Featured image: Palestine’s green spaces are disappearing amid Israel’s settlement expansion and Palestinian construction [CJ Weaver]

It seems the lines of Israeli military occupation in 2018 have blurred across the West Bank to almost a permanent loss of vision for any future Palestinian state.

The Israeli settlement project in the West Bank has ballooned from the ramshackle grey trailers, haphazardly stacked on hilltops above roads winding through Area C connecting Palestinian cities in Area A, to more permanent red-roofed American-style suburban villas.

These are now built alongside the trailers of the early days of the West Bank’s military occupation, mutating into lines of concrete apartment blocks seemingly inspired by Mussolini-era Italian architecture. They advance down the ancient terraced hills to the roadsides marked by tall poles flying the Israeli flag positioned at regular intervals along Palestinian highways.

Ariel Sharon’s hill-top youth settler movement started in defiance of international law and has expanded as now-middle-aged suburbanites become a population of illegal apartment dwellers.

The Israelis refuse to see or accept their status as occupier and actively work as a force for annexation, with the ideology that this land will one day be theirs – or, for many, that it already is.

The Israeli state has constructed an extensive road-building programme in the Palestinian West Bank to link the settlements with Israel; roads that divide Palestinian villages from their farmlands.

The Israelis refuse to see or accept their status as occupier and actively work as a force for annexation, with the ideology that this land will one day be theirs – or, for many, that it already is

Currently the Israeli state is tunnelling through West Bank hills to build an underground railway to link Ariel settlement with Tel Aviv. This will further blur the boundaries of the state of Israel, further absorbing the territory that has been set aside for a future Palestinian state.

The Israeli road and settlement building programmes cause all kinds of confusion in what is a very small geographic area. The use and control of that space is divided along ethnic lines by the most powerful party to the conflict – the Israeli state.

As I look out of the car window when travelling through the West Bank, I see road signs throughout Area C written in Arabic and Hebrew. But the place names show only the Israeli settlement towns and the billboards in Area C advertise products in Hebrew.

The settlement projects plant non-native Italian pine trees on the slopes surrounding the settlements, that, it turns out, are wild fire hazards.

An ancient olive tree has been uprooted and transplanted onto a roundabout near the entrance of Ma’ale Adumim  just north of Al-Eizariya, a Palestinian town divided on paper into Areas B and C by the Oslo administrative lines.

The olive tree is supposed to imply the Israelis’ ancient connection with the land of Palestine.

We leave the bright green grass of the roundabout and drive into Al-Eizariya, which is on a bleak road made of car breakers and landfill sites and highly polluted with all kinds of toxic waste.

It is an semi-urban industrial environment where the Palestinian Authority has no mandate and the Israelis only involve themselves in the so-called “terror” issues.

All kinds of nefarious trades are said to be plied that are illegal in Israel and in areas under the Palestinian Authority. It is a no-man’s-land in some respects, a haphazard frontier marked by the mountains of broken cars and heaps of what looks like smashed up asbestos.

This is the area outside the city I am told has been set aside for the future “Palestinian Jerusalem” and it includes a steep canyon valley where effluent and waste is pumped and excreted daily.

As roads multiply in the West Bank, so does pollution and traffic

Since I was last in the West Bank in 2009, road traffic has multiplied. One of the main reasons is the cheap credit that is being made available to buy cars. One of my interviewees told me that her husband took out a loan, because “it is good for a man to have a car”. She added that having a car was useful for families living in remote areas.

But as roads multiply in the West Bank, so does pollution and traffic.

One effect I experience when travelling on the new roads is that of disorientation. I wondered how these re-routes impact Palestinian trade and livelihoods.

For many Palestinians, real estate is their only security, but due to building restrictions in Area C, the green spaces in Areas B and A are rapidly vanishing under ugly concrete buildings.

For many Palestinians, real estate is their only security

At the Palestinian Natural History Museum in the Bethlehem area, I somehow found myself showing a Palestinian scientist, her husband and children the exhibits, papers and books by the museum’s founder Dr Mazin Qumsiyeh.

We visit the owl kept in an aviary on the edge of the hill overlooking Bethlehem and Beit Sahour. The scientist grabs a handful of dried grass seed from a golden stalk and throws it up in the air.

“We used to throw grass seed on the backs of each other’s shirts when we played in the meadows around Bethlehem,” she tells me.

“We used to say that the amount of seeds that stuck to our backs were the amount of years we were going to live.

“My children don’t get to play games like that. In fact they don’t play outside much at all. We are losing all our green space. This is why I brought the children to the museum today, so they could learn something about nature.”

*

CJ Weaver is a researcher and writer specialising in Middle East conflicts, currently based in the occupied West Bank.

“Protecting our citizens and our nation remains the Justice Department’s top priority,” U.S. Attorney [Justin] Herdman said. “This defendant plotted and scouted locations in downtown Cleveland for an attack on July 4th, when he knew it would be packed with people celebrating our nation’s birthday. We will continue to do all we can to identify, arrest and prosecute those threats while working to keep our communities safe and secure.” – FBI press release, July 2, 2018

Well, that sounds like pretty good news, doesn’t it? The supposed July 4th attack sounds like it could have been horrendous, right? And your Justice Department saved us all yet again, right? That must be why the Justice Department headlined its press release:

Ohio Man Arrested for Attempting to Assist a Foreign Terrorist Organization With Homeland Attack Plot

Actually, no, that’s not quite what happened. This is fundamentally a big government lie. Actually, it’s a tissue of lies.

The government press release begins with some facts:

Demetrius Nathaniel Pitts, aka Abdur Raheem Rafeeq, aka Salah ad-Deen Osama Waleed, 48, of Maple Heights, Ohio, was charged with one count of attempting to provide material support to al Qaeda, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Pitts was arrested Sunday [July 1] by members of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

This press feed is well-framed to make readers think the worst – “al Qaeda” and “terrorist” and “Terrorism Task Force.” And all those aliases – that’s scary stuff. But what did Pitts actually do? And why only one count? And who else was involved? The details fail to live up to the hype.

Instead of clarifying the arrest, the press release then continues for its next four fat paragraphs with chest-thumping government officials offering bloated, irrelevant, and largely false rhetoric – “the dangerous threat posed by radical Islamic terrorism” and “plans to attack innocent civilians” and “working to keep our communities safe and secure.” This is all good, solid Orwellian language as it avoids lying without actually telling the truth. And it makes one wonder: Good lord, what on earth was Demetrius Pitts up to all by himself? According to the press release:

“Pitts, a U.S. citizen living in Ohio, pledged his allegiance to al-Qaeda, a foreign terrorist organization, and was planning to conduct an attack in Cleveland on Independence Day, the very day we celebrate the freedoms we have in this country,” said Special Agent in Charge [Stephen] Anthony. “The FBI commends the public for reporting individuals that espouse their radical beliefs and/or engage in behavior that threaten the lives of our military personnel and community.”

This is the only – mysterious – reference in the press release to thank “the public for reporting individuals.” And does the FBI now consider it a crime for people to “espouse their radical beliefs”? Isn’t that a radical belief? And does the thanks to informers mean that there was NO independent investigative work? The balance of the press release comprises a summary of a court-filed affidavit that completely supports such a conclusion. Apparently this heroic defense of public safety consisted of someone giving Pitts’s name to the FBI some time ago and the FBI then executing a sting operation bordering on entrapment (or more likely actual entrapment) of a man of less than full competence or significant ability. Not only that, it’s taken the FBI almost two and a half years to instigate Pitts to allegedly criminal action, as the FBI admits (indirectly) in its 31-page affidavit filed by Special Agent Andrew Wilson, a 22-year veteran assigned to the Cleveland Joint Terrorism Task Force:

6. On December 31, 2015, a Facebook profile for ABDUR RAHEEM RAFEEQ (which was ultimately determined to be PITTS) came to the FBI’s attention after RAFEEQ sent a private Facebook message to “The Craig Sewing Show,” a California-based political commentary program, stating: “Fuck America and there arm[sic] forces. The USA will be destroy. Allahu Akbar.”

First of all, this is all Constitutionally-protected free speech. Secondly, no serious terrorist is going to out himself to the Craig Sewing Show. What Pitts probably unwittingly did was to set himself up as a clay pigeon for the FBI to take potshots at. There is a long, shameful pattern of FBI agents manipulating marginal people into imaginary threats to build a bogus arrest record that actually undermines freedom by “defending” it. Who knows how many people rot in jail as “terrorists” only because they were entrapped by the FBI in “plots” that never actually existed as real-world threats? The FBI apparently ignored Pitts for a year until he made another post, on Facebook, according to the FBI affidavit:

7. On January 25, 2017, PITTS used his Facebook account Abdur Raheem Rafeeq (UID 100010669985661) to comment on pictures believed to be from a jihad training camp. PITTS posted, “We as Muslim need to start. Training like this everyday. We need to known how to shoot guns. Throw hand grenades hand to hand combat. How survey out in the woods. Look at the bed blue eyed devils. They teach their little dogs on how to shoot and Hunt. If you fear death. Then don’t say you love Islam. The Rasool saw said. We should always be prepared to fight in the name of Allah Akbar. All cowards stay home. Walsalaam. Abdur Raheem sahl Rafeeq. Allahu Akbar Allahu Akbar Allahu Akbar.”

The FBI slouched into action, reviewing Pitts’s Facebook account in February 2017 and observing it into June 2018. According to the affidavit, during those 16 months, the FBI believed Pitts was “threatening violence against the United States,” “expressed a desire to recruit people to kill Americans,” and was “willing to conduct a U.S. based attack.” The FBI took no action. Neither did Pitts.

As of early 2018, Demetrius Nathaniel Pitts, 48, an African-American US citizen, had apparently been living a quiet life in Willoughby, Ohio, about 19 miles east of Cleveland on Lake Erie. In May he apparently moved to Maple Heights, about 13 miles south of Cleveland. It’s not clear what he did for work, or whether he was employed. He apparently lived alone. After the FBI arrested Pitts, Diane Stoudemire, his aunt near Cincinnati, expressed bewilderment, even though she hadn’t heard from him in two years:

He’s never been a violent person, so that’s what I don’t understand…. He had had some problems with drugs and everything. He came up without his father, which is my brother, that was killed before Demetrius was born. His mother passed away while Demetrius was in penitentiary, so he’s been having such a hard time….

Diane Stoudemire said Pitts lived “on the fringe” of society, but had no idea he’d been living near Cleveland:

We’ve been worried about him, because I was his favorite aunt. And he used to would come to me, and I haven’t heard from Demetrius in a few years…. He was a good person. I never knew him to get in no trouble, like hurting somebody or fighting or anything. Anything he ever done was to himself.

According to the FBI at a July 2 press conference, Pitts has a criminal history that includes felonious assault and aggravated robbery in 1989, when he was 19. He served less than a year before being released on probation. He was arrested in 2006 but charges were dismissed. He was arrested again in 2007, convicted on a theft charge, and placed on probation. He was arrested in 2016 for absconding from probation in 2009.

On June 18, everything started to change from bad to worse for Pitts. That was the day the FBI sent an undercover agent to meet with Pitts in Willoughby and surreptitiously recorded their conversation (excerpted in the FBI affidavit). The conversation is full of violent fantasy to which the FBI agent contributes, but nothing like a plan or even a credible threat emerges. Pitts makes it clear that he has not joined al Qaeda but would take a test to join. The FBI agent suggests a test: “take out a soldier? A US Army soldier?” Pitts responds: “He dead. He dead. He dead. It’s like I said.” Then Pitts seems to back off the idea. They go through a similar loop talking about killing a Marine. Nothing is decided, or even promised. Pitts does not ask the FBI agent to prove he’s from al Qaeda.

On June 22, the FBI agent met with Pitts in Walton Hills and surreptitiously recorded the conversation (excerpted in the affidavit). The FBI agent starts with a pitch that fits an effort at entrapment:

And so that’s part of, part of the question. Part of the in and out is understanding what al Qaeda is about and then wanting to know are you willing to, I mean any brother that’s gonna be in al Qaeda has to be willing to do all the things that we’ve already talked about…. That’s why I mean, I mean, I mean I’m excited I went back but of course the brothers, they wanna build trust by steps. And they’re willing to send a brother out to meet you but we gotta make, we gotta get to that level too. The other thing too is I mean there is, there is risk with all this and that’s why we gotta, we gotta start somewhere. I mean I think we are there but I gotta go back and convince…. I mean I think that can happen pretty soon. But-but this is, but I think this is what this is a big thing that was asked of me cause I told him I told him about hey the value in the knife fighting. The possibility of like what we talked about last time. Finding places where we could get in and set up a bomb. I mean if they provide the bomb maker and we find the path in. Then man, dude we can do, I mean you wanna talk about if doing something like that, that from, from, from within, that will shake them more than 9/11 . 9/11 mashallah was amazing.

Pitts doesn’t buy into any this. He volunteers that he been thinking about the 4th of July, but nothing specific. Pitts says:

“I’m trying to figure out something that would shake them up on the 4th of July…. See I-I that’s why I like chess.”

Pitts mentions “a bomb to blow up at the 4th of July parade,” then rejects it because of too many surveillance cameras in the city. The FBI agent abets the “planning” by googling a map of downtown Cleveland. Later the same day, the FBI agent promises to provide Pitts with a bus pass and a cell phone.

On June 25, a second FBI agent posing as “a trusted ‘brother’” met with Pitts in Maple Heights, delivering the bus pass and cell phone.

On June 26, Pitts texted the first FBI agent that he had scouted out downtown Cleveland, as discussed. Pitts said he planned to go to Philadelphia (his hometown) for further surveillance. The FBI agent talked to Pitts on the phone and asked if Pitts was going through with the July 4th plan that other “brothers” were building devices for. The conversation was inconclusive.

On June 27, Pitts met with the second agent posing as a “brother” and turned in his cell phone. The second agent gave Pitts a black flag as a terrorist symbol. Later the same day, Pitts met with the first FBI agent for two and a half hours to discuss “the impending July 4th bombing” (according to the FBI affidavit). Pitts says he’s going to spend the day July 3 casing the surroundings, “We’re just takin’ pictures, takin’ video.” Pitts says he wants to see the explosion on the 4th and the FBI agent says:

You wanna see it – you wanna see that fireball go flying – you wanna see the body parts flying into the sky?… Alright. Well you know what? Like where we were standing when you can overlook the whole lake, off by that – on top of that parking garage, you can get a pretty good view from way up there.

At this point in the affidavit, neither party has specified just what kind of bomb might be used and they’ve discussed a number of possibilities. They have no specific target. The FBI agent seems confused: “Oh, so you’re talking like uh – like uh full car bomb in the whole van.” Pitts, who has no way of knowing about and no connection with any bomb, agrees. The FBI agent says: “Alright. I mean this is a – we’re going from a remote control car bomb to a full size van.” Pitts seems to agree but talks about the remote control toy cars with bombs. This seems to fluster the FBI agent, the conversation wanders, “this is gonna take an adjustment and my plan was for the – well what we kinda – they gonna bring in the bomb guy for us….” They seem to reassure each other that they’re going through with the plan even though they haven’t settled on the plan. Pitts isn’t planning to be involved with the bombing directly:

My part is just to go scope, get the information we need, and bring it back…. See you gotta have Brothers who don’t nobody never see. Like I don’t wanna meet all the Brothers. No.

The FBI agent agrees to this. Later in the day, Pitts texted the FBI agent that the plan was impossible, too much security. Pitts talks about pushing on, maybe in Philadelphia:

Ahki (brother) I want to do this by myself. I have no reason to live. Since I know Philly very well. All I need from the brother. Is some chicken eggs that go [emojis inserted that appear to be explosions]. I will put my life on the line. This will be done in September labor day. Just help me get there. So ahki you must show me. How to drive again. Now can you do that. You don’t need to be in this. Ahki you have a family. So keep your hands clean ahki.

On June 28, on the direction of the first FBI agent, Pitts carried out instructions relating to the imaginary bombing, including searching for a vehicle. Pitts said a purchase would be difficult because he’d have to provide a driver’s license. The FBI agent suggested a strawman purchase. Pitts found several possible vehicles, but bought none.

June 30, the FBI agent “told Pitts that the attack Pitts planned in Cleveland for July 4th was a “go” and that the al Qaeda brothers were happy with Pitts’ plan for Cleveland” (according to the FBI affidavit), even though there was still no clear record of any specific plan. The FBI agent egged Pitts on with false promises of a “large explosion … on behalf of al Qaeda.”

On July 1, the FBI agent met with Pitts in Garfield Heights to learn what plan Pitts had for Philadelphia. Pitts explained he was still planning an attack that he wanted to be bloody. The FBI showed Pitts a “remote control car … [that] contained C-4 explosives and BB’s” rigged by the FBI, a toy that could roll under a police vehicle. Pitts freely speculated on uses for remote control cars as well as a larger bomb that he assumed existed. The meeting ended with his arrest.

On July 2, the Justice Department issued its deceitful press release, claiming to have protected the country from a fearsome terrorist attack, even though the FBI knew that attack was never even close to taking place, and even though the FBI knew Pitts had zero capability of carrying it out on his own. The FBI makes no claim to the contrary, but merely asserts the sort-of-true claim that Pitts “did knowingly attempt to provide material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization.” The FBI does not acknowledge that the “foreign terrorist organization” was an FBI fiction and that Pitts’s attempt was based on a delusion.

The FBI filings make very clear that no terrorism and no threat of terrorism existed before the FBI decided to pump one up, using a troubled, angry, isolated black man as its pawn to inflate its own institutional ego with fake news. And the news media bought the fake news as presented, uncritically parroting the FBI spin that they stopped an attempted terror attack.

CNN: Man accused of plotting terror attack on July 4th parade in Cleveland

New York Times: Man Arrested in Cleveland Terror Plot After F.B.I. Sting

ABC News: Man accused of planning terrorist attack in Cleveland had San Francisco travel plans

USA Today: FBI: Man who planned attack on Cleveland wanted to give explosive-filled cars to military children

And so it went across the news media, with a presumption of guilt fostered by FBI lies taken at face value. FBI agent Stephen Anthony set the tone for media coverage:

Law enforcement cannot sit back and wait for Mr. Pitts to commit a violent attack…. We don’t have the luxury of hoping an individual decides not do harm someone or get others to act.

This is disingenuous to the point of deceit. This is a totalitarian mindset. Anthony knows full well that Pitts has never committed a terrorist act, that Pitts has never attempted a terrorist act, that Pitts is known to have “planned” a terrorist act only with FBI incitement. The FBI knows it has no evidence that Pitts is even capable of committing a terrorist act. Based on the available evidence, Pitts has done nothing worse than exercise his First Amendment rights in politically incorrect ways, expressing deep anger and hostility toward the US for its endless slaughter or Muslims. What Pitts was incoherently expressing was rage at his own country’s terrorism. For that, his country makes him the terrorist.

That’s not a reality that many Americans can perceive from their 9/11-induced fear bubble (that the FBI cleverly invoked). The hysteria of 9/11 has not abated much. We continue to spend endless millions on terrorism task forces, so of course they’re going to find terrorists even where there are none – that’s their job. And if they can’t find terrorists, they’ll invent them as they did with Demetrius Pitts, who was essentially helpless once the FBI targeted him. His case should bring shame to anyone serious about law enforcement and justice. Instead it has brought on nothing better than official empty strutting and craven media credulity.

As for Demetrius Pitts, he has been serially lynched – first by life, which could happen to anyone. But then he was lynched by an FBI in search of easy prey, next he was lynched by the Justice Department in search of easy praise, and now he is being lynched by news media in search of easy answers. In due course, he will likely be lynched by the court system and then by the prison system.

This case is what societal failure looks like. Police-state tactics can railroad an innocent man and no one questions the police state’s flimsy official story.

*

This article was originally published on Reader Supported News.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theater, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Featured image is from Blasting News.

The Skripals and a New Novichok Affair: No End in Sight?

July 6th, 2018 by Dr. Ludwig Watzal

There was another Novichok attack on a couple that was found unconsciously at their British home in Amesbury, UK, close to Salisbury where the Skripals were found sleeping on a park bench after being attacked by a nerve agent. After leaving the hospital, the Skripals are blocked off from the public.

Just recently, another couple was found at their apartment, unconsciously. It only lasted one day that the British Home Secretary Sajid Javid called on Russia to explain what happened in Amesbury. One must rub one’s eye and ask, what’s going on in Theresa May’s United Kingdom. The Brits have not solved the Skripal incident; they took the same line in the Amesbury affair. Perhaps the May government doesn’t have their intelligence services under control.

Already the Skripal affair didn’t make any political sense. To blame Russia and Putin for the attack seems to be a diversionary maneuver to boycott the World Cup. The new staged affair aims at Russia’s possible win of the World Cup. The West wants to spoil, at least emotionally, Russia’s success of hosting the world as a guest among friends. 

The German media are extremely biased towards Russia. Most of the reporting was negative. Instead of talking about Russia’s enormous achievements to host the world’s best football teams, the German newspapers wrote about corruption, doping and their like. 

After Germany failed, the German TV-commentators had nothing better to do than talking about Russia’s shortcomings instead of criticizing German Team Couch Loew’s miserable team performance. Immediately, the mainstream media swayed into an anti-Russian mode. This anti-Russian mode will presumably pick up the pace after the Brits try to blame this newly staged incident again on Russia.

Instead of resigning immediately, the German couch Loew stays on such as Chancellor Angela Merkel who is hard-pressed not only by her coalition partner, the Christian Social Union, but also by the opposition parties. Merkel is isolated among the European Union member states that hold her responsible for the division of Europe because of her irresponsible and anti-constitutional immigration policy.

What works best in the West is anti-Russian propaganda. Now the Brits are constructing a case that the couple might have come in touch with a container in which Novichok was brought to Britain. Isn’t it very strange that the new incident just happened a few miles away from Salisbury? Just aside Salisbury there is a British chemical factory that produces Novichok itself. 

So far, the British government has not presented any evidence of the first Novitchok attack against the Skripals not to speak of the new incidence. Nonetheless, the media has already stigmatized a foreign enemy. Instead of asking questions about the role of their own intelligence agencies or the involvement of foreign ones, in the end, Russia will be the perpetrator. The Brits are using a cookie-cutter approach; ‘You just have to repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth.’

Haven’t MI5 and MI6 a vast criminal record, not to speak of the CIA, the Mossad, the French and the German secret services? But for the Western media, these institutions are sacrosanct, although they are criminal by definition. This time, the staged coup by the British government will not garner any international support like in the made-up Skripal affair. If the media delivered the goods, they would show up for this fraud. But the media in the Western world have a very closely related relationship with the ruling classes, they support and legitimize their positions. Like in the new Novichok affair, the truth is relative, pick one that works.  

*

Dr. Ludwig Watzal is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Sky News.

Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJV) is dismayed to learn that a Canadian student has been arrested by Israeli forces for protesting the impending demolition of the Palestinian-Bedouin village of Khan Al-Ahmar in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Michaela Lavis, 21, a Child and Youth Studies student at Ryerson University in Toronto, had joined Palestinian, Israeli and international human rights activists at the demonstration on Thursday morning. Lavis was part of a group of mainly foreigners who attempted to block one of the bulldozers by sitting in a line chained together in front of it. A staff-person with the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem was also arrested at the demonstration.

Lavis had been volunteering in the West Bank city of Ramallah with the human rights organization Defence for Children International-Palestine. She had also been volunteering with an occupational therapist who provides support to special needs children.

The United Nations, European Union, Britain and France have all demanded that Israel halt plans to demolish the village. They noted that destroying the village would be an absolute contravention of International Humanitarian Law, which strictly prohibits the destruction or confiscation of private property by an occupying power.

The United Church of Canada is also campaigning to stop the demolition of the village, calling on Canadians to write to MPs urging the Canadian government to intervene.

Human rights activists, including Canadian Michaela Lavis, before being arrested by Israeli authorities in Khan Al-Ahmar

Khan Al-Ahmar residents belong to the Jahalin tribe of Bedouin. The Jahalin were forcibly expelled by Israeli forces to the West Bank from what is now southern Israel in the 1950s. Now, the Jahalin are again faced with compulsory transfer; this time to make way for illegal Israeli settlement expansion in the area. Israel’s plan is to transfer Khan Al-Ahmar’s 180 residents to an area adjacent to a garbage dump.

“As though demolishing their village wasn’t egregious enough, Israel had decided to add insult to injury by transferring residents to a nearby trash dump,” said Corey Balsam, IJV National Coordinator. “This sadly paints a rather accurate picture of the Israeli state’s complete disregard for Palestinian life.”

Israel claims that it is within its right to demolish the village, since the residents did not obtain construction permits, a requirement for Palestinians living in Area C. Area C accounts for more than 60% of the West Bank and is under full Israeli civil and military control.

“Israel’s claim that they are doing this because of a lack of permits is a bogus excuse. There is no way they would have given permits to Khan Al-Ahmar residents and they know that,” said Balsam.

Israel’s objective in demolishing the village is widely known and has been the subject of years of diplomatic pressure. By expanding its settlements in the area, Israel plans to split the Palestinian West Bank into two and isolate East Jerusalem from West Bank Palestinian, thereby making the possibility of a Palestinian state even less likely.

“IJV calls for the Canadian government to push for the immediate release of Michaela Lavis and to join its European allies in demanding that Israel immediately halt the demolition of Khan Al-Ahmar,” concluded Balsam.

China’s pioneering initiative to institutionalize trade rules and dispute mechanisms for its New Silk Road is especially impactful in making the World Trade Organization irrelevant in and of itself, but when combined with Trump’s recent moves away from this globalist body, it has the effect of dealing what might be a deathblow to the group and leading to its ultimate replacement with a Beijing-led model.

Sputnik republished a piece from China’s official Communist Party media outlet the Global Times reporting the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and law society’s joint efforts in streamlining trade rules and dispute mechanisms for the New Silk Road. The article goes on to describe the various functions that Beijing is trying to incorporate into the as-yet-unnamed body that it’s presumably trying to form, which includes:

  • “cooperation related to financing, taxation, transportation, intellectual property rights, labor and counter-terrorism;
  • treaty-based mechanisms or institutions to prevent and resolve disputes and to strengthen mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters;
  • and establishing an online platform that provides information on foreign laws and judicial cases.”

All of the above competencies are pretty much already carried out by the World Trade Organization (WTO), of which China and the vast majority of its partners are members, drawing into question what it is that Beijing wants to achieve by constructing a different institution that redundantly repeats the same tasks as the existing one. Before addressing China’s motives, it’s worthwhile to put everything into its proper international context.

Trump’s recent spree of threats to either ignore the rules of the same WTO that the US itself helped found or pull out of the body completely because of its perceived bias against America’s national interests threatens to create an irreplaceable leadership void in the organization. Instead of continuing to invest in its efforts to gradually co-opt various members and reform this US-created body from within, China apparently made the decision that it’s easier to build its own institutional trade structure.

Up until recently, China had been simultaneously pursuing the two contradictory tasks of trying to reform the WTO and building a replacement to it, which provided the country with as many choices as possible for flexibly reacting to fast-changing scenarios in international affairs, but the latter goal is now taking precedence following Trump’s signals that he’ll be downgrading the globalist body’s importance in influencing America’s new semi-protectionist economic policies that largely run counter to the same rules the US itself originally promulgated.

The unravelling of the WTO could lead to widespread economic uncertainty across the world that would endanger China’s interests, which is why its leadership was prudent enough to implement the back-up plan of building a possible Silk Road replacement to it in case this scenario ever came to fruition. It could also be argued that China might have also had very long-term plans of replacing it all along, preferring to operate within its own international body as opposed to one created by the US.

Whatever its motivations may have been, the objective reality is that China’s preexisting efforts to build an international body whose competencies are largely redundant with the WTO’s contributed to Trump’s plans to render this globalist entity largely irrelevant, with both Great Power rivals uncoordinatedly pursuing the same ends of dismantling Western Globalization for drastically different reasons altogether. Trump wants to replace this system with what could be described the “Washington Consensus 2.0” whereas China wants to advance its vision of Silk Road Globalization.

About the first replacement model, Trump wants to reassert the US as the world’s most dominant economy by removing all the trade loopholes that his predecessors wrote into law for reasons of self-enrichment & Liberal-Globalist ideology and therefore return to an era of largely bilateral economic agreements that put “America First” in all respects. China, meanwhile, wants to solidify its role as the engine of South-South economic integration and a viable alternative to the US, whose previous Washington Consensus model of leadership is now largely distrusted by most of the world.

To paraphrase the famous line from American cowboy movies, the WTO isn’t big enough for the US’ Washington Consensus 2.0 and China’s Silk Road Globalization, which is why both Great Powers are seeking to replace it in the New Cold War. The US doesn’t really see much of a need for the WTO when its preexisting multilateral trade arrangements can devise custom-tailored solutions for resolving disputes between members and Washington wants to focus more on bilateral partnerships going forward anyhow, while China is eager to replace this Western-built institution originally designed to advance American interests with its own Silk Road construction better suited for its own.

The end result is that China, just like Trump, is working to make the WTO irrelevant, though in the grand scheme of things, that might not actually be a bad thing for anyone apart from the elite stakeholders invested in indefinitely perpetuating this seemingly outdated system.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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


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

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

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

The Balkanization of South America

July 6th, 2018 by Peter Koenig

During the recent meeting in Caracas of the Venezuelan Presidential Economic Advisory Commission, in mid-June 2018, President Maduro said something extremely interesting, but also extremely disturbing – nonetheless highly important for the region to be aware of.

Mr. Maduro mentioned Yugoslavia, the foreign induced local conflicts, the breakup and dismemberment of Yugoslavia, starting with the “Ten Days War” on Slovenia in 1991, the Croatian War (1991-95); the Bosnia War (1992-95); the Kosovo War (1998-99), culminating with the Clinton induced 69-day NATO bombing of Kosovo, under then European NATO leader Wesley Clark (today the Repentant – in retrospect it’s easy to be sorry), pretending to save the Kosovo Albanians from Serbian Milosevic’s atrocities. How Milosevic served as a patsy for the imperial forces is another story.

All of this would not have been possible without a decade long preparation by several Fifth Columns infiltrated and trained in and outside of Yugoslavia, the only country in Europe that in the 1980s and 90s flourished, with general wellbeing above that of the average Europeans, who were suffering recessions and increasing inequality, the beginning of xenophobia in the age of nascent neoliberalism. There was no extreme poverty in Yugoslavia, but prosperity without excesses for everybody. There was economic growth under a loose Mao-model socialism which could, of course, not be allowed to persist, lest it might serve the world as an example. Besides – the breakup of Yugoslavia into chaos was needed to create mini-states that are in conflict with each other, some of them still today, and that could be ‘accommodated’ against a hefty ‘fee’, of course, to accept the installation of NATO bases – ever an inch closer to Moscow’s door step.

Well, Mr. Maduro saw and sees it clearly. History repeats itself all too often, especially when it comes in the form of western neoliberal-neofascist atrocities, as people’s memories are dulled with lie-propaganda. In fact, there is hardly any real news, only ‘fake news’ in the western mainstream media. Mr. Maduro envisions that “their” plan for Latin America is similar to what “they” did to Yugoslavia. He is probably right. All signs point into this direction.

A pact between Colombia and NATO, a so-called “Security Cooperation Agreement” was first signed in June 2013 – but prepared way before. Records of first communications to this effect, by Juan Manual Santos, then President of Columbia – and Peace Laureate in 2016 for his traitorous Peace Agreement between the Colombian Government and FARC (vaya-vaya! Doesn’t this speak volumes by itself?), can be traced back to the early 2012.

Source: NATO

President Hugo Chavez was the first one to warn his Latin American partners of the imminent clandestine infiltration of NATO into South America. Nobody listened. Today it’s a fact – too late to fight against. NATO troops are occupying gradually all seven American military bases in Colombia. They are just simply converting from US to NATO bases – sounds more palatable than US bases – for sure. In the minds of unfortunately still most uninformed or mal-informed people, NATO stands for security. NATO – the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – in South America, what an oxymoron! – Well, it is the same ‘security’ farce as is NATO in Afghanistan and bombing the Middle East.

Venezuela is full with Fifth Columnists. They are the ones that facilitate the highly speculative and inflationary manipulation from Miami of the black-market US dollar rate in the streets of Caracas; they are the ones that emulate the food shortages in Chile 1973, successfully disappearing duly paid-for imported merchandise, mostly food and medical supplies, ending up as smuggle-ware in Colombia, leaving empty supermarket shelves in Venezuela. All meant to instigate people to stand up against their government.

So far, this strategy has failed bitterly. On 20 May 2018, President Maduro has been overwhelmingly re-elected, under the most internationally observed elections the world has ever experienced – and the result was “the cleanest, most democratic elections we have witnessed in our history of worldwide 92 election observations” – so the US-based Carter Institute.

Yet, the Fifth Columnists are relentless. Worldwide. They are immersed in the government apparatus, institutions, military, police – even Parliament – and very important in the financial system, possible in the central bank. They “allow”, or rather promote, the manipulation of the US-dollar black market, causing sky-rocketing inflation and lack of food and medicine on supermarket shelves. They disrupt electricity, internet and water services. The approach is similar in every country that refuses to bend to the empire’s dictate. In Russia, Iran, China, Syria, South Sudan, possibly even in Cuba – they are in control of the financial system – that’s also how they are easily being financed, through the dollar-based monetary fraud of the west, to which most countries still have some links – fortunately every day less.

Take Russia, the Central Bank is still largely run by the Fifth Columnists, whose ‘chief’ is Putin’s just recently re-appointed Prime-Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, an arch-Atlantist. The structure of the Russian Central Bank is even today mainly a remnant of the Russian Reserve Bank, designed by the FED after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with the help of the UN-masked Bretton Woods crooks, the IMF, World Bank.

Similarly, part of the masked international promoters of instability, are the Bretton Woods regional associates, the so-called regional development banks, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), African Development Bank (AfDB) and their sub-regional cohorts. In the nineties, the Gang was joined by WTO – the World Trade Organization. And here they are, the world’s three most hated international UN-backed financial and trade organizations, IMF, World Bank and WTO. All three are promoting fundamentalist “free-marketeering” across the globe, especially throughout the southern hemisphere (though Greece and southern Europe do not escape), indebting and enslaving countries to the western corporate oligarchs. All well-structured to control the world’s financial system – so as to march towards world hegemony of a One World Global Economy. We are almost there, though not quite yet. There is always hope. Man’s last shred to hang on to life is HOPE. And only Man can translate hope into reality. So, as long as we have life, it’s not too late.

Why is it so difficult, say – impossible to get rid of them, the Fifth Columnists, the vermin of any unaligned political system? – Why did President Putin re-assign Medvedev as his PM? – Mr. Putin knows that he supports a network of Atlantist oligarchs that seek nothing more than to ‘putsch’ him, Mr. Putin – and ultimately to destroy the rather egalitarian, though capitalist-based, economic system Russia has enjoyed for the last almost 20 years – becoming self-sufficient in agriculture, food, industry, high-tech science, pharmaceuticals. – Russia has developed herself into an exemplary “Resistance Economy”, ready to be emulated by any western-named ‘rogue’ state that is sick and tired of the Empires boots and bombs and forced ‘democracies’ through ‘regime change’.

There are many western countries that just wait for a leader – one that moves head-on. Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, are shining examples. They are gradually escaping the yoke of the dollar-dominated western economy.

So, why are countries like Russia, Iran and maybe Venezuela afraid to get rid of their Fifth Columnists? For fear of a civil war, of a blood bath? Yes, we have seen the violent unrest they caused in preparation of the two major democratic elections in Venezuela in the last 12 months, the National Constituent Assembly (30July 2017) and the Presidential Elections on 20 May 2018, when altogether close to 200 people died. The media immediately blamed the death on police and military oppression and violence – but the only armed protesters were those armed and funded by Washington, and responsible for more than 80% of the death. Chavistas cheered for their Government with their bare fists.

The question remains in the room – why does Mr. Putin not get rid of them, the Fifth Columnists? – Would they cause a civil, war? –  It seems to me they wouldn’t have sufficient supporters in Russia, but they could disrupt the internal economy, as the Russian internal financial systems – especially private banking – is still in the hands of these Atlantists. They are also in China, but it appears that President Xi Jinping has better control of them.

How about Iran? Why are they still able to hold on to and fight for ‘western deals’, i.e. the upholding of the Nuclear Deal that Trump has stepped out from and now is sanctioning Iran ‘with the most severe sanctions the world has ever seen’ – sounding similar to what he said to Mr. Kim Jong-un, the ‘Little Rocket Man’, with whom Trump then made peace a few weeks later? – Or something like it. One never knows with the Donald, what’s the meaning of Trump’s trumpeting, other than screwing up alliances and creating physical and sociopsychological chaos. He is also threatening European corporations, mostly oil companies, with heavy sanctions if they dare maintaining their contracts with Iran.

Many cave in. Among them, the French-UK owned Total, Italy’s Eni and Saras, Spain’s Repsol and Greece’s Hellenic Petroleum. In the case of Total, according to the director of the Venezuelan branch, instead of filling their contracts with US-“fracking” oil, as Trump would expect, they are negotiating with Russia, to fulfill their obligations in Europe and elsewhere. “We cannot trust Brussels to fend for us, therefore we have to fend for ourselves”, the Total representative said.

Iran doesn’t really need the Europeans to buy their oil. Europe constitutes only about 20% of the Iranian hydrocarbon market – an amount easily taken up by China. The same with other European corporations that may choose similar ways of self-protection – cutting ties with Iran – like the Peugeot-Citroen automobile giant – Iran doesn’t need them. That these sanctions and EU corporate reactions to the US sanctions, are causing hardship and unemployment in Iran – is just western propaganda, a vast exaggeration, at worst a temporary affair. As Mr. Rouhani said – we might go through a short period of difficulties but will recover rapidly by becoming self-sufficient. And that’s true. Iran is well embarked on their “Economy of Resistance”, aiming at self-sufficiency through import-substitution and orienting themselves towards eastern markets.

In fact, Iran is already part of the Eurasian Economic Community and will soon become a full-fledged member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). – So – why can Iran not get rid of their Fifth Columnists? – This is a question I can only answer with “fear from bloody civil unrest, prompting possibly western military intervention”.

Back to Venezuela – it could be similar fears that prevent the Maduro Government from taking drastic actions, like declaring a temporary state of emergency and drastic measures of de-dollarization to stop inflation and speculation, and strengthen the local currency, the Bolivar, by backing it with their internationally accepted cryptocurrency, the Petro.

On 20 May 2018, six million Venezuelan’s mostly Chavistas, voted overwhelmingly for President Maduro and his Government, a 68% majority, representing a solid block of people supporters. If you have the choice between an artificially made-to-starve population and a crumbling what used to be a solid block of 6 million Chavistas behind you – but gradually disappearing because of lacking actions by the government – what do you do? – Perhaps the only way is to economically isolate the Fifth Columnists or Atlantists, despite their apparent control of the economic system. What Atlantists are actually controlling is the dollar-based economy. Quitting the dollar-base, they may become rather powerless.

Venezuela faces a dire dilemma: Die or be killed. Venezuela has already started moving out of the dilemma, with the creation of the totally dollar-detached Petro, the government controlled blockchain currency based on hydrocarbons and precious minerals. Today, Venezuela imports about 70% of their food, and guess from where? – You guessed right – from the US of A. Thus, de-dollarization at first sight is a challenge.

Therefore, a massive diversification of imports, and efforts to become food self-sufficient, is in the order. Venezuela has the agricultural potential to become 100% food self-sufficient. In the meantime, Russia, China and other Eurasian countries will substitute. Venezuela may apply for SCO membership. Why not? After all, China has already about 50 billion dollars’ worth of investments in Venezuela, mostly in hydrocarbons, and just declared making another 5-billion-dollar equivalent loan to refurbish the Venezuelan petrol industry. China and Russia have big stakes in Venezuela, an excellent defense strategy. Now, Venezuela’s membership in the SCO would be another big step away from the dollar economy.

The Balkanization of Latin America is already happening. When Mr. Maduro referred to the 7 US bases in neighboring Colombia, aka, now NATO bases, with a porous 1,500 km (out of a total of 2,000 km) uncontrollable jungle border with Venezuela, and even open and welcoming borders with Peru, Ecuador and Brazil, he said it all. It will be easy to suffocate any uprising – NATO will do it, by now the generally accepted world police, as generally accepted as the recently intact, totally unelected and self-appointed world government, the G7. They are now crumbling, thanks heaven for Mr. Trump’s egocentric pathology, his “Let’s make America Great Again”; and thanks to Mr. Putin’s non-intervening but strategic sideline observance.

Will Trump continue to provide majority support for NATO? He recently warned the Europeans to contribute their share, i.e. increasing their NATO contribution to 2% of their GDP – or else. Well, what is “else”? – Reducing NATO, an enormous cost to the US? – And counting on the CIA-trained and NED-funded destabilizing insurgents (NED = National Endowment for Democracy, a state department financed “regime change’ and “democratization” NGO) throughout the world? – Insurgents in alliance with the local Atlantists? Will this be enough in a rapidly changing international monetary and payment system.

The US scheme for Balkanizing Latin America, and by extension the world, is as porous as the 1,500 km long tropical forest border between Colombia and Venezuela. The hegemony of the dollar-economy hangs in the balance. Only drastic actions by victimized but courageous countries, like Venezuela, Iran and Russia can break the balance and destroy the western monetary hegemony.

*

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


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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.

Are you stupid enough to believe that American voters elected Trump president because Vladimir Putin influenced them to vote for Russia’s candidate? The US Senate Intelligence (sic) Committee is that stupid. This collection of nitwits actually produced a report that a few ads allegedly placed online on Putin’s instructions, ads that did not cost one-hundredth of one percent of the huge sum spent by the candidates themselves, both national committees and everyone else, were decisive in influencing voters who never saw the ads in the first place or read or responded to tweets.

That a Senate Committee would expect anyone to believe such a far-fetched story shows that the Senate Intelligence (sic) Committee has no respect whatsoever for the people who elected President Trump, or, for that matter, for anyone else at home or abroad.

This Senate report is the most incredible BS I have every encountered in my life. There is no evidence whatsoever in the report. Only assertions. And most of these are based on “open-source” internet postings by trolls and bots financed by the military/security complex and Democratic Party.

What the report actually tells us is that no member of the Senate Intelligence Committee has enough intelligence or integrity to serve in the US Senate. It is the Senate Intelligence Committee that is a disgrace to America and to the entire human race.

RT has great fun with the collection of nitwits that comprise the Senate Intelligence Committee.

On this Fourth of July, how can anyone be a Proud American?

*

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

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

Featured image is from PRP Channel.

Novichok Hoax 2.0?

July 6th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

Another alleged UK novichok poisoning incident is red meat for Russophobic Western officialdom, so-called experts enlisted to serve them, and supportive media pundits, – virtually always going along with the official narrative no matter how outlandish or unlawful.

According to Britain’s top counterterrorism official Neil Basu, two UK citizens were found unconscious in Amesbury, England, allegedly exposed to the same deadly novichok nerve agent as the Skripals last March.

A man and woman identified as Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess are hospitalized in critical condition. According to UK police, it’s unclear how the two affected individuals came in contact with whatever made them seriously ill, or whether they were targeted.

Western media jumped on the incident, suggesting Russian responsibility. Novichok is virtual code language for alleged Kremlin involvement.

Here are some screaming finger-pointing headlined reports:

The NYT: “Two British citizens have been critically sickened by the same nerve agent, Novichok, that was used to poison a former Russian spy and his daughter four months ago.”

Washington Post: “Two more victims of Soviet-era nerve agent poisoned in British town where Russian ex-spy was attacked”

Wall Street Journal: “UK Police Say Two British Nationals Exposed to Nerve Agent Novichok”

The BBC: “Amesbury: Two collapse near Russian spy poisoning site”

London Guardian: “Nerve agent used on critically ill UK couple same as that used on former Russian spy”

London Independent: Amesbury incident latest: Skripal novichok may be behind new Wiltshire poisoning”

AP News: “UK authorities seeking clues in new Novichok poisoning case…the same lethal toxin – developed by the Soviet Union – that almost killed a former Russian spy and his daughter in March”

Reuters: “Two people found unconscious in Amesbury, England were exposed to the same nerve agent used in an attack on the ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal, authorities said.”

Virtually all Western media reported the same way, pointing fingers at Russia for what allegedly happened – clearly not a novichok poisoning, one of the most deadly known toxins. Exposure to a drop or less causes death in minutes.

According to Russian state scientific research institute’s Vladimir Uglev, involved in developing novichok in the 1970s, there is no known antidote if exposed to the nerve agent.

The latest incident comes days ahead of Putin/Trump summit talks in Helsinki, Finland, the first formal meeting between the two leaders.

It also happened during the World Cup, hosted by Russia, its national team reaching the quarter finals.

Was another incident conveniently staged like the alleged novichok Skripal poisoning to bash the Kremlin coincidentally with these events?

RT reported Twitter awash with Russia conspiracy rubbish, adding:

“The (Amesbury) incident has already drawn immense government attention, with some 100 anti-terrorist division detectives working on the case around the clock and the government calling an emergency committee meeting for Thursday.”

An incident virtually anywhere drawing this much attention automatically is suspicious. It happened about seven miles from Salisbury where the Skripals became ill in March.

Their “miraculous” recovery showed the alleged novichok poisoning to be a hoax. Is the latest incident another one?

It happened exactly four months to the day after the March 4 alleged Skripal poisoning incident, Russia falsely blamed for what happened straightaway – despite no evidence then or now proving Kremlin guilt.

Alleged public exposure in March and July to a deadly nerve agent would endanger virtually everyone close to both incidents.

Yet only the Skripals and police detective Nick Bailey were harmed earlier, only Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess on July 4 – an automatic red flag, drawing obvious suspicions of UK (likely jointly with Washington) state sponsorship both times.

Chances of Russian responsibility earlier and now are virtually nil!

*

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

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Usa e Nato soppiantano la Ue in crisi

July 5th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

Due Summit, ambedue a Bruxelles a distanza di due settimane, rappresentano lo status della situazione europea. La riunione del Consiglio europeo, il 28 giugno, ha confermato che lUnione, fondata sugli interessi delle oligarchie economiche e finanziarie a partire da quelle delle maggiori potenze, si sta sgretolando per contrasti di interesse non solo sulla questione dei migranti.

Il Consiglio Nord-Atlantico cui parteciperanno il 10-11 luglio i capi di stato e di governo dei 22 paesi Ue (su un totale di 28) membri della Alleanza (con la Gran Bretagna in uscita dallUnione) rafforzerà la Nato sotto comando Usa. Il presidente Trump avràcosìin mano carte più forti al Summit bilaterale che terrà cinque giorni dopo, il 16 luglio a Helsinki, col presidente russo Putin.

Da ciò che il presidente Usa stabilirà al tavolo negoziale dipenderà fondamentalmente la situazione dellEuropa. Non èun mistero che gli Usa non hanno mai voluto una Europa unita quale alleato paritetico. Per oltre 40 anni, durante la guerra fredda, la tengono subordinata quale prima linea del confronto nucleare con lUnione Sovietica. Nel 1991, finita la guerra fredda, gli Stati uniti temono che gli alleati europei possano mettere in discussione la loro leadership o ritenere ormai inutile la Nato, superata dalla nuova situazione geopolitica. Da qui il riorientamento strategico della Nato sempre sotto comando Usa, riconosciuta dallo stesso Trattato di Maastricht «fondamento della difesa» dellUnione Europea, e il suo allargamento ad Est legando gli ex paesi del Patto di Varsavia piùa Washington che a Bruxelles.

