‘We are the schmucks’ thundered President Donald Trump, using a favorite New York City Yiddish term. The object of Trump’s wrath at his Make America Great Again’  rally in Great Falls, Montana was the craven, stingy European members of NATO,  only 16 of 22 members are on budget for their US-commanded military spending.  Trump wants them to spend much more. 

Trump and his fellow neocons want NATO to serve as a sort of US foreign legion in Third World wars in Africa and Asia.  NATO was formed as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to defend western Europe, not to fight in Afghanistan and who knows where else?

Equally bad, according to Trump, is that the US runs a whopping  trade deficit with the European Union which is busy shipping high-end cars and fine wines to the US.  The wicked foreigners don’t buy enough Amerian bourbon, corn and terribly abused pigs.

Trump is quite right that America’s NATO allies, particularly Germany and Canada, don’t spend enough on defense. Germany is reported to have less than twenty operational tanks. Canada’s armed forces appear to be smaller than the New York City police department.

But the Europeans ask, ‘defense against whom?’ The Soviet Union was a huge threat back in the Cold War when the mighty Red Army had 55,000 tanks pointed West. Today, Russia’s land and navel power has evaporated. Russia has perhaps 5,500 main battle tanks in active service and a similar number in storage, a far cry from its armored juggernaut of the Cold War.

More important, Russia’s military budget for 2018 was only $61 billion, actually down 17% from last year. That’s 4.3% of GDP.  Russia is facing hard economic times. Russia has slipped to third place in military spending after the US, China and Saudi Arabia.   The US and its wealthy allies account for two thirds of world military spending. In fact, the US total military budget (including for nuclear weapons and foreign wars) is about $1 trillion, 50% of total US government discretionary spending.

In addition, Russia must defend a vast territory from the Baltic to the Pacific. The US is fortunate in having Mexico and Canada as neighbors. Russia has North Korea, China, India, the Mideast and NATO to watch. As with its naval forces, Russia’s armies are too far apart to lend one another mutual support. Two vulnerable rail lines are Russia’s main land link between European Russia and its Pacific Far East.

Trump’s supplemental  military budget boost this year of $54 billion is almost as large as Russia’s entire 2018 military budget. As for Trump’s claim that Europe is not paying its fair share of NATO expenses, note that that Britain and France combined together  spend more on their military forces than Russia.

In Europe, it’s hard to find many people who still consider Russia a serious threat except for some tipsy Danes, right wing Swedes, and assorted Russophobic East Europeans. The main fear of Russia seems concentrated in the minds of American neoconservatives, media, and rural Trump supporters, all victims of the bizarre anti-Russian hysteria that has gripped the US.

Equally important, most civilians don’t understand that neither US and NATO forces nor Russia’s military are in any shape to fight war that lasts more than a few days. Both sides lack munitions, spare parts, lubricants, and battlefield equipment. The overworked US Air Force, busy plastering Muslim nations, has actually run low on bombs. US industry can’t seems to keep up supplies. There has even been talk of buying explosives from China!

These essentials of war have been seriously neglected in favor of buying fancy weapons. But such weapons need spares, electronics, fuel depots, missiles and thousands of essential parts. As former US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld observed, ‘you go to war with what you have.’ Neither side has enough. A war would likely peter out in days after supplies were exhausted. Besides, no side can afford to replace $100 million jet fighters or $5 million apiece tanks after a war, however brief.

President Trump has learned about war from Fox  TV. Europeans have learned from real experience and don’t want any more.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pay Up You NATO Deadbeats, or Else. NATO to Serve as a US Foreign Legion in Africa and Asia
  • Tags: , ,

The Gaza Blockade: Humanitarian Emergency

July 10th, 2018 by we4Gaza

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

One year ago we issued a call to the European Parliament and to the EU High Representative for foreign affairs to reconsider, actualize and enact the deliberations already previously approved that could grant the opening of the Rafah border under EUBAM, and to start collection of funds and issue a tender for the reconstruction of the port in Gaza. 

The “humanitarian emergency” that led Gaza to be without medicines, sewage, commerce and jobs has been planned carefully and enacted harshly along years by Israeli.

We asked that Europe act to grant a port and stably opened borders. We did not call for the opening any other border under Israeli control. Under the claim of prevention of “dual use” (use of merchandise other than for civilian purposes)  Israeli have reduced, prohibited, tricked and controlled the arrival in Gaza of everything along 11 years, eventually determining the present scarcity. Is this control that needs to be removed.

Our call was directed to Europe because of the potential through its previous deliberations for a port and for guarding the borders to rapidly activate the autonomous development for Gaza, liberating the people from the burden that the Israeli (and Egyptian) blockade impose.

We, one year later, acknowledge that, beside a joint meeting of the E.P. Subcommittee on Human Rights and Delegation for relations with Palestine, no priority was given to any of the actions for Gaza by the European High Representative, the European Commission or the Parliament.

Meanwhile, the blockade was aggravated further by the Israeli Government and through internal and proxy measures, the Rafah border was closed almost year long  up to the second week of Ramadan (3rd week of June), UNRWA funds were cut by US, and it is menaced itself of  closure and on the verge of having to cut educational and health services and  food assistance to up to 80% of the Gaza residents. According to Israeli there is “no refugee issue” and no responsibility of providing by the sieging party.

Meanwhile, the Great March for Return has shown the will and determination not of few but of a generation of Gaza youth to take an unarmed path of political protest against the blockade, to request freedom. Unequivocally, and in unity, the population of Gaza is asking for autonomy and freedom to reach outside for commerce, study, work, visiting, developing.

It requests the lifting of the blockade without ambiguity. This is surely conflicting with the Israeli project of continuing to control every aspect of life in Gaza, as reflected also in the criminal aggression that confronted the people in the March.

Meanwhile, the situation evolved with the announcement by Israel Government of its will to solve the “humanitarian crisis”, and by US  of the “deal of the century” for Palestine. The core issue on the agenda is the port for Gaza.

The way Israeli proposed to build a port does not include removal of the blockade, but charging its costs and responsibility on the international community, or on a coalition of willing parties while continuing the total control.  It contains at the same time the potential, in similarity to the talks within the Oslo peace process, of consolidating its expansion and power even without building the seaport.

This cannot breed peace and development.

It is impossible to think of peace without justice and there is no justice without recognition of the Palestinians’ rights, their autonomy and the end of the siege of Gaza.

In this political context, a further standstill of decision by Europe, would be acceptance if not collaboration with the political and practical process of occupation by Israeli; a clear position must be taken rapidly to remove the blockade.

The Israeli claim is: “we want peace and we want to build a port to solve the humanitarian situation of Gaza”, but “we cannot trust in any foreigner’s hands the security of our country, we have to protect ourselves from the risk of dual use”, thus we have to be the exclusive controllers of the port.  This imply continuation of the blockade.

The proposal of a port for Gaza it itself is no news; in time it was presented once and again, always to be cancelled. It was already part of the Oslo agreement (a port was even built and shortly destroyed by bombing), it had sunk into oblivion after Israeli opposed its reconstruction by Europe in the early 2000, it was resuscitated in 2011 by Israeli Minister Kahz, and it was one of the requests from Gaza at the armistice at the end of the 2014 attacks.

The proposal now seem designed to go ahead due to the support from allies who grant to foster, perfect and reinforce the legitimacy of the blockade. It couples the claim to fulfill an “humanitarian urgency” with pressure on the international community, under the condition that the Israeli will control the location and functioning of a port for Gaza.

There is no difference in (or the need for) a seaport when its rules of functioning will be the same as those of the existing the land borders, that  enforced the blockade of Gaza for the last 11 years. Such a port would not relieve Gaza from the total, historically arbitrary and oppressive, most often punitive, when not openly criminal, control of Israel on the population.

In the Israeli plan for a port or in the proposal called “the deal of the century” by US (still to be fully unveiled), there is no promise of positive change for Gaza people or of substantial relief from the blockade does not mean that there is not a reason of profit for Israel and its allies.

The common denominators of the vented proposals of seaport for Gaza by Israeli and US, and other supporters,  intertwine with each other:

1- In all the proposals the seaport is not on Palestinian land.  The locations proposed being El Arish in Egypt, Cyprus or a in more creative version, a new artificial island ashore off Gaza.   Security is claimed as the reason for these choices, but it emerges that it may not be the only reason, as below.

2- In all the proposals is requested that the expenses to build and run the seaport will be sustained by “international parties“; these may vary according to the proposed location of the seaport, suggesting that there would be an open tender to the best offer to support the Israeli’s continuing hegemony on Gaza and foster its extension in the Mediterranean. Israel will be the one to give ultimate permission to build a seaport, subject to forward  political, practical control of the blockade of Gaza, and to acquire more profits and political power in the Mediterranean area at large.

3- In all the proposals the unique controller of the port will be Israeli, its rules prevailing over any international set of rules. Israel will be the one to determine the rules of function, decide who works there, who serves in the security, in the services etc. and, off course, what and who passes through, by a set of self-determined rules of sort. Since the expenses for this will be on the international community, this will thus legitimate these rules, analogous to those which rule now the land border of Gaza denying freedom for Gaza at any level.

The “deal of the century” indeed, from every point of view, but only for Israel.

We demanded one year ago, and continue to ask, that Europe takes the responsibility of the disasters that its blind support for Israeli governments have produced and continue to allow to be conducted in Palestine, and acts to restore the legitimate rights to freedom for the people of Gaza.

We asked that Europe will use mechanisms already in existence, that could most rapidly grant the self determination of the Palestinians as to what they commerce, who they commerce with, who will travel and who will return home.

We demanded a year ago, and still demand, that Europe acts towards the release of Gaza from the blockade by exercising equity towards the people of Gaza in agreement with international laws and UN deliberations.

Any other position, in the present circumstances would be collaboration to further the enslavement of Gaza people and the dissolution of Palestine.

And it is also highly the time that Europe shows to his own people that words so often used  like “equity” and “concern for human rights” and “autonomy of the people” signify actions.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The official end of hostilities between Ethiopia and Eritrea has the chance of ushering in a new era of peace and prosperity for what has up until this point been one of the tensest and most impoverished parts of Africa.

 The fast-moving Ethiopian-Eritrean rapprochement culminated in Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed visiting President Isaias Afwerki and signing a joint peace agreement to end to their countries’ twenty-year-long state of war, the implications of which are literally game-changing for the entire Horn of Arica. It can’t be emphasized enough just how important of a development this is in giving the region the chance to usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for what has hitherto been one of the continent’s tensest and most impoverished corners.

Eritrea’s 1993 secession from Ethiopia following the end of the latter’s civil war was agreed to with the new authorities in Addis Ababa but the subsequent security dilemma that soon sprouted up stemming from the distrust that both states had of one another led to the 1998-2000 war that killed around 80,000 people despite pretty much retaining the geostrategic status quo. Both countries became much poorer as a result and forced to overcommit their precious resources to defense in order to prevent a Continuation War over the town of Badme.

Awarded to Eritrea by an international court in 2002, Ethiopia refused to abide by the ruling and therefore kept the tense military state of affairs between the two countries frozen in a seemingly never-ending Cold War that since saw the outbreak of numerous low-intensity proxy conflicts inside of one another’s borders and especially Somalia. In fact, it was because of Asmara’s alleged assistance to the Al-Shabab terrorist group that it was placed under UNSC sanctions in 2009 and remains so to this day, drastically holding back its post-war development.

The combination of a controversial military policy of potentially indefinite conscription and rampant underdevelopment paired with stereotypical “socialist” mismanagement and international isolation to produce the “perfect storm” of systemic destabilization inside of Eritrea that has since led to the outflow of tens of thousands of its citizens to Europe. As for Ethiopia, the incessant Hybrid War challenges posed by Eritrea’s patronage of multiple ethno-separatist groups took its toll on the nation and prompted the ruling Ethiopian People’s Democratic Revolutionary Front (EPDRF) to impose stringent security measures that hampered economic development.

Both countries recently started moving in opposite geostrategic directions as well, with tiny Eritrea cozying up to the wealthy GCC after allowing its territory to be used in the War on Yemen while Ethiopia struck crucial Silk Road deals with China to become the main African partner for the People’s Republic. It even appeared for some time like the two Horn of African states would become a proxy battleground between China and the GCC, but thankfully that scenario was averted by both extra-regional parties’ responsible efforts to improve cooperation between them and preempt this possibility.

The situation largely remained static in the larger sense of the concept until new Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed seemingly came out of nowhere to rapidly rise to power in March following the surprise resignation of his predecessor, which enabled the reformist wing of the EPRDF enter into the position of influence that they’d been patiently waiting for years to obtain. After initiating wide-ranging socio-economic and political reforms at home, PM Abiy then unveiled his grandest one last month by announcing that his country will accept the 2002 court ruling to withdraw from Badme.

This move was greeted very positively in Asmara and had the geostrategic effect of shifting the regional dynamics, averting what had up until that moment appeared to be an Egyptian-Eritrean alliance against Ethiopia that could have pushed the region’s military tensions past the threshold into all-out war. PM Abiy walked the walk by proving the sincerity of his intentions by inviting a high-level Eritrean delegation to Addis Ababa, which preceded his own visit to Asmara to meet with President Afwerki and ultimately announce the end of hostilities between these two brotherly nations.

Both formerly united states will now fast-track their comprehensive infrastructural reintegration through the revival of a Red Sea connectivity corridor that will physically embody the path to peace that Ethiopia and Eritrea have committed to. It can therefore be expected that UNSC sanctions against Asmara might soon be lifted after Addis Ababa reveres its position by campaigning on its neighbor’s behalf, something that was utterly unthinkable for Ethiopia to do just a month ago. Equally remarkable is that Eritrea will probably cut off all militant support to its Ethiopian proxies in return.

Somalia might also see some much-needed relief as it will no longer be a theater of competition between both rivals, possibly even allowing Ethiopia and Eritrea to cooperate with one another in stabilizing it via their respective proxy channels. There’s still a lot of work that needs to be done in Somalia, and al-Shabaab remains a formidable terrorist force that requires serious and sustained efforts to defeat, but it can’t be overlooked just how positive of an impact the Ethiopian-Eritrean peace could have on this country as well.

Analyzed from a regional perspective, Ethiopia’s use of Eritrea’s port facilities will eventually decrease its existing and near-total dependency on Djibouti and the Chinese-built Djibouti-Addis Ababa Railway (DAAR), China’s chief Silk Road investment in Africa, and complement the landlocked giant’s other recent port deals and related plans to ambitiously build a navy. This will have the effect of diversifying its connectivity potential and thwarting any forthcoming Hybrid War destabilizations directed against its main Chinese project, which altogether positions Ethiopia as the regional integrational core for the Horn of Africa and a rising Great Power in general.

Eritrea will finally receive the development that it deserves and Somalia will be relatively (key word) more stabilized than before. Djibouti’s importance as the terminal point of DAAR and the key facilitator of Ethiopia’s trade with the rest of the world will remain, and the entire Horn of Africa will benefit as a result. The positive effects of the Ethiopian-Eritrean peace can also spread beyond the immediate region by creating structural opportunities for the Intergovernmental Authority on Development’s (IGAD) other members of Sudan, South Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya to seize in enhancing their comprehensive integration with one another.

With South Sudan on the brink of peace following extensive diplomatic efforts by Ethiopia, Sudan, and Uganda, now might be the time for the Greater Horn of Africa region to finally overcome its history of conflict & poverty and collectively work together to forge a new future. The greatest impediment to that happening has just been removed following the Ethiopian-Eritrean peace announcement, so it wouldn’t be amiss to suggest that all of those countries might be about to embark on a new and exciting era spearheaded by PM Abiy and his reformist vision.

*

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 CGTN Africa.

Selected Articles: Regime Change, Brexit Challenges

July 10th, 2018 by Global Research News

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

A Neoconservative Plan for Punishing Iran

By Philip Giraldi, July 10, 2018

President Donald Trump makes a point of insisting that he has nothing against the Iranian people and is only interested in opposing what he regards as the dangerous activities of their government, but his own record in office belies that claim. It is clear that what he is trying to do is put pressure on the people of Iran to rise up and force a change in government, a process otherwise referred to as regime change.

British MPs Should be Ashamed of Supporting Regime Change in Tehran

By Peter Oborne, July 10, 2018

Former cabinet minister Theresa Villiers was among senior Tories who travelled to Paris last week to hear Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York and Trump’s highly influential lawyer, call for the downfall of the Iranian government.

This meeting was a direct defiance of British government policy, which aims to save the Iran nuclear deal intact, and is against engineering a change of government in Iran.

Soft Brexits and Hard Realities: The Tory Revolt

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, July 10, 2018

The plan focused on, in the words of the Chequers statement, a proposal establishing “a free trade area for goods. This would avoid friction at the border, protect jobs and livelihoods, and ensure both sides meet their commitment to Northern Ireland and Ireland through the overall future relationship.”  Such a vision free of friction would entail maintaining “a common rulebook for all goods including agri-food” with a stress on harmonising UK laws with those of the EU.  Parliament have the ultimate say on their passage. “Regulatory flexibility” would govern the issue of services; “strong reciprocal commitments related to open and free trade” would characterise UK-EU relations.

Nuclear Weapons Have Been Used Quite Regularly

By Shane Quinn, July 10, 2018

The world famous American outlaws, John Dillinger and Alphonse Capone, would have quickly understood the thinking behind their country’s nuclear weapons policy. In the post-World War II era, successive United States governments have used nuclear weapons in a similar manner to armed gangsters who embark upon robbing a prestigious bank.

Secret US 2006 Government Document Reveals Plan to Destabilize Syria by Using Extremists, Muslim Brotherhood, Elections

By Brandon Turbeville, July 10, 2018

As the Syrian government makes massive gains across the country, many are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel for the Western destabilization and attempt to destroy the secular government of Syria by the United States and the West. However, it must be remembered that the goal to impose hegemony across the world by the Anglo-financier system is not some fly-by-night venture that cropped up in 2011 to be easily abandoned in 2018. Indeed, the plan to destroy Syria has spanned nearly four decades, only moving into high gear in 2011 under the Obama administration.

Video: Eva Bartlett on Syria, Israeli violence in Gaza

By Eva Bartlett and Michael Welch, July 09, 2018

In this  feature interview Eva Bartlett talks about residents in Douma who refute the accusations of chemical weapons attacks there, she talks about the kidnapping of civilians and the hoarding of food by terrorist factions, Western governments’ reprisals in April which affected cancer care facilities, and the toll of sanctions imposed on the country.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Regime Change, Brexit Challenges

Future of Brexit

July 10th, 2018 by Karsten Riise

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Possible UK scenarios

The weakness of Ms. May and the Conservative party can surely lead to a Labour victory in any snap election – but the UK has no time, not even for a quick election.

This may keep hardline Tory Brexit backbenchers from taking Ms. May down, even if the now resigned Brexiteers should push for it. But logic thinking is not the strong side of the Brexit-movement. Also possible is, that Brexit Tories will push for a Party leadership-change without calling for general elections – trying to replace Ms. May with Mr. Rees-Mogg, Mr. Johnson or a similar hardline character. All this is possible, but not the very most likely.

Mr. Davis and Mr. Johnson have lost face – but Ms. May has not gained strength, and ominously, Ms. May could not find any high-profile politicians to replace these two ministers, whose resignation was expected to come.

Most likely road to chaos for the UK

The most likely scenario is that Ms. May will stay, and she will try to paddle through a short time with her delusionary “Brexit-plan”, which has no definite content – and soon, Ms. May will hit the EU Iceberg.

When Titanic May hits the Iceberg, the UK may likely already later in 2018 run into one of the worst thinkable situations at the moment: A “no-deal” Brexit – real-life prospects of the UK society coming to a paralysis, a stand-still – constitutional crises with Scotland and Northern Ireland – London government disintegration – and chaotic snap elections.

When a moral, legal, economic and physical chaos of a type never seen before in history descends on the UK for real, many die-hard Brexiteers will remain unmoved… but a few UK opinions may change in one or two other corners.

Labour may win a chaos-election, declared maybe 2018, carried out early 2019, on a ticket to say either stay in the Customs Union, and even run a new Brexit-vote to reverse the “Leave” decision. Mr. Cameron may even return as Tory leader with the same ticket: Stay in the Customs Union, or even reverse the Brexit-vote.

Scotland and Northern Ireland may win big-time if they play hard in a likely scenario – which means that the EU in the future will be even stronger in relation not just to member-states, but also as a supporter of self-governing parts inside member-states.

EU wins – every time

In a long range of EU “crises” (Euro, Brexit, 5-Star etc.etc.), the doom of the EU has been pronounced. Every time, the EU comes out even stronger.

The EU is needed – each time Europe at large realizes the consequences of it falling apart, they prefer to strengthen it.

*

Karsten Riise is Master of Science (Econ) from Copenhagen Business School and has university degree in Spanish Culture and Languages from University of Copenhagen. Former senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of Mercedes-Benz in Denmark and Sweden with a responsibility of US Dollars 1 billion. At time of appointment, the youngest and the first non-German in that top-position within Mercedes-Benz’ worldwide sales organization.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Britain’s prime minister has been fighting a valiant, losing battle to rescue British relations with Iran in the wake of US President Donald Trump’s reckless attempts to wreck them.

But last week Theresa May was dealt a devastating blow to her authority after several Tory MPs defied her by going to Paris for a meeting designed to promote regime change inside Iran. This event is the latest sign that the prime minister and her foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, are facing a mutiny over Iran.

No regime change

Former cabinet minister Theresa Villiers was among senior Tories who travelled to Paris last week to hear Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York and Trump’s highly influential lawyer, call for the downfall of the Iranian government.

This meeting was a direct defiance of British government policy, which aims to save the Iran nuclear deal intact, and is against engineering a change of government in Iran. Indeed, Johnson assured Parliament in May that

“I do not believe that regime change in Tehran is the objective that we should be seeking.”

Three Tory MPs – along with one Labour MP – travelled to the event, organised by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a front organisation for Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organisation (MEK), once listed by the US as a terror organisation.

There is no question that these reflect a powerful and vocal body of sentiment inside the Conservative Party.

This has been clear ever since the House of Commons debate on Iran on 9 May. The overwhelming majority of Conservative MPs favoured Trump’s policy of dismantling the JCPOA – and condemned May’s policy of keeping it. The overwhelming majority of speakers (I calculate 19) in the debate spoke out against the JCPOA, and only five were explicitly in favour.

Those opposing the JCPOA included former defence secretary Michael Fallon and former cabinet minister Stephen Crabb. Former leader Iain Duncan Smith also spoke out against the deal in a Commons debate later in May.

Troubling questions

These interventions raise troubling questions about the judgment and the allegiance of Tory backbenchers. So yesterday I approached the three Tory MPs who attended last weekend’s conference in Paris with a series of questions.

I asked them: who paid for and authorised their attendance at the MEK conference? Why as a signatory for the JCPOA are members of the current government pushing for the toppling of a signatory nation? Is it the government’s policy to pursue regime change in Iran? Do they think the MEK actually have popular legitimacy in Iran?

Image result for Matthew Offord

There was no reply from any of them. Tory MP Matthew Offord‘s office even hung up the phone on MEE rather than answer legitimate questions.

Then I asked the Conservative Party’s central office if they knew about and had given permission for the Tory MPs to attend. Once again – no response. A wall of silence from all involved. The support inside the Tory party for the MEK looks like a sign of a party that has taken leave of its senses.

Here is an organisation with a proven history of terrorism, including against Western interests. Though founded by the husband and wife team of Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, the MEK reportedly forces members to divorce and give up their children to foster care so as to avoid the distraction of familial love.

It has other characteristics of a cult.

For instance, former members also describe participating in regular public confessions of their sexual fantasies. The clear ambition of last week’s meeting was to use the MEK as a vehicle to bring down the current government in Iran.

No coherent plan

This conference in Paris comes against a menacing international background. The Trump administration is working flat out to destabilise Iran through the installation of brutal economic sanctions. Some observers believe the conduct of the US is very similar to the CIA destabilisation campaign aimed at Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953.

The CIA then at least had a clear alternative future in mind for Iran – restoration of the shah under American tutelage. In American terms, this policy was a success for the next two decades. Trump’s people have no coherent plan for Iran.

The cultivation of the MEK – an opposition group based outside Iran and thought to be supported by a rackety coalition of international backers including Saudi Arabia – has strong echoes of Ahmed Chalabi‘s Iraqi National Congress in the run-up the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Chalabi was hugely influential in convincing the neo-conservative backers of the Iraq invasion that he had strong support inside Iraq and could turn the country into a model state. He was proved wrong.

Giuliani boasted how Trump had “turned his back on that very dangerous nuclear agreement with Iran”. He further boasted that recent popular protests inside Iran have been orchestrated from outside the country, insisting that they “are not happening spontaneously”.

And he ended his speech exclaiming:

“Next year, at this time, I want us to have this convention in Tehran!”

Ominously, last year’s chief speaker at the Paris conference was John Bolton, one of the most eloquent advocates of the Iraq invasion, who has now become Trump’s national security adviser. This means that Trump has decided to repeat – in a larger and more dangerous country – all the errors of American policy in Afghanistan and Iraq.

He intends to hand over Iran to politicians with no democratic legitimacy – and no more loyalty to the United States and Western values than America’s former protégés, the Taliban and al-Qaeda. British MPs should be ashamed of helping him.

*

Peter Oborne won best commentary/blogging in 2017 and was named freelancer of the year in 2016 at the Online Media Awards for articles he wrote for Middle East Eye. He also was British Press Awards Columnist of the Year 2013. He resigned as chief political columnist of the Daily Telegraph in 2015. His books include The Triumph of the Political Class, The Rise of Political Lying, and Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran.


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.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: Eran Etzion, a former Israeli deputy national security adviser (Source: PressTV)

Former Israeli deputy national security adviser Eran Etzion has warned Tel Aviv “not to become entangled with Iran directly” as he expressed alarm over frictions between the two sides in Syria.   

“Something dramatic is happening in Syria: For the first time, there is direct military friction between Israel and Iran,” Israel’s Haaretz newspaper quoted Etzion as saying.

“There is now a higher probability than ever before of deterioration into an open war, which could take all kinds of different forms,” he added.

An Israeli airstrike against the T-4 airbase in Syria’s Homs Province on April 9 killed more than a dozen people, including seven Iranian military advisers. Iran has pledged that it would punish Israel for the deadly air raid.

“[Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu is constantly harping that our goal is to remove the Iranians from all of Syria, and everyone involved is echoing him. That goal is simply not within our power, and insistence on it is liable to generate a war in what is a very unstable environment, involving Iranians, pro-Iranian militias and Hezbollah, with Turkey also meddling,” he added.

Over the past few years, Israel has frequently attacked military targets inside Syria in an attempt to prop up terrorist groups that have been suffering defeats at the hands of Syrian government forces.

