any rate, Russian Foreign Ministry came out on July 24 with some sharp criticism of the move by the Israeli parliament (six days earlier) to adopt a bill known as Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People.

The operation by the Syrian forces (backed by Russian allies) to liberate Quneitra succeeded beyond expectations once Washington signaled that the extremist groups entrenched in the southern provinces bordering Jordan and Israel should not expect any American intervention to bail them out.

Damascus is now turning attention to the liberation of the northwestern province of Idlib. It will be a major confrontation due to the presence of a large number of foreign terrorists in Northwestern Syria. The Iranian media reported that a Russian flag ship Ro-Ro Sparta was spotted crossing the Bosporus en route to Syria’s Tartus, carrying military cargo mostly ammunition, shells and missiles and that the reinforcements are meant for the Syrian Army’s “upcoming assault” on Idlib province.

*

M. K. Bhadrakumar is a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years, who served as India’s Ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and Turkey (1998-2001).

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

At the beginning of July 2018, South Korea’s mainstream newspapers were full of headlines about an uncovered military coup as deviously planned as the military plots concocted by Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan. A whole group of high ranking military personnel, including Kim Kwang-jin, the Chief of The National Security Office; So Gang-won, the deputy Chief of the Defense Security Command; Han Min-goo, the Minister of National Defense; Cho Hyun-chun, the Defense Security Command (DSC) Chief, and Chief of Army Staff Chan Jun-gu was prepared to declare a national state of emergency and deploy tanks, special forces and paratroopers in the streets to suppress ongoing protests and avoid a repeated attempt to remove Park Geun-hye from power, who was most likely aware of the plot and planned to execute people.

The information source that led to the media frenzy was the Military Human Rights Center for Korea (MHRCK). Still, if one looks beyond the headlines, a lot more is revealed.

The first news items on this topic appeared as far back as 9 March but went completely unnoticed. Based on statements by several informants, MHRCK stated that while the National Assembly of South Korea was in the process of approving the legislation to impeach the ex-President, Park Geun-hye in response to mass protests that had taken place on 9 December 2016, South Korea’s military command, on more than one occasion, discussed deploying the army.

Mass protest against President Park Geun-hye in Daegu, 3 December 2016 (Source: CC BY-SA 4.0)

These plans stemmed from the need to enforce the Presidential decree, approved in 1950 and aimed at protecting certain districts in emergency situations, on deploying the army to a particular district, and ensuring security and civil order there. MHRCK also added that South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff presented a report to the Ministry of National Defense on the need to abolish this decree as it violates basic human rights, but the Minister of National Defense at the time, Han Min-goo, failed to cancel the decree and ordered a review into the possibility of preserving it instead.

This caused a moderate scandal, the new National Defense Minister ordered an investigation, which later revealed that no discussions among the Joint Chiefs of Staff had taken place on the issue of deploying armed forces, while the Ministry of National Defense had looked into the possibility of cancelling the decree or introducing some changes to it, and not abolishing it.

In recent months several important events, worth understanding, have happened. First of all, we could say that Moon Jae-in has finally dealt with his enemies in his security services. The high point arrived when the Supreme Court of Korea finally reached a decision in the 5-year trial concerned with the interference in the 2012 Presidential elections by the security forces. And as a result, the former Director of the National Intelligence Service, Won Sei-hoon, was sentenced to 4 years in prison. Two of Won’s aids, the former head of and the deputy head of the psychological warfare team, each received conditional sentences of 2.5 years.

It is worth reminding the readers that Won, Lee Myung-bak’s notorious stooge and the main culprit in the “trolling officials” case, had been sentenced to 2.5 years prison as far back as 2014 during the presidency of Park Geun-hye, who clearly did not appreciate the security forces’ attempts to break the law on its impartiality. In 2015, the verdict was reviewed and the sentence increased to 3-years. In 2017, during Moon’s presidential term, the case was reviewed yet again in light of new developments, and the length of imprisonment extended to 4 years. After that, Moon turned his complete attention to the Defense Security Command and the military, by appointing Song Young-moo as the Minister of National Defense (with roots in the Navy and not the Army) and initiating military reform, which will involve making 100 generals (90 of them representing ground forces) redundant.

Secondly, soon after the inter-Korea summit, a group of renowned hardcore conservatives announced the creation of a commission to save the South Korean homeland, openly accusing Moon of ruining the country with the view of handing him over to the communists. There was talk that armed forces had plenty of supporters of this viewpoint.

Thirdly, in the past weeks, Moon’s ratings have been decreasing. The situation is not critical, but the changes have continued for a third week in a row during a time when several state economic initiatives were launched, but that are, in author’s opinion, not sufficiently thought through and risky. The President’s relationships with labor unions have worsened, and although he replaced economic advisors the prospects still looked grim.

Luckily, on 6 July news about the latest twist in the scandal, originating from MHRCK yet again, began to appear, and the timing could not be more perfect. An inspection at the Defense Security Command (DSC) brought a document, dubbed The Plan to Introduce Martial Law and Joint Functions to light. It had been prepared by the DSC at the initiative of the Security Advisor, Kim Kwang-jin, and passed along to the Presidential Administration. Based on the descriptions of the document published in the media, if the Constitutional Court of Korea had stopped Park Geun-hye’s impeachment proceedings, the plan would have been to first introduce a curfew in the country, and if the situation had worsened, a national state of emergency would have been declared.

The plan included the number of armed forces set for deployment, their equipment, deployment rules and other details. For instance, 200 tanks, 500 armored vehicles, 4,800 infantrymen and 1,400-strong special forces units were meant to be deployed in Seoul. They would have been tasked with protecting and taking responsibility over the Presidential Administration, the National Defense Ministry, the National Assembly, Seoul’s mayoralty, the Constitutional Court and Gwanghwamun Square, the epicenter of the protests. Obviously, the plan was to avoid engaging locally based armed forces in order to avoid problems with soldiers seeing their acquaintances and relatives “on the other side of the barricades”.

Then, the media sources under Moon’s sway started publishing hysterical pieces claiming that conservatives in the armed forces were planning a coup. Apparently, the leaders of the junta had understood that their ideas would not have received supported from everyone. Hence, the Navy, the Airforce, the General Command and the ROK-US Combined Forces Command were not to take part in introducing martial law. The situation was supposed to be controlled by the Army Command (although, according to law, the General Command Chief was meant to be in charge), which, unlike the Navy and the Airforce, lends its support to conservatives. The plan (expounded, for the most part, by anonymous informers at MHRCK) was to take over the administrative and legislative state bodies and to place officers with the right views in charge. Obviously, it is highly likely that Park Geun-hye had been aware of these plans.

And unmistakable parallels could be drawn between the military coup staged in 1979, which brought the head of the Security Command Chun Doo-hwan to power, and the plot in question. Still your humble author has quite a number of unanswered questions.

First of all, the media has been publishing infographics instead of actual coup plans, and the author would, thus, like to know if there were any irregularities connected to the document discovery similar to those noted in the case of the tablet PC with evidence against Choi Soon-sil, or the case of wiretaps at secret meetings of the Unified Progressive Party. In other words, the author would like to know if the original coup plans have been suitably edited by Moon’s supporters. It is no coincidence that a number of experts have noted that whenever MHRCK receives a report from a DSC inspection, the event has either all the signs of “democracy’s free reign” or of material being, in fact, introduced by the government.

Secondly, if we were to approach the situation from an official point of view, the army counterintelligence service intended to prevent a coup and not instigate it. The event could have been labelled a coup if the court had made the decision to impeach and the military personnel had, with their actions, kept Park in power and continued to rule the country by establishing a junta around the puppet President. However, everything points to the fact that martial law and tanks in the streets would have been introduced if the court had decided AGAINST the impeachment thus leaving Park in power as a legitimate leader. Since the masses were agitated by the news that the country had been ruled by sorceresses and boy toys on President’s authority (although we now know this to be false), the verdict stating that “Park was not guilty and could continue in her leadership role” would have led to a new wave of protests, which would have needed to be dealt with and the current President Moon could have spearheaded these efforts.

However, the court made a different decision and, fortunately, military personnel did not take any measures to keep the President, who was removed from office on constitutional grounds, in power.

It is also clear that the Navy, the Airforce or the General Command, whose main aim is to counter North Koreans, do not have a direct role in potentially quelling protests.

Thirdly, the author would hesitate to state that Kim Kwang-jin and other previously mentioned co-conspirators were Park Geun-hye’s allies. In all likelihood, the plotters, distinguished by their tough anti-North Korea stance, were part of Lee Myung-bak’s circle. Park made a special effort to propel Kim to the top by making him her advisor, but removing him from the Minister of National Defense post meant that he could no longer issue direct orders to the armed forces. The possibility that the co-conspirators had been indeed plotting something and not necessarily in support of Park remains. If the author were prone to conspiracy theories, he could have decided that all of this noise was a preemptive strike by Moon, who had uncovered something about the connections among the armed forces leadership, dissatisfied conservatives and / or the supporters of the ex-President, Lee Myung-bak, against whom more substantiated evidence accumulated than against Park Geun-hye.

Fourthly, the author thinks that the probability of a successful coup in modern South Korea is miniscule. Tanks in the streets would have led to mass protests, and the army is no longer willing to shoot at the citizens as during Chun Doo-hwan’s reign. The outcome would have been a state-level emergency (analogous to those in Russia), consolidation of power around Moon, a number of sacrificial victims and the plotters’ complete defeat. It is far easier for Moon’s opponents to use his own means to fight against his rule, for example, by employing disobedience campaigns, by supplying or creating highly incriminating material or by waiting for the time when ordinary citizens start feeling the effects of the economic problems.

One way or the other, Moon now has formal grounds for initiating a long-awaited cleansing in the army counterintelligence service and the armed forces leadership. On 10 July, South Korea’s President instructed his Minister of National Defense to begin an investigation with the aim of either proving or disproving the intention to stage a coup and to establish an independent fact-finding commission, since any investigation initiated by the acting representatives of the Ministry may be impossible as many of them may be directly involved in the plot. Hence, military prosecutors who are not part of the ground forces or the Defense Security Command will be in charge of the investigation. They will not be accountable to the National Defense Minister either.

If Moon and company are able to prove that a coup was being prepared, the individuals involved may be found guilty of treason and the attempt to stage the coup, and may, as a result, be sentenced to death.

It is entirely possible that the current events will affect the former President, Park Geun-hye, who, despite the verdict, will remain a party of interest in any further trials.

From the author’s point of view, without any new substantiated evidence to prove the existence of the military plot, it is pointless to mention the coup. Still, the current leadership now has its hands on another tool to fight its opponents in an emergency and a means of distracting the attention of the masses from pressing problems. Any similarities between the current situation and Chun Doo-hwan led coup and the Reichstag fire still remain to be seen.

*

Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading Research Fellow at the Center for Korean Studies of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Featured image is from the author.

Israeli occupation forces barred residents from entering and exiting the Palestinian village of Nabi Saleh, in the central occupied West Bank district of Ramallah, Thursday.

According to media reports, Israeli occupation forces were deployed and have entirely closed entrances while forcibly preventing residents from moving freely. Eyewitnesses explained that the closed gates forced them to take longer, alternative routes that they should.

Palestinian teen Ahed Tamimi, who has been held in an Israeli prison for slapping a fully armed Israeli soldier in the occupied West Bank town of Nabi Saleh, will be released this Sunday, a spokesman for the Israel Prisons Service told The Times of Israel Wednesday.

The official said Ahed would be released along with her mother, Nariman at the Jabara checkpoint near the Palestinian city of Tulkarem. Times of Israel claimed that the two then plan to hold a press conference at the Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmar, which is slated for demolition by Israeli forces.

Further confirming the news Ahed’s family and Palestinian activists were preparing for her release with events and murals on the Israeli separation wall.

“Time is an eternity for those who wait; it is mixed feelings. Our home and hearts are open to reuniting with her; hopefully, we will meet soon,” her father Bassem Tamimi told Reuters Thursday.

“Ahed will finish her sentence time next Sunday. We will be waiting to welcome her at the Jabarah checkpoint, then head for the press conference, then visit Yasser Arafat’s tomb and Martyrs Shrine in Nabi Saleh, after which we will head home to meet people who are welcoming her release.”

Palestinian activist Ahmed Odeh also celebrated Ahed’s early release and said he was surprised by the international solidarity with the Palestinian teen and by the number of activists who arrived in Palestine to welcome her.

“We are surprised by those free people who came from all over the world to paint the photo of the icon of the Palestinian people and the icon of the national resistance on this apartheid wall. They are drawing a mural for Ahed Tamimi in order to tell the world and the occupation that we are partners in this case and that the Palestinian national resistance is the only way to face the arrogant occupation,” Odeh told Reuters Thursday.

The 17-year-old activist was sentenced to eight months in prison after video of her slapping and yelling at an Israeli occupation soldier became viral. Ahed was attempting to force the Israeli soldier out of her family’s house.

Her mother, Nariman, and cousin were also arrested for the same incident.

Her 15-year-old cousin, Mohammed Tamimi had been shot in the head with a rubber-coated steel bullet a day before. Tamimi was charged with aggravated assault, obstructing the work of soldiers, and incitement, among other charges on Jan. 2.

The Tamimi family has been constantly targeted due to their active resistance against the expansion of a nearby illegal Israeli settlement named Halamish.

According to Israeli human rights group B’tselem, at least 350 Palestinian children are currently jailed in Israeli prisons.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

He made the remarks on Friday a day after Australian outlet ABC News published an article, suggesting military action against the Islamic Republic was imminent as early as next month.

According to the report, Australian officials claimed the US was seeking to bomb Iran’s nuclear capability.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, however, rebutted the report, which cites unnamed officials as saying Australia is poised to help identify possible targets through “providing intelligence.”

“It’s speculation,” Turnbull said, according to The Straits Times. “It is citing anonymous sources.”

Speaking to reporters, Mattis said,

“I have no idea where the Australian news people got that information.”

“I’m confident it is not something that’s being considered right now, and I think it’s a complete – frankly, it’s – it’s fiction,” he added.

When asked whether the US had a policy of “regime change or collapse” toward Iran, Mattis said,

“There’s none that’s been instituted.”

This comes a few days after President Donald Trump promised dire consequences for Iran following Iranian President Hassan Rouhani‘s warning to him not to “play with the lion’s tail” after the US had unveiled a series of measures which amount to a declaration of war.

Addressing a group of Iranian diplomats in Tehran Sunday, Rouhani said,

“America must understand well that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars.”

Iran’s Major General Qassem Soleimani also reacted to Trump’s threats against the Islamic Republic, saying he takes the position to respond “as a soldier” since it is beneath the dignity of Iran’s president to do so.

“You threaten us with an action that is ‘unprecedented’ in the world. This is cabaret-style rhetoric. Only a cabaret owner talks to the world this way,” said the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC).

Meanwhile, US conservative political commentator for Fox News, Tucker Carlson, said Thursday that Iran is “a formidable force,” warning the Trump administration over escalating tensions with Tehran.

Tucker Carlson made the comment on Fox News, warning that Trump’s approach towards Iran could destroy his presidency.

“We are moving toward confrontation with Iran. That should worry everybody, but it should especially concern the president’s supporters. If President Trump decides to go to war with Iran, it will destroy his presidency, just as the Iraq War destroyed the presidency of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush,” he said.

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  

On June 19 the administration of President Donald Trump announced the United States withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC). 

This body was established in the aftermath of the founding of the UN in 1945. A UN Declaration of Human Rights was drafted and adopted in 1948 unanimously by the-then 48 members.

As a justification for its resignation, the Trump administration’s UN representative Nikki Haley claimed that the UNHRC was biased towards the State of Israel. This statement was made while Palestinians were being massacred by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) during peaceful demonstrations on the border between Gaza and the occupied territories. 

UNHRC and the General Assembly have issued condemnations of the blatant acts of aggression and violations of international law by Tel Aviv. The U.S. move is indicative of its unconditional support for Israel which is backed up by billions of dollars in assistance annually along with technology transfers of sophisticated weaponry and diplomatic support. 

Inside the U.S. itself racism, national oppression and gender discrimination appears to be on the increase. Every week there are reports of police killings of African Americans where in most instances the law-enforcement agents are allowed to go unscathed.

During ordinary interactions with whites, African Americans and Latino people are subjected to insults, prejudiced behavior and the unwarranted summoning of the police. In 2018 alone 576 people have been shot and killed by police, many of whom are African Americans. (See this)

The Washington Post began chronicling the number of police shootings and fatalities in 2015 since the Justice Department does not keep adequate records. 2017 saw nearly 1,000 people either wounded or shot to death by agents of the state. 

According to a report by vox.com, African Americans are disproportionately victims of police violence in comparison to whites:

“Black people are much more likely to be shot by police than their white peers. An analysis of the available FBI data by Vox’s Dara Lind found that US police kill black people at disproportionate rates: Black people accounted for 31 percent of police killing victims in 2012, even though they made up just 13 percent of the US population. Although the data is incomplete because it’s based on voluntary reports from police agencies around the country, it highlights the vast disparities in how police use force.”

The false notion that African Americans and Latinx people are more violent than whites is utilized to justify such shootings and killings. These same rationalizations are also applied to the dismissing of claims centering on institutional racism within the criminal justice system involving the police, prosecutorial agencies, the courts and correctional facilities.