Nel corso delle guerre del dopo guerra fredda (Iraq, Jugoslavia, Afghanistan, di nuovo Iraq, Libia, Siria), gli Stati uniti trattano sottobanco con le maggiori potenze europee (Gran Bretagna, Francia, Germania) spartendo con loro aree di influenza, mentre dalle altre (Italia compresa) ottengono ciò che vogliono senza sostanziali concessioni.

Scopo fondamentale di Washington è non solo mantenere lUnione europea in posizione subordinata ma, a maggior ragione, impedire la formazione di unarea economica che abbracci lintera regione europea, Russia compresa, collegandosi alla Cina tramite la nascente Nuova Via della Seta. Da qui la nuova guerra fredda fatta esplodere in Europa nel 2014 (durante lamministrazione Obama), le sanzioni economiche e la escalation Nato contro la Russia.

La strategia del «divide et impera», ossia del dividere per dominare, prima camuffata sotto vesti diplomatiche, viene ormai alla luce. Incontrando in aprile il presidente Macron, Trump ha proposto che la Francia esca dallUnione europea, offrendole condizioni commerciali più vantaggiose di quelle della Ue. Non si sa che cosa stiano decidendo a Parigi. È significativo però il fatto che la Francia abbia varato un piano che prevede operazioni militari congiunte di un gruppo di paesi della Ue indipendentemente dai meccanismi decisionali della Ue: laccordo è stato firmato a Lussemburgo, il 25 giugno, da Francia, Germania, Belgio, Danimarca, Olanda, Spagna, Portogallo, Estonia e Gran Bretagna, che potrà così parteciparvi anche dopo luscita dalla Ue nel marzo 2019. LItalia, ha precisato la ministra francese della difesa Parly, non ha ancora apposto la firma per «una questione di dettagli, non di sostanza».

Il piano è stato infatti approvato dalla Nato, poiché«completa e potenzia la prontezza delle forze armate dellAlleanza». E, sottolinea la ministra italiana della dfesa Trenta, poiché «l’Unione europea deve diventare un produttore di sicurezza a livello globale, per farlo deve rafforzare la sua cooperazione con la Nato».

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Usa e Nato soppiantano la Ue in crisi

The Sports of Kings

July 5th, 2018 by Philip A Farruggio

Being a horseracing aficionado, this writer knows that the title of my column has always pertained to it. They called it the ‘Sport of Kings’ because it was the super rich, especially royalty, that owned (and still do)  most of the great racehorses. Nowadays all major professional sports, throughout the entire planet for that matter, have become wealthy beyond compare. Interestingly enough, that wealth now runs throughout, enriching the owners, the media, the merchandisers, and the players. In the old days, pre free agency, many Major League Baseball players had to find full time jobs during the off season to help support their families. Matter of fact, up until the 1960s, excepting the star players, a ballplayer from the winning team could earn more from his World Series share than from his yearly salary! In pro basketball and pro football, it was even worse for the player.

What cracks me up is how the entire ‘yuppie so called sports journalist profession’ just fall in line on this whole system of profits from professional sports. I mean, Lebron James just made a deal for over 60 million dollars a year for four years. I am in no way singling him out for what he is able to earn. Imagine what the owners of his new team must be earning to be able to pay him that? All the way down the line, the owners, media, merchandisers and of course the players are making fortunes! Who pays for it? Duh, we do, you and me Joe and Joan Fan. I mean, for a working stiff with a kid or two, going live to a pro game is like being held up. In most cases, a good box seat in even a moderate part of the stadium is going to cost well over $100, maybe in New York or LA, $200… and that’s PER PERSON!  With the parking and the programs and hot dogs and drinks (check out what they get for all these things. Outrageous!) you are looking at on the low end, at about $400 to $500 for one game! Even if you refuse to go to a game in person, your cable bill reflects how much is paid out to cover these sports via the airwaves.

Isn’t it time for we working stiffs, who make up over 90% of sports fans, to just say ‘Enough’? Isn’t it time that we challenge the corporate sports empire? Why must we have private ownership of professional sports teams? Why do our cities have to fork over all kinds of funding and tax breaks to keep teams? We should have each city owning its teams, and running things nonprofit. Ditto for the cable provider… should be owned nonprofit by the locality AKA the community. Now, as is with the NFL, there should be a ceiling on how much each team can spend on payroll. With a more level playing field, perhaps the competition would be greater with much more parity. You look at the NBA now, and anyone with half a brain knows that only a mere handful of teams have any chance of winning a championship. Ditto for Major League Baseball, where many writers and fans already know  what handful of teams, at only the halfway point of this season, even have a chance of making it to the playoffs. Ridiculous!

Now to the players. If men like Lebron James and Giancarlo Stanton from the LA Lakers and NY Yankees respectively, wish to earn mega millions per year, maybe they should ‘Do the right thing’. Sorry, but to this writer just forming a foundation and kicking in 5% of earnings is not the answer. I don’t know much about Stanton, but Lebron James comes from the poor side of Akron, Ohio. If he is now earning close to $100 million a year, from salary and endorsements, and at the current top rate of 37% that his accountant probably has him at, for purposes of argument he is perhaps paying  25% in federal income tax. That translates into, again for purposes of argument, Lebron keeping $75 million. Good for him. Now how about Lebron making it also good for his Akron community? Imagine if he was willing to take 20 % of his $75 million, or $15 million each year, and go out and buy up foreclosed housing in his hometown? Then he seeks out families that are ‘under the gun’ financially as renters, and gives them the homes (at a tremendous tax write off to him)…or at least allows them to pay off the home over 50 years? Their payments would be so low, and they would own and not rent. The only caveat is that they cannot sell the home until half of what they own Lebron is paid back. Something like that; or, he can just be a true humanitarian and buy them the home? Now factor this with all the top earning stars of pro sports doing the same thing in their hometowns etc, Matter of fact, these stars could use the ‘bully pulpit’ to get their owners to provide matching funds for this philanthropy. Then perhaps, being a fan would mean something to all of us.

*

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].


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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Sports of Kings

Donald Trump and the U.S. Piggy Bank

July 5th, 2018 by Duncan Cameron

Justifying his imposition of tariffs on major U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Donald Trump angrily pointed to the rest of the world:

“The United States has been taken advantage of for decades and decades… we’re like the piggy bank that everybody is robbing and that ends.”

It is hard to see how other countries have been robbing the American piggy bank and taking its savings. In fact, the U.S. takes in savings from other nations: it must borrow to make payments on what it owes abroad.

At the beginning of 2018, the U.S. owed the rest of the world about $7.7 trillion. This is the difference between U.S. investments abroad of $ 27.8 trillion and U.S. assets held by non-nationals of $35.5 trillion.

U.S. borrowing to cover current debt payments is only a sidebar to the main story. The rest of the world routinely holds U.S. dollars and owns debt securities denominated in U.S. dollars. By accepting the U.S. dollar as world money, the rest of the world is lending to the U.S.

This lending has given the U.S. the ability to spend abroad without having to worry about earning foreign currency to pay for its overseas investments and consumption.

This “exorbitant privilege” was acquired by the U.S. because its currency has been the main “reserve currency” since prior to the end of the Second World War.

In 1944 the U.S. invited 43 allied nations to meet in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The conference gave birth to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, both headquartered in Washington, D.C.

The 730 assembled delegates were anxious to prevent the kind of “beggar thy neighbour” policies the U.S. and others had pursued that culminated in the disastrous 1930s Great Depression (similar to policies that Donald Trump has initiated 74 years later).

The U.K. championed its own plan — designed and named after its author, John Maynard Keynes — for a monetary clearings union run by central banks.

It would have made surplus nations automatically re-cycle funds to deficit nations, forcing the strong creditor nations to assist weak debtor nations, and discourage them from trying to run deflationary economic surpluses with the rest of the world.

Instead, the U.S. delegation prevailed, and when the Bretton Woods meetings adjourned, private commercial banks remained at the centre of world trade.

Wall Street bankers dominated profit-making foreign exchange markets and were anxious their foreign currency desks continue to be agents for international finance, which is why U.S. delegates made sure the Keynes plan was scrapped.

As world trade and finance gradually recovered after the 1939-45 war, countries needed to buy or borrow U.S. dollars from banks in order to expand trade with each other.

World commercial expansion became dependent on payments made in the U.S. dollar, a currency that all nations — except the U.S. — had to earn through export surpluses, or go into debt.

From Bretton Woods until this day, nations, corporations, and even individuals have been induced to build up reserves of U.S. dollars.

Across the world, prices for traded goods like oil or gold or wheat continue to be mostly set in U.S. dollars, international payments are denominated in U.S. dollars, and wealth is held in U.S. dollar assets.

The U.S. dollar is the main reserve held by central banks, banks make U.S. dollar international loans and register U.S. dollar deposits, and international bonds are issued in U.S. dollars.

China alone holds over $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury bills, which did not stop the Americans from announcing $50 billion in new tariff protection against Chinese imports.

The Chinese have created the Asian Infrastructure Bank as an alternative source of lending to the U.S.-dominated IMF and World Bank, and as an outlet for placing their own U.S. dollar reserves.

The Chinese and the Russians have expressed interest in developing a super reserve currency to replace the U.S. dollar.

The IMF did create such a currency: the poorly named Special Drawing Rights (SDR) in 1969. But, it remains a small supplement to official central bank reserves. About 20 billion in SDRs were held by central banks until an additional 180 billion SDRs were allocated in 2009 following the global financial crisis.

Unhappiness with the use of the U.S. dollar as the world currency is felt by many nations. Since it gives the U.S. ability to borrow from the rest of the world to finance its economic expansion abroad and at home, American authorities are not looking to change a system that works to their advantage.

The U.S. has a low savings rate, about 1.5 per cent of GDP currently, and it imports the savings of other countries.

The U.S. has been a net borrower from the rest of the world since the mid-1980s. You might say the U.S. has been using the rest of the world as a piggy bank ever since.

*

Duncan Cameron is president emeritus of rabble.ca and writes a weekly column on politics and current affairs.

Featured image is from OTA Photos/Flickr.

Imperial Hubris Redefined

July 5th, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

There have been two developments in the past month that illustrate clearly what is wrong with the White House’s perception of America’s place in the world. Going far beyond the oft-repeated nonsense that the United States is somehow the “leader of the free world,” the Trump Administration has taken several positions that sustain the bizarre view that such leadership can only be exercised if the United States is completely dominant in all relevant areas. Beyond that, Washington is now also asserting that those who do not go along with the charade and abide by the rules laid down will be subject to punishment to force compliance.

The first issue has to do with outer space. There is an international treaty agreed to in 1967, the so-called Outer Space Treaty, which has been signed by 107 countries including most Europeans, Russia, China and the United States. Conventional weapons or electronic systems designed to protect orbiting satellites from attack are permitted over where the atmosphere ends 62 miles above the Earth’s surface, but outer space is supposed to be free to all. The treaty also forbids any colonization or appropriation of the moon or planets by any national authority.

President Donald Trump apparently is not familiar with the treaty. Speaking before an audience at the National Space Council on June 18th, he said that he was, on his own presidential authority

“…hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces…our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security. It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space.”

The idea that the US would seek to have a major presence in space would probably surprise no one, but Trump is saying something quite different. He is creating a military command for space, the moon and the planets and is intent on using that to support an offensive capability that provides dominance in those areas. As no one in his right mind would allow Washington to militarily dominate outer space based on its track record of irresponsible leadership since 9/11, the Trump proposal should be and will be opposed by virtually the entire world.

A fantasy of space dominance is a symptom of a governing class that cannot distinguish between what is important and what is not. It is rooted in a nation that has been constantly fed fear since 9/11 even though it is not threatened. Iran, the second issue surfaced recently, is part of that alleged threat matrix, with the United States and its barking dog Israel repeatedly claiming that the country is both a terrorism supporter and is involved in a secret nuclear weapons program. Both claims are basically false.

Trump has complied with Israel’s demands to withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) restricting Iran’s nuclear program even though Tehran was in complete compliance. On June 26th, the White House announced Iran’s punishment, declaring that it would sanction anyone buying Iranian oil, starting on November 4th. The “zero tolerance” global Iranian oil ban deliberately seeks to devastate most sectors of the country’s economy to force it to comply with Israeli, Saudi and US demands that it should effectively disarm.

The threat of sanctions is blatant bullying as the United Nations and all other signatories of the JCPOA continue to support the agreement and have no reason to punish Iran, but there is also an appreciation that sanctions would include being blocked from US financial markets, meaning that the warning must be taken seriously. There are reports that a number of European and Asia refiners and their financial backers are already moving to cut purchases and exit the Iran market well before November.

But there also has been some pushback. Turkey is refusing to go along with the American demand and it is unlikely that China, Russia and India will comply, even if threatened with sanctions. If the European Community were to unite and develop a backbone to take a stand against submitting to US pressure it might actually force Washington to save face by issuing waivers to mitigate the impact of its demand.

There is no rational US interest that compels a hubristic American government to establish a space military or to create a global sanction against Iran, but it is clear that the Trump Administration does not care much for genuine interests as it huffs and puffs to show its power and determination. It is time for the rest of the world to wake up to the danger posed by Washington and mobilize to stand up against it.

*

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

Dr. Giraldi is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCF.

The US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) group Shabab al-Sunna is handing over its weapons to the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in the town of Bosra al-Sham in the province of Daraa.

According to released photos and videos, the group has handed over two battle tanks, two BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicles and a 37 mm automatic air defense gun M1939, a 160mm mortar cannon and at least 6 US-made TOW anti-tank missile launchers.

Besides this, the SAA has recovered a notable number of mortars, ammunition and light weapons.

According to pro-government sources, the FSA’s Shabab al-Sunna will continue handing over weapons in the upcoming days. Most of its members have chosen to settle their legal status and to join the SAA to combat ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) in southern Syria.

Meanwhile, negotiations on a fully-fledged reconciliation deal in the area has once again collapsed with FSA groups demanding unrealistic terms and conditions like the SAA withdrawal from the recently liberated areas.

This as well as the FSA’s cooperation with Hayat Tahri al-Sham will likely trigger a new round of the SAA advance in Daraa.

At the same time, the ISIS-linked Khalid ibn al-Walid Army, which controls a large chunk of area near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, released a propaganda video vowing to combat the SAA and started shelling government positions in the village of al-Shaykh Maskin west of Daraa city.

Previously several reports suggested that US-backed FSA groups and ISIS had found understanding to oppose the SAA advance jointly. The Khalid ibn al-Walid Army clearly understands that nor Israel nor US-backed groups are not going to combat it. So, it will likely continue its attacks on the SAA even if there is no official coordination agreement with the FSA.

According to pro-government sources, government forces also repelled a limited ISIS attack in eastern al-Suwayda killing a few ISIS members near Tell Bassir. The operation against ISIS cells in eastern al-Suwayda is currently paused because the SAA’s current priority is Daraa province.

On July 4, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Jordanian counterpart Ayman Safadi held a meeting on the situation in southern Syria.

Following the meeting, Lavrov said that the US rarely separates terrorist groups like ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham from the opposition.

“We have also pointed out the need for the implementation of agreements on the southern de-escalation zone, deals which were reached by the United States, Russia and Jordan on all aspects, including the continuation of the uncompromising struggle against terrorists from Islamic State and Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (another name of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham), which control about 40 percent of the southern de-escalation zone,” Lavrov said rejecting the US claims that the SAA operation in the area violates the de-escalation agreement.

This statement shows that the Syrian-Iranian-Russian alliance is not going to stop its efforts to clear the province of Daraa and nearby areas from militants despite criticism from the US and a hysteria in the mainstream media.

*

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,

After only two weeks since the beginning of the military operation, jihadists and militants in most of eastern rural Daraa in south Syria have either surrendered or were overwhelmed, the over 70 villages they occupied were liberated by the Syrian Army. Meanwhile, Israel has reduced its requests or conditions pronounced in the last two weeks: from launching threats against the approach of the Syrian Army towards the South, to menaces if Damascus pushes forces beyond the 1974 demarcation line and the disengagement agreement between Syria and Israel. This clearly means all players (the US, Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) have dropped the jihadists and militants they were training and are turning their back on them: they are now on their own.

For over seven years, Israel has invested intelligence, finance, military and medical supplies in these jihadists and their allies. On many occasions, Israel has said it prefers the “Islamic State” to Iranian forces on the borders. Many times, Israel showed images of jihadists – including those fighting under the flag of al-Qaeda – in Israeli hospitals, recovering from wounds inflicted during their clashes with the forces of Damascus. Today, it is clear that Israel’s intentions have been defeated when it can announce that for the Syrian army to cross the 1974 disengagement line it means crossing red lines. Israel is crying in the wilderness because the Syrian army has the intention and means to defeat all jihadists and militants who received supplies from foreign countries. It has never crossed Syria’s mind to start a new war with Israel before the Syrian territory (in the north) is liberated.

The Syrian allies are participating in the battle of the south of Syria as advisors and with backup (small) units to fill gaps only if the battle becomes critical on this or that front. So far, jihadists and militants are easily defeated and represent little resistance. There is little doubt how ISIS (the “Islamic State”, aka Jaish Khaled Bin al-Waleed), deployed on the 1975 disengagement line, will react because neither the Syrian Army nor Russia are offering a relocation to the terrorist group. Therefore, the only choice ISIS have in south Syria is to fight, surrender or be allowed to cross into Israel, since for years the Israeli Army has been cohabiting with ISIS beautifully. The number of terrorists is estimated at between 1500 and 2000, a relatively small number when we consider that the Syrian Army faced tens of thousands in al-Yarmouk, rural Homs, al-Badiya, Deir-ezzour and Albukamal in the north and north east- and they wiped them out completely.

DhGtKGqXUAAMT_l

Weapons found by the Syrian Army in Daraa during the battle of south Syria

The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has disregarded any Israeli threat related to the participation of Iranian advisors and Hezbollah Special forces in the battle of south of Syria. Actually, Russia understands the necessity of the presence of Damascus’ allies on the ground, so the operation is fully supported and success is guaranteed. Moreover, Moscow has seen Hezbollah and Iranian advisors pulling out from every single battle when the Syrian army prevails and whenever Damascus considered the area safe enough to take over completely. Therefore, President Putin can guarantee to his US counterpart Donald Trump (and he already did guarantee this to his Israeli visitors last month in Moscow) that no Iranian or Hezbollah advisors shall remain behind on Israeli borders (the wish of the Syrian central government). That was sufficient for Trump to inform Israel that the US has no reasons to believe it is facing any danger from the Syrian Army on its borders.

For almost 45 years, Damascus didn’t engage in any serious attack against Israel starting from the 1974 disengagement line bordering the occupied Golan heights. There can be no comparison between the presence of the Syrian regular forces and the presence of the terrorist group, ISIS, on the Israeli occupied Golan heights. In fact, it will be impossible for President Trump to defend Israel’s case to protect ISIS – regardless how close the terrorist group and Israel are following years of being “good neighbours” – and attack the Syrian army wishing to recover its own territory and totally eliminate the presence of ISIS from the south of Syria.

DhHH_uxWsAYPN86

What is remaining in the south of Syria is only a tactical battle. It will intensify on one front and will be smooth on the other. The battle is reaching its first objective to clear eastern Daraa, in the coming days, and to secure the Naseeb border crossing between Jordan and Syria that helps both countries to recover some hundreds of millions of dollars yearly from their trade and commerce.

In the second phase, the west of Daraa and Quneitra, the Syrian army will push its forces towards south-west Daraa to clear jihadists standing on the way between the Syrian army and where ISIS is located. There is no specific time allocated for the ending of the battle. Nevertheless, the result of the battle is easily predictable: the Syrian army will regain control of Syrian territory, particularly the city of Daraa where all countries involved in “regime change” (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the US, the UK, Qatar) initiated their flow of weapons and finance for the south. They have managed to achieve only the destruction of the Levant ($300 billions are needed to rebuild Syria), the death of around 400,000 persons, and millions of displaced persons and refugees.

*

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

The Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” aims to streamline a North-South Corridor from Norway to Greece through the creation of the “Via Carpathia” trade route that would prospectively link with the “Baltic Ring” in order to connect the Arctic Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea.

The southeastern Polish village of Jasionka hosted the latest forum on the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” (TSI) just a few days ago, and Radio Poland reported that one of the panel discussions focused squarely on the little-known “Via Carpathia” (VC) infrastructure initiative. This project strives to streamline a trade corridor from the Lithuanian Baltic Sea port of Kaunas to the Greek Mediterranean one of Thessaloniki, with the potential for branching out to the Romanian Black Sea port of Constanta as well. In and of itself, the VC would link together the TSI’s three constituent sub-blocs of the Neo-Commonwealth (Poland & Lithuania), the “Greater Hungarian” portion of Austria-Hungary (Hungary & Slovakia), and the Black Sea Bloc (Romania & Bulgaria), thereby representing a new North-South Corridor entirely within the borders of the EU.

So promising is the project’s prospects even in this initial stage that the Belarussian Minister of Transport even expressed his country’s interest in it earlier this week because of the landlocked state’s potential for connecting with this corridor through the A2 highway in Poland that runs up to the Belarussian border and intersects the VC’s route between the cities of Białystok and Lublin. This might be surprising to some who had hitherto considered the former Soviet Republic to be an iron-clad Russian “ally” that would stand in solidarity with its “big brother” by refusing to cooperate with the same bloc that followed American orders to sanction Moscow, but the reality is that Belarus has been trying to “balance” between East and West for the past few years already and therefore naturally sees the VC as an irresistible opportunity for flexing its strategic independence from Russia.

In addition, the VC shouldn’t be considered as a stand-alone project, since it actually forms the southern half of a much larger megaproject that intends to link the Arctic Ocean with the Mediterranean Sea when one factors in the joint Polish-Swedish plans to construct a “Baltic Ring” (BR). The eastern part of this initiative envisions functioning as the northern element of a prospective Norwegian-Greek trade corridor because of its potential to connect Kirkenes with Thessaloniki. Interestingly, the first-mentioned country will soon be hosting at least 700 US Marines in the neighboring Troms county while the second-mentioned port was recently acquired by Germany, thus representing a North-South division of influence between both Great Powers along the Arctic-Mediterranean Corridor (AMC). To help put everything into better perspective for the reader, the below map was custom-made to facilitate a geopolitical understanding of the AMC’s two constituent parts:

Despite Germany’s EU budgetary contributions largely subsidizing much of existing infrastructure in the “Black Sea Bloc” that makes the AMC possible and also controlling the terminal port of Thessaloniki, it can’t be taken for granted that this will automatically translate into Berlin’s control of the TSI as a whole. Poland has become fiercely independent over the past couple of years and is ideologically opposed to German hegemony in the Central & Eastern European transregional space, so it’s unlikely that Warsaw will accept Berlin leveraging its ownership of Thessaloniki in any way that endangers the TSI’s sovereignty as a rising EU sub-bloc. In the off-chance that Germany moves in this direction, which would be detrimental to its own long-term interests, Poland could just reroute to Romania’s Constanta port instead or focus more attention on China’s Balkan Silk Road through the Beijing-controlled Greek port of Piraeus.

Both Constanta and Piraeus could become viable workarounds for Poland and its TSI partners to avoid any German politicization of the Thessaloniki port, but the first-mentioned of the two has an additional strategic value because of its intermodal mid-Eurasian connectivity potential with the Silk Road. To explain, Constanta is located close to the Georgian port of Poti in which China is building a massive industrial zone, and its host country is linked by rail to Azerbaijan, from which goods can be shipped across the Caspian Sea to either Turkmenistan or Kazakhstan before finally arriving in China. Although costing a little bit more than relying on a unimodal maritime route between China and the Balkans (whether ultimately to Piraeus, Thessaloniki, or Constanta) and requiring more complex logistics, this mid-Eurasian multimodal Silk Road cuts Russia and Germany completely out of the equation in TSI-Chinese trade and might even be faster:

From Poland to China, the corridor’s key transit hubs are:

  • Warsaw
  • Constanta
  • Poti
  • Baku
  • Aktau/Turkmenbashi
  • Urumqi
  • Beijing/Shanghai/Shenzhen

It shouldn’t be forgotten that the Mid-Eurasian Silk Road (MESR) isn’t possible without the VC, which also forms the crucial southern component of the AMC, therefore making it doubly strategic despite first impressions probably writing it off as a series of local infrastructure projects. To the contrary, the VC is indispensable to realizing two separate but interconnected megaprojects that aim to connect the TSI with China while circumventing Russia, the Mideast, and Germany. It’ll probably still take some time before this trailblazing initiative is completed, but the driving concept behind it opens up new horizons of strategic thought that could influence the forthcoming policies of each of the involved countries. Whether through the AMC or the more ambitious MESR, VC’s purpose in the larger geopolitical perspective is that it strengthens the TSI’s intra-bloc cooperation between its members and facilitates their participation in the Silk Road.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

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

We are continually presented with experts by the mainstream media who will validate whatever miraculous property of “novichok” is needed to fit in with the government’s latest wild anti-Russian story. Tonight Newsnight wheeled out a chemical weapons expert to tell us that “novichok” is “extremely persistent” and therefore that used to attack the Skripals could still be lurking potent on a bush in a park.

Yet only three months ago we had this example of scores from the MSM giving the same message which was the government line at that time:

Professor Robert Stockman, of the University of Nottingham, said traces of nerve agents did not linger. He added: ‘These agents react with water to degrade, including moisture in the air, and so in the UK they would have a very limited lifetime. This is presumably why the street in Salisbury was being hosed down as a precaution – it would effectively destroy the agent.’”

In fact, rain affecting the “novichok” on the door handle was given as the reason that the Skripals were not killed. But now the properties of the agent have to fit a new narrative, so they transmute again.

It keeps happening. Do you remember when Novichok was the most deadly of substances, many times more powerful than VX or Sarin, and causing death in seconds? But then, when that needed to be altered to fit the government’s Skripal story, they found scientists to explain that actually no, it was pretty slow acting, absorbed gradually through the skin, and not all that deadly.

Scientists are an interesting bunch. More than willing to ascribe whatever properties fit the government’s ever more implausible stories, in exchange for an MSM appearance fee, 5 minutes of fame and the fond hope of a research grant.

According to the Daily Telegraph today, the unfortunate Charlie Rowley is a registered heroin addict, and if true Occam’s Razor would indicate that is a rather more likely reason for his present state than an inexplicably persistent weaponised nerve agent.

If it is however true that two separate attacks have been carried out with “novichok” a few miles either side of Porton Down, where “novichok” is synthesised and stored for “testing purposes”, what does Occam’s razor suggest is the source of the nerve agent? A question not one MSM journalist seems to have asked themselves tonight.

Image result for charlie rowley

I am slightly puzzled by the picture the media are trying to paint of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess as homeless, unemployed addicts. The Guardian and Sky News both state that they were unemployed, yet Charlie was living in a very new house in Muggleton Road, Amesbury, which is pretty expensive. According to Zoopla homes range up to £430,000 and the cheapest ones are £270,000. They are all new build, on a new estate, which is still under construction.

Both Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess still have active facebook pages and one of Charlie’s handful of “Likes” is a mortgage broker, which is consistent with his brand new house. They don’t give mortgages to unemployed heroin addicts, and not many of those live in smart new “executive housing” estates. Both Charlie and Dawn appear from their facebook pages to be very well socialised, with Dawn having many friends in the teaching profession. Even if she has been homeless for a period as reported, she is plainly very much part of the community.

Naturally, there is no mention in all the reports today of MI6’s Pablo Miller, who remains the subject of a D notice. I wonder if he knows Rowley and Sturgess, living in the same community? It should be recalled that Salisbury may be a city, but its population is only 45,000.

The most important thing is of course that Charlie and Dawn recover. But tonight, even at this early stage, as with the entire Skripal saga, the message the security services are seeking to give out does not add up. Mark Urban’s piece for Newsnight tonight was simply disgusting; it did not even pretend to be more than a propaganda piece on behalf of the security services, who had told Urban (as he said) that Yulia Skripal’s phone “could have been” tapped by the Russians and they “might even” have listened to her conversations through the microphone in her telephone. That was the “new evidence” that the Russians were behind everything.

As a former British Ambassador I can tell you with certainty that indeed the Russians might have tapped Yulia, but GCHQ most definitely would have. It is, after all, their job, and billions of our taxes go into it. If tapping of phones is seriously presented as evidence of intent to murder, the British government must be very murderous indeed.

US President Donald Trump repeatedly pressed his top aides as well as the heads of right-wing governments in Latin America on the possibility of a US invasion of Venezuela, according to a report by the Associated Press.

The report comes amid a growing campaign of sanctions and political pressure mounted by the Trump administration against the government of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro aimed at provoking its collapse or overthrow by means of a military coup.

The first discussions of a direct US military intervention came last August, the day before Trump staged an extraordinary public appearance with his then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former head of ExxonMobil, whose predecessor company long dominated Venezuela’s oil production, and US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley.

Trump declared:

“We are all over the world and we have troops all over the world in places that are very, very far away. Venezuela is not very far away and the people are suffering. They’re dying. We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option, if necessary.”

Asked by a reporter whether his statement implied a US military operation in the South American country, Trump replied,

“We don’t talk about it, but a military operation, a military option is certainly something that we could pursue.”

It is now clear that the statement was not merely staged for the cameras but reflected Trump’s genuine thinking on the issue and discussions that were going behind the scenes. According to the AP report, Tillerson and Gen. H.R. McMaster, then Trump’s national security advisor, attempted to convince him that an invasion would entail substantial risks, including political upheavals throughout Latin America. Both men have since been removed from the administration.

According to the unnamed senior US administration official cited by the AP, Trump argued against his aides, pointing to the successful US military interventions carried out in Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989-1990. That Venezuela is more than 10 times the size and has nearly 10 times the population of Panama—where the US had extensive military bases at the time—while Grenada is a small island of barely more than 100,000 people, apparently did not factor into the US president’s thinking.

The Associated Press also quoted Colombian sources as confirming that Trump had raised the prospect of a US invasion with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, Washington’s closest ally in the region. Santos, who has carried out repeated provocations against Venezuela and sent troops to its border, is to be replaced next month by the even more right-wing and anti-Venezuelan president-elect Ivan Duque.

Trump raised the prospect again in September during a meeting held on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly with Santos and unnamed other leaders of right-wing Latin American governments aligned with Washington.

While the White House declined to comment on Trump’s discussions on invading Venezuela, a National Security Council spokesperson told the news agency that the US “will consider all options at its disposal to help restore Venezuela’s democracy and bring stability.”

Last week, US Vice President Mike Pence made a tour of Latin America dedicated in large measure to drumming up regional support for Washington’s bid to isolate Venezuela economically and politically in preparation for regime change.

As part of the tour, Pence staged a visit last Wednesday to a refuge for Venezuelan migrants in the city of Manaus in the Brazilian Amazon, telling the immigrants,

“We will keep standing with you until democracy is restored in Venezuela.”

The US vice president came under immediate fire for the grotesque hypocrisy of posing as a supporter of Venezuelan migrants in Brazil, even as the US administration treats every refugee reaching the US border as a criminal and locks families and children in cages.

On the eve of his arrival, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry released a letter to Washington, describing the separation of children from their parents as a “cruel practice.”

US sanctions against Venezuela were first imposed under the Obama administration in an executive order that branded the South American nation an “extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” Now, under Trump, the sanctions include prohibitions against Venezuela borrowing or selling assets on the US financial markets. The aim is to impose an economic chokehold that will create such intolerable conditions for the masses that the government will collapse or be overthrown by the military.

Hyperinflation is destroying the living standards of the majority of working people, with the inflation rate—which is not officially recorded—estimated at 110 percent for the month of May alone.

While the protests by more privileged layers of the middle class against the Maduro government have waned, and the right-wing opposition has become largely quiescent, with its leaders hoping for a US intervention, workers’ struggles have broken out across the country, including a nationwide strike by nurses demanding salary increases and the government’s provision of hospitals with essential supplies.

Since Maduro’s re-election in May, in a vote derided by Washington and its allies in Latin America as “illegitimate,” the government has continued to impose the full burden of the economic crisis upon the backs of the working class, while providing concessions to Venezuelan capitalists and financiers, many of whom have seen their fortunes balloon through financial speculation.

The government continues to rely on the military as its principal base of support. On Wednesday, some 17,000 members of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) were promoted in a ceremony celebrating their “loyalty to the president constitutionally elected by the people.” The promotions followed reports that a number of military officers had been arrested on charges of treason in connection with alleged coup plots.

Driving the threat of a US military intervention is not just the right-wing ideology of Donald Trump, but geo-strategic interests.

Even as Washington attempts to tighten the noose around the Venezuelan economy, China has provided somewhat of a lifeline to the Maduro government. Venezuela’s Finance Minister Simon Zerpa issued a statement after meetings in Beijing this week that the China Development Bank and China National Petroleum Corporation have agreed to invest $250 million in Venezuela’s beleaguered state-run oil corporation, PDVSA, which has seen production levels drop to an all-time low this year. In addition, he reported that China was prepared to extend a “special loan” of $5 billion “for direct investment in production.”

While Venezuela has in the past exported 40 percent of its oil to the US market, it has increasingly shifted toward China, paying off loans with crude oil. The Venezuelan oil sector, however, still remains dependent upon the US for the import of technology, light crude and other products needed to blend with Venezuelan heavy oil for export.

With Venezuela boasting the world’s largest proven oil reserves, China’s role in propping up the Maduro government provides an additional motivation, beyond the profit interests of the US energy conglomerates, for Washington to intervene.

These motives have been spelled out in the recent national strategy and defense documents issued by the Trump administration and the Pentagon, defining both Russia and China as “revisionist powers” seeking to challenge US global hegemony and charting a course of preparation for “great power” conflicts.

Venezuela and Latin America as a whole will be an arena for these conflicts. Trump’s demands to know why the US cannot simply invade Venezuela are not merely the ravings of the right-wing demagogue in the White House, but a warning of what is to come.

So French President Emmanuel Macron made good on his promise to visit ‘The New Afrika Shrine’ in Lagos.

The venue was built as a homage to the late Nigerian musician-activist Fela Kuti, who was a vehement critic of the military and civilian administrations that governed Nigeria during his lifetime.

I wonder how President Muhammadu Buhari took to Macron’s initial announcement of the visit. You see, Buhari was a member of the military government which on February 18th 1977 attacked and burned to the ground, the original ‘Shrine’. Fela’s ‘Shrine’ was considered by Nigeria’s rulers to have been a den of political subversion and deviant behaviour. And Buhari was of course the person who effectively set Fela up to be jailed for a currency violation offence during his later tenure as military dictator.

Like Barack Obama, who once mildly admonished an NBA basketball star for deigning to introduce him to Fela’s music by promising to gift him a Fela album (Obama: “You think I don’t know who Fela Kuti is?”), Macron is clearly one of these establishment-sponsored, high-achieving politicians who are nonetheless familiar with the pulsating beat and firebrand lyrics of fundamentally anti-establishment music.

Macron’s contradictions are legion. For instance, while he often speaks of his determination to restore French grandeur, he also calls for deeper European integration, a policy which necessarily entails French acceptance of German domination. Also, his initial highly publicised flattery of Donald Trump was followed by a severe rebuke of Trump’s policies in a speech that he gave before the American Congress.

His inconsistencies are underlined by his often used phrase: “en meme temps”, which means “at the same time”. So maybe the conversation with Buhari, or rather, his monologue to Buhari went something like this:

Monsieur President, I am totally against decadent marijuana-smoking, hyper-sexual persons like Fela, who wish to overthrow the existing social and economic order. At the same time, I will be going to pay homage to that principled and rebellious musician who you jailed in 1984 – the same chap who referred to you and other Nigerian dictators as “animals in human skin”.

L’homme est une contradiction ambulate …

*

This article was originally published on Adeyinka Makinde’s blog.

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

California legislators exploring the public bank option may be breaking not just from Wall Street but from the Federal Reserve.

Voters in Los Angeles will be the first in the country to weigh in on a public banking mandate, after the City Council agreed on June 29th to put a measure on the November ballot that would allow the city to form its own bank. The charter for the nation’s second-largest city currently prohibits the creation of industrial or commercial enterprises by the city without voter approval. The measure, introduced by City Council President Herb Wesson, would allow the city to create a public bank, although state and federal law hurdles would still need to be cleared.

The bank is expected to save the city millions, if not billions, of dollars in Wall Street fees and interest paid to bondholders, while injecting new money into the local economy, generating jobs and expanding the tax base. It could respond to the needs of its residents by reinvesting in low-income housing, critical infrastructure projects, and clean energy, as well as serving as a depository for the cannabis industry.

The push for a publicly-owned bank comes amid ongoing concerns involving the massive amounts of cash generated by the cannabis business, which was legalized by Proposition 64 in 2016. Wesson has said that cannabis has “kind of percolated to the top” of the public bank push, “but it’s not what’s driving” it, citing affordable housing and other key issues; and that a public bank should be pursued even if it cannot be used by the cannabis industry. However, the prospect of millions of dollars in tax revenue is an obvious draw. Los Angeles is the largest cannabis market in the state, with Mayor Eric Garcetti estimating that it would bring in $30 million in taxes for the city.

Bypassing the Fed

State Board of Equalization Member Fiona Ma, who is running for state treasurer, says California’s homegrown $8-20 billion cannabis industry is still operating mostly in cash almost 2 years after state legalization, with the majority of businesses operating in the black market without paying taxes. This is in large part because federal law denies them access to the banking system, forcing them to deal only in cash and causing logistical nightmares when paying taxes and transferring money.

Cannabis is still a forbidden Schedule 1 drug under federal law, and the Federal Reserve has refused to give a master account to banks taking cannabis cash. Without a master account, they cannot access Fedwire transfer services, essentially shutting them out of the banking business.

In a surprise move in early June, President Donald Trump announced that he “probably will end up supporting” legislation to let states set their own cannabis policy. But Ma says that while that is good news, California cannot wait on the federal government. She and State Sen. Bob Hertzberg (D-Los Angeles) have brought Senate Bill 930, which would allow state-chartered banks and financial institutions to apply for a special cannabis banking license to accept clients, after a rigorous process that follows regulations from the US Treasury Department. The bill cleared a major legislative hurdle on May 30th when it passed on the Senate Floor.

SB 930 focuses on California state-chartered banks, which unlike federally-chartered banks can operate under a closed loop system with private deposit insurance. As Ma explained in a May 17 article in The Sacramento Bee:

There are two types of banks – those with federal charters, and banks with California charters. Because cannabis is still considered a Schedule 1 narcotic, we cannot touch federal banking wires. We want state-chartered banks that are protected, regulated and certified under California law, and not required to be under the FDIC.

State income taxes, sales taxes, unemployment, workers’ compensation and property taxes could all be paid through a closed-loop system that takes in revenue from the cannabis industry, but is apart from the federal banking system. . . . Cannabis businesses could be part of a cashless system similar to Apple Pay, and their money would be insured by a state-licensed institution.

That is a pretty revolutionary idea – a closed-loop California banking system that is independent of the Federal Reserve and the federal system. SB 930 would bypass the Feds only for cannabis cash, and the bill strictly limits what the checks issued by these “pot banks” can be used for. But the prospects it opens up are interesting. California is now the fifth largest economy in the world, with 39 million people. It has the resources for its own cashless “CalPay” or CalCoin” system that could bypass the federal system altogether.

The Bank of North Dakota, currently the nation’s only state-owned depository bank, has been called a “mini-Fed” for that state. The Bank of North Dakota partners with local banks to make below-market loans for community purposes, including 2 percent loans for local infrastructure, while at the same time turning a tidy profit for the state. In 2017, it recorded its 14th consecutive year of record profits, with $145.3 million in net earnings and a return on the state’s investment of 17 percent. California, with more than 50 times North Dakota’s population, could use its own mini-Fed as well.

Growing Support for Public Banks

It is significant that the proposal for a closed-loop California system is not coming from academics without political clout. Fiona Ma is slated to become state treasurer, having won the primary election in June by a landslide; and the current state treasurer John Chiang has been exploring the possibility of a public bank that could take cannabis cash for over a year. Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the front runner for governor, has also called for the creation of a public bank. These are not armchair theoreticians but the people who make political decisions for the state, and they have substantial popular support.

Public bank advocacy groups from cities across California have joined to form the California Public Banking Alliance, a coalition to advance legislation that would facilitate the formation of municipal banks statewide under a special state charter. A press release by Public Bank Los Angeles, one of its founding advocacy groups, notes that 15 pieces of legislation for public banks are being explored across the nation through municipal committees and state legislators, with over three dozen public banking movements building in cities and states across the country. San Francisco has created a 16-person Municipal Bank Feasibility Task Force; Seattle and Washington DC have separately earmarked $100,000 for public banking feasibility studies; and Washington State legislators have added nearly a half million dollars to their budget to produce a business plan for a public depository bank. New Jersey state legislators, with the backing of Governor Phil Murphy, have introduced a bill to form a state-owned bank; and GOP and Democratic lawmakers in Michigan have filed a bipartisan bill to create one in that state.

Cities and states are seeking ways to better leverage taxpayer dollars and reinvest them in the needs of local communities. Public banking serves that purpose, providing local determination and the opportunity for socially and environmentally responsible lending and investments. The City Council of Los Angeles is now taking it to the voters; and where California goes, the nation may well follow.

*

Reposted from Web of Debt Blog. This article was originally published under another title at TruthDig.com

Ellen Brown is an attorney, chairman of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

27 settlements in the southern Syrian provinces of al-Quneitra, al-Suwayda and Daraa have returned to the government control over the past week, a spokesman for the Russian Center for Reconciliation of the Opposing Parties in Syria said on July 3.

He added that “special attention” is paid to efforts to create conditions to accommodate refugees returning from territories still controlled by militants as well as from other Syrian regions and neighboring countries.

Units of the Russian Military Police have recently been spotted in Busra al-Sham and Musayrifa.

In late June, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the Tiger Forces and their allies launched a fully-fledged military operation to liberate southern Syria and to re-establish control of this part of the border with Jordan.

Despite major gains made by pro-government forces, a notable part of militant groups in the area is still refusing to accept any kind of suggested reconciliation agreement. The main reason behind this situation is an influence of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and some foreign powers supporting militant groups in the area.

If militants continue refusing to surrender their weapons, they will face a next round of military pressure from the SAA and its allies.

Separately, the SAA repelled an attack by Jaish al-Izza in the area of Tal Bazam in northern Hama. This group is one of the key allies of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in the so-called Idlib de-escalation zone.

An interesting fact is that the attack took place near a Turkish observation post at Morek. This post is intended to monitor the ceasefire in the area. However, the continued attacks by militants show gaps in the de-escalation agreement reached by Turkey, Iran and Russia in the so-called Astana format.

The problem of this agreement that Turkish forces and their proxies are not hurrying up to combat Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and linked groups in their zone of responsibility in western Idlib.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) captured over 11 settlements from ISIS near the Syrian-Iraqi border, east of the SDF-held town of Ash-Shaddaday. According to pro-Kurdish sources, the SDF, backed up by US-led coalition forces, is going to develop its advance along the border in order to clear the entire area on the eastern bank of the Euphrates from the terrorists. Nonetheless, it’s not clear how much time this will take.

Meanwhile, rumors are circulating on alleged negotiations between the Damascus government and the SDF, which is de-facto dominated by Kurdish armed groups. The Kurdish YPG and its political wing, the PYD, is attempting to improve their complicated relations with the Syrian government amid the Turkish-US rapprochement over the situation in northern Syria.

Ankara describes the YPG as a terrorist group. It has already carried out a successful anti-YPG operation in the Afrin area and is going to develop its efforts in this direction further.

*

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,

The NDP is refusing to heed a call from 200 well-known musicians, academics, trade unionists and party members to withdraw from the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group (CIIG). To justify its decision the party says it is also represented on the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Friendship Group (CPPFG).

In response to the open letter signed by Roger Waters, Maher Arar, Noam Chomsky, Linda McQuaig, etc. calling on NDP MPs to withdraw from CIIG, anti-Palestinian groups jumped to the party’s defence. In a Canadian Jewish News article about the open letter CIIG chair Michael Levitt — a former board member of the explicitly racist Jewish National Fund and co-author of a recent statement blaming “Hamas incitement” for Israeli forces shooting thousands of peaceful protesters, including Canadian doctor Tarek Loubani — called CIIG executives Murray Rankin and Randall Garrison “mensches” and said he’s “very supportive” of their role in the group. For its part, the staunchly anti-Palestinian Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center (FSWC) released a statement defending “the federal NDP’s decision to not withdraw from the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group despite pressure from party members.”

In response to the open letter NDP officials told the Huffington Post, Hill Times and others they were also represented on CPPFG. Caucus Press Secretary Kathryn LeBlanc sent me a statement noting,

“NDP MPs belong to both the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group and the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Friendship Group. The NDP believes dialogue is the way forward to establish peace, security and justice for Palestinian and Israeli people.”

But, the claim that belonging to these two committees creates some sort of neutral balance between Israelis and Palestinians conjures up famed South African activist Desmond Tutu’s insight that

if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

In the case of South African apartheid the NDP never claimed this sort of “dialogue is the way forward to establish peace, security and justice.” The party supported boycotts, divestment and sanctions against South Africa to put non-violent pressure on the country to end a regime that oppressed millions.

And even the NDP’s claim to balance and “dialogue” by belonging to both committees is disingenuous at best.

The Canada-Palestine group isn’t one of 17 official parliamentary associations or groups so it doesn’t receive public support, unlike the Canada-Israel group. Without official parliamentary status, the CPPFG has few resources and little influence. Established in 2007, it went defunct and was only re-constituted last year with nine MPs, including one initial NDP member (at least one more NDP MP has joined since the re-launch). The Israel Interparliamentary group, on the other hand, was created in 1981 and has 88 MPs and Senators, including four NDP members.

CIIG works with a sister organization in Israel, the 13-member Israel-Canada Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Group. The two groups organize joint teleconferences and delegations to each other’s parliaments. As I detailed, the co-chairs of the Israel-Canada Inter-Parliamentary Friendship Group, Yoel Hasson and Anat Berko, are stridently anti-Palestinian.

CPPFG, on the other hand, works with representatives of a people without control of territory and whose politicians are often locked in Israeli jails. Dozens of Palestinian representatives Israel detains can’t “dialogue” with their NDP counterparts through CPPFG. A recent CPPFG inspired Canadian parliamentary delegation to the West Bank wasn’t able to meet with Palestinian Legislative Council member Khalida Jarrar, whose daughters have been active in Palestine solidarity campaigning in Canada, since she has been detained by Israel for most of the past three years and has been blocked from traveling internationally since 1998.

It’s unclear if the Canadian MPs would have been allowed to meet Jarrar even if she weren’t detained by Israel since she is a member of the secular leftist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Like most Palestinian political organizations, the PFLP is a banned terrorist organization in Canada. Ottawa’s post-September 11 2001 terrorist list makes it illegal to assist the PFLP, Palestine Liberation Front, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, Abu Nidal Organization, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hamas and groups associated with these organizations.