Tel Aviv has also been providing weapons to anti-Damascus militants as well as medical treatment to the Takfiri elements wounded in Syria.

Iran has been offering military advisory support to Syria at the request of the Damascus government, enabling its army to speed up its gains on various fronts against terror outfits.

Etzion said that

“if a war between Israel and Hezbollah is something we haven’t yet experienced, then a direct war between Israel and Iran is something I don’t want to imagine.”

Asked who is stronger Iran or Israel, he said,

“The question is how you measure strength. There’s a key term called ‘strategic depth,’ which the Iranians used not long ago, precisely in the context of this friction.”

“A senior Iranian figure said that Israel should be careful, because it has no strategic depth. You really have to go to the basics and look at the geography, the demography and the history. Israel possesses military power, but Iran has tremendous geography, a population of 80 million and a history going back thousands of years. It’s a civilization.”

Referring primarily to the 2009-2013 period, when the idea of an Israeli assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities was under discussion, Etzion said he was very concerned.

“I dealt with that subject a great deal both in the National Security Council and when I was in the Foreign Ministry,” he said.

“There are things I can’t talk about, but if my wife were sitting here, she would tell you how many sleepless nights I had. And not because I was in the office working. Simply from deep concern.”

Iran nuclear deal ‘not bad’

Elsewhere in his remarks, he stressed that the nuclear deal signed between Iran and the P5+1 group of countries in 2015 was “not bad”, adopting a stance which is contrary to that of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“The agreement, in my view, as is the view of the overwhelming majority of experts on the subject, is not bad. Netanyahu labeled it a bad agreement and launched a war around the headline, ‘Better no agreement than a bad agreement.’ But the good agreement, in which Iran abandons its entire nuclear capability and closes all its nuclear studies faculties, etc., just doesn’t exist.”

In May, US President Donald Trump announced Washington’s pullout from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and vowed to reinstate nuclear sanctions on Iran. Netanyahu hailed Trump’s decision, calling the accord a “recipe for disaster.”

Under the deal, which entered into force in January 2016, Iran agreed to limit some aspects of its peaceful nuclear program in exchange for the removal of all nuclear-related sanctions.


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.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Three years ago on 26 June, a 23-year-old Tunisian armed with a machine gun mowed down 38 tourists at a beach hotel in the resort of Port El Kantaoui. Thirty British tourists were among the dead in the worst attack on Britons since the July 2005 London bombings and Tunisia’s deadliest attack ever.

The atrocity was perpetrated by an adherent of the Islamic State (IS) group, which claimed responsibility. But, in a broader context, it is another instance of terrorism arising partly from UK foreign policies for which British governments remain unaccountable.

‘Two guys from England’

The murderer, Seifeddine Rezgui, an engineering student, had been trained in neighbouring Libya, reportedly visiting there several times in late 2014 and early 2015.

Image result for Seifeddine Rezgui

Seifeddine Rezgui

Training was conducted by both IS and Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda-linked Tunisian terrorist group in camps near the Libyan city of Sabratha, 60 miles over the border from Tunisia. Rezgui is said to have possessed only 120 bullets for his attack, suggesting he had become an expert shooter from his training at these camps.

It is likely that Rezgui was trained in the same camp complex in Libya as Salman Abedi, the Manchester-based terrorist who blew up 22 people at a pop concert in May 2017. A study for the Combating Terrorism Centre at the West Point military institution notes that Abedi built up connections to IS in Sabratha from where the Tunisia attack was staged.

Intelligence officials told the New York Times that Abedi met with IS members of the Katibat al-Battar al-Libi faction of IS several times in Sabratha. Other sources informed the Independent’s Kim Sengupta that Rezgui had told friends that “two guys from England” were at the same camp as him in Sabratha.

Rezgui and Abedi had something else in common. They both reportedly went to Libya during the 2011 uprising against Gaddafi, a British-backed NATO war in which Islamist militias essentially acted as NATO’s boots on the ground.

The British also appear to have facilitated the despatch to Libya of British-based former fighters of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a militant force which the UK had previously covertly funded to assassinate Gaddafi.

In 2011, Ramadan Abedi, Salman’s father, who had also been a member of the LIFG, reportedly took his three sons to Tunisia, where he worked providing logistics for rebels in western Libya before joining the fight against Gaddafi.

A safe haven

The camps near Sabratha where Rezgui and Abedi were trained in 2014-15 were full of weapons captured from Gaddafi’s arsenals during the 2011 war. Journalist Marie Colvin, who was later killed covering the Syria war, visited a camp outside al-Ajaylet, near Sabratha, in September 2011 and reported that it housed “hundreds of flame-throwers, napalm, detonators, crates of assault rifles, thousands of anti-personnel and anti-tank mines”.

By the time the Tunisia terrorist attack occurred in June 2015, the Telegraph’s Richard Spencer reported that the Sabratha camps still housed “whole arsenals of small arms, surface-to-air (SAM) missiles, semtex and other explosives and landmines” which “disappeared from under the noses of the allies, led by Britain and France, who won Libya’s civil war in 2011.”

Spencer added that in 2011

“the SAS was there, so were the Americans and French and a whole cast of monitors and weapons experts. But they seem to have concentrated on tracing the SAMs, as murky figures with lorries drove off the rest of the loot into the desert – despite warnings”.

These weapons ended up in the hands of Islamist militias.

A Twitter account linked to IS had forewarned of an attack in Tunisia a few months previously, saying:

“To the Christians planning their summer vacations in Tunisia, we cant accept you in our land while your jets keep killing our Muslim Brothers in Iraq & Sham [Syria] (sic)”.

During the attack, a Tunisian witness said Rezgui ordered him to get out of the way as he was not aiming at locals but at “British, French”.

The British overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011 helped turn Libya into a safe haven and base for militants and jihadists. After the Syrian war broke out, Libya became a training and facilitation hub for Tunisian and other fighters on their way to Syria to join the likes of IS or Al-Nusra Front, the al-Qaeda affiliate, to fight the Assad regime there. The first sign that Tunisian militants were being trained in camps in Libya was in the spring of 2012.

Consequences of Britain’s Libya war

At this point, the US and UK, far from doing their utmost to prevent militants heading to Syria, in effect sided with them in a huge covert operation with their Arab allies to bankroll and arm militant forces opposed to Assad.

By 2014, the US and UK began waging all-out war on IS in Syria and Iraq. As militants were forced out of these two countries, many went to Libya instead where an IS chapter had been formed. Libyan-trained militants went on to conduct numerous terrorist atrocities in Germany, Italy, France and Belgium.

Since 2015, IS has been forced out of Sabratha and some other Libyan cities due to US air strikes on its training bases, including those in Sabratha. But by then the genie was already out of the bottle: this European-wide terrorism was partly enabled by David Cameron’s disastrous war in Libya and the UK’s and its allies’ covert operation in Syria.

Three years ago, Theresa May, then home secretary, laid flowers on the Tunisian beach where the Britons had been murdered. David Cameron led a national minute’s silence for the victims and promised a “full spectrum response” to the atrocity.

But Britain is still waiting for this response to include a comprehensive public enquiry into Britain’s Libya war of 2011 and what has followed from this.

*

Mark Curtis is a historian and analyst of UK foreign policy and international development and the author of six books, the latest being an updated edition of Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam. 

A Neoconservative Plan for Punishing Iran

July 10th, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

President Donald Trump makes a point of insisting that he has nothing against the Iranian people and is only interested in opposing what he regards as the dangerous activities of their government, but his own record in office belies that claim. It is clear that what he is trying to do is put pressure on the people of Iran to rise up and force a change in government, a process otherwise referred to as regime change. Indeed, if one is to believe Trump confidant Rudy Giuliani, the White House is now committed to “bring down the Iranian regime.” He added that

“The collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran is around the corner.”

Giuliani was addressing a Paris meeting of the National Council of Resistance of Iran at the end of June, the political front group for the terrorist Mujahideen-e-Khalq, for which he has been a frequent paid speaker. This dream of an abrupt transition in government is a fantasy project that is widely held within neoconservative and pro-Israel circles in Washington, to include Giuliani, and it very often is invoked as part of what is sometimes referred to as the “Obama betrayal,” which posits that if President Barack Obama had actively supported so-called “green” reformers in the Iranian election of 2013, they might have actually won. That supposition greatly inflates the actual support for the reformers at that time and also currently, confusing a largely civil rights movement with a unified political party.

Obama then went on to sign the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement with Iran, which has been a target of joint Israeli and neocon wrath ever since. Trump, of course, has risen to the bait and has withdrawn the United States from the deal, also reintroducing both general and targeted sanctions as well as seeking to ban the sale of Iranian oil worldwide.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case, Trump and his advisers, certainly to include National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and Senior Adviser for Policy Stephen Miller, are engaging in the wrong tactics to bring about any what might reasonably be regarded positive changes to moderate the grip of Iran’s Supreme Religious Council and are instead hardening domestic popular support for the government through the threats and sanctions which ultimately accomplish little more than punishing the Iranian people.

Oddly, the White House seems unaware of the fact that Iran is neither Libya nor Iraq. It has a strong and historic national identity that means that it does and will resist being bullied by outside powers, including the “leader of the free world” United States. The neocon and pro-Israel script that has evidently taken control of Trump pushes all the wrong buttons as it basically employs an increasing number and severity of sanctions to seek to wreck the economy and create discord in Iran that will eventually bring people out into the streets in large numbers. That means in practice using not only sanctions that selectively targeting “bad guys” like the Revolutionary Guards but also benign institutions that exist to maintain social stability inside the country.

Reports from inside Iran suggest that the renewed and additional sanctions are already hurting the Iranian people while at the same time having little impact on the government commitment to remain in Syria, which is the principal bone of contention at the moment vis-à-vis the joint U.S./Israeli/Saudi grossly exaggerated and self-serving assessment of what Iran may or may not be doing to destabilize the Middle East.

Two organizations which have recently come under sustained attack by the neocons and their allies are the “Execution of Imam Khomeini’s Order” (EIKO) and its associated Barakat Foundation. The EIKO’s principal mission is to help poor families in Iran and to perform other charitable works, but it has been assailed as a major economic resource controlled by the Supreme Religious Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s office, which misrepresents how the foundation is organized and functions.

Leading the charge against EIKO, inevitably, has been renowned neocon Canadian import and Iranophobe Mark Dubowitz, Chief Executive of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), who has described how the Iranian leadership controls a vast business empire which must be targeted with U.S. sanctions to punish the government and strip it of the resources available to make mischief.

This campaign, spearheaded by Dubowitz and his associate Saeed Ghasseminejad, has been going on since Trump was elected, with the folks at FDD confident they had a friend in the White House.

Other outlets in the pro-neocon-inclined and friendly to Israel media have also picked up on the theme that Iran must be the target of what amounts to economic warfare. The National Interest recently ran an article advocating the imposition of oil sanctions on Iran in general while also targeting EIKO in particular in order to “change Iran’s behavior,” which is presumed by the authors to be very bad though without any real explanation of why that is so.

And the U.S. Congress is also in on the act. As is nearly always the case, the U.S. House of Representative’s Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s subcommittee on National Security sought expert testimony on how to punish Iran but only looked for speakers who were inclined to take a hard line. They received that kind of enlightenment from the FDD’s own Richard Goldberg, who is hardly a disinterested observer on the subject.

Goldberg begins by making his case for bipartisan ire directed against Tehran, gushing about how “[he] had the privilege to work with many talented people – Democrats and Republicans – who shared a passion for keeping America and our allies safe from the long list of threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Together, we put forward numerous bipartisan bills to increase the pressure on Iran. …It is my sincere hope that we can find a way to resuscitate the bipartisan spirit that once infused this important national security issue.”

Goldberg, who is a bit vague on exactly what kind of “long list of threats” Iran represents, was senior foreign policy adviser to Israel-firster hawk former Senator Mark Kirk of Illinois. He celebrates in his FDD bio how “[he] was instrumental in the deployment of a U.S. missile defense radar to the Negev Desert – the first-ever full-time deployment of U.S. forces in Israel. In the Senate, Rich emerged as a leading architect of the toughest sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran. He was the lead Republican negotiator for three rounds of sanctions targeting the Central Bank of Iran, the SWIFT financial messaging service and entire sectors of the Iranian economy.”

There has been some pushback against the war-by-sanctions approach currently being advanced by the Trump Administration. Robert Fontina of Counterpunch has rejected the depiction of EIKO as anything but a charitable foundation. The truth is that EIKO engages in major social projects, including rural poverty alleviation, empowering women, home and school building, and provision of healthcare. American sanctions against it and similar entities hit ordinary Iranians’ lives by producing food insecurity while also restricting the supplies of needed medications. Ahmad Noroozi of the Barakat Foundation claims that numerous Iranians have already been affected by U.S.-initiated sanctions directed against his country, restricting access to cancer treatments and other pharmaceuticals. And it is all aimed at fomenting social unrest and ultimately regime change.

Iranian writer Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich, no friend of the Iranian government, has declared that American sanctions directed against the Iranian economy and people are little more than “sanctioned terrorism.” Her assessment is undeniably correct.

It is indeed disturbing that the abandonment of the rule of law by the Trump Administration and its allies in the media has meant that Washington is resorting more and more to sanctions as an extreme form of punishment in order to enforce its geopolitical demands. Countries that oppose Washington’s policies are now routinely subjected to financial and trade penalties. Cuba, North Korea, and Iran have recently been joined by Russia and Syria as targets of the U.S. Treasury Department. Even America’s European allies and friends are being threatened if they seek to buy Iranian oil or cooperate with Russian energy initiatives.

The sad fact is that the pretense of U.S. global leadership now consists of a basket of new “rules” that are both arbitrary and basically illegal supported by pretexts that are essentially fabricated. Consider the frequent fallacious designation of Iran as “the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism” and the repeated false assertions from U.S. and Israeli government sources that Tehran is secretly building a nuclear bomb. Trump has become effectively the mouthpiece of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, with the latter calling the shots. Shortly after Trump had announced American withdrawal from JCPOA, Israel mounted a series of deadly air strikes against Syria, specifically targeting Iranian military personnel present by invitation in the country to fight ISIS and other terrorist groups. It was an incident that could have rapidly escalated into a broader war, which was clearly the Israeli intention.

There are deadly consequences to following the Israeli and Saudi lead into a possible major war with Iran. If sanctions produce desperation inside Iran, an apparent breakdown in order could easily invite a hypocritical U.S. and Israeli “humanitarian” intervention, possibly escalating into an international conflict, something that the White House appears to not understand. As is often the case, the Trump Administration has not developed sufficient maturity to appreciate that if one pushes hard against a certain country or group of countries there will be an equally strong reaction, and the results might not be pretty. Punishing the Iranian people without any real understanding of what might emerge in pursuit of nebulous political objectives just might not be a good idea.

*

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.

Soft Brexits and Hard Realities: The Tory Revolt

July 10th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

It was meant to be an away day at Chequers in total hermetic isolation, an effort on the part of UK Prime Minister Theresa May to sketch some common ground in a cabinet that has struggled to agree on much regarding the imminent departure of Britain from the European Union.  The clock is ticking, for many ominously, with the departure date slated for March 29, 2019. 

The initial signs seemed good: a consensus had, initially, been reached by all brands of Brexiter. Chief Brexit minister David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had, in principle, come on board, though there were mutterings of dissatisfaction at the PM’s new plan.  At least for a time, collective cabinet responsibility had been satisfied.

The plan focused on, in the words of the Chequers statement, a proposal establishing “a free trade area for goods. This would avoid friction at the border, protect jobs and livelihoods, and ensure both sides meet their commitment to Northern Ireland and Ireland through the overall future relationship.”  Such a vision free of friction would entail maintaining “a common rulebook for all goods including agri-food” with a stress on harmonising UK laws with those of the EU.  Parliament have the ultimate say on their passage. “Regulatory flexibility” would govern the issue of services; “strong reciprocal commitments related to open and free trade” would characterise UK-EU relations.

The issue of the role played by EU courts, always trouble for the fanatical leavers, would continue to play a part in so far as UKcourts would heed “the common rulebook”.  A joint institutional framework would ensure consistent interpretation and application of such rules, but “the supremacy of UK courts” would be assured.

As for the issue most worrying to the market types amongst the Tories, the proposal suggested “a new Facilitated Customs Arrangement that would remove the need for customs checks and controls between the UK and the EU as if a combined customs territory.”  This would leave Britain to have its own seat at the World Trade Organisation and strike trade deals with other states, another cherry for the harsh Brexiters.

The populist element was also considered: free movement, a central EU principle, would end, but the UK would seek a principle of ensuring that UK and EU citizens would still be permitted to visit, work and live in respective jurisdictions with ease.  Large annual payments to the EU, those so heavily stigmatised during the 2016 referendum campaign, would also end, though this would not terminate specific contributions to areas of “joint action”.

It did not take long for the ruptures within government ranks to begin.  After the discomforting unity came the blood filled flood; first three resignations, all associated with the “hard” variety of Brexit lore.  The most prominent of them was Davis himself who had shown various, and variable colourings of competence during his time in that newly created position in the aftermath of the 2016 referendum.  He had been marginalised of late, the Prime Minister evidently feeling that the issue was simply too important to leave to him. More to the point, he had threatened some five times to resign since November 2017, making him seem like a purveyor of empty threats.

With Davis’ exit went deputy Steve Baker and junior Brexit minister Suella Braverman.

“The general direction of policy,” came a liberated Davis in his letter of resignation, “will leave us in at best a weak negotiating position, and possibly an inescapable one.”

Parliamentary control, he opined, would be “illusory rather than real”.  The “common rule book” policy would effectively hand “control of large swathes of our economy to the EU and is certainly not returning control of our laws in any real sense.”

On Monday, just minutes before May’s address to members of parliament, Downing Street announced that Johnson was also making a dash for it.  His resignation letter was certainly heavy with opportunistic John Bull flavour; Britain, he charged, risked heading “for the status of a colony”.

The PM, he accused, was “sending our vanguard into battle with the white flags fluttering above them” in preparations for a “semi-Brexit”.  “It now seems that the opening bid of our negotiations involves accepting that we are not actually going to be able to make our own laws.”

There is not much sincerity all around.  Individuals like Environment Minister Michael Gove are backing May for the moment, thinking that a streak of sound pragmatism runs through this flawed plan.  But anyone having Gove’s backing is bound to feel the sheath of a blade, if not the blade itself, at some point.

Those remaining on May’s rocked ship have become apocalyptic in a different way, suddenly seeing the EU as less problematic than their opponents opposite the Parliamentary chamber.

“If we don’t pull together,” went a Cabinet minister to The Guardian, “we risk the election of Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister.”

Never mind Europe, went this particular line of reasoning: Labour might just walk in.

Within British politics, May’s Friday product does not seem to be flying well, though it had taken off in a fashion.  Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, taking the Scottish angle on this, suggested that the plan had started to unravel early, though it had a kernel of good sense.

“It simply underlines the fact that the UK is leaving the EU (which I wish it wasn’t) the only workable solution is to stay in single market and customs union.”

Then comes the most obvious point that would render this whole exercise drily spent and academic: Will the EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier and his crew have a bar of it?  There is, superficially, too much of the Swiss solution to this, too much of the “give me your market” but spare me the regulatory trade-off.  Having expressed his dislike for such a solution in the past, it is clear that May is facing the toughest of sells.   The EU apparatchiks still wish to make an example of Britain, a form of deterrence against others who wish to take the exiting step in the name of reclaiming sovereignty.

But there is something striking about the latest chapter in the ever ballooning Brexit script.  The Chequers statement is a product of a person who has not only survived, but shredded the hard Brexit base within her cabinet.  With Davis and Johnson gone into the dangerous ether of political disruption, the issue is whether the positions will firm up or loosen.  Till then, and even after, few sane individuals will want May’s job.

*

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]

Nuclear Weapons Have Been Used Quite Regularly

July 10th, 2018 by Shane Quinn

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

The world famous American outlaws, John Dillinger and Alphonse Capone, would have quickly understood the thinking behind their country’s nuclear weapons policy. In the post-World War II era, successive United States governments have used nuclear weapons in a similar manner to armed gangsters who embark upon robbing a prestigious bank.

Dillinger, for instance, in his attempts to steal money from various vaults across America waved a gun at anybody foolish enough to raise their voice. Yet Dillinger – who was noted for having particularly high intelligence – would have been loath to fire his weapon, most often a Colt .38 Super automatic or a Colt Monitor, unless he felt clear reason to do so. Dillinger once said to the terrified employees and customers of a bank,

“Now nobody get nervous, you ain’t got nothing to fear. You’re being robbed by the John Dillinger gang, that’s the best there is!”

Despite his global fame and notoriety, Dillinger was charged with just a single homicide in his short life – and even that came during a shoot-out, in 1934, with a police officer in Indiana who opened fire on Dillinger first, striking his bullet-proof vest, before the outlaw responded. During his reign, Dillinger is estimated to have stolen about $500,000, today worth more than nine million dollars.

This sum is a pittance by comparison to the money pilfered by corrupt bankers and developers across the West, who escaped being branded with “Public Enemy Number One” status, unlike Dillinger or Capone. Nor did they have waves of armed policemen and FBI agents hunting them either; in fact, in many cases the white-collar, business class criminals are let off with a rap on the knuckles, with the general population forking out to gloss over the mess. Such is the way the world works.

The effective use of guns in targeting banks, despite the weapons very seldom being fired, draws comparisons with America’s nuclear war strategy. The widely held belief that nuclear bombs have been used only twice in human history is something of a myth, to say the least. Nuclear weapons are utilized quite regularly by methods which would have been easily recognized by Dillinger, Capone, Pretty Boy Floyd, Jesse James and other household name criminals.

Quite similar to how the Dillinger gang cowed bank workers and customers with their guns, successive US governments have threatened to unleash nuclear weapons upon disobedient states, in order to get what they want. Award winning author and military analyst Daniel Ellsberg,  explains that,

“For a certain type of gun owner, getting their way in such situations without having to pull the trigger is the best use of the gun. It is why they have it, why they keep it loaded and ready to hand. All American presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have acted on that motive, at times, for owning nuclear weapons: The incentive to be able to threaten to initiate nuclear attacks if certain demands are not met”.

Ellsberg lists over two dozen instances during which nuclear weapons were used by successive US administrations dating back to Harry Truman (1945-1953) – the same president who authorized the criminal bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then lauded the decision afterwards.

This included the threat to drop more atomic bombs on Japan should she not surrender in the aftermath of the Nagasaki attack, on 9 August 1945. Emperor Hirohito announced Japan’s capitulation just six days later, on 15 August, which came as a surprise to many in the Japanese military, who were eager to continue fighting.

For a second time, in June 1948, at the outset of the Berlin Blockade, the nuclear threat was used by president Truman when he deployed “atomic capable” B-29 heavy bombers to US bases in Britain and Germany. The Soviets, who had no atomic bombs at this point, heeded the warnings and refused to challenge the blockade by the air, which the Truman administration ranked as a success.

For a third time, on 30 November 1950, Truman threatened to unleash atomic bombs after Communist China entered the Korean War. The Americans had suffered the “loss of China” in 1949 following a Mao Zedong-led revolution, an outcome that infuriated Truman in particular, who as a young man expressed his disregard for the “Chinaman”. Truman even declared during the press conference in late November 1950 that, “There has always been active consideration of its use”, referring to the atomic bomb. Words that ring true to the current day. The president was replying (very honestly) to the following question from a reporter, “Does that mean there is active consideration of the use of the atomic bomb?”

In 1953, president Dwight D. Eisenhower threatened China with atomic attacks in order to “maintain a settlement” in Korea. During the first Quemoy crisis (September 1954-May 1955), Eisenhower agreed to a last resort nuclear weapon usage against China, which was relayed to the Communist nation in various statements and military moves. It quickly led to the negotiated resolution of the armed conflict.

In 1956, Eisenhower’s vice-president Richard Nixon put forward “Diplomatic use of the Bomb” to warn the USSR against interfering in the Suez Crisis. Two years later, 1958, during the Lebanon Crisis Eisenhower sent a secret directive to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, to prepare nuclear attacks in preventing Iraq from moving into oil-rich Kuwait. Again in 1958, Eisenhower directed another covert message to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to attack China with nuclear weapons if the Chinese Communists invaded the Quemoy islands.

By the late 1950s, nuclear attacks had come to have a more sinister meaning, all kept secret from the general populations of course. The weapons were no longer of the atomic variety, but had been “upgraded” to hydrogen bombs, some of which are a thousand times more powerful than those dropped on Japan. They were, and are, explosive enough to incinerate the world.

As the postwar years advanced, the use of nuclear weapons through intimidation and threats continued abreast. During the October 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the world came perilously close to a terminal nuclear war between America and the USSR. The “most dangerous moment” was mainly due to the Kennedy administration’s hegemonic policies, including a failed 1961 invasion of Cuba and the perpetration of an extensive terrorist war against the Fidel Castro-led nation, called “Operation Mongoose” – one of the key factors that resulted in the missile crisis.

Another crucial element was Castro’s fear of a second US invasion which, by no coincidence, was scheduled for October 1962. Soviet president Nikita Khrushchev, who respected Castro, sent his nuclear missiles to Cuba genuinely hoping to prevent the Cuban revolution from being terminated. With the American nuclear threats escalating Khrushchev withdrew his missiles, but not without further possibility of nuclear war.

In 1968, president Lyndon B. Johnson was advised by his Joint Chiefs of Staff of possible nuclear weapon attacks to defend US Marines surrounded at Khe Sanh, South Vietnam. During 1969 and the early 1970s, president Richard Nixon put forward the potential usage of nuclear bombs against the North Vietnamese, as relayed to the Communists by Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor.

In October 1973, president Nixon put Strategic Air Command on high alert in order to deter the Soviets from intervening in the Arab-Israeli War. The US outlined to the Soviets their willingness to oppose them by force, including risking full-scale nuclear war that would have destroyed the earth. The USSR heeded the warnings.

In August 1980, during the Jimmy Carter presidency, the possible imminent use of “tactical” nuclear weapons against the USSR was relayed if the Communist superpower invaded Iran – as was conveyed in secret, and explicitly, by the Americans to the Soviet leadership. In late 1979, the USSR had intervened in neighboring Afghanistan, disastrously so as it would turn out.

Gulf War Photobox.jpg

Clockwise from top: USAF F-15Es, F-16s, and a F-15C flying over burning Kuwaiti oil wells; British troops from the Staffordshire Regiment in Operation Granby; camera view from a Lockheed AC-130; Highway of Death; M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

In January 1991, the George H. W. Bush administration put forward serious nuclear threats against Saddam Hussein‘s Iraq, during the US-led “Operation Desert Storm”. Hussein had, unwisely, disobeyed his Western masters by invading oil-rich Kuwait in August 1990.