This same above-mentioned report goes on to note:

“The disparities appear to be even starker for unarmed suspects, according to an analysis of 2015 police killings by the Guardian. Racial minorities made up about 37.4 percent of the general population in the US and 46.6 percent of armed and unarmed victims, but they made up 62.7 percent of unarmed people killed by police. These disparities in police use of force reflect more widespread racial inequities across the entire American criminal justice system. Black people are much more likely to be arrested for drugs, even though they’re not more likely to use or sell them. And black inmates make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population.”

Racialized Poverty and the Capitalist System

Another misnomer fostered by the administration in Washington is that the number of people living in poverty in the U.S. is insignificant. This could not be further from the truth when government statistics indicate that over 43 million are living below the poverty line, accounting for 13.7 percent of the people. (See this)

At the same time other scholars estimate that there are tens of millions more living in a “near poverty” status. These figures add up to approximately 100 million, some one third of the overall population of the U.S.

Even though the official unemployment rate is 4.0 percent for June 2018, these figures do not take into account the Labor Participation Rate (LPR), those people who are no longer pursuing work within the formal market. The LPR for the U.S. at present is 62.8 percent meaning that over one third of the work force is not involved in the labor market. (See this)

African Americans have the highest poverty rate standing officially at 27.4 percent. While Latinx people are right behind them with 26.6 percent in comparison to whites at 9.9. A stunning 45.8 percent of African American children below six years of age live in poverty in comparison to 14.5 of whites. (See this)

The much championed job growth in the U.S. is largely concentrated in low-wage labor. The service sector of the economy is notorious for the super-exploitation of workers. African Americans, Latinx and women of these oppressed groups often carry the brunt of these forms of employment which reinforce poverty and class degradation. 

A vigorous national campaign demanding a $US15 an hour minimum wage has gained traction in several sectors such as retail and food services. Although this salary would not result in a significant advancement in the status of these workers, if adopted on a federal level it would move the U.S. further in the direction of eliminating immiseration. 

Fast food workers are toiling in horrendous conditions which are dangerous to their health, where people are subjected to sexual harassment and extremely insufficient wages at almost no benefits. Organizers of food service employees in the state of Michigan have linked the deplorable situation under which their constituencies work to the outbreak of a Hepatitis A epidemic, the largest in the U.S. In Detroit, with its excessive rate of water shutoffs due to high bills and low salaries, the lack of essential services provide a breeding ground for infectious disease and high levels of attrition. (See this)

Immigrant Rights and a Foreign Policy of Imperialist War

The current administration in Washington ran on a program of anti-immigrant racism and repression. However, it important to recall that the previous government of President Barack Obama, although appealing to Latinx people for electoral purposes within the framework of winning votes from both the Democratic and Republican parties, deported more people than any other head-of-state in U.S. history. (See this)

Attention has been directed by the media to the separation of families while immigrants are seeking asylum within the country. Several thousand children have been taken away from their parents and placed in detention. 

Beginning in late June, hundreds of thousands of people protested these policies in cities throughout the country. Such a public outpouring forced the Trump administration to declare that they were halting the measures of family separation. Soon afterwards a federal judge ordered that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where the Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are housed, to reunite the children with their parents. In many instances the adults had already been deported without a hearing while the children are sent off to foster care facilities far away from the southern border areas. (See this)

Throughout successive administrations the U.S. has maintained an aggressive war policy largely directed towards people in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America and Russia. The war in Afghanistan has continued over the course of three separate presidencies (2001-2018).

Image on the right: Migrants from Africa driven from their homes due to imperialist policies are seeking asylum in Europe

Thousands of U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops have died in Iraq and Afghanistan where millions of the inhabitants of these states in Central and West Asia have lost their lives directly resulting from the massive aerial bombardments, drone attacks, ground invasions and the consequent humanitarian crises leading to displacement, human trafficking and disease. Since 2014 the plight of migrants from Africa and Asia has worsened precipitously contributing to the largest number of people being driven away from their homes as refugees and internally displaced persons (IDP). In 2018 the number of displaced persons has exceed 65 million, the greatest number since the conclusion of World War II. (See this)

The rising repression inside the borders of the U.S. has its parallel in foreign policy. These realities persist despite the claims by Washington that it is a paragon for human rights on the international scene.

Mass Opposition to U.S. Policy Needed to Reverse Course

Neither the Democratic nor the Republican parties are articulating a viewpoint which would lead to more than mere surface changes in U.S. human rights policy. The leading Democratic Party narrative in its present form does not repudiate the militarization of oppressed communities while a cold war mentality is fostered in regard to relations with the Russian Federation, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Republic of Cuba and other purported adversaries of Washington. 

A programmatic approach must emerge which challenges the notion that the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), DHS-CBP-ICE, local law-enforcement agencies and the courts have an inherent right to exercise arbitrary authority over the lives of billions around the globe. If the U.S. ignores the fundamental human rights of people within and outside its borders, then other structures should be empowered by the masses of working people and the oppressed to put a halt to these atrocities.  

Popular organizations, human rights groups, trade unions and revolutionary parties could unite around these questions. Requesting the re-engagement of Washington with the UN Human Rights Council would not be an adequate response. What is needed is a fundamental transformation in U.S. domestic and foreign policy through the development of a new political paradigm and dispensation.   

*

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 Israeli Security Cabinet discussed on Wednesday the death penalty bill against Palestinians who carry out anti-occupation attacks. However, no final decision has been approved.

Israel’s official radio quoted Minister of Israeli army Avigdor Lieberman who strongly supports the bill as saying that

“There is no reason for us to be more enlightened than the US and Japan in their wars against “terrorism”.

The bill, which stipulates the amendment of an existing legislation regulating the use of the death sentence, passed its preliminary reading in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, last January.

The Israeli bill aims at making it easier for judges to hand out the death penalty for “terrorist activity”. It has been condemned as “fascist” by Palestinian politicians and rights groups, who fear it will give Israel legal cover to target Palestinians.

*

Featured image is from TPIC.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Back in May, after hovering just below the 3% mark for several weeks, the yield on the benchmark U.S. 10-year Treasury note finally burst through the 3% level and spiked up to 3.11%. But after the Italian bond market experienced its latest round of chaos, U.S. yields came back in. With the mainstream explanation being that it was yet another flight to safety amid global financial chaos (with the U.S. treasuries amazingly still being seen as the safe-haven asset). However given what we’ve learned since then, something doesn’t quite add up.

Because in the time since, we’ve found out that over the course of April and May, Russia sold almost all of its U.S. Treasury holdings. Keep in mind that this occurred during the same time when the Fed is raising interest rates, reducing its balance sheet of government and mortgage securities (at least according to the data on its own website – and you can take that for what you will), and China has warned about withdrawing as well, while also making every arrangement possible to conduct trade outside of dollar infrastructure.

Other nations like Hungary and Turkey have been repatriating their gold and speaking publicly about how fed up they are with the U.S. dollar system. And to be completely honest, I don’t think they’re alone in the global community in regards to their feelings about U.S. policy.

Which begs the question, if all of these parties are selling, or in the very least not buying more treasuries, as analyst Rob Kirby brilliantly points out in this interview, who is buying all of the bonds?

A quick refresher is that the bond yield moves inversely to its price. Meaning that when the yield came from 3.11% down to about 2.75%, that was a massive rally. Indicating that someone was out there buying.

Were there investors and funds that reacted to the Italian news by seeking the alleged safe haven of the U.S. treasury market? While I disagree with that fundamental strategy as a response to global bond market chaos, I do believe that there are some who did act by buying treasuries.

Yet it still seems a bit difficult to imagine that there was that much buying power in the treasury market that it would be enough to offset the selling that Russia, the Fed, and others were doing.

While we may be unlikely to get a definitive answer anytime in the near future, given the amount of manipulation I’ve discovered in my time researching the markets, some form of involvement from a unit like the Exchange Stabilization Fund becomes more and more plausible as we witness the latest market reactions. Especially given the conversations I’ve hadwith some of my contacts in the financial industry.

Certainly it’s plausible enough that every effort available would be made to continue propping up the dollar system as long as possible. Because at this point the United States government exists solely based on its ability to fund itself with paper.

Which is why I continue to see precious metals and select cryptos as the most direct form of insurance against the eventual break in the dollar. Which seems to be coming closer and closer, with each event such as the latest repudiation of the treasury market by Russia.

Currently the interest rate on the 10-year note is again hovering just under 3%. And now it’s going to be interesting to see who will be there to buy the bonds the next time the market sinks and yields spike.

*

This article was originally published on the author’s website: Arcadia Economics.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

July 27, 2018 marks the 65th anniversary of the Armistice Agreement which brought about a ceasefire to the Korean War. The agreement was signed by North Korean General Nam Il representing both the Korean People’s Army (KPA) as well as the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army (PVA) and U.S. Army Lieutenant General Harrison, Jr. representing the United Nations Command (UNC).

While the purpose of the agreement was to “ensure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved,” the effect was an unending Korean War with decades of escalating military tension on the Korean Peninsula. And a number of arrangements made on July 27, 1953 have yet to be implemented. Most notably, the U.S. has failed to contribute a plan for withdrawing its troops within the timeframe that was discussed in Article IV of the agreement:

In order to ensure the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, the military Commanders of both sides hereby recommend to the governments of the countries concerned on both sides that, within three (3) months after the Armistice Agreement is signed and becomes effective, a political conference of a higher level of both sides be held by representatives appointed respectively to settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc.

While all other foreign forces eventually withdrew, the U.S. military never left Korean soil. To this day, the U.S. has more than 28,500 of its troops stationed all over South Korea.

With the anniversary of the Armistice Agreement just around the corner, ZoominKorea spoke with Gregory Elich — member of the Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Peace in Korea and frequent contributor for ZoominKorea — about the significance of the armistice and the conditions necessary to establish permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula.

ZoominKorea: July 27 marks the 65th anniversary of North Korea (with China) and the U.S. (representing UN forces) signing the armistice to agree on a temporary ceasefire to the Korean War. Can you tell us more about the agreement — what was it supposed to do and what actually transpired following the signing?

Elich: The armistice was meant to be an interim measure to implement a ceasefire until a peace treaty would be signed. Technically speaking, then, the parties to the conflict remain at war. The armistice agreement stipulated that within three months the three sides would meet to negotiate the terms of a peaceful settlement of the war. That deadline was missed, but once the meeting did take place, the U.S. representatives were unwilling to discuss the subject of a peace treaty. Decades later, that remains the position of the United States.

On the rare occasions that U.S. media address the topic of a peace treaty, the general attitude is that the matter does not involve the United States, and dark motives are likely behind North Korea’s wish to sign a peace treaty that would formally end the Korean War.

However, the United States, along with China and North Korea, committed to negotiating a peace treaty when they signed the armistice agreement. That responsibility remains with the three parties, including the U.S. No one else can formally end the Korean War, nor can any single nation do so without the agreement of the others.

ZoominKorea: Although it is critical for the American public to understand that cooperation by the U.S. is necessary to ensure permanent peace in Korea, the cooperation between North and South Korea is also immensely important in establishing meaningful and lasting peace.

How do you see the April 27 Panmunjom Declaration playing a role in ending the Korean War?

Elich: The third section of the Panmunjom Declaration explicitly states that ending the “unnatural state of armistice” and establishing a peace regime should not be delayed. The declaration identifies this as a matter of urgent concern. So in a real way, the subject of a peace treaty is now on the South Korean agenda. That will make it more difficult for the United States to dismiss the issue.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un embrace each other after releasing a joint statement at the truce village of Panmunjeom, Friday. / Korea Summit Press Pool

Beyond that, the Panmunjom Declaration has enormous potential for the future of the Korean Peninsula, going far beyond the signing of a peace treaty. It is interesting to note that the first article specifies that the two Koreas will determine their destiny on their own accord. The unmistakable message is that only Koreans can choose their future, not the United States. In Kim Jong-Un’s eyes, that is the path the two Koreas should be following now. I am not sure the ever-cautious South Korean President Moon Jae-in is entirely on board with that perception, though, and he may feel that for the foreseeable future nothing can be done without the permission of the United States.

The declaration lays out specific measures to be taken to reduce tensions between the two Koreas and to build mutual trust. That comes as a welcome development after the damage done to relations by the two previous South Korean presidents. Of particular importance is the provision to implement the October 4, 2007 economic agreements between the two Koreas that former South Korean President Lee Myung-bak killed off. Those agreements hold great potential for the economic development of the entire peninsula. Unfortunately, no progress on those can be expected before the lifting of sanctions on North Korea.

ZoominKorea: North Korea has emphasized the importance of ending the Korean War, not only in its recent negotiations with South Korea and the U.S. but also for decades, since the Armistice Agreement. Progressive Koreans in the South and Overseas have also called for the end to the military conflict and signing of a peace treaty. To them, that is the priority.

To the majority of the Washington establishment and the U.S. media, however, denuclearization is the priority.

Indeed, there are many agreements to be made between signing the peace treaty and denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula — but what do you think is the most logical process for establishing peace in Korea?

Elich: In general, it makes logical sense for a peace treaty to be among the initial steps adopted in repairing relations. I see this mainly as cleaning up unfinished business from decades ago. There are complications, though.

As you point out, North Koreans and progressive Koreans in the South and abroad attach tremendous importance to the signing of a peace treaty. There is a good deal of hope that other benefits are inherent, such as an end to enmity and the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the peninsula. I don’t believe we can expect anything more from a peace treaty, in and of itself, beyond its symbolic value and the encouragement it gives to ongoing talks. After a peace treaty is signed, every other step to improve relations is a matter for further negotiation and determined struggle.

On its own, a peace treaty will not trigger a withdrawal of U.S. forces. After all, World War II ended 73 years ago, yet the U.S. military remains firmly ensconced in Germany, Japan, and Okinawa. There is no sign that the United States has any intention of ever departing.

Aside from North Korea, in the years since the Second World War the United States has officially been at peace with all of the nations it has sanctioned, threatened, subverted, bombed, and invaded. North Korea will need more solid security guarantees than a peace treaty if it is going to denuclearize.

U.S. policymakers envision expanding the role of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) beyond the Korean Peninsula, and that will make it extremely difficult to dislodge troops from the Korean Peninsula.

Washington think tanks argue that USFK should shift from the so-called North Korea deterrence role to a regional contingency force. That is, the objective is for U.S. forces based in South Korea to be poised to intervene anywhere in Asia. This concept is in line with the Defense Department’s National Defense Strategy document, which calls for “increased strategic flexibility and freedom of action.” In the context of that policy, an improvement in U.S.-North Korean relations is irrelevant to regional plans for USFK.

There is the additional factor that USFK is a critical component in the overarching policy of encircling China and Russia, one which U.S. military planners are not going to relinquish willingly.

That does not mean the two Koreas should not pursue the withdrawal of USFK in talks with the United States. My point is that immediate removal of U.S. forces is improbable and the challenges should not be underestimated. At the very least, it will take a determined struggle to effect change. One of the main barriers that Korean progressives will have to overcome is that the U.S. military doesn’t care what citizens in any host country think about its forces. U.S. bases have been established abroad to serve imperial interests, not those of the host countries.

For the U.S. side, signing a peace treaty would make sense as a low-cost means of demonstrating goodwill and reciprocity to its interlocutors on the North Korean side. A peace treaty obligates the United States to nothing while giving North Korea something it fervently desires. That would only improve the atmosphere in talks and hasten progress toward a final agreement.

In the months ahead, if the Trump administration proves resistant to the idea of a peace treaty, then that would probably be an indication that think tank advisors are negatively influencing the U.S. negotiating strategy.

No matter what the Trump administration decides, a peace treaty may not be in the cards in the near term. A peace treaty would require approval by a two-thirds majority in the U.S. Senate before Trump could ratify it. In the current U.S. political environment, that seems like an insurmountable hurdle. Consequently, the reality is that while a peace treaty is a logical first step, it is far more likely to take place among the final stages. The completion of denuclearization may reduce the ferocity of Senate resistance to a level that would allow approval. The Trump administration may decide to postpone the signing until late in the process so as to avoid the awkwardness of Senate disapproval during negotiations with North Korea.

I see Korean reunification as a long-term goal that can only come about after U.S.-North Korean relations have substantially improved and South Korea is better able to act in its own best interests without seeking permission from the United States. Otherwise, American interference would present too high an obstacle.

ZoominKorea: What do you make of the U.S. media and its coverage of the negotiations in progress between the Trump administration and North Korea? Pundits as well as members of Congress (including members of the Democratic Party) have been vocal about criticizing Trump and his cabinet for the way they have been handling the negotiations with the North Korean leadership. Many have called out Trump for appeasing the North Koreans “too much.” What do you assess to be the motivation behind this? What kind of an impact could this have on the talks moving forward?

Elich: The Washington establishment is uneasy over President Trump’s erratic behavior. Indeed, one could even say there is open panic. There is concern over whether Trump can be consistently counted on to pay the expected fealty to the Washington consensus on foreign policy and prioritize the needs of large corporations and military contractors. The fear is that at some point Trump, through sheer misunderstanding and carelessness, may put at risk the entrenched “values” of aggressive militarism and global economic and political domination.

The hysterical cries of treason over Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin are another manifestation of that panic.