Instead of these groups, CPPFG is aligned with the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA). According to PA allied media, its re-launch was “coordinated with the Palestinian General Commission in Canada” and the recent CPPFG inspired delegation of MPs to the West Bank was organized “in coordination between the Palestinian National Authority.”

Heavily dependent on Western funding and Israeli support, the PA has been labeled the “subcontractor of the Occupation” (some believe even that’s too charitable, calling the PA “in lock step” with Israel’s occupation). Since the Harper government took over in 2006 half a billion dollars in Canadian aid money has gone to the PA in an explicit bid to strengthen it vis-à-vis political rival Hamas and to entrench Israel’s occupation.

There have been increasing references in the past months during high-level bilateral meetings with the Israelis about the importance and value they place on Canada’s assistance to the Palestinian Authority, most notably in security/justice reform,” read a heavily censored November 2012 note signed by former Canadian International Development Agency president Margaret Biggs. “The Israelis have noted the importance of Canada’s contribution to the relative stability achieved through extensive security co-operation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

The note released through an Access to Information request suggests the goal of Canadian “aid” was to protect a corrupt Abbas, whose electoral mandate expired in 2009, from popular backlash. Biggs explained that

“the emergence of popular protests on the Palestinian street against the Palestinian Authority is worrying and the Israelis have been imploring the international donor community to continue to support the Palestinian Authority.”

The Shin Bet vetted, CIA connected and Canadian, US and British trained PA security forces have repeatedly quelled protests opposing Israeli violence in Gaza and expansionism in the West Bank. In the latest iteration, two weeks ago PA forces fired stun grenades and teargas on a peaceful demonstration calling for the easing of punitive economic measures in Gaza. An Amnesty International staff member was arbitrarily detained and tortured alongside 18 others in what the rights group labeled a “vicious crackdown”.

After returning from the recent PA coordinated visit to the West Bank Green Party leader Elizabeth May and NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice both said the Palestinians they talked didn’t support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (the PA’s position). The delegation did not meet anyone from the Palestinian BDS National Committee, which dubs itself “the broadest Palestinian civil society coalition that works to lead and support the BDS movement for Palestinian rights.” Nor did they go to Gaza.

Claiming to be dialoguing with both sides through CPPFG and CIIG is a cruel joke. The NDP should heed 200 well-known musicians, academics, trade unionists and party members’ call to withdraw from the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Canada’s NDP’s Claim to ‘Dialogue’ with Palestinians a Cruel Joke
  • Tags: , ,

Big lies repeated enough drown out truth-telling, especially when major media don’t refute them.

Just the opposite is commonplace in America, the West, and most everywhere else, the media goes along with the official narrative instead of questioning it and demanding proof to support claims.

Without it, accusations are baseless. Not a shred of evidence suggests Russian interference in any Western or other foreign elections – something Washington does repeatedly.

In January 2017, House and Senate Intelligence Committee members began investigating whether Russia interfered in the US 2016 presidential election.

Last March, House Intelligence Committee head of its probe into alleged Russian US election meddling Michael Conaway said his panel “found no evidence (of Kremlin) collusion, coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians,” adding:

At most his panel found possible examples of “bad judgement, inappropriate meetings, and inappropriate judgment at taking meetings” – nothing else, no Russian meddling, no illegal or improper behavior.

At the time, House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes issued a statement, saying:

“After more than a year, the committee has finished its Russia investigation and will now work on completing our report.”

“We’re dealing in facts, and we found no evidence of collusion.”

Special counsel Mueller’s witch-hunt Russiagate probe has been ongoing since May 2017 – reporting not a whiff of illegal or improper Trump team/Russia connections, no Russian interference in America’s electoral process – NOTHING!

In January 2017, the US intelligence community accused Russia of US election meddling, no proof presented backing the charge because none exists.

Last October, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr expressed high confidence in the intelligence community’s assessment of Russian interference – admitting his committee found no evidence proving it after nine months of investigation.

On July 3, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its report on what it called “a wide range of Russian activities relating to the 2016 US presidential election,” adding:

“While elements of the investigation (remain) ongoing, the Committee is releasing initial, unclassified findings…”

The best committee members could conclude was the following statement by chairman Richard Burr, saying:

“The Committee has spent the last 16 months reviewing the sources, tradecraft and analytic work underpinning the Intelligence Community Assessment and sees no reason to dispute the conclusions,” adding:

The CIA and FBI have “high confidence” about Russian US election meddling. The NSA disagreed, expressing “moderate confidence” in that conclusion.

The Senate report presented no evidence of Trump team/Russian electoral collusion, no proof suggesting any Kremlin interference in America’s electoral process – just accepting the dubious word of the nation’s intelligence community, notoriously hostile to truth-telling about US adversaries and enemies.

The Senate Intelligence Committee hasn’t released what it calls a “comprehensive, classified” report on this issue.

After many months of House, Senate and Mueller probes, not a shred of evidence proves Russian election meddling or collusion with Trump’s team over anything.

The Senate report’s release comes days ahead of the July 16 Putin/Trump summit in Helsinki, Finland.

Virtually the entire Congress and media scoundrels are hostile to Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Release of the Senate’s report now reflects a likely attempt to try undermining anything positive from talks with Trump – perhaps along with portraying the US president as a fifth column threat for even meeting with Putin.

As long as Big Lies drown out truth-telling, most Americans will remain unaware of how their ruling authorities betray them – no matter which right wing of the one-party state is in power.

*

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

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Featured image is from Veterans Today.

Israel Lawyer Appointed Chair of UN Human Rights Committee

July 5th, 2018 by Middle East Monitor

Featured image: Yuval Shany, deputy president of the Israel Democracy Institute and a member of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Faculty of Law [Twitter]

An Israeli lawyer was chosen yesterday to chair the UN Human Rights Committee, despite the country’s dire human rights record.

The UN Human Rights Committee, not to be confused with the UN Human Rights Council, is a panel of legal professionals which reviews states’ adherence to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which forms part of the International Bill of Human Rights.

The Covenant commits parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, speech and assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial. Israel has signed and ratified the Covenant.

The committee will now be chaired by Yuval Shany, who was unanimously selected on Monday by its 18 members. Shany is deputy president of the Israel Democracy Institute and a member of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Faculty of Law. He has also worked for Israel’s Ministry of Justice and as an advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office and the Israeli army. He will be the first Israeli to chair the Human Rights Committee.

In a statement following his appointment, Shany said that

“we live in an international climate that no longer supports human rights. As head of the committee, I hope to harness its positive and apolitical influence to secure human rights for all citizens of the world,” according to Haaretz.

The appointment will raise eyebrows in light of Israel’s dire human rights record and systematic denial of Palestinians’ human rights. According to Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem, Israel uses administrative detention of Palestinians, in which a person who has not committed an offense is held without trial or legal proceedings, as a “quick and easy alternative to criminal trial”. B’Tselem statistics show that “at the end of May 2018, 440 Palestinians – including two women and three minors – were held in administrative detention in Israel Prison Service (IPS) facilities.”

Israel’s disregard for human rights has also been highlighted during the Great March of Return, which began on 30 March. Since the protests began, 135 Palestinians have died after being hit by Israeli live fire, with a further 15,000 injured. Israel has also been criticised for its targeting of journalists, photographers and paramedics in a bid to silence reports and images of its human rights violations.

In addition, Israel in June passed a law making it an offence to film Israeli soldiers on duty, making filming “with intent to harm the morale of Israel’s soldiers or its inhabitants” punishable by up to five years in prison. The law will limit the work of human rights groups who document human rights violations committed by Israeli soldiers in the occupied West Bank.

Ties between Europe and Africa have never been rosy.  A relationship based on predatory conquest and the exploitation of resources (slave flesh, minerals, and such assortments) is only ever going to lend itself to farce and display rather than sincerity.  The late Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, whose death must be placed squarely at the feat of the Franco-Anglo-American intervention in the Libyan conflict of 2011, typified the cruelly distorted relationship, a man who morphed from erratic, third way statesman of revolution to terrorist inspired “Mad Dog”; then to a modern, if cartoonish figure capable of rehabilitating a state from pariah to flattered guest.  

A neat expression of Euro-African ties was captured in the 2007 Dakar address by then French President Nicolas Sarkozy.  Like the current French President Emmanuel Macron, Sarkozy wanted to make an impression on those in what had been formerly characterised as the Dark Continent.  The leaders of the Maghreb and West Africa had been led to believe that promise was wafting in the air, that France would have a grand update on its relationship with former colonies on the continent.  The system of Francafrique, larded with neo-colonial connotation, would be scrapped.  Sweet sensible equality would come to be.

An impression he did make, albeit in spectacularly negative, sizzling fashion.

  “The tragedy of Africa is that the African has not fully entered into history… They have never really launched themselves into the future.”

Sarkozy’s speech seemed a cribbed version of texts produced at a time when European officials were falling over each in other in acquiring, and renting portions of the continent.  But in 2007, a French leader could still be found speculating about the limited world view of African agrarianism, its peasantry cocooned from enlightenment.

“The African peasant only knew the eternal renewal of time, marked by the endless repetition of the same gestures and the same words.”

This, for the French President, was a “realm of fancy – there is neither room for human endeavour nor the idea of progress.”

The impact of the speech was such as to prompt Senegal’s foremost scribe Boubacar Boris Diop to suggest a cognitive confusion of some scale.

“Maybe he does not realise to what extent we felt insulted.”

Defences were offered in France, one coming from Jean-Marie Bockel.  The speech, he concluded, had one thread through it:

“the future of Africa belongs firstly to the Africans.”

And so now, in 2018, where history has again become an issue, throwing up its human cargo of suffering from conflict, poverty and strong shades of neo-colonialism, France, fashioned as a European leader, again finds itself considering how to respond to relations with the southern continent.

For various African states, the signs are not good.  Historical condescension and the sneer seemingly persists.  Macron, in an effort to steady the refugee control effort in the European Union, has gone into full school teacher mode.  The EU, he has iterated, cannot take decisions on behalf of African states, though he does suggest that, “Helping Africa to succeed is good for Europe and France.”

African states also suffered from a distinct problem of fecundity: unplanned population growth threatened further northward migration.  Immigrant processing centres in North Africa designed to halt the flow into Europe’s south, he suggests, “can fly, just if some African governments decide to organise it”.

*

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]

As President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa was a Godsend for the Ecuadorian people, for Latin American independence and for WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange. By serving justice and truth instead of Washington, Correa earned Washington’s hatred and determination to destroy him.

Correa was succeeded as president by Lenin Moreno, who Correa mistakenly believed to be an ally, but who has every appearance of being a Washington asset. The first thing that Moreno did was to make a deal with Washington, block Correa from being able to again stand for the presidency and turn on Julian Assange. Moreno wants to revoke the asylum granted to Assange and has prevented Assange from continuing his journalistic activity from the Ecuadorian embassy in London. In other words, Moreno has conspired with Washington and the UK to effectively imprison Assange in the embassy.

Now Moreno has taken another step that highlights his character as a blackguard. Correa, realizing that he and his family were in danger, moved to Belgium. An Ecuadorian court has now ordered the Belgians to detain Correa and extradite him to Ecuador on a fabricated kidnapping charge.

Correa thinks that Belgium will not comply with an absurd charge for which no evidence is presented and that the charge is intended to smear his name. If I were Correa, I would not be so sure. Look at the ease with which Washington was able to use its vassals—Sweden and the UK—to effectively nullify the political asylum that Ecuador gave Assange. Belgium is also Washington’s vassal and will experience threats and bribes—whatever it takes—to deliver Correa into Moreno’s hands, which is to say into Washington’s hands. If I were Correa, I would get myself over to the Russian embassy and request asylum from Putin.

Here is a news report from RT.

Notice that RT has accepted Washington’s characterization of Assange’s journalism as “controversial online political activity.”  The group-think that characterizes the Western media is now reflected as well in the English language Russian news organization.

*

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

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

A Journey to Iran: Elections, Ramadan and Couchsurfing

July 5th, 2018 by Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin

In the current media build-up against Iran it is easy to get lost in the confusion and hype about the Iranian government and miss out on an understanding of the problems facing the Iranian people and how they are coping with them. The current economic situation is worsening as the UN Security Council, the United States and the European Union imposed sanctions on Iran begin to bite. Major sectors of the Iranian economy have been affected such as the energy/petroleum industry, banking, the Central Bank of Iran, shipping, insurance, international trade and foreign firms dealing with Iran. In addition to these problems there is a shortage of fresh water, a problem associated with climate change as drought and rising temperatures put stress on existing reserves. Other environmental issues include vehicle emissions, refinery operations, and industrial effluents which have made Tehran one of the most polluted cities in the world.

Even under so much pressure from so many different economic, environmental and international stresses the Iranian people have managed to maintain their dignity and famous hospitality as I found out traveling there last year. I was invited over for a conference for five days but ended up staying for five weeks, traveling north, west, and then south of Tehran. I took a train north to Tabriz and then on through the mountains to the border of Armenia and similarly west through plains to the mountains on the Turkish border. But it was in Tehran and in the south to Isfahan and Shiraz that I had most of my experiences meeting Iranian people. Everywhere I went – restaurants, cafes, galleries and on the streets – people approached me to practice their English and make friends.

There are many interesting places to see in Tehran, e.g. the 435-meter-high Milad Tower which was completed in 2007, the more recent 270-meter pedestrian overpass of Tabiat Bridge (2014) and the Azadi Tower the 45-meter-high marble-clad monument commissioned by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, to mark the 2,500th year of the foundation of the Imperial State of Iran in 1971. The latter is surrounded by about 4 or 5 lanes of traffic but can be negotiated like most streets in Tehran by raising one’s hand Moses-like and parting the traffic.

Elections in Tehran

I happened to arrive on 19 May 2017 during the presidential election campaigning between incumbent president Hassan Rouhani (MDP – Moderation and Development Party – a pragmatic-centrist political party) and Ebrahim Raisi (CCA – Combatant Clergy Association – a conservative organisation). Out on the streets of Tehran campaigning between opposing groups with posters of their respective candidates was generally by young people and mainly good-natured. While I was advised not to go out on the streets at night, I found the street campaigners to be very friendly and they in turn advised me to be careful with my camera and not to take photos of police and soldiers which could result in confiscation (especially as I did not have a journalist visa). During the polling I visited two polling stations and was offered tea and invited in to sit down and observe the electors queuing and voting. Outside I made some conversation with the armed soldiers guarding the station who were also friendly and quite relaxed. After the voting took place, the twelfth such election in Iran, Rouhani was re-elected for a second term. Again the streets filled up with people and cars coming to a standstill for the celebrations. He received 23.5 of 41 million votes counted and was inaugurated on 5 August 2017.

Image on the right: Azadi Tower, Tehran

Soon after I visited various historical and cultural sites in Tehran. In terms of recent history it is interesting to visit the former Embassy of the United States, the site of the Iran hostage crisis in 1979 and which is now a museum. One of the best known historical sites in Tehran is the Saadabad complex that covers an area of 110 hectares and is located at the northernmost part of Tehran. It has 18 palaces which belonged to the royal families of Qajar and Pahlavi in a beautiful garden. Reza Shah of the Pahlavi Dynasty lived there in the 1920s, and his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, moved there in the 1970s. After the 1979 Revolution, the complex became a museum. I also visited the National Museum, the Museum of Contemporary Art and Honarmandan Park (Artists Park) learning about a wide range of past and present Iranian culture. Honarmandan Park has the Iranian Artists Forum which is a set of galleries located inside the park along with a vegetarian restaurant, a theatre and outdoor sculptures. Here I met 2 Iranian artist sisters who discussed with me the difficulties they encountered trying to show work abroad. Both are now in Canada, at least temporarily.

Naqsh-e Jahan Square (Imam Square), Isfahan

During the day the streets were quiet as it was the Holy Month of Ramadan (May 27 to July June 25, 2017) but in the evening, after sundown, the city came alive as people went out to the cafes and restaurants or to picnic in the parks. I got to know a regular taxi driver, Ahmed, and his English-speaking son, Mojtaba, who brought me to Mount Tochal, a mountain and ski resort located on the Alborz mountain range, close to the metropolitan area of Tehran. Mountain climbing is very popular in Iran (another Iranian acquaintance of mine from Mashhad lost 9 friends in an avalanche last December). Life is tough for a taxi driver in Tehran with so much air pollution and traffic, one of the downsides of having cheap petrol. Ahmed and his wife lived in an apartment in Tehran along with Mojtaba, a languages student who hopes to continue his studies in Germany. On one taxi journey to the National Museum, Ahmed passed me back a dinner his wife had made for me as he knew it was difficult to get food during the day during Ramadan. When I decided to go south, Mojtaba helped me to get train tickets to Isfahan. Iranian trains are slow but comfortable and are a great way to see the countryside. Mojtaba came down to Isfahan with me for the day and we were met in the train station early in the morning by Atefah (just graduated from art college) and her sister (medical student) and their mother who had invited me to stay with them through the Couchsurfing website.

During the day we went to  visit Chehel Sotoun (“Forty Columns”), a pavilion in the middle of a park at the far end of a long pool. It was built by Shah Abbas II to be used for his entertainment and receptions and beautiful paintings of such scenes adorn the walls of the pavilion. Later we went for a picnic at night in Naqsh-e Jahan Square (Imam Square), the jewel in the crown of Isfahan architecture (constructed between 1598 and 1629) and a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The square is surrounded by buildings from the Safavid dynasty, one of the most significant ruling dynasties of Iran, often considered the beginning of modern Iranian history. Around a thousand people sat around with their families on rugs and enjoyed picnics. Atefah’s mother also laid out a picnic while Atefah rushed over to two foreigners whom she had spotted to ask them to join us. Turned out to be an Australian mother and son who were traveling around Iran together. We were all taken off to see some of the famous Isfahan bridges over the Zayandeh River which was completely dried up at this time of the year. We visited the Si-o-se Pol pedestrian bridge which was built in 1632, the Joui pedestrian bridge built in the 17th century, the Khajou pedestrian bridge (1650), and the Marnan pedestrian bridge (1599).

In conversation with Atefah, she told me that the water shortages have become so serious that they have water only 4 days a week at home now. Iranian meteorological services say that 97% of the country is affected by drought but it is particularly bad around Isfahan where demonstrations have broken out over water in the  past. She also said that foreign goods are becoming more and expensive and the inflation rate is around 10%. She is trying to go to Germany for further study and says that the decreasing grants and the worsening exchange rate is making it increasingly harder for her to get the visas necessary.

Image below: Si-o-se Pol Bridge, Isfahan

The next night I was brought to hospital by Atefah’s family due to dehydration as I had not been drinking enough water. I dreaded going in as I was used to very long waits at home. However I was seen very quickly and was soon moved to a cubicle and put on a drip. After about three hours I was released and brought to an overnight bus I had booked to Shiraz. Couchsurfing again I stayed with Mohammed and his family. Over the next couple of days he showed me around Shiraz and then drove me to Persepolis, the ceremonial capital of the Achaemenid Empire (ca. 550–330 BC). It is situated 60 km northeast of the city of Shiraz and is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Persepolis is believed to have been a grand ceremonial complex but only occupied seasonally. Mohammed also talked about similar problems regarding water, inflation and food prices. At this time in June the temperatures in Shiraz were nearing 40 degrees. That same week the temperature in the southwestern Iranian city of Ahvaz (between Isfahan and Shiraz) soared to 53.7 degrees (29/6/2017), Iran’s highest temperature ever recorded and the highest June temperature in Asia on record.

I decided to fly back to Tehran and stay in a hostel for the last night. I arranged to meet Ahmed and Mojtaba in a cafe to drive me to the hostel. Upon inquiring if they knew where the hostel was they answered in the affirmative but that they had already decided that I was going to be staying with them instead. And so I was taken off to their apartment to meet Ahmed’s wife, have dinner, a last walk around Tehran streets and then given Mojtaba’s bed while he slept on the couch. In the morning we arose and they brought me the 40 kms to Imam Khomeini International Airport for my flight home.

*

Caoimhghin Ó Croidheáin is an Irish artist, lecturer and writer. His artwork consists of paintings based on contemporary geopolitical themes as well as Irish history and cityscapes of Dublin. His blog of critical writing based on cinema, art and politics along with research on a database of Realist and Social Realist art from around the world can be viewed country by country here. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

All images in this article are from the author.

Video: The USA and NATO Oust Crisis-ridden EU

July 5th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

Two summits, both in Brussels at a two-week interval, represent the status quo of the European situation. The meeting of the European Council on 28 June confirmed that the Union, founded on the interests of the economic and financial oligarchies, beginning with those of the greatest powers, is presently crumbling because of its conflicts of interest, which are not limited to the migrant question.

The North Atlantic Council – to be attended, on 10-11 July, by the heads of state and government of 22 EU countries (of a total of 28), members of the Alliance (with Great Britain leaving the Union) – will reinforce NATO under US command. President Donald Trump will therefore be holding the strongest cards at the bilateral Summit which is to be held five days later, on 16 July in Helsinki, with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Whatever the US President stipulates at the negotiating table, it will fundamentally affect the situation in Europe. The fact that the USA have never wanted a unified Europe as an equal ally is no secret to anyone. For more than 40 years, during the Cold War, they maintained Europe in subordination as the front line of the nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union.

In 1991, when the Cold War was over, the United States feared that the European allies could question their leadership or decide that NATO was now obsolete, overtaken as it was by the new geopolitical situation. This is the reason for the strategic reorientation of NATO, still under US command, recognised by the Treaty of Maastricht as the “foundation for the defence” of the European Union, and also for its expansion towards the East, linking the former countries of the Warsaw Pact more to Washington than Brussels.

During the wars waged after the end of the Cold War (Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq for the second time, Libya, Syria), the United States were pursuing secret deals with the greatest European powers (Great Britain, France, Germany) and sharing with them certain zones of influence, while from the other European states (including Italy) they obtained what they wanted without any substantial concessions.

Washington’s main objective is not only to keep the European Union in a subordinate position, but even more so, to prevent the formation of an economic zone which could unite all of Europe, including Russia, by connecting to China with the developing “new Silk Road”. This has led to the new Cold War that was triggered in Europe in 2014 (during the Obama administration), and the economic sanctions and the escalation of NATO’s strategy against Russia.

The strategy of “divide and rule”, originally dressed up in the costumes of diplomacy, is now clear for all to see. When he met President Macron in April, Trump suggested that France should leave the European Union, offering him commercial conditions more advantageous than those of the EU. We do not know what is being decided in Paris. But it is significant that France launched a plan anticipating joint military operations with a group of EU countries, a plan made independently of the decision-making apparatus of the EU. The agreement was signed in Luxembourg, on 25 June, by France, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Estonia and the United Kingdom, which would therefore be able to participate even after its exit from the EU in March 2019.

The French Minister for Defence, Florence Parly, noted that Italy has not yet signed the agreement because of “a question of details, not substance”. In fact, the plan was approved by NATO, since it “completes and augments the rapidity of the armed forces of the Alliance”. And, as underlined the Italian Minister for Defence Elisabetta Trenta, because the “European Union must become a provider of security at the international level, and to do so, it must reinforce its cooperation with NATO”.

Source: PandoraTV

*

This article was originally published in Italian by Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Author’s Introductory Note

Environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) for military use constitute, in the present context of global warfare, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction.

Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use.

Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which was initially developed in the 1990s under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), was an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. From a military standpoint, HAARP  –which was officially abolished in 2014– is  a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.

Officially, the HAARP program has been closed down at its location in Alaska. The technology of weather modification shrouded in secrecy, nonetheless prevails.

Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report,  offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary”, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:

‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.”

In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned ‘military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’  According to the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques:

The term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva: 18 May 1977)

While the substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, debate on weather modification for military use has become a scientific taboo.

Military analysts and scientists are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter and environmentalists are largely focussing on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, is not part of the broader debate on climate change under UN auspices.

While discussion of  the post Cold War military applications of  weather warfare is a taboo, the US Air Force has nonetheless acknowledged the strategic importance of ENMOD techniques in the modern battlefield of non-conventional warfare and intel ops, including the conduct, without the enemy’s knowledge, of “covert” weather modification operations.

While the US Air Force acknowledges that ENMOD weapons are part of their military arsenal, there is no formal proof or evidence that ENMOD techniques have been used by the US military against a foreign country or enemy of  the US.  

At this juncture in our history, US-NATO forces are deployed worldwide.

The US and its allies are waging war on Syria and Iraq and targeting Iran and North Korea. They are also threatening Russia and China.

The Pentagon has formulated the contours of a global military agenda, a “long war”, a war without borders.

“Weather warfare” is the ultimate WMD  with the potential of destabilizing an enemy’s ecosystem, destroying its agriculture, disabling communications networks. In other words, ENMOD techniques can undermine an entire national economy, impoverish  millions of people and “kill a nation” without the deployment of troops and military hardware. 

The following text, with the exception of some small edits was first published in September 2004.

The 2004  article was a follow-up on an earlier study by the author entitled Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change, published by Global Research and Third World Resurgence, January 2001. 

While The  Ecologist published in 2007 a shorter version of this article, the issue of climatic manipulation for military use has largely been ignored by Environmentalists. 

This essay is dedicated to the memory of  Sister Dr. Rosalie Bertell, who, from the very outset revealed the diabolical nature of the HAARP project, as part of an integrated non-conventional weapons program:

“It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. … HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature. The military implications of combining these projects is alarming. …

The ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very large amounts of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening. The project is likely to be “sold” to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a device for repairing the ozone layer.” (Dr. Rosalie Bertell)

It is my sincere hope that this article will renew the debate on the dangers of weather warfare and will contribute to the broader objective of World peace which requires the relentless “disarming” of the US- NATO military apparatus.

Officially, the HAARP program has been closed down at its location in Alaska. The technology of weather modification shrouded in secrecy, nonetheless prevails.

CBC 1996 News documentary: HAARP – US military weather weapon

 

 

Michel Chossudovsky, May 18  2015


The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction:

“Owning the Weather” for Military Use

 by Michel Chossudovsky

Minor edits: September 2023. The URL of the original article 2001 article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO409F.html

Weather Warfare

The significant expansion in America’s weather warfare arsenal, which is a priority of the Department of Defense is not a matter for debate or discussion. While, environmentalists blame the Bush administration for not having signed the Kyoto protocol, the issue of “weather warfare”, namely the manipulation of weather patterns for military use is never mentioned.

The US Air Force has the capability of manipulating climate either for testing purposes or for outright military-intelligence use.  These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes. In recent years, large amounts of money have been allocated by the US Department of Defense to further developing and perfecting these capabilities. The U.S Air Force in its 1996 report explicitly refers to “Owning the Weather in 2025”

Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence  purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog, and storms on earth or to modify space weather, … and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of technologies which can provide substantial increase in US, or degraded capability in an adversary, to achieve global awareness, reach, and power.

(see  Weather as a Force Multiplier, Owning the Weather in 2025, See also  US Air Force, Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report)

While there is no firm evidence that the US Air Force weather warfare facilities have been  applied to modify weather patterns, one would expect that if these capabilities are being developed for military use, they would at least be the object of routine testing, much in the same way as the testing of new conventional and strategic weapons systems.

Needless to say, the subject matter is a scientific taboo. The possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, is never considered as relevant. Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter, and environmentalists are strung on global warming and the Kyoto protocol.

Ironically, the Pentagon, while recognizing its ability to modify the World’s climate for military use, has joined the global warming consensus. In a major study published by climate.org (pdf) [link no longer available], the Pentagon has analyzed in detail the implications of various global warming scenarios. The Pentagon document constitutes a convenient cover-up. Not a word is mentioned about its main weather warfare program: The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska –jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy.

There are several mainstream explanations on weather and climate change, none of which fully explains, within their respective terms of reference, the highly unusual and erratic weather occurrences, not to mention the human toll and devastation, which have led to the destabilization of entire agricultural and eco-systems. Needless to say these explanations never address the issue of climate manipulation for military use.

Climatic Manipulation by the US Military: The HAARP Program

The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska, has been in existence since 1992. It is part of a new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating “controlled local modifications of the ionosphere” [upper layer of the atmosphere]:

“[HAARP will be used] to induce a small, localized change in ionospheric temperature so that resulting physical reactions can be studied by other instruments located either at or close to the HAARP site”. (HAARP website)

Nicholas Begich –actively involved in the public campaign against HAARP– describes HAARP as:

“A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere  by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything — living and dead.”

(for further details see Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html )

World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as

“a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet.” (quoted in Chossudovsky, op cit.)

According to Richard Williams, a physicist and consultant to the David Sarnoff laboratory in Princeton HAARP constitutes “an irresponsible act of global vandalism.”

He and others fear a secret second stage where HAARP would

“beam much more energy into the ionosphere. That could produce a severe disruption of the upper atmosphere at one location that may produce effects that spread rapidly around the Earth for years.” (Quoted in Scott Gilbert, Environmental Warfare and US Foreign Policy: The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction

HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that HAARP’s main objective is to “exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes.” (quoted in Chossudovsky, op cit).

Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US Air Force study points to the use of “induced ionospheric modifications” as a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy communications and radar. (Ibid)

HAARP also has the ability of triggering blackouts and disrupting the electricity power system of entire regions.

An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable: the covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications systems and electric power as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions of the World.

Weather Warfare: A Corporate Bonanza

HAARP has been operational since the early 1990s. Its system of antennas at Gakona, Alaska, was initially based on a technology patented by Advanced Power Technologies Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Ritchfield Corporation (ARCO).

The first phase of the HAARP Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) was completed by APTI.  The IRI system of antennas was first installed in 1992 by a subsidiary of British Aerospace Systems (BAES) using the APTI patent. The antennas beam into the outer-atmosphere using a set of wireless high frequency transmitters.

In 1994, ARCO sold its APTI subsidiary, including the patents and the second phase construction contract to E-Systems, a secretive high tech military outfit allegedly with links to US intelligence

E-Systems specializes in the production of electronic warfare equipment, navigation and reconnaissance machinery, including “highly sophisticated spying devices”:

“[E-Systems] is one of the biggest intelligence contractors in the world, doing work for the CIA, defense intelligence organizations, and others. US$1.8 billion of their annual sales are to these organizations, with $800 million for black projects-projects so secret that even the United States Congress isn’t told how the money is being spent. (See Earthpulse.com on HAARP Program

“The company has outfitted such military projects as the Doomsday Plan (the system that allows the President to manage a nuclear war) and Operation Desert Storm.” (See Princeton Review, link no longer available),

With the purchase of APTI, E-Systems acquired the strategic weather warfare technology and patent rights, including Bernard J. Eastlund‘s US Patent No: 4,686,605 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth’s Atmosphere, Ionosphere and/or Magnetosphere”.

It is worth mentioning that the Eastlund /APTI patents were based on the research of Yugoslav scientist Nicola Tesla (many of whose ideas were stolen by US corporations). (See Scott Gilbert, Environmental Warfare and US Foreign Policy: The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction)  

Eastlund described this deadly technology as capable of:

“causing…total disruption of communications over a very large portion of the Earth…missile or aircraft destruction, deflection or confusion… weather modification…”  (Wealth4Freedom.com)  

Not surprisingly, the patent had previously been sealed under a government secrecy order.

Barely a year following the E-Systems purchase of APTI’s weather warfare technology, E-Systems was bought out by Raytheon, the fourth largest US military contractor.

Through this money-spinning acquisition, Raytheon became the largest “defense electronics” firm in the World.

Meanwhile, ARCO which had sold APTI to E-Systems, had itself been acquired by the BP-AMOCO oil consortium, thereby integrating the largest oil company in the World (BP).

Raytheon through its E-Systems subsidiary now owns the patents used to develop the HAARP weather warfare facility at Gakona Alaska. Raytheon is also involved in other areas of weather research for military use, including the activities of its subsidiary in Antarctica, Raytheon Polar Services.

“Owning the Weather”: Towards the Expanded Final Stage

The HAARP antenna array and transmitters were slated to be built in several distinct phases

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/phases.html

During the Clinton administration, the “Filled Developmental Prototype” (FDP), namely a system composed of an array of 48 active antenna elements with connected wireless transmitters, was installed and completed at the HAARP facility in 1994.

(See Figure 1 below)

Under the initial Developmental Prototype (DP), only 18 of the 48 transmitters were connected.

Bernard Eastlund in a 1997 interview described this antenna array in its Filled DP stage as the

“the largest ionospheric heater ever built”.

This system of 48 antennas, however, while fully operational, was not according to Eastlund, powerful enough (in 1997)

“to bring the ideas in his patents to fruition”:.

“But they’re getting up there”, he said. “This is a very powerful device. Especially if they go to the expanded stage.”

(quoted in Scott Gilbert, op cit

This ‘final expanded stage’ envisioned by Eastlund, which will provide maximum capability to manipulate the World’s weather patterns, has now been reached.

Under the Bush administration, the main partner of Raytheon (which owns the patents) in the construction and development stage of the HAARP antenna array, is British Aerospace Systems (BAES), which had been involved in the initial installation of the antenna array in the early 1990s.

The multimillion dollar contract was granted by The Office of Naval Research to BAES in 2003, through its US subsidiary BAE Systems Advanced Technologies Inc. The contract was signed barely two months before the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq.

Using Raytheon’s technology, BAES was to develop the HAARP Ionospheric Research Instrument (IRI) to its maximum capabilities of “Full size or final IRI (FIRI)”.

In April 2003, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies outsourced the production and installation of the antennas to Phazar Corp, a company specializing in advanced wireless antennas for military use.

Phazar owns Antenna Products Corporation of Mineral Wells, Texas. Phazar was entrusted with producing and installing 132 crossed dipole antennas items for the HAARP facility. See

(http://www.antennaproducts.com/News Release 2004-18-03.pdf )

A year later, in April 2004, the final phase in the expansion of the HAARP facility was launched. (Dept of Defense, 19 April 2004).

This phase consisted in equipping all the 180 antennas with high frequency transmitters.  BAE Systems was awarded another lucrative contract, this time for $35 million.

In July 2004, Phazar had delivered and installed the 132 crossed dipole antennas including the antenna support structures and ground screen items at the HAARP facility, bringing the number of antennas from 48 under the FDP stage to 180. (see Table 2).

Meanwhile, BAE Systems had contracted with Jersey based defense electronics firm DRS Technologies, Inc in an $11.5 million outsourcing arrangement, the production and installation of the high-frequency (HF) radio transmitters for the HAARP antenna array. DRS specializes in a variety of leading edge products for the U.S. military and intelligence agencies.

Under its contract with BAE Systems Information and Electronic Warfare Systems in Washington, D.C., DRS is to manufacture and install “more than 60 Model D616G 10-Kilowatt Dual Transmitters” to be used with the HAARP system of antennas.

(It is unclear from the company statements whether all the 180 antennas will be equipped with a transmitter, bringing the system up to full IRI capabilities).

Deliveries and installation are to be completed by July 2006. While HAARP is described as a “research project”, the production of the transmitters was entrusted to DRS’ C41 “Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) Group”


The diagram and images below describe the HAARP Alaska Facility in 1997. [Note most of the url links are broken as a result of the closure of the HAARP facility]

Figure 1:

The Array of 48 Antenna Elements with the Transmitter Shelters  (FDP stage). FDP layout

The newly installed 132 dipole antennas supplied by Phazar vastly increase the size of the HAARP Alaska facility;  the new transmitters are supplied and installed by DRS

Image 1: Aerial Photo of the HAARP Alaska Site

Source:  http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/ohd.html

HAARP

Image 2: HAARP Antenna Array

Source: http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/HaarpSite.html

The 48 antenna array is supported by transmitter shelters, each of which contains 6 transmitter cabinets. (See image of shelter below)

Each cabinet contains two transmitters. (image of cabinet below)

Image 3 Transmitter Shelter. [no longer available ]

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/images/trans/transtr.jpg

Transmitter Shelter containing Six Transmitter Cabinets. Each Cabinet contains two transmitters

Image 4: Inside the Transmitter Shelter

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/images/trans/shelter.jpg

Image 5. Two Transmitters making up a  Transmitter Cabinet [no longer available]

http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/images

Testing of HAARP Equipment (2003- 2004)

It is worth noting that the expansion of the antenna array (e.g. during 2003-2004) required, as part of the contracts reached with BAE Systems and its various subcontractors, the routine testing of the installed weather warfare equipment. An intermediate stage Limited IRI (LIRI), could be in operation by 2004, following the completion of the 180 antenna array under the Phazar contract and pending the final delivery of the remaining HF radio transmitters.

In this regard, a report published by the Russian parliament (Duma) in 2002, suggests that the US Military had plans to test its weather modification techniques at its Alaska facility, as well as at two other sites:

“The committees reported that the USA is planning to test three facilities of this kind. One of them is located on the military testing ground in Alaska and its full-scale tests are to begin in early 2003. The second one is in Greenland and the third one in Norway.

“When these facilities are launched into space from Norway, Alaska and Greenland, a closed contour will be created with a truly fantastic integral potential for influencing the near-Earth medium,” the State Duma said.

The USA plans to carry out large-scale scientific experiments under the HAARP program, and not controlled by the global community, will create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines and have a negative impact on the mental health of people populating entire regions, the deputies said. (Interfax News Agency, original Russian, BBC Monitoring, 8 August 2002, emphasis added)

Whether this report by the Russian Duma on testing “starting in early 2003” is correct or not, the US administration must be confronted nationally and internationally, at the political and diplomatic levels, at the UN and the US Congress, by the international scientific community, by environmentalists and the antiwar movement. The future of humanity is threatened by the use of weather modification techniques.

Moreover, to wage an effective campaign, it is essential that corroborating scientific investigation of the unusual weather occurrences observed in recent years (and particularly since early 2003) be undertaken. This investigation should be far-reaching, collecting relevant data, correlating specific weather occurrences to recorded antenna activity at the Alaska site as well as at the two other sites, etc.

The Full Size Ionospheric Research Instrument FIRI stage, described as  “a maximum size of 180 antenna elements, arranged in 15 columns by 12 rows” is scheduled to be completed by mid-2006 (assuming the installation of the remaining dual transmitters), at which time the HAARP program will have reached its maximum FIRI capacity, meaning the ability to selectively modify, for military use, weather patterns anywhere in the World.

“The IRI is currently [June 2004] composed of 48 antenna elements and has a power capacity of 960,000 watts. When installed, the additional 132 transmitters will give HAARP a 3.6 mega-watt capacity [see Table 2 below]. The HAARP build-out is jointly funded by the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). (Business Wire, 10 June 2004)

Table 2: Comparison of IRI Phases

DP

FDP

LIRI

FIRI

Number of Active Antenna Elements

18

48

108

180

Total Transmitter Power (kW)

360

960

2160

3600

Maximum Antenna Gain (dB)

19

24

29

31

Max Effective Radiated Pwr (dBW)

74

84

92

96

Min Antenna Pattern Width (degrees)

9

8

5

Frequency Range

2.8 to 10 MHz

Modulation Types

CW/AM/FM/PM

Source http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/phases.html

This advanced stage of full capacity (FIRI) corresponds to what the US Air Force has called “Owning the Weather”:

US aerospace forces [will] ‘own the weather’ by capitalizing on emerging technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting applications… From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete dominance of global communications and counterspace control, weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary… In the United States, weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy with both domestic and international applications. Our government will pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels.

(US Air Force, emphasis added. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report, http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ )

Weather Warfare against “Rogue States”

The unusual climatic occurrences in the US and Western Europe have been extensively documented.

However, what the news media has failed to underscore is that a number of unusual and dramatic climatic changes have occurred in recent years [prior to the publication of this article] in countries which are identified as possible targets under the US Administration’s pre-emptive war doctrine.

There is no evidence or proof that these unusual weather patterns are the consequence of weather warfare. 

Weather patterns in North Korea, for instance, have been marked since the mid-1990s by a succession of droughts, followed by floods. The result has been the destruction of an entire agricultural system. (See details in Annex)

In Cuba, the pattern is very similar to that observed in North Korea. (See details in Annex)

In Iraq, Iran and  Syria, a devastating drought occurred in 1999.

In Afghanistan, four years of drought in the years preceding the US led invasion in 2001, have led to the destruction of the peasant economy, leading to widespread famine.

While there is no proof that these weather occurrences are the result of climatic warfare, Phillips Geophysics Lab, which is a partner in the HAARP project provides a course for military personnel at the Hanscom Air Force Base in Maryland, on “Weather Modification Techniques”. The course outline explicitly contemplates the triggering of storms, hurricanes, etc. for military use.

(See his slide show at http://www.dtc.army.mil/tts/1997/proceed/abarnes/

Open PowerPoint presentation at http://www.dtc.army.mil/tts/tts97/abarnes.zip ) [links no longer accessible] 

Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or even “friendly nations”, without their knowledge.

Weather warfare constitutes a covert form of pre-emptive war. The manipulation of climate can be used to destabilize an enemy’s economy, ecosystem and agriculture (e.g. North Korea or Cuba). Needless to say it can trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets and can potentially be used as an instrument of “insider trade” for financial gain. It has the ability of destabilizing a country’s institutions. Concurrently, the disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries.

The Bush administration has stated that it reserves the right to attack these countries preemptively, with a view to ensuring the security of the American homeland.

Washington –as part of its nuclear posture review– has threatened several countries including China and Russia with pre-emptive nuclear strikes. One would assume that the same targeting of rogue states exists with regard to the use of weather modification techniques”.

While there is no evidence of the use of weather warfare against rogue states, the policy guidelines on “weather intervention techniques” have already been established and the technology is fully operational.


Annex 

Country Case Studies:

Unusual Weather Occurrences 

Note:

While the US Air Force acknowledges that ENMOD weapons are part of the military arsenal, there is no formal proof or evidence that ENMOD techniques have been used by the US military against a foreign country or enemy of  the US.

There is no firm evidence that the unusual weather patterns recorded below are the result of climatic warfare. Recorded in this Appendix are weather patterns in selected countries in the 1990s and up until the time of writing in 2004. In some cases, the url links to the original sources are no longer available. 

North Korea (1995-1999)

Recurrent flooding and drought often in the same year has hit North Korea since 1995, 220,000 people died in the ensuing famine, according to Pyongyang’s own figures. U.S. figures place the number of deaths resulting from famine at 2 million.

The first major flooding occurred in 1995.

There were floods and drought in 1999. The serious water shortage resulting from the 1999 drought was conducive to the destruction of crops.

“The temperature of water in rice fields goes beyond 40 degrees and the tall rice plants fresh from the rice seedling beds are withering. In particular, nearly all after-crop maize seedlings and seeds are perishing,” it added.

In 2001, in June there was an extensive drought with rainfall just 10% of normal levels, which served to undermine agricultural crops. And then a few months later, in October, there were extensive floodings leading to the further destruction of rice harvests and a crisis situation in food distribution.

“Officials in Kangwon province – an area which already suffers food shortages – say the impact of the torrential rain and flooding has been devastating. The normal recorded rainfall for October should be around 20mm. But in the worst-affected areas 400mm (18 inches) of rain fell in just 12 hours. “It was the worst flooding we’ve had since records began in 1910,” said Kim Song Hwan, head of the government’s Flood Damage Rehabilitation Committee for the region.

(BBC, 23 Oct 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1614981.stm)

Cuba (1998-2004)

For several years Cuba has been affected by recurrent droughts. In 1998, rainfall in Eastern Cuba was at its lowest level since 1941.

A United Nations team estimated 539,000 people, 280,000 of them farmers, were directly affected by reduced availability of food or reduced income through production losses. Some reported effects are: hunger in areas; a loss of up to 14% of the sugar cane crop planted last year and a reduction in this spring’s planted crops, since rains were not sufficient for some seeds to germinate (which will reduce next year’s crop); as much as 42% losses in food staples such as root vegetables, beans, bananas, and rice in the five eastern provinces; and livestock, poultry, and egg production losses

(UN Relief,  http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/2975570e60ff2a7685256680005a8e2d?OpenDocument )

In 2003, a devastating drought hit the Western part of Cuba

In 2004  May-June, the country is hit by the worst drought in its history:

 “A severe drought enveloping eastern Cuba has eroded 40 percent of the farmland, starved thousands of heads of cattle and has close to 4 million people counting every drop of water they consume.” The drought is described as the worst in 40 years.

“The drought has robbed underground water levels of some 10 feet over the past 10 years, leaving over 5,000 wells across the province dry,” said Leandro Bermudez, a geologist and the second man at Cuba’s National Institute of Hydraulic Resources.

(MSNBC, 21 June 2004 http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5262324

The cities are running out of water. According to the Independent,  “Drought is bringing Cuba to its knees:

Unnoticed by the world, the longest dry period for decades has brought much of Cuba to its knees. Could this be the crisis that finally destroys Fidel’s revolution?” (Independent)

“All across central and eastern Cuba, farmers, ranchers, city dwellers and government officials are scrambling to deal with a punishing drought that began a decade ago and intensified in the last two years.

Although traditionally arid, the provinces of Holguin, Camaguey and Las Tunas hold some of Cuba’s finest pasture and farmland and have long been crucial to this communist nation’s dairy, beef and agricultural industries.

More than 12,500 cattle have died in Holguin alone in 2004 and milk production has fallen 20 percent. The price of beans, plantains, sweet potatoes and other staples has soared in private markets.

The drought has caused millions of dollars in losses and officials are spending millions more digging wells, building a water pipeline and taking other measures to try to ease the crisis – huge sums in an impoverished nation struggling through tough economic times and a battle with the United States.

Officials also have moved thousands of cattle to more fertile areas and are working furiously to finish a 32-mile pipeline that will draw water to Holguin city from Cuba’s largest river, the Cauto. The $5 million pipeline could be completed next month. (Chicago Tribune, July 29, 2004)

(Chicago Tribune, July 29, 2004, http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/9271316.htm )

The above report dates to July 2004, it was published before the hurricanes hit the Cuban coastline followed by torrential rains.

Afghanistan and The former Soviet Republics of Central Asia

The worst drought in Afghanistan’s history occurred in the three consecutive years prior to the onslaught of the US led invasion, from 1999 to 2001.

The agricultural recovery of the 1990s, in the wake of the Soviet-Afghan war was brought to a standstill.

In the wake of the US led 2001 invasion,  the United States supplied Afghanistan with genetically modified wheat and appropriate types of fertilizer to be used with the GM wheat, which was said to be high yield drought resistant. The donation of GM wheat, however, also led to destabilizing the small peasant economy because the GM wheat varieties could not be reproduced locally. In 2002, famines which were barely reported by the media, swept the country.

Similar although less severe conditions prevailed in the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

Like Afghanistan, Tajikistan has had its infrastructure ruined by prolonged civil war with Muslim fundamentalists. Since then, the worst regional drought in 74 years has destroyed food crops over a large part of the nation, rendering almost half of the 6.2 million people in the country vulnerable to the threat of famine and disease, up from 3 million last year. About the only portion of the economy that has been unaffected is the drug trade. Tajikistan is the transit route for 65 to 85 percent of heroin smuggled out of Afghanistan, the world’s largest producer.

(http://www.americanfreepress.net/Mideast/Drought__Desperation_Breed_Vio/drought__desperation_breed_vio.html)

Triggered by the lowest rainfall (2001) in living memory, vast tracts of Iran, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan are being reduced to desert as the water table sinks, long-established wells dry up and herds of livestock perish.