In 1995, the Bill Clinton government forwarded secret, and explicit, nuclear threats to North Korea with regard the Communist state’s nuclear reactor program. The year before, president Clinton had been on the brink of ordering a conventional land invasion of North Korea, which was flattened by the US military in the early 1950s.

The other examples that Ellsberg outlines are, as he explains, “most of the actual nuclear crises that can now be documented for the last half of the twentieth century”. The full list is even longer.

The English historian and author Edward P. Thompson wrote that,

“It has never been true that nuclear war is ‘unthinkable’. It has been thought and the thought has been put into effect”.

Should a deliberate or unanticipated event trigger the American (or Russian) nuclear arsenal, it would result in the human species almost being wiped out, due to the ensuing nuclear winter resulting in an irreversible global famine.

*

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


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

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

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

As the Syrian government makes massive gains across the country, many are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel for the Western destabilization and attempt to destroy the secular government of Syria by the United States and the West. However, it must be remembered that the goal to impose hegemony across the world by the Anglo-financier system is not some fly-by-night venture that cropped up in 2011 to be easily abandoned in 2018. Indeed, the plan to destroy Syria has spanned nearly four decades, only moving into high gear in 2011 under the Obama administration.

While the destabilization initiative did begin in earnest under Obama’s watch, the truth is that previous administration were also heavily involved in the planning of Syria’s destruction.

For instance, in 2006, TIME revealed a leaked two-page document circulating amongst key figures in the Bush administration that openly stated that the U.S. was “supporting regular meetings of internal and diaspora Syrian activists” in Europe. The document made no bones about expressing hope that “these meetings will facilitate a more coherent strategy and plan of actions for all anti-Assad activists.”

The document also stated, according to TIME, that Syria’s legislative elections which were going to take place in March of 2007, “provide a potentially galvanizing issue for . . . critics of the Assad regime.” The document expressed an open desire to take advantage of that opportunity by suggesting an “election monitoring” plan where “internet accessible materials will be available for printing and dissemination by activists inside the country [Syria] and neighboring countries.”

The document also advocates for providing money to at least one Syrian politician who was allegedly intending to run in the election against Bashar al-Assad. The document also called for the funding of and implementation of “voter education campaigns” and “public opinion polling,” the first being “tentatively scheduled in early 2007.”

As TIME reported in December 2006 in the article “Syria In Bush’s Cross Hairs,

American officials say the U.S. government has had extensive contacts with a range of anti-Assad groups in Washington, Europe and inside Syria. To give momentum to that opposition, the U.S. is giving serious consideration to the election-monitoring scheme proposed in the document, according to several officials. The proposal has not yet been approved, in part because of questions over whether the Syrian elections will be delayed or even cancelled. But one U.S. official familiar with the proposal said: “You are forced to wonder whether we are now trying to destabilize the Syrian government.”

Some critics in Congress and the Administration say that such a plan, meant to secretly influence a foreign government, should be legally deemed a “covert action,” which by law would then require that the White House inform the intelligence committees on Capitol Hill. Some in Congress would undoubtedly raise objections to this secret use of publicly appropriated funds to promote democracy.

The fact that “critics in Congress and the administration” believed that the plan should be labeled a “covert action” means clearly that the plan was kept from members of Congress legally obligated to be informed of the plan. That doesn’t mean that certain members of Congress or all members of the “intelligence committees” were not aware of the plan but that these individuals were simply never officially informed of the plan’s existence.

Khaddam, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, with Prince Saud al Faisal, Ronald Reagan, and George Shultz in 1981 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Nevertheless, TIME reports that the document advanced a proposal to fund the destabilization efforts through the National Salvation Front and, of course, the Muslim Brotherhood. TIME reported,

The proposal says part of the effort would be run through a foundation operated by Amar Abdulhamid, a Washington-based member of a Syrian umbrella opposition group known as the National Salvation Front (NSF). The Front includes the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization that for decades supported the violent overthrow of the Syrian government, but now says it seeks peaceful, democratic reform. (In Syria, however, membership in the Brotherhood is still punishable by death.) Another member of the NSF is Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former high-ranking Syrian official and Assad family loyalist who recently went into exile after a political clash with the regime. Representatives of the National Salvation Front, including Abdulhamid, were accorded at least two meetings earlier this year at the White House, which described the sessions as exploratory. Since then, the National Salvation Front has said it intends to open an office in Washington in the near future.

“Democracy promotion” has been a focus of both Democratic and Republican administrations, but the Bush White House has been a particular booster since 9/11. Iran contra figure Elliott Abrams was put in charge of the effort at the National Security Council. Until recently, Elizabeth Cheney, daughter of the Vice President, oversaw such work at the State Department. In the past, the U.S. has used support for “democracy building” to topple unfriendly dictators, including Serbia’s Slobodan Milosevic and Ukraine’s Vladimir Kuchma.

The plan to make “election monitoring” work to America’s benefit, the document states clearly that the plan to do so would have to be kept secret. It says, according to TIME, that “Any information regarding funding for domestic [Syrian] politicians for elections monitoring would have to be protected from public dissemination.”

TIME adds,

But American experts on “democracy promotion” consulted by TIME say it would be unwise to give financial support to a specific candidate in the election, because of the perceived conflict of interest. More ominously, an official familiar with the document explained that secrecy is necessary in part because Syria’s government might retaliate against anyone inside the country who was seen as supporting the U.S.-backed election effort. The official added that because the Syrian government fields a broad network of internal spies, it would almost certainly find out about the U.S. effort, if it hasn’t already. That could lead to the imprisonment of still more opposition figures.

Any American-orchestrated attempt to conduct such an election-monitoring effort could make a dialogue between Washington and Damascus — as proposed by the Iraq Study Group and several U.S. allies — difficult or impossible. The entire proposal could also be a waste of effort; Edward P. Djerejian, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria who worked on the Iraq Study Group report, says that Syria’s opposition is so fractured and weak that there is little to be gained by such a venture. “To fund opposition parties on the margins is a distraction at best,” he told TIME. “It will only impede the better option of engaging Syria on much more important, fundamental issues like Iraq, peace with Israel, and the dangerous situation in Lebanon.”

Others detect another goal for the proposed policy. “Ever since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Syria opposed, the Bush Administration has been looking for ways to squeeze the government in Damascus,” notes Joshua Landis, a Syria expert who is co-director of the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma. “Syria has appeared to be next on the Administration’s agenda to reform the greater Middle East.” Landis adds: “This is apparently an effort to gin up the Syrian opposition under the rubric of ‘democracy promotion’ and ‘election monitoring,’ but it’s really just an attempt to pressure the Syrian government” into doing what the U.S. wants. That would include blocking Syria’s border with Iraq so insurgents do not cross into Iraq to kill U.S. troops; ending funding of Hizballah and interference in Lebanese politics; and cooperating with the U.N. in the investigation of the assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri. Senior Syrian government officials are considered prime suspects in Hariri case.

According to the document, money for the “election-monitoring” proposal would be channeled through the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), a State Department program. TIME wrote,

According to MEPI’s website, the program passes out funds ranging between $100,000 and $1 million to promote education and women’s empowerment, as well as economic and political reform, part of a total allocation of $5 million for Syria that Congress supported earlier this year.

MEPI helps funnel millions of dollars every year to groups around the Middle East intent on promoting reforms. In the vast majority of cases, beneficiaries are publicly identified, as financial support is distributed through channels including the National Democratic Institute, a non-profit affiliated with the Democratic Party, and the International Republican Institute (IRI), which is linked to the G.O.P. In the Syrian case, the election-monitoring proposal identifies IRI as a “partner” — although the IRI website, replete with information about its democracy promotion elsewhere in the world, does not mention Syria. A spokesperson for IRI had no comment on what the organization might have planned or under way in Syria, describing the subject as “sensitive.”

U.S. foreign policy experts familiar with the proposal say it was developed by a “democracy and public diplomacy” working group that meets weekly at the State department to discuss Iran and Syria. Along with related working groups, it prepares proposals for the higher-level Iran Syria Operations Group, or ISOG, an inter-agency body that, several officials said, has had input from Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, deputy National Security Council advisor Elliott Abrams and representatives from the Pentagon, Treasury and U.S. intelligence. The State Department’s deputy spokesman, Thomas Casey, said the election-monitoring proposal had already been through several classified drafts, but that “the basic concept is very much still valid.”

A plan to destabilize Syria by means of funding political “opposition” as well as physical “opposition” in the form of Sunni Wahhabists and the Muslim Brotherhood is incredibly familiar. And it should be.

As journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in his article, “The Redirection,”,” in 2007,

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

“Extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” who are “hostile to America and sympathetic to al-Qaeda” are the definition of the so-called “rebels” turned loose on Syria in 2011. Likewise, the fact that both Iran and Hezbollah, who are natural enemies of al-Qaeda and such radical Sunni groups, are involved in the battle against ISIS and other related terrorist organizations in Syria proves the accuracy of the article on another level.

Hersh also wrote,

Image result for condoleezza rice syria

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (image on the right) said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public, however. The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.

. . . . . .

This time, the U.S. government consultant told me, Bandar and other Saudis have assured the White House that “they will keep a very close eye on the religious fundamentalists. Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs; it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”

. . . . . .

Fourth, the Saudi government, with Washington’s approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria. The Israelis believe that putting such pressure on the Assad government will make it more conciliatory and open to negotiations. Syria is a major conduit of arms to Hezbollah.

. . . . .

In January, after an outburst of street violence in Beirut involving supporters of both the Siniora government and Hezbollah, Prince Bandar flew to Tehran to discuss the political impasse in Lebanon and to meet with Ali Larijani, the Iranians’ negotiator on nuclear issues. According to a Middle Eastern ambassador, Bandar’s mission—which the ambassador said was endorsed by the White House—also aimed “to create problems between the Iranians and Syria.” There had been tensions between the two countries about Syrian talks with Israel, and the Saudis’ goal was to encourage a breach. However, the ambassador said, “It did not work. Syria and Iran are not going to betray each other. Bandar’s approach is very unlikely to succeed.”

. . . . . .

The Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, a branch of a radical Sunni movement founded in Egypt in 1928, engaged in more than a decade of violent opposition to the regime of Hafez Assad, Bashir’s father. In 1982, the Brotherhood took control of the city of Hama; Assad bombarded the city for a week, killing between six thousand and twenty thousand people. Membership in the Brotherhood is punishable by death in Syria. The Brotherhood is also an avowed enemy of the U.S. and of Israel. Nevertheless, Jumblatt said, “We told Cheney that the basic link between Iran and Lebanon is Syria—and to weaken Iran you need to open the door to effective Syrian opposition.”

. . . . .

There is evidence that the Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefitted the Brotherhood. The Syrian National Salvation Front is a coalition of opposition groups whose principal members are a faction led by Abdul Halim Khaddam, a former Syrian Vice-President who defected in 2005, and the Brotherhood. A former high-ranking C.I.A. officer told me, “The Americans have provided both political and financial support. The Saudis are taking the lead with financial support, but there is American involvement.” He said that Khaddam, who now lives in Paris, was getting money from Saudi Arabia, with the knowledge of the White House. (In 2005, a delegation of the Front’s members met with officials from the National Security Council, according to press reports.) A former White House official told me that the Saudis had provided members of the Front with travel documents.

Hersh also spoke with Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Shi’ite Lebanese militia, Hezbollah. In relation to the Western strategy against Syria, he reported,

Nasrallah said he believed that America also wanted to bring about the partition of Lebanon and of Syria. In Syria, he said, the result would be to push the country “into chaos and internal battles like in Iraq.” In Lebanon, “There will be a Sunni state, an Alawi state, a Christian state, and a Druze state.” But, he said, “I do not know if there will be a Shiite state.” Nasrallah told me that he suspected that one aim of the Israeli bombing of Lebanon last summer was “the destruction of Shiite areas and the displacement of Shiites from Lebanon. The idea was to have the Shiites of Lebanon and Syria flee to southern Iraq,” which is dominated by Shiites. “I am not sure, but I smell this,” he told me.

Partition would leave Israel surrounded by “small tranquil states,” he said. “I can assure you that the Saudi kingdom will also be divided, and the issue will reach to North African states. There will be small ethnic and confessional states,” he said. “In other words, Israel will be the most important and the strongest state in a region that has been partitioned into ethnic and confessional states that are in agreement with each other. This is the new Middle East.”

The trail of documentation and the manner in which the overarching agenda of world hegemony on the behalf of corporate-financier interests have continued apace regardless of party and seamlessly through Republican and Democrat administrations serves to prove that changing parties and personalities do nothing to stop the onslaught of imperialism, war, and destruction being waged across the world today and in earnest ever since 2001. Indeed, such changes only make adjustments to the appearance and presentation of a much larger Communo-Fascist system that is entrenching itself by the day, particularly in the Western world.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

Award-winning Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett has visited Syria eight times since April 2014, her most recent visit occurring in late April and May of 2018, following the alleged chemical weapons attacks by Syrian forces against civilians in Douma, and reprisals by US, UK, and French military forces.

In this exclusive interview for GRTV, Eva Bartlett speaks with host Michael Welch about what she observed while in the country.

In this  feature interview Eva Bartlett talks about residents in Douma who refute the accusations of chemical weapons attacks there, she talks about the kidnapping of civilians and the hoarding of food by terrorist factions, Western governments’ reprisals in April which affected cancer care facilities, and the toll of sanctions imposed on the country.

Eva also recounts her experiences in Gaza and Israel’s most recent attacks on protesters at the Israel-Gaza border wall.

More of Eva’s journalistic work can be found at

https://ingaza.wordpress.com/

Videography by Paul S Graham – https://www.youtube.com/user/redriverpete/videos

Please take note that Eva Bartlett will 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. 

Partial transcript – Eva Bartlett interview: July 2, 2018

Eva Bartlett: I returned to Syria in April 2018. Now as you’re aware, in early April, corporate media told the world via the White Helmets, otherwise known as the rescuers of Al Qaeda and other terrorists in Syria, these sources told the world that the Syrian Army had again allegedly used a chemical, a toxic chemical in Douma, Eastern Ghoutta. And, um, unfortunately I wasn’t able to arrive in Syria shortly after because I do have to go through the visa process which takes about a month to get a visa granted. So I did arrive in late April and um very quickly, one of my first thoughts was to go to Douma.

So prior to my having gone to Douma, we already had reporters like Vanessa Beeley, we have Robert Fisk of the British Independent who is by no means an ally of Assad in Syria because he’s very open about his scathing opinion of the Syrian government, but nonetheless, what Fisk reported in The Independent is basically what Vanessa Beeley heard what Pearson Sharp of ONE American News heard, what I heard, what other independents who’ve gone to Douma have heard and that is that no one in Douma was aware of any sort of chemicals being deployed or used that day.

Medical staff in the medical unit in the make-shift hospital in Douma – the underground hospital medical staff told me no, there were no signs whatsoever of patients having been – what’s the word I’m looking for – subjected to a chemical. None of the usual signs. And in fact, what they did show, what they did exhibit, was signs of normal bombing of – having been living underground to avoid the worst effects of the bombing – so, some sort of asphixiation or suffocation and they were treated thus and then released to go back home. And the man I spoke to, Marwan Jabar, he specifically said no one that came to that hospital died. And he also said, when I asked him, were any of the medical staff that were treating these alleged patients, these alleged victims, did they show any signs pertaining to a chemical agent. He said no, and we were not wearing what you should be wearing were you treating chemical victims. We were not wearing protective gear. They were just wearing the simple hospital garments and face-masks perhaps.

So it’s clear that thus far we hadn’t had any evidence to support this latest accusation that the Syrian Army is (using) a chemical agent in Douma when almost all of Eastern Ghoutta had been liberated. Of course it defies common sense to think that they would have used a chemical agent. But then I walked around the streets of Douma, and I spoke to civilians, and the things that I was interested in hearing from them were: Was there a chemical attack? Did they suffer from a chemical attack? And they all said no. I mean I spoke to…I was there for over an hour walking around talking with civilians. And I only had with me a translator. I went by taxi along with the translator and a driver. So there’s no…you can’t accuse these people of having been intimidated or coerced into saying whatever they said.

And you can find on my Youtube and on my facebook a number of videos of these people, and I’ve got a lot more to upload, of these people saying no there was no attack. But also I asked them, well, what was life like under what our media said were “rebels.” And they said, in Douma it was primarily Jaish-Al-Islam. And they said life was hell. They were being starved not by the Syrian government but by Jaish-Al-Islam, that had control not only of all the food in the region, but also the fields because Douma is an agricultural area. That’s something you would think, well if you’ve got fields why are you starving, if the Syrian government is not sending food in? You still have fields.

Well the reason they were starving is the same that we were hearing in Madaya, in Aleppo, in al-Waer, in Homs. The same thing – that the terrorists had control over the food sources, and only those who could afford to buy the food were able to eat normally.

And then I also went to other areas of Eastern Ghoutta like Saqba and Kafr Batna, and in Saqba it was Faylaq al-Rahman who was predominantly in power there, there were other terrorists there but Faylaq al-Rahman had the strong-hold there. And also notable in Saqba, literally just a couple of hundred metres down the lane from a Faylaq headquarters, a terrorist headquarters, just a couple of hundred metres down the lane was the White Helmets centre in that region – in Saqba. And so they were embedded with terrorists, clearly.

And when I talked with civilians in Saqba, in Kafr Batna, and in Douma, I asked about the White Helmets, and the civilians’ relationship to the White Helmets. And I either heard, “We don’t know. We weren’t allowed to be near them. We never saw them.” Or they just clearly stated “Well, we saw them with terrorist groups.” Or one guy even said, “well, you know, we’d see them one day wearing a a terrorist uniform, the next day wearing a white helmet,” essentially saying they were working hand in hand.

But then in Horjilleh for displaced people just southeast of Damascus where I also went by taxi, I spoke with a number of people there, and one man was very articulate, and unfortunately I haven’t gotten his interview up yet, it will require a lot of subtitling. And I’ve been very careful to carefully have what he told me and what I understood in Arabic to be … translated very accurately, because I do believe accuracy is important. But essentially what he said was that he believed the White Helmets were staging many videos because he said he saw them staging videos, staging explosions to then blame the Syrian Army or the Russians. And he also said the White Helmets when they went out somewhere, terrorists would open the streets for them.

So, a number of civilians, just in East Ghoutta alone, not to mention of course Aleppo and other areas have said quite clearly the White Helmets are working with terrorist groups, and indeed include terrorist members. And I did go back to Aleppo, this time with an interest to see the resumption of life in areas that had been hard hit. And I think one of the most moving moments of my brief visit to Aleppo was being at the citadel, which I hadn’t seen before – well, that’s not true. I had seen it in November of 2016 from a distance, being hushed back and being told by the Syrian Army who I and other journalists were with “step back or you could be sniped.” And so this was an area that was off limits for years in the old city of Aleppo to civilians. And when I went there in, I think it was early May it was, it was teaming with life! And normal people doing normal activities that they could not have done under the rule of what our media keeps insisting are “moderates” but which were really Al Qaeda, Nour al-Din al-Zenki and oher terrorist elements.

Global Research: Could you talk a little bit more about…I did see one of the places you visited was the tunnels, and you know, I think it would be very important for our listeners to help get them a sense of what some of the civilians in that area had to contend with. So talk a little bit more about those tunnels that were dug.

EB: So, I don’t know when the tunnels were dug. There are theories that they were dug, at least some of them, some of the larger ones, were dug prior to 2011, prior to events breaking out – the war on Syria breaking out – but I can’t corroborate that. I mean it’s certainly plausible. And there are theories that foreign companies that were working in Syria, perhaps Lafarge, a French company, but again I can’t corroborate that, might have had a role in digging these expensive tunnels.

What is known, thanks to Syrian journalists, who are on the ground in Eastern Ghoutta when people started – when it wasn’t all liberated and when Syrian civilians started to run from terrorist areas in Eastern Ghoutta, these civilians gave testimonies to Syrian journalists. And some of them wee saying their loved ones had been kidnapped by terrorists and were being used as forced labour – slave labour – in digging these tunnels.

And there are other civilians who had been kidnapped from other areas of Syria including Adra, the industrial area outside of Damascus, and relatives of theirs say – believe that they were being used as slave labour in the tunnels. So that’s a very important element, and um, I hope that there’ll be more on that. It’s a very sad and disturbing element.

But the tunnel I saw underneath the make-shift hospital in Douma was extensive. It was very well reinforced. And to my eye, because I’m not a surveyor, I’m not a builder, I didn’t pick up on the nuances. But when I posted my videos online, people were saying, “that is some serious quality craftsmanship. It wasn’t done by random people who don’t know how to dig a tunnel.” This is done with professional help.

So that’s important because with these tunnels, and some of them were large enough to drive cars through, terrorists could essentially stay underground. They could come above ground to fire from Eastern Ghoutta areas on to Damascus which they know, we know they’ve done, they’ve killed at least 11,000 civilians according to the head of forensics. I think it’s actually more than that but at least 11,000 civilians. They would fire, you know, one of their mortars or missiles that they had created, because they had bomb factories, and I’ve seen bomb factories in Eastern Ghoutta and elsewhere, and then they would go underground. And when the Syrian Army would retaliate, unfortunately, they would be underground. So the brunt of – they would be underground but in areas embedded in civilian areas. So yes there were civilian casualties, and it’s precisely because terrorists were nesting underground, and again hoarding food supplies, hoarding medical supplies. And these tunnels enabled them to prolong their presence there, as did keeping their hostages there. Because people did want to leave, but when they tried to leave, terrorists would shoot at them or imprison them.

GR: And of course there’s also added to that background, there’s that ongoing issue of sanctions, and how that’s affecting the population as well.

EB: Absolutely! And people don’t think about it. I mean, we know how awfully and terribly the sanctions affected Iraq. I believe half a million Iraqis including children, or maybe it was half a million children, died as a result of the sanctions. But in Syria, also it’s affecting every aspect of life. That the economy is already shattered by years of this war on Syria. But the sanctions also shattering this economy and of course the medical sector.

Imagine you can’t even get simple parts like Dr. Nabil Antaki told me in Aleppo in 2016. He’s a gastro-enterologist, and he couldn’t even get a simple part for his gastro-enterology work. And that’s just one element of the health sector. Cancer patients can’t get the necessary medications and food supplements for their treatment. And so these are … our Western media and Western leadership say this is targeting the Syrian leadership, but we know these sanctions always target the Syrian civilians.

And in April, about a week after the West declared that the Syrian government had used a chemical agent in Douma, they, um, France, US, and UK went ahead and bombed Syria with 79 – I think it was – missiles. No, it was over 80 missiles – I’ll have to check that number. But, huge number of missiles, and, um… you know it was over a hundred missiles and 79 of those targeted Barzeh in Damascus, that was the important thing. And the area that they targeted which the West claimed was involved in chemical weapons production was an area that was actually developing sanc…um, cancer treatment among other medical things and it was a research centre, and it was in the hub of Damascus. So by their logic, bombing there, those humanitarian bombs, had there actually been some chemical weapons agents, vast numbers of people would have been killed.


Imperialism on Trial (July 10-16, 2018), United Kingdom

Featuring George Galloway (former UK member of Parliament), 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 Shakdam (geopolitical 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

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/imperialism-on-trial-tickets-47772122705?aff=es2

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, George Galloway, 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

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/imperialism-on-trial-tickets-47282457102

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

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/imperialism-on-trial-tickets-47283231418

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above.

It breaks my heart to think that Khan Al-Ahmar Palestinian community will likely be ethnically cleansed in two days. Today we went there and also demonstrated at Al-Eizariya where Israel wants to warehouse the 2000+ residents of Khan Al-Ahmar in a crowded area on land that belongs to other Palestinians. The people are heroic and this may yet turn out to be another Al-Araqib. The latter is a Palestinian community in the Negev that rebuilt repeatedly 130 times. Imagine having your home destroyed once and rebuilding it. Now imagine this happening 130+ times. It was very hard to know what to say to the people there who are hanging around their homes and the school and are getting ready for the showdown. The school and other infrastructure was built beautifully from tires and mud and with solar power, they are an environmentally conscious community.

Three days ago skirmishes happened as soldiers tried to blockade the entrance to the community and serve final demolition orders. It is hard to describe our feelings. Words are too limiting. Perhaps I will just post the pictures from today and video from Thursday and ask any decent people to go and camp overnight especially Monday night and Tuesday nights. By Tuesday things will be clearer….

*

Featured image is from the author.

Dear Readers,

More than ever, Global Research needs your support. Our task as an independent media is to “Battle the Lie”.

“Lying” in mainstream journalism has become the “new normal”: mainstream journalists are pressured to comply. Some journalists refuse.

Lies, distortions and omissions are part of a multibillion dollar propaganda operation which sustains the “war narrative”.

While “Truth” is a powerful instrument, “the Lie” is generously funded by the lobby groups and corporate charities. And that is why we need the support of our readers.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no turning backwards. 

Support Global Research.

*     *     *

“An Absolute Bombshell”: Brexit Ministers Davis, Baker & Braverman Quit in Blow to Theresa May

By Zero Hedge, July 09, 2018

In what has been called “an absolute bombshell”, U.K. Brexit Secretary David Davis resigned from Theresa May’s government late Sunday, one week before the UK is scheduled to present its demands to Brussels.

The Demonization of Iran at the UN Security Council

By Carla Stea, July 09, 2018

The Fifth Secretary-General report does not provide any valid  evidence of Iran’s violation of international law, or violation of Resolution 2231.  However, the report’s presentation so starkly resembles crude propaganda, that it is surprising, indeed, that the UN Secretary-General would permit his imprimatur to be used in connection with this report.   It appears to have been written by the US and its allies, and merely rubber-stamped by the Secretary-General.

The Gaza Blockade Is Illegal– and So Is the Use of Force to Maintain It

By Norman Finkelstein, July 09, 2018

Is it not a tad unseemly, not to say unsettling, for the representative of a respected human rights organization to coach Israel how to stay within the letter of the law—before resorting to bullets, you must first try “tear gas, skunk water, and rubber-coated steel pellets”—while it’s herding two million people, half of them children, in an unlivable space in which they are slowly being poisoned?

Flashback to the Greek Debt Bailout Referendum: When ‘No’ Became a ‘Yes’

By Tasos Kokkinidis, July 09, 2018

Greece is due to complete the third bailout in August, but critics say that tough austerity measures, including pension cuts will be implemented in the next few years, as the country will enter a long period of “enhanced surveillance” by its creditors.