There are two immediate concerns. One is that normalizing relations with North Korea would lead to a growing demand among South Koreans for U.S. forces to leave the peninsula. The other is that without North Korea as an official enemy, the pretext for stationing troops in South Korea would vanish.

One does not have to search very long among Washington think tank documents to encounter warnings that signing a peace treaty would be a trap which would remove U.S. forces from the region so that North Korea could be free to attack the South. One wonders if these analysts genuinely believe this nonsense or if that is their way of dissuading the Trump administration from agreeing to a peace treaty.

In addition to these generalized concerns, military contractors, whose lobbyists are quite active on Capitol Hill, have specific worries. Over the last five-year period, South Korea ranks second behind Saudi Arabia in the value of arms purchased from the United States. For arms manufacturers, a peaceful resolution of tensions on the Korean Peninsula would be a disastrous development that would eventually cut into future profits. Investor jitteriness was displayed when the five largest U.S. military contractors lost $10 billion in stock market value on the day of the signing of the Panmunjom Declaration.

Vociferous complaints by Western media and politicians about the Singapore Summit and ongoing talks are intended to undermine the process and block any possibility of a diplomatic settlement.

ZoominKorea: While the U.S. media have been critical of the results of the Singapore Summit, many progressive Korean American and U.S.-based activists have welcomed this first major step to the peace process. Since more than a month has passed, how do you now assess the results of the summit?

Earlier this month, as a follow-up to the Singapore Summit, State Secretary Pompeo visited Pyongyang to further discuss the denuclearization deal. From North Korea’s perspective, the latest visit was somewhat of a setback because of the United States’ recapitulation of hardline demands for a denuclearization process similar to that of the Complete Verifiable Irreversible Denuclearization (CVID) approach that undermines the spirit of the Singapore Summit. Pompeo, on the other hand, claimed that the meeting was conducted in good faith and he had “made progress on almost all central matters.”

With the U.S. still unable to acknowledge that it is not doing enough to build trust with North Korea, how do you foresee the negotiations to move forward?

Elich: The first point I would like to make is the fact that talks are happening at all should be regarded as a victory. Eight years of the Obama administration refusing to negotiate, followed by Trump’s bluster and threats during the first year of his administration, have done nothing positive for the region or the international situation. During that time, Washington’s attitude was that pressure and threats “haven’t worked,” therefore more pressure and threats are needed. The rational conclusion that no progress can be made without dialogue was dismissed out of hand.

Chairman Kim Jong Un made a bold move to change the narrative this year, announcing a unilateral freeze on nuclear development and missile testing, while explicitly expressing his intention to denuclearize in the context of an agreement with the U.S. Then came the demolition of North Korea’s nuclear test site. North Korea’s peace drive prompted Washington to re-engage with North Korea. In a positive response, the U.S. implemented a temporary pause in military exercises on the Korean Peninsula as long as talks continue.

Contrary to what Western critics assert, the Singapore Summit was never intended to produce a detailed agreement. The meeting was a declaration of intent to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal. Given the hostile rhetoric that dominated relations and which continues to characterize U.S. media, the summit was an essential initial step in the direction of positive change.

The various shifts in the U.S. position seem to indicate that there is a dichotomy of views within the Trump administration concerning what avenue to follow in negotiations, and each side appears to be struggling to gain the upper hand.

The default position is the unworkable notion that diplomacy should consist of making endless demands on the other party while offering little or nothing in return. However, North Korea is not negotiating from a position of weakness. In its nearly complete nuclear weapons program it has something substantial to trade. It would be a mistake to imagine that North Korea would consider giving that up without receiving anything meaningful in return.

It is the job of the U.S. media to discipline U.S. negotiators and pressure them into rejecting normal diplomatic give-and-take and stick to the pattern of making demands for unilateral concessions. This pressure may explain Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s recent assertions that sanctions will remain in place until after denuclearization is complete. Presumably, Pompeo’s recent statements are meant to reassure critics, who in any case will not be mollified by anything less than the total abandonment of diplomacy and a return to saber rattling.

It is true that the U.S. and North Korea have divergent concepts on how talks should proceed, with the U.S. expecting something along the lines of the Libyan model, where the other party must meet all U.S. demands in exchange for vague promises of future compensating measures. North Korea, quite reasonably, wants a measured, step-by-step approach, where both parties give each other something as they advance towards their ultimate goals.

It should also be pointed out that from the North Korean perspective denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is not entirely a one-way road. It would also entail a commitment by the United States to no longer send nuclear-capable B-2 and B-52 bombers flying over the Korean Peninsula.

The main component in an agreement is a security guarantee to North Korea. Its nuclear deterrent, after all, was developed in response to the hostile policy of the U.S., as well as the vivid object lessons provided by the bombing of Yugoslavia and Libya, and the invasion of Iraq. It is difficult to imagine, though, what kind of security guarantee the United States can offer that could be trusted. A piece of paper is not going to do it. It may be that the Trump administration would be sincere in signing such a document. But the next U.S. administration may have no compunction in abandoning it. I assume that a reliable security guarantee will have to involve not only the U.S. but also Russia and China in some manner.

Despite all of the hindrances, once negotiations are seriously underway I see a real prospect of favorable results. I feel that at some point as U.S. negotiators meet with their North Korean counterparts it will become apparent that they have an opportunity to achieve their goals, but only by adopting a more even-handed approach. That realization should provide the impetus to adopt a more flexible manner. Whether or not that path is followed remains to be seen, as a more even-handed approach is sure to engender a determined backlash from the Washington establishment and U.S. media. My feeling is that the desire to achieve denuclearization will override the impact of political opposition, and there is a more than even chance of a diplomatic settlement.

*

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and a Korea Policy Institute associate. He is a member of the Solidarity Committee for Democracy and Peace in Korea, and a columnist for Voice of the People. He is the author of Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit, and has two chapters in the anthology Killing Democracy: CIA and Pentagon Operations in the Post-Soviet Period, published in the Russian language. In 1999, he was a member of a team that visited Yugoslavia to investigate NATO war crimes.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

“Give Peace a Chance on the Korean Peninsula Break down walls of hostility and division and build new bridges of hope and unity”

Lecture Korea International Peace Forum

Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. – President and Founder Rainbow PUSH Coalition

July 27, 2018 — 65th Anniversary of the Armistice Agreement

Introduction

I want to thank my gracious hosts, the Minjung Party, for inviting me to Korea this week, and the Council of Churches of Korea and National Assembly leaders for their kind welcome. It is an honor and privilege to be with you today.

Turning Crisis into Opportunity – A new zone of peace

The Korean Peninsula is undergoing a momentous period of historical transformation. And the prospects for winning sustainable enduring prosperity and unification – transforming the region into a Zone of Peace, have never been greater.

It is a moment in time to turn crisis into opportunity. To tear down historic walls of division and hostility and build new bridges of hope and unity.

Approaching 65 years since the signing of the cease fire armistice on July 27, Koreans still wait for a peace treaty to end the war. But the roar of peace on the peninsula and in the diaspora cannot be ignored, nor the hopes of 75 million people on the peninsula and the entire global community.

Hope is in the Air

65 years on, hope is in the air: HOPE, that the talks between North Korea and South Korea, between the US and North Korea will indeed lead to a unified Korea and normalized relations between the United States and North Korea. That they will lead to peace and unification of the Korean peninsula.

65 years on, hope is in the air:

Hope: that the summits will resolve the military tension between the two sides and open a path toward cross-border exchanges and cooperation that lead to unification.

Hope: to halt all hostile actions against each other. North Korea must honor its pledge to freeze its nuclear and missile tests while talks continue, and the United States must halt its U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises and lift its sanctions against North Korea.

From Armistice to Peace Treaty

Article IV-60 of the Armistice signed 65 years ago called for a conference to be held within 3 months to discuss the withdrawal of all foreign troops and a peaceful settlement. That conference never happened.

The Prophet Isaiah admonished us to beat our swords into plowshares, and turn our Swords into pruning hooks. To turn our weapons of mass destruction and killing into systems of development and healing.

In the 65th year of the armistice, ending the state of war on the Korean peninsula should be a priority for all peace-loving forces.

It is healing time. A time to turn our pain into power – a power to bring about family reunification. A power to end this decades-long conflict and bring peace to Korea. It’s due time to step away from the brink of war and talks of nuclear strikes, and seize this opportunity to push for talk of peace.

This opportunity cannot be squandered.

Time is on our side but there are headwinds seek to turn back the clock, and keep the Cold War hot.

Cynics and conservative foreign policy pundits are out to continue the war and spoil the peace. There are specific forces that have aligned to create roadblocks because peace threatens their economic and/or political interests – i.e. the weapons lobby that has an economic interest in perpetuating the conflict to continue selling weapons, and political interests that see Korean peace as a partisan political issue to be exploited – and they must be exposed and defeated.

But we should know by now, there are no winners in war.

There can be no turning back – we must fight to turn the Armistice into a Peace Treaty as the key to a just and lasting peace.

Step by Step Approach to Denuclearization – The Panmunjom Declaration

What is required is a step by step phased approach to denuclearization whereby the US and NK take mutual steps to eliminate their nuclear weapons in/around the Korean peninsula and move towards normalization.

In the historic North/South Summit with President Moon and Chairman Kim on April 27, the two Koreas agreed on “complete denuclearization for a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.”

At the Singapore summit between North Korea and the U.S. that followed, the leaders of North Korea and the United States agreed to work toward “complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.”

I commend South Korean President Moon Jae-in for seeking a new direction, for stepping into the gap and making peace negotiations a top priority. His words give the world comfort:

A great shift is currently taking place on the Korean Peninsula in world historical terms… If South and North Korea coexist in prosperity and restore their national community on a peaceful peninsula, the door to unification will swing open naturally…the goal of my administration is formally declaring the end of the Korean War this year.

And President Moon has put his words into action, working tirelessly to lessen tensions between North and South and to broker a meeting with U.S. and North Korean officials. He embraced North Korea’s participation in the winter Olympics, and dispatched envoys to North Korea to continue the talks and begin to arrange a summit.

North Korea’s Kim has also made trust building gestures toward the U.S. He’s announced that North Korea would no longer insist on the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Korean Peninsula as part of any settlement. He’s announced the end to all nuclear and missile testing, and is taking action to shut down the country’s nuclear test site. He has agreed to return the remains of U.S. soldiers killed during the Korean War – as soon as this afternoon.

Denuclearization of the Korean peninsula must mean the eventual removal of all things that pose a nuclear threat to the peninsula — not only North Korea’s nuclear weapons but also U.S. strategic assets in the region and nuclear strike capability and exercises.

One thing is clear. War on the Korean peninsula would be catastrophic. Finding a way out peacefully is surely worth both time and effort.

Now perhaps like never before, the prospects and formula for peace is within grasp. The momentum is on our side.

A four-party summit between South and North Korea, the U.S. and China can go a long way to officially ending the war and advancing the peace process.

It will be a victory for President Moon. A victory for Chairman Kim. A victory for President Trump. A victory for President Xi. All of the parties have a mutual interest in negotiating peace on the peninsula.

Let’s open up trade and exchanges between North and South Korea: build a bullet train from Seoul to Pyongyang, not fire bullets across the DMZ. Feed the hungry. Build housing. Educate the children. Provide health care for all.

These are the shared aspirations of Koreans north and south.

We must move from confrontation to negotiation.

Let me also address for a moment the immigration and refugee issue.

In today’s world as week seek peace, we need to globalizing democracy and human rights.

I was here in South Korea in 1986. I met with Kim Dae Jung on a dark and dreary night. But like Mandela and Dr. King, Kim Dae Jung went from house arrest to head of state. He became a Nobel Peace Prize winner, a symbol of the people’s yearning for Democracy. For freedom, equality and democracy. This week I met Lee Sook-ki, imprisoned now for five years for speaking out for reunification and peace between North and South. He must be freed.

All over the world, migrants/new immigrants are fleeing war torn homelands and looking for safety and security – much like the experiences of Koreans 65 years ago – and if threats of war last year turned into reality, Koreans again could face this same plight.

So, when we look in the eyes of Yemeni families, we must see our own. When we look at their children, we must see our own. We are all one human family.

Some want to build walls and barriers, to blame immigrants/migrants for their own economic insecurity. In the US, in Europe, even here in Korea with the plight of the Yemeni community – we must resist the wave of xenophobia and anti-immigrant reaction taking hold.

What is the mission of the Church? Not to do what is popular, or what is politic, but to do what is morally right, to stand up for the least of these. That is how our character is measured.

Dream of Peace – Hope abounds on the peninsula

Let me end by making this appeal today on Armistice Day.

For peace to happen, diplomacy, not provocation, is essential. It’s time to break the cycle of fear that has gripped the peninsula since its division.

It’s time to tear down past walls of division and fear, and build new bridges of hope and unity.   Walls separate us. Bridges brings us together.

For peace to happen, diplomacy, not provocation, is essential. It’s time to break the cycle of fear that has gripped the peninsula since its division.

Surely it is time to give peace a chance.

Today, hope abounds on the peninsula. Hope can prevail over hate. Hope can prevail over fear. Hope can overcome. Hope can be a mighty weapon for peace. Hope can and must prevail.

The Korean people need to lead the process of reconciliation and formally bring to an end the war that was waged more than 65 years ago. Let’s Turn Armistice Day into a permanent Peace Day.

Clearly, peace is a process, not a single act, no matter how historic. It’s been 70 years of bloodshed and bitterness.

We must dream of a world without war.

Dream of normalization of relations.

Dream family reunification, or cultural and economic cooperation.

Dream of peace, mutually shared security, where people north and south grow and learn together, live together to make a better world together, as one people.

You have that task and the opportunity to define and create this world. This is the imperative of our time.

“…if my people who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray, and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

Thank you.

*

Reverend Jesse Jackson gave this lecture as a part of his week-long visit to South Korea. Reverend Jackson is founder and president of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, and he is one of America’s foremost civil rights, religious and political figures. Over the past forty years, he has played a pivotal role in virtually every movement for empowerment, peace, civil rights, gender equality, and economic and social justice.

Featured image is from the Minjung Part via Zoom in Korea.

In recent developments, Ahed Tamini is slated to be released after having been sentenced to eight months in prison “for slapping a heavily armed abusive Israeli soldier in response to being slapped after demanding IDF forces leave her family property where they don’t belong” (Stephen Lendman, July 28 2018)

This article was first published in January 2018

The struggle for Palestinian human rights and children abused under Israeli occupation has burst into the international spotlight with the help of 16-year-old Ahed Tamimi. Tamimi is no stranger to the Palestinian struggle or the spotlight — she has faced off with her oppressor far too many times in her short life.

Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi has come to age under Israeli occupation, bestowing a unique and distressing childhood experience. Her family participates in weekly protests in Nabi Saleh — the small village, threatened by illegal settlements, in which they live. Tamimi’s family has repeatedly found itself the target of Israel’s violence as a result of its commitment to resisting occupation forces.

Tamimi, along with her family, has not bowed to the pressure, run from the persecution, or faltered, even after relatives have been injured and killed. Instead, they continue to stand up in the face of their oppressors, with Tamimi herself fighting back both verbally and physically on multiple occasions — such as when she fought off soldiers attempting to arrest her brother or when she was caught on video telling off a soldier who hurled a concussion grenade near her.

In late 2016, while in the West Bank, investigative journalist Abby Martin had the opportunity to interview Tamimi for the Empire Files, a documentary series airing on Telesur. The two discussed the hardships of living under Israeli occupation as well as Tamimi’s future aspirations. It quickly becomes apparent why her oppressors are attempting to silence the teen and her family.

Tamimi’s recent arrest

Source: RedMed

Moment’s before Tamimi was shown on tape attempting to physically force Israeli forces off her family’s land, her cousin Mohammad was shot in the head, point blank. Despite internal bleeding, Mohammad miraculously survived the ordeal.

A few days later, Israeli forces returned for Tamimi. In the middle of the night, the teen was violently arrested by armed forces. Along with Tamimi, her mother, aunt, and 20-year-old cousin have also been arrested. Tamimi’s mother was charged with incitement for simply uploading the video of her daughter to social media.

The Tamimi family is no stranger to Israeli aggression

Following Tamimi’s recent arrest, her father took to Facebook, where he shared details of his family’s phones, cameras and laptops being stolen during a raid by Israeli forces in response to the incident. It was not his first time detailing such an experience. Tamimi’s father is a principal organizer of the weekly protests in their village.

Years prior, in 2011, Tamimi’s uncle Mostafa was killed after being hit by a tear-gas canister fired at close range. One year later her uncle Roshdy was shot and killed.

Most recently, Musaab, a young relative of Tamimi, was killed by Israeli forces when he was shot at close range. His death marked the first murder of a Palestinian by Israel in 2018.

According to many members of the Tamimi family, Israel has been actively persecuting them for years as they engage in weekly protests against the theft of their land. Firas Tamimi, Mussab’s father, told Al-Jazeera:

“The occupation army has been raiding both Deir Nitham and Nabi Saleh day in and day out. They come in, irritate the residents, raid our homes at night and throw sound bombs in the street. This has been our reality every day.

We cannot just keep quiet and keep watching. No one is listening to us – no one feels the pain that we’re going through. The world is just silently watching.”

A village in constant protest

In 2016 Martin visited the family’s village, Nabi Saleh, the site of weekly non-violent marches against illegal settlements that are stealing lands belonging to Palestinian families and farmers. The area is littered with evidence of the constant conflict, with used munitions scattered about.