The crisis appears to fulfill alarming climate change predictions suggesting that states along the old Silk Road will experience steeper rises in temperature than any other region on earth. By the end of the century it will be 5C hotter in an area which regularly sees the thermometer soar above 40C.

The study, published last year by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, predicted that Asian countries from Kazakhstan to Saudi Arabia will warm up more than twice as much as others. “Several states,” the report added, “including Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Iran, [are facing] famine.”

In Tajikistan, the United Nations appealed for aid to avert disaster. “Substantial foreign aid is needed or else there will be a large-scale famine,” said Matthew Kahane, the UN’s humanitarian aid coordinator, speaking from the capital, Dushanbe.

“The country has had its lowest rainfall for 75 years. Families who survived last year by selling their cows and chickens now have no other means of coping. Some households have sold the glass out of their windows and the wooden beams from their roofs to raise money for food.

(The Guardian, 0ct 30, 2001,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/famine/story/0,12128,736902,00.html )

Iraq

In 1999, Iraq suffered its worst drought of the century, with the effect of triggering an even greater dependence on imported grain under the oil for food program. There was a drop of up to 70  percent in domestic yields of wheat, barley and other cereals, which served to further weaken the country’s economy, crippled by economic sanctions  and the routine bombing by allied aircraft in the no-fly zones.

A similar (although less serious) situation prevailed in Syria and Iran, marked by significant declines in agricultural output.


Related Global Research Articles on Weather Warfare (2001-2004)

Michel Chossudovsky, Washington’s New World Order Weapons Have the Ability to Trigger Climate Change, Jan 2001,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html

Vladimir V. Sytin, Secret Use of Weather Modification Techniques by US Air Force? August 2003,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SYT308A.html

Interfax,.US Could Dominate The Planet if It Deploys This Weapon In Space, CRG, August 2002,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/INT208A.html

Scott Gilbert, Environmental Warfare and US Foreign Policy: The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction, January 2004,

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GIL401A.html

Bob Fitrakis, Rods from Gods: The insanity of Star Wars, 24 June 2004,

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT407A.html

Did a Secret Military Experiment Cause the 2003 Blackout? 7 September 2003,

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ANA309A.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction: “Owning the Weather” for Military Use

Duas Cimeiras, ambas em Bruxelas, num espaço de duas semanas, representam a condição da situação europeia.

A reunião do Conselho Europeu, em 28 de Junho, confirmou que a União, baseada nos interesses das oligarquias económicas e financeiras, relativos às grandes potências, está a desmoronar-se devido a conflitos de interesses e não apenas devido à questão dos migrantes.

O Conselho do Atlântico Norte – no qual participarão, em 10 e 11 de Julho, os Chefes de Estado e de Governo dos 22 países da UE (num total de 28) membros da Aliança (com a Grã-Bretanha de saída da União) – reforçará a NATO sob comando USA.

O Presidente Trump terá, assim, na mão, cartas mais fortes na Cimeira bilateral que acontecerá cinco dias depois, a 16 de Julho, em Helsínquia, com o Presidente Vladimir Putin, da Rússia. O que o Presidente dos EUA estabelecerá na mesa de negociações dependerá fundamentalmente da situação da Europa. Não é segredo que os EUA nunca quiseram uma Europa unida como aliada paritária. Durante mais de 40 anos, aquando da Guerra Fria, têm-na mantido subordinada e na primeira linha de confronto nuclear com a União Soviética.

Em 1991, acabada a Guerra Fria, os Estados Unidos temem que os aliados europeus possam questionar a sua liderança ou considerar a NATO como inútil, ultrapassada pela nova situação geopolítica. Daí a reorientação estratégica da NATO, sempre sob comando USA, reconhecida pelo Tratado de Maastricht como “fundamento da defesa” da União Europeia e o seu alargamento para Leste, ligando os antigos países do Pacto de Varsóvia ainda mais a Washington do que a Bruxelas.

Durante as guerras pós-Guerra Fria (Iraque, Jugoslávia, Afeganistão, novamente o Iraque, Líbia, Síria), os Estados Unidos negociam em segredo com as principais potências europeias (Grã-Bretanha, França, Alemanha) repartindo com elas, áreas de influência, enquanto das outras (incluindo a Itália) conseguem o que querem sem concessões consideráveis.

O objectivo fundamental de Washington é não só manter a União Europeia numa posição subordinada, mas, sobretudo, impedir a formação de uma área económica que abranja toda a região europeia, incluindo a Rússia, ligando-se à China através da Nova Rota da Seda que está a surgir. Daí, em 2014, com a crise na Ucrânia (durante a Administração Obama), a nova Guerra Fria que fez explodir na Europa, sanções económicas e a escalada da NATO contra a Rússia.

A estratégia de “dividir e reinar”, isto é, de dividir para dominar, primeiro disfarçada sob roupagens diplomáticas, está agora exposta à luz.

Ao reunir-se em Abril com o Presidente Macron, Trump propôs que a França saísse da União Europeia, oferecendo condições comerciais mais vantajosas do que as da União Europeia. Não sabemos o que estão a decidir em Paris. É significativo, contudo, o facto de que a França tenha lançado um plano que prevê operações militares conjuntas de um grupo de países da UE, independentemente dos mecanismos de decisão da própria União Europeia: o acordo foi assinado em Luxemburgo, em 25 de Junho, pela França, Alemanha, Bélgica. Dinamarca, Holanda, Espanha, Portugal, Estónia e pela Grã-Bretanha, que assim, poderá participar após a sua saída da UE, em Março de 2019.

A Itália, especificou a Ministra da Defesa francesa, Parly, ainda não assinou por “uma questão de detalhes, não de substância”.

O plano foi, de facto, aprovado pela NATO, pois “completa e fortalece a prontidão das forças armadas da Aliança”. E, sublinha a Ministra da Defesa italiana, Trenta, visto que “a União Europeia deve tornar-se um produtor de segurança a nível global; para fazê-lo, deve reforçar a sua cooperação com a NATO “.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 3 de Julho de 2018

Tradução :Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on VIDEO- A Arte da Guerra – USA e Nato esmagam a União Europeia em crise

For almost seventeen years, Global Research, together with partner alternative 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

*     *     *

Syria in Perspective: Fabricating Incidents to Incriminate The Syrian Government. Peter Ford

By Peter Ford, July 04, 2018

You have seen how easy it is to fabricate incidents to incriminate the Syrian government. You don’t even need to stage a false flag operation, that is one where you yourself use chemical weapons in order to pin the blame on Assad. You did that in 2013 only the former Commissioner, Carla Del Ponte, to veer off message by stating that there was strong and concrete evidence that the rebels had stocks of sarin and had used it.

Sen. Lindsey Graham Warns U.S. Withdrawal From Syria Would be “Terrible” During Surprise Visit to Manbij

By Whitney Webb, July 04, 2018

It remains to be seen how Graham plans to walk the fine line between his recently voiced support for Kurdish fighters and his desire to maintain a strong relationship with Turkey.

The Singapore-Helsinki Express. Towards the Trump-Putin Summit

By Israel Shamir, July 04, 2018

President Trump has been presented with a united front of media and experts alarmed with any progress towards peace. For them, the only way to deal with N Korea is the Libya way: disarm first, intervene and bomb later, for it is much safer to bomb a disarmed country.

The Battle for Iran: Policy or Regime Change?

By James M. Dorsey, July 04, 2018

US and Israeli officials insist that their anti-Iranian moves aim to increase domestic pressure on Iran to change its policies at a time that the country is witnessing multiple protests related to economic policies and water shortages rather than at regime change.

Feeding the Monster: Washington’s Spinelessness Enables Israeli Brutality

By Philip Giraldi, July 04, 2018

The question of the relationship with Israel comes at a time when everyone in America, so it seems, is concerned about children being separated from their parents who have illegally crossed the border from Mexico into the United States. The concern is legitimate given the coarse and sometimes violent justifications coming out of the White House, but it’s a funny thing that Israeli abuse and even killing of Arab children is not met with the same opprobrium. When a Jewish fanatic/Israel settler kills Palestinian children and is protected by his government in so doing, where is the outrage in the U.S. media?

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Syria in Perspective: Fabricating Incidents to Incriminate The Syrian Government

Regardless of one’s opinion, ideology or “alternative reality”, today, children around the world in unprecedented numbers are being killed, maimed and tortured mentally and/or physically in the hands of people in power. Sadly, the images of torn apart bodies of children in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Myanmar and bleeding Yemen are no longer shocking in fact have become too familiar on social media.

The constant condemnations and warnings of the honest ladies and gentlemen of U.N. to save the children, vanishes right in front our of stunned eyes. In this regard, the U.N. has become a hectic institution chasing her own tail, day in day out.

Not long ago, Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton successfully orchestrated a war on Libya. She proudly celebrated the fall of the Libyan regime and turned that region into a modern slavery bazaar selling innocent young girls.

In Mexico, the ex-President’s thugs caused the disappearance 43 students in day light with impunity.

In Burma, they burn baby bodies with lighted cigarettes for fun while they rape the defenseless Rohingya Muslim mother in front of their kids.

Children’s arms and feet were chopped off in Sierra Leone in the middle of an insane and senseless civil war.

In Gaza, a 5 year old boy wakes up blind and deaf due to Mr. Netanyahu’s bombs, while a 5 year old immigrant girl in a U.S. detention center finds herself in the middle of night in a dark cage all alone crying “Mama, Mama” in the absence of any response, not even a soothing voice or a motherly touch. Indeed the war on children is on when they add insult to injury by sending the U.S. First Lady to the South, challenge us with a message that they “Really Don’t Care”.

They make mockery of our crying babies in pain as “paid child actors”. Indeed the war on children is on and the list is long.

The war on children has been going on, from time of slavery when they ripped the baby out of mothers’ arms or separated the indigenous children from their parents to be indoctrinated with the occupiers’ racist European culture!

The horror of holocaust and crimes of Nazi Germany against children is still fresh in our memory. Indeed the war on children continues in Europe, America and beyond.

After all, Hillary, Barack and Donald are on the same side in using a poor child to deter his or her parent from seeking asylum by crossing the U.S. “sacred” border, fleeing violence and war.

What is strange is the trust that some activists still have in the cunning Democratic Party which today poses as defenders of immigrants just to hide their own misdeeds against the children who sought asylum during the 8 years of Mr. Obama administration.

Hundreds upon thousands of conscious people all over the U.S. through demonstrations, protests and social media showed that the American people also have “zero tolerance” regarding migrant children being abused and kept in cages. They marched and strongly rejected Mr. Trump administration inhumane policies and persecution of immigrants. American women with their families in large numbers, unanimously and decisively demanded to “Abolish ICE”. To the majority of democratic minded American people, the “Immigration and Customs Enforcement – ICE” agency resembles the notorious 1930’s Nazi Germany “Gestapo” secret police which did operate only in secrecy without Judicial review.

Indeed, in these extraordinary times, TRANSPARENCY is the salvation. The concerned American people are extremely worried about the mental and physical conditions of the detained children in the detention centers or “Baby Jails” which are closed to the reporters and media.

Therefore, an Independent Fact Finding Commission by working people is in order.

A People’s Commission that consists of conscious Religious Leaders, Professional Medical Caretakers, Civil Rights Lawyers, Working Mothers and Fathers, Teachers and Progressive Journalists as a group should have access to all detention Centers and immigrants’ official records with full authority to publish their uncensored findings and their recommendations for immediate implementation.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

Statement by Peter Ford, British Ambassador to Syria, 2003-6, Representative of the Commissioner General of UNRWA, 2006-14

Peter Ford will also be speaking at Imperialism on trial, a series of speaking events being held in four cities in the United Kingdom (July 2018). For details see below at foot of article. 

***

The objective of this meeting is to show Syria in perspective. That is, Syria as she really is after eight years of war, not as she is almost universally portrayed in the West.

A brave stand by the Commission of Inquiry on Syria over alleged use of chemical weapons in Douma

I shall look at the broad picture, but I want to zero in by dealing with the report presented yesterday by the Commission on Syria.

I am not going to endorse that report but I want to begin by congratulating the Commission for standing firm and refusing to make premature pronouncements about the alleged use of prohibited weapons in Douma.

In doing so the Commission obviously angered those in the US administration and elsewhere who are impatient to see the West bombing its way to regime change in Syria. Hence the petulant leaks to the New York Times of a rejected earlier draft of the Commission report, and hysterical accusations against the Commission.

The body which actually has prime responsibility for determining what occurred or did not occur in Douma is the OPCW. Its investigations are not yet complete. Perhaps worried that the outcome might not be what Washington wants, the US administration had clearly been pinning high hopes on the Commission for producing a report which would suit the administration’s purpose of retrospectively justifying the illegal US/UK/French bombing of Syria in April – and more importantly, of conditioning opinion for the next, bigger aggression.

Conditioning Western opinion for the next aggression

Make no mistake, conditioning opinion for the next Western air strikes is crucial for the coming phase of the Syria conflict.

Imagine that today you are a leader of one of the armed groups, in Deraa, say. You have seen how gullible Western governments and media are.

You have seen how easy it is to fabricate incidents to incriminate the Syrian government. You don’t even need to stage a false flag operation, that is one where you yourself use chemical weapons in order to pin the blame on Assad. You did that in 2013 only the former Commissioner, Carla Del Ponte, to veer off message by stating that there was strong and concrete evidence that the rebels had stocks of sarin and had used it.

The UN hierarchy intervened quickly to row back on what Carla Del Ponte had blurted out. So you, the jihadi leader, felt confident in staging more false flag incidents, as with the Khan Sheykhoun incident in April 2017. You knew that the OPCW inspectors would not actually visit the site, because your jihadi forces made sure it was unsafe. You knew that that – incredible as it may seem – would not stand in the way of the inspectors, in violation of their own protocols, accepting as genuine ground samples, photographs and other evidence provided by your auxiliaries, the White Helmets. You knew the inspectors would not demand biological samples.

You were worried when some of your coached witnesses in an excess of zeal presented themselves to hospitals too early and were logged as being treated even before Asad’s planes had left Sheyrat air base. The inspectors, however, relegated this killer fact to an appendix to their report. It was of course ignored.

Douma was a bigger challenge because you, the jihadi leader, left it so late that the inspectors were actually able to visit the site. But you were confident that your Western paymasters would bomb Asad without waiting for the investigation. And then when the investigation, delayed by the bombing, was finally about to get under way it was a simple matter to engineer more delay and deterioration of evidence by having your sleeper cells left behind fire a few shots. You knew the West would blame Russia and Asad. You knew also that even though the Russians found the people seen in the key video of the incident and had them recount here in Europe the true story of what happened, the Western media would prefer to believe you, the accomplice of Al Qaida.

Pentagon acting as Al Qaida air wing

You really cannot believe your luck. You have lost the war but here is the Pentagon willing to act as Al Qaida’s air wing as long as you just provide them with a credible staged incident.

To get the US, UK and France to go to war, a lower standard of evidence is needed than it takes to get a conviction for a parking ticket.

After Douma Western leaders swore that next time the gloves would be off, and reports emerged that Plan A for Douma had been to target Asad himself and his command centres, though the Russians nixed that. So what do you, the jihadi commander, do now? Well obviously you start planning the next fake attack. You would be a fool not to.

Thus , my friends, a repeat of Douma is fated to occur. Unless, that is, sufficient doubt emerges about the Douma charade, the Douma hoax, to give Western governments pause in assuming that their public opinions will swallow a repeat dose and allow them to risk a much more serious confrontation with Russia and Iran.

Against the background of that likely scenario, we see what a crucial service the Commission has performed by refusing to join in the conditioning of opinion by pronouncing on Douma.

Siege warfare is not the unique vice of the Syrian government

Enough praise for the Commission. Now for some caveats

I quote:

‘we visited 44 sites and interviewed 112 civilian residents’

‘[they] launched air strikes on buildings full of civilians using wide area effect munitions…’

‘we found no information indicating that fighters were present’   

‘they used unguided mortars and unguided artillery’

‘there is strong evidence that the attacks violated international law’

‘they fired projectiles above houses… photos showed burning elements coming into contact with civilian buildings’.

‘people hiding in basements were terrified’ ‘hundreds were killed and thousands injured’

Horrendous, yes? Shocking, yes?

These are quotes not from the Commission report but from the Amnesty International reporton the siege of Raqqa by the Coalition. They put into its right context the Commission’s report on the siege of Douma.

But while the Commission apparently want to indict Syrian leaders for war crimes, those who conducted the siege of Raqqa, reported on by the Commission in an earlier report, are just gently admonished for not taking enough precautions.

It is remarkable that the Commission have ignored the Amnesty International report in their latest offering, even though Amnesty International called for international investigation and action.

Crimes of aggression

Other issues are also ignored.

The Commission is mandated to investigate not only human rights law but also ‘abuses and violations of international law (HRC 21/26)’. The crime of aggression is such a violation, indictable under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The Commission cannot trespass on the territory of the OPCW, as it has done, damagingly, in earlier reports, producing the endlessly cited factoid that there have been 34 chemical weapons attacks since 2013, while on the other hand timidly ignoring issues arising under the purview of the Rome Statute.

The unprovoked attacks by the US, UK and France on Syria following the liberation of Douma are barely given a mention in the latest report.

Other acts of illegality are ignored.

Is it not a violation of international law to give immense military, financial and propaganda support to armed groups operating in the territory of a member state of the UN?

Is it not a violation to establish without permission military bases on the territory of a member state? The US has several thousand troops in Syria, and does not even attempt to justify their presence in terms of international law. British forces are present too, and the British government ludicrously tries to justify their presence on the far fetched grounds that they are protecting Iraq against ISIS.

Is it not a violation to use military force to prevent the forces or allied forces of a member state from taking control of state oil assets, and to kill scores if not hundreds in the process, as occurred in the vicinity of Deir Ez Zor?

Is it not a violation of international law to occupy a pocket of a state’s territory, 55 kilometres deep, as at Al Tanf on Syria’s border with Iraq, and shamelessly proclaim a readiness to use military force to prevent that state’s forces’ from entering in order to root out jihadis being rebadged, equipped and trained behind American shields?

Is it not a violation of international law to invade Syrian territory as Turkey has done, and to establish a de facto occupation authority?

Is it not a violation of international law to dispose of part of a state’s territory as Turkey and the US have purported to do over the district of Manbij, and to connive at keeping out the forces of the lawful government?

Is it not a violation to bomb alleged sites of chemical weapons which had been recently inspected by OPCW inspectors and found to give no grounds for concern?

Is it not a violation to direct unilateral coercive measures against a state without any international mandate to do so?

And finally, is it not a breach of international law for Israel to launch more than a hundred unprovoked bombing raids on Syria, some hundreds of kilometres away from Israel?

The Commission pass over in embarrassed silence all these very serious violations.

Forced displacement

The Commission’s report makes much of alleged forced displacement. This is a classic example of misleading framing.

What the Syrian government has done in terms of negotiating terms for local surrenders could equally be framed as humane treatment of a vanquished foe, offering them a choice between staying in the locality and accepting government jurisdiction, or leaving with their families for another destination controlled by their fellow insurgents. So excellent was this choice that the Coalition used the same procedure at the end of the siege of Raqqa, allowing thousands of ISIS fighters to escape.

I am afraid that on this count the Commission have been dupes of opposition propaganda.

Two possible futures for Syria

I shall conclude by taking a forward look at where Syria is heading.

There are basically two possible futures for Syria.

Spoiler strategy of the West

First there is the future as the Western powers are trying to shape it.

At the moment the US and its satellites realise that Asad has the military upper hand and will be hard to dislodge just by military means. They have therefore a multi-pronged spoiler strategy:

Prevent Asad regaining control of the North East, with its important oil and gas assets.

Try to hamper trade and communications across the border with Iraq, by actions which include refraining from crushing ISIS in its remaining redoubts, from where it can remain a thorn in the Syrian government’s side

Use sanctions to keep the Syrian economy weak

Prevent international aid for reconstruction from reaching Syria

Keep Syria depopulated by discouraging return of refugees to Syria

Use the Geneva negotiations and the fiction of ‘transition’ to claw back in the negotiating chamber what has been lost on the battlefield

Weaken Syria militarily by securing with Israeli assistance withdrawal of Iran and its allies

Stand by ready to cripple government forces using the pretext of a chemical weapon attack

This future has no vision for what might occur if the strategy succeeds. No conception of what would fill the void if Asad was toppled. As with Iraq, the West wreaks destruction and hopes for the best.

A military solution

The second future is this:

The gradual recovery of the entirety of Syrian territory under the present government. A major step forward is being made currently in the South. That will leave just the North and North East. Talks are already under way with the Kurds. The status quo in these areas is unsustainable and the Kurds know it. The Kurds need Syrian government protection against Turkey. Some changes in the constitution will bring the Kurds on board.

The Idlib  campaign to bring that area under the government control may be brutal but can only have one outcome.

Essentially what we shall see is a military solution. With the recovery of the South the Syrian government will control areas where 80% of Syrians live. All the pious talk about there only possibly being a political solution is just that, pious talk . Essentially what we shall see is a return to the status quo ante, with some modification for the Kurds.

This is the perspective I think is the most likely to prevail for Syria, and the one desired by most, war weary Syrians. The war will have been waged on Syria, primarily from outside, for nothing.

Western powers, get used to it.

Stop trying to delay the inevitable and prolonging the agony.


Featuring Peter Ford (former UK Ambassador to Syria and Bahrain), Eva Bartlett (investigative journalist), Professor Peter Kuznick (Co-Author with Oliver Stone, Untold History of the United States), Adam Garrie, (Director, Eurasia Future), Ken Livingstone (Former Mayor of London), Rev Andrew Ashdown (Doctoral Research Student in ‘Christian-Muslim relations in Syria’), Catherine Shakdown (goepolitical analyst and writer) and more!

This series of events being held in four cities in the United Kingdom offers an alternative narrative on global politics and war, to that presented by the mainstream media.

Imperialism on Trial – July 2018
UK Tour Dates:
 
London – Tuesday July 10
Bloomsbury Baptist Church
235 Shaftesbury Ave.
7:00 PM – 10:00 PM BST [Doors open at 6:15]
Eva Barlett, Peter Kuznick, Peter Ford, Adam Garrie, Rev Andrew Ashdown   
 
 
London – Wednesday July 11
Bloomsbury Baptist Church
235 Shaftesbury Ave.
7:00 PM – 10:00 PM BST [Doors open at 6:15]
Eva Bartlett, Peter Kuznick, Peter Ford, Neil Clark, Adam Garrie
 
Birmingham – Thursday July 12
Quaker Meeting House
40 Bull Street
6:45 – 9:15 BST [Doors open at 6:15]
 Eva Bartlett, Peter Kuznick, Ken Livingstone, Peter Ford, Catherine Shakdam
 
Liverpool – Sunday July 15
Liverpool Irish Centre
6 Boundary Lane
7:00-10:30PM BST [Doors open at 6:30]
Eva Bartlett, Peter Ford, Peter Kuznick, Dan Glazebrook, Gerry Maclochlainn.
 
Manchester – Monday July 16
Manchester Irish Centre
1 Irish Town Way
7:00 – 10:30PM BST [Doors open at 6:30]
Eva Bartlett, Dan Glazebrook, Gerry Maclochlainn, Michael Pike, Rev Andrew Ashdown 

Featured image: Jeremy Corbyn took a Christmas holiday trip to Mexico and visited AMLO in his home state, Tabasco, in 2016. | Photo: Facebook

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and the leader of the British Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn were some of the high-profile progressives who congratulated Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador after his overwhelming victory on Mexico’s presidential elections on Sunday.

“Today is a wonderful day for Mexico. Se abre hoy una nueva pagina en la historia de Mexico [A new page in the history of Mexico is turned today]. The landslide victory of the new president-elect of Mexico Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador gives new hope to the people of Mexico and to all those around the world demanding societies that work for the many, not just the few. I wish I could have joined the crowds packed into the Zocalo last night in Mexico City to celebrate this historic moment,” said Corbyn, using both English and Spanish, in a video posted on his official Facebook page.

Corbyn repeated Lopez Obrador’s recurring words “yes we can” and assured that change is possible both in Mexico and in United Kingdom, where the left is still the opposition.

“We can bring a voice to the poor and marginalized, we can bring change, we can win. Today is a new beginning. As we build for the future we must also remember and secure justice for those who died during those elections,” he continued, in reference to the many candidates, politicians and citizens who were killed during the campaign period.

Lopez Obrador, or AMLO, and Corbyn are reported to be personal friends and have participated together in political conferences and seminars. They have also enjoyed holidays together, as seen in several pictures they have taken in the UK and Tabasco, AMLO’s home state.

In his Facebook site, Bernie Sanders also congratulated Mexico’s president-elect.

“Congratulations to Andres Manuel López Obrador, the newly elected president of Mexico. Now is the time to stand up to Trump’s divisiveness and xenophobia and create a continent which brings countries together to focus on economic, social, racial and environmental justice.”

Along with his post, Sanders shared an article which calls Lopez Obrador “Mexico’s ‘Bernie Sanders‘” and describes him as “anti-Trump.”

The leftist politicians joined a handful of world leaders, artists and politicians around the world congratulating Lopez Obrador and his party over their victory in the presidency and both legislative chambers.

Media outlets usually try to compare AMLO to other world leaders and politicians in an attempt to understand him in an international context where many are not familiar with him.

Some try to link him to Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro due his leftist-leaning politics, some to Donald Trump over his vague populist rhetoric and others call him anti-Trump even though the U.S. president already congratulated him and predicted both leaders will build “good ties”. At the end, these comparisons are often misleading and politically motivated.

Lopez Obrador won’t be sworn-in until Dec. 1, when incumbent President Enrique Peña Nieto, from the Institutional Revolutionary Party, leaves office.

Featured image: Senator Lindsey Graham visits U.S.-trained and funded Kurdish SDF militia members in Manjib, Syria.  YouTube | Screenshot

After meeting with Turkish leadership over the weekend, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) made a “surprise visit” on Monday to Manbij, where they met with members of Manbij Military Council (MMC), a Kurdish militia that operates as part of the umbrella group, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

After visiting a city market and speaking with militia members, Graham told MMC officials that

“I will tell President Trump that it’s important we stay here to help you. You are friends of the United States and if we leave it will be terrible.”

Graham has long been known for his hawkish stance on Syria, having criticized the U.S. strikes on three alleged Syrian chemical-weapons sites this past April for not going far enough, calling the strikes a “missed opportunity.”

The senators’ visit was warmly accepted by MMC members, who saw their appearance as proof that U.S. support to the group would continue despite the recent U.S.-Turkey agreement that would see Turkey jointly administer Manbij with the U.S. — an agreement that the MMC has refused to accept. Despite the MMC’s high hopes, Turkish media has reported that Kurdish militia groups will begin leaving Manbij as soon as Wednesday as the U.S.-Turkish plan to jointly administer the area is set to come into full effect later this week.

Other observers of the senators’ visit, however, took it as a sign that U.S. military involvement in Syria will not only continue but increase, despite rumors that Trump is planning to use withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria as a bargaining chip with Russian leadership at a U.S.-Russia summit scheduled for later this month in Finland.

Meanwhile, Syrian state media reported that the U.S. was planning to increase the deployment of its troops in and around Manbij after Graham’s visit. As MintPress has previously reported, Manbij is home to two U.S. bases that host American and British forces, as well as a French military base. The Western military presence has only increased in recent months, particularly after the Turkish government threatened to overtake Manbij after its successful offensive that removed SDF Kurdish militias from the city of Afrin earlier this year.

Graham walking a new fine line

However, Graham’s statements during his visit to Manbij are unusual given that the senator has not always backed U.S. support for Syrian Kurds. Indeed, last year, Graham strongly criticized the U.S. alliance with Kurdish groups connected to the People’s Protection Units (YPG) and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), both of which are considered terrorist groups by the Turkish government but also form the backbone of the U.S.-allied SDF.

For instance, last May, Graham criticized  the Trump administration’s decision to provide heavy weapons to Kurdish groups, asserting that “cooperation with the YPG harms relations with Turkey.” He also questioned whether it would be better for the U.S. to train more Arab fighters in lieu of Kurdish fighters in order to assuage Turkish concerns of U.S. support for the YPG.

Given that Graham described his recent weekend meeting with Turkish President Erdogan as “very good, respectful, and candid” and asserted that the U.S. needs Turkey as a “strategic partner,” it remains to be seen how Graham plans to walk the fine line between his recently voiced support for Kurdish fighters and his desire to maintain a strong relationship with Turkey.

*

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.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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.

Helsinki after Singapore! The summit Trump-Putin will hopefully take place this month in the Finnish capital, after being delayed and delayed for ages. We had expected the two strong men to meet right away after Trump’s historic election, but the summit didn’t take place, for Trump had been besieged by Mueller’s Gestapo and accused of being a Russian agent. This frivolous accusation is still floated every time Trump is doing something sensible, but things changed with Trump-Kim summit, an event that grows in importance in perspective almost daily.

Trump before Singapore and after Singapore are entirely different creatures, like a boy before and after his first kiss. Before, he was a Mr Big Mouth, a ruler of his own Twitter account and of preciously little beside it. After the summit, he became Prometheus Unbound, the regal President of the mighty US. By meeting Kim, he denied the wiseguys in the media and in the deep state; he refused to take their orders and did what he thought right. By meeting Putin he will turn his disobedience into full scale revolt.

His adversaries, the Masters of Discourse, were alarmed by Kim summit and horrified by approaching Putin meet.

Let us have a brief look at their reaction to Singapore. (Here you can find a lot more). The Senate Minority leader Chuck (“the Guardian of Israel”) Schumer has expressed “extreme concern”, saying that

“Trump has drawn a false equivalency between the legitimate joint military exercises by South Korea and the US, and illegal North Korean nuclear testing (“How can you compare!” – a standard Jewish response) … Nothing should be given to N Koreans until “complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program.”… Trump has given “a brutal and repressive dictatorship the international legitimacy it has long craved.”

Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times complained that Trump ‘made a huge concession — the suspension of military exercises with South Korea’ while he got nothing in return – “nothing about North Korea freezing plutonium and uranium programs, nothing about destroying ICBM, nothing about allowing inspectors to return, nothing about North Korea making a full declaration of its nuclear program, nothing about a timetable, nothing about verification etc”. Noah Rothman, co-editor of the neocon magazine Commentary, called the summit “a disgrace”.

And the “humanitarian interventionists”, that is, the leftists for intervention on humanitarian grounds, have already rolled out complaints of defectors from North Korea to the front pages, and they expectedly demand to never consent to any peace without a complete change of regime, lustration and international control.

President Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sign a joint statement | June 12, 2018 (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)

President Trump has been presented with a united front of media and experts alarmed with any progress towards peace. For them, the only way to deal with N Korea is the Libya way: disarm first, intervene and bomb later, for it is much safer to bomb a disarmed country. The Korean leader understands that; he is not likely to go the Gorby way. The last Soviet leader disarmed his country, dismantled the Warsaw Treaty, gave East Germany to the West and allowed the US inspectors into the most secret Russian installations after a friendly chat with President Reagan. Kim won’t do it, and China won’t allow him. The last thing Chinese (or Russians) need is an American protectorate in North Korea, a rather short drive from Beijing, Harbin, and Vladivostok. But warm relations between N and S Koreas and the US are certainly possible, if President Trump were to stick to his Singapore line.

However, a few weeks after Singapore, it seems that the naysayers prevailed, as they usually do. The US refused to work towards lifting sanctions in the UN Security Council, and had rejected the Russian-Chinese proposal to begin their dismantling, while the Western media began working up its roll of Kim’s transgressions. Thus the aura of unreliability again surrounded the head of American president.

Putin’s meet had brought forth similar responses. OMG, peace is breaking!

“Fears grow over prospect of Trump ‘peace deal’ with Putin, editorialised The Times.Britain fears that President Trump will undermine NATO by striking a “peace deal” with President Putin… Cabinet ministers are worried that Mr Trump may be persuaded to downgrade US military commitments in Europe… NATO figures fear that Mr Trump could seek to replicate his “peace agreement” with Kim Jong-un of North Korea, which generated positive coverage. One cabinet minister said:

“What we’re nervous of is some kind of Putin-Trump ‘peace deal’ with Trump and Putin saying, ‘Why do we have all this military hardware in Europe?’ and agreeing to jointly remove that.”

Other media sources, and politicians are equally unhappy and worried.

“European allies hugely worried over Trump’s summit with Putin”, says MSNBC; so does the Atlantic, the Guardian etc.

The nearest to a positive attitude to the Singapore meeting had been displayed by the observer of the liberal Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, British Jewish journalist Anshel Pfeffer: of course, an agreement with the bloody tyrant (Kim) is undesirable, but there is a hope that, having reconciled with Kim, Trump will go to war with Iran more easily. He comforted the warmongers that their loss of a Korea war will be made up by a war on Iran. This is the line the comforters take on the Helsinki meeting: Ta rump-Putin summit could be forgiven if it would lead to war on Iran. This is the alternative as presented by the Western MSM: warmongers condemn both summits, comforters say ‘not all is lost, there is still Iran’.

In order to understand why unwilling Americans are being led into war, we shall turn to a recent important piece by Ron Unz. It is a part of his American Pravdaseries investigating modern American history and its [mis]presentation in media and in public memory. Our Great Purge of the 1940s, despite the title, is a decoding of secret codes in American and British public discourse in 20th century. After going through an immense number of newspapers and magazines, Unz discovered that whoever in American public life sided against wars, usually had found himself marginalised, expelled, forgotten, or even assassinated.

In a touching personal way, he tells of his discovery that writers he believed were marginal radicals actually had held supreme positions in MSM and politics of their times, until they were marginalised and presented as extremists.

An example is H.E. Barnes, a highly esteemed and popular commentator on most prestigious tribunes, until “By the end of the 1930s, Barnes had become a leading critic of America’s proposed involvement in World War II, and was permanently “disappeared” as a consequence, barred from all mainstream media outlets, while a major newspaper chain was heavily pressured into abruptly terminating his long-running syndicated national column in May 1940.” He disappeared from memory, says Unz.

A political example is Charles Lindbergh, strong voice for peace in the end of 1930s – beginning of 1940s. Just once he mentioned that three groups in particular were “pressing this country toward war[:] the British, the Jewish, and the Roosevelt Administration,” and thereby unleashed an enormous firestorm of media attacks and denunciations, writes Unz. That was the end of Lindbergh’ political career, and the US entered the WW2.

In the battle for Hollywood (a very important tool of mass propaganda), the only Gentile studio owner, Disney, a staunch pro-peace force, had his premises occupied by the US Army, tells Unz, on the day after Pearl Harbour.

Was it good or bad, from our present point of view? We should make a strict distinction between the time before and after the beginning of hostilities in Europe. Before, the peace platform was right, for the WW2 could be avoided altogether: if Poland (with British and American encouragement) wouldn’t provoke Germany, Hitler could stay at home and try to turn his country into Nazi paradise. As the war began in earnest, the US had to intervene in Europe to prevent a German victory and subsequent German domination of the whole Eurasian landmass, from English Channel to Vladivostok. As for the war with Japan, it could be avoided if the US didn’t provoke Japan by its oil embargo.

Unz writes that the Jews and the Roosevelt administration prevailed on Britain and Poland to take a strong anti-German line. The Jews were certainly anti-Nazi, and they were willing to take chances of the world war. But F.D. Roosevelt had been elected because he promised peace and neutrality, – and when elected, he made a U-turn and went to war.

It appears to be a permanent feature of American politics: presidents get elected promising peace, and choosing war after their election. F.D. Roosevelt supported the Neutrality Bill, but ushered the US into WW2. G.W. Bush promised “humble foreign policy” and went on to conquer Afghanistan and Iraq. B.H. Obama had been so keen on peace that even received his Nobel in advance, but continued to carry war in Libya and Syria. And now we have Donald Trump, whose election campaign included the promise of ‘no more regime change’ and friendship with Russia, but his presidency (meanwhile) will be remembered by war threats to Iran and N Korea.

Unz in the mentioned article refers to Iraq war, too. Those who objected to this most meaningless and destructive war were marginalised and ostracised:

Phil Donahue had high ratings on MSNBC, but in early 2003 his show was canceled, with a leaked memo indicated that his opposition to the looming war was the cause. Conservative Pat Buchanan and liberal Bill Press, both Iraq War critics, hosted a top-rated debate show on the same network, but it too was cancelled for similar reasons. Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan was similarly blacklisted from the media for his opposition to the Iraq War. Numerous prominent media voices were “disappeared” around the same time, and even after Iraq became universally recognized as an enormous disaster, most of them never regained their perches.

So there is a force that pushes for war consistently, at least since 1914 till our days. This force coincides with the main vector of American politics, and since 1991, with the Western politics at large. It has a strong Jewish component based in media and universities; a new Church of the West trying to embrace the world. Its wars are ‘crusades’ (מצווהמלחמת, ‘wars for faith’ Joshua-style). That’s Jewish drive for world domination. Jews are shy of admitting that, but once, Jews will admit and recognise it; especially as their drive is intertwined with the American drive for world domination (called Manifest Destiny), and the British ‘White Man’s Burden’.

One of the reasons the Jews parted their company with Russians is the latter’s lack of aggressiveness. Whether in football or in war, the Russians are usually defensive players. Even Josef Stalin, whose name still scares people, hardly ever initiated an aggressive war; he never dreamt to conquer Europe or the world. Other Russian rulers were even more defensive, at best. This does not suit the Jews, who prefer more action.

For Anglo-American civilization has its intrinsic aggressiveness, too. This is not a value judgement, not a condemnation per se: there are grass-eaters and carnivores; we like and make pets of cats and dogs, the predators, not of timid lambs and calves. However, the aggressiveness has to find its limits, otherwise the world will be destroyed. This limit is now being sought, and President Trump who floated trial balloons of leaving NATO and dismantling other aggressive alliances is doing just that.

The Syria Deal

There are hints that Trump wants to do in Syria what Nixon did in Vietnam, namely, to get out of it. This is a wise step, if he will be allowed to take it. According to media reports, Trump has two conditions to be discussed with Putin.

The first condition, Iran. The US wants Russia to limit its collaboration with Iran or even oust Iran from Syria. For that, the United States is proposing to drop its “Assad must leave” demand; to stop insisting that Syria should be governed by a new provisional government without Assad. The US is ready to agree that the elections in Syria will take place in 2021, and until then this topic will be removed from the agenda. Moreover, the US tempts Russia with lifting some sanctions on Russia proper. This bargain had been proposed to the Russians a few weeks ago, and it had been elaborated upon ever since.

Iran is the enemy of choice for Israel. Donald Trump had made a temporary alliance with Zionists, a Jewish group that is interested mainly in the Middle East, as opposed to the ‘Liberal’ Jews who are after world domination. Liberal Jews are strongly opposed to Trump; while for Zionist Jews the liberal agenda in the US and Europe (immigration, gender, outsourcing, free trade) is less important, while the Middle East (Israel, Iran, Syria) is more important. Trump tries to satisfy Zionist appetites hoping that they will limit their brethren’s attacks on him, in return. Provided that Putin is also friendly to Zionists while the Liberals are hostile to him, two presidents can find an acceptable compromise. But it won’t be what Israel dreams of.

Russia does not intend to quarrel with Iran; it can’t possibly oust Iran from Syria, even if it would like to. As soon as this issue was discussed in the press, there appeared a lengthy interview with President Assad, in which he stressed that Iran’s alliance is most important for him. After all, the Iranians fought on Assad’s side when the Russians were onlookers.

But the Iranians are in a quandary. They do not want confrontation with Russia, nor with the United States, neither with Israel. When Putin launched his trial balloon, saying that all foreign troops should withdraw from Syria, the Iranians did not object, but said: “We can leave, if we are asked”. The Iranians can leave Syria, but Damascus does not want this.

However, Iran agreed not to participate in the current struggle for the south-west of Syria, for the territory adjacent to the borders of Jordan and Israel. There, the legitimate army of Syria is conducting a successful offensive against the rebels with Russian aerial support and without Iranian participation.

Perhaps, this absence of Iranians near Israeli borders will be presented by Trump to Israel as his achievement. Trump wants Russia to create an exclusive Iranian-free zone next to Jordanian and Israeli borders. Russia does not control the situation in Syria to such an extent that it can undertake it. But Russia can negotiate with the Iranians to prevent the Shiite militias from entering this region. They did it once: when the Syrian troops approached the Israeli border in Kuneitra area, Israel demanded that the Shiite militias stay 50-70 km away. The Russians said: “No, but we’ll arrange for you a few kilometres of separation.” Hence, this kind of agreement is possible, if the parties are flexible enough, but there will be no “Russia betrayed Iran” kind of deal.

The second is the fate of the rebels.

Trump does not want the withdrawal of American soldiers to be accompanied by a blood bath. While the US representative to the United Nations accused Russia of violating the ceasefire and not observing the deconfliction zone, the White House said that America would morally support the rebels, but it would not fight for them. “You should not base your decisions on the assumption or expectation of a military intervention by us”, was the message.

This was a signal of approaching end of rebellion. Robert Fisk thinks their collapse is imminent. The Russians won match and set. Some rebel groups already surrendered and went over to the Damascus’ side. The stubborn ones in their thousands retreated to Israeli and Jordanian borders, but neither Israel nor Jordan intends to let them in.

Trump reasonably does not want them to be slaughtered. He does not need screaming media reporting on massacred Syrian freedom fighters and their children and pregnant women betrayed by the Russian agent Trump. He needs an agreement that the Syrian troops will behave and allow the rebels to reconcile with the legitimate government or leave unharmed. This demand suits Russia. From the very beginning and to this day Russians believed and insisted that it is necessary to drag the disparate rebel bands to the side of Damascus. And it suits Assad, for wherever the Syrian troops came as liberators or conquerors, whether in Eastern Ghuta or in Aleppo, they did not indulge in revenge or debt-settling. I am sure that President Putin will help President Trump to leave Syria without losing face.

I understand that for many of my readers it is difficult or impossible to support Trump. The tragedy of Richard Nixon may yet be repeated, for the president who made peace with China and Vietnam had been hated by warmongers and by all media-influenced Americans, and was forced to retire. He was the last independent and peace-loving president; those who condemned him were punished by a long run of inferior rulers. Trump has many faults, but he still wants to avoid a great war. He deserves a chance.

As for Putin, I am certain he will be friendly and charming with the American, and mercifully he won’t be tempted to make big concessions to Trump, for Trump’s powers are still quite limited; his decisions are likely to be blocked by the Congress and possibly overturned by his successor. Only a rash person would make with him a complicated long-term deal, and prudent Putin probably will be satisfied with ad hoc dealing.

*

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

1. The vicious circle of illegitimate debt grapples the Argentine people once again

2. IMF’s $ 50 billion loan surpasses Greece’s previous record

Sergio Ferrari from Berne, Switzerland interviewed Eric Toussaint, international debt specialist

After more than a decade of Argentina’s official “distance” from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Mauricio Macri’s government has just knocked on the doors of the world’s financial police. The $ 50 billion credit granted by the organization during the first week of June sets an international record and will directly impact the economic and social situation of this South American country. Eric Toussaint, Belgian historian and economist, an eminent specialist in this field and spokesperson for the Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt (CADTM), based in Brussels, pointed this out. Interview follows.

***

Q: Why did the Argentine government turn to the IMF, in full view of Argentina’s relations with this international organization in the late 1990s and their dire political consequences? Is the financial top brass of the Macri team despairing?

Eric Toussaint (ET): Since the Mauricio Macri government assumed office in December 2015, its policies have led to a critical situation. Sharp reduction in export taxes have brought down tax revenues, the debt servicing expenditure has been significantly increased (100% higher in 2018 than in 2017). The country is running out of dollars. Currency reserves fell by $ 8 billion earlier this year. Macri needs this IMF loan to continue debt servicing. Private international lenders require such a loan as a prerequisite for continued credit to Argentina. A very large chunk of the IMF loan will be used directly to repay foreign creditors in dollars.

Q: If we look at the Argentine history of the 1990s, this seems to be a scheme of playing with fire…

ET: Yes, of course. But I would like to further explore the background of this appeal to the IMF…

Q- Please go ahead!

ET: This shows that the government’s policy is an abject failure: with a peso that devalued fast; with the interest rate set at a high 40% by the Argentine Republic’s Central Bank; with the $ 8 billion reduction in international reserves that keep declining. And with a debt service that has increased by 100% compared to 2017. Faced with a balance sheet of such a nature, undoubtedly it is a total failure. Macri claimed that a high growth level and a viable debt would be ensured by paying the debt – between end-2015 and early-2016 – and by compensating the vulture funds, in keeping with Judge Thomas Griesa’s verdict. He knelt before the vulture funds (see: this). But the facts confirm that this plan did not work. Debt rose at a whirling pace and it’s startling to see how fast it snowballed. As a result, it became impossible to convince the creditors that Argentina could repay its debt in the future. That’s why Macri is asking for this $ 50 billion credit. We must remember that when Greece received $ 30 billion from the IMF in 2010 in the backdrop of a dramatic situation, it was a record amount!

Q: Some analysts say that President Macri is trying to breathe in some fresh air with the help of this loan, before commanding a comfortable position in the October 2019 elections.

ET: I would not like to engage in farfetched political speculations. I prefer facts. I have read the contents of the agreement signed with the IMF and it has imposed a severe reduction in general social benefits and wages of the public servants. Public investment will be almost wiped out and it will lead to an economic depression. Debt repayment will increase and the IMF charges high interest rates. The government will impose taxes with elevated rates on the public to repay the debt, while continuing to hand out fiscal perks to the capitalists. The government will encourage the export of the maximum number of agricultural products and raw materials to the global market by reinforcing the extractivist-exporting model. IMF’s policy will lead the country to an economic and social crisis even more serious than what it suffered before this loan was sanctioned. Let’s go back to your question. It is very likely that, politically, Macri will claim that what he is doing is not his project, but what the IMF demands from him.

Q: This brings us back to a not-so-distant past and I would like to highlight that: the decade of indebtedness and the IMF’s role in the 1990s that eventually led to the social outburst of 2001. Can history repeat itself without tragedy?

ET: History is repeating itself in a country that is a serial debt payer. It started with the illegitimate and odious debt inherited from the military dictatorship of the 1970s. IMF’s support was crucial for this dictatorship to continue until the early 1980s. The vicious circle of illegitimate debts persisted during the 1990s with President Carlos Menem followed by Fernando De la Rúa. Their allegiance to the IMF’s recommendations led to the great social crisis of late 2001. President Rodríguez Saá, in his few days or Presidency at end-2001, announced the suspension of debt repayment to allay popular anger. The debt was restructured in 2005, then re-negotiated with creditors who had not participated before. It caused a crisis in the government and evoked sharp criticism from the people (see the section on Argentina here). Former minister Roberto Lavagna, who had negotiated the 2005 restructuring, objected to negotiations with outsider creditors. The Argentine authorities never wanted to do what Ecuador did in 2007-2008: to carry out a debt audit with citizens’ participation, which could have defined the odious and illegitimate part of the debt (see: this and this). This, along with the inconsistency of the Cristina Fernandez government’s national sovereignty discourse, frustrated people. This partly explains Macri’s electoral victory in 2015.