Bonus article from our Asia-Pacific Research page:

Agrarian Crisis and Climate Catastrophe: Forged in India, Made in Washington

By Colin Todhunter, July 09, 2018

According to the World Bank’s lending report, based on data compiled up to 2015, India was easily the largest recipient of its loans in the history of the institution. Unsurprisingly, therefore, the World Bank exerts a certain hold over India. In the 1990s, the IMF and World Bank wanted India to shift hundreds of millions out of agriculture. In return for up to £90 billion in loans, India was directed to dismantle its state-owned seed supply system, reduce subsidies, run down public agriculture institutions and offer incentives for the growing of cash crops to earn foreign exchange.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Demonization of Iran at the UN Security Council

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Hawai’i, the Muslim Ban case. By a vote of 5-4 the Court handed a significant victory to the Trump Administration. The decision willfully disregarded the open bigotry on the part of the president and his administration which formed the foundation to the Muslim Ban.  

For those immediately impacted, this decision means that certain visa holders and applicants from the following countries will continue to be banned indefinitely from travel to the U.S.: Iran, Libya, North Korea (well below 1,000 visitors per year), Somalia, Syria, Venezuela (only certain government officials and their families), and Yemen. However, the broader consequences of this decision could be far more grim.

The Legal Background

The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which upheld injunctions halting the President Trump’s most recent Muslim Ban—Proclamation 9645. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, discussed below. While Justices Kennedy and Thomas wrote concurrences and Justices Breyer and Sotomayor wrote dissents, those will not be analyzed herein.

On statutory grounds, the Court held that the Proclamation is within the broad discretion granted to the president by Congress under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), more specifically, 8 U.S.C. §§1182(f) and 1185(a). On Constitutional grounds, the Court permanently struck down the District Court’s injunction, holding that the Proclamation is not likely violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. With the injunction denied, the Muslim Ban will continue to be in effect while the District Court can now rule fully on the constitutionality of the Proclamation—knowing that the Supreme Court has clearly signaled that it is likely to find the Muslim Ban constitutional.

Justifications for allowing discrimination

Chief Justice Roberts, following cited precedent, applied the “rational basis test” to the Proclamation. This test asks whether the government has a rational basis for this policy. That is, is the Muslim Ban “plausibly related” to “protect[ing] the country and improv[ing] vetting processes?” This test is a notoriously easy one to pass, failing only when “the laws at issue lack any purpose other than a ‘bare… desire to harm a politically unpopular group.’” While the Muslim Ban sounds like a common sense candidate for failure, the majority uncritically took for gospel every vague, unsubstantiated, and ex post facto national security pretext the president presented in the Executive Orders and Proclamation, while simultaneously ignoring the role of every bigoted justification the president proffered beyond the text itself. The Court also ignored the complete disconnect between the countries listed in the Proclamation and those who have actually been implicated in the commission of criminal acts on U.S. soil.

Notably, in finding a blanket travel ban on categories of travelers convincing over case-by-case analysis of applicants by consular officers, Roberts wrote that “fraudulent or unreliable documentation may thwart [consular officers] review in individual cases.” As if the president has clairvoyance sufficient to know whether an individual applicant is fraudulent better than the consular officer who personally reviews the relevant documentation. While Roberts mentioned the availability of waivers under the Muslim Ban, a point the Government invoked repeatedly during oral arguments, there is no evidence that any have actually been granted.

The majority dismissed the claim that the Muslim Ban violates 8 USC §1152(a)(1)(A), which states,

“no person shall… be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

The main argument presented is that the Muslim Ban applies to the admissibility of aliens, whereas §1152’s prohibition to discrimination applies only to the issuance of visas, a later and more specific step in the process of gaining entry. As such, a limitation on a specific part of a process cannot be interpreted to apply to the whole process. The majority did not acknowledge, of course, that discrimination in the admissibility of aliens will necessarily lead to discrimination in the issuance in visas. A person cannot be issued a visa if that person is not eligible for it in the first place.

Throughout the opinion Roberts granted the President great deference in presenting justifications for the Muslim Ban. Generally, deference is structurally appropriate: the judiciary is not constitutionally entrusted with ensuring the national security or creating immigration policy. However, the judiciary is required by our constitutional system to interpret and declare the outer bounds of the authorities of the branches which are entrusted to secure our nation, especially when those bounds conflict with individual rights. In order to side-step this duty, the majority cited some of President Trump’s Islamophobic statements, only to write, “But the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.” Roberts afforded President Trump’s extra-textual statements no significance whatsoever, allowing him to dismiss the president’s well-documented, open, heinous, and discriminatory basis for the Muslim Ban. Discriminatory intent (unless it is against fundamentalist Christians, of course) and discriminatory impact hold no weight for this majority: the only evidence this Supreme Court will accept is blatant and textual, a willful disregard to nearly every instance of discrimination in this country’s history. Once textual discrimination is set ablaze, more clever forms rise from the ashes.

The holding further argues that the Proclamation cannot be discriminatory against Muslims, as it covers only 8% of the world’s Muslim population. Yet again, Roberts willfully disregards how discrimination law actually works. When an employer discriminates against a female employee, for example, the female employee is not required to prove that the employee discriminated against every female in the world, or even every female in the workplace. The female employee need only prove discrimination in her case. Here, the majority is permitting the president to discriminate against 8% of the world’s Muslims because he has not yet discriminated against the other 92%.

What this decision means for the future

Importantly, nothing in the opinion limits President Trump from adding more countries to the Muslim Ban list at a whim, only to later claim security justifications to retrofit his proclivities. As the Court has signaled no intention of looking behind the president’s pretext for discrimination, future legal challenges will be discouraged and will likely be unfruitful. However, the most troubling and broad consequence of this decision is that the majority makes clear that a president can justify nearly any discriminatory policy, and can speak openly about the bigoted goals of that policy, as long as the policy itself is written in a facially neutral way. Beyond this narrow area of law, if the Court continues to be wholly unwilling to pierce the veil of the vague concept of national security as a justification for any policy conceivably related thereto, the authority of the presidency will grow well beyond the Court’s or Congress’s ability to constrain it.

During the entire Muslim Ban saga, from the first Executive Order promulgated during the dawn of 2017 through today, President Trump has relied primarily upon authority from Congress granted under the INA. However, Congress has thus far made no serious attempt to change the INA and undermine that grant of authority. In this statutory ruling, the Court reminded Congress of existing tools necessary to undermine the Muslim Ban. We must ensure they are put to use.

Britain has been baking in an unusual heat wave for some weeks.  32 Celsius is forecast today.  The pastures are brown but the reservoirs still healthy from a wet winter.  Carbon dioxide for the large variety of drinks has almost fizzled out.  Millions of English have been watching their soccer team on large screens round the country.  The cheering can be heard in Russia where the Fédération Internationale de Football Association is holding its World Cup.  England is to play Croatia in a semi-final.

We delay seeing beautiful flower borders at Castle Drogo run by the National Trust.  This was the last castle to be built in England from 1910 to 1930 and with Lutyens masterly hand upon its granite faces.  The vista from this high point westwards across Dartmoor is peerless.  ‘This England’ – so green, so beautiful and so damned complacent.  So forgetful of its vicious history.

The foursome, under the umbrella, discuss their ‘medical’ experiences in the luxurious Visitor Centre.  One was treated at home for ‘chest disease’ by a squad of nurses from his general practice.  Whilst they dally,  Skripal Mark 2 is being relayed to the gullible by every media element, led of course by the BBC.  The alleged poisoning by Novichok of a couple of friends, one of whom is a registered heroine addict we are told, was set running as happy scenes came back from Russia.  English soccer supporters were seen saying how friendly were the Russian people.  The Foreign and ‘Commonwealth’ Office and its lead, MI6, could not allow this; Russia is the evil enemy.  The nerve agent had to infused into the gullible English.  Sajid Javid (CFI)* and Home Secretary has said today

“We know back in March that it was the Russians. We know it was a barbaric, inhuman act by the Russian state.”  (1)  

In the same vein, Tom Tugendhat MP (CFI)* Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, accused the “Russian President of murdering 300 people in the Ukraine”.

2229 miles as the crow flies, ESE, is Gaza.  The temperature there is also 32 Celsius.  There is very little electricity for cooking, refrigeration, fans, computers, telephone charging and the rare air conditioning.  Food is scarce and good quality protein in particular so children are often stunted.  Iron deficiency limits full brain development.  Water is scarce and foul if it not produced by reverse osmosis. (2) 

The hospitals are full up with hundreds of adults and some children with terrible injuries caused by ‘explosive’ bullets in the Great March of Return.  These are probably expanding bullets which open like flowers, and worse than ‘dumdums’.  They cause massive wounds and smashed bones.  The destruction of soft tissue is so extensive and buried, that the vital excision of all dead tissue might not always be possible.  Infection then results.  Re-constructive surgery will be complex and generally not available in Gaza. (3)  The vicious blockade applied by Israel for these last 12 years, means that few wounded will be taken out as humanity requires.  Most limbs will survive but they will be ugly  with limited function.  Some bullets with explosives in the tip might have been used.  They certainly were when Imad Ghanem was being shot by the Only Democracy in the Middle East in 2007.  (4)  This journalist lost both legs.  This Luciferan ’round’ was banned in 1868 but did not inhibit Israel in its extraordinary cruelty.

About 130 humans have been killed by Israeli snipers in massive demonstrations against the ethnic cleansing of 80 % of the native Palestinian population by armed force and terror.  (Genocide – Lemkin)  They would have been buried in hours.  The prayers would have included supplication  for the deceased and for mankind.  Already, lithe and beautiful young humans will be in an advanced state of decomposition, lives stifled starting those 100 years ago with Balfour, Rothschild, Weizmann and the rest.  They planned, in essence, for this killing in the ‘Holy Land’.

We weep for this dear 13yr old boy – Yasser Abu al-Naja.  He knew loss already, his father having been killed by a US Hellfire missile via an Israeli drone. (5)  And we weep for this 21yr old young woman, Razan al-Najar, who was serving as a paramedic. (6)  She was hurrying to an injured comrade when she was shot in the chest by a brave Israeli sniper across the fence.  This piece by Professor Kamel Hawwash puts her courage and her life amongst the stars. 

How many of those cheering for an English soccer victory would know of Razan and Yasser, and of all our many thousands of sisters and brothers in Gaza who suffer, and have suffered, under the English heel?  The western media are complicit in the silent and terrible suffering so those that cheer are not informed, though that does change slowly.  Such grotesque suffering is never brought before the pretence of international law.

Palestine is the hinge of our humanity.  If the western nations continue to stand silently below the cross on which these fellow humans are hoisted, it will reflect on the morality of all and spur the societal disintegration that those with open eyes can see.

The engine of death grinds ceaselessly (7)  In the second battle of Gaza, there were over 3000 ‘Allied’ deaths.  The Palestinian and Arab deaths went uncounted.   Many of the ‘Allied’ were buried on the 2nd November 1917 on which day the Balfour Declaration was issued on an A4 piece of paper.      

*

Notes

1. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/08/sajid-javid-uk-wont-jump-conclusions-after-new-novichok-poisoning-russia-sanctions

2. http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/…/53-not-a-quart-into-a-pint-pot-but-a-quart-from-a-pint-p

3. https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6644/rr-0

4. http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/6-articles/palestineisrael/44-the-bbc-its-former-gaza-correspondent-and-an-arab

5. http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/thread/1530478939.html

6. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180603-while-razan-lost-her-life-nikki-hayley-lost-her-humanity/ 

7. http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/6-articles/palestineisrael/37-rest-in-peace

*CFI = Conservative Friends of Israel 

Featured image is from The Bullet.


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.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones” – (Albert Einstein) 

A red alert in an age of fear, anger and extremes

In anticipation of its 2018 edition, the well-regarded Munich Security Conference issued a report which aimed to serve as a useful compilation for an impressive gathering of over 300 decision makers and security professionals coming from all four corners of the world.

Quoting the following message delivered by the newly elected United Nations Secretary-general António Guterres, the epigraph to the very first article of the report clearly nailed the colors to the mast:

When I took office one year ago, I appealed for 2017 to be a year for peace. Unfortunately, in fundamental ways, the world has gone in reverse. On New Year’s Day 2018, I am not issuing an appeal. I am issuing an alert—a red alert for our world. Conflicts have deepened and new dangers have emerged. Global anxieties about nuclear weapons are the highest since the Cold War. Climate change is moving faster than we are. Inequalities are growing. We see horrific violations of human rights. Nationalism and xenophobia are on the rise”.

Could there be any more accurate and concise depiction of the state of the world in the early years of the twenty-first century?

Epochal developments in nearly all areas of human activity have triggered increasing concern about the sustainability of an international order conceived, shaped and erected in large measure by the United States of America, in the wake of World War II, thanks to its economic and military might. But this so-called US-led “liberal” order has been witnessing steady erosion and is today brutally called into question, to say the least. And surprisingly enough, its very foundations have been subject to incessant assaults carried out by those who have constructed it—led today by the Donald Trump administration, in response to what it views as excesses of an unbridled globalization. As John Ikenberry stated “the world’s most powerful state has begun to sabotage the order it created. A hostile revisionist power has indeed arrived on the scene, but it sits in the Oval Office, the beating heart of the Free world”.

The conjunction of such realities as illegal wars waged by self-proclaimed global policemen against weaker “disobedient” albeit sovereign states, and unparalleled economic inequality stemming from the contradictions of capitalist globalization and the behavior of unfettered corporate expansion exploiting almost every area of public and private life, has generated a growing global authoritarianism and social Darwinism.

Thus, along a similar train of thought as other leading critics of this twenty-first century-style global capitalism—like Paul Krugman and Thomas Piketty—Nobel Prize laureate Joseph Stiglitz described this pervasive reality of great divide in an important book.  During the past decade, he writes,

“four of the central issues facing our society have been the great divide—the huge inequality that is emerging in the United States and many other advanced countries— economic mismanagement, globalization, and the role of the state and the market”.

This situation is “related to the role of special interests in our politics —a politics that increasingly represents the interests of the 1 percent”. 

That’s why in 2014, Oxfam submitted a landmark briefing paper calling on the world’s elite gathered in Davos to make commitments needed to counter the growing tide of inequality. The paper indicates that almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population. This massive concentration of economic resources in the hands of fewer people, Oxfam warns, presents a real threat to inclusive political and economic systems, and compounds other inequalities. All the more so since left unchecked, political institutions are undermined and governments overwhelmingly serve the interests of economic elites—to the detriments of ordinary people. These prospects have since been proven right in another report from Oxfam which showed that just eight men own the same wealth as the poorest half of the world and considered “beyond grotesque” that a handful of rich men headed by the Microsoft founder Bill Gates are worth $426bn, equivalent to the wealth of 3.6 billion people.

By the same token, a report from the Institute for Policy Studies  found that the 3 wealthiest citizens in the US (Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett) are richer than the poorest half of the population of this country, equivalent to 160 million people! Their combined wealth amounts to a staggering figure of $248.5 billion. Commenting on these findings, Chuck Collins, an economist and co-author of the report, said that the “billionaire class” continues to separate from the rest of the population at an accelerated pace, and that “so much money concentrated in so few hands when so many people are struggling is not only a sign of bad economic policy, it is a moral crisis”. 

Pankaj Mishra aptly captured and eloquently summed up the big picture and the choreography of this danse macabre in which the world got trapped. He rightfully observed that “future historians may well see such uncoordinated mayhem as commencing the third—and the longest and the strangest—of all world wars: one that approximates, in its ubiquity, a global civil war. 

But how did the world get to experience its present horrendous predicament?

From Prometheus to Homo Deus

Marshalling an impressive array of research in his 2014 book “The Progress Paradox”, Gregg Easterbrook makes the assertion that almost all aspects of Western life have vastly improved in the past century, and that the last fifty years made almost everything so much better for almost everybody that it is sheer perversity to feel bad about most anything. Very recently, he reiterated this claim, and in doing so, he denounced all those who are engaged in a “politics of competitive nostalgia” which demands return to an idealized past that can never be reached because, he says, it never existed in the first place. Instead, Easterbrook is convinced that by almost every meaningful measure, the modern world is better than it has ever been, and an even better future can be reached.  

In the same vein, assessing the human condition in the third millennium, cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, also drawing upon wide-ranging research and seventy-five graphs, points out that “life, health, prosperity, safety, peace, knowledge and happiness” are on the rise, not just in the West, but worldwide. He draws the apparently logical conclusion that there has never been a better time to be a human being. 

And yet today, most men and women feel less happy than in previous generations; a fact that prompted David Callahan to ask the big question: why do so many walk around scowling, rather than smiling at their good fortune in being born into the present generation? 

So, why is this global discontent, in the face of an undeniable improvement in the general human condition? 

Is it attributable, as Pinker thinks, only to the fact that this progress  “which is not the result of some cosmic force, but a gift of the Enlightenment, the conviction that reason and science can enhance human flourishing” swims against currents of human nature—tribalism, authoritarianism, demonization, magical thinking, which “demagogues committed to political, religious and romantic ideologies” are all too willing to exploit in a rearguard war, resulting in a “corrosive fatalism and willingness to wreck the precious institutions of liberal democracy”? 

Or is the current global crisis, as many others believe, because botched experiments in nation-building, democracy, industrialization, and urbanization scar much of the world, and such concepts as modernity, secularism, development, and progress are no more than long-held utopian views by the powerful few as benign ideals for the many? This opinion is shared by Pankaj Mishra who asserts that the political impasses and economic shocks of our societies, as well as the irreparably damaged environment, corroborate the bleakest views of a long list of thinkers, starting with nineteenth-century critics, who condemned modern capitalism as “a heartless machine for economic growth, or the enrichment of the few, which works against such fundamentally human aspirations as stability, community and a better future”.

Also jumps to mind here the response to a question posed to Noam Chomsky by his interviewer on whether civilization can survive the predatory capitalism most advanced economies have returned to since the late 1970s:

“Really existing capitalist democracy—RECD for short (pronounced ‘wrecked’)—is radically incompatible with democracy. It seems to me unlikely that civilization can survive really existing capitalism and the sharply attenuated democracy that goes along with it”. 

It is noteworthy that as far back as 1932, Aldous Huxley’s novel “Brave New World foresaw such a looming scientific dictatorship, though it seemed as much frightening as it was a projection into the remote future. Less than thirty years later however, in a fascinating and no less scary non-fiction book, Huxley compared the modern-day world with the prophetic fantasy envisioned in his previous analysis, including threats to humanity induced by dazzling advances in the field of the science of thought control in particular. His new book was meant to be a challenge to any complacency with regard to the increasingly powerful pressures to adopt these modern tools, as well as a plea that mankind should educate itself for freedom before it was too late.

Nowadays, there’s little doubt that we are well on our way to almost everything Aldous Huxley’s book warned us against. Indeed, a recent book by Franklin Foer addressed these very daunting challenges, with particular emphasis on the dangers that the GAFA—the four technology giants Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon—pose to our culture and careers. He argued that in their methods of consumer observation and data gathering, and in their intention to replace human decision-making with merciless algorithms, these companies “are shredding the principles that protect individuality”. It’s even worse than that, he adds, because in their quest to dominate the markets and the world, these “fearsome four”, as Foer characterizes them, “have lulled us into a sense of pliant dependency as they influence our thinking and activities”. And since they are far more powerful than the elite “gate keeping” institutions of the past—the major television networks or the leading newspapers—they have become the new arbiters of media, economy, politics and the arts.

A similar opinion is expressed by Yuval Noah Harari, an author and historian who has managed to capture the imagination of millions of people around the world, thanks to his two global bestsellers. In Sapiens, Harari explains how humankind came to rule the planet, and in Homo Deus, he examines humanity’s future. He underlined that

“The global empire being forged before our eyes is not governed by a particular state or ethnic group. Much like the Roman Empire, it is ruled by a multi-ethnic elite, and is held together by a common culture and common interests. Throughout the world, more and more entrepreneurs, engineers, experts, scholars, lawyers and managers are called to join the empire. They must ponder whether to answer the imperial call or to remain loyal to their state and their people. More and more choose the empire”.

As for his vision of the future, Harari believes that the pursuit of projects, dreams, and nightmares that will shape the twenty-first century—from overcoming death to creating artificial life—may ultimately render most human beings superfluous. He predicts that the main products of the twenty-first-century economy will not be textiles, vehicles, and weapons but bodies, brains, and minds. Thus,

“while the industrial revolution created the working class, the next big revolution will create the useless class […] Democracy and the free market will both collapse once Google and Facebook know us better than we know ourselves, and authority will shift from individual humans to networked algorithms. Humans won’t fight machines; they will merge with them”.

Equally worryingly, Harari is of the opinion that fascism and dictatorships might come back, but they will do so in a new form, a form which is much more relevant to the new technological realities of the 21st century. In ancient times, he observes, land was the most important asset in the world. Politics, therefore, was the struggle to control land. And dictatorship meant that all the land was owned by a single ruler or by a small oligarch. But in the modern age, as machines became more important than land, “politics became the struggle to control the machines. And dictatorship meant that too many of the machines became concentrated in the hands of the government or of a small elite. Now data is replacing both land and machines as the most important asset”. Harari concludes that “the greatest danger that now faces liberal democracy is that the revolution in information technology will make dictatorships more efficient than democracies”. This is the shape of the new world, he adds, and the gap between those who get on board and those left behind will be larger than the gap between industrial empires and agrarian tribes, larger even than the gap between Sapiens and Neanderthals. This is the next stage of evolution. This is Homo Deus.

The global spiritual influx: requiem for Western consumerist secularism?

For the intelligent layman to fathom the whys and wherefores of today’s world reality, a cross-specialization and interdisciplinary approach based on the latest trend in the realm of social sciences—social neuroscience in particular, which posits that humans are fundamentally a social species, rather than individualists—is crucially needed.

In this regard, Malek Bennabi can be thought of as a pioneer, well ahead of his Western peers. The essence of his most original ideas is expressed in his book on the question of ideas in the Muslim world. Taking stock of the universe and man’s place in it, Bennabi provided a comprehensive analysis through a breathtaking historical, theological, philosophical and sociological perspective. He made the fundamental observation that faced with his own loneliness, man feels overwhelmed by a sense of cosmic void. It is his way of filling this void that determines the type of his culture and civilization, that’s to say all the internal and external features of his historical vocation. The Algerian thinker believes that there are essentially two different ways of doing it: either looking at one’s feet down to the earth below, or lifting up one’s eyes to heaven. The former attempts to overcome his solitude with material things, with his overbearing gaze wanting to possess, while the latter would have recourse to ideas to achieve his goal, with his questioning gaze searching for truth. And thus arise two kinds of culture: a culture of empire with technical roots, and a culture of civilization with ethical and metaphysical roots.

Bennabi then explains that for each of these two types of civilizations, the point of failure comes to the excess of its core, that is: overindulgence of mysticism for the latter, and overindulgence of materialism for the former. Thus, for instance, over the course of their respective historical trajectories, the Islamic civilization has been taken away from its initial balance, only to be inexorably thrown into the hands of the theologians and mystics. Similarly, Western civilization’s embrace of intemperate materialism, both capitalist and communist, has led to a systematic destruction of the moral fabric of its societies, hence progressively dragging the world it eventually dominated into a situation where objects are increasingly overwhelming humanity.

As if pondering and agreeing with Bennabi’s deep reflection, Indian author J.C. Kapur contends that consumerism is making the soul of its addicts empty, permitting all kinds of transgressions with low culture instruments, hence further invigorating unicentralism and limiting humans merely to the status of consumers of material objects. He believes that in the  quest for new directions “our salvation will lie in the recognition of the fact that the images of materialism that are being projected are leading towards a moral, ethical and spiritual vacuum that would bar all processes of human development and evolution”. Even more worrying is for him the fact that with the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the ensuing marketization of its successor state’s economy, the global market economies have now arrived at the stage of an “Armament Protected Consumerism” leading towards an ecologically, socially, emotionally and psychically unsustainable paradigm. And so, any attempts to structure a new “Imperial Civilization” on the parameters of a global information society can only be short-lived. He, accordingly, poses the big question as to what focal point should be given to human activity: will it be around material gain or the unending search for the true nature of man in harmony with the cosmic laws?

In effect, for more than two centuries, a diehard tradition of thought, from early “positivists” like Auguste Comte and Friedrich Nietzsche, to modern outspoken “atheists” like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Bennett and Sam Harris, has assumed that modernization would render all religions obsolete, and fantasized about a free, democratic, secular, and materially superior world where reason and science would guide humanity towards a bright and happy future. A case in point here is what French politician Jean Jaurès said in a speech in 1903:

“If the very idea of God took a palpable form, if God himself stood visible on the multitudes, the first duty of man would be to refuse obedience and treat Him as the equal with whom we discuss, and not the master that one submits to”.

And so, proponents of this “new religion” have regularly pronounced faith to be dead. Some of them went as far as to assume the “death of God”, while others did not hesitate to write about nothing less than “God’s funeral”!

Up to the sixties of the 20th century, the trend to total secularization in the “Western” world seemed irreversible. And so was admittedly the case in the overwhelming majority of the newly decolonized countries of the third world. Their “Westernized” ruling classes did all they could to persuade their fellow citizens that the superiority of the “advanced” countries lays in the Western ideas and institutions and hoped to access modernity by simply and blindly adopting both; the most extreme example in this respect being Atatürk’s (the father of the Turks) Republic of Turkey. 

Today, it’s become all too obvious that the demise of religion and this sense of wonderful expectation about the intrinsic virtues of technological progress have all but gone missing. And it is no longer possible, as Pankaj Mishra pointed out to deny or obscure the great chasm “between an elite that seizes modernity’s choicest fruits while disdaining older truths and uprooted masses, who, on finding themselves cheated of the same fruits, recoil into cultural supremacism, populism and rancorous brutality”. 

Now that the contradictions and high costs of this minority’s progress have become visible on a global scale, there’s an urgent need for a truly life-saving transformative thinking along the lines J.C. Kapur referred to, or even some of the compelling insights developed by Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow in their 2011 book.

It’s worth recalling in this regard that back in December 1975, in an interview given to Le Point magazine, the famed French novelist and Minister André Malraux denied having ever said that “the 21st century will be religious (spiritual) or won’t be”; a quote too often credited to him, to this day. He surely did say however that

“I do not exclude the possibility of a spiritual event on a planetary scale”.

On this, he was indeed prophetic, since only four years after this interview, the Iranian Islamic revolution broke out, ushering in an exceptional revival of faith, particularly in the Muslim world, even though religion there has never ceased to hold sway. To be sure, this revolution was the most striking and violent “local” manifestation of the rejection of the “global spiritual emptiness” that had until then characterized the “post-modern” world, forcefully promoted by the Enlightenment movement, but equally fiercely castigated during the “May 1968” wave of tectonic social and political changes that swept the European continent, starting in France precisely. 