The village is small, with fewer than 200 residents, and is under constant surveillance. It is surrounded by permanent Israeli bases and dangerous checkpoints. Occupation forces rule over the area, frequently closing streets and entering homes whenever they deem necessary. In multiple directions, new and constantly expanding Israeli settlements, filled with armed and dangerous Israeli militia, dot the landscape.

Tamimi told Martin:

All my family here is in danger, we are at risk of dying at any moment. At anytime I can expect a soldier coming towards me to shoot me and kill me. This feeling affects us permanently. This feeling cannot be explained or put into words. Those who do not live our suffering cannot understand it, and no one can translate it into words.”

Watch | Martin’s exclusive 2016 interview with Tamimi

As Tamimi sits in jail awaiting trial following her recent arrest, the teen’s image is being plastered across both mainstream and independent media outlets. Tamimi’s supporters have gathered in protest to show their support and others have taken to social media to amplify her message. To many, Tamimi is a shining example when it comes to the Palestinian resistance, but to others, she is the enemy.

As of January 4, 14 Palestinians have been killed by occupation forces since U.S. President Donald Trump officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in December. It is no wonder Tamimi is so outspoken, passionate and fearless.

As she has said herself,

“All I wish is for Palestine to be free.”

*

Featured image is from RT.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Before things got tragically out of hand it used to be opiates that doctors so vehemently prescribed for everything from minor pains to not being able to find anything wrong with you at all. Now if your doctor isn’t competent enough to give you a proper diagnoses you may find them going on about how they have such wonderful solutions for your stress.

Anti-psychotics, anti-depressants, and other vague experimental drugs will be offered to you as if they are sacred. “Talk to your doctor if you are having suicidal thoughts.”

Your pharmacist will tell you on your way home. Don’t they ever get tired of saying that? The statistics say that yes, indeed, some of them end up doing so.

And what, if anything, will the doctor do for you at that point except write it down in their data harvesting notes and keep shoving pills down your throat that make you worse? First they helped get a vast many hooked on opiates who are now dying in an epidemic from their addictions and lack of harm reduction based health care.

Now to fill that gap in their pockets the pharmaceutical companies lost to the heroin and synthetic opiate trade they are turning to classes like SSRI’s which research groups have been warning us about since the 1990’s the devastation they can wreak on a person’s neurochemistry, their lives, as well as those around them. That is just one class of these dangerous drugs they give out like harmless candy to babies without any repercussions.

Recently a 23 year old man named Jeremy Webster from Colorado got out of his car and shot at a family in a parking lot in what was described as a road rage incident. One person was killed and three others were wounded in the shooting including a bystander. The police found him driving home 23 hours later by matching the plates found on a cell phone image taken by a member of the family before the incident took place. 

“Jeremy stated that he has mental health issues and just (started) a new prescribed medication today,” the warrant said. “Jeremy admitted that he used his Glock 19 handgun to shoot the above people and that he secured the firearm in the trunk of his vehicle after the shooting.” [1]

There are countless other examples of incidents like this happening more and more often over the past few decades and yet more and more of these drugs keep getting prescribed to people who could arguably be a lot better off without them. This goes against the entire medical establishment, their precarious made up diagnoses’, all the debt and time that went into these glorified degrees, and the power one possesses over others because of it. If you were a psychopath for example that wanted to experiment on people and wanted to see tragedies occur as a result all you would have to do is become a doctor. It certainly pays well enough doesn’t it? You would be able to handle the stress and long hours because it would be in your nature to, and it could give you a nice cover to fit into the community while giving you an outlet for your insanity without ever having to plead guilty to a crime. 

See study on anti-depressant drugs [6], [7] [8]

The war on drugs, which is really a war on consciousness and humanity, has not only devastated peoples’ lives for profit but it has also had a chilling effect on their recoveries as well. Take for example a common deficiency millions of people have and yet you may never hear anything about this from a blood test or a general practitioner trying to meet their insurance quotas. This deficiency often gets misdiagnosed out of sheer ignorance and to give these sanctioned pill pushers a reason to start feeding patients endless unnecessary pharmaceuticals.

A blanket of silence falls on one the most basic physiological dysfunctions that many people are suffering from and being left in the dark because of it. Not only would it not be as profitable for these conglomerates to treat because anyone could do so themselves but it would actually make the patients they treated better which goes against their ‘give a pill for a side effect of another pill’ horrorshow. 

Not just human beings but all mammals that currently reside on this planet evolved what are known as the CB1 and CB2 receptors within the central nervous system. There is only one reason why this could have occurred over millions of years and the answer is simple. We have been consuming what is known as cannabis, the most nutritionally dense plant in the world, and it has had a permanent effect on how we live and breathe in this reality. No other animals or organisms have been found to have them. That means insects and birds can consume it if they wanted to without getting a psychoactive effect but still getting the nutrients from it. It also means that we have what is called the endocannabinoid system that plays a key role in our body and minds function.

“The endogenous cannabinoid system, named after the plant that led to its discovery, is perhaps the most important physiologic system involved in establishing and maintaining human health. Endocannabinoids and their receptors are found throughout the body: in the brain, organs, connective tissues, glands, and immune cells. In each tissue, the cannabinoid system performs different tasks, but the goal is always the same: homeostasis, the maintenance of a stable internal environment despite fluctuations in the external environment.

Cannabinoids promote homeostasis at every level of biological life, from the sub-cellular, to the organism, and perhaps to the community and beyond. Here’s one example: autophagy, a process in which a cell sequesters part of its contents to be self-digested and recycled, is mediated by the cannabinoid system. While this process keeps normal cells alive, allowing them to maintain a balance between the synthesis, degradation, and subsequent recycling of cellular products, it has a deadly effect on malignant tumor cells, causing them to consume themselves in a programmed cellular suicide. The death of cancer cells, of course, promotes homeostasis and survival at the level of the entire organism.

Endocannabinoids and cannabinoids are also found at the intersection of the body’s various systems, allowing communication and coordination between different cell types. At the site of an injury, for example, cannabinoids can be found decreasing the release of activators and sensitizers from the injured tissue, stabilizing the nerve cell to prevent excessive firing, and calming nearby immune cells to prevent release of pro-inflammatory substances. Three different mechanisms of action on three different cell types for a single purpose: minimize the pain and damage caused by the injury.

The endocannabinoid system, with its complex actions in our immune system, nervous system, and all of the body’s organs, is literally a bridge between body and mind. By understanding this system we begin to see a mechanism that explains how states of consciousness can promote health or disease. In addition to regulating our internal and cellular homeostasis, cannabinoids influence a person’s relationship with the external environment. Socially, the administration of cannabinoids clearly alters human behavior, often promoting sharing, humor, and creativity. By mediating neurogenesis, neuronal plasticity, and learning, cannabinoids may directly influence a person’s open-mindedness and ability to move beyond limiting patterns of thought and behavior from past situations.Reformatting these old patterns is an essential part of health in our quickly changing environment.” [2]

You don’t need to be a physician to understand this. Nor do you need insurance or a referral from anyone to get this information. Trying to compare a synthesized pharmaceutical against the natural compounds we are all in possession of inside of us is an insult to evolution itself! Especially when you take a look at how much Big Pharma has tried to mimic the effects of natural medicines found all around the world largely turning up short and amounting to failure. Dying religious folk love their Marinol (lab synthesized THC) so there is still a small market for it. Criminalizing the plant made it unaffordable to a lot of people in need for decades but that is starting to change around the world. Confusion about proper dosages and routes of administration as well as the biochemistry of the plant itself has also played a part in its place as a widely accepted food and medicine commodity in our culture. 

High potency extracts of different cannabinoid profiles based on genetic strains made with trimmings can now be made like the old days with grain alcohol for what can amount to next to nothing. The lunatics that run these corporations want it patented & proprietary and they refuse to have it any other way. Good thing this is something that is open source and decentralized outside of their control but there still are many that are suffering in the dark. Either by the whims of what their doctors feel like saying skewing their perceptions and actions with stigma or by diagnoses’ that could be treated by natural compounds that they naturally lack from all sorts of things that could have happened in the past. Trauma and abuse being two of the most common risk factors in developing an endocannabinoid deficiency.

“In a first-of-its-kind effort to illuminate the biochemical impact of trauma, researchers at NYU Langone Medical Center have discovered a connection between the quantity of cannabinoid receptors in the human brain, known as CB1 receptors, and post-traumatic stress disorder, the chronic, disabling condition that can plague trauma victims with flashbacks, nightmares and emotional instability” [3]

If you go to a doctor today, right now, and you tell them you have anxiety, depression, or you have trouble sleeping, or you have an eating disorder, or you don’t feel right, you’re too stressed out—maybe you feel like you’re overwhelmed and you can’t take it anymore—you will most likely leave with a drug you don’t need and that is not going to help you. The only people who are getting helped in this system are the conglomerates and their subservient slaves in white coats. Behavioral cognitive therapies can be a beneficial alternative but can it be enough to undo what was already done by not having enough of your own bodies natural substances to feel as whole and as healthy as you should? According to the Drug Policy Alliance, drug overdose deaths fall 25% in states that have have medical cannabis laws in practice. [4] The numbers speak for themselves. Just like logic and science can speak for themselves since what is essentially the dawn of time.

Recent reports have shed light on how children detained in strangely reminiscent immigration centers carved out of the husks of old strip malls or deserted office spaces are routinely being given cocktails of pharmaceutical drugs without their consent. This mirrors treatment of some non-violent drug offenders in prison being fed drugs like Respiridone every day. It’s also a shift from the methamphetamine-like stimulants (Adderall, Ritilin, Vyvanse) that they used to give us as children because we couldn’t focus or we didn’t care. I was lucky to have missed out on this wave but many weren’t and the drugs are still widely prescribed today as well as sold on the black market. Some of these same kids went on and continued to use them with or without a prescription and are widely regarded as the only way they’re able to get through the scam of paying 500$ a month until they’re 40 known as college. No one’s really talking about the meth epidemic anymore now that Breaking Bad has come and gone and devastated counties I have known and loved giving new meaning to the words ‘ghost town’ but I will delve down this hole in another article.

Our culture as a whole has a deficiency that has been inflicted by decades of depraved doublethink and the problem is made infinitely worse by dispersing these junk knockoff poisons among every age group of the population. The normalization of this horrendous atrocity has reached epidemic proportions but there is barely a signal let alone an alarm being sounded off about it like the war in Yemen too. Last I saw the latest scapegoat for violence in the news was video games. It wasn’t the billboards with AR-15’s plastered over them in neon and red or the propaganda and endless wars being fought worldwide. Now we have an exponentially increasing amount of people on “medications” that could be substituted with natural compounds with less insane side effects but that doesn’t line up with Big Pharmas omnicidal smirk—it doesn’t make as much money (only 20 billion by 2022 [5])—it doesn’t sow as much discord—nor does it fit with the praise of lifting a known torturous demoness to sit on the top of the pyramid like a greasy squinty-eyed vulture squawking in a dim paisley wallpapered room.

*

Vember is a pen name.

Notes

[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/colorado/articles/2018-06-15/suspect-arrested-in-colorado-shooting-boy-killed-3-injured

[2] http://norml.org/library/item/introduction-to-the-endocannabinoid-system

[3] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130514085016.htm

[4] https://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/prescription-painkiller-deaths-fall-almost-25-medical-marijuana-states

[5] https://www.equities.com/news/report-the-cannabis-biotech-pharma-market-could-surpass-20-billion-by-2020

[6] http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/07/top-ten-legal-drugs-linked-to-violence/

[7] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015337

[8] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-013-3154-1

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)

Sifting through the cacophony of commentary from the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, here are four key points missed, ignored or glossed over by the Washington establishment and mainstream news coverage—and they require a good airing.

They are:

1) It’s clear now that Europeans will increase their contributions to NATO. But Big Media totally ignored the trillion dollar gorilla in room: Why does anyone have to spend so much on NATO in the first place?

Are we planning a ground attack on Russia because we really think the former Soviet Empire will invade Poland or the Baltic nations? Are we planning for a land war in Europe to intervene in the Ukraine? What for is the money? The Trump administration and Big Media, for all their noise, mainly argue that more spending is good. There is no debate about the reasons why. Meanwhile Russia is cutting its military spending.

Washington is so dominated by our military-industrial-congressional complex that spending money is a major intent. Remember when Washington first insisted that putting up an anti-missile system in Poland and Romania was supposed to protect Europe from an Iranian attack? Of course, it was really directed against Russia. Washington was so eager to spend the money that it didn’t even ask the Europeans to pay the cost even though it was supposedly for their defense. As of 2016 Washington had spent $800 million on the site in Romania. Now it appears that Poland and Romania will pay billions to the Raytheon Corporation for the shield to comply with their commitment to increase military spending to 2 percent of gross national product.

2) There was no focus on the real, growing threat of nuclear war, intentional or accidental. No one, including journalists at the joint press conference, spoke about the collapsing missile treaties (the only one who reportedly seemed keen to discuss it was ejected beforehand). Scott Ritter details these alarming risks here on TAC.

The U.S. is now funding new cruise missiles with nukes which allow for a surprise attack on Russia with only a few minutes of warning, unlike the ICBMs which launch gives a half an hour or more. This was the reason Russia opposed the anti-missile system in Eastern Europe, because they could have little warning if cruise missiles were fired from the new bases. Americans may think that we don’t start wars, but the Russians don’t. The old shill argument that democracies don’t start wars is belied by American attacks on Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen.

3) For all the Democratic and Big Media attacks on Trump for supposedly caving in to Putin, he gave Putin nothing. His administration is still maintaining an increasingly stringent economic attack on Russian trade and banking, announcing (just days after his meeting) $200 million of new aid to Ukraine’s military and threatening Europeans with sanctions if they go ahead with a new Baltic pipeline to import Russian natural gas. Consequently, some analysts believe that Putin has given up on wanting better relations with the U.S. and instead is just trying to weaken and discredit America’s overwhelming power in the world. In a similar vein Rand Paul writes how we never think about other nations’ interests.

4) The release of intelligence agency findings about Russians’ intervention in the last election just a day before the conference precisely shows the strength of the “Deep State” in dominating American foreign policy. An article by Bruce Fein in TAC argues we should “Forget Trump: The Military-Industrial Complex is Still Running the Show With Russia,” showing how Washington wants to keep Russia as an enemy because it’s good for business.

Furthermore, releasing the accusations and indictments via a press already out for Trump’s blood is explained away by pointing out that the special prosecutor has separate authority to that of the president. But the timing, a day before the Helsinki meeting, obviously shows intent to cause disarray and to prevent meaningful dialogue with Russia. It’s interesting to note that TAC has been criticizing the “Deep State” since at least 2015.

The casualness with which much of Washington regards conflict and starting wars is only comparable to the thoughtlessness of Europeans when they started World War I. Like now, that war followed nearly a century of relative peace and prosperity. Both sides thought a war would be “easy” and over quickly and were engulfed in it because of minor incidents instigated by their small nation allies. It was started with a single assassination in Serbia. The situation is similar now. America is hostage to the actions of a host of tiny countries possibly starting a war. Think of our NATO obligations and promises to Taiwan and Israel.

America has become inured to the risks of escalation and Congress has ceded its war powers to the president. The authority of war power was one of the most important tenets of our Constitution, designed to prevent our rulers from irresponsibly launching conflicts like the European kings. Witness now how casually Trump talks about starting a war with Iran, with no thought of possible consequences, including blowing up oil facilities in the Persian Gulf, oil and gas vital for the world economy.

For most Americans, war means sitting in front of their TVs watching the bombs fall on small nations unable to resist or respond to our power. “We” kill thousands of “them” in easy battles and then worry if a single American soldier is harmed. We don’t viscerally understand the full threat of modern weapons because they’ve never been used against us. This is not unlike World War I, for which the countries engaged were wholly unprepared for a protracted siege war against the lethality of new modern artillery and chemical weapons. All had assumed the war would be over in weeks. I wrote about these issues after visiting the battlefields of the Crimean war. (See “Lessons in Empire”)

And so we continue careening towards more conflicts which can always lead to unintended consequences, ever closer to nuclear war. Meanwhile efforts for a dialogue with Russia are thwarted by our internal politics and dysfunction in Washington.

*

John Basil Utley is the publisher of The American Conservative.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: Cleo Leng/flickr/cc

As the week’s news slaps against my consciousness like road slush, some fragments sting more than others. For instance:

“According to the DOJ’s court filing, parents who are not currently in the U.S. may not be eligible for reunification with their children.”

I can’t quite move on with my life after reading a sentence like this. A gouge of incredulity lingers. How is such a cruelly stupid rule possible? What kind of long-term ramification will it have on the entirety of the human race?

The Common Dreams story goes on:

“The ACLU and other immigrant rights advocates have argued that many of the parents who have been deported were pressured to agree to deportation without understanding their rights, following the traumatizing ordeal of family separation—many after fleeing violence and unrest in their home countries.”

Oh, to be a desperate human being, caught between “interests.”

And then there’s this:

“If they would just confirm to us that my brother is alive, if they would just let us see him, that’s all we want. But we can’t get anyone to give us any confirmation. My mother dies a hundred times every day. They don’t know what that is like.”