Q: A course over several decades where illegitimate debts condition government policies without ever finding structural solutions…

ET: Yes. And that led today to this new mega-loan from the IMF. From now on, it can be included in the category of odious and illegitimate debts. An odious debt is a debt contracted against the people’s interests, and the creditors know that it is illegitimate. Evidently a new illegitimate and odious debt is taking shape.

Q: What about future prospects?

ET: I have already spoken about the deteriorating economic and social crisis. I hope for a strong popular reaction in the coming months. I also hope that the popular forces will not take too long to consolidate their strength to oppose even more vigorously the Macri government and the pressures of the IMF and other international creditors.

*

Translated by Suchandra De Sarkar

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the author of Bankocracy (2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014); Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012 (see here), etc.

Is Donald Trump a fascist? With each passing news cycle, more people here and abroad are asking the question.

On a trip to Berlin in early June, my wife and I were pressed for answers in spontaneous encounters with cab drivers, waiters, hotel clerks and sundry others. Regardless of occupation, everyone closely followed U.S. politics, and most had come to the conclusion that the American president had long ago crossed a dark ideological line.

The Berliners we spoke with (all fluent in English) were social-democratic types. Among them there were no members of the Alternative for Deutschland, the ultranationalist group that is now the third largest political party in Germany.

None were alive during the Nazi era, although a tour guide disclosed that her 99-year-old grandfather was still ticking and remained very much an admirer of the Third Reich. Some, however, had lived on the east side of the city during the Soviet era, which they recalled as a period of austere, soul-crushing conformity. They weren’t fans of capitalism, they said, but they understood the dangers of autocracy, past and present. How was it, they wondered, so many Americans did not?

We assured them that some Americans were, in fact, very worried about Trump, and a solid majority disapproved of him and his policies. I told the tour guide that as a columnist I had been comparing Trump with Benito Mussolini since the early days of his presidential campaign. Still, we conceded that for the most part, whether out of ignorance, timidity or a naive belief in the myth of exceptionalism, Americans were reluctant to consider whether their head of state actually is a fascist.

No more.

The issue of Trump’s fascism has finally reached center stage in the U.S., sparked by the administration’s shameful treatment of Central American refugees and its Gestapo-like “zero tolerance” policy on unauthorized border crossings.

On June 17, protesters at a Mexican restaurant in Washington, D.C., heckled White House aide Stephen Miller, widely credited as the principal architect of Trump’s immigration crackdown, as a fascist. Two days later, another group hurled similar epithets at Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, who like Miller had cluelessly chosen to dine Mexican.

Even liberal media pundits are throwing down the “F” word. Michelle Goldberg, for example, referred to “Trump’s fascist instincts” in her June 21 New York Times column on the separation of immigrant families.

In a June 24 op-ed for the Duluth News, iconoclastic writer and entrepreneur John Freivalds, who was born in Latvia and now lives in Minnesota, went further, charging,

“[I]n every dictionary definition I have come across, the president is a fascist. This label is not so much a pejorative as a fact.”

It doesn’t get much more heartland than the Duluth News.

Not everyone agrees with Goldberg and Freivalds, of course. Trump’s approval rating among Republicans stands at 87 percent. By and large, Republicans still see him as a champion of grass-roots democracy and an antidote to predatory corporate globalism.

Ironically, the president also has a small number of occasional defenders on the progressive left, who continue to view him, as some did during the campaign, as more likely to steer the world away from nuclear Armageddon than his defeated Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

Because of the gravity of the issue, debates about Trump’s fascism invariably devolve into heated emotional affairs, cleaved along racial and politically tribal lines. You’re either a patriot and support Trump’s promise to “make America great again” or you’re the opposite for failing to condemn him.

It may be impossible to set emotions aside entirely, but it’s not impossible to arrive at the truth, or at least to search for it through honest discourse. Although fascism, historically, is a complex ideology, it is as real today as a mass movement and a theory of governance as it was when Mussolini popularized the term in 1919.

Any rational discussion has to begin with a definition, and when it comes to fascism, there are many to examine. Among the most instructive is the one proffered by political scientist Robert Paxton in his classic study “The Anatomy of Fascism” (Harvard University Press, 2004):

“Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

Drawing on the work of Italian novelist and professor Umberto Eco, Cameron Climie, a Canadian economist, listed 14 fluid characteristics of fascism in an essay published last year by the website Medium.com. They are:

  • A cult of traditionalism.
  • A rejection of modernism (cultural, rather than technological).
  • A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
  • A framing of disagreement or opposition as treasonous.
  • A fear of difference.  … Fascism is racist by definition.
  • An appeal to a frustrated middle class—either due to economic or political pressures from both above and below.
  • An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement’s identified enemies.
  • A requirement that said enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak, conniving and cowardly.
  • A rejection of pacifism. Life is permanent warfare.
  • Contempt for weakness.
  • A cult of heroism.
  • Hypermasculinity.
  • A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of “the people” that it claims to speak for.
  • A heavy usage of Newspeak—impoverished vocabulary, elementary syntax and a resistance to complex and critical reasoning.

Reasonable minds can differ about whether Trump, now in the middle of the second year of his presidency, is a full-blown fascist or, to be more precise, moving in a fascist direction.

In a May 2017 article in Harper’s Magazine, Paxton contended that Trump had even by then displayed numerous “fascist staples,” such as his “deploring national decline, which he blames on foreigners and despised minorities; disdaining legal norms; condoning violence against dissenters; and rejecting anything that smacks of internationalism, whether it be trade, institutions, or existing treaties.” Nonetheless, he concluded that Trump’s pursuit of “unchecked executive power indicates generic dictatorship” and “plutocracy” rather than fascism in particular.

Perhaps the best way of understanding Trump’s fascism is as a work in progress, or a form of “pre-fascism.” As journalist Fintan O’Toole asserted last week in an Irish Times column:

To grasp what is going on in the world right now, we need to reflect on two things. One is that we are in a phase of trial runs. The other is that what is being trialed is fascism—a word that should be used carefully but not shirked when it is so clearly on the horizon. Forget “post-fascist”—what we are living with is pre-fascism.

It is easy to dismiss Donald Trump as an ignoramus, not least because he is. But he has an acute understanding of one thing: test marketing. …

Fascism doesn’t arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially recoil from; and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we would be fools not to see it.

I couldn’t agree more. It’s time to start talking about Trump’s fascism, and holding him fully accountable under that rubric.

*

Bill Blum is a former judge and death penalty defense attorney. He is the author of three legal thrillers published by Penguin/Putnam (“Prejudicial Error,” “The Last Appeal” and “The Face of Justice”) and is a contributing writer for California Lawyer magazine. His nonfiction work has appeared in such publications as Crawdaddy magazine, In These Times, The Nation, The Progressive, the ABA Journal, the Orange County Register, the San Jose Mercury News, the Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly and Los Angeles magazine.

Just as the World Cup had forced the British media to grudgingly acknowledge the obvious truth that Russia is an extremely interesting country inhabited, like everywhere else, by mostly pleasant and attractive people, we have a screaming reprise of the “Salisbury incident” dominating the British media. Two people have been taken ill in Amesbury from an unknown substance, which might yet be a contaminated recreational drug, but could conceivably be from contact with the substance allegedly used on the Skripals, presumably some of which was somewhere indoors all this time as we were told it could be washed away and neutralised by water.

Amesbury is not Salisbury – it is 10 miles away. Interestingly enough Porton Down is between Amesbury and Salisbury. Just three miles away from Muggleton Road, Amesbury. The news reports are not mentioning that much.

“I am all out of ideas Inspector. What can possibly be the source of these mysterious poisonings?”

Neither Porton Down nor the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has any idea where the substance to which the Skripals were allegedly exposed was made. Boris Johnson’s great “coup” of obtaining a majority vote at the OPCW to expand its powers to place blame for chemical attacks, has proven rather otiose as the OPCW has no evidence on which to base any blame for Salisbury. In fact, four months on, May and Johnson’s shrill blaming of Russia remains entirely, 100% evidence free.

I do however wish to congratulate the neo-con warmongers of the Guardian newspaper for verbal dexterity. They have come up with a new formulation to replace the hackneyed “Of a type developed by Russia”, to point the finger for a substance that could have been made by dozens of state or non state parties. The Guardian today came up with “Russian-created novichok”. This cleverly employs a word that can encompass “developed” while also appearing to say “made”. It also again makes out that novichok is a specific substance rather than a very broad class of substances. The Guardian’s Steven Morris, by this brilliant attempt deliberately to mislead his readers, runs away with this week’s award for lying neo-con media whore of the week. His achievement is particularly good as the rest of his report is largely a simple copy and paste from the Press Association.

I most certainly hope that the couple in Salisbury hospital recover from whatever is afflicting them. The media is, by making this the lead story on all broadcast news after last night’s football, inviting us to make the connection to the Skripals. In which case I assume the couple were perfectly well for five hours after contact, able to be very active and even to eat and drink heavily, before being mysteriously instantly disabled at the same time despite different ages, sexes, weights, and metabolisms and random uncontrolled dosages.

Replicating that would be quite a feat.

Trump Regime v. Affirmative Action

July 4th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

The term affirmative action was first included in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act – landmark New Deal legislation, letting organized labor bargain with management on a level playing field more than ever before.

It was the high water mark of labor/management relations, letting workers unionize, protecting them from discrimination on the job, Blacks and Latinos not protected by union bosses.

Legislative benefits gained were short-lived. Union bosses collude with management for their own self-interest. Workers are largely powerless, unsupported by Republicans, undemocratic Dems, and their leadership.

Nearly straightaway in office (March 1961), Jack Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925.

It required government contractors to “consider and recommend additional affirmative steps which should be taken by executive departments and agencies to realize more fully the national policy of nondiscrimination.”

“The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”

The EO established the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (PCEEO).

Government contractors failing to comply with the EO risked loss of government business. Kennedy’s order didn’t require preferential treatment for minorities.

It “advocat(ed) racially neutral hiring to end job discrimination.” In December 1961, a separate Commission on the Status of Women was established – charged with “examining employment policies and practices of the government and of contractors” with regard to gender.

In June 1963, Kennedy’s EO 11114 declared it was the “policy of the United States to encourage by affirmative action the elimination of discrimination in employment.”

The landmark 1954 Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education held that “separate educational facilities (are) inherently unequal” and unconstitutional.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination against students and college applicants on the basis of race or gender.

Affirmative action policies adopted by many US colleges and universities give special consideration to racial minorities, women, and other discriminated against groups.

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action, ruling race to be a legitimate college admissions policy – excluding racial quotas it called unlawful.

In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan’s Law School affirmative action admissions policy.

In Fisher v. University of Texas (2016), the High Court preserved the constitutionality of race-based admissions.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy highlighted the importance of “student body diversity,” calling it “central to its identity and educational mission.”

Despite the above High Court rulings, at least 10 states limit or banned affirmative action as a factor in college or university admissions.

On July 3, the Trump regime ordered the practice abandoned, a joint Education and Justice Department letter, banning “advocate policy preferences and positions beyond the requirements of the Constitution.”

The White House turned truth on its head, claiming affirmative action practices for college and university admissions creates discrimination.

Some background to Tuesday’s action. In August 2017, Trump’s Justice Department “challenge(d) (affirmative action practices) colleges and universities have undertaken to expand educational opportunity,” calling them “an affront to our values as a country.”

The DOJ began “investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants.”

At the time, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights head Vanita Gupta issued a statement, saying

“(l)ongstanding Supreme Court precedent has upheld the constitutionality and compelling state interest of (affirmative action) policies, and generations of Americans have benefited from richer, more inclusive institutions of higher education.”

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law executive director Kristen Clarke said the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division was “created and launched to deal with the unique problem of discrimination faced by our nation’s most oppressed minority groups.”

The US Commission on Civil Rights accused Trump’s Justice Department and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos with “repeated refusal” to enforce federal civil rights, calling their actions “particularly troubling.”

Republican and undemocratic Dem governance serves privileged interests in America exclusively.

Trump’s domestic and geopolitical agenda exceeds the extremism of his predecessors – on the wrong side of virtually everything important to ordinary Americans.

*

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

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

When news reports first began to emerge that 81 of the migrant children recently separated from their parents had been sent into the care of one of the largest adoption agencies in the country, the response was swift alarm. Was the government planning on creating “social orphans” out of the children, then offering them up for adoption?

Horrified observers had already drawn parallels between the separation crisis and the blatantly assimilationist treatment of Native American children, starting with their mass removal to boarding schools in the late 19th Century and continuing through the Indian Adoption Project, which from the late 1950s to early 1970s removed 25 to 35 percent of all Native American children from their families. Or how U.S. slavery systematically broke apart families, selling children away from their parents. A number pointed out that the forcible transfer of children from one group of people to another fits the United Nations definition of genocide.

To adoption reform advocates, who monitor unethical and abusive practices in child welfare, it looked like any number of adoption crises in the past, like the airlifts out of Haiti in the wake of its cataclysmic 2010 earthquake. Then, masses of unaccompanied children were suddenly labeled orphans and became the focus of a deafening campaign in the U.S. to rescue them through inter-country adoption, even as Haitian adults were being warned not to try to come themselves.

Fears of a new adoption rush in today’s border crisis weren’t groundless. There was reason to be concerned. The former head of U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement under President Barack Obama warned that some of the children who’d recently been separated would remain separated “permanently” and potentially be adopted. Reports surfaced of mothers who were told that their children would be adopted as an incentive to “behave.” On Tuesday night, the Daily Beast reported that the threat of adoption has become weaponized, as a Guatemalan mother detained by Customs and Border Protection earlier this month was allegedly presented with the ultimatum that if she didn’t abandon her asylum appeal, she would be jailed for a year and her daughter put up for adoption. And conservative figures deeply hostile to immigrant families, like Fox News provocateur Laura Ingraham, herself an adoptive mother, toggled between mocking the detention of children as akin to “summer camp” and calling to “make adoption easier for American couples who want to adopt these kids.”

What policies and laws might apply to the children was so unclear that even many child welfare experts and former officials weren’t sure how to think about the threat. When migrant parents were taken into ICE custody at the border, their children became wards of Health and Human Services, specifically its Office of Refugee Resettlement, which facilitates the care of “unaccompanied alien children.” Although they’d arrived with parents, upon separation, the children had been officially transformed into unaccompanied minors with immigration cases distinct from the adults they’d arrived with. And it was already becoming clear that, despite its protestations to the contrary, the government had no real plan for bringing them back together.

Children, including infants, began arriving at care facilities around the country, sometimes in the dead of night, sometimes without being told where they were going, sometimes without paperwork noting their parents’ detention locations or even their names.

“Thus far, we’ve seen no evidence that any system has been put in place by the government to ensure these families are communicating or connecting,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, on a recent media call. “Some of us have been trying to reconnect the children, but it’s incredibly hard.” Young added, “It feels like our legal aid staff have become private investigators, working from what you have — a name, a birthday, an ‘A’ number” — an alien registration number.

Sometimes authorities claim they don’t have any information either: On a form filled out by a detained parent requesting a phone number to reach her daughter, an ICE official responded tersely, “I do not have this information.”

It was a system that Suzan Song, head of George Washington University’s child and family psychiatry division and a former humanitarian protection adviser for youth and families of forced migration with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said was more poorly organized than the process for reuniting refugee children who’d fled Syria.

“With this policy, the focus is really on the separation part,” said Song, “and it seems there’s very little planning or foresight about the complex processes for family tracing and reunification that has to happen.”

Part of the context for the advocates’ alarm over adoption is that international adoption as an industry has been in free fall for the last decade. Country after country has suspended or shrunk its adoption program, leaving a greatly reduced supply to meet a U.S. demand for adoptable children that hasn’t waned. At its peak in 2004, some 23,000 children were sent from abroad to the U.S. to be adopted, including thousands from Guatemala, the home country of many of today’s detained migrants.

International adoptions finally slowed down amid a pattern that replicated itself, country by country, of adoption booms, followed by ethical scandals, then the closure of that nation’s international adoption program. The scandals were as diverse as the countries supplying the children: coercion or baby buying in Vietnam; recruitment from poor, rural families in Ethiopia; even cases of outright kidnapping in Guatemala. The adoption programs of several frequent source countries were suspended over ethical concerns, in addition to other factors like the solidifying middle class in China, which provided stability and its own domestic adoption market, and political retaliation from Russia, which ended international adoptions to America after the U.S. passed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. International adoptions today are down nearly 80 percent since 2004. Some adoption agencies went out of business, and one adoption lobbying group closed shop as well.

As the family separation crisis unfolded on the border, adoption reform advocates noticed that the agency facilitating the foster care of some immigrant children in Michigan, Bethany Christian Services, announced a waiver of its $550 international adoption application fee for the month of June in a since-deleted Facebook post. The dissonance struck the anxious reformers as absurd on its face.

“Why in hell would they be lining people up for international adoption right now?” asked Karen Smith Rotabi, author of “From Intercountry Adoption to Global Surrogacy: A Human Rights History and New Fertility Frontiers” and a professor of social work at United Arab Emirates University. “There’s no way that lining people up for international adoption is ethical, because there simply isn’t the flow of children.” (Bethany Christian Services declined to comment for this story, but has stated that the children will not be offered for adoption and that it will continue to try to reunite children with their families.)

Bethany, which is caring for some of the separated children under a grant with the Office of Refugee Resettlement to offer transitional foster care for unaccompanied minors, has repeatedly said that they oppose the family separation policy and are involved because they believe that the children will suffer less in a family setting than in an institution. In a statement on its website, Bethany argued,

“Nobody benefits from creating more orphans.”

But reform advocates familiar with numerous allegationsregarding Bethany’s domestic adoption program, relating to coercive and misleading practices with birth parents — some of which I wrote about in my 2013 book, “The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking and the New Gospel of Adoption” — worried that the agency was finding in the separated children a new adoption supply.

Image result for Bethany Christian Services

Writing at Medium, Kimberly McKee, a Grand Valley State University professor and assistant director of the Korean American Adoptee Adoptive Family Network, predicted,

“Bethany Christian Services is laying the groundwork to turn these children into adoptable objects — transformed into disciplined bodies acceptable to white America.”

On June 20, protesters stood outside Bethany’s office in Grand Rapids, Michigan, holding signs that read, “No profit for kidnappers” and “End the contract,” a reference to their agreement with the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Bethany’s director of refugee and foster care programs, Dona Abbott, responded by telling Fox17 West Michigan that

“it would be hard to say we’re profiting off of them for adoption when we’ve not placed any of these children for adoption. And it’s so early on to say whether these children will be available for adoption at all.”

“If the kids aren’t reunified, what would the adoption process even look like?” asked Linh Song, a lecturer at the University of Michigan School of Social Work who described avid interest on adoptive parent listservs to take in the children. “Would it be international adoption? Would they have to petition for an orphan visa while being fostered in West Michigan?”

Given that the status of the children was so ambiguous, it remains unclear what policies would apply. Many worried that children being placed in foster care — not just with Bethany, but also other Office of Refugee Resettlement grantees around the country — could end up staying there so long that they would trigger a mechanism within the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act that was intended to keep children from languishing in foster care for years. The law provides that if a child has been in foster care for 15 out of 22 consecutive months, except in cases of relative foster care, child welfare agencies must stop working toward the goal of reunifying the child with their parents and instead, move to terminate parental rights and make the child available for adoption.

That law has become such a pivotal point in the child welfare process that parents whose children are taken into state custody are sometimes shown a video titled “The Clock Is Ticking,” emphasizing how quickly they could lose their parental rights if they don’t meet the requirements of their child protective services case plan. While in practice, many, many children do still remain in foster care for years — without either reunification or adoption — the law has also meant that parents who receive even short prison sentences for drug offenses may be left with far too little time to meet case plan objectives, such as making court or visitation appointments, and finding employment or housing.

The same principles could apply to the children separated at the border, legal analyst Danny Cevallos speculated last week on MSNBC.

“The initial goal is always reunification and state law usually requires that,” said Cevallos. “But the parents can’t meet any of the requirements such as visitation if they are detained or removed from the country.”

He added that, in cases in which foster parents develop an attachment to the child they’re caring for and seek to adopt, they often have a leg up on parents who have been separated from their children. Whereas foster parents are in the area and have access to the court system, he said, separated parents “may not even know anything about the process. And by the time they find out, it’s possible that parental rights have already been terminated by a court.” If court battles do ensue, he continued, the attachment that may have developed between foster parents and their wards could be taken into account by judges who are tasked with making decisions in the “best interest” of a child.

While there does exist an ICE directive that provides detained parents the right to be notified of any custody proceedings regarding their children, ICE isn’t required to notify a state child protective agency of a detained parent’s location so they could actually be informed. Nor does ICE have to transport parents to custody-related court hearings. Advocates worry that judges or caseworkers may wonder why parents went AWOL and aren’t showing up to fight for their child, and may eventually terminate their rights.

JaeRan Kim, a University of Washington professor who researches issues around child welfare and an adoptee herself, recalled that several years ago, as reports began to arise about family separations at the border, some adoption scholars began to worry about exactly this scenario.

“At a conference I was at several years ago, someone said we shouldn’t be surprised to see this as another avenue for adoption.”

Amid massive public outrage, President Donald Trump backtracked on the family separation plan on June 20, indicating that he’ll instead seek to detain families together and ultimately overturn the federal settlement, known as “Flores,” that mandates that children not be held in detention facilities longer than 20 days. After initial wavering from the administration about whether the at least 2,300 already separated children would be “grandfathered in” to the order came news that either 522 or “several hundred” children had been reunited with their parents. Simultaneously, a New York Times report cited the Department of Homeland Security in explaining that “some children will remain separated from the adults they were traveling with if a family relationship cannot be established or if there are concerns about the children’s safety with those adults.” And on Wednesday, a week after Trump issued his executive order, the New Yorker reported that migrant families who have arrived at the border since the policy change are still being threatened with separation as a deterrent to applying for asylum, including through being shown videos of crying children being taken away from their parents and of adults dying in immigration detention facilities.

“What’s the legal status of the kids down the road?” asked Linh Song. “The longer they stay, will there be foster parents who will contest for custody and adopt? It would be one thing if the kids are going as unaccompanied minors or teens. But if you have an infant with you, I bet there are parents who won’t want to give that child up.” She said, “What’s the likelihood of an indigenous Guatemalan mom fighting a family in western Michigan with access to law firms and large, conservative Christian megachurches? It’s really daunting.”

At present, any potential efforts to adopt these children don’t have the support of some of the most influential voices in the adoption world. Jedd Medefind, president of the Christian Alliance for Orphans — an umbrella group that once led a movement of evangelicals advocating widespread international adoption as a religious calling, but now focuses more of its efforts on other child welfare issues — said that within his community, there was “concerned speculation” about the implications of the family separation crisis. “Because clearly if a child’s temporary separation from their family became permanent, that is a profound tragedy for all involved.”

Chuck Johnson, president and CEO of the National Coalition for Adoption, an adoption industry interest group, was even more forceful.

“Not only do we not believe these children are candidates for adoption, but as we understand the policies, they would never be considered for adoption.”

The coalition just wrapped up its annual conference in Washington, D.C., he said, and among the hundreds of child welfare professionals in attendance — including from groups that have contracts or grants with Health and Human Services —

“I didn’t hear of anyone who said that they’d be willing to work with any family toward completing adoption processes for these children.”

“These children — the reason they’ve come here, the purpose, what’s happened to them — I think it would send the world a terrible signal for them to be adopted,” Johnson said.

Several former officials with Obama’s Health and Human Services Department said they believed that the threat of adoption doesn’t track with how they understand federal law to apply. At least as the Office of Refugee Resettlement functioned under Obama, they said, there was no provision for adoption for children in Health and Human Services custody. The forms of foster care offered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement — typically short-term care for young and special needs children, and longer-term care for teenagers who lack U.S. sponsors — are both distinct processes from state foster care and lack a mechanism for adoption. The Adoption and Safe Families Act, they believe, doesn’t apply.

State foster care is a child welfare program, which is fundamentally different from the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s mission to care for and reunite unaccompanied minors, according to Maria Cancian, the former deputy assistant secretary for policy at Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, which oversees the refugee resettlement bureau. While the latter uses some foster home placements, in addition to a lot of congregate care, such as group homes, Cancian explained,

“The mandate is different, the rules are different, the funding is different. It’s a really different program.”

“In [regular] foster care, the kids are typically in state custody because the state has determined that parents are doing an inadequate job keeping the kids safe,” said Cancian. “The mission of ORR is principally to reunite children with their parents, where the presumption is that parents are appropriate and adequate parents to provide for their children. It’s the circumstances that separated the kids, so it’s not like the parents have something to prove in the way that they usually do in a child welfare setting.”

On a practical level, Cancian added, state foster care systems are unlikely to want to take in this population, given that they’re chronically overburdened already, with many states already lacking enough foster care homes to accommodate the U.S. kids in their care.

Under the Obama administration, the former officials said, the Office of Refugee Resettlement focused on moving children quickly out of government custody into a ranked list of possible guardians: close relatives, who received the vast majority of children; followed by more distant relatives; then family friends. Longer-term stays in foster care were reserved typically for youth who didn’t have U.S. guardians to sponsor them. One former official, Marrianne McMullen, the former deputy assistant secretary for policy and external affairs at the Administration for Children and Families, said that although she didn’t have a complete overview of the agency’s work, she could only recall one adoption that had taken place out of Office of Refugee Resettlement custody, under unusual circumstances.

She said she couldn’t imagine these children being offered for adoption,

“but a lot of things are happening that I couldn’t have imagined. Could things change? Could the Trump administration overstep? Well, they already have. They’re moving out of the realm of child welfare in compromising the welfare of children in order to enforce immigration law. The question is how far will they go in harming children for the sake of enforcing immigration law? It’s not alarmist at this point.”

Given that the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s mission has now been further compromised by the demand that they share potential sponsors’ personal information and location with ICE — as a recent open letter from one resettlement office counselor details — McMullen added,

“It could become such an anti-immigrant police state that [potential guardians] might not claim their own children. It’s worth playing out how bad this could be if it’s not stopped right now.”

“This administration is doing pretty horrific things,” said another former official, whose current employer doesn’t allow her to speak on the record. “So I can’t say that that’s not something they’ll consider going forward — especially considering they’re seemingly paternalistic, with Scott Lloyd’s [position] that he’s the dad figure and can tell a teenage girl she can’t have an abortion” — a reference to the Office of Refugee Resettlement director’s maneuvering to prevent minors in custody from terminating pregnancies. “It makes sense that they might think that it makes more sense for kids to be adopted by good Christian families in the U.S., instead of deported parents.”

The official added,

“I want to be careful to say that could happen.”

What such a potential change in policy would require is unclear, the officials agreed.

“This was never something that was considered,” said the former official. “It goes against the best interests of a kid if the parents did nothing wrong other than being separated.”

Image result for Encarnacion Bail Romero

But the 2012 case of Encarnacion Bail Romero (image on the left), a Guatemalan mother who was arrested on immigration charges while working at a Missouri chicken processing plant, demonstrates that it can happen, as a Missouri judge ruled that the very fact of Bail Romero’s illegal immigration made her unfit, since “illegally smuggling herself into the country is not a lifestyle that can provide any stability for the child.”

However, Bail Romero’s case was also distinct in an important way: She was already living in the U.S. when she was taken into ICE custody and her child ultimately adopted. And that, said Cancian, is likely the more immediate threat when it comes to migrants’ children being unethically adopted.

“I have concerns about everything about this program right now, because of the pressure it’s under,” said Cancian.

When it comes to fears of separated children being adopted, she said,

“I would worry about children whose parents have been deported who are in many cases U.S. citizen children.”

In those cases — where a U.S. citizen child has been living here with her undocumented parents — deportation can very well mean the transfer of the child to state foster care, thereby triggering the Adoption and Safe Families Act timer for how long a parent has to regain custody before their rights are terminated. As the Associated Press noted, a 2017 paper found that, partly due to immigration enforcement, the percentage of Hispanic children in state foster care systems rose by 15 to 21 percent between 2001 and 2015.

Late Tuesday, in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, a federal court in California issued a nationwide injunction to stop the Trump administration from separating families and ordered that all children be reunited with their parents within 30 days. Children younger than 5, the judge ruled, had to be reunited within 14 days. One of the two cases the ACLU brought was on behalf of the Brazilian mother who’d been threatened with adoption if she didn’t behave. Whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions appeals the decision, sparking a prolonged court battle, or how the order would be enforced, remain significant unanswered questions, especially as the administration has already conceded that it will have trouble meeting the judge’s deadlines. But even if the more than 2,000 currently separated children are returned to their parents within a month, for undocumented parents with U.S. citizen children, that threat — or, in some cases, anxious choice — remains.

“If a parent wanted their child back and couldn’t find them, and the kid is put in an adoption, that’s clearly an inappropriate adoption,” said Cancian. “The parent and child want to be together and because we failed to put them in contact, they’re not together. That’s an easy one. But what happens if a parent is deported to El Salvador and thinks their kid is going to be killed in gang violence and decides it’s better for the child to stay in the U.S., and that child is adopted by an American family? How do we think about that?”

“If I were a mother in El Salvador and I had to make that choice, it would really break my heart,” she said.

Lauren Heidbrink, an anthropologist at California State University Long Beach and author of “Migrant Youth, Transnational Families, and the State: Care and Contested Interests,” is one of the few scholars who has tracked the long-term trajectories of young people who have been in Office of Refugee Resettlement custody, conducting research within the office’s facilities from 2006 to 2010. For the last five years, she followed 50 young people who were deported to Mexico or Guatemala after being detained in the U.S. Heidbrink says that adoptions of unaccompanied minors do sometimes take place — not directly from Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities, but rather after they’ve been reclassified as an unaccompanied refugee minor, rather than an unaccompanied alien minor. (The office of Refugee Resettlement did not respond to a request for comment.) In order for that to happen, migrant children must receive legal status of some sort: asylum, a visa for victims of crime or trafficking, or being recognized as a special immigrant juvenile  if they’re found to have been abused, neglected, or abandoned.

Cases where children receive the special status deserve particular attention, Heidbrink added, because, unlike asylum applications, crime, or trafficking visas, special immigrant juvenile status is determined by a probate or family court judge seeking to determine the best interests of the child. In those court proceedings, Heidbrink said,

“what’s presented as abuse, abandonment, or neglect can instead be a parent who was deported or detained.”

While Heidbrink does believe that the federal government has the information necessary to reunite children and parents, she said a mechanism for communication between Health and Human Services’s Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Department of Homeland Security, which detains the adults, is often lacking.

“If it doesn’t happen, and they’re mired in bureaucracy and lack of communication, what I’ve seen is the parents are deported, they try to find their child in the U.S. foster care system, whether federal or domestic, and it’s really difficult to meaningfully participate in those custody proceedings,” Heidbrink said. “ORR may say we don’t have unaccompanied children being adopted from ORR facilities and that the forced separations we’ve been seeing at the border won’t lead to adoption. But when you follow young children for much longer, you see the different trajectories they follow, some of which end in adoption.”

Even in these instances or potential cases in which immigrant children and their parents might want them to be adopted — as a means of securing U.S. citizenship or keeping the child safe — the National Council for Adoption’s Chuck Johnson notes that the laws governing adoptees’ citizenship have been so restrictively written that they apply only to children who have entered the country for the express purpose of international adoption. It would be unlikely in these cases, he said, that citizenship would then attach to those children.

That recalls a key fight around the time of the Haiti adoption airlifts, when Americans clamored to adopt Haitian children by the thousands, even as Haitian adults were being told — at the U.S. Embassy, through a U.S. Air Force plane broadcasting messages in Creole, and in the form of a fleet of Coast Guard ships patrolling the waters outside Port-au-Prince — not to attempt to flee themselves. To facilitate those adoptions, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., sponsored the Help HAITI Act, a bill that would have ensured that evacuated Haitian children who were adopted by Americans receive U.S. citizenship — something that, as many adult adoptees at risk of deportation know, is not guaranteed. The bill almost didn’t pass when rumors flew that Democrats were considering tying it to Obama’s DREAM Act, thereby also creating a path to legal residency for undocumented children whose biological parents had brought them into the country. At the time, the website Rightwing News responded with outrage:

“Think of it … if Republicans vote against the DREAM Act,” a post on the site said, “they would also be voting AGAINST the orphans.”

Then, as now, it was a potent illustration of the duality at the heart of discussions of immigration and adoption: of which sorts of people — adults or children — and even which sorts of children — infants or teenagers, those who are brought across the border by white adoptive parents or their brown biological ones — are viewed as worthy of help.

*

This article was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

Featured image is from the Center for American Progress.

Iran’s Rhetoric Is Meant to Raise the Oil Price

July 4th, 2018 by Andrew Korybko

Iran’s ominous rhetoric about making the OPEC+ countries “pay” for their “treachery” to it and hinting at taking action to stop Gulf exports has had its desired effect in raising the oil price, and similar such statements in the run-up to the November reimposition of US sanctions against the country’s energy industry should also be interpreted as attempts to manipulate market speculation and squeeze as much revenue as possible from this resource while Tehran still has the opportunity to do so.

Iranian state representatives were once again in the news this week for their statements about the global oil industry. First Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri said that

“Anyone trying to take away Iran’s oil market (share) would be committing great treachery against Iran and will one day pay for it”, and while not naming the OPEC+ duopoly’s leaders of Russia and Saudi Arabia, it was obvious who he was referring to.

Just two days afterwards, President Rouhani ramped up the rhetoric by declaring that

“The Americans have claimed they want to completely stop Iran’s oil exports. They don’t understand the meaning of this statement, because it has no meaning for Iranian oil not to be exported, while the region’s oil is exported”, which was widely interpreted as a threat to interfere with Gulf exports despite Tehran’s official claims to the contrary.

The sending of passive-aggressive messages by Iran isn’t anything new, nor is the state’s formal denial of their implied intent, and just like it’s always done, the latest round of rhetoric had the effect of raising oil price, which is exactly what the country was expecting.

Iran is bracing for a major economic hit after the US reimposes sanctions against the country’s energy industry in November and vowed to implement “secondary” ones against any state that continues to purchase its resources. This will probably shake the Islamic Republic to its core and exacerbate the ongoing protests that are more or less aimed at compelling the government to enact economic reforms as soon as possible (except in the cases when Hybrid War hooligans hijack these demonstrations in order to provoke a police crackdown). The weaponized deprivation of billions of dollars of oil revenue is undoubtedly intended to catalyze political consequences for the US’ chief Mideast adversary, and the authorities will have difficulty containing the aftereffects of this game-changing move even under the “best” of circumstances, to say nothing if its anticipated proceeds prior to that point are lower than expected.

The OPEC+ deal between unlikely Great Power partners Russia and Saudi Arabia is conditioned on the need to control rising prices so that they no longer reach the point where US fracking is profitable, which in that scenario would lead to the US cutting into both of their respective market shares.

As it turns out, however, the intentional lowering of prices roughly a third of a year before the US’ anti-Iranian energy sanctions kick in is extremely disadvantageous to Tehran’s interests because it’ll unexpectedly lead to less revenue that could subsequently be used to temporarily quell growing public anger over the speculated long-term socio-economic consequences of America’s antagonistic move. Speaking of speculation, this is a strong force in and of itself when it comes to influencing the oil price, something that Iran knows very well and which is why it occasionally crafts passive-aggressive yet “plausibly ambiguous” statements in order to manipulate this sentiment to its desired end. Understandably, Iran wants to rake in as much money as it can from its existing oil exports while it still has the opportunity to do so, paradoxically pursuing its own interests despite always relying on the rhetoric of “collective” ones when speaking about the fate of the nuclear deal.

The Iranian state has a responsibility to the its people first and foremost, not to Russia, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else, though the point in drawing attention to this action is to highlight the instruments that Tehran uses to pursue its self-interests, which in the sphere of energy are entirely rhetorical at this point in time.

It’s extremely unlikely that the Islamic Republic will do anything aggressive in making Russia and Saudi Arabia “pay” for their “treachery” for taking some of its oil market share, nor will it for that matter rely on military means to follow up on its vague threat to shut down Gulf energy exports through the Strait of Hormuz, though it must be noted that Iran’s threats in other strategic realms should be taken much more seriously because it has the political will to use unconventional measures to advance its own interests. Seeing as how the focus of this analysis is restricted to energy, however, then it can be provocatively concluded that Iran is “all bark and no bite” because it can’t realistically take any action to follow up on its representatives’ words in the manner that they implied, though this was intentional because all that it had to do was “bark” loud enough to trigger the speculative raising of oil prices.

Therefore, one can say that this strategy entails zero physical costs but has the chance of producing impressive financial gain for the time being, though the long-term ramifications for Iran’s reputation – especially in the eyes of Russia – might to lead decision makers reconsidering its utility in hindsight.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Featured image is from Sprott Money.

The Top 10 Political Scandals Series: The Tories

July 4th, 2018 by True Publica

To be as impartial as possible for this series, which obviously only includes the Conservative and Labour parties (as the last Liberal government was in power exactly 100 years ago), the criteria used for this research of political scandals covers a period from 1993 to the present day. This then gives 13 years to each party in power, including the Con/Lib coalition of 2010 to 2015. In that time there have been 35 listed political scandals.

What is interesting is that when a party is in power, the scandals rack up quickly, when they are out of power the opposite occurs. Clearly, this has a lot to do with greater journalistic scrutiny and holding power to account.

Of that number, 15 are attributed to the Conservatives, 16 to Labour and 4 to other political parties. The parliamentary expenses scandal, Westminster sex scandals and Cash For Influence (2010 – not to be confused with 2009) scandals have been left out as they involve both parties to a greater or lesser extent, which would over complicate this report.

Political scandals have changed considerably over the decades. A watch given by Michael Mates in 1993 to Asil Nadir was considered a scandal at the time (What subsequently happened after was that Mates privately accused MI6 of being behind the prosecution of the former Polly Peck chairman, then a fugitive from British justice). Compare that to the recent scandal involving the Conservative party blocking a major money laundering investigation into LycaMobile, one of their biggest donors.

Lastly, it’s important to understand what is a scandal. The top 10 are listed as those formally listed in encyclopedias. However, there are many more scandals that are not – and there is an additional list of examples of those below.

In chronological order the top 10 political scandals involving the Tories since 1993 are:

  • Cash for questions  – Lobbyist and bribery -1994
  • Jonathan Aitkin – Perjury/Libel – 1995
  • Jeremy Hayes – Underage gay sex – 1997
  • John Major/Edwina Currie extramarital affair – 2001
  • Liam Fox/Adam Werrity – National security – 2011
  • Cash for access – illegal political funding – 2012
  • Jeremy Hunt/Murdoch – BSkyB corruption – 2012
  • Lord Ashcroft – David Cameron’s lewd behaviour – 2015
  • Windrush – deportation of British citizens – 2018
  • Cambridge Analytica – high profile donors to both the Conservative Party/Leave.EU – 2018

Other scandals not listed rather bizarrely have a much greater impact on society than some of those listed above. Leaving aside the Tory party obsession with killing off its own Prime Ministers over the European Union that eventually led to Brexit there have been many others – mostly driven with a profit motive against civil society.

To name a few is not hard to do at all.

The privatisation of the NHS after stating the organisation was in safe hands, has turned into a national crisis. There are additionally numerous examples of rampant profiteering by reckless Tory policy. Just one of many, was the sale of the national blood bank to an American outfit, who sold it on to the Chinese three years later and pocketed hundreds of millions.

The Royal Mail sell-off also cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions, estimated by some at well over £500m. Banks, hedge funds and wealthy investors pocketed a fortune, some heavily connected to the Tory party. Another was the privatisation of the UK forensics service which has led to numerous court cases collapsing.

We could also list the biggest drop in housebuilding from 2010 to the present day causing a peak to the housing crisis with a help-to-buy scheme that will have gifted a total £20bn of taxpayers money to the largest housebuilders in the country. Ironically, that is about the same amount of money the NHS is to be given to help get it back on its feet in an attempt to save Theresa May’s political aspirations.

The employment of private contractors within the welfare system has squandered a fortune whilst enriching, mainly foreign corporations at the expense of the most vulnerable. Universal credit – another Tory scandal is a failure, it will lose astronomical sums of taxpayers money and achieve nothing but a bit more misery for those who have already had a good dose of it served up through austerity – itself a failed ideological project.

So there you have it. Labour will be in the next report in a day or so covering the same time frame, then an overall report in the series for the last 100 years. It will be interesting to see which party really is the nasty party.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

In a memo to tourists, China is warning citizens planning on traveling to the United States to keep watch over their surroundings at all times, avoid visiting U.S. hospitals without American health insurance, and to not venture out alone at night.

According to the South China Morning Post, the Chinese embassy in the United States is warning tourists planning trips to the U.S. to be wary of shootings and theft, and to not get sick or injured lest a foreign visitor be gouged by the United States’ absurdly expensive healthcare system.

“Social security in the States is not satisfactory. Shootings, robbery, theft happen frequently,” a memo from the Chinese embassy read. “Be aware of suspicious people around you and avoid going out alone at night.”

Figures from Statista show that Chinese tourists are visiting the U.S. in ever-increasing numbers. Last year, more than three million Chinese tourists came to the United States, and more than 4.5 million tourists are expected to come to the U.S. by 2022.

tourists

Chinese tourists visiting the U.S., 2002-present (chart by Statista)

In addition to warning of inadequate social welfare programs and a prevalence of shootings, the Chinese government is warning citizens visiting the U.S. to not get into any confrontations with U.S. immigration officials, as arguing with a customs agent will “only make things worse.

“A US visa does not guarantee you have the right to enter the country,” the embassy stated. “Law enforcers at the customs [desks] have the ultimate power to decide.”

China’s warning to tourists– particularly about mass shootings — isn’t hyperbolic. According to the Gun Violence Archive (GVA), there have been 157 mass shootings in 2018 as of July 1 — just 181 days into this year. The GVA defines a mass shooting as a mass casualty incident caused by firearms in which at least four people were killed or injured, not including the shooter. There were 346 mass shootings in 2017, using the GVA’s numbers and methodology.

The American and Chinese healthcare systems are also strikingly different. In a 2017 post for supChina’s Sinica series, author Jia Guo — who did not have health insurance — described having to pay approximately $2,000 for one emergency room visit for severe fever in which doctors didn’t do anything besides conduct an X-ray test, a urine test, and a blood test, and prescribe antibiotics, which Jia refused. According to Jia, a similar consultation in China would have cost roughly $35 USD.

“My parents, who were visiting me from China at the time, couldn’t believe that a regular fever could result in all the procedures I was put through and how much everything cost,” Jia wrote.

*

Michael Boone is a freelance journalist and columnist writing about politics, government, race, and media. He graduated from Texas Southern University’s School of Communication, and lives in Houston’s Third Ward.

Featured image is from the author.

The Battle for Iran: Policy or Regime Change?

July 4th, 2018 by James M. Dorsey

Iran, in the latest of a series of incidents on its western and south-eastern borders, said it had disbanded a Pakistan-based cell of ant-Shiite militants in a clash this week on the Iranian side of the border.

The clash, shrouded in mystery like similar past incidents in the ethnic Baloch province of Sistan and Baluchistan and Kurdish areas in the West, occurred amid mounting speculation that the Trump administration, backed by Saudi Arabia and Israel, is striving for regime change in Tehran.

Iran and Jaish-al-Adl (the Army of Justice), a splinter group that traces its roots to Saudi-backed anti-Shiite groups in Iran, issued contradictory statements about the incident. Iran said three militants and two of its Revolutionary Guards were killed in the incident. Jaish-al-Adl claimed it had killed 11 Guards while suffering no losses.

US and Israeli officials insist that their anti-Iranian moves aim to increase domestic pressure on Iran to change its policies at a time that the country is witnessing multiple protests related to economic policies and water shortages rather than at regime change.

US and Israeli officials, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, have resorted to social media to support the protests.

At the same time, debate within the Trump administration pits proponents of regime change like national security advisor John Bolton, backed by Mr. Netanyahu, against those that believe that domestic pressure is pushing the Iranian regime to the brink and simply needs a degree of encouragement.

In a series of tweets, Mr. Pompeo supported Iranian protesters and charged that

“Iran’s corrupt regime is wasting the country’s resources on Assad, Hezbollah, Hamas & Houthis, while Iranians struggle.”

Mr. Pompeo’s comments were echoed in one of several video clips by Mr. Netanyahu, celebrating the brilliance of Iranians and their achievements in technology.

“So why is Iran so poor? Why is unemployment so rampant? The answer is in two words: the regime. Iran’s dictators plunder the country’s wealth… The Iranian people are the ones that suffer,” Mr. Netanyahu said.

The messages appeared to be the result of a joint US-Israeli working plan drafted late last year to counter Iran with covert as well as diplomatic actions.

A participant before joining the Trump administration, Mr. Bolton this year stayed away from an annual gathering in Paris of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, a controversial Iranian opposition group that since being dropped from US, Canadian and European terrorism lists has garnered significant support in Western political, military and security circles.

There is widespread doubt that the Mujahedeen, that advocates the armed overthrow of the Iranian regime, commands popular support in Iran.

Image on the right: Rudolph Giuliani

That did not stop President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, and former House of Representatives speaker and Trump ally, Newt Gingrich from attending alongside former US officials, former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and European politicians. The US State Department said the Americans were not representing the administration.

“This president does not intend to turn his back on freedom fighters… When the greatest economic power stops doing business with you, then you collapse … and the sanctions will become greater, greater and greater,” Mr. Giuliani told the rally.

The recent clash with militants as well as the rally occurred as Iranian President Hasan Rouhani was visiting Europe to shore up support for the 2015 international nuclear agreement that has been in jeopardy since Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the accord in May and re-imposed sanctions on the Islamic republic that would affect non-European entities that continue to do business with it. Europe, Russia and China have vowed to honour the agreement.

In a mysterious twist, German, Belgian and French authorities arrested an Iranian diplomat, a couple of Iranian descent, and three suspected accomplices on suspicion of planning to bomb the Mujahedeen’s Paris rally.

It was not clear why Iran would want to jeopardize Mr. Rouhani’s trip as well as international support for the nuclear deal by bombing a group that has little domestic support unless Iranian hardliners saw it as a way of further weakening the reformist president.

“How convenient: Just as we embark on a presidential visit to Europe, an alleged Iranian operation and its ‘plotters’ arrested. Iran unequivocally condemns all violence & terror anywhere and is ready to work with all concerned to uncover what is a sinister false flag ploy,” tweeted Iranian foreign minister Javid Zarif.

With little known about the most recent clash and earlier incidents, it remains difficult to establish whether there is a pattern even though circumstantial evidence suggests it is a possibility.

Saudi Arabia’s powerful crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman vowed last year that the battle between his kingdom and the Islamic republic would be fought “inside Iran, not in Saudi Arabia.”

Former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Britain and the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who is believed to often air views held by Prince Mohammed, shined, like Mr. Bolton, with his absence at this year’s Mujahedeen gathering but told the group in preceding years that “I, too, want the fall of the regime.”

A Saudi think tank, the Arabian Gulf Centre for Iranian Studies (AGCIS), believed to be backed by Prince Mohammed, that has since rebranded itself as the International Institute for Iranian Studies, called last year in a study for Saudi support for a low-level Baloch insurgency in Iran. There is no solid evidence that the plan has been translated into policy.