It seems clear for everybody to see that the “sacred” character of the thoroughly secularized state born after the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 is now crumbling. And like all other political forms, the nation-state experienced a rise and a climax, and is presently in decline. For a lot of people, consequently, religions—far from declining as expected or hoped for—constitute the most solid landmark to fill the void and face today’s world disorder and uncertainty. In the words of the bestselling author and influential scholar of religion Rodney Stark, the world is more religious than ever before. He reached that conclusion after surveying more than a million people in 163 countries to paint the full picture that both mainstream scholars and popular commentators have missed.  Assuredly, “God is Back”—if, at all, He has ever gone away—and he who wants to correctly understand the politics of the 21st century cannot afford to ignore Him, whether he believes in Him or not. 

So much so that an increasing number of social scientists have deemed it necessary to attempt to comprehend religious behavior rather than to discredit it as irrational, anachronistic, and an obstacle to progress. This is precisely what Rodney Stark and Roger Finke did in their book, which they concluded by saying

“it seems time to carry the secularization doctrine to the graveyard of failed theories, and there to whisper requiescat in pace”.

Rise, decline and revival: the case for a “universal civilization”

Long before those two Californian scholars pronounced their requiem, British historian Arnold Toynbee had written a study in which he highlighted the important historical fact that civilizations die from suicide, not by murder. He explained that civilizations start to decay when they lose their moral fiber and their cultural elite turns parasitic, exploiting the masses and creating an internal and external proletariat. Toynbee propounds that having become reactionary, this once “mystically-inspired creative minority” ends up being an “elite dominant minority” unable to respond creatively to existential challenges.

In the case of the Western civilization, Toynbee found that religion was its Achilles’ heel, and warned that its scaffolding is built on technology, whereas “man cannot live by technology alone”. He further observed that

“the Western civilization that has run like a wildfire round the world has not been the whole of the seamless web; it has been a flare of cotton waste: a technological selvage with a religious center piece torn out”.

And with an amazing foresight, he made the prediction that

“in the fullness of time, when the ecumenical house of many mansions stands firmly on its own foundations and the temporary Western technological scaffolding falls away—as I have no doubt that it will—I believe it will become manifest that the foundations are firm at last because they have been carried down to the bedrock of religion…for religion, after all, is the serious business of the human race”.

In the following paragraphs, we’ll attempt to explain why and how the 500-year long global dominance of the “Western civilization” is coming to an end—a fate first and most significantly epitomized and signaled by the West’s self-immolation during the bloodbath of the two World wars it ignited in a span of only 30 years. We shall do so by surveying the writings of seven authors who have had a profound influence on Western Man’s thinking, and seven other authors who have predicted and warned against an impending twilight of this Western predominance. Indeed, what we take to be the ethical, social, economic, and ideological bedrock of Western thought has, far and away, been laid down in seven landmark references put forward since the beginning of the European Renaissance and the Age of the Enlightenment. 

28862

Thus, in his 1513 book “The Prince”, Italian Nicolo Machiavelli described methods—including through deliberate deceit, hypocrisy and perjury—that an aspiring prince can use to acquire the throne, or an existing prince can resort to in order to maintain his reign. English Pastor Thomas Robert Malthus claimed in his 1798 “Essay on the Principle of Population” that population tends to grow faster than the food supply. He also posited that the planet would be unable to support more than one billion inhabitants, and advocated therefore for a limitation on the number of poor people as a better controlling device. English Charles Darwin’s 1859 seminal book “The Origins of Species” promoted a theory of evolution by natural selection through the notion of “survival of the fittest”, thus and so profoundly challenging Victorian-era ideas about the role of humans in the universe. English philosopher/sociologist Herbert Spencer’s 1864 “Principles of Biology transferred Darwin’s theory from the realm of nature to society. He believed that the strongest or fittest would and should dominate the poor and the weak who should ultimately disappear. This meant that certain races (in particular European Protestants), individuals and nations were entitled to dominate others because of their “superiority” in the natural order. German Karl Marx’s 1867 “Capital” is the foundational theoretical text in materialist philosophy, economics and politics. Belief in some of its teachings led to communism and caused millions of deaths in the hope (or utopia) of bringing about an egalitarian society.  In his most celebrated book “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” (1883-1885) German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche elaborates on ideas like eternal recurrence of the same, death of God, and the prophecy of the “Übermensch” (Overman), that is, the ideal superior man of the future who could rise above conventional Christian morality to create and impose his own values. Finally, Austrian Sigmund Freud’s theories, although subject to a lot of criticism, were enormously influential. His best known 1930 book “Civilization and Its Discontents”, analyzes what he sees as the fundamental tensions between civilization and the individual. The primary friction, he asserts, stems from the fact that the immutable individual’s quest for instinctive freedom (notably, desires for sex) are at odds with what is best for society (civilization) as a whole, which is why laws are created to prohibit killing, rape, and adultery, and implement severe punishments if they are broken. The result is an ongoing feeling of discontent among the citizens of that civilization.

Beyond shadow of a doubt, Western Man’s mindset, worldview and behavior have been considerably influenced by the presuppositions of the “seven deadly sins’ embodied in this literature. This led to such calamities for the world as materialism, individualism, scientism, unbridled pursuit of profit, nationalism, racial supremacy, excessive will to power, wars, colonization, imperialism, and eventually to civilizational decadence and decline. As a result of this irreversible process, more particularly following the moral wreckage and colossal human and material cost of the Great War, prominent thinkers and philosophers started to voice their concern about the coming demise of the West. Chiefly among those are seven authors whose books argue that while it is true that the West is in decline, there’s still time to mitigate it or even to reverse it and preserve it for posterity. Those books are: Oswald Spangler’s “The Decline of the West” (1926); Arnold Toynbee’s “Civilization on Trial (1958); Eric Voegelin’s “Order and History” (1956-1987); Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History and the Last Man” (1992); Samuel Huntington’s “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” (1998); Niall Ferguson’s “Civilization: The West and the Rest” (2012); and Michel Onfray’s “Décadence: Vie et mort du judéo-christianisme” (2017).

Another stated or implied common feature of these books is the belief that the “Western Christian civilization” has to be defended anew not both from internal decay and threats arising externally, mainly Islam or, even worse, an alliance of “Islamic” and “Sinic (Chinese)” civilizations. This fear of Islam is by no means new; it’s deep-rooted in the Western psyche. Today, however, it is being exacerbated to such an unprecedented—and sometimes absurd—extent that the debate on the resurgence of Islam has become, more often than not, inextricably intertwined with the talk about the decline of the Western civilization.

Back in 1948, English theist Arnold Toynbee observed that the Western civilization has produced an economic and political plenum and, in the same breath, a social and spiritual void. He also said that in the foreground of the future, Islam may exert valuable influences upon the “cosmopolitan proletariat of western society that has cast its net round the world and embraced the whole of mankind”. As for the more distant future, he speculated on “the possible contribution of Islam to some new manifestation of religion”, warned that

“if the present situation of mankind were to precipitate a ‘race war’, Islam Might be moved to play her historic role once again. Absit omen”, and advised that “Westerners, who are mentally still-slumbering, have now to realize that our neighbors’ past is going to become a vital part of our Western future”.

Seventy years later, in his abovementioned controversial book, French atheist philosopher Michel Onfray echoed Toynbee’s predictions. He pointed out that History testified that there was no civilization built on atheism and materialism “which both are signs or even symptoms of the decomposition of a civilization” and that “we don’t bind men together without the help of the sacred”. He pronounced the death of the Judeo-Christian tradition, which will soon be overthrown by Islam, a religion “endowed with a planetary army made up of countless believers willing to die for their religion, God and His Prophet”. 

For our part, we will deliberately refrain from indulging in any rhetoric of hatred and mutual misunderstanding embodied in such deadly and confrontational slogans as “Clash of Civilizations”. A much better alternative route would be to seek common denominators among all peoples and cultures converging towards the objective of building lasting peace and security and shared prosperity in today’s globalized albeit disoriented world.

In a forthcoming analysis, we’ll attempt to explain the reasons why, and the only conditions and circumstances under which Islam will indeed be able to answer to the appeal to play its “historic role once again”. It can only do so as a driving force within a “global alliance of the willing” aiming to build a truly “universal civilization”. Bonum omen.

*

Notes

  1. Algerian researcher in international relations, author of the book L’Orient et l’Occident à l’heure d’un nouveau Sykes-Picot (The Orient and the Occident at a time of a new Sykes-Picot), Editions Alem El Afkar, Algiers, 2014: downloadable free of charge, by clicking on the following links:http://algerienetwork.com/blog/lorient-et-loccident-a-lheure-dun-nouveau-sykes-picot-par-amir-nour/ (French) http://algerienetwork.com/blog/العالم-العربي-على-موعد-مع-سايكس-بيكو-ج/ (Arabic)
  2. Albert Einstein, in an interview with Alfred Werner, Liberal Judaism 16 (April-May 1949), Einstein Archive 30-1104, as sourced in The New Quotable Einstein by Alice Calaprice (2005), p. 173 
  3. Read and watch: https://news.un.org/en/story/2017/12/640812-un-chief-issues-red-alert-urges-world-come-together-2018-tackle-pressing
  4. G. John Ikenberry, The Plot Against American Foreign Policy: Can the Liberal Order Survive?, Foreign Affairs, May/June 2017. 
  5. Commenting on Piketty’s book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Paul Krugman said “He’s telling us that we are on the road not just to a highly unequal society, but to a society of an oligarchy. A society of inherited wealth […] We are becoming very much the kind of society we imagined we’re nothing like.
  6. Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0 
  7. Joseph E. Stiglitz, The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them, 2015.
  8. Oxfam, Working for the Few: Political Capture and Inequality, Briefing Paper 178, January 20, 2014.
  9. Read the report titled An Economy For the 99%.
  10. Chuck Collins and Josh Hoxie, Billionaire Bonanza 2017: The Forbes 400 and the Rest of Us
  11. Pankaj Mishra, Age of Anger: A History of the Present, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2017.
  12. Gregg Easterbrook, The Progress Paradox: How Life Gets Better While People Feel Worse, 2004
  13. Gregg Easterbrook, It’s Better than It Looks: Reasons for Optimism in an Age of Fear, PublicAffairs, 2018.
  14. Steven Pinker, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, Viking, 2018. 
  15. David Callahan, The Cheating Culture: Why More Americans Are Doing Wrong to Get Ahead, 2004. 
  16. Pankaj Mishra, Age of Anger, op. cit. 
  17. Noam Chomsky, Optimism over Despair: On capitalism, Empire and Social Change, Penguin Books, 2017. 
  18. Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, Harper & Row Publishers, 1958.
  19. Franklin Foer, World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech, Penguin Press, 2017. 
  20. Jon Gertner, Are tech giants robbing us of our decision-making and our individuality?, The Washington Post, October 6, 2017. 
  21. Yuval Noah Harari, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Harvill Secker, 2014 and Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, Harper, 2017.
  22. Read J.T. Cacioppo and J. Decety, Social Neuroscience: Challenges and Opportunities in the Study of Complex Behavior, in Annals of the New York academy of Sciences, Vol. 1224, 2011.
  23. Malek Bennabi (1905-1973) is best known for having coined the concept of “colonizability” (the inner aptitude to be colonized) and the notion of “mondialisme” (Globalism). 
  24. Malek Bennabi, Le problème des idées dans le Monde musulman, 1970.
  25. J.C. Kapur, Our Future: Consumerism or Humanism, Kapur Surya Foundation, New Delhi, 2005. 
  26. Andrew Norman Wilson, God’s Funeral: The Decline of Faith in Western Civilization, W.W. Norton, 1999. 
  27. In Age of Anger, op. cit. 
  28. Deepak Chopra and Leonard Mlodinow, War of the Worldviews: Science vs. Spirituality, 2011.
  29. Manlio Graziano, Holy Wars and Holy Alliance: The Return of Religion to the Global Political Stage, Columbia University Press, 2017. 
  30. Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Faith: Why the World is More Religious than Ever, ISI Books, 2015.
  31. For more on that subject, read: D. Hamer, The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into Our Genes, 2004; J. Micklethwait and A. Wooldridge, God is Back: How the Global Rise of Faith is Changing the World, 2009; M. Duffy Toft, D. Philpott and T. Samuel Shah, God’s Century: Resurgent Religion and Global Politics, 2011;
  32. Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion, 2000.
  33. Arnold Toynbee, Civilization on Trial, Oxford University Press, New York, 1948. 
  34. Emanuel L. Paparella Is Western Civilization Doomed? A review Essay, Modern Diplomacy, Oct. 20, 2015. 
  35. (Decadence: The Life and Death of the Judeo-Christian Tradition), Flammarion, 2017.
  36. Read Mike Adam’s Darwinian analysis titled The Coming Collapse of Western Civilization: The Shocking Reason Why Liberal Americans Are Weak, But Islamic Soldiers Are Strong, September 30, 2016.
  37. Arnold Toynbee, Civilization on Trial, op. cit. 
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fighting for Survival: Whither Modern Civilization?

On Thursday, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Alex Azar told reporters that the number of immigrant children separated from their parents was around 3,000—50 percent higher than the 2,000 previously reported. Many of these children have been separated from their parents for weeks.

According to Azar, 101 of the children are under the age of five. The Justice Department reported that of the youngest children, 16 have not yet been linked to any parents, while the parents of 19 children have already been deported. The government is unable to locate the parents of another 19 children. It is likely that many will never see their children again.

Earlier on Thursday, Commander Jonathan White, HHS assistant secretary for preparedness and response, reported that the government was performing DNA tests of immigrant children to test whether those seeking their liberation from detention were their biological parents.

The compilation of a DNA database of immigrant children calls to mind the types of measures employed by the Nazis against Jews and other “undesirables.” And those few parents who have been able to free their children have been forced to pay for the cost of relocation—often thousands of dollars—echoing the Nazi requirement that the relatives of those shot pay for the bullets.

Late Thursday night, the Trump administration filed a motion requesting an extension of a court deadline requiring the government to reunite children with their parents. The administration claimed that more time was needed to genetically test immigrant children and locate their parents. A judge responded by saying he needed more time to consider the administration’s request, meaning the children will remain in limbo.

Though the media reported Trump’s announcement of an “end” to family separation last month as an “about face” and a “reversal,” only a handful of detained children have been united with their parents. The Los Angeles Times wrote of one mother’s letter about her detained son:

“It’s been a month since they snatched him away and there are moments when I can’t go on… If they are going to deport me, let them do it—but with my child. Without him, I am not going to leave here.”

The Trump administration has responded to growing popular protest by defending the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agencies and ramping-up its inflammatory xenophobic rhetoric.

On Thursday, Trump tweeted:

“Every day, the brave men and women of ICE are liberating communities from savage gangs like MS-13. We will NOT stand for these vile Democrat smears in law enforcement. We will always stand proudly with the BRAVE HEROES of ICE and BORDER PATROL!”

He reiterated his demand that immigrants be stripped of all due process rights, tweeting,

“Tell the people “OUT,” and they must leave, just as they would if they were standing on your front lawn. Hiring thousands of ‘judges’ does not work and is not acceptable – only Country in the World that does this!”

He also tweeted,

“A vote for Democrats in November is a vote to let MS-13 run wild in our communities, to let drugs pour into our cities, and to take jobs and benefits away from hardworking Americans. Democrats want anarchy, amnesty and chaos—Republicans want LAW, ORDER and JUSTICE!”

Trump’s denunciation of Democrats for being “pro-immigrant” is a farce. Those Democrats who have spoken about “abolishing” ICE have clarified that this does not mean putting an end to deportation and mass detention of immigrants. On the contrary, Democrats seek to return to the policies of the Obama administration, when a record 2.7 million immigrants were deported and hundreds of thousands of parents were torn from their children.

Responding to Trump’s claim that Democrats support abolishing borders, Minority Leader Charles Schumer tweeted on June 21,

“Open borders, @realDonaldTrump? The bipartisan immigration bill I authored had $40 billion for border security and would have been far more effective than the wall.”

Vice President Mike Pence gave a televised address at ICE headquarters yesterday, calling the American immigration Gestapo “American heroes” and proclaiming: “We will never abolish ICE.” He denounced those who are demanding the agency’s abolition, stating:

“The American people have a right to their opinions, but these spurious attacks on ICE by our political leaders must stop. The type of language that’s being used to describe the men and women in this agency and the work that you do every day is unacceptable.”

Behind the rhetoric aimed at shoring up institutional support for the US deportation forces, the government is rapidly militarizing ICE and preparing for a new round of mass raids. According to a July 3 report by Ken Kippenstein of the Young Turks,

ICE “is quietly training its deportation officers in the use of weapons more familiar to the US military than to domestic law enforcement, federal records show.”

Citing federal procurement records and contracts, Kippenstein reported that

ICE’s “enforcement and Removal Officers are being trained in the use of M4 assault rifles, chemical agents, stun grenades, and flash bangs.”

The M4 is the primary service weapon of the US Marine Corps. ICE and CBP have recently doubled their M4 contracts, acquiring 8,000 assault rifles, records show.

“Sounds like they’re getting ready for war,” former ICE agent Rob Uribe Alvarez told the Young Turks.

In June, the Young Turks reported that

“ICE had retained a former CIA interrogator to train agents in handling ‘terrorist suspects.’”

In a further sign the government is preparing to use the military to raid immigrant neighborhoods, the military has begun discharging dozens of immigrants. The Associated Press reported Thursday that dozens of “US Army reservists and recruits who enlisted in the military with a path to citizenship are being abruptly discharged.”

Some recruits were told they posed “security risks because they have relatives abroad,” AP reported.

Hector Barajas, a military veteran who was deported from the US, told the World Socialist Web Site:

“Just like with the mistreatment of immigrant children, this has been going on since the Obama administration, only now it is worse and the government is more blunt.”

Barajas, who fought in the Persian Gulf War, was allowed to return only in April after a years-long struggle to win re-admittance to his home country.

“I’ve been deported for 14 years,” he said. “There’s always been anti-immigrant sentiment, whether against the Italians, Irish or whoever. Now it’s Hispanics mostly. Right now, they say immigrants are causing problems by crossing borders. How many people did Obama deport? Millions of people. Now Trump says to immigrants, ‘We don’t need you.’ But if there’s a war with Russia, they’re going to take everyone and they don’t care if you speak English or not. They will send us to war even though they treat us like second class soldiers.”

Polls show that Trump’s anti-immigrant policies are increasingly unpopular. Nearly 70 percent of Americans said they opposed the family separation policy, according to a new poll from the Washington Post. The Trump administration’s attack on immigrants, including the establishment of detention camps and the arming of special Gestapo-like deportation units, is directed ultimately against the entire working class and all social opposition to inequality and war.

Reporting Hate Crimes: The Arab American Experience

July 9th, 2018 by James J. Zogby

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Next week, the Arab American Institute Foundation will release a comprehensive study on anti-Arab hate crimes in the US. The result of eight months of work, “Underreported, Under Threat: Hate Crime in the United States and the Targeting of Arab Americans,” fills a gap in available research on hate-based crime.

More than just a compilation of acts of violence or threats against persons of Arab descent, the AAIF study also reviews the history of how law enforcement agencies have dealt with (or rather has not dealt with) anti-Arab hate crimes. The report then rates the performance of all 50 states and the District of Colombia as to whether or not they have hate crime and data collection statutes, and require and provide appropriate law enforcement training. It concludes with recommendations for national and local governments to assist in improving their reporting and performance in dealing with these crimes.

Among the report’s findings we learn that while pervasive negative stereotypes and political exclusion have increased the vulnerability of Arab Americans, actual threats and incidents of violence against members of the community have “historically intensified in the wake of developments in the Middle East or incidents of mass violence”—whether or not the perpetrator was of Arab descent. The study notes with concern that this “backlash” effect has “increased in the current political climate.”

As the report makes clear both federal and state governments have, to varying degrees, been negligent in addressing this problem. The FBI started collecting data on hate crimes, including those targeting Arab Americans, after Congress passed the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990. But in 1992, the federal government told the FBI it was not allowed to publish statistics on anti-Arab hate crimes, and the category used to report anti-Arab hate crimes was removed from the FBI’s data collections. This did not stop local law enforcement agencies from reporting hundreds of incidents under this category until 2003, when the FBI told agencies that it would start rejecting “improperly coded data.”  Even though the category was reintroduced in 2015, the AAIF study shows that federal anti-Arab hate crime statistics are still deficient. One indication is that state governments report a greater number of anti-Arab hate crimes in their own publications than federal statistics. In the case of nationwide data targeting all communities, comparing hate crimes compiled by state governments with federal data reveals “thousands of hate crimes were reported at the state level but not published in federal statistics.”

For me, this issue is deeply personal. I know from experience how dangerous and painful anti-Arab hate can be. I received my first death threat in April 1970 in the form of a letter stating, “Arab dog, you will die…” In 1980, my office was fire-bombed and I continued to receive threats throughout the next two decades. After repeated threats, a colleague and friend in California, Alex Odeh, was murdered when his office was bombed in 1985. And since September 11, 2001, three individuals have gone to prison for threatening my life and the lives of my children and staff.

In all of this, I have observed several patterns.

In most instances, these hate crimes were politically motivated and were tied either to the perpetrator’s racist assumption that all Arabs were responsible for violent events in the Middle East or here at home. Or they were an effort to silence me and other Arab Americans from speaking out on issues of concern. Although it is not the focus of the AAIF report to discern the motives of the perpetrators of bias-motivated incidents, my experience dictates the “why” is worth noting.

As I observed in congressional testimony in 1985, in too many instances the threats against us were preceded by incitement. As I noted,

These acts of violence and threats of violence against Arab American(s) are but part of a larger picture of discrimination, harassment, and intimidation. We can document numerous instances of active political discrimination against Arab Americans, ‘blacklisting’ of Arab American political activists and spokespersons, and efforts to bait or taint Arab American leaders and organizations as terrorists or terrorist supporters.

All of these actions and practices create a climate in which Arab Americans become fearful of speaking freely and participating in legitimate political activity. Further, these practices serve to embolden the political opponents of Arab Americans to the point where, as we have seen, some have escalated their opposition to include acts of violence against Arab Americans and their organizations.

To the old adage “sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me,” I have suggested adding “but names, if repeated often enough, may incite others to commit violence.” It was no mere coincidence that some of the death threats against me and my colleagues quoted material taken from virulently anti-Arab publications or websites.

Another byproduct of persistent defamatory attacks, some emanating from major pro-Israel organizations, was to make it difficult for Arab Americans to normalize their political involvement or to discourage others from becoming politically engaged—which I believe was the purpose of the defamation. This, in turn, historically played a role both in increasing the community’s vulnerability to threats and also in discouraging Arab American victims from reporting them when threats occurred.

Why would discussions of Middle East politics find their way to an analysis of hate crimes? Because as the AAIF report notes, targeted violence against Arab Americans is best contextualized within broader historical trends of anti-Arab animus and the role exclusionary politics played in advancing it. This exclusion, or the fear of being excluded, often made members of the community reticent to go public when threatened.

Thankfully, this situation has dramatically changed. Although still subject to defamation, Arab Americans are no longer excluded from the political mainstream. Not only have we found our voice, but we have allies who will come to our defense. And, despite real concerns with their work in other areas, law enforcement agencies have become more responsive to hate crimes against Arab Americans.

A final word about the efforts of law enforcement in addressing hate crimes:

Over the past four decades, the performance of federal law enforcement agencies in addressing hate crimes has gone from deplorable to commendable. Early on, Arab Americans even hesitated to report death threats because of the behavior of the agents who came to visit us. After the 1980 fire bombing for example, I ended up feeling that I was being grilled more for information about the Arab community, then about the likely perpetrators—members of an FBI-designated terrorist group, the Jewish Defense League (JDL). The JDL had issued a statement “approving” of the attack and the group’s founder later appeared outside my new office shouting,

I know who is in there—cowards and supporters of terrorism. Their office was burned down. They ran over here and changed their name. But we know who they are.

In 1985, I went to the director of the FBI with over 100 affidavits from Arab Americans in the Los Angeles area complaining of FBI harassment and a dozen reporting threats of violence. I pointedly asked, “why do you spend so much time and resources harassing us and so little time defending us.” A few months later, one of the Arab Americans who had reported a threat, Alex Odeh, was murdered in a bombing attack on his office.

Since 9/11, the situation changed quite dramatically. The FBI and the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division have taken threats seriously. While other problems remain, in this area they have been quite protective of the community – investigating, prosecuting, and convicting individuals in over one hundred hate crime cases.

It is this context of the progress made and the work that remains to be done that the AAIF report has been issued. It will, I believe, serve as an invaluable resource for policy makers, law enforcement agencies, and community groups.

*

James J. Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute.

Featured image is from Khalil Bendib.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The long-awaited reports of the investigation by the UK Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) into Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition between 2001 and 2010 have finally been published. We ourselves have been researching the UK’s part in rendition and torture for years and gave evidence to the committee – and these reports are much harder hitting than we had expected.

Chaired by MP and QC Dominic Grieve, the ISC’s investigation has revealed that the extent of UK involvement in prisoner abuse was even greater than we had previously documented. The reports also highlight serious weaknesses relating to the training of security personnel, and governance and oversight of their conduct. Many of the ISC’s conclusions corroborate our own research findings, and we were pleased to see a number of issues we raised when we gave evidence to the ISC in January 2017.

As we have argued for years now – and as we told the ISC – British complicity in torture was deep, wide and sustained. Government ministers have always denied this – the former foreign secretary, Jack Straw famously stated that only conspiracy theorists should believe the UK was involved in rendition. That position is now more untenable than ever. It is clear from the ISC reports that UK officials knew about the US programme immediately after 9/11 and worked to support their allies in ways which enabled continued “plausible deniability”.

The report’s findings are unambiguous. In more than 70 cases – far more than have ever been identified before now – British intelligence knew of, suggested, planned, agreed to, or paid for others to conduct rendition operations. Some of the details are excruciating – one MI6 officer was present while a prisoner was transferred in a coffin-sized box. In literally hundreds of further cases, UK officials were aware of detainees being mistreated by their allies, continued to supply questions to be asked of detainees under torture, and received intelligence from those who had been tortured.

While names and locations have been redacted in these reports, our own years of investigation enable us to fit new facts into our broader picture of post-9/11 torture. It is likely that we will be able to identify some of the important detail left out by the reports. In many cases, these omissions resulted from the government refusing to allow the ISC to interview intelligence officers with knowledge of British involvement. In the absence of a full judge-led inquiry, our fact-finding work remains crucial, and we are committed to doing what we can.

We also know enough from the victims themselves, in their own words, about the human toll of this form of state violence. If you are being beaten up, electrocuted, raped, or subjected to mock execution, you tend to say whatever it takes to make it stop. Small wonder that intelligence received under torture is notoriously of limited value.