This is not more news from the Mexican border. This is from a recently released Amnesty International report on the U.S.-backed war in Yemen, being waged by a Saudi Arabian coalition that has visited famine, a cholera epidemic and mass bombings on the Yemeni people.

Also, as Kathy Kelly notes: Human Rights Watch and the Associated Press have exposed “a network of clandestine prisons” in Yemen, operated by coalition partner the United Arab Emirates. The reports, Kelly writes,

“described ghastly torture inflicted on prisoners and noted that senior U.S. military leaders knew about torture allegations. Yet, a year later, there has been no investigation of these allegations by the Yemeni government, by the UAE, or by the UAE’s most powerful ally in the Yemen war, the United States.”

This of course is all marginal news, mostly kept in the shadows by the corporate media, which focuses on Russiagate and the Trump Follies, that is to say, on political entertainment, us vs. them, neatly packaged and fed to American news consumers as though it were their unending World Cup tournament. And Hillary Clinton tweets:

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

And another gouge of incredulity lingers. Global politics is reduced to winning and losing, our team vs. their team, which makes life a lot more convenient for the powerful because it jettisons the hellish consequences of the game from public awareness: the cholera and torture and such, which are the regrettable side effects of confrontational politics.

Or rather, the hellish consequences are reported selectively — only when “they” do it. The point of the reporting is not to expose the suffering and focus public attention on the need to eliminate its complex causes, but rather to score a point for “our” side (we’re not like that) and quietly justify whatever harsh actions we must undertake in order to (eventually) prevail. What matters is the game, not the human consequences.

All of which adds up to a con game much, much bigger than Donald Trump, who is basically a malfunctioning cog in the machine. The “machine” is sometimes called the Deep State, which Mike Lofgren, the former Republican congressional aide who coined the term, described as “a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country” — that is to say, Wall Street and Silicon Valley in league with the departments of Defense, State and Homeland Security, along with the Justice and Treasury departments, the CIA and much more. It’s America’s quiet, unofficial government, the military-industrial complex holding hands with the prison-industrial complex. The money just isn’t there for most social programs, but it’s there for war, surveillance and incarceration.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

As the White House convenes a policy meeting on Iran Thursday involving senior Pentagon officials and cabinet advisers under national security adviser John Bolton, and after a week of intense saber-rattling by President Donald Trump and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani, a new bombshell report [which remains to be fully corroborated M.Ch. GR] by Australia’s ABC says the White House is drawing up plans to strike Iran’s alleged nuclear facilities as early as next month. 

Senior figures in the Australia’s Turnbull government have told the ABC they believe the US is prepared to bomb Iran’s nuclear capability. The bombing could be as early as next month. —ABC report

Crucially, Australia is part of the so-called “Five Eyes” global intelligence partners which includes the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and plays in a key role in hosting top-secret facilities that guide American spy satellites.

According to the breaking report, ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] has learned the following based on statements of key senior defense and intelligence officials:

• Senior Government figures have told the ABC they believe the Trump administration is prepared to bomb Iran
• They say Australian defence facilities would likely play a role in identifying possible targets
• But another senior source, in security, emphasizes there is a difference between providing intelligence and “active targeting”

The report cites high level Aussie government officials who say that secretive Australian defense and intelligence facilities would likely cooperate with the United States and Britain in identifying targets in a strike on Iran.

One particular facility, the Pine Gap joint defense facility in the Northern Territory, would play a significant targeting role in joint US-led strikes on Iran, according to the report, it’s “considered crucial among the so-called ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence partners… for its role in directing American spy satellites.”

And further, other agencies are expected to play a role:

Analysts from the little-known spy agency Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation would also be expected to play a part.

Canada would be unlikely to play a role in any military action in Iran, nor would the smallest Five Eyes security partner New Zealand, sources said.

However, though officials speaking to ABC on condition of anonymity say intelligence plans for targeting suspected Iran nuke sites have begun, Australia’s foreign ministry is still seeking to avoid war through intense diplomatic efforts.

“Australia is urging Iran to be a force for peace and stability in the region,” Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told ABC’s AM program on Thursday.

The report comes after President Trump’s all caps twitter tirade on Sunday which warned Iran to

“NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE…”

*

Featured image is from Mr Fish/Truthdig.

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  

Remarkably mature for her age, extraordinary teenager Ahed symbolizes heroic Palestinian resistance against brutal Israeli occupation.

She was unlawfully sentenced to eight months in prison for slapping a heavily armed abusive Israeli soldier in response to being slapped after demanding IDF forces leave her family property where they don’t belong.

She’s a redoubtable freedom fighter, her father Bassem proudly explained, earlier saying she’ll “lead the resistance to (oppressive) Israeli rule,” adding:

Though never arrested until last December, she’s “no stranger to (Israeli) prisons.”

She “spent her whole life under the heavy shadow of the Israeli prison – from my lengthy incarcerations throughout her childhood, to the repeated arrests of her mother, brother and friends, to the covert-overt threat implied by (Israeli) soldiers’ ongoing presence in our lives.”

During a 2017 visit to South Africa, Ahed addressed an audience, saying the following:

“We may be victims of the Israeli regime, but we are just as proud of our choice to fight for our cause, despite the known cost,” adding:

“We knew where this path would lead us, but our identity, as a people and as individuals, is planted in the struggle, and draws its inspiration from there.”

“Beyond the suffering and daily oppression of the prisoners, the wounded and the killed, we also know the tremendous power that comes from belonging to a resistance movement; the dedication, the love, the small sublime moments that come from the choice to shatter the invisible walls of passivity.”

“I don’t want to be perceived as a victim, and I won’t give their actions the power to define who I am and what I’ll be.”

“I choose to decide for myself how you will see me. We don’t want you to support us because of some photogenic tears, but because we chose the struggle and our struggle is just. This is the only way that we’ll be able to stop crying one day.”

She was aged-16 when delivering this address, extraordinarily eloquent and passionate. She’s been involved in the Palestinian liberation struggle since age-10.

Her courageous commitment for liberation and justice is why Israel arrested and imprisoned her.

The Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network announced her expected release on Sunday, saying:

After release, she and other “Tamimi women are planning to resume their activism immediately, heading directly to the Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmar, (illegally) targeted for demolition by Israeli occupation forces,” where they’ll hold a news conference.

Ahed and her mother Nariman were unlawfully imprisoned. Her brother Waed is a political prisoner along with thousands of others languishing under Israeli gulag conditions.

After Ahed’s arrest and imprisonment, over 1.5 million people worldwide signed a petition demanding her release.

Italian street artist Jorit Agoch painted a 13-foot-high mural of Ahed on Israel’s illegal apartheid wall.

Another mural on the wall honors 21-year-old volunteer Gazan paramedic Razan al-Najjar, murdered by Israeli snipers for aiding wounded demonstrators, serving them in the line of fire, giving her life to help save theirs.

“Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network eagerly awaits the release of Ahed and Nariman Tamimi on Sunday,” the human rights group said, adding:

“There are thousands – indeed, millions – of people in Palestine and around the world who have played a role in the campaign to win their freedom.”

“The release of Ahed and Nariman must inspire us to escalate our campaigns to win the freedom of all of the other over 6,000 Palestinian political prisoners behind Israeli bars and to win freedom for the land and people of Palestine.”

In a statement to Reuters on Thursday, Bassem said

“Ahed will finish her sentence time next Sunday. We will be waiting to welcome her at the Jabarah checkpoint, then head for the press conference, then visit Yasser Arafat’s tomb and Martyrs Shrine in Nabi Saleh, after which we will head home to meet people who are welcoming her release.”

Ahed and Nariman’s freedom could be short-lived. Israel notoriously targets released Palestinian political prisoners for re-arrest.

Ahed’s prominence makes her especially vulnerable. Her courageous activism inspires committed resistance.

Israel confronts it brutally – the way all police states operate.

*

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  

Since the June 12 Singapore Summit between US President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the US media has woven a misleading narrative that both past and post-summit North Korean actions indicate an intent to deceive the US about its willingness to denuclearize. The so-called intelligence that formed the basis of these stories was fed to reporters by individuals within the administration pushing their own agenda.

The Case of the Secret Uranium Enrichment Sites

In late June and early July, a series of press stories portrayed a North Korean policy of deceiving the United States by keeping what were said to be undeclared uranium enrichment sites secret from the United States. The stories were published just as Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was preparing for the first meetings with North Korean officials to begin implementing the Singapore Summit Declaration.

The first such story appeared on NBC News on June 29, which reported:

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that North Korea has increased its production of fuel for nuclear weapons at multiple secret sites in recent months—and that Kim Jong Un may try to hide those facilities as he seeks more concessions in nuclear talks with the Trump administration.

NBC News reporters quoted one official as saying, “There is absolutely unequivocal evidence that they are trying to deceive the U.S.” They further reported that the intelligence assessment “concludes that there is more than one secret site” for enrichment.

The story was highly problematic because it reported the alleged conclusion of the intelligence report as a fact, even though it admitted that NBC reporters had not seen or been briefed in detail on any part of the intelligence assessment in question, but had relied entirely on general statements by unnamed officials. Furthermore, none of the officials on whom they relied were identified as members of the intelligence community.

Significantly, the story did not indicate whether the assessment was endorsed by the entire US intelligence community or—as turned out to be the case—only one element of it. Normal journalistic practice would have made clear that NBC was passing on an unconfirmed conclusion the accuracy of which they were unable to verify. Instead, the NBC reporters played up the alleged conclusion as unambiguous evidence that US intelligence believed the North Koreans intended to deceive the United States by maintaining secret enrichment facilities under a future agreement with the United States.

The Washington Post published a report by national security and intelligence reporters Ellen Nakashima and Joby Warrick the day after the NBC story that paralleled its main thrust and cited the same unnamed intelligence sources that were cited in the NBC story. But the Postalso revealed that the intelligence assessment in question had come from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which is generally recognized as an outlier within the intelligence community on most assessments of adversary capabilities and intentions. A former senior intelligence official with extensive experience dealing with DIA assessments explained in an interview with this writer that the DIA “would tend to put a worse-case spin” on any analysis of North Korean intentions.

That makes it all the more important to know whether the rest of the intelligence community agrees with the reported assessment of North Korean intentions. Nakashima and Warrick seemed to suggest that there is no doubt in the intelligence community that the North Koreans “have operated a secret underground enrichment site known as Kangsong,” and they linked to an earlier Post report on that alleged secret enrichment site published May 25.

That earlier Post story quoted a former senior US official as saying that intelligence agencies had “long suspected the existence of such a facility” and believed there were “probably” others as well. But a PowerPoint on the Kangsong issue by David Albright, the founder and CEO of the Institute for Science and International Security, makes it clear that US intelligence lacks hard evidence to support such suspicions. Albright, a former UN weapons inspector, revealed that the original allegation of the secret enrichment plant had come from a North Korean defector who said he had “worked near the site,” clearly implying that he had inferred the purpose of the site without having been inside it.

More importantly, according to Albright, “we have not located this site,” meaning that the US intelligence community still did not have a specific location for the suspected plant eight years after the defector was obviously asked to provide it. Albright further disclosed that some US intelligence analysts and senior officials of at least one foreign government have challenged the belief that the building in question was an enrichment site, because, “some aspects of the building are not consistent with a centrifuge plant.” And he recalled that other alleged covert enrichment facilities had been suggested to his organization, but that he viewed them as “less credible than the information about Kangsong.”

The intelligence community appears to have even less basis for claiming a secret North Korean nuclear site—much less multiple secret sites—today than it did when the US government charged that North Korea had a secret nuclear facility in mid-1998. That was when the Clinton administration informed congressional leaders and the South Korean government privately that US intelligence analysts were convinced that a site with tunnels carved into a mountain at Kumchang-ri was intended to house a new reactor and plutonium reprocessing center, based on satellite photographs and other intelligence.

After months of negotiations, the North finally agreed to US on-site inspections in June 1999 and again in May 2000. The result of those two inspections was that the US government was compelled to acknowledge that the purpose of the tunnel complex at Kumchang-ri had been to vent fumes from an underground uranium milling plant.

At least the intelligence community had identified a specific site in 1998 that it regarded with suspicion, which is not the case today. Nevertheless, a group of officials is promoting the idea that North Korea is planning to keep such sites secret under a negotiated agreement. The timing of the leaked intelligence assessment that prompted these stories suggested that someone in the Trump administration was seeking to sway the White House to adopt the tougher US stance in Pompeo’s trip to Pyongyang in early July. Albright appeared to be referring to that effort when he told the Post that intelligence assessment came just when “there’s a worry that the Trump administration may go soft, and accept a deal that focuses on Yongbyon and forgets about these other sites.”

National security adviser John Bolton had been reported as pushing for a hard line in diplomatic talks with North Korea that would threaten their viability. These reports raise the obvious possibility that the officials who conveyed the alleged intelligence conclusion were part of a political effort coordinated with him.

Hyping Yongbyon Improvements to Discredit Diplomacy

During the same time period as the reporting on alleged secret sites, NBC News, CNN and the Wall Street Journal all reported on North Korea making rapid upgrades to its nuclear weapons complex at Yongbyon and expanding its missile production program—all at the very moment when Trump and Kim were agreeing on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula at their Singapore Summit.

In each case, the reports cited analyses of commercial satellite imagery from independent analysts, including contributors to 38 North. But they all employed a common device to create a false narrative about the negotiations with North Korea: by misrepresenting the diplomatic context in which the satellite images were collected, they drew political conclusions about North Korean strategy that were unwarranted.

The series of stories involved more than a mere misunderstanding of the raw information being reported. They all denigrated the idea of negotiating with North Korea on the grounds that it cannot be trusted. The NBC News and CNN stories on improvements at the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center cited the analysis of satellite images published by 38 North on June 26. And they were all slanted to lead readers to conclude that the improvements in question signified a nefarious intention by North Korea to deceive the Trump administration.

The headline of the June 27 NBC News story asked, “If North Korea is denuclearizing, why is it expanding a nuclear research center?” And it warned that North Korea “continues to make improvements to a major nuclear facility, raising questions about President Donald Trump’s claim that Kim Jong Un has agreed to disarm, independent experts tell NBC News.”

CNN’s story about the same images declared that there were “troubling signs” that North Korea was making “improvements” or “upgrades” at a “rapid pace” to its nuclear facilities, some of which it said were carried out after the Trump-Kim summit. It cited one facility that had produced plutonium in the past that had been upgraded, despite Kim’s alleged promise to Trump to draw down his nuclear arsenal.

Both the NBC and CBS stories were misrepresenting the significance of the improvements described in the 38 North analysis. They either ignored or sought to discredit the carefully-worded caveat in that assessment, which cautioned that the continued work at the Yongbyon facility “should not be seen as having any relationship to North Korea’s pledge to denuclearize.”

The analysis was referring to the fact that the Singapore Summit’s joint statement did not commit North Korea to immediately halt its activities in their nuclear and missile programs and therefore the improvements at Yongbyon had no bearing on whether Pyongyang would agree to denuclearization. Indeed, during the negotiation of US-Soviet and US-Russian arms control agreements, both sides continued to build weapons until the agreement was completed. It should not have come as a surprise, therefore, that work at Yongbyon was continuing.

NBC News deliberately ignored these crucial contextual facts and instead selectively reported statements from other analysts dismissing the notion that North Korea would ever denuclearize and would continue to try to deceive the US about its true intentions.

On July 1, a few days after those stories appeared, the Wall Street Journal headlined, “New satellite imagery indicates Pyongyang is pushing ahead with weapons programs even as it pursues dialogue with Washington.” The lead paragraph called it a “major expansion of a key missile-manufacturing plant.”

The images of a North Korean solid-fuel missile manufacturing facility at Hamhung showed that new buildings had been added to the facility beginning in the early spring, after Kim Jong Un had called for more production of solid-fuel rocket engines and warhead tips last August. The exterior construction of some buildings was completed “around the time” of the Trump-Kim summit meeting, according to the analysts at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. The Center’s David Schmerler told the Journal, “The expansion of production infrastructure for North Korea’s solid missile infrastructure probably suggests that Kim Jong Un does not intend to abandon his nuclear and missile programs.”

The improvements in North Korea’s infrastructure for missile parts manufacturing documented by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, which began well before the summit, are hardly evidence against North Korea’s willingness to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with the United States. Like any country dealing with a serious military threat from an adversary, North Korea is both hedging against the real possibility of talks failing and signaling that it is not unilaterally surrendering. The United States is doing the same thing, albeit in different ways.

Conclusion

Major media reporting on what is alleged to be intelligence and photographic evidence that North Korea intends to deceive the United States in negotiations on denuclearization has been extraordinarily misleading. It has blithely ignored serious issues surrounding the alleged intelligence conclusions and suggested that North Korea has demonstrated bad faith by failing to halt all nuclear and missile-related activities.

Recent stories do not reflect actual evidence of covert facilities, but rather deep suspicions of North Korean intentions within the intelligence community that have been fed to the media by individuals within the administration who are unhappy with the direction of the president’s North Korea policy following the Singapore Summit. And breathless reports on improvements in North Korean nuclear and missile facilities ignore the distinction between a summit statement and a final deal with North Korea. They have thus obscured the reality that the fate of the negotiations depends not only North Korean policy but on the willingness of the United States to make changes in its policy toward the DPRK and the Korean Peninsula that past administrations have all been reluctant to make.