In the study, Mohammed Hassan Husseinbor, a Washington-based Baloch lawyer, researcher and activist, argued that the

“Saudis could persuade Pakistan to soften its opposition to any potential Saudi support for the Iranian Baluch… The Arab-Baluch alliance is deeply rooted in the history of the Gulf region and their opposition to Persian domination,” Mr. Husseinbor said.

Pointing to the vast expanses of Sistan and Baluchestan, Mr. Husseinbor went on to say that

“it would be a formidable challenge, if not impossible, for the Iranian government to protect such long distances…in the face of widespread Baluch opposition, particularly if this opposition is supported by Iran’s regional adversaries and world powers.”

Pakistani militants have claimed that Saudi Arabia in the last year stepped up funding of militant madrassas or religious seminaries in Balochistan that allegedly serve as havens for anti-Iranian fighters.

Said Iran scholar Ahmad Majidyar:

“Iran’s south-eastern and north-western regions – home to marginalized ethnic and religious minorities – have seen an uptick in violence by separatist and militant groups… Sistan and Baluchestan can be a breeding ground for local militant and separatist movements as well regional and international terrorist groups.”

*

This article was originally published on The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title as well as Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, co-authored with Dr. Teresita Cruz-Del Rosario,  Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa, and the forthcoming China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom.

Featured image is from the author.

I have just spent a couple of days in New York City. Returning to Virginia on Wednesday morning, I had a somewhat strange experience. I cleared through my emails before leaving the hotel and also read through a number of the featured news articles. One, in particular, caught my eye. It described how the Democratic Party primary in Queens New York had returned a startling result. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won over mainstream incumbent Joe Crowley, signaling that not everyone in the Democratic Party is buying into the Clinton model of good governance by big donors and powerful interest groups. Many want change and even a radical departure from the political game whereby media savvy pressure groups and narrow constituencies are pandered to to create a governing majority.

One paragraph in particular in the article I read was highly suggestive, the claim that Ocasio-Cortez had been strongly opposed to the Israelis’ routine slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza, which has by now become of such little import that it is not even reported any more in the U.S. media. She is also allegedly a supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanction movement (BDS), which pressures Israel to end its theft and occupation of Palestinian land. The article expressed some surprise that anyone in New York City would dare to say anything unpleasant about Israel and still expect to get elected.

This is what Ocasio-Cortez, who called the shooting of more than 130 Gazans a “massacre,” actually said and wrote:

“No state or entity is absolved of mass shootings of protesters. There is no justification. Palestinian people deserve basic human dignity, as anyone else. Democrats can’t be silent about this anymore. I think I was primarily compelled [to speak out] on moral grounds because I could only imagine if 60 people were shot and killed in Ferguson. Or if 60 people were shot and killed in the West Virginia teachers’ strikes. The idea that we are not supposed to talk about people dying when they are engaging in political expression just really moved me.”

Five hours later, when I arrived home in Virginia I went to pull up the article I had read in the morning to possibly use it in a piece of my own and was somewhat surprised to discover that the bit about Israel had been excised from the text. It was clearly yet another example of how the media self-censors when there is anything negative to say about Israel and it underlines the significance of the emergence of recent international media reporting in The Guardian and elsewhere regarding how Jewish billionaire Sheldon Adelson largely dictates U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. That means that the conspiracy of silence over Israel’s manipulation of the United States government is beginning to break down and journalists have become bold enough to challenge what occurs when pro-Israel Jews obtain real power over the political process. Adelson, for what it’s worth, wants war with Iran and has even suggested detonating a nuclear device on its soil to “send a message.”

I personally would have liked to see Ocasio-Cortez go farther, a lot farther. Israel is a place where conventional morality has been replaced by a theocratically and culturally driven sense of entitlement which has meant that anything goes when it comes to the treatment of inferior Christian and Muslim Arabs. It also means that the United States is being played for a patsy by people who believe themselves to be superior in every way to Americans.

The question of the relationship with Israel comes at a time when everyone in America, so it seems, is concerned about children being separated from their parents who have illegally crossed the border from Mexico into the United States. The concern is legitimate given the coarse and sometimes violent justifications coming out of the White House, but it’s a funny thing that Israeli abuse and even killing of Arab children is not met with the same opprobrium. When a Jewish fanatic/Israel settler kills Palestinian children and is protected by his government in so doing, where is the outrage in the U.S. media? Settlers and soldiers kill Palestinians, young and old, with impunity and are almost never punished. They destroy their orchards and livestock to eliminate their livelihoods to drive them out. They bulldoze their homes and villages. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency does none of that and is yet subject to nonstop abuse in the mainstream media, so what about Israel?

A recent story illustrates just how horrible the Israelis can be without any pushback whatsoever coming from Washington objecting to their behavior. As the United States is the only force that can in any way compel Israel to come to its senses and chooses not to do so, that makes U.S. policymakers and by extension the American people complicit in Israel’s crimes.

The particularly horrible recent account that I am referring to describes how fanatical Jewish settlers burned alive a Palestinian family on the West Bank, including a baby, and then celebrated the deaths while taunting the victims’ surviving family when they subsequently appeared in court. The story was covered in Israel and Europe but insofar as I could determine did not appear in any detail in the U.S. mainstream media.

Israeli Jewish settlers carried out their shameful deed outside a court in the city of Lod, chanting “’Ali was burned, where is Ali? There is no Ali. Ali is burned. On the fire. Ali is on the grill!” referring to the 18-month old baby Ali Dawabsheh, who was burnt alive in 2015 by Jewish settlers hurling Molotov cocktails into a house in the West Bank town of Duma. Ali’s mother Riham and father Saad also died of their burns and were included in the chanting “Where is Ali? Where is Riham? Where is Saad? It’s too bad Ahmed didn’t burn as well.” Five year-old Ahmed, who alone survived the attack with severe burns, will have scars for the rest of his life.

The settlers were taunting Ali’s grandfather Hussein Dawabsheh, who accompanied Ahmed, at a preliminary hearing where the court indicted a man who confessed to the murders and a minor who acted as an accomplice. A video of the chanting shows Israeli policemen standing by and doing nothing. The court appearance also revealed that there have been another Molotov cocktail attack by settlers on another Dawabsheh family house in May that may have been an attempt to silence testimony relating to the first attack. Fortunately, the family managed to escape.

And by all accounts this outrage was not the first incident in which the burning of the Palestinian baby was celebrated. A December 15th wedding video showed settlers engaged in an uproarious party that featured dances with Molotov cocktails and waving knives and guns. A photo of baby Ali was on display and was repeatedly stabbed. A year later, 13 people from what became known as the “murder wedding” were indicted for incitement to terrorism, but as of today no one has actually been punished. Israelis who kill Arabs are rarely indicted or tried. If it is a soldier or policeman that is involved, which occurs all too often, the penalty is frequently either nothing at all a slap on the wrist. Indeed, the snipers who fired on Gazans recently were actually ordered to shoot the unarmed civilians and directed to take out anyone who appeared to be a “leader,” which included medical personnel.

Source: Green Left Weekly

The Trump Administration could, of course, stop the Israeli brutality if it chooses to do so, but it does not think Benjamin Netanyahu’s crimes against humanity are on the agenda. Nor did Clinton, Bush and Obama dare to confront the power of Israel’s lobby, though Obama tried a little pushback in a feeble way.

Someone in Washington should be asking why the United States should be fighting unnecessary wars and becoming an international pariah defending a country and people that believe they are “chosen” by God? One can only hope that the shift in perceptions on the Middle East by liberal Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez has some legs and will lead to some real change in U.S. foreign policy. To succeed the liberal Democrats will need to push against some formidable obstacles within their own party, most notably the Clinton wing and people like Senator Chuck Schumer, Minority leader in the Senate, who describes himself as Israel’s “shomer” or defender in the Upper House. Perhaps someone on the New York Times editorial board should publicly suggest to Schumer that he go and run for office in Israel since he seems to prefer it to the country that has made him rich and powerful. But of course, the Times and all the other mainstream media, which is responsible for what we are not allowed to know about Israel and its American mouthpieces, will never entertain that suggestion or anything like it.

*

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Dr. Giraldi is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

The Party and the Sermon

The celebratory event took place on Tuesday evening, November 5, 1946 at the Officers’ Club of the Army War College in Washington, D.C. The occasion was to mark the disbanding of Joint Army-Navy Task Force Number One, the body that organized and oversaw the first post-war atomic tests in the Pacific. These highly publicized detonations on Bikini Atoll are remembered today, if at all, for displacing an entire indigenous population of islanders, for inspiring a revealing line of swimwear for women and for unleashing the myth that movie star Rita Hayworth’s image was once affixed to an A-bomb.

The Operation Crossroads tests were the biggest media story of 1946, so it was only fitting that the dissolution of the team that produced the show would spark one final media storm. The entire function would have occurred without notice had it not been for the presence of a photographer from the prestigious Harris & Ewing Studio.[1]What triggered the controversy was a picture that the commander of the Task Force, Vice Admiral William H.P. Blandy, and his wife posed for with Rear Admiral Frank J. Lowry. In it, the so-called “Atomic Admiral” is seen cutting into an elaborately engineered “mushroom cloud”-topped cake (with token assistance from Mrs. Blandy) while Lowry looks on with a smile.

The unusual pastry was there in the first place because of an order to an East St. Louis, Illinois bakery by Lieutenant John T. Holloway, a member of Blandy’s staff. “It was strictly a business request,” said Eugene Kuehn to the Associated Press at the time. Kuehn, with the help of a bakery supply salesman named L.Y. Stephens, designed the strange looking dessert and had it delivered by car to Washington.[2]

On November 7, 1946 the bizarre photograph was published as the centerpiece of the Washington Post’s society column under the headline “Salute to Bikini.” It was accompanied by other shots of military men gaily hobnobbing with women dressed to the nines. The grotesque inappropriateness of the party as captured by the Post quickly caught the attention of a local Unitarian minister named Arthur Powell Davies. Three days later, on Sunday, November 10th, the outspoken pastor uncorked his outrage over the insensitive revelry and delivered a blistering broadside from his pulpit at the All Souls Church:

I have with me here in the pulpit this morning a page from a newspaper. From a very fine newspaper. It contains a picture—as it seems to me, an utterly loathsome picture. If I spoke as I feel I would call it obscene. I do not blame the newspaper for printing the picture, or the photographer for taking it. What fills me with bitterness is the fact that such an event could take place at all. It is a picture of two high naval officers and a very beautiful lady.[3] They are in the act of cutting what is called an atom-bomb cake. And it is indeed a cake shaped in the form of an atomic explosion. The caption [in the Post’s photo] says it is made of angel food puffs. I do not know how to tell you what I feel about that picture. I only hope to God it is not printed in Russia—to confirm everything the Soviet government is telling the Russian people about how ‘American degenerates’ are able to treat with levity the most cruel, pitiless, revolting instrument of death ever invented by man… The naval officers concerned should apologize to the armed service of which they are a part, and to the American people. No apology would be sufficient to efface what it may mean to the people of the world.[4]

The Reaction

News of Davies’s sermon—officially entitled Lest the Living Forget—made Time magazine and headlines around the world. His remarks apparently gave voice to the disgust that many people had been feeling over America’s exuberant embrace of all things atomic since August 6, 1945. Despite the reverend’s professed hope, the hubbub over what became known as the “Atomic Cake” even made its way to Moscow:

Soviet Papers Comment on ‘Atom’ Cake

Moscow, Nov. 17 (AP)—Two Soviet newspapers took cognizance today of the recent serving at an American officers’ club of a cake shaped like an atom bomb explosion and one commented that American “atomists” would “like to stew a big atomic kasha and make millions of peaceful people bear the consequences.”

The reference to kasha, a Russian cereal, was by the government newspaper Izvestia, which illustrated its story by a picture of a portly gentleman in a morning coat cutting a cake. Trud, the trade union newspaper, was the other newspaper that referred to the “atomic cake.”[5]

In America, the sermon and the resulting news coverage prompted letters to the editor (some with the motive of defending the Admiral). The following is a sampling:

A note on that delightful picture of Admirals Blandy and Lowry and attached dimpling woman all preparing to eat the charming and oh-so-divine “atom bomb” cake. On Armistice Day I was thinking of so many charming variations of this theme. We could have darling little cakes made in the shape of coffins, and the cutest little crosses pressed of angel-puffs. And a few drops of cherry extract could be—you guessed it—drops of blood.

History will not scorn us for our last-resort use of this most horrible of all weapons to end finally and completely the most terrible of all wars. But we will be damned as barbarians without vision or heart if we do not feel the deepest sadness at the necessity for authorizing such cruelness. And let no one toss such conscience pangs aside with easy thoughts about legitimate ends. Hitler ravished a continent because, having committed himself to “good ends,” he could tolerate any means.

I think the entire episode was a monument to poor taste, and The Post shares the guilt by printing such obscenities.

EX-INFANTRYMAN, Arlington, Va.[6]

The recent picture of Admiral and Mrs. Blandy and Admiral Lowry cutting a cake made in the form of an atomic underwater explosion gave wide publicity to the unusual views of the Rev. A. Powell Davies, Unitarian pastor of a “fashionable Washington church.” As published, with accompanying errors of text, it did a great injustice to Admirals Blandy and Lowry, who have been tireless in their efforts to tell the citizens of the world of the devastating power and insidious poison of the atomic bomb.

For example, in October Admiral Blandy, at the New York Herald Tribune Forum and over a national radio network, said: “It is my earnest hope that all nations of the world join America in a straightforward march along the path leading to elimination of atomic weapons by an effective international control of atomic energy which will guarantee its development for exclusively peaceful purposes.”

Mr. Davies’ remarks also did a great injustice to Mrs. Blandy, who was brought up and married and whose children were christened in the same church of which Mr. Davies has but recently become the pastor.

Admiral and Mrs. Blandy were not the hosts (as stated in published accounts), but were the guests of honor at a party given by officers of the Crossroads staff. They had no part in the planning or procurement of the cake. The Post requested and was accorded the privilege of sending a news photographer to the party, and the picture was taken at the request of the photographer. In acceding to the request, Admiral and Mrs. Blandy and Admiral Lowry were acting as would any lady and gentleman.

To be publicly pilloried from the pulpit for this seems to be a strange reflection of the principles of Him who founded the Christian church.

DAVID H. BLAKELOCK, Colonel, United States Army; FITZHUGH LEE, Captain, Joint Task Force 1, Washington[7]

Sirs:

The recent picture of Admiral and Mrs. Blandy and Admiral Lowry cutting a cake made in the form of an atomic underwater explosion [TIME, Nov. 18] gave wide publicity to the unusual views of the Rev. A. Powell Davies, Unitarian pastor of a “fashionable Washington church.” As published … it did a great injustice to Admirals Blandy and Lowry, who have been tireless in their efforts to tell the citizens of the world of the devastating power and insidious poison of the atomic bomb. . . .

Admiral and Mrs. Blandy and Admiral Lowry were not the hosts but were the guests of honor at a party given by Officers of the Crossroads staff. They had no part in the planning or procurement of the cake.

DAVID H. BLAKELOCK Colonel, U.S.A. FITZHUGH LEE Captain, U.S.N. Washington[8]

Sirs:

. . . Utter astonishment could not describe my feelings when I read the tirade let loose by a Washington minister at two men who contributed such a large part in the defeat of our enemies. He would “damn to hell” these men; he would call down the wrath of God on these men were he a medieval priest; he would put in torment their souls for their base, utter disregard of all the principles of humanity. . . . Who is he? This minister might just as well damn every Air Corps officer, every bombardier, every flame-throwing private, every machine gunner and every rifleman to everlasting hell for using a weapon as destructive as the one he carried in defense of his country. . . .

Personally, it is my belief, and I am sure the belief of the majority of servicemen, that the atomic bomb accomplished at the proper moment a complete demoralization of the Japanese and led to ultimate surrender, thus saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of American men who would otherwise have been lost. God grant that we might have had this bomb at the start of the conflict. God grant that this nation have such a weapon as this if & when our enemies feel the time is ripe to strike another blow at Freedom and mankind. . . .

J. N. TALBOTT

Lieutenant Commander, U.S.N.R. Philadelphia[9]

Davies’s local brethren of the cloth sought to minimize their colleague’s position while at the same time getting their own names in the papers. Reverend J. Warren Hastings of the National Christian Church of Washington, D.C. told the Associated Press: “If we can only learn to go no further with the atomic bomb than making the likeness of its explosion into a cake we shall be all right.” Reverend Peter Marshall of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, also in D.C., remarked to the same reporter: “I don’t see anything loathsome about it at all.”[10]

The two central players in the sermon clearly just wanted to move on—albeit without the apology demanded of them by the minister. Blandy stated that he did not want “to comment offhand” and Lowry told a reporter that the pastor “probably just doesn’t understand the situation.”[11] For his part, L.Y. Stephens, the man who assisted in the creation of the now famous dessert, did not subscribe to the negative symbolism assigned to his handiwork by Reverend Davies. He told the Associated Press that the sermon was “silly” and that “We intended the cake as something to eat.”[12]

Meanwhile, other, more important people were taking note of the confectionary brouhaha and—behind the scenes—they were siding with Davies’s point of view. On November 11, 1946, the influential columnist Walter Lippmann wrote to the Secretary of the Navy, James V. Forrestal to voice his concern:

3525 Woodley Road, N.W.
Washington 16, D.C.
November 11, 1946

Dear Jim:

The outburst of Reverend A.P. Davies about the atomic bomb cake is, I feel sure, a sign of the times, which I feel should not be ignored.

Public relations officers of both the War and Navy Departments have been out of hand for some time, and I have detected for some months a growing undercurrent of feeling that will affect the whole military establishment if something isn’t done about it.

I have compiled a list of new and terrifying weapons announced by the War and Navy Departments, and of other stories originating there which are boastful or threatening. The total effect was bound to produce a popular reaction, and I really feel that you and Bob Patterson ought to look very seriously into this business.

You are going to have a very hard time with the next Congress getting appropriations, and if the large church-going population of this country with its pacifist leanings gets the idea that the Services are out of hand, it will have a bad effect in the fight for adequate appropriations.
I am sure you appreciate the spirit in which I am writing this.

Yours.

Walter Lippmann

Honorable James V. Forrestal
Secretary of the Navy
Washington 25, D.C.

Forrestal, who was of the same mind as Lippmann, wrote him back the next day:

12 November 1946

Dear Walter:

Your letter of yesterday:

I am in complete agreement. So is [Secretary of War] Bob Patterson with whom I have just talked. We are both acting accordingly. As a matter of fact I had started something in this direction about ten days ago but at that time it was on the thesis that people were becoming bored with such adolescent competitive publicity. I think your point if of deeper importance.

Vice Admiral Felix Johnson, who is now in charge of the general policy of Public Relations, is a most intelligent man and some day I will ask you to come over and talk with him.

Sincerely yours,

James Forrestal

Walter Lippmann, Esq.,
3525 Woodley Road N.W.,

Washington 16, D.C.[13]

The impact that Forrestal and his P.R. team had on subsequent matters involving atomic testing appears to be limited to their success in preventing a recurrence of embarrassing celebratory parties. And Lippmann, the writer frequently co-credited with the coining of the term “Cold War,” evidently steered clear of the issue in his columns from this period.[14] But even if the efforts of these two powerful men remained largely confined to their archives, something more public was about to happen…

The Hiroshima Drawings

The most significant result of Davies’s “outburst,” as Lippmann called it, was that reports of his anger reached the eyes of Dr. Howard Bell, an official in General Douglas MacArthur’s provisional government in Japan. Bell, a kindred spirit, wrote to Davies and playfully admonished him for not using stronger language in expressing his indignation, but conceded that the minister “had to make some concessions to the proprieties of pulpit utterance.” He went on in his letter to describe the hardship of Japanese school children—particularly in Hiroshima—and suggested that American school children should clean out their desks and send spare school supplies like pencils and notebooks to their Japanese counterparts.

Reverend Davies took Dr. Bell’s idea to heart and on February 13, 1947 he delivered a sermon entitled “In Reply to a Letter from Japan” asking his flock for action. In the period that followed, the youngest parishioners of the church collected over a half ton of paper, pencils, crayons, erasers, paste and other items. The material was then shipped to Japan where it arrived in December of 1947—just in time for Christmas. The supplies were distributed to two schools and an orphanage.

The recipients of this remarkable gift from American schoolchildren responded with immense gratitude. The most touching and enduring gift that the U.S. students received for their efforts were crayon drawings and watercolor paintings from the youthful artists at the Honkawa Elementary School in Hiroshima. The art work depicted many different scenes from the home country and themes such as “Friends of America” and “Peace – Japan.” After the “Hiroshima Drawings” went on a nationwide tour sponsored by the U.S. government, they were returned to the All Souls Church and, over time, seemingly lost.[15]

According to a forthcoming documentary, the art work was rediscovered in 1996 in a box in the home of a parishioner of the All Souls Church. The nearly fifty drawings and paintings were then moved to the church’s vault where they would periodically be displayed for visiting Hibakusha (atom bomb survivors). In 2007, the pictures were restored and sent back to their place of origin—the Honkawa Elementary School—for exhibition.[16] What had started out as a trivialized media story about an “atomic cake,” had, in the end, led to a lasting expression of peace.

Passings

Reverend Davies died of hemorrhaging from a blood clot in one of his lungs while he was working in his study at the church’s parsonage on September 26, 1957. He was 55 years old. The memorial service held at All Souls Church two days later was attended by three sitting Supreme Court Justices—Hugo Black, Harold Burton and William O. Douglas. According to the Washington Post, Davies was cremated.[17]

William Blandy, the primary target of the minister’s wrath in 1946, had died several years earlier, in 1954, at the age of 63.[18] His legacy is a U.S. Navy ship named for him, a plot at Arlington National Cemetery and, most prominently, a ridiculous photograph.

*

Notes

[1] The infamous photograph of Blandy and the “atomic cake” is credited to “Harris & Ewing” (a prominent Washington, D.C. studio that is now defunct—for an excellent history, read this Washing ton Business Journal article) on the November 8, 1946 Washington Post society page (page 18) on which it appears. On the same page (but smaller), there are other uncredited photographs from the event that were presumably taken by a staff photographer. In a letter to the editor of the Washington Post published on November 22, 1946, Colonel David H. Blakelock, U.S. Army, and Captain Fitzhugh Lee, Joint Task Force 1, state that the Post requested permission from the party’s organizers to send a photographer. It is not clear whether the photographer from Harris & Ewing was working under contract to the Post, but given the presence of the other staff photographer, it is more likely that the Post’s editors caught wind of the exquisitely posed ‘cake’ photo and licensed it for publication.

[2] “Cake Shaped Like Atomic Blast Draws Pastor’s Wrath,” Rhinelander (Wisconsin) Daily News, November 11, 1946.

[3] The woman Davies is referring to is Vice Admiral Blandy’s wife.

[4] George N. Marshall, A. Powell Davies and His Times [Boston: Skinner House Books, 1990] pp. 139-140. To read a transcript of the complete sermon, see the Atomic Cake Sermon blog post on CONELRAD Adjacent.

[5] “Soviet Papers Comment on ‘Atom’ Cake,” Washington Post, via the Associated Press, November 18, 1946.

[6] Letter to the editor, Washington Post, November 13, 1946.

[7] Letter to the editor, Washington Post, November 22, 1946. Note: Blakelock and Fitzhugh, who had a professional motive to shield Blandy and Lowry from criticism, conveniently omit in their letter the fact that the East Saint Louis, Illinois baker, Eugene Kuehn, had already told the Associated Press that the order for the cake came from a member of Blandy’s staff (see paragraph two of main CONELRAD story above).

[8] Letter to the editor, Time magazine, December 9, 1946 and see preceding footnote for additional comment. Note: The letter that appeared in Time was a truncated version of the letter that appeared earlier in the Washington Post by the same authors.

[9] Time, December 9, 1946.

[10] “Capital Clergy Split on ‘Loathsome’ Atom Cake,” Syracuse (New York) Herald-Journal, November 11, 1946.

[11] “Picture of Atomic-Bomb Cake ‘Obscene,’ D.C. Pastor Declares,” Washington Post, via Associated Press, November 11, 1946.

[12] “Cake Shaped Like Atomic Blast Draws Pastor’s Wrath,” Rhinelander (Wisconsin) Daily News, November 11, 1946.

[13] Yale University
Walter Lippmannn Papers
Lippmannn-Forrestal Correspondence
November 11, 1946—November 12, 1946
Box 71, Section 3, Folder 794

[14] According to The Cold War Encyclopedia by Thomas Parrish [New York: Henry Holt] pp. 68-69, the post-World War II usage of the term “Cold War” is traced back to a newspaper writer named Herbert Bayard Swope who included the phrase in a speech that he wrote for the prominent businessman and political adviser, Bernard Baruch. Baruch delivered the speech to the legislature of his home state of South Carolina on April 17, 1947. It was Lippmannn, however, who popularized the term in a series of articles and a 1947 book entitled The Cold War: A Study in U.S. Foreign Policy [New York: Harper]. CONELRAD was unable to locate Lippmannn columns from this period that address the “Atomic Cake” issue.

[15] Initial history of “Hiroshima Drawings” derived from A. Powell Davies.org accessed on September 7, 2010.

Note: At least one other art exhibit by Hiroshima school children was staged in the United States. According to a brief item in the June 28, 1953 Albuquerque (New Mexico) Journal there was a display of 75 paintings by Hiroshima children at the Fine Arts Gallery at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque. The exhibit was part of an art exchange with Santa Fe, NM school children whose work was displayed in Hiroshima.

[16] “Pictures From a Hiroshima School” documentary website accessed on September 7, 2010.

[17] Details on Davies’s death derived from his biography on the Unitarian Universalist Historical Society webpage accessed on September 7, 2010. Additional details derived from September 27, 1957 Washington Post article, “Dr. A. Powell Davies Dies in His Study Here.”

[18] “Atom Expert Dies,” Washington Post, via Associated Press, January 13, 1954. Note: Blandy died from complications of a stroke.

Video: The Houthis and War in Yemen

July 4th, 2018 by South Front

1. History of the movement, structure, and ideology

History

The movement of Ansar Allah (Supporters of Allah), also known as the Houthis, is a paramilitary group of Zaidi Shi’ites, acting in Yemen. This is one of the moderate streams of Shia Islam, which has more than 10 million followers around the world and accounts for a third of Yemen’s population. In dogmatic matters, Zaidis took a position which is close to Sunni Islam, relying primarily on the Koran and the Sunnah. In contrast to other Shi’ites, Zaidis do not recognize the doctrine of the Hidden Imam, “prudent concealment” of their faith (taqiya), and they reject anthropomorphism and  unconditional predestination.

In 2004, the Houthis formed an uprising. They sought to end government tyranny and corruption, to oppose majority rule of the Sunnis, to resist to ideas of Wahhabism, acquired from neighbouring Saudi Arabia and to make their own leader, Imam Badr al-Din al-Houthi, a head of state. Nonetheless, he was killed on September 10 of the same year.

The organization of Zaidi Shi’ites of Yemen, from which the Houthis movement was subsequently formed, initially focused on cultural and educational work. The first such organization appeared in the early 1990s and was called the “Forum for Youth of Faith”. This organization planned summer camps and various school clubs to promote the ideas of Zaidi Islam in Sa’adah province.

One of the main reasons behind the establishment of the movement by Badr al-Din al-Houthi is the marginalization and persecution of the Hashemites and Zaidis by the Yemeni government. They were expelled from all important positions in the country after the establishment of the Republic of Yemen. In addition, Badr al-Din al-Houthi established the movement out of fear of the disappearance of the Zaidi doctrine, especially after many Zaidis converted to the Sunni faith because of persecutions by the Yemeni governments. It is important to note that for many years the provinces, where the majority of population are Zaidis, were poorly developed economically.

Structure

Following the killing of movement’s founder, Hussein Badr al-Din al-Houthi in 2004, the Houthis were led by Hussein’s father, spiritual leader Badr al-Din al-Houthi. The movement’s current leader is Hussein’s younger brother, Sayyid Abdul-Malik Badr al-Din al-Houthi. Until April 19, 2018, the Chairman of the Supreme Political Council of Yemen was Saleh al-Samad. He was one of the youngest heads of state and government in the modern world. He was killed during a bombing by the coalition’s warplanes. His successor in this post is Mahdi al-Mashat.

Political leadership

The Houthis and War in Yemen

Members of the Houthi family have a significant prescience in the political leadership of the movement. However, the leadership is not fully concentrated in their hands.

On November 28, 2016, when the Houthis formed the National Salvation Government, the members of the movement occupied only 10 out of 36 ministries: (Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs, Minister of Justice, Defence Minister, Minister of Civil Service and Insurance, Transport Minister, Education Minister, Information Minister, Minister of Legal Affairs, Minister of Electricity and Energy, Tourism Minister). On 2 October 2016, Abdel-Aziz bin Habtour was appointed as Prime Minister of the newly formed government.

Initially, after the flight of Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, the Supreme Revolutionary Committee (SRC) was the main governing body in the country. The SRC began to act as an interim government on February 6, 2015, when the Houthis established control over Sana’a.

On August 15, 2016, the SRC formally handed power to the Supreme Political Council (SPC). The SPC is an executive body formed by Ansar Allah and the General People’s Congress (GPC) to rule Yemen. Formed on 28 July 2016, the presidential council consists of 10 members and until his death in a drone air strike on 19 April 2018, it was headed by Saleh Ali al-Sammad as president with Qassem Labozah as vice-president. The SPC carries out the functions of head of state in Yemen and manages state affairs in a bid to fill in political vacuum during the war. The SPC is not internationally recognized. The SPC was responsible for the creation of the National Salvation Government. At the same time, the SRC authorities have not been abolished and in fact continue to exercise control over important areas of political and social life on the ground.

The Houthis have a full-fledged military structure that includes both newly formed paramilitary formations and a large part of the armed forces of Yemen. The Houthis created their own full-fledged armed forces with general staff, air and coastal defenses, missile forces, intelligence and special operations forces.

Military command

According to available data, the Houthi forces are divided into 7 military districts, each with its own commander.

The Houthis and War in Yemen

Military districts and commanders

The Houthis and War in Yemen

A special role in the structure of the Houthi forces is occupied by Yemeni Missile Forces (5th and 6th missile brigade), who are responsible for conducting missile strikes against targets in Yemen and Saudi Arabia and for converting a stock of around 200 V-755 SAMs from the S-75/SA-2 system into ballistic missiles. Service, assembly and conversion of missiles are carried out by forces of its own research division — the Missile Research & Development Center. Various Soviet surface-to-air missiles turned into ballistic missiles are known as Qaher-1, Qaher-2 and Qaher-2M.

In April 2018, a Saudi air strike killed Nasser al-Qubari, who, according to pro-Saudi sources, headed the Republican Guard (Militia) team responsible for major missile operations against targets in Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

According to various sources, the Houthis currently have about 150,000 fighters across the country.

Ideology

Goals of the movement include combating weak economy and political marginalization in Yemen, and fighting for the autonomy of regions in which majority of the population is Zaidi. From the statements of high-ranking officials of the movement, one can draw a conclusion about what Ansar Allah wants to achieve. Their aims include seeking government accountability, fighting corruption, ensuring people have access to public services, fighting for fair fuel prices, employment opportunities for ordinary Yemenis and stopping Western intervention in the country’s affairs. They also declared their desire to establish a democratic non-sectarian republic in Yemen.

As for religion, the leaders of the movement claim that their actions are aimed at combating the expansion of Salafism, which comes from neighboring Saudi Arabia and protecting the community against discrimination based on religious grounds. The slogan of the movement is “Allah is the greatest. Death to America, death to Israel, a curse on the Jews, victory to Islam”. This does not mean that the Houthis want to destroy the US or Israel. According to Ali al-Bukhayti, the spokesperson and official media person of the Houthis, this slogan means that the movement is against interference in the affairs of Yemen of the US and Israel, which help Saudi Arabia and its allies.

2. Background of the conflict and the Saudi-led intervention

In January 2011, mass demonstrations began demanding the resignation of then President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who ruled the country for 33 years. Causes: poverty, a significant part of the population constantly suffered from hunger and lack of access to drinking water, youth unemployment, and religious tensions.

In early February 2011, the protests forced the president to make some concessions: he did not transfer power to his son, reduced the number of presidential terms to two in a row and dropped an idea to participate in the upcoming elections. Saleh refused to leave the post at that moment. On February 17, the first protesters died at the hands of the police in Aden. Violence grew until it reached its peak on March 18, when 52 demonstrators were killed in the capital, Sana’a. Confrontation that involved shootings and explosions lasted until May 19, 2011, at which point a ceasefire agreement was reached. President Saleh was prepared to leave his office within 30 days and hold presidential elections in the following 2 months.

However, Saleh refused to sign the document agreed upon by the parties. This decision caused a new round of violence. Yemen’s aviation and armed groups of the opposition entered the scene. 72 more people were killed in the capital. In the last days of May, 50 Yemenis were killed from dispersal of demonstrations in the southwestern city of Taiz. An important turning point was the shelling of the presidential residence in Sana’a on June 3. Prime minister and speaker of parliament, and Abdullah Saleh himself, were wounded. The Houthies ​​tried to break into the city. Saleh fled from Yemen.

In November of the same year, he finally resigned, declaring this from the capital of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, in the presence of King Abdullah and then Crown Prince Nayef Al Saud. Saleh actually transferred power to Hadi – then vice-president of Yemen, a Sunni, who took a pro-Saudi position. However, this action did not prevent the civil war or change the situation. The troops led by Saleh’s son opened fire on protesters, killing and injuring up to a hundred people. The government took several unpopular measures, in particular, reducing subsidies for oil products, which was expected to lead to higher prices of gasoline. New protests began. The Houthis took up arms and seized districts and state institutions in Sana’a, installing their checkpoints. Despite the peace agreement that was signed with the participation of the United Nations, and the replacement of the prime minister, the military actions continued, spreading to other Yemeni cities. On January 20, 2015, supporters of Ansar Allah occupied the residence of the President of Yemen and forced Hadi to file a resignation on January 22 and flee the country.

Saudi-led intervention

Given the political crisis and the inability of the Hadi government to restore order and carry out the required reforms, the popularity of the Ansar Allah movement increased substantially. The movement was gaining control of more and more territories and infrastructure. This situation was unacceptable to the Saudi regime. The Saudi assembled a military coalition, which included virtually all countries of the Persian Gulf (except Oman). To some extent, Egypt, the United States, Morocco, Sudan, Pakistan, Senegal and Jordan also provided assistance. Fleeing to Saudi Arabia, President Hadi called for military intervention in the country to suppress the insurgency. Aden became the capital for forces loyal to the fled president. The Houthis, in turn, strengthened in the north-west of the country.

Air strike in Sana'a 11-5-2015.jpg

An airstrike in Sana’a on 11 May 2015 (Source: Ibrahem Qasim / CC BY-SA 4.0)

The invasion officially began on March 26, 2015 with Operation “Decisive Storm”. The coalition established a no fly zone over Yemen. After initial air strikes, most air defense systems on the territory, belonging to the Houthis, were destroyed or put out of order. Full-scale fights began on both sides.  On April 21, the operation was officially ended on the formal request of President Hadi himself.  On April 22, 2015, a second operation was launched – Operation “Restoring Hope”, which continues to this day. Its goal is to restore the power of President Hadi over the whle country and put an end to the Houthi movement.

Currently, the Ansar Allah movement consists of tribes from northern Yemen, some supporters of the former president Saleh, including units of the Republican Guard and the Yemen Army. Iran is an external ally, providing military advisers and technical specialists, including those from Lebanese Hezbollah. Saudi Arabia’s interests within Yemen are supported by the Sunnis, supporters of the deposed President Hadi, as well as local Wahhabists. Another side of the conflict is the UAE, which supports the Southern Yemeni Movement, representing the interests of a significant part of the population of the former South Yemen (the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen).

3. General Course of the War

Main Events

2015 was marked by the most violent clashes. During this period, the coalition lost the F-16 of the Moroccan Air Force in the province of Sa’adah, as well as three AN-64 Apache helicopters, two of which were shot down in the Saudi province of Najran, another lost over the Yemeni province of Marib. The coalition’s offensive on the Aden-Abyan road in summer 2015 was known for heavy losses of armored vehicles. On August 24, the Houthies destroyed two Abrams battle tanks in the Saudi province of Jizan. On August 25, in the province of Baida, a column of armored vehicles of the UAE was destroyed in an ambush. Soldiers from Emirates lost 11 MRAPs, some of which were abandoned by the crews. On August 29, two more Abrams were destroyed in the same province. By the end of August, the planned blitzkrieg of the coalition turned into a total failure. Hadi supporters and interventionists were trapped in fierce battles in the provinces of Taiz, Marib and Baida. It is estimated that dozens of armored vehicles were lost. On September 4, more than 100 fighters were killed, including 52 UAE soldiers, 10 Saudi soldiers and 5 citizens of Bahrain, when the “Tochka-U” missile hit a military camp of the coalition in Marib.

In mid-September, over 20 Saudi armored vehicles were destroyed in Marib in three days. Large losses forced commanders of the coalition to replace their soldiers with militants from among the supporters of Hadi. In the same month, the UAE Air Force began providing air support to Hadi supporters, from the Eritrea territory, which significantly reduced the fly-time for air strikes. Seeking to reduce the cost of the air campaign, the leadership of the UAE preferred to use light AT-802U attack aircraft for air strikes; this is much cheaper than to employ Apache attack helicopters and F-16 fighters. In October, a Sudanese military arrived in Yemen, and there were reports of mercenaries from Colombia operating in the region.

In 2016, the war acquired characteristics of prolonged trench warfare. Hadi forces were in a half-kilometer of the Taiz area, but the Houthis did not have enough strength to cut the enemy’s communications. Frictions began within the coalition regarding the continuation of the operation and on June 16 the UAE reduced its direct military involvement in the conflict. However, the coalition’s aviation continued air strikes against military and civilian targets in Yemen. For their part, the Houthis ​​and their allies continued raids on the border provinces of Saudi Arabia and missile attacks on military installations in Saudi Arabia. This situation was used by terrorist organizations such as ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). These organizations acquired control of large areas in the south and east of the country.

In 2017, the war in Yemen also bore characteristics of trench warfare. In May, the Sudanese military attempted to carry out independent offensive operation in the desert of Midi, which ended in the complete defeat of the Sudanese force. In the fall of 2017, the Houthis and a loyal part of Yemen’s army undertook an offensive operation in the province of Taiz, which led to bitter trench battles in which neither side was able to achieve decisive success. The Houthis remained in ​​control the western provinces of the country, including the capital. Iran provides extensive assistance to anti-Saudi forces. Supporters of Hadi and the interventionists have control over the southern and eastern provinces.  Militants of AQAP and IS act in the north, an example of which is the attack by ISIS on Aden in November 2017.

By the end of November 2017, the air force of the coalition had lost 8 aircraft, mostly for technical reasons, and at least 14 helicopters. The total number of casualties of the coalition is unknown. However, by the end of September, 2017 at least 412 Sudanese had been killed in Yemen. Saudi Arabia lost at least 42 tanks during the conflict, the total losses of armored vehicles exceed 300. The UAE lost at least 150 armored vehicles. The official losses of the coalition forces at the beginning of 2018 are almost 1,300 service members, the total number of casualties of the coalition and its proxies throughout the conflict is certainly estimated in the thousands. A war that was meant to be a quick victory turned into a big problem for Riyadh. Despite huge funding, the Saudi army was unable to take control of Yemen’s territory and to protect its territory from raids ​​and missile attacks of the Houthis.

In 2018, key military developments were taking place in the city of Aden, north and east of the city of Sana’a and in the western coast, north of the port city of Hudaydah. Additionally, clashes also continued in the Saudi-Yemeni border area and other areas across the country.

For example:

From January 28 to January 31, the UAE-backed Southern Movement clashed with Saudi-backed forces loyal to Hadi over the control of Aden. The violence was halt after the mediation by the UAE and Saudi Arabia. The city formally remained in the hands of the coalition, but an influence of the Saudi-backed faction decreased in the area.

On January 31, the coalition-led forces captured the city of Aden. This advance was presented as a huge victory of the coalition.

On February 18, the Houthis ambushed a large UAE Army convoy in the district of Mawza in the Taiz province. Twelve Emirati soldiers and several fighters, loyal to Hadi were reportedly killed, four armoured personnel carriers (APCs) of the UAE Army and four other vehicles of pro-Hadi forces were destroyed.

On March 14, the coalition-backed forces captured Rab’ayen and al-Admagh mountains in the Nihm district of the Saana province allegedly killing 26 Houthi fighters and destroying 3 vehicles and 2 armored vehicles. Over 70 Houthi fighters were reportedly injured and killed in multiple artillery strikes across the district. The goal of the advance was to set a foothold for capturing the Saana international airport and thus preparing for another attempt to capture the Yemeni capital.

On March 24, the Houthis launched an offensive in the Nihm district killing more than 120 fighters backed by the coalition. Dozens of their vehicles were reportedly destroyed. the international Saana airport, north of the Yemeni capital of Saana. The Houthis reversed the coalition’s gains in a single rapid attack. On March 27, the Houthis forced Saudi-backed forces to withdraw from some of their positions in the Yam mountain range area.The Saudi-backed attempt to advance on Sana’a failed.

On April 7, the Houthis ambushed a battalion of the 9th Airborne Division of the Armed Forces of Sudan, fighting on the side of the Saudi-led coalition in the Midi district in the northwestern province of Hajjah. Between 50 and 80 Sudanese fighters were killed and more than 100 were wounded.

On April 11, the Saudi-led forces captured a center of the Midi district. Thus, they secured a notable part of the border south of the Saudi province of Najran. However, this was not enough to stop the Houthis’ cross-border attacks.

On April 25, the coalition’s forces resumed their military operation in the southwestern province of Taiz capturing some positions in the district of Dimnat Khadir.  However, they were not able to develop the initial success.

Since early May, the coalition’s forces have resumed active attempts to reach and capture Hudaydah, which remains one of the key logistical hubs in the Houthi-held area allowing the group to receive humanitarian aid for the local population. Fierce clashes north of the city were taking place from mid May till June when the coalition’s forces were pushed from their positions near the Hudaydah airport. On June 6, the Houthis started attacking supply lines of the coalition’s forces involved in the operation. The situation in the area remains tense.

The nature of land combat in Yemen is different from what was observed in Iraq and Syria. In 2003 in Iraq, American infantry and armoured units used tactics of rapid advancement and clearing, from area to area with minimal downtime. This was not observed in the actions of the Saudi army. On the contrary, there was a glaring incompetence of personnel and an inability of the command to use available forces and means. Several eyewitnesses testified that the leadership of the Saudi army was engaged in sorting out personal quarrels instead of organizing and planning operations. The commanders of the Saudi coalition made a number of significant mistakes in their use of armored vehicles during the offensive operations in the summer and autumn of 2015. Lightly armored BMP and BTR vehicles, intended for the transport of personnel, were used as support vehicles for infantry when the infantry stormed positions of the Houthis, resulting in massive losses of these light armored vehicles.

The apotheosis of unprofessionalism of the coalition was the use of MRAPs, which became one of the symbols of the Yemeni ventures of the kingdom.

The MRAPs which were frequently used in Yemen, possessed good anti-mine protection but were completely deprived of any protection from fire of anti-tank weapons. The Saudis tried to compensate for low training and poor morale of their infantry by using a large number of armored vehicles. The result was a massive loss of these vehicles. The MRAPs were destroyed by fire from ATGMs, RPGs and heavy machine guns. Often, the crews of these vehicles were seen fleeing the battlefield. Equipment designed for patrolling the terrain and transferring personnel in counter-partisan war turned out to be useless. The Houthis usually destroyed the abandoned MRAP vehicles. They did not have sufficient material or technical support required for repair. Similar mistakes were made by the Saudi coalition with use of the heavy armored vehicles. Low training of the personnel allowed the Houthis ​​to knock out American Abrams M1 battle tanks to a safe distance with the help of obsolete Soviet anti-tank systems.

It is almost certain that in the future, the war in Yemen will become increasingly partisan. There are several reasons for this. The Ansar Allah movement is under a blockade and does not have sufficient reserves for a full-scale offensive to the south and east of the country. In turn, the coalition forces incurred unnecessarily high losses and experience problems with motivation and morale of their own armed forces.

The Houthis and supporters of Saleh have an advantage in combat experience and training of their personnel. A significant number of Yemeni officers was previously trained by Soviet specialists. In addition, Iranian advisors also played a significant role in assisting anti-Saudi forces.

Missile war

Until the early 1990s, the Yemen Arab Republic (YAR) and the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen, commonly referred to as South Yemen, had been actively purchasing Soviet missile systems 9K72 (SCUD) and 9K79 (Scarab), which were widely used during the 1994 civil war. By the mid-2000s, the Yemeni army had four artillery brigades, one of which was equipped with field artillery, and three: the 1st, 26th and 89th artillery brigades, were equipped with the operational-tactical missile systems. All three brigades were part of the Yemeni Republican Guard. Their main task was to protect the capital of Sana’a. In the early 2000s, the Yemeni army withdrew Luna-M short range artillery rocket systems and replaced them with Hwasong-6 tactical ballistic missiles, which were acquired from North Korea. Pyongyang also assisted in the organization of missile services, and the necessary training of personnel. However, under the pressure of the US, since 2003, the parties’ cooperation has been terminated. According to data provided to the US Congress, 24 “Tochka” and 18 “Scud” complexes were in service in Yemen as well as some stockpiles belonging to them in 2004. According to the US analytical center “Jamestown Foundation”, in the 2000s the government of Yemen purchased 45 Hwasong-6 missile systems from the North. In the 2000s, Iran was responsible for supplying Yemen with missile systems and missiles. Its missiles are compatible with Soviet and North Korean launchers such as SCUD (for example, “Shehab-2”). In addition, they are even more powerful and long-ranged than their Soviet and Korean counterparts. However, at present Iran does not have the opportunity to supply their Houthi allies with new missiles. The naval blockade makes it is almost impossible to deliver large-scale weapons to Yemen. Perhaps the production of these missiles or their partial assembly from the previously supplied components is already established in Yemen itself.

The U.S. Navy has actively participated in the Saudi-led naval blockade. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

From the onset of the operation of the Arab coalition in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and its allies tried to destroy stockpiles of heavy weapons and ballistic missiles. However, this goal was not fully achieved. Units of the Yemeni military, which united with the Houthis, managed to retain the bulk of the mobile missile systems and rocket reserves, which subsequently allowed them to launch regular missile strikes on Saudi Arabia.