The fact that the UK attempted to keep its hands clean by involvement from afar makes the situation no better. When the reports were released, Theresa May stated that “intelligence and Armed Forces personnel are now much better placed” to deal with detainee-related work and that the necessary lessons have been learned. But in our evidence to the ISC, we also raised a number of concerns about the adequacy of today’s training and the strength of current guidance, which ostensibly prevents a return to the early years of the “War on Terror” – and we are not convinced.

No stone unturned

In our testimony to the ISC, we pointed to flaws in the so-called “Consolidated Guidance” issued to all security agencies and the military from 2010. The ISC has taken this seriously. In their conclusions, it concludes that the guidance is by no means “consolidated”, and that “it is misleading to present it as such”. The ISC points to “dangerous ambiguities in the guidance”, noting that “individual ministers have entirely different understandings of what they can and cannot, and would and would not, authorise”.

We encouraged the ISC to examine how frequently agency or Ministry of Defence personnel had followed the guidance, and to establish how frequently concerns about prisoner abuse were reported up the chain of command. This the ISC has done. Frustratingly, corresponding data is redacted from the final release. Nevertheless, the ISC’s conclusions indicate that record keeping on these matters is weak, and that there are considerable risks that cases which should be reported upwards are not.

This is exacerbated by the fact that “there is no clear policy and not even agreement as to who has responsibility for preventing UK complicity in unlawful rendition”. And as the ISC reports, the government “has failed to introduce any policy or process that will ensure that allies will not use UK territory for rendition purposes”.

We have long argued that the Consolidated Guidance does little more than provide a rhetorical, legal and policy scaffold, enabling the UK government to demonstrate a minimum procedural adherence to human rights commitments. As the ISC quite rightly concludes, there is an urgent need for review and fundamental reform of the Consolidated Guidance. The government must also establish much more robust oversight, training and accountability mechanisms.

We would also argue, in the strongest possible terms, that only a judge-led inquiry with full powers of subpoena will enable the public to know what was done in their name. Without this it will be even harder to achieve full accountability and to identify current forms of UK complicity in human rights abuses. With the anti-torture norm being eroded at the very top of the US government once again, these risks are very present and real.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above.

Update 4: A second junior Brexit minister has resigned – Suella Bravermanm MP for Fareham. This leaves just two of the five person Brexit team remaining.

***

Update 3: Here is the full text of Theresa May’s letter in response to David Davis’s resignation as Brexit Secretary (highlights ours):

Dear David

Thank you for your letter explaining your decision to resign as Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.

I am sorry that you have chosen to leave the Government when we have already made so much progress towards delivering a smooth and successful Brexit, and when we are only eight months from the date set in law when the United Kingdom will leave the European Union.

At Chequers on Friday, we as the Cabinet agreed a comprehensive and detailed proposal which provides a precise, responsible, and credible basis for progressing our negotiations towards a new relationship between the UK and the EU after we leave in March. We set out how we will deliver on the result of the referendum and the commitments we made in our manifesto for the 2017 general election:

  1. Leaving the EU on 29 March 2019.
  2. Ending free movement and taking back control of our borders.
  3. No more sending vast sums of money each year to the EU.
  4. A new business-friendly customs model with freedom to strike new trade deals around the world.
  5. A UK-EU free trade area with a common rulebook for industrial goods and agricultural products which will be good for jobs.
  6. A commitment to maintain high standards on consumer and employment rights and the environment.
  7. A Parliamentary lock on all new rules and regulations.
  8. Leaving the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy.
  9. Restoring the supremacy of British courts by ending the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK.
  10. No hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, or between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
  11. Continued, close co-operation on security to keep our people safe.
  12. An independent foreign and defence policy, working closely with the EU and other allies.

This is consistent with the mandate of the referendum and with the commitments we laid out in our general election manifesto: leaving the single market and the customs union but seeking a deep and special partnership including a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement; ending the vast annual contributions to the EU; and pursuing fair, orderly negotiations, minimising disruption and giving as much certainty as possible so both sides benefit.

As we said in our manifesto, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside our withdrawal, reaching agreement on both within the two years allowed by Article 50.

I have always agreed with you that these two must go alongside one another, but if we are to get sufficient detail about our future partnership, we need to act now. We have made a significant move: it is for the EU now to respond in the same spirit.

I do not agree with your characterisation of the policy we agreed at Cabinet on Friday.

Parliament will decide whether or not to back the deal the Government negotiates, but that deal will undoubtedly mean the returning of powers from Brussels to the United Kingdom.

The direct effect of EU law will end when we leave the EU. Where the UK chooses to apply a common rulebook, each rule will have to be agreed by Parliament.

Choosing not to sign up to certain rules would lead to consequences for market access, security co-operation or the frictionless border, but that decision will rest with our sovereign Parliament, which will have a lock on whether to incorporate those rules into the UK legal order.

I am sorry that the Government will not have the benefit of your continued expertise and counsel as we secure this deal and complete the process of leaving the EU, but I would like to thank you warmly for everything you have done over the past two years as Secretary of State to shape our departure from the EU, and the new role the UK will forge on the world stage as an independent, self-governing nation once again.

You returned to Government after nineteen years to lead an entirely new Department responsible for a vital, complex, and unprecedented task.

You have helped to steer through Parliament some of the most important legislation for generations, including the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which received Royal Assent last week.

These landmark Acts, and what they will do, stand as testament to your work and our commitment to honouring the result of the referendum.

Yours sincerely,

Theresa May

***

Update 2: Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn wasted no time in launching a full on attack on May, tweeting:

“David Davis resigning at such a crucial time shows @theresa_may has no authority left and is incapable of delivering Brexit. With her Government in chaos, if she clings on, it’s clear she’s more interested in hanging on for her own sake than serving the people of our country.”

And in light of recent advanced by democrat socialists in the US, it probably wouldn’t be too ridiculous for the UK to make a hard left turn next as well.

* * *

Update 1: Confirming earlier rumors, Sky News reports that Steve Baker, Britain’s junior Brexit minister, technically the Brexit minister for “contingency planning”, is the other (for now) conservative MP to resign alongside Davis.

* * *

In what has been called “an absolute bombshell”, U.K. Brexit Secretary David Davis resigned from Theresa May’s government late Sunday, one week before the UK is scheduled to present its demands to Brussels.

His full resignation letter is below (highlights ours):

Dear Prime Minister

As you know there have been a significant number of occasions in the last year or so on which I have disagreed with the Number 10 policy line, ranging from accepting the Commission’s sequencing of negotiations through to the language on Northern Ireland in the December Joint Report.

At each stage I have accepted collective responsibility because it is part of my task to find workable compromises, and because I considered it was still possible to deliver on the mandate of the referendum, and on our manifesto commitment to leave the Customs Union and the Single Market.

I am afraid that I think the current trend of policy and tactics is making that look less and less likely. Whether it is the progressive dilution of what I thought was a firm Chequers agreement in February on right to diverge, or the unnecessary delays of the start of the White Paper, or the presentation of a backstop proposal that omitted the strict conditions that I requested and believed that we had agreed, the general direction of policy will leave us in at best a weak negotiating position, and possibly an inescapable one.

The Cabinet decision on Friday crystallised this problem. In my view the inevitable consequence of the proposed policies will be to make the supposed control by Parliament illusory rather than real. As I said at Cabinet, the “common rule book” policy hands control of large swathes of our economy to the EU and is certainly not returning control of our laws in any real sense.

I am also unpersuaded that our negotiating approach will not just lead to further demands for concessions.

Of course this is a complex area of judgement and it is possible that you are right and I am wrong. However, even in that event it seems to me that the national interest requires a Secretary of State in my Department that is an enthusiastic believer in your approach, and not merely a reluctant conscript. While I have been grateful to you for the opportunity to serve, it is with great regret that I tender my resignation from the Cabinet with immediate effect.

Yours ever,

David Davis

Davis resignation comes two days after May received backing from her cabinet for a new “soft Brexit” plan which envisioned maintaining close ties with the EU after the UK’s departure from the block, news which was cheered the UK business lobby and which had set cable on an upward trajectory in early Asia trading, before the news hit which halted the pound’s ascent.

The cabinet signed up to the proposals, which were hammered out at Chequers – the country house of the UK Prime Minister – last week. May is due to unveil the plans tomorrow in parliament, before a potentially stormy meeting with her own MPs.

Davis had disagreed with May’s plans for keeping EU rules for goods and adopting a close customs model with the bloc, and his resignation threatens more political turmoil, this time in the UK, as moderates are set off against hard brexiteers.
However, some pro-Brexit Tories are angry about the plan, with speculation that it could end up in a leadership challenge.

As Sky News adds, some pro-Brexit Tories are angry about the plan and there is speculation it could end up in a leadership challenge. Sky’s political correspondent Lewis Goodall called the resignation of Mr Davis “an absolute bombshell”.

He said: “To resign tonight after the emergency meeting at Chequers on Friday is really quite shocking when you consider, apparently according to the briefing we received, that every single member of the cabinet – admittedly some with their reservations – all agreed that they would support the prime minister’s proposals and they would defend them in public.

“The big question now is, is David Davis going to be joined by any other figures? All eyes of course will be on Boris Johnson and other Brexiteers.”

According to BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, “Davis concluded he could not stay in post after a meeting” with Theresa May earlier today – “understand he was furious at Number 10 handling”

Meanwhile, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson reportedly described defending the plans as like “polishing a turd” during the Chequers summit, before eventually falling into line behind the prime minister.

* * *

As a reminder, late on Friday Theresa May won approval at an all-day Chequers summit for a pro-business plan to keep Britain intimately bound to the EU single market and customs union, beating back Eurosceptic cabinet opposition to her new “soft Brexit” strategy, the FT reported.

May briefed the media at 6.45pm on Friday that the cabinet had agreed a collective position to create a “UK-EU free trade area which establishes a common rulebook for industrial goods and agricultural products”. The plan would see Britain commit in a treaty to adopt new EU rules for goods— an approach viewed by some Tories as leaving the UK as “a vassal state”. Parliament could break the treaty, but trigger severe market reprisals from the EU if it did.

May challenged critics including foreign secretary Boris Johnson to back the plan for a “UK-EU free trade area” in a confrontation seen by senior Tories as a decisive moment in the tortuous Brexit process.

Johnson and five other cabinet ministers met on Thursday night at the Foreign Office to plan a counter-attack to try to preserve a clean Brexit, but they eventually concluded they could not stop Mrs May’s plan.

“People are not happy with what is being proposed but people are keen to keep the government together,” said one of those at the meeting at Mrs May’s country residence.

May’s team had vaunted the prime minister’s ability to face down the Eurosceptics, encouraged by pleas from mainstream Conservative MPs that the time had come for her to tell her critics to put up or shut up.

Davis’ unexpected resignation threatens to further inflame cabinet tensions, especially in light of an earlier Mirror report that 42 lawmakers had formally expressed no confidence in Theresa May. A leadership contest would be triggered if 48 Conservative MPs formally submit letters.

May said on Friday that the proposals were “good for the UK and good for the EU” and would “deliver prosperity and security”.

And while it remains unclear if there will be more resignation in Davis’ footsteps, according to the BBC at least one more minister is on their way out:

Following the news, cable dipped modestly however it has since regained much of the losses and looks set to continue on its upward trajectory established last Friday. As Bloomberg’s Mark Cranfield adds, “EUR/GBP will quickly unwind last week’s drop and then climb further as David Davis’ resignation leaves the U.K. without its most experienced Brexit negotiator. This dramatically reduces the chances of Theresa May being able to push the Brexit White Paper through the U.K. parliament this week.

*

All images in this article are from Zero Hedge.

In the June 7 provincial election, Ontario politics took a sharp turn to the right as the Progressive Conservatives (PCs), under the leadership of the populist businessman and former Toronto city councillor Doug Ford, steamrolled to a majority government. The PCs took 40.5 per cent of the popular vote and 76 out of 124 seats in the Ontario legislature, putting an end to the 15-year reign of the Ontario Liberals. The Ontario New Democratic Party (NDP), under the leadership of Andrea Horwath, catapulted from their third-place position to Official Opposition, and received 33.6 per cent of the popular vote and 40 seats. Meanwhile, Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals suffered a catastrophic defeat, receiving just 19.6 per cent of the popular vote and 7 seats – one seat below the threshold for official party status in the legislature.

The PCs last won an election in Ontario in 1999, when the right-wing government of Mike Harris – whose ‘Common Sense Revolution’ included large tax cuts, ‘workfare’, the weakening of trade unions and deep cuts in public spending – was re-elected with a second majority. By the 2003 election, however, the tide had turned strongly against the Tories and the party spent the next 15 years in opposition. During this period, the party was divided between those that wished to continue the Harris approach and those that sought to move closer to the political centre. In the most recent election in 2014, PC leader Tim Hudak, a right-wing ideologue, flirted with ‘right to work’ laws and promised to take the Common Sense Revolution further. His One Million Jobs Plan that called for the elimination of 100,000 public sector jobs in order to eliminate the province’s deficit, as well as the slashing of corporate taxes by 30 per cent in order to attract investment. Offering voters little more than hyper-austerity, the Tories again went down to defeat.

Doug Ford

The PCs: The Triumph of Right-Wing Populism, Ontario Style

In the May 2015 leadership race, federal Conservative MP Patrick Brown prevailed over PC MPP and deputy leader Christine Elliott. In spite of Brown’s own socially conservative voting record and support from social conservatives in his leadership run, Brown quickly changed course and set out to remake the PCs as a socially liberal, centrist party that rejected ideological polarization and sought to govern for all Ontarians. In November 2017, Brown released his program, the “People’s Guarantee,” a rather centrist document that included a carbon tax and left much of the Liberal legacy in place.

With the Tories enjoying a wide lead in the polls as they headed into the election, Brown appeared well poised to be the next Premier of Ontario. However, Brown was forced to resign as leader in January in the wake of sexual harassment allegations. This led to another leadership contest that took place in March. In addition, Brown was accused of misappropriating party funds.

In announcing his leadership bid, Doug Ford stated that

“I can’t watch the party I love fall into the hands of the elites.”

Ford prevailed over ‘establishment’ candidate Christine Elliott, who had the support of most of the PC caucus. While narrowly losing the popular vote to Elliott, Ford won the leadership race due to a points system that weighted votes by riding.

The son of the late Doug Ford Sr., a Harris era MPP and founder of Deco Labels, a multimillion dollar company with operations in Canada and the USA, Doug Ford is a co-owner of the family business and has continued the family tradition of right-wing politics. He was also seen as the brains behind his brother, the late Rob Ford, the infamous mayor of Toronto elected on populist pledges of “respect for taxpayers,” stopping the “gravy train” at City Hall and ending the “war on the car” who later brought notoriety to Toronto worldwide when videos emerged of him smoking crack. Doug Ford entered politics in 2010 and was elected in the low income, multicultural ward in north Etobicoke that had previously been represented by his brother. Doug Ford acted as the ‘co-mayor’ of Toronto during his brother’s mayoralty, and stepped in to run for mayor when his brother received a cancer diagnosis. Ford lost the mayoralty race to the establishmentarian conservative John Tory, but received 34 per cent of the popular vote and carried the working class wards on the city’s periphery.

As a wealthy businessman who rails against the “elite,” Ford has inevitably drawn comparisons to U.S. President Donald Trump. While Ford had previously expressed strong support for Trump, he later rejected the comparison and dismissed it as a media fabrication. Like Trump, he is known for his refusal to be ‘politically correct’, denigration of expertise, hostility to the press and bullying behavior. Ford also has a long track record of misogyny. Yet in contrast to Trump and other right-wing populists, racism and xenophobia have not been a central component of Ford’s campaign messaging and Ford has received significant support in many ethnic and immigrant communities (in spite of his past links to, and continued support from, far-right circles).

In his pitch for the leadership, Ford spoke of his key role in his brother’s administration, making the dubious claim of having saved Toronto taxpayers $1-billion. He offered the PCs the ability to win seats in the city of Toronto, where the party had been more or less shut out since 2003 (though former city councillor Raymond Cho was elected as a PC MPP in a Scarborough riding in a 2016 by-election), as well as an ability to appeal to disaffected Liberal and NDP voters, blue collar workers and “populists” across the province.

With Brown out of the picture, the “People’s Guarantee” was declared null and void by all of the leadership candidates, with Ford leading the charge. Appealing to the right-wing base of the party, Ford railed against the implementation of a carbon tax and vowed to scrap the province’s cap-and-trade system (“cap the carbon tax and trade Kathleen Wynne”). And in an appeal to social conservatives, Ford pledged to “stand for parents” and repeal the province’s sex-ed curriculum (“Sex ed curriculum should be about facts, not teaching Liberal ideology”). Upon winning the leadership race, Ford declared that:

“The party is over with the taxpayers’ money.”

Ford simplified the PC Party message (and laid it out under the sly platform title, For the People: A Plan for Ontario). Freeze the minimum wage at $14 an hour and instead eliminate the provincial income tax on incomes below $30,00 in order to provide relief to low-income workers. A 20% income tax cut for the ‘middle class.’ Cut the corporate tax rate from 11.5% to 10.5% in order to make Ontario ‘open for business’ and attract jobs. Lower gas prices by 10 cents a litre by cutting the provincial fuel tax and fight the implementation of any carbon tax by Ottawa. Respect the will of parents over ‘special interests’ and replace the sex education curriculum. Lower hydro prices by firing the CEO of Hydro One (“the six million dollar man”) and its board of directors.

In contrast to Hudak’s “100,000 jobs” pledge, Ford vowed that there would be no layoffs under his watch (“Let me be clear: No one is getting laid off”). Rather he would eliminate government waste simply by finding $6-billion in unspecified “efficiencies.” According to Ford, given the fiscal recklessness of the Liberal government, this was a modest goal that could easily be achieved. As he put it in the first leaders’ debate:

“When I tell people, ‘My friends, we will find four cents on every dollar of efficiencies,’ they break out laughing. ‘That’s all you can find is four cents in efficiencies?’”

In addition, Ford promised to balance the budget within his first term in office.

Ford was repeatedly questioned by his opponents and the media as to how specifically he would find ‘efficiencies’ without cuts to jobs and public services, but he repeatedly dodged the question, stating only that a costed platform would appear before June 7. The PCs released a partially costed platform just days before voting day (but not before promising “a buck a beer back to Ontario” – meaning it was legal for brewers to sell at that price).

An analysis of party platforms by economist Mike Moffat found that the PCs were the furthest away from a balanced budget among the parties. According to Moffat:

“The promises add up to about $7-billion a year in tax cuts and spending. And it’s not clear where that $7-billion is going to come from.”

In addition to the lack of a costed plan, other controversies dogged the campaign, but they had little impact on the final result. For example, more than one quarter of PC candidates faced lawsuits or police investigations. And three days before the election, Rob Ford’s widow Renata Ford, filed a lawsuit against Doug Ford, alleging that he had mismanaged the family business and cheated Rob Ford’s family out of their inheritance.

Ford received a lukewarm reception in Ontario’s elite sectors, which would have preferred a smoother delivery from a more ‘generic’ conservative. The Globe and Mail, the main voice of the business establishment, refused to endorse its traditional party choice under Ford’s leadership. However, like the ‘never Trump’ movement among certain ‘establishment’ Republicans in the U.S., the impact was virtually nil.

While the PCs had a comfortable lead in the polls at the beginning of the campaign, Ford was seen as a liability to the party brand. The party’s decision to not have a media campaign bus was widely seen as a move to avoid media scrutiny. What looked like a cake-walk soon turned into a neck-in-neck race with the NDP. However, the PCs pulled ahead in the last days of the campaign, benefitting from anti-Liberal sentiment in the province and a sizable constituency of fiscal and social conservatives.

The Liberals: Out of the Game

In their 15 years in office, the Liberals have pursued an approach of ‘progressive competitiveness.’ While implementing some progressive social policy reforms during their tenure, such as full-day kindergarten, this was all done within in a broader framework of keeping Ontario ‘competitive.’ Corporate taxes were kept low, and Ontario maintained the lowest level of per capita spending among the provinces. The Liberals also showed a strong affinity for the use of private-public partnerships for financing investments in hospitals, transit and other infrastructure.

Kathleen Wynne was elected to the leadership of the Ontario Liberal Party and became the Premier of Ontario in January 2013. A former school trustee who entered politics to fight Harris cuts to education, Wynne was first elected as a Liberal MPP in 2003 and went on to serve in several Cabinet portfolios in the government of Dalton McGuinty. The first woman premier of Ontario and the first openly gay premier of any province, Wynne was seen as a left-wing Liberal and expressed a desire to be remembered as the ‘social justice premier’.

In the October 2014 election, the Liberals reversed course from the austerity-focus of the McGuinty governments and campaigned on progressive planks such as taxing the rich, the establishment of an Ontario pension plan, and deficit financing to pay for major investments in transit and infrastructure. While the Tories staked out territory on the hard right, Wynne presented herself as a champion of activist government. The Liberals outflanked a rightward-shifting NDP on the left, which desperately sought to present itself as a party of fiscal responsibility. The ‘bury the NDP’ strategy proved successful, and the Liberals also benefitted from a ‘stop Hudak’ campaign led by the province’s unions. Wynne was able to overcome the scandals of the McGuinty era and led the Liberals to a majority government.

A year later, however, Wynne’s controversial decision to sell off a majority stake of the province’s publicly-owned electrical utility, Hydro One, in order to pay for infrastructure improvements, marked a turning point for her government. The Toronto Star provincial affairs columnist Martin Regg Cohn described it as “the biggest miscalculation of Kathleen Wynne’s time as premier.” The privatization was opposed by over 80% of the population, and Ontarians associated the privatization with skyrocketing electricity bills. And, despite the election’s progressive tones, Wynne governed in her first years in office with the same budget austerity as McGuinty and adopted the infamously neoliberal Drummond report as her policy reference.

But in her last year in office, Wynne again – and confusingly – shifted leftward. While previously lukewarm to the idea of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, Wynne soon gave into pressure from the “15 and Fairness” campaign. In May, Wynne announced that the province’s minimum wage of $11.40 an hour would be significantly increased, rising to $14 an hour in January 2018 and again (if the Liberals were re-elected) to $15 in January 2019. The Liberals also implemented changes to Ontario’s labour laws, including card check union certification in certain sectors and supports for temporary workers and some measures to support equal pay for equal work. The Liberals also introduced a pharmacare program for all Ontarians under the age of 25, OHIP+.

In their election budget, the Liberals unveiled a universal childcare program for children aged 2.5 until the start of kindergarten that was widely praised by childcare advocates. It also called for investments in healthcare, mental health and transit. After achieving a modest surplus in 2017-18, the Liberals would return to deficit spending, with a projected six years of deficits. With the slogan “Care Over Cuts,” Wynne and the Liberals sought a repeat of the 2014 election strategy of marginalizing the NDP and presenting themselves as the progressive choice in a two-way race with the Conservatives.

The bump the Liberals received in the polls from the budget soon evaporated. With Wynne’s personal unpopularity and around 80 per cent of Ontarians wanting a change in government, the Liberals fell to third place.

While continuing their attacks on Ford and the Conservatives (“Doug Ford sounds like Donald Trump and that’s because he is like Donald Trump”), the Liberals soon turned their guns on the rising NDP as well. In a meeting with the Toronto Star editorial board, Wynne defended her record, stating that

“We really, I believe, run the most progressive government in North America.”

While maintaining that the Liberals and NDP shared “similar values,” the Liberals embraced “practical solutions” and did not “let ideology get in the way.” Wynne continued to attack the NDP for being too ideological and too beholden to unions.

In a stunning announcement on June 2, Wynne conceded that:

“After Thursday, I will no longer be Ontario’s premier.”

Conflating Ford and the NDP as equally risky, Wynne called for the election of as many Liberal MPPs as possible to block a majority government. Wynne maintained that voting Liberal would prevent either party from “acting too extreme” and from having a “blank cheque.”

Given her reputation as a progressive Liberal, it is difficult to believe that Wynne truly believed that an NDP government would be just as bad as a Ford one. However, an NDP victory was more likely to solidify their hold on the centre-left that the Liberals had traditionally occupied and prevent the Ontario Liberal Party from ever recovering. Wynne put the future of her party over the good of Ontario.

The NDP: The Orange Wave Fizzles

Andrea Horwath, a community organizer and city councillor in Hamilton before being elected as an MPP in 2004, has served as the leader of the Ontario NDP since 2009. Under Horwath’s leadership, the NDP, which had spent more than a decade in the political wilderness following the defeat of the unpopular government of Bob Rae in 1995, began to regain traditional levels of support.

Under Horwath, the NDP moved further away from traditional social democratic ideology. In the 2011 election, the party cracked 20 per cent for the first time since 1995, receiving 22.7% of the popular vote and 17 seats. The NDP showed further momentum by then picking up seats in four by-elections in Southwestern Ontario and Niagara region.

Rejecting what many saw as a fairly progressive budget, Horwath pulled the plug on the minority Liberals and forced an election in 2014. The NDP further alienated many of its traditional supporters and ran a populist campaign that positioned themselves to the right of the Liberals. Two of their central policy planks called for a Ministry of Savings and Accountability to find waste in government and tax cuts for small business. The NDP saw its popular vote increase modestly by 1 percentage point and took 21 seats, the same as before the election. The NDP picked up three seats elsewhere in the province, but three Toronto MPPs went down to defeat in an election that seemed to offer little for urban voters. Furthermore, the NDP now had less influence in the legislature as the Liberals went from minority to majority government.

In spite of the wounds of the 2014 election, Horwath made her peace with her critics in the party and easily survived a leadership review. Horwath shifted leftward in her rhetoric and promised to listen more closely to the party grassroots. In April 2016, the NDP belatedly came out in support of a $15 minimum wage, after previously rejecting such calls from activists in order to secure support from small business.

Seeking to avoid a repeat of the last campaign where they were outflanked on the left by the Liberals, the 2018 election platform, “Change for the Better,” moved closer to traditional social democratic positions. It focused on five key themes: (1) drug and dental coverage for all Ontarians; (2) end hallway medicine and fix seniors’ care; (3) cut hydro bills by 30% by bringing Hydro One back into public ownership; (4) take on student debt by converting loans to grants; and (5) making corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

“Change for the Better” moved away from the fiscal conservatism of the previous campaign, and run deficits over five years (though smaller than those of the Liberals). New revenues would come from increased personal taxes on incomes above $220,000 and an increase in the corporate tax rate to 13%. It included several positive reforms such as the end of police carding, covering 50% of municipal transit costs, and making it easier for workers to form unions. And certainly the calls for expanded social provision were welcome.

Yet however ‘bold’ the platform may have seemed compared to last time, many of the measures were very modest. The NDP’s childcare plan, for example, offered free childcare for families earning less than $40,000 and above childcare would average $12 a day based on income. Traditionally social democrats have prioritized universality in social programs rather than means testing. The dental plan was a complicated array of requiring employers to provide dental benefits and the establishment of a means-tested government benefit plan. The pharmacare plan would only cover 125 ‘essential’ drugs, with no specified timeline or plan on how to expand from there.