These stories also underscore a broader problem with media coverage of the US-North Korean negotiations: a strong underlying bias toward the view that it is futile to negotiate with North Korea. The latest stories have constructed a dark narrative of North Korean deception that is not based on verified facts. If this narrative is not rebutted or corrected, it could shift public opinion—which has been overwhelmingly favorable to negotiations with North Korea—against such a policy.

*

Featured image is from The Unz Review.

“Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
–Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

On a hilltop south of Nablus, the settlement of Amihai is taking shape.

Construction crews and heavy-duty machinery trawl the dusty site. Rudimentary roads criss-cross the dry earth. Identical rows of incomplete rectangular houses sit squat, bounded by dirt piled in their front gardens and backyards.

For Avikhay Buaron, one of Amihai’s first residents, this is home.

Despite grumbling about the size of his house –

“In Amona, we had a 180 sqm house that we built from our own money. This is 90 sqm, we have seven kids” – he is supportive of government plans to extend the boundaries of Israel with settlements. “Amihai is completely legal,” he says. “It’s kosher.”

Image on the right: Settler Avikhay Buaron in front of his new house in Amihai (Tessa Fox/MEE)

Amihai was offered to Jewish residents like Buaron by the Israeli authorities as compensation after the evacuation of the West Bank outpost of Amona in February 2017.

Israeli authorities recognise settlements, but outposts – which are erected by settlers without planning approval from the Israeli government – are deemed illegal under Israeli law.

But Buaron has faith in the authorities.

“The Israeli state will claim sovereignty on Judea and Samaria [the West Bank],” he says, “because the Israeli people believe it’s their homeland. Thinking that the Jews are going to leave Judea is a total mistake. They aren’t going to leave anywhere.”

And there is also a foreign government, more than 9,000 km from this settlement, to which Buaron is thankful.

“Thank God we have America,” he says.

A vision of Israel

The construction of Amihai was approved in March 2017, the first new settlement to be officially established by the Israeli government since 1992.

Already, 102 housing units have been authorised since US President Donald Trump, Israel’s biggest supporter in the White House for decades, assumed office in January 2017.

The housing units in Amihai are near identical and arranged in rows (Tessa Fox/MEE)

Washington has been bullish in its backing for Israel, recognising Jerusalem as the nation’s capital in December and failing to condemn Israel’s use of fatal force against Palestinian protesters in Gaza during the Great March of Return.

But far less publicity has been given to the number of approvals awarded to Israeli settlements during the same period. Each plan for a housing unit – defined as a single house – has to pass four stages within the Israeli government. Only then is it put out to tender, allowing prospective contractors to bid on the settlement’s construction.

During the past two years, the increase in settlement growth has been steep. This is regardless of what stage the settlement is at, be it a set of architect’s drawings in a planning office or handing over the front-door keys to a settler family.

In the 22 months before Trump was elected in November 2016, 4,476 housing units were approved, according to the Israeli organisation Peace Now. But in the 21 months since, that figure has more than tripled to 13,987 housing units.

The building of settlements in the West Bank is illegal under international law. The Fourth Geneva Convention states that “the Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies”, as has happened with Israel and the West Bank.

And yet the numbers continue to grow: that figure for the past 19 months excludes the Israeli government approval on 3 July this year of 1,000 housing units, intended to expand the settlement of Pisgat Zeev in East Jerusalem.

Hagit Ofran, a member of the Settlement Watch team at the Israeli organisation Peace Now, says:

“What we see on the ground since Trump was elected is [support] for the Israelis to expand settlements. We see it in what is being officially said by the US administration and on the ground with what Israel is doing.”

The expansion of settlements, along with the pressure placed on Palestinian villages by Israeli authorities, is political and in line with the vision to extend Israeli sovereignty across the occupied West Bank to the Jordan River.

It is a vision which Ofran believes is becoming reality.

“They’re moving towards the mentality of annexation, through many legislative initiatives by the government.”

Trump breaks with tradition

US presidents, be they Democrat or Republican, have traditionally been critical of Israeli settlements.

Walid Assaf, the Palestinian Authority’s chairman of the Commission Against the Wall and Settlements, says:

“Obama couldn’t do anything for peace in the area but Trump is not dealing with it as a president.

“He’s not applying international law and he’s giving all the protection to the Israeli occupation. Trump actually is one of the worst presidents of the US of all time.”

During his first meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu in 2009, Obama told his Israeli counterpart that there must be a freeze on settlements.

“Even before, under the Bush administration, there was a clear policy of not accepting settlement construction anywhere,” says Ofran.

That has changed with Trump.

“It’s more what the US has not officially declared,” Ofran says. “It’s more the lack of any comments on things that are done on the ground by Israel. We usually saw, with previous administrations, reactions to dramatic development with settlements. We would see comments from the White House. This administration has issued almost no comments.”

Ofran says that the Israeli government is now doing things which were considered taboo in the past, such as the new housing units approved in the heart of Hebron. The area was ranked second highest in the West Bank for settler violence against Palestinians in early 2017, according to the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), which represents the organisation’s humanitarian efforts in the region.

“Plans to build a new settlement of 31 units in the heart of Hebron is something we didn’t have since the 1980s,” Ofran says. “It’s not only the quantity, it’s the quality of what they’re doing.”

“I absolutely feel the Trump administration is for Netanyahu. Trump’s helping him do what he wants to do.”

The ‘neutrality’ of the White House

The reaction of the current White House to the expansion has been neutral in its language. In at least two statements seen by Middle East Eye, the phrase “unrestrained settlement activity does not advance the cause for peace” appears.

On 24 January 2017, only days after Trump’s inauguration, Israel approved 2,500 settlement housing units in the West Bank.

The new American administration stayed silent.

On 16 June 2017, less than six months into Trump’s term, Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that the government had approved the highest number of settlement units since 1992.

Thanks to Trump, Israel was no longer holding back, Lieberman told the Times of Israel in an interview.

“It’s obvious that the United States [is] our main strategic partner, and with partners we keep transparency,” Lieberman said. “Everything is open. We keep open lines, we keep dialogue, we keep sincerity, we have understandings.”

During a Washington press briefing on 7 December 2017, the day after Trump announced the US embassy was relocating, one reporter asked David Satterfield, the acting assistant secretary of state at the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, where the US stood on settlement construction in East Jerusalem. Satterfield replied:

“I’m not going to restate the policy at this point.”

The question was raised again on 5 June this year.

Heather Nauert, State Department spokeswoman, replied:

“The president has spoken to settlements on numerous occasions, and one of the things that he said is unrestrained settlement activity does not advance the cause for peace. The President has also said that the Government of Israel has spoken to him about this, and that they’ve had private conversations about that very matter. But we’ve been clear about the issue of settlements from day one here.”

MEE contacted a US embassy official in Israel for comment. They declined to give an interview but said in a statement:

“The Israeli government has made clear that its intent is to adopt a policy regarding settlement activity that takes the President’s concerns into consideration. The United States welcomes this.

“The Administration has made clear – while the existence of settlements is not in itself an impediment to peace, further unrestrained settlement activity does not help advance peace.”

The West Bank is now home to more than 200 Israeli settlements, of which at least 125 settlements are officially recognised by the Israeli government; and another 100 of which were built without official authorisation but with government support, known as “outposts”. Between them, they now house close to 600,000 Israelis.

The Yesha Council is the umbrella body for the municipal authorities of the settlements in the territory.

Elie Pieprz, its spokesperson, says Obama had a “different attitude” to Trump but that “it was a complete mistake”.

He denies that there has been a significant rise since Trump came to power and that the US only supports the settlement construction on the “law of supply and demand”.

“I firmly believe the more homes in Judea and Samaria the better chance we have of peace, because we destroy the narrative that Palestinians and Israelis have to be separate,” he says. “We tried that before 1967 and we didn’t have peace.

“The US government doesn’t tell anyone in any other part of the world that they should or shouldn’t build homes.”

‘It’s like they’re humans and we’re not’

If there is a symbol of the current tension between Israel and Palestine on the issue of who can live where, then it is the village of Khan al-Ahmar, east of Jerusalem.

Image below: Bedouin Ahmad Abu Dahuk, a resident of Khan al Ahmar, faces losing his home (MEE/Tessa Fox)

The Palestinian Jahalin Bedouin tribe settled there during the early 1950s after the young state of Israel expelled them from their land in the Tel Arad area in the Negev.

But now preparations are underway to demolish the site and expand the neighbouring settlement of Kfar Adumim, despite international condemnation from the UK, France, Ireland and the UN among others.

On 5 July, Israel’s Supreme Court ordered a pause on the demolition: a series of injunctions has subsequently delayed both the demolition and the eviction of the population. The next hearing is scheduled for 15 August.

Since Donald Trump became US president, 415 housing unit plans have been approved in Kfar Adumim, including 92 on 30 May. The remainder were approved in February 2017, one month after Trump took office.

“The expulsion goes from generation to generation,” says Ahmad Abu Dahuk, a Khan al-Ahmar resident.

“We live constantly moving. My parents were expelled from Tel Arad in the Negev and now our children are going to face the same thing.”

Zakhari Saddam is from the Palestinian village of Jit, west of Nablus and north of Amihai. He is critical of the expanding settlements and the lack of access to building permits for his village.

Sixty-one percent of the West Bank is made up of what is known as Area C, which falls under Israeli control, with the rest of the territory either under Palestinian control or else shared between the two.

Palestinian building applications need to go through the Israeli Civil Administration – but less than two percent of these are approved.

Khan al-Ahmar, under threat from demolition, is overlooked by Israeli hilltop settlements (MEE/Tessa Fox)

“Years ago, there were 1,500 people in my village,” says Saddam. “Now there are 3,000 people and we need more and more buildings. At the same time, they allow the settlers to build more and more and extend the settlements and outposts all the time.”

Saddam says he wants to live in peace, that he believes in the two-state solution – but thinks it impossible while the settlements remain.

“They would like to kill the chance at peace. The US helps Israel and protects them everywhere… They do anything they want, no one can stop them.”

Dahuk agrees – and blames Trump for worsening an already precarious situation. “Trump is destroying the world,” he says. “The settlement is getting bigger and we’re getting smaller.”

He points to Kfar Adumim, whose expansion looms large over Khan al-Ahmar.

“It’s like they’re humans and we’re not.”

*

Featured image is from The National.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Well, lordy be. A lawyer for The New York Times has figured out that prosecuting WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange might gore the ox of The Gray Lady herself.

The Times’s deputy general counsel, David McCraw, told a group of judges on the West Coast on Tuesday that such prosecution would be a gut punch to free speech, according to Maria Dinzeo, writing for the Courthouse News Service.

Curiously, as of this writing, McCraw’s words have found no mention in the Times itself. In recent years, the newspaper has shown a marked proclivity to avoid printing anything that might risk its front row seat at the government trough.

Stating the obvious, McCraw noted that the

“prosecution of him [Assange] would be a very, very bad precedent for publishers … he’s sort of in a classic publisher’s position and I think the law would have a very hard time drawing a distinction between The New York Times and WikiLeaks.”

That’s because, for one thing, the Times itself published many stories based on classified information revealed by WikiLeaks and other sources. The paper decisively turned against Assange once WikiLeaks published the DNC and Podesta emails.

More broadly, no journalist in America since John Peter Zenger in Colonial days has been indicted or imprisoned for their work. Unless American prosecutors could prove that Assange personally took part in the theft of classified material or someone’s emails, rather than just receiving and publishing them, prosecuting him merely for his publications would be a first since the British Governor General of New York, William Cosby, imprisoned Zenger in 1734 for ten months for printing articles critical of Cosby. Zenger was acquitted by a jury because what he had printed was proven to be factual—a claim WikiLeaks can also make.

McCraw went on to emphasize that,

“Assange should be afforded the same protections as a traditional journalist.”

The Times lawyer avoided criticizing what the United Nations has branded — twice — the “arbitrary detention” of Assange and his incommunicado, solitary confinement-like situation in the Ecuador embassy in London since March. Multiple reports indicate the new government of Ecuador will evict Assange into the hands of British police.

These days we need to be thankful for small favors. It’s nice to know the Times now considers Assange a journalist, even though it did not spring to his defense when he was being widely branded a “high-tech terrorist” — as can be seen here in my very last appearance on CNN’s domestic broadcast almost eight years ago.

Mike Pompeo, when he was CIA director, called WikiLeaks a “non-state, hostile intelligence service,” and Assange’s lawyers believe there is already a sealed indictment against him in the state of Virginia. Assange fears that if he is arrested on flimsy bail skipping charges he will be extradited to the United States.

Is the Fourth Estate Dead?

Ten years ago I contended that The Gray Lady — like the rest of the Fourth Estate — was moribund. More recently, I have been saying it is dead. I now stand corrected. Rumors of its death have been exaggerated. But how does one characterize its current state?

Let me borrow a memorable phrase from philosopher Billy Crystal, playing Miracle Max in “The Princess Bride,” while trying to bring the character Wesley back to life. He is just “mostly dead,” Chrystal insisted.

And so it is with today’s corporate media, with a tiny chance, now that The New York Times, watching out for its own equities, might help Assange avoid prosecution for practicing journalism. Actually, he has been accused so far of no crime of any kind.

Eight years ago, when the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity gave Assange its annual award, the Fourth Estate was a bit more than just a distant memory. So we attempted to put his award in historical perspective. Below is the text of the citation presented to Assange, together with the traditional SAAI corner-brightener candlestick holder, by former UK Ambassador Craig Murray (himself an SAAI laureate) and Daniel Ellsberg.

Sam Adams Associates Award Julian Assange

It seems altogether fitting and proper that this year’s award be presented in London, where Edmund Burke coined the expression “Fourth Estate.” Comparing the function of the press to that of the three Houses then in Parliament, Burke said:
“…but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sits a Fourth Estate more important far than they all.”

The year was 1787—the year the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The First Amendment, approved four years later, aimed at ensuring that the press would be free of government interference. That was then.

With the Fourth Estate now on life support, there is a high premium on the fledgling Fifth Estate, which uses the ether and is not susceptible of government or corporation control. Small wonder that governments with lots to hide feel very threatened.

It has been said: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” WikiLeaks is helping make that possible by publishing documents that do not lie.

Last spring, when we chose WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for this award, Julian said he would accept only “on behalf or our sources, without which WikiLeaks’ contributions are of no significance.”

We do not know if Pvt. Bradley Manning gave WikiLeaks the gun-barrel video of July 12, 2007 called “Collateral Murder.” Whoever did provide that graphic footage, showing the brutality of the celebrated “surge” in Iraq, was certainly far more a patriot than the “mainstream” journalist embedded in that same Army unit. He suppressed what happened in Baghdad that day, dismissed it as simply “one bad day in a surge that was filled with such days,” and then had the temerity to lavish praise on the unit in a book he called “The Good Soldiers.”

Julian is right to emphasize that the world is deeply indebted to patriotic truth-tellers like the sources who provided the gun-barrel footage and the many documents on Afghanistan and Iraq to WikiLeaks. We hope to have a chance to honor them in person in the future.

Today we honor WikiLeaks, and one of its leaders, Julian Assange, for their ingenuity in creating a new highway by which important documentary evidence can make its way, quickly and confidentially, through the ether and into our in-boxes. Long live the Fifth Estate!

Presented this 23rd day of October 2010 in London, England by admirers of the example set by former CIA analyst, Sam Adams

*

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington.  He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer and then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years.  He is co-founder of Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

The state of Pakistan is now poised for a change, as predicted by many in the context of the General Elections held on 25 July. Though Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)’s victory is not decisive, there is a general feeling that given the lead in the race, PTI under the leadership of Imran Khan will form a government.

The provinces will also witness changes in political dispensation. The results show a clear verdict against the PML-N led by Nawaz Sharif and the PPP led by Bilawal Bhutto. With Nawaz Sharif and his daughter Maryam in prison, in the wake of the Panama episode and court verdicts, the election campaign witnessed intense debate on corruption and, predictably, the popular verdict had to swing in favour of Imran Khan’s PTI, which has already been running a provincial (coalition) government in the Northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.  Though there are widespread allegations of corruption and rigging, Imran Khan threw down the gauntlet to his opponents and assured in public that it could be investigated.

During the campaign for a much hyped “Naya (new) Pakistan” Imran Khan had promised that his party would create 10 million new jobs and build 5 million homes for the poor if they win. He also made a claim that the rich Pakistani   diaspora had assured him that they would step in with substantive investment and expertise to reconstruct the country.  In his first press conference (even as the entire election results were still to be announced), Imran Khan announced that he wanted Pakistan to become the country that his leader “Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah had dreamed of” (Dawn 2018b). He said that he wanted to “share the kind of Pakistan” he envisioned—“the type of state that was established in Madina, where widows and the poor were taken care of “(Ibid).

If it i was Nizam-i Mustafa (the system of the Prophet Muhammad) that Imran referred to, there was already an experiment undertaken by a nine-party popular movement begun by the Jamaat-i Islami in 1977 to overthrow the secular government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and establish an ‘Islamic system’ of government in Pakistan. The movement broke down after the military coup of Zia-ul-Haq and, then, Pakistan witnessed another decade of authoritarian military rule under the facade of ‘Islamisation’ drive.