For example:

  • In October 2016, it was reported that a Yemeni ballistic missile was intercepted in the area of ​​Mecca. At that time, Yemenis were aiming at an airport near the city of Jeddah. A rocket was also launched on the King Fahd Air Base.
  • In May 2017, the Houthis commemorated US President Donald Trump’s visit to Riyadh by launching a Burkan-2 missile. It fell in the vicinity of the Saudi capital. Earlier, the Yemenis carried out two more missile strikes in the direction of Riyadh. A strike on the air base of King Salman was also made in May 2017.
  • On July 22, 2017 the Houthis ​​published a video of the launch of the Burkan-2 ballistic missile at the Saudi refinery in the city of Yanbu. It was reported that this missile flew about 930 kilometers, which is the longest distance a Houthi missile has travelled. The Houthis said that the missile struck an oil refinery, however, representatives of Saudi Arabia stated that after the fire was extinguished, the enterprise continued to operate normally.
  • On November 4, 2017, Saudi air defense forces intercepted a ballistic missile fired from Yemen northeast of Riyadh. In response, the Crown Prince of Saudi – Mohammed bin Salman – said that the alleged missile supplies to the Houthis from Iran was an act of military aggression.
  • From the onset of 2018 there has been an increase in the number of missile launches by the Houthi-led forces. The launches were particularly numerous in March-April of this year.
  • On March 22, the Yemeni forces that are loyal to the Houthis, announced in an official statement, that they tested a new short-range ballistic missile named Badr-1. According to the statement, a key oil facility of the Saudi Aramco oil company in the southern province of Najran was successfully targeted. The Yemeni forces said, that the Badr-1 is a solid fuel ballistic missile with a speed of up to 4.5 Mach and high accuracy. However, the available images allow to conclude that it is a solid fuel artillery rocket, not a ballistic missile. The Badr-1 is likely a copy of the Iranian Fajr-3 artillery rocket, as both rockets appear to have similar diameter and length. The range of the Fajr-3 is over 43km. This is more than enough to hit Najran province form the Houthis-held areas in northern Yemen.
  • To mark the third anniversary of the military operation of the Saudi-led coalition, Houthi forces launched seven rockets of various types, during the night of March 25th to 26th at the airports of Riyadh, Abhi, Jizan and Najran. The Burkan-H2 missile was launched at Riyadh. Qaher-M2 missiles (modified S-75 air defense missiles) were employed against other targets. Saudi air defense forces intercepted the missiles through a massive launch of Patriot anti-aircraft missiles. However, judging by video evidence, at least two anti-aircraft missiles malfunctioned: one exploded almost immediately after its launch, the other lost its course and fell to the ground.
  • On April 8, the Yemeni Missiles Forces launched a Badr-1 missile at a radar station outside the city of Khamis Mushait in the province of Asir. On April 9, they launched a Zelzal-2 missile at the Nahouqa military base in the province of Narjan. On April 10, a Badr-1 ballistic missile was launched at a military facility in the province of Najran. On April 11, a Burkan-H2 missile was launched towards the Saudi capital and a Badr-1 was launched into one of the border regions of Saudi Arabia. The Burkan-H2 missile reached its target and fell in one of the inhabited areas of the city. On the same day, the Houthis carried out successful strikes at the Abha airport in the province of Asir and facilities of the Saudi company Aramco in the province of Jizan using Qasif-1 suicide UAVs.
  • On April 17, the Yemeni Missiles Forces launched a Badr-1 rocket at a power station in the province of Najran. The rocket was intercepted by the Saudi military, according to Saudi sources.
  • On April 23, the Houthis launched two Bader-1 rockets at oil facilities belonging to Aramco in Jizan.
  • On April 28, the Houthis launched at least 8 Badr-1 ballistic rockets at “economic and vital targets” in Jizan. However, no details were provided.

The naval blockade along with a deficit of material resources forced the Houthis to develop an asymmetric response to the coalition. Therefore, the Houthis re-designed anti-aircraft missiles from air defense systems to short-range ballistic missiles.  This made sense given that the country’s air defense system ceased to function but the stock of missiles from it remained. The best suited missiles were large anti-aircraft missiles. They have powerful cores with high-thrust engines Their engine works only in the dispersed section and then the missile goes along the ballistic curve as an artillery shell. Anti-aircraft missiles from S-75 air defense systems in this regard are an ideal choice.

In December of 2015 the Qaher-1 ballistic missile was shown. It originates from missiles of the S-75 air defense systems. Its launch at the Saudi Khalid Bin Abdul Aziz air base was also announced. It is difficult to judge the specific parameters of this homemade missile but it can deliver a warhead weighing 200-250 kg to a range of 100-250-kilometers.

Actions of the Houthis against air and naval forces of the coalition

Airspace

Prior to the intervention, Yemen had about 80 combat aircraft, of which the most modern were MiG-29s. There were about 20 of them and most were stored at the Al-Dailami airbase (near the Sana’a international airport). A small detachment of these aircraft was also stationed in Al-Anad. During the first weeks of the 2015 campaign, the Yemeni Air Force was eliminated, including shelters in which the MiG-29 fighters were stationed.

The only possible way to counteract aggression was the use of anti-aircraft guns, self-propelled antiaircraft guns and MANPADs. Before the start of the aggression of the coalition, the Yemeni Air Defense had 20 STRELA-1 missile systems, 200 to 360 STRELA-2 missiles, up to 120 self-propelled antiaircraft guns (from 20 to 34 American M163s (6×20 mm), up to 89 Soviet Shilkas (4×23 mm)), up to 500 anti-aircraft guns (52 American M167s (20 mm), from 100 to 200 Soviet ZU-23-2s (23 mm), up to 150 units of 61-K (37 mm), up to 120 units of C-60 (57 mm), up to 40 units of KS-12 (85 mm)). A large part of this arsenal fell into the hands of the supporters of the Ansar Allah movement.

Yemen had up to 4 batteries (up to 40 launchers) of Soviet S-75 air defense systems, 2 batteries (up to 8 launchers) of S-125 air defense systems and an unknown number of Kub air defense systems. Some of them lost their operational capability even before the outbreak of the hostilities. A large chunk of the stationary complexes and positions of radio engineering equipment were put out of order during the initial air strikes. Despite this, Yemeni air defense units, though use of camouflage and tactical methods, continue to inflict losses on the coalition’s air force.

In addition to missiles and air defense systems, the movement uses a reserve of missiles that are intended for launch from fighter jets. On March 21, 2018, an air-to-air missile R-27, launched from a land-based launcher in Sa’ada province, was successfully used against a Saudi coalition warplane. On March 26, the Houthis used R-27T air-to-air missiles from ground-based launchers. It was said that the launches were carried out on two F-16 UAE aircraft, but this time, the missiles failed to hit their targets.

In August 2017, the Arab coalition released a memo, officially recognizing that since May 26, 2015 it lost 10 aircraft: 4 were from the UAE, 3 from Saudi Arabia, one from Bahrain, one from Jordan and one from Morocco. However, the August 2017 memo significantly underestimates the loses of the coalition.

Official chronology of the coalition’s losses from the start of the Saudi-led intervention is as follows:

  • May 20, 2015 – a F-16 jet of the Morroco Air Force was shot down, the pilot died;
  • August 22, 2015 – an Apache helicopter of the Sauudi Air Force was shot down with MANPADs, both crew members died;
  • December 30, 2015 – a F-16 jet of the Bahraini Air Force was lost due to a “technical malfunction” in Jizan;
  • March 14, 2016 – the UAE Air Force lost a Mirage-2000-9 jet south of Aden, both pilots died;
  • June 12, 2016 – a UAE helicopter was shot down over the sea near the port of Mocha;
  • June 13, 2016 – a UAE helicopter was lost near Aden;
  • June 25, 2016 – an Apache helicopter of the Sauudi Air Force was shot down (allegedly crashed because of the weather) over the province of Marib, both pilots died.
  • February 24, 2017 – a F-16 fighter of the Royal Jordanian Air Force was lost in the province of Najran;
  • April 18, 2017 – a Black Hawk helicopter of the Saudi Air Force was shot down in Marib;
  • August 11, 2017 – a UAE Air Force helicopter crashed, 4 crew members died.

Fighting at sea

Naval military operations are reduced to a sea blockade and the shelling of the Yemeni coast by the forces of the coalition. The Houthis retaliate with anti-ship missiles against the Navy of the coalition countries.

  • On October 7, 2015 the Yemeni Coastal Defense Forces (YCDF) hit a ship of the Saudi coalition with a PKR “P-20” or its analogue of Chinese or Iranian production. Shortly after a burning and sinking ship washed ashore. It turns out that the struck target was the Saudi fuel-tanker Boraida with a displacement of 11,200 tons
  • On October 10, the YCDF launched a missile at a Baynunah-class corvette, belonging to the UAE Navy, with a displacement of 630 tons. The missile hit its target and the ship sunk.
  • On October 10, the YCDF launched a missile at a La Fayette-class frigate of the Saudi Navy, Al Damman. Its displacement is 4,650 tons. The missile hit its target and the ship was damaged. According to some reports it later sunk.
  • On October 10, the YCDF launched a missile at a Baynunah-class corvette, belonging to the UAE Navy, with a displacement of 630 tons. The missile successfully struck its target.
  • On November 7, the YCDF launched a missile at what looks like a Saudi guard ship carrying a helicopter. The missile destroyed the target.
  • On November 8, the YCDF launched a missile at the coalition forces’ gunboat, which was shelling the coast.
  • On November 15, several missiles were launched at a gunboat shelling the coast. It is reported that one missile hit the target and the ship was damaged. The target is identified as a Zulfiquar-class frigate with the number 254, which gives grounds to conclude that it is the Aslat.
  • On November 24, a missile was launched at the ship of the Saudi-led coalition. The missile hit its target resulting in a large explosion on the ship.
  • On December 5, the YCDF reported that it sunk another battle ship of the Saudi-led coalition. A missile struck a Baynunah-class corvette and sank it.
  • On December 16, the YCDF launched a missile at another battleship of the Saudi-led coalition, which was sank or damaged.

In 2015, the Yemenis actively and successfully used anti-ship missiles of PK-20 class or its analogue of Chinese or Iranian production to cause significant damages to the naval forces of the Saudi coalition. 2015 was the year of the greatest intensity of military operations at sea. In addition to 10 sunken and damaged battle ships of the coalition, the Houthi-led forces damaged numerous support vessels, barges, tankers and other ships. In the coming years, the intensity of military operations at sea declined. Due to significant loses, the coalition was forced to limit the use of its naval forces. As for the Houthis, the large number of launches likely depleted their missile arsenal.

Despite this, some military action at sea continued. On October 2, 2016, the Houthis, with a help of a Chinese C-802 missile, destroyed the hybrid catamaran HSV-2 Swift that was leased by the UAE from the US. This vessel was used in the interest of the Arab coalition.

An Arleigh Burke-class destroyer of the US Navy, the USS Mason (board number 87), that possessed a guided missile armament was attacked on October 9, October 12 and October 15 of 2016. In all cases, Chinese-made S-802A anti-ship missiles or their direct counterparts of Iranian production, Nur, did not reach their targets. The low radar power of on-shore guidance systems and the active use of electronic warfare assets by the USS Mason’s crew were likely main reasons behind this scenario. Perhaps the main purpose of these attacks was to probe the destroyer’s protection systems.

On January 30, 2017 the Saudi Navy’s Al Madinah-class frigate was attacked on the western coast of Yemen by the Houthis. A strong explosion ensued. According to official data, two crew members were killed and three were wounded.

On April 3, 2018 a Saudi tanker was attacked with an anti-ship missile in international waters south of the Hodeida province. The vessel received only minor damage and continued its course.

It is difficult to confirm how many targets were sunk. The degree of damages is different, and even ships that receive severe damages can be restored. On the other hand, the coalition’s navy unequivocally suffered irreplaceable losses. Perhaps this was the reason why the Saudi Navy put an order to Spain for 5 new corvettes of the Avante 2200 class. The contract was valued at 3.3 billion.

Humanitarian situation in Yemen

A long civil war, complicated by external intervention, brought Yemen to a humanitarian catastrophe. According to the Yemen Centre for Human Rights and Development, in the spring of 2015, more than 10,000 civilians were killed as a result of air strikes by the coalition. According to UN estimates, three quarters of the population of Yemen – 22.2 million people – need humanitarian assistance.

During the war, Yemen became the largest zone for humanitarian disaster in the world. On the eve of the intervention the country was 90% dependent on the import of medicines and food. At present it is the largest center of cholera on the planet. 700,000 people are infected with cholera, 44% of all new cases in the world and 32% of those dying from cholera in the recent months are recorded among children under 15 years old. In December 2017, about six million doses of the diphtheria vaccine were delivered by a chartered UNICEF airplane to Sana’a. This suggests that in addition to the cholera epidemic, the UN is also afraid of outbreaks of diphtheria.

Nine million people are at the point of starvation. 400,000 children already suffer from acute malnutrition. At least 14.8 million people don’t have access to medical aid. After the introduction of the blockade, wheat flour in Yemen went up by 30%, the price of fuel doubled. In some areas, drinking water costs 600 times more than it did before the blockade. The country has high infant mortality rate from hunger and cholera.

UN experts for human rights came to the conclusion that one of the causes for the severe humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen was the air and sea blockade by the coalition. As a result of this blockade, the work of seaports was in disarray, imports of food, fuel and medicines were disrupted. Unjustified delays in issuing permits for entry of ships into Yemeni ports or refusals for such entries became routine practice from the coalition forces.

4. Propaganda

The Ansar Allah movement has developed its own media strategy to spread their ideas. This strategy largely borrows the ideas of Lebanese Hezbollah. It consists of the release of news stories, videos, dissemination of information through newspapers and forums in social networks. Like the Hezbollah media, the media of Ansar Allah is religious in nature and focuses on combating the US-Saudi invasion. Abdul-Malik al-Houthi, the current leader of the movement, makes speeches that are very similar to those of the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah.

In 2011, the movement launched its official satellite TV channel, Al-Masirah. The channel has two offices: one in the southern suburb of the Lebanese capital Beirut and another in the Yemeni capital. Two local radio channels stations in Sana’a: al-Masira Radio and Sam FM. There are additional radio stations in other provinces of Yemen. The movement’s biggest focus is print media, given that a significant number of Yemenis do not have access to television due to ongoing fighting and the blockade. Ansar Allah has up to 25 printed and electronic newspapers that spread the ideas of movement. The publications of Al-Masira, Al-Masar, Al-Hawiya and Al-Diyar are important to mention, with Al-Masar mobile and Al-Masira mobile being some of the most important electronic news services. The movement controls part of the state media, including the state news agency SABA and about a dozen of the regional media networks. Some independent or semi-independent groups of activists also support the movement. One of the most popular of these groups is the Yemen Wrath.

The Houthis are very active in producing video reports from direct points of combat. This footage is the basis of content about the conflict on the Internet but is strictly censored on the leading social media sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc., making it difficult to distribute.

Reasons for censorship include regular demonstration of corpses, primarily of the coalition soldiers, excessive naturalism and lack of English broadcasting. Recently there has been an improvement in the quality of produced video content. Earlier videos just showed scenes from the battlefield, now the videos frequently feature voiceovers and animation.

The Ansar Allah propaganda uses established terminology, where the deceased supporters of the movement are represented as martyrs and active fighters are depicted as mujahideens. The movement actively uses graffiti and banners on buildings to spread their messages on the streets. These often include slogans and Suras from the Koran, the Prophet’s utterances, and quotes from the founder of the Houthi movement.

Ansar Allah created a number of bands that perform traditional mountain songs in al-Zamel, which is located in the north of the country. Their music glorifies different tribes, war, courage and faith. These songs coincide in many ways with the tone, rhythm and technique of Hezbollah’s songs, as they use the religious connotations associated with jihad. They are broadcasted on television and radio stations belonging to the Houthies in areas under their control, especially near frontlines. The Houthis also use cars with loudspeakers that drive through densely populated areas and streets of Yemen.

5. Sources of income and financing

Currently, the bulk of external financing comes from Iran and the Yemeni diaspora abroad. At the start of 2010’s around 1.5 to 2 million Yemenis lived outside the country, mainly in the oil-producing countries of the Persian Gulf (about 800 thousand in Saudi Arabia) as well as in Djibouti and Indonesia. Small Yemeni diasporas exist in the UK (the largest is in western Europe – up to 80,000 people), the US and Canada. According to Yemeni government sources, up to 4 billion annually was contributed from foreign workers from Saudi Arabia alone. However, with the beginning of the conflict, the flow of money has dried up. Even before the outbreak of hostilities against the Houthis in 2013, the bulk of workers from Yemen were deported by the Saudi leadership and currently the number of workers from Yemen there is minimal.

A number of experts believe that Iran’s financial assistance does not exceed 10-20 million dollars a year. It should be noted that the Islamic Republic’s capacity to provide assistance to Yemen is now limited, as Iran is also providing financial assistance, weapon and personnel to Hezbollah as well as to Shia militias in Syria and Iraq. Moreover, Yemen is currently under a sea and land blockade. Therefore, the possibilities to assist the Houthis are severely limited. Several Iranian vessels captured by the forces of the coalition in 2014 contained rockets for  multiple rocket launchers, MANPADS, RPG-7 grenade launchers, explosives, cartridges, small arms and Iranian-made night vision devices. Thus, it can be concluded that the movement prefers to receive assistance in kind, as the possibility of independent operation in the arms market is now limited.

After the seizure of Sana’a and the deposition of Hadi’s government, almost all portable and stationary property of the Islamist party “al-Isla” was confiscated. The entrance of the Houthis into the capital was so rapid that neither the representatives of the “al-Isla” nor the members of the Government of President Hadi had time to remove or hide their finances or valuables such as jewelry. Several tonnes of gold bullions were confiscated in the homes of a number of high-ranking functionaries of the party of “al-Isla “. In addition, the Houthis acquired the holdings of the Central Bank.

However, all this happened during the first stage of the conflict. The war lasted several years and resources, such as the holdings of the central bank, are now depleted. The Houthis were cut off from major oil fields in the south and in Ma’rib. Currently, funding sources of the Houthis are limited. The main sources of financing are drawn from within the country. According to some data, the management of the Houthis taxed retail and almost fully monopolized large wholesale trade in the country.

6. Relations with local players and role in the Middle East

Saleh and his forces

The relations between the Houthis and the late President Saleh can be characterized as paradoxical. As a descendant of the Sanhan tribe, which was part of the most powerful coalition of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, was able to maintain more or less peaceful relations between the various tribal groups in the Yemeni Arab Republic (YAR) before its unification with the People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen (South Yemen) in 1990. Saleh was previously the president of the YAR and expressed support for the US after the events of September 11, 2011. At the time, US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq lead to a sharply negative view of the US among the population of Yemen and the president’s popularity plummeted, both among the Sunni and the Shia Zaidis.

The assassination of the leader of the Houthis, Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, in 2004 led to a direct confrontation between the Houthis and the then-acting president, resulting in political instability and a series of internal armed conflicts, which ended in 2010. After the overthrow of Saleh in 2011, the place of the president was occupied by his deputy Hadi, who is actually a puppet of Saudi Arabia. The subsequent political dialogue between the opposing forces did not lead to tangible results. By 2014, the political process stalled and the parties had once again moved to armed confrontation. In September of the same year, the Houthis forced Hadi to flee from Sana’a. In this phase of conflict, Saleh and his supporters became allied with the Houthis.

This state of affairs did not please Saudi Arabia. A group of nine countries under the Saudi leadership launched a military campaign against Yemen. The conflict lingered. Being an experienced politician, Saleh decided to re-take matters into his own hands and turned against the Houthis. “Yemeni citizens have tried to tolerate the recklessness of the Houthis over the last two and half years but I cannot. I call on the brothers in neighbouring countries to stop the aggression, to lift the blockade. Let’s turn this page.” Saleh said in a televised address on December 2, 2017. With this statement he angered all the sides of the conflict. On December 4, 2017 his car was hit by a grenade launcher and Saleh died. After his death, a smaller part of his supporters joined the coalition and pro-Hadi forces, while a large part of them recognized the power of the Houthis as legitimate. It is also known that Saleh has a son, Ahmed, who now resides in the UAE. It is probable that the coalition may declare him as a legitimate ruler of Yemen.

The Southern Movement

The Southern Movement known as al-Hirak is a popular movement for the re-establishment of the former People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen. Al-Hirak – is the main force in the south of the country, a coalition of different parties, groups and tribes. It has two branches: a moderate branch, seeking autonomy within a single state, and a radical branch led by former Socialist leader Ali Salem al-Beidh. The movement became active in 2007.

For more than 120 years, South Yemen was a British colony. After acquiring independence, the region chose to become a social state. As a result, the rule of law, a system of free health, education and social welfare, were the pride of southern Yemenis. After unification, the standard of living fell sharply causing discontent among the population in the southern part of the country. Many people in Aden speak foreign languages or have technical education as opposed to those living in northern Yemen.

Until recently, relations between the parties were complicated by an alliance of the Southern Movement with pro-Saudi President Hadi. Thanks to this alliance, the Southern Movement received military and financial assistance from the coalition. In January 2018, there was a disagreement between the allies. Hadi’s supporters and forces of the Southern Movement entered into clashes.

In this situation, the disagreements between Saudi Arabia and the UAE became evident. Dubai does not agree with the role that Saudi Arabia assigns it in the region. Political leadership of the UAE decided to make an independent move, by supporting the Southern Movement, through which it can support its own interests in the region. On one hand, the conflict between the Southern Movement and Hadi supporters helps the Houthis as former allies became enemies. On the other hand, a new player, the UAE, entered the arena.

Hadi government

When President Saleh was forced to resign, Hadi became his successor. Hadi won the early presidential election, being the only candidate and having unlimited administrative control. However, he could not carry out urgent political reforms and hold power. He was viewed critically by most people in South and North of the country. During the Houthi offensive, Hadi fled south to Aden, and territories loyal to him surrendered one after another. Aden was the only source of resistance where the Southerners fought against the Houthis. Having stopped the Houthis in Aden, the Southern Movement, with the support of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, later occupied almost the entire territory of the former South Yemen, after which, the front froze. Poorly armed Yemenis from the north, were unable to defeat Yemenis in the south, but easily coped with Saudi and Emirati special forces, backed up by armored vehicles and aviation.

Hadi soldiers and their Saudi allies were unable to break the resistance of the Houthis outside southern Yemen.  In turn, the supporters of President Hadi did not need Sana’a. They were more concerned with establishing control for Aden and what had to be done with the territory that was captured from the Houthis, where the Southern Movement was gaining strength.

Iran, Hezbollah and the countries of the “Shia Crescent”

The basis of the interaction between Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis lies in the field of information and propaganda, as well as military-technical cooperation. The Houthis take the experience of Hezbollah in the field of mass media and use information resources of the Lebanese movement to promote their own interests. Iran assists in weapon supplies and provides technical specialists and military advisers from members of Hezbollah and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Today, a bloc of ideologically and socially similar movements, organizations and states is being formed on the territory stretching from the Levant to the Persian Gulf, meaning on the territory of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran.

It is likely that the members of this bloc seem to strive towards the following objectives:

  1. Maintaining the territorial integrity and sovereignty of their countries.
  2. The establishment of full-scale cooperation in the field of defense and security against the threats of Islamic extremism and the aggressive foreign policy of Israel and the US.
  3. Development of a common political outlook allowing for improvement of the quality of cooperation in various industries.

This block, in one way or another, includes modern Yemen. The current role of Yemen and the Ansar Allah movement is to restrain expansion and to limit the possibility of active foreign policy in the Middle East by the pro-Western monarchies of the Persian Gulf. The monarchies are forced to divert resources to operations in Yemen. This undermines their economy and morale of the armed forces.

Saudi Arabia

Relations between Yemen and Saudi Arabia remain extremely tense and have been so for a long period of time. The reasons for the confrontation lie in the history, culture and interplay of the various tribes and peoples of the Arabian Peninsula.

For example, in the first half of the 20th century, there were three districts of predominantly Zaidi-Shia and Ismaili population – Asir, Najran, Jizan – were occupied by Saudi troops. The hostilities in which Yemen was defeated ceased after the signing of the Taif Treaty (23 June 1934). Through it, Saudi Arabia obtained recognition by the Yemeni government of its control of Asir, Jizan and parts of Najran. The Houthis believe that the occupied provinces and the tribes that reside there must return to Yemen. The Ahrar al-Najran movement operates in the province of Najran. It stands for independence from the kingdom. The movement arose after Riyadh violated previous treaties between the kingdom and the tribes during the Saudi operations against the southern neighbor.

Shias living in the areas of Asir, Najran, Jizan, which now belong to Saudi Arabia, constitute a large part of the population, but do not have the same rights as the Sunni majority. This tense situation became worse when in March and November 2011 the Shias of Saudi Arabia held rallies, which were brutally dispersed by the authorities. In January 2016, the kingdom’s authorities executed a prominent Shia preacher Nimr al-Nimr and 46 of his supporters, causing a new escalation between Sunnis and Shias.

The observed pattern of behavior of the Saudi regime against Yemen is likely based on the risks associated with Shia rebellion for secession from Saudi Arabia. A similar scenario was considered by the New York Times in 2013 when they published a map of the kingdom, split into 5 states. This map was made on the basis of the geographical settlement of the tribes.

The scenario involves the creation of a new state: East Arabia, along the coast of the Hormuz Strait. The Hejaz region will belong to Western Arabia. The lands bordering Yemen were depicted under Southern Arabia. Part of the northern regions of the country were transferred to Northern Arabia, and the current Saudi Arabia was left with the central part of the country with the capital of Riyadh, which was to become the new capital of the Wahabistan.

This can explain why the country is fighting with the Houthis for so long and so stubbornly, ignoring the loss of people and resources. The kingdom is waging a war to keep its current existence. Another reason for the kingdom’s intervention in the Yemeni conflict lies in the logistical factor that has to do with oil. Yemen contains the oil port of Aden, which is the key to the transit of hydrocarbons in the Middle East.

The UAE

The battle against the supporters of Ansar Allah, AQAP and ISIS is the declared goal of the Arabian coalition in Yemen. However, the leading members of the Coalition (Saudi Arabia and the UAE) adhere to fundamentally different points of view. While expeditionary forces of Saudi Arabia remain uninvolved in anti-terrorist operations, UAE units with the support of unmanned US aviation, conducted a number of successful operations against Al-Qaeda in Handramaut (including the liberation of the administrative Centre of al-Mukalla) and in the area of Aden. In the view of the authorities from the Emirates, the main objective of the operation in Yemen should be to prevent the spread of terrorism in the Arabian Peninsula, not to fight Shia rebels.

The UAE has reacted quite harshly to Saudi Arabia’s desire to dominate both the region and the Gulf Cooperation Council. The Emiratis rightly believe that their country, having achieved considerable success in the sphere of economy and having gained sufficiently solid political capital, achieved a significant prestige in the world community, became the largest financial center in the Gulf, and no longer deserves to remain the secondary actor in the region.

While Riyadh supports President Hadi and is involved in action in Yemen, the UAE is gaining influence in the south of the country, where they are embodying their project to control the main ports of the Gulf of Aden and to attract the Southern Movement to their side. For example, UAE military bases in the Aden Gulf are already located on the island of Socotra (Yemen), in the port of Assab, including the airport (Eritrea), the port of Djibouti, including the airport, on the basis of Berbera (Somalia). Since June 16, 2016, the UAE ceased its fully-fledged participation in the Yemeni operation. Foreign Minister of the UAE Anwar Gargash announced that the military intervention in Yemen had achieved all of its goals, the war for the Emirate troops is almost over and they will remain in the country to monitor a political process and help Yemeni security structures in the captured areas. Another reason to leave the coalition was the appointment of General Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar, who was the commander of the loyalist Yemeni troops since February 2016, to the post of Vice President of Yemen. This was regarded as an insult in Abu Dhabi. This high-ranking military official is a member of the al-Isla party, a local branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, most importantly the leadership of the UAE left after seeing doubtful results and even more vague prospects of the operation. According to official data of the UAE, during the years of intervention, the country lost more than 120 people, not counting armament and military equipment. These are an unacceptable loss for the country. Therefore, since June 2016, the UAE troops are mainly engaged in ensuring the security of their bases in al-Mukalla and on the island of Socotra, while their participation in operations in northern Yemen is very limited.

In this regard, it can be predicted that the UAE will continue a limited participation in the conflict, while trying to control the Southern Movement, and, consequently, the infrastructure of ports in the southern part of the country.

Impact of the Yemeni conflict on the balance of power in the region

Currently, Yemen is a very complex node of conflicts. There is no single method to achieve peace within the country, in the region, and perhaps throughout the world. If the coalition continues its efforts with increased strength, it is likely that the Houthis will have to leave the capital and use the north-western part of the country as their main foothold. This will be accompanied by guerrilla warfare on the territory of the districts of Asir, Jizan and Najran, in which the Houthis will assist Ahrar al-Najran. In case of a military-political conflict in the region, the Houthis will be increasingly drawn into the orbit of Iran. Yemen will remain the front of regional conflicts, which would influence the global military-political agenda.

*

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,

Did the U.S. “intelligence community” judge that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election?

Most commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read of the planned meeting of Presidents Trump and Putin in July refers to “Russian interference” as a fact and asks whether the matter will be discussed. Reports that President Putin denied involvement in the election are scoffed at, usually with a claim that the U.S. “intelligence community” proved Russian interference. In fact, the U.S. “intelligence community” has not done so. The intelligence community as a whole has not been tasked to make a judgment and some key members of that community did not participate in the report that is routinely cited as “proof” of “Russian interference.”

I spent the 35 years of my government service with a “top secret” clearance. When I reached the rank of ambassador and also worked as Special Assistant to the President for National Security, I also had clearances for “codeword” material. At that time, intelligence reports to the president relating to Soviet and European affairs were routed through me for comment. I developed at that time a “feel” for the strengths and weaknesses of the various American intelligence agencies. It is with that background that I read the January 6, 2017 report of three intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA.

This report is labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment,” but in fact it is not that. A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the input of all the relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal whether all agreed with the conclusions. Individual agencies did not hesitate to “take a footnote” or explain their position if they disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to be that of the “intelligence community” if any relevant agency was omitted.

The report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence agencies: CIA, FBI, and NSA, but even that is misleading in that it implies that there was a consensus of relevant analysts in these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors, with the selection process generally overseen by James Clapper, then Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told the Senate in testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by “two dozen or so analysts—hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the contributing agencies.” If you can hand-pick the analysts, you can hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have understood what Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of his views. Why would they endanger their careers by not delivering?

What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.

The DNI has under his aegis a National Intelligence Council whose officers can call any intelligence agency with relevant expertise to draft community assessments. It was created by Congress after 9/11 specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection revealed by 9/11. Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC, which is curious since its duty is “to act as a bridge between the intelligence and policy communities.”

Clapper (far right): Picked who he wanted. (Office of Director of National Intelligence)

Unusual FBI Participation

During my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would include reports from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) of the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included unless the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United States. NSA might have provided some of the intelligence used by the other agencies but normally did not express an opinion regarding the substance of reports.

What did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of INR or DIA! The exclusion of DIA might be understandable since its mandate deals primarily with military forces, except that the report attributes some of the Russian activity to the GRU, Russian military intelligence. DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, is the U.S. intelligence organ most expert on the GRU. Did it concur with this attribution? The report doesn’t say.

The omission of INR is more glaring since a report on foreign political activity could not have been that of the U.S. intelligence community without its participation. After all, when it comes to assessments of foreign intentions and foreign political activity, the State Department’s intelligence service is by far the most knowledgeable and competent. In my day, it reported accurately on Gorbachev’s reforms when the CIA leaders were advising that Gorbachev had the same aims as his predecessors.

This is where due diligence comes in. The first question responsible journalists and politicians should have asked is “Why is INR not represented? Does it have a different opinion? If so, what is that opinion? Most likely the official answer would have been that this is “classified information.” But why should it be classified? If some agency heads come to a conclusion and choose (or are directed) to announce it publicly, doesn’t the public deserve to know that one of the key agencies has a different opinion?

The second question should have been directed at the CIA, NSA, and FBI: did all their analysts agree with these conclusions or were they divided in their conclusions? What was the reason behind hand-picking analysts and departing from the customary practice of enlisting analysts already in place and already responsible for following the issues involved?

State Department Intel Silenced

As I was recently informed by a senior official, the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact, have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it. So the January report was not one of the “intelligence community,” but rather of three intelligence agencies, two of which have no responsibility or necessarily any competence to judge foreign intentions. The job of the FBI is to enforce federal law. The job of NSA is to intercept the communications of others and to protect ours. It is not staffed to assess the content of what is intercepted; that task is assumed by others, particularly the CIA, the DIA (if it is military) or the State Department’s INR (if it is political).

The second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies reflect the views of the heads of the agencies and are not necessarily a consensus of their analysts’ views. The heads of both the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a military officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather than an analyst of its import, except in the fields of cryptography and communications security.

One striking thing about the press coverage and Congressional discussion of the January report, and of subsequent statements by CIA, FBI, and NSA heads is that questions were never posed regarding the position of the State Department’s INR, or whether the analysts in the agencies cited were in total agreement with the conclusions.

Let’s put these questions aside for the moment and look at the report itself. On the first page of text, the following statement leapt to my attention:

“We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.”

Now, how can one judge whether activity “interfered” with an election without assessing its impact? After all, if the activity had no impact on the outcome of the election, it could not be properly termed interference. This disclaimer, however, has not prevented journalists and politicians from citing the report as proof that “Russia interfered” in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

As for particulars, the report is full of assertion, innuendo, and description of “capabilities” but largely devoid of any evidence to substantiate its assertions. This is “explained” by claiming that much of the evidence is classified and cannot be disclosed without revealing sources and methods. The assertions are made with “high confidence” or occasionally, “moderate confidence.” Having read many intelligence reports I can tell you that if there is irrefutable evidence of something it will be stated as a fact. The use of the term “high confidence” is what most normal people would call “our best guess.” “Moderate confidence” means “some of our analysts think this might be true.”

Guccifer 2.0: A Fabrication

Among the assertions are that a persona calling itself “Guccifer 2.0” is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the Democratic National Committee’s computer and conveyed them to Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that has been leaked and published.

Retired senior NSA technical experts have examined the “Guccifer 2.0” data on the web and have concluded that “Guccifer 2.0’s” data did not involve a hack across the web but was locally downloaded. Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to the conclusion that “Guccifer 2.0” is a total fabrication.

The report’s assertions regarding the supply of the DNC emails to Wikileaks are dubious, but its final statement in this regard is important: Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.”  In other words, what was disclosed was the truth! So, Russians are accused of “degrading our democracy” by revealing that the DNC was trying to fix the nomination of a particular candidate rather than allowing the primaries and state caucuses to run their course. I had always thought that transparency is consistent with democratic values. Apparently those who think that the truth can degrade democracy have a rather bizarre—to put it mildly–concept of democracy.

Most people, hearing that it is a “fact” that “Russia” interfered in our election must think that Russian government agents hacked into vote counting machines and switched votes to favor a particular candidate. This, indeed, would be scary, and would justify the most painful sanctions. But this is the one thing that the “intelligence” report of January 6, 2017, states did not happen. Here is what it said:

DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.”

This is an important statement by an agency that is empowered to assess the impact of foreign activity on the United States. Why was it not consulted regarding other aspects of the study? Or—was it in fact consulted and refused to endorse the findings? Another obvious question any responsible journalist or competent politician should have asked.

Prominent American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby, politically motivated, report as proof of “Russian interference” in the U.S. election without even the pretense of due diligence. They have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with Russia to deal with common dangers is vital to both countries.

This is only part of the story of how, without good reason, U.S.-Russian relations have become dangerously confrontational. God willin and the crick don’t rise, I’ll be musing about other aspects soon.

*

(Thanks to Ray McGovern and Bill Binney for their research assistance.)

This article was originally published on JackMatlock.com.

Jack Matlock is a career diplomat who served on the front lines of American diplomacy during the Cold War and was U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union when the Cold War ended. Since retiring from the Foreign Service, he has focused on understanding how the Cold War ended and how the lessons from that experience might be applied to public policy today.

The Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Friendship Group’s (CPPFG) Report on Israel-Palestine

July 4th, 2018 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) applauds the work and recommendations of the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Friendship Group’s (CPPFG) following its March 30th to April 6th educational trip to Palestine. The delegation report, issued late last month, provides a detailed account of the MPs’ itinerary and experiences, while highlighting the struggle of Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation.

The CPPFG sent its report to the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, with a number of recommendations for the government, including:

1) That the government should work with international partners to:

  • Appoint a Special Envoy to help protect the human rights of Palestinian children living under Israeli military law;
  • Hold Israeli military authorities accountable to their obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law;
  • Keep working to encourage all parties to take necessary diplomatic efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace for Palestinians and Israelis.

2) That the government should continue to increase its support for the UN aid agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA).

3) That the government should work to bring about a halt to Israeli settlement construction in the Palestinian Territories.

CJPME President Thomas Woodley reacted saying,

“This report confirms the brutal reality of Israel’s military occupation and suppression of Palestinian human rights. The Canadian government cannot afford to ignore these principled and timely recommendations.”

As such, CJPME calls the government to heed the report and begin to seriously address Israel’s human rights abuses and violations of international law.

CJPME commends the delegation from the CPPFG for making the trip, making observations on the ground, and taking a principled stand for Palestinian human rights. CJPME has long encouraged members of Parliament to visit the West Bank and other Palestinian territories to gain a better perspective on the harsh realities on the ground for Palestinians. CJPME is hopeful that the bi-partisan CPPFG delegation will be able to positively influence the Canadian government to foster policies that facilitate a just and peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Featured image: Border wall between Turkish Karkamis and Syrian Jarabulus

When we first met in 2017, the Turkish poet, Mustafa Goren, stood proudly and defiantly next to a monstrous concrete wall built on orders from Ankara. The partition has just recently separated two towns with the same culture: Turkish Karkamis and Syrian Jarabulus.

The poet then read some of his verses, and my friend, a translator of my books, originally from the city of Adana, tried to keep pace, interpreting.

The poem began with quite an unusual opening, and it warned Europe and its people: 

“One day, true leaders of the world will come, and they’ll cut off all the gas and petrol supplies to you, and you’ll find yourself in even deeper shit than the one into which you are throwing this part of the world! You’ll have to burn your designer clothes and shoes, just to stay warm. You forgot, but you will soon be reminded, Europe: we are all human beings!”

He was raising his right hand accusingly, shouting towards the sky. Somehow, he looked like the Soviet revolutionary poet Vladimir Mayakovski.

The poet was obviously indignant. It was 2017 then. Everything at the border was still raw, new, and terribly painful. Everything, good and bad, seemed to be possible: full-scale Turkish – Syria war, even a war between Turkey and Russia, or perhaps a Turkish exit from NATO and much closer alliance with Russia and Iran against the West.

Image on the right: Mustafa Goren

Like so many patriots and thinkers in his country, Mustafa Goren strongly disliked the West. He was expressing his full-hearted support for his friends – the people and the state of Syria.

Stopping the Syrian war was all that mattered to him; it was his mission. He was sustaining himself by selling cigarettes on the street of Carsi Mahallesi; a street that hugs the borderline and now the wall. 

He did not care how he was making a living, as long as he had time to create, to write, to recite. He was full of determination, zeal and optimism.

*

Now, when I met him one year later, things definitely looked different. It was 2018, a different era, and totally different Karkamis. 

The wall was still there, as well as the Turkish military operations behind it. The poet was still living and struggling in Karkamis, too, but his face looked defeated and tired. Now he was working in a small café. He was broke. His eyes had lost all their previous shine:

“Turkey is now fighting against the European Union… in ,” he said. But somehow it did not sound convincing.

My comrades and I then drove one kilometer towards the Euphrates River; to the ancient cemetery with a commanding view of the border and the Syrian town of Jarabulus.

This has been the best place in the area to take a leak, to film the border and to observe Turkish military operations inside Syria. 

This time, shrapnel was flying too close, and the explosions were loud.

Two veiled ladies who were visiting the cemetery, spotted us.

“What are you looking for in this godforsaken ,” one of them asked. She gave us a hostile, or perhaps desperate look:

“What do you think you will find here? We are tired of this fight. We are bored of this conflict. All we want to do is to leave this place; to go far, very far away…”

We heard more shells flying nearby, and more explosions.

The lady couldn’t stop:

“Go away! Don’t you understand: we don’t want any foreigners here. Foreigners are the cause of this conflict!”

We tried to find our old contacts, including Mr. Bulent Polat, a Kemalist from the opposition Republican People’s Party. But his shop on the main street was gone, hermetically sealed. Nearby, an armored vehicle was parked, unceremoniously.

Like almost everyone we spoke to in Karkamis, Mr. Polat was a strong opponent of the war. And he was especially against the Turkish involvement in it:

“I know what we are doing there, across the border! To mobilize people against Assad, the anti-government militants supported by Turkey and the West, have been dressing in official Syrian military uniforms, then shoot at the civilians, killing many. Then they say: ‘Assad did it!’ It has been happening all over Syria.”

Now Mr. Polat was gone.

Mustafa Goren, the poet, ordered tea for all of us. Then he sat down at a simple table, holding his head between two palms, before beginning to speak:

“Nobody wants to stay here, at the border, anymore. In Karkamis, there is more Syrians than Turks, now. If Syrians leave, the whole place will turn to a ghost town.”

Then he begins mixing everything together:

“Turkey is not fighting against the PKK and the Kurdish terrorist groups here and in Syria – it is fighting against the European Union. This is our own, internal issue, and if we have to die in this fight, we will!”

Such discourse can be heard all over Turkey. It is difficult and for many foreigners, hard to follow, but it is how it is. Turkey is in a complex transition: from where is obvious, but to where, almost no one knows.

“Mustafa,” I asked him softly. Despite all this pain, desperation and confusion, he is my comrade, a fellow poet. “What about Russia?”

His eyes softened up, as well as his entire facial expression:

“Russians never stabbed Turks in the back. During WWI, they helped us against the West, at Galipoli. They are honest people. We have to coordinate with the Russians…”

He nods towards the explosions.

For a while, we sit quietly, listening. Then we embrace. It is time to go.

*

Karkamis is getting de-populated. It is alarming but understandable. It is becoming truly dangerous to live here. Plus, there is almost no work left in this area. 

The entire frontier region used to rely heavily on trade with Syria. There were strong friendships forged between the individuals and families on both sides of the border. People were visiting each other, and they were intermarrying. Goods and services were flowing between Turkey and Syria almost freely.

Now, there is a full stop. The border can only be crossed by armored vehicles, tanks, and ambulances. They are going back and forth, bringing soldiers, carrying the wounded and even corpses. No civilian can pass.

Further west, Elbeyli town is a bizarre hive of spies, a fortification. Everything here is monitored. It is because from here, the Turkish military forces are constantly invading Syrian territory. Here, no one dares to speak. To ask questions leads to immediate phone calls, arrests and interrogations.

Entrance to a refugee camp near Elbeyli

Now, many villages around Elbeyli are half-empty. It is an eerie sight. The war has ruined entire communities.

What is thriving is the construction business. Not of the infrastructure, but of the military bases, spy antennas and above all, of the walls. An enormous, monstrous wall, which separates two countries – Turkey and Syria, in the past two inseparable sisters – is now scarring this ancient land. It is around 900 kilometers long, they say. How much money, how much concrete is being poured into it, and why?

Then the City of Killis. 

We are shown destroyed walls of a house; a place “where rockets fell recently from the Syrian territory”. This is what the Turkish government uses as its justification for the invasion.

The local people have it all very clear. Several of them declare openly, but without revealing their names:

“If only the Turkish government and military would coordinate their operations with the legitimate government in Damascus!”

New Turkish military base near Killis and Syrian border

Things are tough in Killis. Like elsewhere along the border, businesses are closing down. An owner of a kebab stall couldn’t find any job for more than a year and had to try his luck in far-away Jakarta; in Indonesia which is much poorer than Turkey. He came back, had some luck and has now turned into an ultra-nationalist:

“Now the world can see the power of Turks!” He declared, passionately, voicing his full support for the invasion.

But here, at the border, he is clearly in the minority.

At a barbershop, “Salon Hassan”, several people are gathered, just in order to discuss politics. The most common assessment of the situation is:

“The biggest mistake is that the Turkish military is not coordinating its operations with President Assad.”

We are told that

“some 8.000 of the refugees living in the camps all over the region are now returning back to Syria.”

But Turkey is hosting more than 3.5 million Syrian migrants. The situation is extremely complex, as intercommunal violence between Turks and Syrians tripled in the second half of 2017.

Turkish president Erdogan often declares that it is mainly because of his military forces operating across the border, that so many Syrian refugees now feel safe to return home. “Nonsense”, most Syrian people reply to such claims.

“It is because of the Syrian army, President Assad, and his Russian and Iranian allies! Legitimate Syrian government is now winning the war. Only because of that, things are much safer for the Syrian people.”

“We love Russians here,” a local man professed, loudly. Some citizens of Killis also love Erdogan, as well as President Assad of Syria. ‘Too much love?’ Too many contradictory feelings? It is Turkey, after all. Here, nothing is ever simple.

But what is Russia here, to these people? In many parts of Turkey and all over the Middle East, more than a country, Russia became a symbol of defiance, proof that the West and its deadly designs can be confronted and stopped.

*

Things appear confusing, but in Turkey, they always are.

As we drive through this ancient, beautiful but wounded land, my Turkish friend and translator utters, in desperation:

“The ‘Elderdog’ (increasingly common derogatory nickname for the present leader) is going to lose during the next elections. I bet he is going to…”

“But is the Turkish policy towards NATO and towards Syria going to change, dramatically?” I wonder.

For a while, there is silence in the car.

“I wish hope,” friend, my comrade says, finally.

He doesn’t know. Of course, he doesn’t. In Turkey, anything is possible.

“I hope Turkey comes to its senses. I love this country,” I say honestly. “I am really tired of hating it.”

“So am I,” he nods.

We are literally licking a huge concrete wall. Behind it is Syria, clearly visible, beautiful.

Actually, it is all very simple. People there are fighting against terror and against the Western imperialism.

People here, in Turkey, are still at the wrong side of the barricade. But they are waking up; many of them already understand. They may soon join those who are fighting for the survival of humanity. They may. Hopefully they will.

(Note: as this essay goes to print, Turkish election polls are closing. 56 million voters have been able to cast their ballots, voting simultaneously in parliamentary and presidential elections. According to preliminary results, President Erdogan secured a  comfortable lead.) 

*

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

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

 All images in this article are from the author.

The Fourth of July Is “Matrix Reinforcement Day”

July 4th, 2018 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Tomorrow, July 4, 2018 is the 242 anniversary of the date chosen to stand as the date the 13 British colonies declared independence.  According to historians, the actual date independence was declared was July 2, 1776, with the vote of the Second Continental Congress.  Other historians have concluded that the Declaration of Independence was not actually signed until August 2. 

For many living in the colonies the event was not the glorious one that is presented in history books.  There was much opposition to the separation, and the “loyalists” were killed, confiscated, and forced to flee to Canada.  Some historians explain the event not as a great and noble enterprise of freedom and self-government, but as the manipulations of ambitious men who saw opportunity for profit and power.

For most Americans today the Fourth of July is a time for fireworks, picnics, and a patriotic speech extolling those who “fought for our freedom” and for those who defended it in wars ever since.  These are feel good speeches, but most of them make very little sense.  Many of our wars have been wars of empire, seizing lands from the Spanish, Mexicans, and indigenous tribes.  The US had no national interest in WW 1 and and very little in WW 2.  There was no prospect of Germany and Japan invading the US.  Once Hitler made the mistake of invading the Soviet Union, the European part World War 2 was settled by the Red Army.  The Japanese had no chance of standing up to Mao and Stalin. American participation was not very important to either outcome. 