Considering the effort under Horwath to move the party to move to the political centre and present the NDP as a ‘government in waiting’, a surprising aspect of the campaign was that many of the party’s candidates had strong activist backgrounds. And there was more enthusiasm on the Left for the NDP in this election than there was in a long time. Activists that were traditionally skeptical of parliamentary politics, such as Rinaldo Walcott and Naomi Klein, as well as Desmond Cole, came out unequivocally in support of an NDP government to block a Ford government.

Horwath performed well in the first leaders’ debate, where she spoke strongly out against Ford’s claim to find ‘efficiencies’ (“efficiencies actually are cuts and people will pay the price in different ways”). The NDP soon pulled ahead of the Liberals, and by mid-May the NDP was neck-in-neck with the Conservatives. It seemed very possible indeed that the NDP could form the government. The Liberals were on the decline and among Liberal voters, an overwhelming majority had the NDP as their second choice over the PCs led by the polarizing Ford.

With its rise in the polls, the NDP came under greater scrutiny. An accounting error in the NDP platform meant that a projected $3.3-billion deficit in their first year was in fact $4.7-billion. While the NDP still had smaller deficits than those of the Liberals (and almost certainly the PCs!), this likely hurt their attempt to assure skeptics that an NDP government would be ‘fiscally responsible.’ The NDP also came under virulent attack from the Conservatives and the right-wing tabloid Toronto Sun (and similar papers across the province) that essentially served as an arm of the Ford campaign, with a focus on the “radical activists” who made up the party’s candidates (needless to say there was no mention of extreme right-wing candidates such as Andrew Lawton in London). And not surprisingly, the specter of the Rae government was raised, with Ford warning that an NDP government would “annihilate the middle class” and “bankrupt this province” and would be “ten times worse than the Liberals.

Horwath distanced herself from Rae (“We’re in 2018 now. This is not 1990.”). She came out strongly in defence of the NDP’s ‘radical’ candidates. She also strongly defended public sector collective bargaining rights in the face of attacks on the NDP’s ‘rigid’ opposition to the use of back-to-legislation (“It’s a pretty heavy hammer… it’s very much against our values”), and placed the blame for strikes in the postsecondary education sector squarely on the lack of government funding.

With the Liberals out of contention, many traditional Liberal voters turned to the NDP to stop Ford. The NDP received a key endorsement from the Toronto Star, the province’s largest circulating newspaper, which traditionally backs the Liberal Party.

In spite of the NDP’s rise in the polls, the party hardly galvanized Ontarians. While many voters were willing to give the NDP a chance, this support was soft and largely had to do with exhaustion with the Liberals, Horwath’s personal likeability and the deep unpopularity of Wynne. With a more popular program and inspiring campaign, the NDP may have been able to better deflect the attacks from the right, but instead they just seemed to feed the ‘not ready to govern’ narrative. The NDP was unable to dislodge enough residual support for the Liberals. Furthermore, the anti-Liberal narrative that developed over the past few years was mostly a right-wing one about bloated government and wasteful spending. The NDP had spent much of the Wynne period aiding this narrative rather than challenging it, and was unable to develop in such short time a compelling critique of the government from the left.

A Conservative Majority

The map of Ontario on election night was almost entirely blue and orange (see Table 1).

The PCs were able to obtain the majority by dominating suburban ridings across Ontario, particularly in the crucial Greater Toronto Area, adding to their traditional rural and small-town base. The NDP retained their traditional strongholds with a history of industrial trade unionism and class-based voting, and made significant gains in urban centres across the province. With the PC vote rising across the province, virtually all of the NDP pickups were in Liberal-held ridings (with the remainder being new ridings in an expanded legislature). The NDP came within 1,000 votes of defeating the Conservative candidate in 7 ridings (see Table 2). The Liberals, meanwhile, were wiped off the map outside of Toronto, Ottawa and Northern Ontario.

In the city of Toronto, the NDP and Conservatives each won 11 seats out of 25 seats and the Liberals held out in three. The NDP swept the 8 ridings that make up the progressive, but increasingly gentrified city core, including the new, affluent riding of University-Rosedale and the previously ‘safe’ Liberal ridings of Toronto Centre and St. Paul’s (both of which had been vacated by their incumbents). This was a sharp contrast to the 2014 campaign where the NDP underperformed among urban progressives. This time, inner Toronto saw some of the strongest swings from the Liberals to the NDP (see Table 3).

Meanwhile, the PCs took most of outer Toronto, winning ‘Ford Nation’ ridings in Scarborough and the city’s northwest and ridings that voted for John Tory municipally (such as Etobicoke-Lakeshore and Willowdale). In some ‘Ford Nation’ ridings (such as Scarborough North, represented by incumbent Raymond Cho and Ford’s own riding of Etobicoke North), the PCs received over 50% of the vote. Yet not all ‘Ford Nation’ ridings went PC. The NDP picked up three working class ridings (Scarborough Southwest, York South-Weston and Humber River-Black Creek) where they traditionally had a solid base of support but had been won by Ford municipally (and the NDP also came within 1,000 votes of winning in the new riding of Scarborough-Rouge Park which was strong territory for Ford municipally), while the popular Liberal Cabinet minister Mitzie Hunter narrowly prevailed in her riding of Scarborough-Guildwood. Kathleen Wynne narrowly held on to her riding of Don Valley West (the wealthiest riding in the province and one of the weakest areas for Ford municipally), while another popular Liberal Cabinet minister, Michael Coteau, was re-elected in neighbouring Don Valley East.

While the Liberals had won most of the suburbs of the ‘905’ belt that surrounds Toronto in 2014, this time the Liberals were shut out. The PCs won 26 out of 30 seats in this area and swept Mississauga, York and Halton Regions and all but one seat in Durham Region. The affluent northern suburbs of York Region swung especially hard toward the Conservatives, where they received over 50% of the vote. The working class, multicultural suburb of Brampton – bolstered by a beachhead established by federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh in his election as an MPP in 2011 – represented an exception to Conservative dominance of the 905 region, with the NDP taking three out of its five seats (and came less than 500 votes short in a fourth). The NDP also held onto a seat in the working class city of Oshawa, albeit by a much reduced margin.

The NDP dominated the Hamilton-Niagara region, which includes Horwath’s home city and is an area with a long-standing tradition of working class support for the ‘labour party.’ The NDP picked up St. Catharines – where Liberal MPP Jim Bradley, the longest-serving member of the legislature, went down to defeat – as well as the middle class seat of Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas.

Southwestern Ontario was marked by an urban/rural split, with the NDP maintaining the traditional labour stronghold of Windsor and expanding their reach in London and Kitchener-Waterloo, and the PCs sweeping the rural and ‘rurban’ seats. While the NDP under Horwath has put much effort into winning Southwestern Ontario, the party’s gains in the region were modest, picking just up one seat each in the urban centres of London and Kitchener (though the NDP also came within 1,000 votes in two other Kitchener area seats). Fordian populism resonated with many working class voters in the region. The Conservatives picked up Cambridge and Brantford (albeit by just over 600 votes over the NDP in the latter), and easily defended seats such as Sarnia-Lambton that were targeted by the NDP. Another notable development in Southwestern Ontario was the election of Green Party leader Mike Schreiner in Guelph, giving the Greens representation at Queen’s Park for the first time.

In Eastern Ontario, the PCs, to nobody’s surprise, swept the traditionally conservative rural areas. They also made modest gains in the Ottawa area where they won 4 out of 8 seats. The Liberal vote held up stronger in the National Capital Region than anywhere else in Ontario, and three incumbent MPPs were re-elected (the ridings of Ottawa-Vanier and Ottawa South were the only ridings in the province that the Liberals won by more than 10 percentage points). In Ottawa Centre, socialist candidate Joel Harden defeated the province’s Attorney General, Yasir Naqvi, in a stunning upset (the NDP also came within 200 votes of the PCs in the riding of Ottawa West-Nepean). Another gain for the NDP in Eastern Ontario was the ‘university town’ of Kingston, a longtime Liberal stronghold.

The PCs swept the ‘cottage country’ region of Central Ontario, a traditionally conservative stronghold. The NDP won most of the seats in Northern Ontario, a region with a history of class politics and industrial trade unionism. It took two new ridings of Kiiwetenoong and Mushkegowuk-James Bay, established in the north to serve First Nations and francophone communities, and also gained the seat of Thunder Bay-Atikokan from the Liberals (by a margin of 81 votes!) However, the NDP lost its hold in the open seat of Kenora-Rainy River, where former federal Conservative Cabinet minister Greg Rickford was elected.. The PCs also narrowly prevailed over the NDP in Sault Ste. Marie (by 414 votes), a seat they took in a by-election last year. The Liberals narrowly hung on in the riding of Thunder Bay-Superior North (with the NDP losing by just over 800 votes).

The Ford electoral coalition thus included the traditional Tory base in rural and small-town Ontario, affluent suburbanites and much of the working class, as well as significant support from immigrant and racialized communities in the GTA. The NDP pulled together a cross-class coalition that comprised of a sizeable number of highly educated, ‘liberally minded’ professionals in urban centres and much of the ethnically diverse ‘new’ working class, in addition to their traditional working class and union base.

It is important to stress that a majority of Ontario voters oppose Ford and cast votes for more progressive parties. However due to the workings of the ‘first-past-the-post’ (or single-member plurality) electoral system, the Conservatives prevailed in a majority of the seats. The PCs clearly benefitted from vote-splitting between the NDP and Liberals. In 20 ridings alone, the combined NDP and Liberal vote exceeded that of the PC winner by a margin by at least 5,000 votes.

Challenging Ford’s ‘Populist Austerity’

Ford was sworn in as Premier on June 29. His slimmed down 21-member Cabinet includes the right-wing Vic Fedeli, who served as the party’s interim leader after the departure of Patrick Brown, as Finance Minister. Ford’s main leadership rival, Christine Elliott, was appointed as Deputy Premier and Minister of Health. Although Elliott has an image as a Red Tory, she tacked right during the leadership race and has long been an advocate of a greater role for the private sector in healthcare. Ford rejected appeals from First Nations leaders to retain a stand-alone Minister of Indigenous Affairs (a recommendation of the Ipperwash Inquiry). And in spite of Ford’s promise to diversify the PCs, Ford’s Cabinet choices were overwhelmingly white and male (just seven women and one racialized person) and drew heavily from rural Ontario.

In his first days in office, Ford has begun to quickly act on his agenda. One of Ford’s top priorities is lowering the gas tax, which would deprive the government of about $1-billion a year for transit and infrastructure. Ford also announced a public sector hiring freeze that will certainly cripple the ability of government to provide quality public services. The government has also made the decision to remove OHIP+ from young people whose parents have private coverage, a setback in terms of the movement toward pharmacare. Ford has also moved to strengthen police powers, reversing new police oversight laws recently introduced by the previous Liberal government. And in a move pandering to their right-wing base and nativist sentiment, the Ford government has expressed its intention to withdraw from a federal-provincial agreement to help resettle asylum-seekers.

As Andrew Jackson has recently noted,

“a major part of Ford’s base, like that of Trump, is made of disaffected and insecure working class voters who welcomed his message that he would stand up for them against the insiders and the liberal elites. He appealed to these voters with classic ‘pocket book’ promises to cut taxes and to lower the cost of living… These promises seem to have resonated more strongly than the expansion of public services promoted by the Liberals and the NDP, even though Ford’s promised tax cuts would primarily benefit the upper middle-class.”

Certainly, Ford will have to implement drastic cuts to public services that working class Ontarians depend on to finance tax cuts. While Ford’s allure will likely wear off among ‘soft’ voters as he governs as a more ‘orthodox’ conservative than he campaigned on, progressives will have to make a renewed case for the importance of public services and collective provision over dependence on the market, and the taxes needed to finance them.

The NDP can be expected to speak out against many Conservative government policies. And several candidates with solid activist backgrounds, such as Joel Harden (Ottawa Centre), Jessica Bell (University-Rosedale), Jill Andrew (Toronto-St. Paul’s), Bhutila Karpoche (Parkdale-High Park) and Rima Berns-McGown (Beaches-East York), were elected, and these MPPs can articulate the demands of social movements in the legislature. Riding associations could be transformed into community action hubs rather than simply be electoral machines. However, the pressure to conform to the norms of parliamentarism will be immense as the NDP will seek to present itself to reassure more centrist voters and present itself as a responsible ‘government in waiting.’ With a large Conservative majority, however, the NDP will have little ability to reverse the overall course, and its parliamentarist focus, if its past actions are at all a guide to the present, will do little to support broad activist organizing across the province.

A broad-based resistance movement outside of the legislature to the hard-right Ford government is essential. A revitalized labour movement is key, as the ‘social unionism’ that led to the “Days of Action” in the Harris years has given way to an extremely divided and conciliatory, ‘business unionist’ approach across all unions (no matter what their rhetoric is). The $15 and Fairness campaign organized a rally in Toronto in defence of recent labour law changes (and attended by much of the NDP caucus). The Workers Action Centre has announced its attention to pressure 16 PC MPPs in ridings where a $15 minimum wage likely has broad support. As the Ford government will certainly prove disastrous for cities (and ‘efficiencies’ will certainly be found by downloading cuts to cities), municipal elections in Toronto and across the province this fall also represent opportunities to elect left and progressive candidates and begin to form a network of ‘rebel cities’ in opposition to the Ford regime. Perhaps, if stronger community-based infrastructure can take hold and revitalized social coalitions form, the labour movement in Ontario might yet again return to leading social struggles and the political space for a radical opening suddenly appear.

*

Matt Fodor is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at York University.

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

The Western media has provided scanty coverage of the DPRK position, upholding the absurd proposition that North Korea rather than the USA is a threat to Global Security. 

The accusation of “Unilateral Gangster Mindset” is not directed against President Trump. It refers specifically to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The Statement confirms: “We still cherish our good faith in President Trump.” 

But, the U.S. side [Pompeo] came up only with its unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization just calling for CVID, declaration and verification, all of which run counter to the spirit of the Singapore summit meeting and talks.

The U.S. side never mentioned the issue of establishing a peace regime on the Korean peninsula which is essential for defusing tension and preventing a war.

Pyongyang is negotiating with a U.S Secretary of State (former CIA Chief) who casually announced last October that Kim Jong-un was on the CIA’s assassination list. (click link for more details). From a diplomatic standpoint, this is untenable.

We thought that the U.S. side would come with a constructive proposal which accords with the spirit of the DPRK-U.S. summit meeting and talks. But expectation and hope of ours were so naive as to be foolish.

Pompeo should be replaced. Read the DPRK statement. Pompeo’s intent in Pyongyang was to sabotage the spirit of the Singapore Summit.

The US Congress and the White House should fully understand that there are no prospects for peace with Mike Pompeo as chief US negotiator. 

Michel Chossudovsky, July 9, 2018

ANNEX

Below is the complete transcript of the statement of the DPRK Ministry of the Foreign Affairs:

International society has focused its expectation and attention on the DPRK-U.S. high-level talks for the implementation of the Joint Statement of the DPRK-U.S. summit after the first historic summit meeting and talks were held between the DPRK and the U.S.

We expected that the U.S. side would bring itself with a constructive proposal which would help build up trust true to the spirit of the DPRK-U.S. summit meeting and talks. We, on our part, were also thinking of doing something which corresponds with it.

It was, however, so regretful to mention what the U.S. side had shown in its attitude and stand at the first DPRK-U.S. high-level talks held on 6 and 7 July.

The DPRK side, during the talks, put forward the constructive proposals to seek a balanced implementation of all the provisions of the Joint Statement out of its firm willingness to remain faithful to the implementation of the spirit and agreed points of the DPRK-U.S. summit meeting and talks.

These include taking wide-ranging proactive steps of simultaneous actions in a respective manner such as realizing multilateral exchanges for improved relations between the DPRK and the U.S., making public a declaration on the end of war first on the occasion of the 65th anniversary of the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement to build a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula, dismantling the test ground of high thrust engine to make a physical verification of the suspension of ICBM production as part of denuclearization steps and making an earliest start of the working-level talks for recovering POW/MIA remains.

Kim Yong-chol.jpg

Before the talks, Kim Yong Chol (image on the right), vice-chairman of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea, who is also a chief delegate from our side to the talks, was authorized to convey with a due respect to U.S. State Secretary Pompeo a personal letter sent from Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK Kim Jong Un to President Trump.

Chairman Kim Jong Un expressed his expectation and conviction that good personal relations forged with President Trump and his sentiments of good faith built towards the latter at the Singapore summit and talks would be further consolidated through the process of future dialogues such as high-level talks this time.

But, the U.S. side [Pompeo] came up only with its unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization just calling for CVID, declaration and verification, all of which run counter to the spirit of the Singapore summit meeting and talks.

The U.S. side never mentioned the issue of establishing a peace regime on the Korean peninsula which is essential for defusing tension and preventing a war. It took the position that it would even backtrack on the issue it had agreed on to end the status of war under certain conditions and excuses.

As for the issue of announcing the declaration of the end of war at an early date, it is the first process of defusing tension and establishing a lasting peace regime on the Korean peninsula, and at the same time, it constitutes a first factor in creating trust between the DPRK and the U.S. This issue was also stipulated in Panmunjom Declaration as a historical task to terminate the war status on the Korean peninsula which continues for nearly 70 years. President Trump, too, was more enthusiastic about this issue at the DPRK-U.S. summit talks.

The issues the U.S. side insisted on at the talks are all roots of troubles, which the previous administrations also had insisted on to disrupt the dialogue processes, stoke the distrust and increase the danger of war.

The U.S. side, during the talks [ie. Mike Pompeo], made a great publicity about suspension of one or two joint military exercises. But suspension of one action called exercises is a highly reversible step which can be resumed anytime at any moment as all of its military force remains intact in its previously-held positions without scraping even a rifle. This is incomparable with the irreversible step taken by the DPRK to explode and dismantle the nuclear test ground.

The results of the talks can’t but be so apprehensive.

We thought that the U.S. side would come with a constructive proposal which accords with the spirit of the DPRK-U.S. summit meeting and talks. But expectation and hope of ours were so naive as to be foolish.

Conventional ways can never create new things. Treading on trite stereotype of all the failure would invite another failure only.

Valuable agreement was reached in such a short time at the Singapore summit talks first ever in the history of the DPRK-U.S. relations. This is attributable to the fact that President Trump himself said he would move towards resolving the DPRK-U.S. relations and the issue of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula in a new way.

If both sides at the working level reneged on the new way agreed at the summit and returned to the old way, the epoch-making Singapore summit would be meaningless, which was held thanks to the determinations and wills of the two top leaders to open a new future for the interests of the two peoples and peace and security of the world.

The first DPRK-U.S. high-level talks this time brought us in a dangerous situation where we may be shaken in our unshakable will for denuclearization, rather than consolidating trust between the DPRK and the U.S.

In the last few months, we displayed maximum patience and watched the U.S. while initiating good-will steps as many as we can.

But, it seems that the U.S. misunderstood our goodwill and patience.

The U.S. is fatally mistaken if it went to the extent of regarding that the DPRK would be compelled to accept, out of its patience, the demands reflecting its gangster-like mindset.

A shorter way to denuclearization on the Korean peninsula is to remove deep-rooted mistrust and build up trust between the DPRK and the U.S. For this, both sides should be bold enough to be free from old ways which had only recorded failures and resolve the problem in a fresh manner which is never bound by the existing ways. A shortcut to it is also to take a step-by-step approach and follow the principle of simultaneous actions in resolving what is feasible one by one while giving priority to creating trust.

But, if the U.S., being captivated in a fidget, tries to force upon us the old ways claimed by the previous administrations, this will get us nowhere.

If the objective situation does not stand in favor of the denuclearization against our wills, this would rather cast a heavy cloud over the atmosphere of developing bilateral relations which had shown its good movement in its beginning.

Should the headwind begin to blow, it would cause a great disappointment not only to the international society aspiring after global peace and security but also to both the DPRK and the U.S. If so, this will finally make each side seek for another choice and there is no guarantee that this will not result into yet another tragedy.

We still cherish our good faith in President Trump.

The U.S. should make a serious consideration of whether the toleration of the headwind against the wills of the two top leaders would meet the aspirations and expectations of the world people as well as the interests of its country.

Source DPRK Ministry of Foreign Affairs

*

Featured image is from Anadolu Agency.

On June 27, the Security Council was briefed on the “Fifth report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of Security Council resolution 2231.”  The report, which was short on corroborated fact and long on insinuation  resembled an attempt at demonization of Iran, that early stage laying the groundwork for severe punitive action against a nation.   The unsubstantiated innuendo began: 

“In this reporting period, the Secretariat received information from two Member States on the supply, sale, transfer or export to Iran of dual-use items that may have been undertaken contrary to the resolution…Since our last report, Saudi authorities have brought to the attention of the Secretariat nine additional launches of ballistic missiles by the Houthis, which in their assessment were Iranian Qiam-1 missiles…..We provided preliminary observations, in our last report, from our examination of the debris of the missiles launched into Saudi Arabia on 22 July and 4 November 2017.  Based on the information and material analysed, the Secretariat assesses that the debris of the five missiles launched at Yanbu’and Riyadh since July 2017 share key design features with the Iranian Qiam-1 ballistic missile.  It is also our assessment that some component parts of the debris were manufactured in Iran. …The report also reflects information received from Israel regarding the possible presence of an Iranian drone in Syria, which was reportedly downed after entering Israeli airspace on 10 February.  The Secretariat did not have the opportunity to examine its debris, but images provided by Israeli authorities show that its wing configuration appears to be consistent with that of an Iranian drone unveiled in October 2016.”

“The Secretariat examined arms and related material that was seized in Bahrain after 16 January, 2016, and obtained additional information on the unmanned surface vessel, laden with explosives, that was recovered by the United Arab Emirates.  In both cases, the Secretariat is confident that some of the arms and related material it examined were manufactured in Iran….”

The Fifth Secretary-General report does not provide any valid  evidence of Iran’s violation of international law, or violation of Resolution 2231.  However, the report’s presentation so starkly resembles crude propaganda, that it is surprising, indeed, that the UN Secretary-General would permit his imprimatur to be used in connection with this report.   It appears to have been written by the US and its allies, and merely rubber-stamped by the Secretary-General.

In fact, the US delegation, referring to the report, stated:

“If there was ever any doubt regarding Iran’s clear threat to international peace and stability, the findings of the report should lay it to rest.”

In contrast to the biased and defamatory character of this report, Ambassador Ma Zhaoxu of China stated: 

“The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported 11 times in a row that Iran has been implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, originally signed by the U.S., China, France, Germany, Britain , Russia and Iran)…China believes the report of the Secretary-General should reflect the implementation efforts in an objective, balanced and comprehensive manner, and take the legitimate concerns of Iran into consideration.  The Secretariat should act in strict accordance with its mandates and functions.”

And Russian Ambassador Nebenzia’s scathing and intellectually flawless critique of the crude insinuations of the report brilliantly repudiated  the shameful presentation:

“Considering the significance that the unilateral actions by the United States have for the implementation of resolution 2231 and the JCPOA, we were astonished that the report mentions it only in passing. It is simply unfathomable that it was possible to draft a document entitled “Implementation of resolution 2231” with no mention whatever of the fact that Washington’s reimposition of unilateral sanctions is a direct violation not only of its obligations under the JCPOA, but also of resolutioin 2231….the report is overtly unbalanced and more like a collection of unproven accusations about Iran than an attempt to paint an objective picture of the situation concerning the implementation of resolution 2231, an approach that is all the more incomprehensible considering that none of the examples of Tehran’s alleged violations of the resolution have been confirmed, owing to insufficient information and the lack of a firm body of proof.  We are once again compelled to point out that it is unacceptable for the Secretariat to carry out any so-called investigations of potential violations of resolution 2231 without a clear mandate from the Security Council.   We again emphasize that the Secretariat staff do not have the qualifications or expertise for analyzing and evaluating missile systems or conventional weapons.  The report therefore indicates an absence of any of the elements that constitute a violation.  The same applies to the Secretariat’s illegitimate inspections in Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates……We must continue to insist that the report should not contain information from open sources or references to unverified or unverifiable information provided by individual countries, especially when it is not even being brought to the attention of the members of the Security Council.  WE BELIEVE SUCH PRACTICES ARE COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE AND CONSIDER THEM MALICIOUS ATTEMPTS TO CREATE A GROUNDLESSLY NEGATIVE CLIMATE AROUND IRAN BY CIRCUMVENTING THE COUNCIL.”

The startlingly biased character of this fifth report raises troubling questions, especially following the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, and the re-imposition of unilateral sanctions against Iran.  What is the agenda, and why is the Secretary-General allowing his offices to be associated with a report which lacks credibility, and which is an intellectual embarrassment to the United Nations?  Why is an attempt being made to unjustifiably accuse Iran of violations, with no valid proof provided? 

In an effort to salvage the JCPOA, Iran’s President Rouhani traveled to Vienna this week, hoping to reach agreements with the other supporters of the JCPOA within  Europe, in order to mitigate the damage to Iran’s economy caused by the re-imposition of sanctions by the USA.  In a bizarre “coincidence,” which  conspicuously appears not to be coincidental,  Austria arrested an Iranian diplomat, allegedly involved in an attempted attack on a rally of Iranian opposition demonstrators in Paris.  This “coincidence” blatantly undermines  President Rouhani’s mission, undertaken to alleviate the distress of the Iranian people resulting from the re-imposition of sanctions by the United States.  Iran’s dazzlingly smart and sophisticated Foreign Minister, Mohammed Javid Zarif,  described this “coincidental” arrest as a “false flag ploy and deliberate distraction,” and Zarif tweeted: 

“How convenient:  Just as we embark on a Presidential visit to Europe, an alleged Iranian operation and its ‘plotters’ arrested!”

President Rouhani stated: 

“If other signatories apart from the United States, can guarantee Iran’s interests, then Iran will stay in the JCPOA.” 

If Europe fails to cooperate, Iran may restart nuclear activities, and there are now even rumors that Iran may consider blocking the Strait of Hormoz.  More than ten years ago “The New Yorker” published a series of articles by Seymour Hersh, describing detailed plans for US military intervention in Iran.  Is that where these provocations of Iran are leading?

*

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


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.

Mexican President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador‘s transition team unveiled a plan Friday to shake up the fight against crime, including reduced jail time but stiffer controls on weapons, as the country reels from a militarized drug war.

The concept of “transitional justice” is part of the incoming government’s security strategy, Olga Sanchez, Lopez Obrador’s proposed interior minister, told Reuters in an interview before her team unveiled the plan.

Transitional justice typically involves leniency for those who admit guilt, truth commissions to investigate atrocities and the granting of reparations for some victims.