One does not know if Imran was still aware of the ‘dream’ of Jinnah which the latter had categorically made clear on 11 August 1947 in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan:

“You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your Mosques or to any other places of worship in this state of Pakistan, You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the state… we are starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed or another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state… you should keep that in front of us as our ideal, and you will find, in course of time, Hindus would cease to be Hindus, and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual but in the political sense as citizens of the state (Jinnah 1947).

Does PTI’s “Islamic Republic” allow room for such an egalitarian society? What is the status of minorities in Pakistan even after 70 years? The Ahmadi community, for instance, announced their boycott of the July 25 elections to protest the ‘discriminatory’ move to have a separate voter list for them. Imran did not hide his bias on their status. He had openly rejected any idea of repealing the Second Amendment to the Pakistani Constitution which declares the Ahmadis as non-Muslims.

In his first press conference, Imran brought to light the plight of the poor, women and children. He says: “Farmers are not paid for their hard work, 25 million children are out of school, our women continue to die in childbirth because we can’t give them basic healthcare, we can’t give the people clean drinking water. A country is not recognised by the lifestyle of the rich, but by the lifestyle of the poor. No country that has an island of rich people and a sea of poor people can prosper” (Dawn 2018b). It may be recalled that in a pre-election interview Imran said that “The political class here doesn’t change that much. You can introduce new actors but you can’t change the political class wholesale. This is why I give the example of Mahathir Mohamad, who changed Malaysia with the same political class by giving them clean leadership” (Dawn 2018a). This was obviously an indication that Imran’s PTI does not envisage any fundamental change in the political economy of the State of Pakistan.  The ruling political class has always been characterised by a combination of military-bureaucratic-political forces.

There is already a feeling everywhere that Imran and his PTI could be the natural ‘selection’ of the military. Given such a spate of criticisms across a wider political spectrum, within and across the world, it remains to be seen how he would negotiate between these state apparatuses.  In an interview Imran was asked to speak on the military’s influence in setting Pakistan’s foreign policy. He said: “The army will get involved where there are security situations. If you look at the US policy in Afghanistan, a lot of the US-Afghan policy was influenced by Pentagon. Even when Barack Obama didn’t want to continue the war in Afghanistan, he did it because he was convinced by Pentagon” (Dawn 2018a).  Imran also said: “When you have democratic governments that perform and deliver, that is their strength. We have had military influence on politics in Pakistan because we have had the worst political governments. I am not saying it is justified but where there is a vacuum something will fill it.” He also said: “Under crooked and corrupt governments, people welcome the military with open arms. In 1999 when Musharraf’s martial law was declared, people were celebrating in Lahore – Nawaz’s political centre! – because governance had failed” (Dawn 2018a).

Imran has also been criticised for his ambiguous position on Islamic forces in Pakistan. Many even suspected if he was ‘soft’ on such issues. During the election campaign, he declared that there should be “a dual policy: one is dialogue and the other is military action. I have been labelled ‘Taliban Khan’ just because I did not agree with this one-dimensional policy that Pakistan implemented under American pressure.” Imran said: “the war in Afghanistan was a classic example of how military solutions alone did not work. “The US has been there for 15 years with a military option but has failed. If there is consensus among the American and Afghan governments and allies that they want unconditional peace talks with Taliban, it means the military option has failed” (Dawn 2018a).

The most challenging test of Imran’s policy regime could be Pakistan’s relations with India which witnessed a setback during the last few years. His anti-India rhetoric had already raised suspicions that a political dispensation under Imran would be more ‘aggressive’ in dealing with India. In the interview with Dawn, he said that his rival “Nawaz Sharif tried everything, even personal [gestures] calling him [Modi] over to his house. No one got in his way. But I think it is the policy of the Narendra Modi government to try and isolate Pakistan. They have a very aggressive anti-Pakistan posture because Modi wants to blame Pakistan for all the barbarism they are doing in Kashmir. What can one do in the face of this attitude?” (Dawn 2018a).

In his post-election speech, Imran, however, appeared to be more soft-spoken though he still harped on sensitive issues like Kashmir. He said that it would be “very good for all of us if we have good relations with India. We need to have trade ties, and the more we will trade, both countries will benefit”(Dawn 2018b). Everyone knows that it was Pakistan that was still hesitant on the issue of strengthening trade ties with India. It is yet to accord the most favoured nation (MFN) status to India even as it maintains a negative list of more than a thousand items which are not permitted to be imported from India.  New Delhi keeps reminding that its granting of MFN status to Pakistan should not be treated as a mere gesture and hence reciprocity is called for. Referring to Kashmir, Imran said that

“Kashmir is a core issue, and the situation in Kashmir, and what the people of Kashmir have seen in the last 30 years. They have really suffered…Pakistan and India’s leadership should sit at a table and try to fix this problem. It’s not going anywhere.”

In a more conciliatory tone Imran said:

“We are at square one right now [with India]. If India’s leadership is ready, we are ready to improve ties with India. If you step forward one step, we will take two steps forward. I say this with conviction, this will be the most important thing for the subcontinent, for both countries to have friendship” (Daily Pakistan 2018).

A major question is if Pakistan will allow the democratic process to take the lead on both sides of Kashmir. Azad Kashmir is still a democratic-deficit zone which Imran does not want to concede when he talks about issues in the Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir. One major cause of the perennial crisis in Kashmir is the continued support the militants get from Pakistan which India considers as a critical factor stalling the peace process.

The most crucial tests of Imran Khan would be his handling of Pakistan economy and the burgeoning threats from Islamic forces. The economy has already been facing several problems—from resource crunch to worsening balance of payment situation. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has already warned that “the current account and budget deficits are gloomy.”

According to the IMF, the country’s current account deficit stood at 4.8% of total national income ($16.6 billion), which was 83% higher than the government’s official estimates. The IMF has also warned that Pakistan’s official gross foreign currency reserves could fall to $12.1 billion–barely enough financing 10 weeks of imports.  The IMF also asked Pakistan to improve its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regimes. They also sought to devalue the currency to minimise damages to the external sector, and levy more taxes to control the growing budget deficit. It said that surging imports have led to a widening current account deficit and a significant decline in international reserves despite higher external financing. FY 2017/18’s current account deficit could reach 4.8% of GDP, with gross international reserves further declining in the context of limited exchange rate flexibility.  This is equal to $16.6 billion – and far higher than $12.1 billion deficit that Pakistan has experienced in the previous fiscal year (IMF 2018).

The World Bank’s latest estimates also paint a dismal picture for Pakistan. It says that

“Pakistan remains one of the lowest performers in the South Asia Region on human development indicators, especially in education (etc)…  Infant and under five mortality rates represent a similar story. Gender disparities persist in education, health and all economic sectors. Pakistan has one of the lowest female labour force participation rates in the region. Nutrition also remains a significant cross-cutting challenge, as 44% of children under five are stunted. The spending on health, nutrition, and education, now totalling 3 per cent of GDP, significantly lower than most other countries. Increased allocation will only be possible after increasing government revenues. The tax-to-GDP ratio, at 12.4 percent, is one of the lowest in the world and it is still half of what it could be for Pakistan.”

The Fund-Bank estimates have a particular importance for Pakistan given its long-term dependence on the external sources and its high spending on defence and arms build-up, besides its financing of various forces. Remittances constitute a major share of Pakistan’s foreign exchange.  According to latest reports, remittances have declined by 19.82% compared to the situation the previous year (it was $1.609 billion in September 2016 but in 2017, it has been reduced to $1.29 billion) (Times of Islamabad 10 March 2017; Dawn 10 June 2017). Like other countries in South and Southeast Asia, Pakistan too will have to bear the burden of declining remittances due to the localisation drive underway in the GCC countries.

Most importantly, Imran has to address the situation arising out of the rise of terrorism and fundamentalism in Pakistan. He must be aware that it has much to do with the emergence of an oligarchic power structure (civil-military-religious nexus), which had its beginnings in the 1960s, but got accentuated in the 1970s after  General Zia-ul-Haq  came to power((Seethi 2015).

It was during the rule of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in the 1990s that the Islamic forces like Taliban branched out, within and across the boundary in Afghanistan. An major  factor that has significantly assisted their growth is the making of a vast number of jobless families, people without any means of existence and without expectations, as a consequence of lopsided policies in agriculture and industry. As  Hamza Alvi wrote, every tractor displaced at least a dozen families of sharecroppers. Hundreds of thousands of them were without a source of livelihood. Under these circumstances, the advent of the well-financed madrasas, who took over their children, gave them free tuition, accommodation and food, appeared to be a great miracle (Alvi 2010). Over years, the armed groups, many of them with battle-hardened Taliban, are in the forefront of a sectarian carnage in Pakistan, which have been on the increase — killings of members of rival sects, Sunnis vs Shias, Deobandi Sunnis vs Barelvi Sunnis, etc. (Seethi 2014). Over the years, these militant bands assumed new forms and carried new nomenclatures. Islamic militant outfits such as the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Jaish-e-Mohammed are various forms of Jihadism in the making, seeking to take over the State by military means, mainly relying on the discontent of the middle class. Instead of conceptualising a workable policy with a view to dealing with such militant groups, successive governments have pandered to them. The high cost of this great lapse is that Pakistan has become the killing fields of South Asia.

In Pakistan, the State’s monopoly of force is dented by a variety of armed Islamist groups that have schemes of their own. The ruling dispensations have not so far recognised that the more they try to acquiesce to these religious extremists, the harder and more uncompromising they tend to become. It remains to be seen how Imran Khan’s ‘Naya’ Pakistan is going to address this crucial question.

References

Alvi, Hamza (2010): “The Rise of Religious Fundamentalism in Pakistan,” LUBP, https://lubpak.com/archives/5589

Dawn (2018a): “You can’t win without electables and money: Imran,” 5 July, https://www.dawn.com/news/1418060/you-cant-win-without-electables-and-money-imran

Dawn (2018b): “Imran promises wide-ranging reforms: All policies for the people” Dawn.com  26 July 26,  https://www.dawn.com/news/1423029/imran-promises-wide-ranging-reforms-all-policies-for-the-people

Daily Pakistan (2018): “‘Will run Pakistan like never before,’ Imran Khan vows to eradicate corruption and live a simple life in victory speech,”  https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/lifestyle/well-spoken-indias-rishi-kapoor-praises-imran-khan-on-his-election-victory-speech/

IMF (2018):Pakistan: IMF Country Report No. 18/78, FIRST POST-PROGRAM MONITORING  DISCUSSIONS,  https://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwjrz9ngk73cAhXEQo8KHSD_CiUQFjAAegQIBRAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.imf.org%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FPublications%2FCR%2F2018%2Fcr1878.ashx&usg=AOvVaw2lXQHNabxWLsLYV6XASIcX

Seethi, K.M. (2014): “Pakistan School Killing: South Asia’s Killing Fields,” Tehelka, , 19 December.

Seethi, K.M. (2015): “Political Islam, Violence and Civil Society in Pakistan,” Indian Journal of Politics and International Relations, Vol.8. No.1.

The World Bank (2018): The World bank in Pakistan:  Overview 17 April, http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/pakistan/overview

Prof. K. M. Seethi  is with the School of International Relations and Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala. He can be reached at [email protected]

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

The cutting-edge issue of our time is whether humanity can survive America’s rage for global dominance while failing to acknowledge its declining supremacy relative to other nations.

In his must read new book, titled “Losing Military Supremacy: The Myopia of American Strategic Planning,” Russian military analyst Andrei Martyanov discussed this important issue – America’s inexorable decline despite spending countless trillions of dollars to remain the dominant global superpower.

Russia, China, and other nations are rising, America declining politically, economically and militarily.

Discretionary spending on US militarism, war-making, corporate welfare, and police state harshness come at the expense of eroding public services.

The disparity between rich and most others in America is widening, poverty the leading growth industry in the world’s richest country.

It’s permanently at war on humanity at home and abroad – Russia, China, Iran, and other sovereign independent nations considered enemies of the state for not being submissive to its will.

The myth of American exceptionalism, the indispensable state, an illusory moral superiority, and military supremacy persist despite hard evidence debunking these notions.

The US was at the height of its power post-WW II, maintained for some years in the post-war era, decline beginning and continuing in recent decades, notably post-9/11.

It’s the same dynamic dooming all other empires in history – a nation in decline because of its imperial arrogance, hubris, waging endless wars against invented enemies, and its unwillingness to change.

America is a warrior state, both parties pursuing the same course, operating secretly, unaccountably, intrusively, and repressively, a self-destructive agenda.

The long ago founded republic no longer exists, replaced by the imperial state, military Keynesianism, and ruinous military spending while vital homeland needs go begging, social justice disappearing.

During the Cold War years, Washington got along with Soviet Russia, even if uneasily at times. Nixon went to China.

Today relations with both countries are more dismal and dangerous than any previous time, possible nuclear war ominously real by accident or design.

The notion of a once dominant nation in decline seems inconceivable to most Americans and its ruling authorities. Martianov lucidly explains what’s suppressed in the mainstream.

The US is outmatched by Russia’s super-weapons, a nation using its resources wisely – unlike notorious waste, fraud and abuse in America.

Months earlier, Project Censored reported a whopping $21 trillion gone missing from the federal budget from 1998 through 2015.

Most of it went for militarism and war-making, a monumental black hole abuse of power, indicative of America’s fall from grace, its declining power.

It’s able to wage war on “third-rate adversar(ies),” Martyanov explained. It would be hard-pressed confronting Iran militarily.

It’s no match against Russia’s super-weapons, likely not against China’s growing military might.

It’s been unable to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan after 17 years of trying, still combating Syria after seven years of failing to topple its government.

Wherever US forces show up, mass slaughter, destruction and human misery follow while vital homeland needs go begging.

America’s rage for dominance ignores its declining strength. Will its aim for regime change in nations matching or exceeding its military might destroy planet earth it seeks to own?

Martyanov’s book provides important insights into America’s declining military supremacy, affecting this most vital issue of our time.

*

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

Iran threatens no one. It hasn’t attacked another country in centuries. 

So why does Washington seek regime change?

It’s because Israel wants its main rival eliminated, aiming to become the region’s leading power along with America’s presence – both countries partnering in endless wars of aggression Iran opposes.

It’s because Washington seeks another imperial trophy. Longstanding US hostility toward the Islamic Republic is over its sovereign independence, its unwillingness to become a US vassal state.

It’s no easy pushover like Iraq and Libya. It’s militarily powerful. If attacked, it will use its might to retaliate in self-defense.

Likely targets would include US regional bases and naval forces, along with Israel and other regional countries partnering in Pentagon aggression.

Attacking Iran would be madness, besides being another US-led high crime against peace. Much of the region would be jeopardized.

Iran can block or obstruct the key Strait of Hormuz maritime shipping route for Middle East oil producers – one of the world’s most strategically important choke points.

If attacked, it’s militarily powerful enough to hit back harder than anything US forces experienced since their defeat in Southeast Asia.

Does the Trump regime intend undertaking what none of his predecessors dared try since Iran’s 1979 revolution?

According to Australia’s ABC News, citing unnamed senior PM Malcomb Turnbull government officials,

“the United States is prepared to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, perhaps as early as next month, and that Australia is poised to help identify possible targets,” adding:

“The ABC has been told Australian defense facilities would likely play a role in identifying targets in Iran, as would British intelligence.”

An unnamed source said

“(d)eveloping a picture is very different to actually participating in a strike. Providing intelligence and understanding as to what is happening on the ground so that the government and allied governments are fully informed to make decisions is different to active targeting.”

Ignoring US regional aggression in multiple theaters, Trump regime’s war secretary Mattis blasted Iran. He lied calling the country a destabilizing Middle East influence – the hard truth about Israel and America’s regional presence, a bald-faced lie about the Islamic Republic.

He lied saying

“(t)he only reason…Assad is still in power (is because) Iran has stuck by him, reinforced him, funded him.”

Russia’s September 2015 intervention against US aggression in Syria changed the dynamic on the ground, Iranian military advisors in the country playing a subordinate role.

On Thursday, Turnbull said he has “no reason” to believe Trump intends bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. He called reports otherwise “speculation.”

The IAEA confirmed they have no military component. No evidence suggests Tehran wants one. US intelligence annually affirms that Iranian nuclear facilities are legitimate and peaceful.

Israel is nuclear armed and dangerous, a global menace, the only regional nation with these WMDs, not Iran.

It’s not about to bow to Washington’s will. On Wednesday, President Hassan Rouhani said

“(t)he Iranian nation has from the start stood up to the American rulers’ intransigence, misconduct and breach of promises in all areas, and has chosen the path of resistance.”

He called Trump regime’s belligerent anti-Iran comments “baseless and unfounded…hollow threats” not warranting a response.

Trump’s bravado and bluster are well known. Would he dare authorize naked aggression against the Islamic Republic?

His belligerence since taking office suggests the unthinkable could be possible, especially with urging from Israel.

*

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  

Amazon’s face surveillance technology is the target of growing opposition nationwide, and today, there are 28 more causes for concern. In a test the ACLU recently conducted of the facial recognition tool, called “Rekognition,” the software incorrectly matched 28 members of Congress, identifying them as other people who have been arrested for a crime. 

The members of Congress who were falsely matched with the mugshot database we used in the test include Republicans and Democrats, men and women, and legislators of all ages, from all across the country.

Our test used AmazonRekognition to compare images of members of Congress with a database of mugshots. The results included 28 incorrect matches. 