No Fourth of July orator will say this, and it is unlikely any will make reference to the seven or eight countries that Washington has destroyed in whole or part during the 21st century or to the US overthrow of the various reform governments that have been elected in Latin America.  The Fourth of July is a performance to reinforce The Matrix in which Americans live.

Image result for General Smedley Butler

When the Fourth of July comes around, I re-read the words of US Marine General Smedley Butler (image on the right).  General Butler is the most highly decorated US officer in history.  By the end of his career, he had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of only three men to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions. 

Butler served in all officer ranks that existed in the US Marines of his time, from Second Lieutenant to Major General.  He said that

“during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.  In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”  

Butler says he was a long time escaping from The Matrix and that he wishes “more of today’s military personnel would realize that they are being used by the owning elite as a publicly subsidized capitalist goon squad.”

Butler wrote:

“WAR is a racket. It always has been.

“It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

“A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

“A few profit — and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can’t end it by disarmament conferences. You can’t eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can’t wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

“The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nation’s manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation — it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.” See this.  

In November, 1935, Butler wrote in Common Sense magazine:

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period . . . I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”   

The military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans 57 years ago, adroitly uses the Fourth of July to portray America’s conflicts in a positive light in order to protect its power and profit institutionalized in the US government.  In stark contrast, by the end of his career General Butler saw it differently.  Washington has never fought for “freedom and democracy,” only for power and profit.  Butler said that “there are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.”

Today the anti-gun lobby and militarized police have made it very difficult to fight for the defense of our homes, and the War on Terror has destroyed the Bill of Rights.  If there could be a second American revolution, maybe we could try again.

*

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

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

Featured image: Members of the Aboghlou Women’s Cooperative in the Ourika Valley, Morocco (photo by the High Atlas Foundation).

This week we celebrate the United Nations International Day of Cooperatives, commemorated every year on the first Saturday of July. Cooperatives’ success in sustainable development, wealth creation, and poverty alleviation give many hope for an equitable future. As we commend cooperatives, it is important to recognize and understand how they function.

Cooperatives are largely based on the Rochdale Society in 1844 from England. In a time of terrible working conditions and low wages, this group of poor, English weavers  struggled to buy basic goods, like flour. Without a rich, capitalist donor, the members all pooled their money to collectively purchase necessities. Their contribution earned them a say in the management of the association, and an equitable distribution of the net profits.

As the first largely successful cooperative, their principles have endured. Further, cooperatives have been a model for communities to come together and lift themselves out of poverty through democratic practices. According to the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA) today, they should follow seven rules:

  1. Voluntary and Open Membership: anyone who can benefit and contribute can join.

  2. Democratic Member Control: members participate in policy and decision-making.

  3. Member Economic Participation: members contribute and manage the capital, the common property of the cooperative.

  4. Autonomy and Independence: members control the cooperative in agreements with other organizations, governments, or external donors.

  5. Education, Training, and Information: cooperatives give members life and work skills.

  6. Cooperation among Cooperatives: cooperatives ought to empower each other.

  7. Concern for Community: members sustainably develop their communities.

Cooperatives have shown promise in developing their local economies. They produce the supplies and reap the rewards, making decisions that holistically benefit everyone. They act as an economic mover in democracy and civic society building, helping communities articulate their needs. They allow people to collectively compete in markets, and individually elevate their roles in the economy and society.

In Morocco, the model most familiar to Westerners would be women’s cooperatives. Rural women have expressed a desire to work, earn money, and make decisions. By exporting fair trade handicrafts and products, they receive income where they were previously marginalized, unskilled, and relegated to household roles. For example, in the Ourika Valley, the Aboghlou Cooperative makes couscous and other dried goods. These 32 women got the capital necessary to grow almond seedlings for families and schools. In 2017, they also harvested and processed 60 kg of calendula flowers, selling to companies like L’Oreal.

The Aboghlou Women’s Cooperative at work drying calendula flowers (photo by the High Atlas Foundation).

International companies are proud to support these cooperatives and affirm their ethical consumerism. This has been a veritable boon for the economy. Additionally, Moroccan cooperatives like the Izourane Ouargane Women’s Cooperative produce and sell argan oil. By running a business and negotiating with Western cosmetic companies, the women earn and share both profit and respect. They learn through experience, growing more confident about how to manage a business.

Members of the Izourane Ouargane Women’s Cooperative in Essaouira process argan (photo by the High Atlas Foundation)

However, cooperatives are under threat from imposters and uncertainty. Foreigners that come to Morocco want to support women’s cooperatives and buy their products, but they are worried about insincere businesses that abuse the label to trick them. Their concern lies in tourist traps where the women only have performative roles, such as publicly sorting the argan products, but do not have their fair share of control or profit. They know that untrustworthy middlemen exploit their sympathy for women’s development and empowerment.

There is a broad asymmetry of market information in Morocco, especially for tourists. Sellers always have the advantage in knowing the true value of their goods, and in the souks, products are rarely branded, priced, or otherwise consistently labelled. Locals would have more expertise in discerning good quality materials from scams, but foreigners are more wary. Tourists are always pursuing authenticity in their new experiences, and want proof of legitimacy.

Accordingly, there needs to be an international verification for cooperatives. Just as products need to meet a standard to be certified organic, enterprises that claim to be cooperatives ought to meet a standard to use the label. The ICA launched the Cooperative Marque in 2013, to emphasize the viability of the cooperative structure as professional and contemporary. An expansion of that could decidedly label cooperatives for being ethical and developmental. The Moroccan Office du Développement de la Coopération has a form for cooperatives to register themselves, but this information is not easily or ostentatiously available on products. Cooperatives that claim to help women should be examined and have more legitimacy on a global scale.

Cooperatives have so much potential to sustainably lift people out of poverty. They can move people from subsistence agriculture to international commerce, bring communities together to capitalize on their shared resources, and improve living standards alongside economic opportunities. However, they need help. Cooperatives need assistance with facilitating dialogue and certification from an international standard. Cooperatives are founded upon trust between their members and the global public. While we celebrate them and all of the good they have done this week, let us support them as well.

*

This article was first published by the High Atlas Foundation

Amy Zhang ([email protected]) is an Intern with the High Atlas Foundation in Marrakech, and a student at the University of Virginia studying Economics and Middle Eastern Studies.

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

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

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

*     *     *

Video: Saudi Arabia Bombs Residential Neighborhood in Yemen Killing Entire Family

By Ahmed Abdulrahman, July 03, 2018

Just this Monday, a U.S.-backed Saudi-coalition bombing campaign targeted a residential neighborhood in Amran in northern Yemen, killing 15 civilians and injuring 9, most of whom were women and children.

Ethiopia and Zimbabwe Heighten Security in Response to Attacks on Political Rallies

By Abayomi Azikiwe, July 03, 2018

Ethiopia and Zimbabwe within the African context are important state and regional entities which have valuable natural wealth and a legacy of struggle against colonial and neo-colonial dominance. The normalization of relations involving Addis Ababa and Asmara (Eritrea) could potentially set a standard for the resolution of other protracted conflicts which drain monumental human and material resources. 

Iran Accuses US of Docking Chemical Weapons-Laden Ship in Persian Gulf

By Zero Hedge, July 03, 2018

However, the Iranians seem to think the vessel is some kind of permanent chemical weapons transport vehicle, which it is not, though it understandably doesn’t sit well with Tehran that the US conducts regular war games in Iran’s own maritime backyard.

CIA: How to Shape Okinawan Public Opinion on the U.S. Military Presence

By Jon Mitchell, July 03, 2018

Between 1945 and 1972, Okinawa was directly ruled by the U.S. military and its bases stored a vast array of nuclear and chemical weapons. The island was used to launch wars in Korea and Indochina; during the U.S. occupation (1945-52), Okinawans’ were driven from their land, much of which was turned into US military bases, and were victimized by frequent crimes and accidents involving military personnel.

America’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Is a State-Sponsored Terrorist Organization – Abolish ICE

By William Boardman, July 03, 2018

Over the past fifteen years, lacking enough serious criminals to justify its $6 billion budget, ICE has reduced itself (with poisonous political pandering in support) to the horrifying monster we’re finally seeing more clearly, littering the American landscape with caged parents and children, broken families (by choice, not by law), incarcerated innocents, harmless working taxpayers, and disrupted American businesses – a full range of social mayhem chosen by the past several presidents in preference to any humane, decent policy rooted in justice.

U.S. Crushes Europe. EU Corporate Decline

By Eric Zuesse, July 03, 2018

Europe is shrinking as an international place to invest, even while it is exploding as an international place to receive refugees from the nations where the U.S. regime bomb and destroy the infrastructure, and leave hell for the residents, who thus flee, mainly to nearby Europe, and so cause the refugee-crisis there.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Global Crisis, Militarization and Social Injustice

I asked the Washington hosts of Andriy Parubiy, the speaker of Ukraine’s parliament and founder of two neo-Nazi parties, why they were legitimizing an open fascist at the heart of the extremism plaguing his country.

While racist violence raged through Ukraine, punctuated by a wave of attacks on Roma encampments by the state-funded C14 neo-Nazi militia, Congress played host to an actual Ukrainian fascist. He was Andriy Parubiy, and besides being the proud founder of two Nazi-like parties — the Social-National Party and the Patriot of Ukraine — he was the speaker of Ukraine’s parliament.

During a meeting hosted by the American Foreign Policy Society inside the Senate, I seized the chance to ask Parubiy’s hosts why they were welcoming a figure who was so central to the extremism overtaking Ukrainian society. I also put the question to Michael Carpenter, a former Pentagon official who helped deepen the US relationship with post-coup Ukraine during the Obama administration.

The responses I received reflected a semi-official policy of denying the very existence of Ukraine’s far-right plague in order to turn the heat up on Moscow.

The Ukrainian lawmaker appeared on a panel alongside fellow speakers of Eastern European parliaments eager to join the US-NATO crusade against Russia in exchange for handsome aid packages. At the top of the agenda was stopping the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany, a project viewed in Washington as an existential threat to US economic leverage over Europe.

Earlier in the day, Parubiy held private discussions with the Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan and enjoyed what Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Andrea Thomson described as an “excellent meeting” with a “proactive” leader.

Parubiy’s first meeting with Ryan, which Ben Norton covered for the Grayzone last June, was also treated as business as usual, without a single protest or critical word from the Beltway press.

Watch my exchange in the video report below, which I co-produced with Thomas Hedges.

*

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of books including best-selling Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, The Fifty One Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza, and The Management of Savagery, which will be published later this year by Verso. He has also produced numerous print articles for an array of publications, many video reports and several documentaries including Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie and the forthcoming Killing Gaza. Blumenthal founded the Grayzone Project in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America’s state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.

Featured image is from the author.

Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen is being described as a deliberate war against women and children.

Just this Monday, a U.S.-backed Saudi-coalition bombing campaign targeted a residential neighborhood in Amran in northern Yemen, killing 15 civilians and injuring 9, most of whom were women and children.

Eight of those killed belonged to one family household named Ali Ahmed. Five of them were children aged 10 months old, 3 years old, 7 years old, 10 years old and 15 years old.

The injured were taken to the local Amran General Hospital.

The airstrikes also targeted a post office, a police station, and a telecommunications center, leveling them to rubble.

Local residents told MintPress that the search for victims among the rubble of homes in the targeted neighborhood is ongoing.

Despite the early morning bombing of an obviously civilian neighborhood, at dawn the U.S.-backed Saudi-coalition continued to rain bombs on the nearby security-department building.

The Saudi coalition claimed it was targeting a Yemeni military reinforcement site in response to a recent missile launch on the Ministry of Defense Information Center by Houthi forces.

But locals say the attack is part of a broader campaign against civilians by Saudi Arabia and the United States to destroy the morale of the Yemeni people.

Local residents in Amran held a rally to condemn the recent crime against civilians and ongoing indiscriminate bombing campaigns by Saudi Arabia and the United States.

In 2017, the United Nations blacklisted Saudi Arabia and its coalition allies for its indiscriminate killing of civilians, which targeted women and children.

This should have resulted in the imposition of sanctions or a prohibition of other countries from selling weapons or providing military aid to the coalition.

Instead, the United States sold over $110 billion in weapons to the Kingdom that same year.

Saudi Arabia was added to a similar list of nations targeting children in war in 2016, but, after Riyadh threatened to withdraw aid to the UN, their name was removed from the list.

Media reports indicate that the Saudi coalition has carried out a staggering 16,000-plus airstrikes on Yemen since 2015, but local authorities claim it’s closer to 100,000.

Saudi Arabia’s war against Yemen — one of the poorest nations in the world — has left nearly one million dead and injured, most of whom are women and children.

Two separate grenade attacks in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa and the Zimbabwean city of Bulawayo resulted in the deaths of several people.

These deadly acts occurred immediately after addresses by the heads-of-state of both countries which are significant forces in modern African history. 

Newly-appointed Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to office earlier this year amid a rise in demonstrations by opposition groups demanding reforms. Abiy succeeded former Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn who served in the position after the death of Meles Zenawi in 2012. 

Hailemariam oversaw the arrests of many activists said to have been involved in protests beginning in 2016. The unrest began among the Oromo people in the south of the East African state and later spread to areas inhabited by the Amhara. The previous PM resigned from his governmental post as well as Chairman of the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF). 

Since taking the highest governing position in Ethiopia, Abiy Ahmed has released thousands of people held for political reasons from prisons, allowed exiles to return home and is embarking upon a process of normalization of relations with neighboring Eritrea. 

At a large gathering of tens of thousands at Meskel Square in Addis Ababa on June 30 an explosion was heard just seconds after Abiy had returned to his seat from the rostrum. The PM was rushed from the scene while panic ensued within the crowd.

It has been reported that two people died in the attack and 156 were injured, eight of whom seriously. In the subsequent investigation of the incident approximately 40 people have been detained for interrogation. 

Several police officers were arrested for failing to secure the site of the explosion. A Deputy Police Commissioner of Addis Ababa was also taken into custody related to the failure to prevent such an attack. 

Ethiopian attack on rally addressed by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed on June 23, 2018 in Addis Ababa

Abiy spoke to the nation over Ethiopian Television after the incident saying that those responsible would not be successful in halting the process of democratization and the transformation of the national economy. He noted that there was widespread support for his policies which would not be reversed.

The PM emphasized that:

“The people who did this are anti-peace forces. You need to stop doing this. You weren’t successful in the past and you won’t be successful in the future.”

Abiy went on to claim that the grenade attack was part of a broader plan involving infrastructural and economic sabotage. These operations were designed to undermine the ability of the new government to effectively respond to a security crisis. 

Image on the right: Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed waves at crowd prior to grenade attack in Addis Ababa on June 23, 2018

The PM continued in a separate statement claiming:

“It has been proven that the attempt to disrupt the rally involved other plots in addition to hurling the grenade. First, a power outage and a telecommunications network disruption coincided with the event. Second, coordinated acts of economic sabotage are being undertaken to worsen the cost of living and thirdly, various agencies meant to provide different services to the public are being prevented from delivering.” (Channel NewsAsia, June 29)

Nonetheless, the government believes those responsible for the attack may strike again and is taking measures to prevent any further attempts at destabilization. Ahmed Shide, the director of Ethiopia’s Government Communication Affairs Office warned:

“There is suspicion that these forces whose bid was foiled may strike again in different parts of the country.” (Reuters, June 27)

On the regional foreign policy level, Abiy is offering a plan to end the two decades-long border dispute with Eritrea around Badme. Tens of thousands of troops from Eritrea and Ethiopia died in battles which occurred in 1998 and 2000. 

Eritrea had waged a thirty year war of independence between 1961 and 1991 when the socialist-oriented government of Col. Mengistu Haile Mariam collapsed. In 1993, after a nationwide referendum in Eritrea, the country was recognized as an independent state by the Organization of African Unity (OAU, the predecessor to the African Union) and the United Nations.

A high-level delegation led by Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh arrived in Addis Ababa for talks on the normalization project. Although this has been welcomed by many domestically and internationally, there are still those within the border areas in Ethiopia who are concerned about the implementation of an agreement brokered in Algeria by the OAU in 2000.

Resistance to the peace plan is reportedly coming from elements within the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which has been the dominant grouping within the EPRDF since 1991 when Meles came to power. The Tigray people are a minority within Ethiopia and their role in administering the multi-national state has been a source of conflict over the last two years.

Zimbabwe Grenade Attack in Bulawayo

At White City stadium in the second largest city in the Southern African state of the Republic of Zimbabwe  on June 23, an assassination attempt was carried out against President Emmerson Mnangagwa, his two vice presidents, their wives, along with other top cabinet ministers and officials of the ruling Zimbabwe African National Union, Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF). Two people have died so far as a direct result of the grenade thrown towards the stage where a rally had just ended.

Zimbabwe grenade attack on ZANU-PF leadership at Bulawayo rally on June 23, 2018

Dozens of other people were wounded and injured by shrapnel from the explosion. Vice President Kembo Mohadi and Minister of Environment, Climate and Water, Oppah Muchinguri-Kashiri (who is also Chairperson of ZANU-PF), both long-time members of the party, were later airlifted to the Republic of South Africa for more specialized treatment. 

Even though more than a week has passed since the incident, not one suspect had been reportedly arrested in connection with this egregious breach of national security and treason. President Mnangagwa, who came to power late last year in the wake of the forced resignation of former President Robert Mugabe, was quick to suggest that the assassination attempt was not the machinations of the people of Matabeleland, where Bulawayo is located.

A profile of one of the fatalities in the June 23 grenade attack was laid out in an article published by the state-controlled Zimbabwe Herald. Nelson Dube, said to have been a key figure in President Mnangagwa’s security detail, died as a result of the assassination attempt on the political leadership of the country. 

The Herald report said:

“He was taken to Mpilo Hospital, where he later succumbed to injuries sustained during the bomb attack on June 23, 2018. Due to the nature of his job as an intelligence officer charged with protecting the President, he was an unsung hero. Many a people from all walks of life have been mourning this unknown hero, but keen to know who Cde Nelson Dube, nom de guerre, Cde Shingirai Tichazvipedza, was.” (Herald, June 29)  

Ironically the heckling of former First Lady Grace Mugabe during a youth interface rally at the same location last November 2017, created the condition for the removal of the-then Vice President Mnangagwa. Political elements surrounding Grace Mugabe blamed Mnangagwa for the embarrassment. Mnangagwa and his supporters believed that an assassination attempt was eminent and facilitated the-then vice president’s removal from the country to South Africa.

When the military under Commander General Constantino Chiwenga took control of the national media and key government installations on November 15, the stage was set for the resignation of Mugabe (on Nov. 21) and the ascendancy of Mnangagwa as president and Chiwenga himself as Vice President. ZANU-PF is running to remain in charge of the country in national elections on July 30. Over twenty other candidates for political parties are also seeking the presidency and parliamentary seats.

The major candidates for the presidency appear to be Mnangagwa for ZANU-PF and Nelson Chamisa, 40, of the main opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC-T). As a condition for the new political dispensation, Mnangagwa has granted observer status to a host of international bodies, even those state entities which continue to maintain sanctions against Zimbabwe. The United States and Britain have laid down terms for the lifting of sanctions and the normalization of relations. 

One such prerequisite is the holding of elections that satisfy the requirements of these imperialist governments. The economic crisis in Zimbabwe is largely due to the draconian sanctions levelled against the ZANU-PF government and the previous five-year Government of National Unity (GNU, 2008-2013).     

Zimbabwe President Emmerson Mnangagwa visits wounded people in Bulawayo hospital after grenade attack on June 23, 2018

Although no imperialist intrigue has been suggested by official sources in Zimbabwe, the former First Lady Grace Mugabe and members of the Generation 40 faction of ZANU-PF have been mentioned as possible suspects. Mnangagwa in an interview published by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) said that without any concrete evidence the G40 people were in all likelihood behind the White City explosion on June 23.

Jason Burke of the Guardian in a report on the incident wrote:

“Many of those who were close to the former first lady have fled Zimbabwe. Opposition leaders in Zimbabwe fear the bombing may serve as a pretext for a wide-ranging crackdown by the government or the military in the Southern African state. Mnangagwa said such concern was unfounded. ‘There is no need for a security crackdown … this is a criminal activity … but of course we must make sure the population is protected … and only when we have got them are we going to be able to assess the extent to which the network is spread.’” (June 27)

Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and the Strategic Interests of Imperialism

There is of course a long and sordid history of western intervention in the affairs of post-colonial African states. In fact the imperialists want no genuinely independent and stable African government to exist.

Ethiopia and Zimbabwe within the African context are important state and regional entities which have valuable natural wealth and a legacy of struggle against colonial and neo-colonial dominance. The normalization of relations involving Addis Ababa and Asmara (Eritrea) could potentially set a standard for the resolution of other protracted conflicts which drain monumental human and material resources. 

Zimbabwe is well endowed with minerals and fertile soil. The national liberation movements from the late 19th century through the modern era were fueled by the desire for the reacquisition of the land encompassing the enormous deposits of diamonds, platinum group metals (including palladium), coal, chromium ore, nickel, copper, iron ore, vanadium, tin and gold. The country also has lithium, chrysotile asbestos and vermiculite.

National, regional and continental unity would position the AU member states to embark upon a course of achieving economic as well as political integration. The formation of a continental state would wipe away security concerns which provide a rationale for military collaboration and cooptation by the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and NATO groupings. 

The grenade explosions in Ethiopia and Zimbabwe have been condemned by the AU, the United Nations and other international bodies. Nonetheless, ultimately the security of Africa and its governments are the responsibility of the people themselves. 

As long as nations such as Ethiopia and Eritrea allow the military penetration of their armed forces, ports and state structures by imperialist military and intelligence agencies in a quest for economic sustenance, the longer Africa will remain in a dependent relationship with western capitalism. This would hold true for Zimbabwe as well when it is compelled by the need to lift sanctions to in turn accept the monitoring of its electoral process by European and North American governments which openly practice racism and class exploitation against oppressed peoples and the working class as a whole within their respective countries.

Mauritania is the venue for the June 25-July 2 31st Ordinary AU Summit where Chairperson President Paul Kagame of Rwanda will oversee discussions on four key areas of concern to the continent: the South Sudan conflict; Western Saharan colonial question; state corruption; and the imperatives for gender equality. There is the necessity to continue discussions on the implementation of the Africa Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) which was adopted several months ago by a number of AU member-states.  

However, as long as instability and dependency reign on the continent these issues cannot be adequately resolved. Concrete problems deriving from the failure to unify Africa and its people must be solved in order for sustainable development and progress to be realized in the 21st century. 

*

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. 

End Immigration Detention in Canada: An Open Letter

July 3rd, 2018 by Health Providers Against Poverty

On June 27, 2018, a coalition of over 2000 Canadian healthcare organizations and healthcare providers, including doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists and midwives have signed on to an open letter, calling on the Canadian government to take the following four actions immediately:

1. End child detention and family separation in Canada.
2. End immigration detention in Canada.
3. End the Safe Third Country Agreement.
4. Call on the United States to end its practice of child and family detention.

We reproduce their important initiative here.

*

The Honourable Ginette Petitpas Taylor
Minister of Health
The Honourable Ralph Goodale
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
The Honourable Ahmed D. Hussen
Minister of Immigration, Refugees and CitizenshipCC: The Right Honourable Prime Minister Justin Trudeau

Dear Ministers,

Over the past 6 years, Canada has held approximately 45,000 people in immigration detention. For the first time in over a decade, Canada is projected to see a sharp rise in the total number of detainees.

Children continue to be detained in Canada in large numbers, with current projections exceeding last year’s total of 162 children held in immigration detention.

We are a group of healthcare providers working in Canada who – like many around the world – have been watching with horror the news of the separation of over 2000 child migrants from their parents in the United States. This cruelty is apparently the newest front of the Trump administration’s war against asylum seekers. We’ve heard audio recordings of young children begging for their parents, and read first person accounts of migrants being told they will never see their children again.

As healthcare providers, we regularly see the results of childhood trauma in patients of all ages. Harm done at a young age can reverberate throughout one’s life, causing intense distress and health consequences. It’s no surprise to us that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Canadian Pediatric Society, the American Medical Association, and the Canadian Medical Association have all come out with strong statements condemning the separation of migrant children from their families.

In Canada, immigration detention of both adults and children, and family separation, have been a long-standing and grave concern. Canadian research and reports have repeatedly shown the severe mental health impacts of even short-term detention on both adults and children, including elevated rates of depression, anxiety and PTSD symptoms in adults. Children also suffer severe symptoms such as regression of developmental milestones, sleep disruption, anxiety and depression.

As healthcare providers we urge our federal leaders to take action on this issue and consider how history will look back on what we as a country choose to do right now. While Canada’s practice of detaining migrant children is not new, the general public is now rapidly becoming more aware of it. It is hypocrisy to criticize the United States when children are being detained and separated from their families here in Canada, causing similar severe psychological trauma that physicians and other mental health experts are now speaking out about.

For the past few years, healthcare providers in Canada have been calling for an end to the indefinite detention of migrants, the separation of families, and the detention of children. In 2017, the Canadian Medical Association passed a resolution calling for “legislative changes to protect migrants and refugees from arbitrary and indefinite detention in jails and jail-like facilities.”

We call on the Canadian government to take the following actions immediately:

1. End child detention and family separation in Canada

Imprisoning children, or forcibly separating them from their parents, is simply not acceptable, no matter what the migratory status of the children or their parents.

2. End immigration detention in Canada

Currently, in Canada, migrants are detained in both immigration holding centres and maximum security jails. We join a group of Canada’s leading physicians, academics, lawyers, community organizers, and policy makers in calling for the government to stop holding immigration detainees in maximum-security correctional facilities and to end the practice of indefinite immigration detention. We join these experts in stating that: As a matter of principle, individuals should not be placed in immigration detention or separated from their families. If a person poses a danger to him or herself or to others, other legal measures outside the scope of immigration policy should be used to address such situations.

3. End the Safe Third Country Agreement

We join Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care in calling for an end to the Safe Third Country Agreement. The recent actions of President Trump and Attorney General Sessions have made it clear that the United States is not a safe country for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers.

4. Call on the United States to end its practise of child and family detention

Following President Trump’s executive order, there is fear within the medical community that while the end of child separation is a positive step forward, more children and families will end up in immigration detention.

Sincerely

The organizations supporting the statement include:

  • Canadian Pediatric Society
  • Ontario Association of Social Workers
  • University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry
  • Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
  • Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario
  • Canadian Association of Community Health Centres
  • Ontario Psychiatric Association
  • Federation of Medical Women of Canada
  • Canadian Federation of Medical Students
  • Department of Pediatrics at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario
  • Children’s Mental Health Ontario
  • and many more.

The letter, along with the full list of signatories, can be found at endmigrantdetention.wordpress.com.

*

Health Providers Against Poverty works to eliminate poverty and reduce inequity. Their website is healthprovidersagainstpoverty.ca.

Featured image is from HPAP.

ICE has strayed so far from its mission. It’s supposed to be here to keep Americans safe, but what it’s turned into is, frankly, a terrorist organization of its own, that is terrorizing people who are coming to this country. – Cynthia Nixon, Democrat for Governor of New York, June 21, 2018

ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is the largest police agency (some 20,000 employees, offices in 50 states and 48 foreign countries) in the Department of Homeland Security. Created with little serious thought in the post-9/11 government panic, ICE was supposed to be a bulwark against the inflated threat of international terrorism. Over the past fifteen years, lacking enough serious criminals to justify its $6 billion budget, ICE has reduced itself (with poisonous political pandering in support) to the horrifying monster we’re finally seeing more clearly, littering the American landscape with caged parents and children, broken families (by choice, not by law), incarcerated innocents, harmless working taxpayers, and disrupted American businesses – a full range of social mayhem chosen by the past several presidents in preference to any humane, decent policy rooted in justice. In 2002, Congress voted to make ICE a national police force with Gestapo-like powers. Corrupt law and corrupt politics have produced corrupt results. What a surprise.

How best to respond to this paramilitary police state operation that mostly produces human carnage (including widespread sexual abuse of detainees since 2010)? How best to end the chronic violation of human rights law by this brutal regime that denies asylum to the persecuted and sends them back to suffer or die? The current movement to abolish ICE began last winter with a piece in The Nation magazine, in which Sean McElwee concluded:

“It’s time to rein in the greatest threat we face: an unaccountable strike force executing a campaign of ethnic cleansing.”

Abolishing ICE is no panacea, but it is a necessary first step to creating immigration policy based on law, compassion, and our own better history.

Image result for cynthia nixon

The political will to reinvent American idealism may or may not emerge in the face of vicious, bipartisan opposition. On June 21, Cynthia Nixon (image on the right) apparently became the first high-profile politician to call ICE by its rightful terrorist name and to call for its abolition. She’s running for Governor of New York against Democratic establishment hope-crusher Andrew Cuomo, who supports ICE. But two days before Nixon spoke out, Cuomo announced his plan for New York to file a multi-agency lawsuit against the Trump administration for “violating the Constitutional rights of thousands of immigrant children and their parents who have been separated at the border.” The treatment of families at the border is only one part of ICE’s assault on human rights, as Cuomo surely knows, as indicated in his apparently ironic comment:

“I think ICE should be a bonafide law enforcement organization that prudently and diligently enforces the law.” [emphasis added]

Nixon first spoke out against ICE at the St. Paul and St. Andrew United Methodist Church in New York City. The church has given sanctuary to a 32-year-old Guatemalan mother, Debora Berenice Vasquez, and her two children (both US citizens), after ICE threatened them with deportation. How do these facts square with ICE’s promise:

“We vow to continue our mission to protect the United States by promoting homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws …”?

What “homeland security” or “public” is served by taking 13 years to bring a case that robs a mother of her job and freedom while traumatizing her two American children? At the church’s press conference announcing the sanctuary, Nixon said:

Thank you, from the bottom of our hearts, for offering sanctuary to Debora and her children. And thank you for giving us all a place to gather today to stand up with one voice as New Yorkers and say, ‘No,’ and say, ‘No, not in our name. Not in our name.’

This event didn’t happen in a vacuum. On June 26, New Yorkers voted in their Democratic primary and in one race rejected a member of the House leadership, who carefully supports ICE (he voted to create it) and who doesn’t live in his district, in favor of a 28-year-old Latina whose campaign targeted ICE and the party’s aging, out-of-touch leadership. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez grew up in the district that covers much of the Bronx and Queens. She graduated from Boston University and came home and organized. She was the first to challenge the incumbent in more than a decade. She said of her campaign:

It’s time we acknowledge that not all democrats are the same. That a Democrat who takes corporate money, profits off of foreclosure, doesn’t live here, doesn’t send his kids to our schools, doesn’t drink our water or breathe our air cannot possibly represent us.

She was describing the media-cliché “powerful Democrat,” ten-term congressman Joseph Crowley, crony to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and presumed easy winner of the seat to which he was surely entitled, along with his predicted rise to Speaker of the House. The race got little attention until the media and professional politicians woke up “surprised” to find that a former organizer for Bernie Sanders had won the nomination with more than 57% of the vote. Trump and the rest of the right-wing dishonest noise machine are already lying about what Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats stand for, as Trump called Democrats “now officially the party of impeachment, open borders, abolishing ICE, banning the 2nd Amendment and unbridled socialism.” What Ocasio-Cortez actually said about ICE has had nothing to do with open borders:

Abolishing ICE doesn’t mean get rid of our immigration policy, but what it does mean is to get rid of the draconian enforcement that has happened since 2003 that routinely violates our civil rights, because, frankly, it was designed with that structure in mind.

The day before the primary, June 25, a Democratic candidate for New York Attorney General published an editorial in the Guardian titled: “ICE is a tool of illegality. It must be abolished.” Fordham law professor Zephyr Teachout is challenging at least three other candidates in the September 13 primary for the open office, but the filing deadline doesn’t close the race till July 12. The temporary attorney general, Barbara Underwood, is not running. She replaced AG Eric Schneiderman (also a Democrat) who resigned in May amidst sexual misconduct allegations. Teachout appears to be the only candidate calling for the abolition of ICE, writing in The Guardian:

Let’s be clear: Ice is a fairly recent development. When the George W Bush administration successfully pushed to place immigration enforcement within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), it transformed decades of past practice where internal immigration policy was conducted by the justice department. The new policy sent a clear and chilling signal: immigrants should be treated as criminals and a national security threat.

The same day as Teachout’s editorial, four current Congress members – Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) – said they would support legislation to abolish ICE. Representative Pocan said he would introduce a bill this week (it was not available as of June 28). Pocan explained his motivation in a press release:

During my trip to the southern border, it was clear that ICE, and its actions of hunting down and tearing apart families, has wreaked havoc on far too many people. From conducting raids at garden centers and meatpacking plants, to breaking up families at churches and schools, ICE is tearing apart families and ripping at the moral fabric of our nation. Unfortunately, President Trump and his team of white nationalists, including Stephen Miller, have so misused ICE that the agency can no longer accomplish its goals effectively….

I’m introducing legislation that would abolish ICE and crack down on the agency’s blanket directive to target and round up individuals and families. The heartless actions of this abused agency do not represent the values of our nation and the U.S. must develop a more humane immigration system, one that treats every person with dignity and respect.

A weeklong barricade of ICE offices in Southwest Portland, Oregon, has been broken up by police. Representative Blumenauer spoke in favor of the protestors at a rally at City Hall. He voted against the creation of ICE in 2002. In support of Pocan’s legislation, Blumenauer wrote:

We should abolish ICE and start over, focusing on our priorities to protect our families and our borders in a humane and thoughtful fashion. Now is the time for immigration reform that ensures people are treated with compassion and respect. Not only because it is the moral thing to do, but it’s better policy and will cost less.

Rational, moral, and humane as these voices are, they still represent only a small minority of Democrats, most of whom have run for cover on the issue. Media coverage tends to treat “abolish ICE” as a trivial issue or at Fox, an offense against the state. Democrats of note appear intimidated by the issue. Bernie Sanders voted against ICE, now doesn’t want to abolish it. Nancy Pelosi voted against ICE, now supports it. In all, 120 Democrats in Congress opposed ICE in 2002, but today only four are on record to abolish it. In 2002, Democratic senators overwhelmingly supported creating ICE in a 90-9 Senate vote. None of the 9 Democrats opposing ICE in 2002 remain in office.

Maybe this is changing, maybe Ocasio-Cortez’s strong victory will be a shock to the all but dead party of Democrats. On June 28 on CNN, New York Democratic senator Kirsten Gillibrand was caught in a high-pitched defense of her failure to respect Ocasio-Cortez as a candidate. The interviewer read a tweet from Ocasio-Cortez, calling out Gillibrand’s lockstep party orthodoxy. Then, on the defensive, Gillibrand suddenly expressed support for abolishing ICE, almost as if she meant it. Now how hard was that? November is coming and Democrats continue to cling to old notions detached from current reality (the Crowley Democrats). Under pressure, Gillibrand took the right position for the moment. For November to be worth celebrating, the party will have to do much better than that. It will have to find a heart and a soul and a brain and apply them all to the criminal atrocities our government commits daily at home and abroad.

*

This article was originally published on Reader Supported News.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theater, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Don’t Get Too Excited About the Mexican Silk Road

July 3rd, 2018 by Andrew Korybko

There’s no better moment than now for Mexico to embrace multipolarity by teaming up with China and possibly constructing a Pacific-Caribbean rail corridor across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, but such a project has its limitations and isn’t anything to get too excited about at this time, let alone blindly jump into just for the sake of satisfying a campaign promise.

AMLO’s Ambitions

The crushing victory that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, popularly known by his initials as AMLO, dealt to the Institutional Revolutionary Party that has ruled Mexico almost continuously for close to a century proves that the people are tired of The Establishment and eagerly craving the leftist nationalist-populism that this political outsider campaigned on. One of his many platforms included a pledge to double down on infrastructure spending in an attempt to pull his country of nearly 130 million out of the cycle of crime, poverty, and migration that many of its citizens have fallen into, and it’s with this in mind that the Financial Times (FT) wrote about his ambitious plan for what they termed to be a “Mexican Silk Road” (article behind a paywall but available for free at this partnered site).

This initiative calls for reviving the early 20th-century plans for an overland rail corridor connecting the Pacific Ocean with the Caribbean Sea across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Mexico’s very impoverished southern region, and the FT quotes one of AMLO’s economic advisors as saying that “I can see us perfectly well approaching the Chinese, above all. It’s the type of project they will certainly want to invest in, because they are long-term infrastructure projects with clearly positive returns.” On the surface, the Mexican Silk Road would appear to be a win-win for both parties because it would provide China with an intermodal alternative to the Panama Canal while bringing jobs and development to southern Mexico, but things aren’t always as they initially seem and this project isn’t anything for people to get too excited about at this time.

The Siren Song Of The Silk Road

Before addressing the possible shortcomings of this initiative, it’s better to speak to the perceived advantages that it could bring in order to make the contrast even clearer for all readers.

Mexican Multipolarity:

China’s grand strategy in the region is to make Mexico multipolar so that it can have the same function towards the US as America’s newest military-strategic partner India has vis-à-vis China, ultimately enabling Beijing to establish influence on its Great Power rival’s Caribbean doorstep in a similar manner as Washington has done in the South China Sea. If successful in this endeavor, then China might be able to finally “balance” the US and keep it in check, though it’s certain that Washington wouldn’t ever let Beijing’s plans get anywhere near that point without offering up heavy resistance in one way or another. In any case, the first step that China would need to make in this direction is to involve Mexico in its One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, which is where the Tehuantepec Corridor comes into relevance.

Nixing The Nicaraguan Canal:

This project could become the flagship of China’s North American infrastructural investments and powerfully symbolize Mexico’s new multipolar future after AMLO’s commitment to this model of global reform. Moreover, it would also provide a much-needed solution for replacing the stalled plans to construct a Nicaraguan Canal, a long-delayed project funded by a private Chinese entrepreneur but which appears to have been dealt a deathblow once and for all after the Nicaraguan government’s latest decree last week. Managua surprised the world by giving 10 different militaries the right to train on its territory for “humanitarian purposes”, and while multipolar ones like Russia, Venezuela, and Cuba are included in this new law, so too are the US and even Taiwan, China’s enemy. Considering the latter’s forthcoming military presence in Nicaragua, there’s no way that Beijing could rely on the country as the route of its regional Silk Road.

Hybrid War-embattled President Ortega’s de-facto strategic capitulation to the US by indirectly killing the Nicaraguan Canal after allowing US and Taiwanese troops to “train” in his country for “humanitarian” reasons provides a powerful impetus for China to replace this costly maritime corridor with a more economically efficient intermodal one across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that it’ll be built, or that it’ll have its intended win-win effect.

Geostrategic Offsets

The Panamanian Pivot & TORR:

For starters, the rapid development of Chinese-Panamanian ties over the past decade saw the Central American country abandoning its recognition of Taipei in favor of Beijing last year, which was considered to be a diplomatic coup carried out right under the US’ nose. While there’s no doubt that Panama largely remains a powerless American client state subject to the mercy of American military pressure in the event that Washington’s New Cold War with China ever turns hot, that’s unlikely to deter the People’s Republic from continuing to use this trade route due to its more economical nature in costing less than creating a brand new intermodal one in spite of the strategic risk involved. After all, with the successful completion of the Transoceanic Railroad (TORR) in South America sometime in the future, China won’t have to transit the Central American isthmus to trade with Brazil when the Mercosur giant can just ship its goods across mountainous Bolivia to Peru’s Pacific port of Ilo.

Wartime Uselessness:

Not only that, but China’s trade with the US is much more important than its trade with any Latin American country, to say nothing of the Caribbean, and is expected to remain so despite the so-called “trade war”. This means that the scenario of the US shutting down the Panama Canal to Chinese ships or indirectly using Hybrid War techniques to disrupt whatever alternative Beijing may have built through Nicaragua or Mexico wouldn’t even matter much to China because its driving Silk Road interest in North America is to streamline connectivity between its own Pacific ports and the US’ in the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. These would be off limits to China anyhow in the event that it and its rival go to war with one another, so OBOR projects in this part of the world shouldn’t be taken as seriously as in the Eastern Hemisphere. Even if China and Mexico decide to pursue the Tehuantepec Corridor, their plans might not materialize as expected.

The Limits Of Win-Win Cooperation

Supposing that both parties are serious about the Mexican Silk Road, each of them will still have considerable obstacles to surmount in order to make it as viable as envisioned.

Mexico’s Military-Economic Moves:

Before this project can even get off the ground, Mexico needs to ensure the security of all those who will use this Silk Road corridor, thus requiring it to “get its house in order” first by cleansing the military of its many corrupt and cartel-infiltrated recruits while simultaneously resolving the drug violence that makes this part of the country extremely unsafe. This is a lot easier said than done, to put it nicely, and it might ultimately be a “lost cause” that necessitates the presence of “private military contractors” (PMCs, “mercenaries”) instead, though with all of the attendant risks that the introduction of this variable would bring to such an already chaotic situation. Without credibly guaranteeing security for Chinese transshipments and isthmus value-added investments, Beijing will probably never agree to build, let alone use, the Tehuantepec Corridor.

Relatedly, even if proper security is provided, AMLO must have a comprehensive plan for turning this project into more than just an overland Chinese-US toll road in order to deliver on his promise of bringing wealth to this impoverished region of Mexico. An initial suggestion would be to establish special economic zones (SEZ) astride this corridor and in each of its terminal ports, but in doing so, the government would need to ensure that jobs aren’t taken by any immigrants from nearby Central American countries. AMLO considers migration to be a “human right”, but it might be politically unwise for him to spend billions in taxpayer funds for constructing a megaproject that his own citizens don’t even end up using because much cheaper migrant workers are employed there instead due to their president-elect’s sympathy with their cause.

China’s “Trade War” Concerns:

As for China, it might simply lose interest in the Tehuantepec Corridor if its “trade war” with the US continues and exports to that marketplace drop, no matter how significant they’ll likely remain in the overall sense. A contributing factor to this probable scenario is Trump successfully renegotiating NAFTA or outright withdrawing from it in order to secure the American marketplace from China’s “backdoor” entry to it via economic transshipment outposts in Mexico that abuse this trade deal’s terms through various “legal workarounds”. China’s focus could therefore shift from America to the domestic Mexican marketplace (although it won’t soon come anywhere near replacing it), but this would mean that Beijing would have more of a motive for building infrastructure elsewhere in the country for connecting to its more profitable and already economically developed regions than pioneering what might at that point be the strategically defunct Tehuantepec Corridor.

Even if these “trade war” concerns lead to China believing that the costs of this project outweigh its benefits (especially when considering that it could just use the Panama Canal as a much cheaper transit route to the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean per the analysis’ previously mentioned reasons), there’s a chance that the Tehuantepec Corridor could still be built, but only because of both parties’ cynical and separate self-interests involved. China might come to reconceptualize this initiative as more of a financial investment than a commercial one, thereby relying on high-interest loans or other financial means instead of trade in order to reap a profit, while AMLO might for whatever (possibly ideologically misguided) reason want to build a Hambantota-like “white elephant” to show off to the masses. In that case, the confluence of Chinese-Mexican “interests” could make the project possible, though it would lose its original Silk Road purpose.

Concluding Thoughts

AMLO’s stunning victory has excitedly enabled Mexico to enter a completely new era, and the leftist populist-nationalist has an indisputable mandate to reshape the country according to his promised vision, which crucially includes a heavy infrastructural investment component. The logic of “spending one’s way out of poverty” through public works projects has been tried and tested by the USSR after World War I and the subsequent Civil War, while the US did the same during the Great Depression. While the merits of this policy are controversial because its visible successes in both aforementioned cases may be attributable more to situational factors that extend beyond the reach of economics and into the political (centralized “authoritarian” state model) and military (wartime domestic industrial revival) realms respectively, the concept was apparently convincing enough to tens of millions of Mexicans that they voted for AMLO partially because of it.

That being the case, the president-elect is expected to seriously entertain the Tehuantepec Corridor megaproject that formed a key part of his campaign platform, though this initiative needs to be soberly assessed by both his country and its Chinese partners to see whether it’s worth the risk of investing billions of dollars into at this time. It’s not to say that the Mexican Silk Road can’t become a game-changing development in the New Cold War by bringing multipolarity to the US’ southern shores, but just that it isn’t as clear-cut of a win-win idea as it’s been made out to be. Upon closer consideration, it might not even have any real strategic purpose, and even if it’s determined to, then the costs might outweigh the benefits. The last thing that Mexico needs right now is a “white elephant”, but if it isn’t careful, then that might be exactly what it gets.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Who’s Afraid of the Trump/Putin Summit?

July 3rd, 2018 by Rep. Ron Paul

President Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton was in Moscow last week organizing what promises to be an historic summit meeting between his boss and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Bolton, who has for years demanded that the US inflict “pain” on Russia and on Putin specifically, was tasked by Trump to change his tune. He was forced to shed some of his neoconservative skin and get involved in peacemaking. Trump surely deserves some credit for that!

As could be expected given the current political climate in the US, the neoconservatives have joined up with the anti-Trump forces on the Left — and US client states overseas — to vigorously oppose any movement toward peace with Russia. The mainstream media is, as also to be expected, amplifying every objection to any step away from a confrontation with Russia.

Bolton had hardly left Moscow when the media began its attacks. US allies are “nervous” over the planned summit, reported Reuters. They did not quote any US ally claiming to be nervous, but they did speculate that both the UK and Ukraine would not be happy were the US and Russia to improve relations. But why is that? The current Ukrainian government is only in power because the Obama Administration launched a coup against its democratically-elected president to put US puppets in charge. They’re right to be nervous. And the British government is also right to be worried. They swore that Russia was behind the “poisoning” of the Skripals without providing any evidence to back up their claims. Hundreds of Russian diplomats were expelled from Western countries on their word alone. And over the past couple of months, each of their claims has fallen short.

At the extreme of the reaction to Bolton’s Russia trip was the US-funded think tank, the Atlantic Council, which is stuck in a 1950s time warp. Its resident Russia “expert,” Anders Åslund, Tweeted that long-time Russia hawk Bolton had been “captured by the Kremlin” and must now be considered a Russian agent for having helped set up a meeting between Trump and Putin. Do they really prefer nuclear war?

The “experts” are usually wrong when it comes to peacemaking. They rely on having “official enemies” for their very livelihood. In 1985, national security “expert” Zbigniew Brzezinski attacked the idea of a summit between President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It was “demeaning” and “tactically unwise,” he said as reported at the time by the Washington Times. Such a meeting would only “elevate” Gorbachev and make him “first among equals,” he said. Thankfully, Reagan did engage Gorbachev in several summits and the rest is history. Brzezinski was wrong and peacemakers were right.

President Trump should understand that any move toward better relations with Russia has been already pre-approved by the American people. His position on Russia was well known. He campaigned very clearly on the idea that the US should end the hostility toward Russia that characterized the Obama Administration and find a way to work together. Voters knew his position and they chose him over Hillary Clinton, who was also very clear on Russia: more confrontation and more aggression.

President Trump would be wise to ignore the neocon talking heads and think tank “experts” paid by defense contractors. He should ignore the “never Trumpers” who have yet to make a coherent policy argument opposing the president. The extent of their opposition to Trump seems to be “he’s mean and rude.” Let us hope that a Trump/Putin meeting begins a move toward real reconciliation and away from the threat of nuclear war.