The false matches were disproportionately of people of color, including six members of the Congressional Black Caucus, among them civil rights legend Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). These results demonstrate why Congress should join the ACLU in calling for a moratorium on law enforcement use of face surveillance.

To conduct our test, we used the exact same facial recognition system that Amazon offers to the public, which anyone could use to scan for matches between images of faces. And running the entire test cost us $12.33 — less than a large pizza.

Using Rekognition, we built a face database and search tool using 25,000 publicly available arrest photos. Then we searched that database against public photos of every current member of the House and Senate. We used the default match settings that Amazon sets for Rekognition.

Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) was falsely identified by Amazon Rekognition as someone who had been arrested for a crime.

In a recent letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, the Congressional Black Caucus expressed concern about the “profound negative unintended consequences” face surveillance could have for Black people, undocumented immigrants, and protesters. Our results validate this concern: Nearly 40 percent of Rekognition’s false matches in our test were of people of color, even though they make up only 20 percent of Congress.

People of color were disproportionately falsely matched in our test.

If law enforcement is using Amazon Rekognition, it’s not hard to imagine a police officer getting a “match” indicating that a person has a previous concealed-weapon arrest, biasing the officer before an encounter even begins. Or an individual getting a knock on the door from law enforcement, and being questioned or having their home searched, based on a false identification.

An identification — whether accurate or not — could cost people their freedom or even their lives. People of color are already disproportionately harmed by police practices, and it’s easy to see how Rekognition could exacerbate that. A recent incident in San Francisco provides a disturbing illustration of that risk. Police stopped a car, handcuffed an elderly Black woman and forced her to kneel at gunpoint — all because an automatic license plate reader improperly identified her car as a stolen vehicle.

Matching people against arrest photos is not a hypothetical exercise. Amazon is aggressively marketing its face surveillance technology to police, boasting that its service can identify up to 100 faces in a single image, track people in real time through surveillance cameras, and scan footage from body cameras. A sheriff’s department in Oregon has already started using Amazon Rekognition to compare people’s faces against a mugshot database, without any public debate.

Face surveillance also threatens to chill First Amendment-protected activity like engaging in protest or practicing religion, and it can be used to subject immigrants to further abuse from the government.

These dangers are why Amazon employees, shareholders, a coalition of nearly 70 civil rights groups, over 400 members of the academic community, and more than 150,000 members of the public have already spoken up to demand that Amazon stop providing face surveillance to the government.

Congress must take these threats seriously, hit the brakes, and enact a moratorium on law enforcement use of face recognition. This technology shouldn’t be used until the harms are fully considered and all necessary steps are taken to prevent them from harming vulnerable communities.

List of Members of Congress Falsely Matched With Arrest Photos

Senate

• John Isakson (R-Georgia)
• Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts)
• Pat Roberts (R-Kansas)

House

• Sanford Bishop (D-Georgia)
• George Butterfield (D-North Carolina)
• Lacy Clay (D-Missouri)
• Mark DeSaulnier (D-California)
• Adriano Espaillat (D-New York)
• Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona)
• Thomas Garrett (R-Virginia)
• Greg Gianforte (R-Montana)
• Jimmy Gomez (D-California)
• Raúl Grijalva (D-Arizona)
• Luis Gutiérrez (D-Illinois)
• Steve Knight (R-California)
• Leonard Lance (R-New Jersey)
• John Lewis (D-Georgia)
• Frank LoBiondo (R-New Jersey)
• David Loebsack (D-Iowa)
• David McKinley (R-West Virginia)
• John Moolenaar (R-Michigan)
• Tom Reed (R-New York)
• Bobby Rush (D-Illinois)
• Norma Torres (D-California)
• Marc Veasey (D-Texas)
• Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio)
• Steve Womack (R-Arkansas)
• Lee Zeldin (R-New York)

*

Jacob Snow, Technology & Civil Liberties Attorney, ACLU of Northern California

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

ISIS is on the verge of full collapse in southern Syria. Over the past few days, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) led by the 4th Armoured Division and the Tiger Forces, have liberated over 30 villages and settlements from the terrorist group in the area west of Daraa city.

Government troops have liberated the towns of Saham al-Jawlan, Tasil, Hayt and Adwan, the villages of al-Jumou and Maziraa as well as multiple nearby points. Then, they also advanced in the direction of al-Shajara, which is one of the few remaining ISIS strong points.

A source in the 4th Armoured Division told SouthFront that over 600 ISIS members have been eliminated by the SAA, backed up by the Russian Aerospace Forces, since the start of the operation in the ISIS-held pocket.

75 ISIS members have been killed in the recent clashes between the SAA and ISIS in eastern al-Suwayda, according to the province’s governor Amer al-Ashi. He added that many civilians are still missing following the large-scale ISIS attack. According to the updated data, the civilian death toll as a result of the July 25 incident has grown to 215.

Hayyat Tahrir Ahrar al-Sham, Jabhat Tahrir Suriya, Suqour al-Sham and Faylaq al-Sham agreed to set up joint operational headquarters to prepare an attack on government forces positions in the Idlib de-escalation zone, the Russian Center for Reconciliation of the Warring Parties in Syria says. According to the Center, the attack may be carried out “simultaneously in several directions – the mountains of northern Latakia, al-Ghab valley on the border of Hama and Idlib provinces and areas west of Aleppo”.

According to Syrian sources, up to 6,000 members of militant groups could be involved in the expected attack. The Russian side is also expecting new provocations involving chlorine and other poisoning substances in the case of renewed clashes between the SAA and the militants.

On July 26, Aldar Khalil, co-president of the executive body of the Movement for a Democratic Society (TEV-DEM), told the Kurdish Rudaw TV that Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria are ready to participate in any military operation of the SAA in the province of Idlib if this brings them closer to retaking the Kurdish area of Afrin from Turkey-led forces.

TEV-DEM is a coalition of several Kurdish parties in northeastern Syria, including the well-known Democratic Union Party (PYD). Together these parties lead the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), which is the political wing of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

Khalil’s statement is another indication of the SDC’s attempts to improve relations with the Assad government, which have become complicated because of the tensions between Damascus and the US-led coalition.

*

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  

Throughout history, when it came down to international struggle, opposing sides would always seek for means to gain an advantage over the enemy. On top of improving combat readiness and tactics, there has been a countless amount of instances when states tried to drug their troops for them to prevail on the field of battle. Throughout centuries, soldiers were sent in battle intoxicated by all sorts of herbs and more conventional mind-altering substances, with various degrees of success.

How can one forget a small unnamed Breton village of indomitable Gauls, that managed to survive in the world dominated by the Roman empire due to a secret magical position that made its inhabitants undefeatable. Of course, we’re speaking about the famous French comic-book series Asterix. The main theme of this franchise was a secret poison brewed by an old druid that was making Asterix’s Gauls both invincible and irresistible.

It’s hardly a secret that any work of fiction usually has some background story to fuel the imagination of a creative mind. And Asterix is no exception, as opium derived from poppies was a very important substance to ancient Greeks. In one of the first and most influential poems in the history of mankind – Homer’s Odyssey we find customs of the past, like soldiers drinking wine mixed with opium after battles to calm their nerves and help themselves forget the horrors of war.

Further still, the mighty vikings that were raiding England’s coastal regions for centuries were known for using so-called magic mushrooms to enhance their performance in battle, the Amanita muscaria that is more commonly known as fly amanita. A famed Norwegian botanist Frederik Schübeler suggested that the vikings drank wine made from the mushrooms.

It’s curious that Napoleon’s legions that were believed to be unbeatable for the longest time were know for their heavy hashish use and alcohol abuse.

During the WWII Japan’s kamikaze pilots that were feared by the allied navy used methamphetamin that was first synthesized in 1893 by a Japanese scientist from the Ephedra sinica plant. The Nazis were also known for their heavy amphetamine abuse. However, they were not alone.

American troops would use amphetamines both during the Second World War and Vietnam catastrophy. According to the testimony of one of the survivors of these conflicts, drugs were distributed among the troops like candies. They were used to ensure that soldiers didn’t get combat fatigue, to make them feel wired, alert, invulnerable, and incredibly aggressive. They also needed less food and less sleep while they were high on amphetamines.

A case is known when during the American invasion of Afghanistan, a US Air Force pilot dropped bombs on the positions manned by the US-led coalition soldiers, killing four Canadian servicemen. His lawyer said that the defendant cannot be hold accountable for this act since he was high on amphetamines. He argued that pilots were not allowed to make sorties without taking drugs during the operation. In response, the US Air Force Command stated that pilots were making the decision to take amphetamines voluntarily.

According to some reports, even today American soldiers are forced to take psychotropic substances. Among those one can find Zodak and the Percocet painkiller, that is an opioid. Often US military personnel receives a stash of pills for a total of 180 days. However, psychotropic drug usage is the most common occurrence among the marines, since they usually find themselves deployed in actual war zones, among which one can find Iraq and Afghanistan.

It’s not really a surprise that a war on drugs in Afghanistan was lost from day one, since it was the Pentagon was put in command of the operation.

But we can not disregard the argument that a commonplace drug abuse in the US Armed Forces could also arise from the fact American soldiers are being subjected to all sorts of pharmaceutical experiments. For instance, Former Army Staff Sergeant Joe Biggs has recently revealed that US soldiers are forced to take drugs that may result in a serious addiction.

According to one of the Pentagon press conferences given in 2014, a considerable number of commanding officers dispatched at six air bases across the US and abroad was involved in drug distribution and use. Three of them carried out combat duties in Wyoming and Montana, where nuclear intercontinental land-based Minuteman missiles are deployed. The scandal affected the Air Force base Edwards and Vandenberg in California, Shriver in Colorado and RAF’s Lakenheath in the UK.

Currently, the American military spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to create “super soldiers” and part of that spending goes to chemical upgrades. One drug, sometimes called a wonder drug by the military, is modafinil. Modafinil is a psycho stimulant that enhances wakefulness.

It’s noteworthy that the track record of the country that stands at the head of the North Atlantic Alliance has numerous instances of such experiments. Among them is Project MK-Ultra, that was centered around the study of volunteers from the military personnel of the Edgewood base that were used for the study of marijuana and LSD effects on a human being in the period from 1955 to 1972. Until this very day the MK-Ultra remains classified, but it is known for a fact that these studies resulted in the creation of a combat psychotropic substance known as BZ. This chemical weapon was tested back in the day in Vietnam. Believe it or not, but the Swiss research center which was tasked with analyzing the samples taken by OPCW personnel at the site of the Salisbury incident, came to the conclusion that the Skripals were poisoned by the BZ agent, with it remaining in the disposal of the United States and British Armed Forces.

However, it would be naive to assume that American soldiers haven’t paid an incredibly high price for the enforced drug abuse, as most of them are now facing a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). However, as been reported by the CBS News, illegal drug use among US Navy SEALs is not just on the rise, but it is largely ignored by higher authorities. Even though there’s reports that due to the explosion of heroin and synthetic drug abuse the Pentagon deems it necessary to screen a little harder.

In the meantime, we have little choice but to hold our breath as we read reports published by the Canadian media, saying that American servicemen who were tasked with safeguarding nuclear missiles fulfill their duties while being high as a kite, distributing and abusing LSD and other psychotropic substances, without any form of control exercised by their superiors. So God only knows when those missiles may be launched one day, just for the sake of it.

*

Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

Featured image: The Power Shift 2011 rally targeted primarily the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for using its money and influence to stop climate and clean energy legislation. Credit: Linh Do, CC BY 2.0

Industry sectors based on fossil fuels significantly outspent environmental groups and renewable energy companies on climate change lobbying, new research has found.

In a study published today in the journal Climatic Change, Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle shows that between 2000 and 2016, lobbyists spent more than $2 billion trying to influence climate legislation in the U.S. Congress.

Analyzing data from lobbying reports made available on the website OpenSecrets.org, Brulle found that electric utilities spent the largest sums during this timeframe followed by the oil, gas, and coal industries, and transportation sector, respectively. Overall, lobbying by corporate sectors involved in the production or use of fossil fuels overshadowed that of environmental organizations and the renewable energy sector by a ratio of approximately 10 to 1.

Brulle acknowledges that the leading spenders do not take monolithic approaches and at times lobby in support of climate legislation.

“Different corporations typically push for whatever positions are advantageous to their economic well-being,” writes Brulle. He says that further research is required to parse out the effect of such variable lobbying positions on climate legislation.

Though climate lobbying only accounted for 3.9 percent of the total amount spent on legislative lobbying between 2000 to 2016, its rates fluctuated considerably. Early on, relatively little money — only about $50 million, or 2 percent of all lobbying — was spent trying to sway federal legislators’ opinions during the years leading up to and including 2006.

But in the years that followed, climate lobbying expenditures shot up, reaching a high point of $362 million in 2009, which accounted for 9 percent of all lobbying that year alone. The next year, 2010, saw only a slight drop, before climate lobbying efforts plunged, eventually reaching about 3 percent of total lobbying after 2011.

Of course, 2009 marked the year that the House of Representatives narrowly passed the landmark climate legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill. However, that effort died on the floor of the Senate just over a year later.

To explain these fluctuations, Brulle argues that climate lobbying grows as the potential to enact climate legislation increases.This is especially true when one party, that has campaigned on passing climate legislation, controls government – findings that have troubling implications for American democracy.

“What we have is a group of unelected lobbyists representing special interests negotiating with Congressional Representatives on climate legislation,” Brulle told DeSmog via email. “The minimal representation of environmental groups means that arguments for climate action to protect the common interest will be marginal considerations. Instead, special interests dominate the conversation, all working for a particular advantage for their industry. The common good is not represented.”

According to Brulle, that this has important implications for the fate, outcome, and nature of future climate legislation, which is largely determined by intra-sector and inter-industry competition. He says that the activities of environmental and nonprofit organizations often constitute one-time, short-term mobilization efforts. This is a clear disadvantage, given the vast expenditures and continuous and established presence of professional lobbyists in D.C.

“Lobbying is conducted away from the public eye. There is no open debate or refutation of viewpoints offered by professional lobbyists meeting in private with government officials,” writes Brulle. “Control over the nature and flow of information to government decision-makers can be significantly altered by the lobbying process and creates a situation of systematically distorted communication.”

Brulle told DeSmog his findings partially explain the lack of forceful action on the climate crisis in the U.S.

“For over 30 years, the science of climate change has been well understood,” he said. “But no meaningful action has been taken by the U.S.Lobbying by special interests has played a role in this outcome.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Russian defense industry sources have recently unveiled a massive, 20-ton stealth drone fighter to be flight-tested later this year — will be the prototype for their sixth-generation jet, according to TASS, a Russian state-owned media outlet.

According to the defense official, the sixth generation jet program “has not yet taken full shape, its main features are already known.”

“First of all, it should be unmanned and capable of performing any combat task in an autonomous regime. In this sense, the stealth drone will become the prototype of the sixth generation fighter jet,’ the source said, adding that the drone will be able to “take off, fulfill its objectives and return to the airfield.”

“However, it will not receive the function of decision-making regarding the use of weapons – this will be decided by a human,” he said.

TASS notes, in the report, that they were not able to officially confirm the information provided by the defense official.

Another defense expert told TASS that the single-engine Okhotnik (“Hunter” in Russian) stealth drone has a top speed of roughly 621 mph (.809 Mach), and would start flight tests in the second half of this year.

“The Russian Defense Ministry and the Sukhoi Company signed a contract for developing the 20-ton Okhotnik (Hunter) heavy unmanned strike aircraft in 2011. The drone’s mock-up model was made in 2014. According to unconfirmed reports, composite materials and anti-radar coating were used to create the Okhotnik. The drone is equipped with a reaction-jet propulsion and is supposed to develop a speed of 1000 kilometers per hour,” said TASS.

Earlier this month, Popular Mechanics published a picture of the Okhotnik, which was posted on a Russian aviation forum called paralay.iboards.ru.

On Tuesday, Defense One published another alleged picture of the Okhotnik aircraft.

Here is another photo of the stealth drone circulating defense forums.

Sam Bendett, a researcher at the CNA Corporation and a member of CNA’s Center for Autonomy and AI, told Defense One, “Sounds like Russia wants everything to be included into the new design at once. In reality, they will probably have to compromise, selecting more realistic qualifications for the new aircraft. Most importantly, this will be an expensive endeavor, further pushing Russian designers and the Ministry of Defense to be more selective in approving the final aircraft specs. However, some qualifications, like optional manning, autonomy and some form of artificial intelligence will probably be included.”

Bottom line, said Bendett: “Ohotnik is barely flying yet and some time will pass before it becomes an operational variant. Nonetheless, this unmanned aerial vehicle and Russia’s future combat aircraft plans offer a glimpse into Moscow’s thoughts on future warfare.”

Defense One notes that Russia’s new stealth jet could include radio-photon radar, anti-radar skin, directed energy and electromagnetic weapons, and have the ability to store missiles and precision-guided bombs internally.

While Russia appears to be building a sixth-generation aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-57, a twin-engine multirole fifth-generation jet fighter, has recently tested some sixth-generation systems, including the radio-photonic radar.

At this point, you are starting to develop the critical knowledge of how the next round of hybrid wars, expected to start in the mid-2020s will be fought.

* * *

As shown in the 53.5 Year War Cycle, there is an increasing probability that from now until the mid-2020s, domestic and international unrest remains elevated.

*

All images in this article are from Zero Hedge.