“Not only will it be amnesty, it will be a law to reduce jail time,” Sanchez said.

“We will propose decriminalization, create truth commissions, we will attack the causes of poverty, we will give scholarships to the youth and we will work in the field to get them out of the drug situation,” she said.

Lopez Obrador, a leftist who handily won the presidency Sunday, wants to rewrite the rules of the drug war, suggesting a negotiated peace and amnesty for some of the very people currently targeted by security forces.

Sanchez had said the new administration, which takes office on Dec. 1, would move fast to reconsider drug policies and use of the military that, despite toppling some high-profile kingpins, failed to prevent more than 200,000 murders since first adopted in 2006.

“It’s an integrated public policy,” Sanchez said, the aim of which was to “pacify” the nation.

Lopez Obrador’s pick for security minister, Alfonso Durazo, said the administration would aim to remove a significant part of the military from the streets within three years while professionalizing local police.

He said the government would combat corruption in the ports and seek to establish stricter customs controls to stop illegal weapons from entering the country.

Colombian Process

To consider the possibility of a negotiated peace, Sanchez’s team has studied Colombia’s peace process with its biggest guerrilla group, which allowed rebel leaders to avoid prison.

After the Mexican plan is reviewed by Lopez Obrador, Sanchez said the amnesty idea would be presented as a public referendum. If it receives public support, the administration would then put it before Congress, where Lopez Obrador’s National Regeneration Movement and allies gained seats on Sunday, she said.

The concept could mirror a similar strategy enacted in 1940 by Lazaro Cardenas, who was then president, Sanchez said.

Cardenas decriminalized drugs, authorized doctors to prescribe narcotics for addicts, opened up clinics for addicts and proposed treating them as patients instead of criminals.

The purchase of small quantities of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin was made legal and the state-controlled their sale. Lower-level criminals were freed from jails.

However, the radical changes only lasted six months as shortages of cocaine and morphine during World War Two prompted the law to be canceled.

The modern-day militarized drug fight, Lopez Obrador argues, has failed to stop narcotics smuggling and violence, and does not address the poverty that leads many to the drug trade.

His new plan was developed in consultation with human rights groups, religious leaders and the United Nations, though details are still being worked out.

“It’s a change in everything: in combat, in social policy, in drug policy, in politics against violence, a very important change in our country starting with Andres Manuel,” Sanchez said.

Separately, Lopez Obrador told reporters that his senior campaign official Tatiana Clouthier and Zoe Robledo, a lawmaker attached to his National Regeneration Movement party, had both been proposed as deputy interior ministers.

On the third anniversary of the referendum to decide whether Greece was to accept the bailout conditions imposed by its creditors, the political landscape of the country looks so much different.

Former firebrands Alexis Tsipras and his SYRIZA-led government which orchestrated the referendum and urged people to reject the conditions by voting ‘No’ on July 5, 2015, have since made a huge U-turn, agreeing to a third bailout program and becoming its most enthusiastic supporter.

Greece is due to complete the third bailout in August, but critics say that tough austerity measures, including pension cuts will be implemented in the next few years, as the country will enter a long period of “enhanced surveillance” by its creditors.

The referendum was announced by Tsipras in the early morning of 27 June 2015, and ratified the following day by the parliament and the president.

From the outset, he saw the referendum as a negotiating maneuver. The idea of a referendum that would “strengthen” the Greek position in the negotiations with the Troika had been floated in the spring of 2015.

“Our aim is for the referendum to be followed by negotiations for which we will be better armed,” he said in an interview on state television.

It was the first referendum to be held since the republic referendum of 1974, and the only one in modern Greek history not to concern the form of government.

As a result of the referendum, the bailout conditions were rejected by a majority of over 61 percent to 39 percent approving, with the “No” vote winning in all of Greece’s regions.

Supporters of the “No” vote danced for joy in the streets of the Greek capital. But, Tsipras refused to join the celebrations.

He declined to make some kind of “victory appearance”, he called meetings with opposition leaders to forge a common position and dismissed Yanis Varoufakis, his finance minister whose six-month negotiating tactics had infuriated his European counterparts.

Varoufakis later described the atmosphere in the PM’s office on the night of the referendum as “downcast”, as if Tsipras and his aides dreaded the emphatic victory of the “No” vote.

Three days following the referendum, Athens “formally asked for a three-year bailout from the eurozone’s rescue fund and pledged to start implementing some economic-policy overhauls” beginning by mid-July 2015.

European finance leaders scheduled a “crisis summit” on 12 July to consider the request. The Greek request included a “drastic turnaround” for Tsipras regarding “pension cuts, tax increases and other austerity measures”.

On Monday, 13 July, the SYRIZA-led government of Greece accepted a bailout package that contained larger pension cuts and tax increases than the one rejected by Greek voters in the referendum.

*

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Flashback to the Greek Debt Bailout Referendum: When ‘No’ Became a ‘Yes’

Nicaragua, Unraveling a Plot

July 9th, 2018 by Francisco Arias Fernández

AS early as 2016, talk of war against Nicaragua could again be heard in Miami, at a time when the streets of this nation were a regional example of security, peace, and prosperity, where a hardworking, tranquil people proudly enjoyed the social and economic advances achieved by the Sandinista government, that had established a national consensus, in the wake of one of the worst interventions carried out by the United States in Central America.

With no justification whatsoever – when the news from Nicaragua around the world was about a proposed inter-oceanic canal that would boost the economy and impact global navigation – Congress members who make a living off the U.S. war against Cuba and Venezuela were mounting efforts to reverse the prosperity and calm that reigned in the land of Augusto César Sandino.

Congress members, first in the House of Representatives and later the Senate, introduced a bill to create obstacles to the awarding of international loans to Nicaragua, hamper foreign investment, and put a brake on socio-economic development in the country. This imperialist punishment, cooked up by the worst of the anti-Cuban mafia in 2015, set in motion the fabrication of a pretext regarding the alleged lack of democracy, justified as a way to “guarantee electoral transparency and fight corruption.” The result of this initial maneuver was the Nicaraguan Investment Conditionality Act of 2017 (NICA Act).

Ileana Ros, Albio Sires, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz, and others, among the most reactionary legislators in Congress from South Florida, Texas, and New Jersey, are again attempting to reinvent the Contras and get rid of the Sandinista government, which has repeatedly shown at the polls that it enjoys the people’s majority support.

The tentacles of this subversive plot go beyond the capital, since these forces are well connected to the United States’ coup-manufacturing machinery, and laid the foundation for a media campaign in coordination with agencies specialized in carrying out dirty wars and soft coups, working with U.S. intelligence and the CIA, in particular.

In this specific case, international press media have documented the participation of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID); the National Endowment for Democracy (NED); and the National Democratic Institute (NDI), as well their sub-contractors, which have been working meticulously, since Daniel Ortega was first elected, to re-invent a “new leadership,” selectively infiltrating key sectors of the economy, targeting youth, students, medium and small businesspeople, environmental and feminist groups, among others, to undermine the foundation of support for the Sandinista government.

It is revealing that on April 16, this year, following the same line espoused by anti-Cuban Congress members, USAID Administrator Mark Green announced that the U.S. government would continue supporting the participation of a “free … genuine” civil society in Nicaragua, after stating that the United States is concerned about the closing of democratic spaces in Nicaragua, “systematic” violations of human rights, and government corruption.

In March, Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Albio Sires sent a letter to Green, in which they call on the U.S. government to reverse its decision to provide “zero aid” to Nicaragua through USAID for the fiscal year 2018-2019, while at the same time calling on the agency to avoid supporting “members of the private sector linked to corruption, money laundering, or the Daniel Ortega regime.”

At the end of 2008, the media reported that USAID had provided at least a million dollars in Nicaragua that year to NGOs, radio broadcasters, and political groups like the Communications Research Center (CINCO), to intervene in municipal elections.

This financing, as was denounced at the time, contributed surreptitiously as “small donations,” that were not to exceed 25,000 dollars, was part of a large scale U.S. plan to overthrow the government of Daniel Ortega, carried out since then by internal agents from the Nicaraguan right.

The strategy mounted to discredit the Sandinista government in the media was conducted via two financing routes; one directed by USAID and the Casals & Associates firm, and another managed by the so-called Common Fund in Europe, which provided funds to organize campaigns and mobilizations to destabilize the government.

By 2008, media in Nicaragua had identified at least 14 subversive projects run by USAID across the country, under the cover of a wide range of titles and objectives, made possible by this funding.

Another key element of the U.S. machinery linked to the CIA is the National Democratic Institute, an instrument dedicated to promoting “change” that focuses on “empowering” so called “agents of change” in countries with governments not to Washington’s liking.

A Swedish journalist reported, this past June 4, that three students from Nicaragua were conducting a tour of Europe to raise support for a plot against the Sandinista government, stating that at least one of the youth represented an organization created and financed by the United States.

Jessica Cisneros, he reported, was active around the issue of the involvement and participation of youth in political processes, and was a member of the Movimiento Cívico de Juventudes (Civic Youth Movement).

Another of these “agents of change” promoting hate for the Sandinista government and support for a coup, was Yerling Aguilera, from the Polytechnic University in Managua (UPOLI) and specializing in research on revolution and the feminist movement, who, according to the reporter, has been an employee and consultant for the Institute of Strategic Studies and Public Policy (IEEPP) in Nicaragua, that works to “strengthen the abilities of political, state, and social actors for a better informed public via creative, innovative services,” which has received 224,162 dollars from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) between 2014 and 2017.

The NED has distributed some 4.2 million dollars in Nicaragua, over this three-year period.

The USAID, NDI, and NED have been busy in the country, with thousands of activists trained to “change society.” Hundreds of NGOs, universities, and political parties have received funds and materials as part of the subversive plan that was not conceived to advance through traditional political organizations, but rather those invented to give the impression that they emerged “spontaneously” from dissatisfaction, hiding the true interest of the North at work.

Although efforts were intensified after Ortega’s 2006 electoral victory, since 2015, with the approval of the NICA Act, U.S. agencies increased and broadened financial support and resources for their “agents of change” in Nicaragua, above all through leadership courses and money for young people in universities, NGOs, and political parties.

In their political, diplomatic, and media advice to the coup-plotters, Washington has insisted on demonizing Daniel Ortega and his government, an effort carried out not only by the White House, and its agencies, allies, satellites, and mercenaries, but also the corporate media monopolies and fabricators of lies, which magnify internal problems and accuse authorities for all types of human rights violations, totally omitting the crimes and destruction committed by individuals who have been “empowered” by the USAID, NDI, NED, and CIA, who have caused the failure of talks and calls for peace. As is the case in Venezuela, Donald Trump and his advisors, architects of a thousand invasions, do not believe in dialogue or pacts, opting for war on all fronts.

Nicaragua has become the epicenter of U.S. warmongering efforts, hand in hand with Anti-Cuban legislators and profiteers, and other veteran hawks. Washington is attempting to re-invent its strategy at the cost of human lives and destruction in the streets of Nicaragua.

USAID’s Thinly Disguised Subversion Projects in Nicaragua:

  • Citizen participation in electoral processes
  • Developing a culture of transparency among Nicaraguan youth
  • Communications training for students to produce stories that promote self-efficacy
  • Multimedia for democratic governability
  • Strengthening civil rights of women and youth in Masaya
  • Citizen action legal framework for journalists
  • Active participation for Nicaraguans exercising their right to vote

NDI Tentacles

  • Since 2010 the NDI has been associated with Nicaraguan universities and civic organizations conducting a youth leadership program which has helped prepare more than 2,000 “youth leaders,” and worked to increase the political influence of women, LGBT persons, and electoral processes
  • The Movimiento Cívico de Juventudes (MCJ) is an organization financed, created, and part of the NDI.
  • Several members of the group graduated from the NDI program earning a Certificate in Leadership and Political Management (CLPM).

Featured image: Sari Bashi of Human Rights Watch, from her twitter feed.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) is among the leading guardians of human rights in the world. Sari Bashi is HRW’s Israel/Palestine Advocacy Director. She can lay claim to an impressive academic pedigree (BA, Yale; JD, Yale), and she co-founded the important Israeli human rights group Gisha. It thus cannot but depress that Bashi is so wanting in elementary moral and legal judgment when it comes to the people of Gaza.

Shortly after the Israeli massacre in Gaza on 14 May 2018, Bashi posted a commentary under the title, “Don’t Blame Hamas for the Gaza Bloodshed.”

Its essence is captured in the opening sentence:

“Israel has a right to defend its borders, but shooting unarmed protesters who haven’t breached its frontier is disproportionate and illegal.” Insofar as the demonstrators didn’t pose an “imminent threat to life,” Bashi concludes, Israel had no right to use lethal force against them and, in any event, did not “exhaust” nonlethal means “such as tear gas, skunk water, and rubber-coated steel pellets” to throw back the assembled crowd.

The UN has pronounced Gaza unlivable, while Sara Roy of Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies has written,

Innocent people, most of them young, are slowly being poisoned by the water they drink.

Is it not a tad unseemly, not to say unsettling, for the representative of a respected human rights organization to coach Israel how to stay within the letter of the law—before resorting to bullets, you must first try “tear gas, skunk water, and rubber-coated steel pellets”—while it’s herding two million people, half of them children, in an unlivable space in which they are slowly being poisoned?

To be sure, Bashi is not oblivious to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza caused by Israel’s blockade. But she makes out no legal nexus between the effects of the siege and Israel’s right to use force. Instead, she dwells on the apparently paradoxical outcome that whereas Israel imposed the blockade to weaken Hamas, it has in fact “helped Hamas grow in strength.”

But the siege is not irrelevant to a legal determination of Israel’s right to use force—be it proportionate or disproportionate, moderate or excessive, lethal or nonlethal—to prevent demonstrators from breaching Gaza’s perimeter fence. For brevity’s sake, I would want to touch here on one basic, uncontroversial point. (A forthcoming article by Jamie Stern-Weiner and this writer parses the more nuanced legal issues.)

It is a tenet of international law that no state can resort to forceful measures unless “peaceful means” have been exhausted (UN Charter, Article 2). This principle is as sacred to the rule of law as the analogous Hippocratic Oath, primum non nocere (first, do no harm), is to medicine. Now consider the situation in Gaza. Nearly all competent observers agree:

  • Israel has imposed an illegal blockade on Gaza;
  • The illegal blockade has created a humanitarian catastrophe;
  • The impetus behind the protests at the perimeter fence is the illegal blockade, and their objective is to end it.

It is to be noted that even Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu concedes the last bullet point.

“They’re suffocating economically,” he observed, “and therefore they decided to crash into the fence.”

If Israel wants to protect its border, then it need not resort to either lethal or nonlethal coercion. It merely has to lift the siege. Israel’s refusal to take this preliminary peaceful step puts it in double breach of international law: the imposition of an illegal blockade and the unlawful resort to armed force when peaceful means have not been exhausted.

It is cause for wonder why Bashi doesn’t see that Israel’s resort to any force against Gaza demonstrators cannot be legally justified. It is cause for dismay that she counsels Israel to use nonlethal repression in order to corral Gaza’s inhabitants in a hellhole, instead of counseling it, not just as a matter of political expedience but also as a matter of law, to end the siege. If, by way of comparison, police repeatedly enter a man’s premises in flagrant violation of the law, the homeowner finally resists, and the police try to subdue him, would a human rights representative be advising the officers to use graduated force?

​Indeed, prior to Israel’s slated violent eviction/demolition of the Bedouin village Khan al-Amar in the West Bank, HRW itself did not recommend that the army first use “tear gas, skunk water, and rubber-coated steel pellets” but, on the contrary, bluntly warned Israel that such an act would constitute a “war crime.

Were the siege of Gaza lifted, it would put Israel on the right side of the law as it yielded the double dividend of enabling the people of Gaza to breathe and terminating the purported threat to Israel’s border. In other words, it would render all talk of force superfluous.

*

Norman G. Finkelstein received his doctorate in 1988 from the Department of Politics at Princeton University. He taught political theory and the Israel-Palestine conflict for many years and currently writes and lectures. Finkelstein’s books have been translated into 50 foreign editions. His latest is “Gaza: An Inquest Into Its Martyrdom” (University of California Press, January 2018).

In his statement to the House of Commons on 5th July, the British Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, stated the following:

“The use of chemical weapons anywhere is barbaric and inhumane. The decision taken by the Russian government to deploy these in Salisbury on March 4 was reckless and callous –  there is no plausible alternative explanation to the events in March other than the Russian state was responsible. The eyes of the world are on Russia, not least because of the World Cup. It is now time the Russian state comes forward and explains exactly what has gone on.”

Anyone with their wits about them will immediately notice the cognitive dissonance in Mr Javid’s statement. On the one hand, he states that the Russian government took a decision to deploy chemical weapons in Salisbury on 4th March, 2018. This is an emphatic declaration, and implies that the British Government possesses irrefutable evidence that this is so. Then in the next breath, he states that there is “no plausible alternative”. This is very much less than emphatic, and the word “plausible” implies that the British Government does not have irrefutable evidence to back up their claim.

This is not a subtle difference. It is the difference between suspecting something and knowing something. If you know something to be true, because you have the hard evidence to back it up, you don’t use equivocal phrases like “no plausible alternative”. You simply say, “here is the evidence to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.” On the other hand, if you do not possess irrefutable evidence of something, as the weasel phrase “no plausible alternative” suggests, then you have no right to pronounce definitively on the matter, as Mr Javid felt fit to do.

Still, he’s only the Home Secretary. You can’t expect him to understand such petty legal concepts.

As it happens, there are plenty of plausible alternatives, as Mr Javid no doubt knows only too well. If he’s interested, he can check out the one I have put forward here. Of course, regardless of whether my “plausible alternative” is correct or not, it is unlikely that Her Majesty’s Government would want investigations to follow the line of inquiry I advanced, since it might raise an awful lot of troublesome questions about the role of British Intelligence in the attempt to stop Donald Trump getting elected. Apparently, they want to keep that quiet. Which is why they slapped D-Notices on various aspects of Skripal 1.0 to hush all that up.

So Mr Javid states that Russia must explain itself, but in so doing unwittingly admits that the Government has no hard evidence of Russian state involvement. It merely is unable to imagine a “plausible alternative”, which either means that its members are somewhat lacking in imagination, or they don’t wish other “plausible alternatives” to be discussed (of course, it could even be both). Nevertheless, since he and the Government are the ones making the claim, I’d say that actually it is incumbent on them to explain themselves, not the ones they are accusing. That is how these things are supposed to work, is it not?

This being the case, I have a number of questions for them, which urgently need answering. Urgent, because they could prove vital to the investigation. However, before I come onto the questions, I must explain the nature of them, which may well come as something of a surprise, given the latest twist to this sorry tale in Amesbury. The surprise is that not one of the 10 questions relates to the Amesbury case. This might seem odd, but there is a very important reason for it.

At the moment, very few details have emerged about the Amesbury case, and so it is not exactly clear which questions could even be asked. True, the details that have emerged so far in the official narrative are about as coherent and plausible as those in the original case, one of which I have already debunked here. However, what Mr Javid sought to do, with a very clever sleight-of-hand to cover his case of cognitive dissonance, is to make definitive claims about Case 2, based on the assumption that Case 1 has somehow been proven. But of course it hasn’t. Not even remotely. In fact, there are a ton of questions about Case 1 still hanging in the air that have not been answered, and I really don’t think that we should let Mr Javid and Co. off the hook before they’ve given us the answers to them.

But in the spirit of decency, let’s make it extremely easy for them. Let’s not ask them any hard questions. Nothing like, “C’mon, tell us the names of the people wot did it,” for instance. No, let’s instead satisfy ourselves by asking them some remarkably simple questions that they – or at least the Metropolitan Police – must know the answers to if their narrative is correct, and for a very simple reason, as you will see. So here goes:

  1. What were Mr Skripal’s and Yulia’s movements on the morning of 4th March?
  2. Why were their phones switched off?
  3. Did Mr Skripal see anyone or anything suspicious near his house that day?
  4. According to witnesses in Zizzis, Mr Skripal appeared to be very agitated. Was this because he was feeling unwell?
  5. According to witnesses in Zizzis, Mr Skripal appeared to be in a hurry to leave. Was this because he had an appointment to keep?
  6. What did Mr Skripal do after he left Zizzis?
  7. Can he confirm or deny that the couple seen on the CCTV camera in Market Walk, one of whom was carrying a large red bag, are him and Yulia?
  8. Did either Sergei or Yulia have a large red bag with them that day?
  9. What are his last memories before collapsing at the bench?
  10. Is Mr Skripal prepared to make a public statement answering the above, and will members of the international media be free to ask him questions?

So why must they know the answers to these questions? Simple. Because all they have to do to get answers to them is ask Sergei Skripal. They know where he is, don’t they? They must have questioned him, haven’t they? And Mr Skripal must surely have been eager to answer them, since the answers he gives could prove vital in helping to find out who poisoned him and his daughter, mustn’t he?

Just pause there for a second and think about it. Here we are, a third of a year after Skripal 1.0, with both Mr Skripal and his daughter having recovered months ago, and we still don’t know the answers to these basic, vital, but extraordinarily easy-to-establish questions. Isn’t that amazing?

I could even make it easier for them by boiling it down into one question:

When will the world hear from Mr Skripal about the events and circumstances of 4th March 2018, from the time he awoke until 4pm that afternoon?

C’mon British Government. It really isn’t hard. Or at least it wouldn’t be if the case you’ve presented is true. Just ask Sergei. But in the continued absence of answers to these simple questions, it seems that there might well be no “plausible alternative” but to assume that your case simply does not stack up. Which is why the onus is on you, not those you accuse, to explain yourselves.

New Poll: Europeans Reject US Nuclear Weapons on Own Soil

July 9th, 2018 by International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons

On the first anniversary of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), new YouGov polling commissioned by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has found an overwhelming rejection of nuclear weapons.  The poll was conducted in the four EU countries that host US nuclear weapons: Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Italy. In each country, an overwhelming majority of people surveyed were in favour of removing the weapons from their soil, and for their countries to sign the Treaty that bans them outright.

Download the full survey here.

What did the survey find?

1. At least twice as many people are in favour of removing the weapons than keeping them.
2. At least four times as many people are in favour of their country signing the TPNW than not signing the TPNW.
3. At least four times as many people are against companies in their country investing in nuclear weapons activities than in favour of it.
4. A strong majority of people are against NATO buying new fighter jets that are able to carry both nuclear weapons and conventional weapons.

One year on, a vast majority supports the Nuclear Ban Treaty

“In their totality, the survey results show a clear rejection of nuclear weapons by those Europeans who are on the frontline of any nuclear attack: those hosting American weapons on their soil. More than simply demonstrating a ‘not in my back yard’ mentality, Europeans are even more strongly in favour of a blanket ban of all nuclear weapons worldwide than they are against simply removing the weapons from their own soil,” said Beatrice Fihn, Executive Director of ICAN.

“The people of Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy all know that these weapons are a massive humanitarian disaster in waiting, and they will be on the frontline,” Ms Fihn said. “That’s why on the first anniversary of the Treaty to ban all nuclear weapons we are standing with them to push NATO leaders at next week’s Brussels summit to forge a new NATO security that rejects nuclear weapons, in line with the democratic wishes of their constituents.”

Q1HOST-nologonosource

This week marks the first anniversary of 122 nations adopting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in New York on July 7th 2017. The landmark global treaty prohibits nations from developing, testing, producing, manufacturing, transferring, possessing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons, or allowing nuclear weapons to be stationed on their territory.

With Scott Pruitt’s resignation as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency amid a slew of ethics scandals, environmentalists who long campaigned for his ouster should be careful what they wished for.

That is because the acting administrator of the EPA is now Andrew Wheeler, formerly the agency’s second-in-command. Nominated by President Trump and narrowly confirmed in April by the Senate, Wheeler came into the job as the polar opposite of the EPA’s stated mission “to protect human health and the environment.”

Andrew Wheeler: Coal lobbyist

Andrew Wheeler comes to the top EPA post as an unabashed inside man for major polluters on Capitol Hill. Wheeler lobbied for coal giant Murray Energy, serving as a captain in that company’s bitter war against President Obama’s efforts to cut global warming emissions and enact more stringent clean air and clean water rules.

When Pruitt sued the EPA 14 times as Oklahoma attorney general between 2011 and 2017 on behalf of polluting industries, a top petitioner and co-petitioner in half those cases was coal giant Murray Energy. Wheeler was its lobbyist from 2009 until last year.

Notably, Wheeler accompanied Murray Energy’s CEO, Robert Murray, to the now-notorious meeting last year with Energy Secretary Rick Perry, the one in which Murray handed Perry a 16-point action plan ostensibly designed to “help in getting America’s coal miners back to work.” That plan ultimately became the framework of a proposal by Perry to bail out struggling coal and nuclear power plants (Wheeler was also a nuclear industry lobbyist).

That particular proposal was shot down by federal regulators, but with Pruitt’s help, the Trump administration has made inroads on most of that plan’s 16 points, with devastating consequences to the environment—including the US pullout from the Paris climate accords, the rejection of Obama’s Clean Power Plan, and slashing the staff of the EPA down to a level not seen since the 1980s attacks on the agency by President Reagan.

Wheeler has denied helping Murray draw up that document, but he certainly shares its sentiments, telling a coal conference in 2016, “We’ve never seen one industry under siege by so many different regulations from so many different federal agencies at one time. This is unprecedented. Nobody has ever faced this in the history of the regulatory agenda.”

Andrew Wheeler: Longtime Inhofe aide

If it weren’t enough that a top coal lobbyist is now at the helm of the agency charged with protecting the nation’s environmental health, it bears noting that Wheeler’s vigorous lobbying career came after serving as a longtime aide to the Senate’s most vocal climate change denier, Oklahoma’s James Inhofe.

After the Trump administration announced Wheeler’s nomination to the agency in April, Inhofe hailed Wheeler as a “close friend.” That closeness was evident last year when Wheeler held a fundraiser for Inhofe, as well as for Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, which advanced Wheeler’s nomination by a party-line 11-10 vote. The Intercept online news service reported that Wheeler held the fundraisers even after press accounts revealed that he was under consideration to be Pruitt’s second in command.

Up until now, Wheeler has largely managed to escape the harsh scrutiny that has forced the withdrawal of some Trump appointees—such as Michael Dourson, whose close ties to industry doomed his nomination to oversee chemical safety at EPA, or Kathleen Hartnett White, who spectacularly flamed out with her blatant skepticism about the sources of climate change, once calling carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, the “gas of life.”

In contrast to these colleagues, Wheeler has so far stuck to slickly dry, brief statements that climate change is real, while agreeing with Trump’s pullout of global climate change accords. He even tried to play the good Boy Scout. After Tom Carper of Delaware recited Scouting’s commitment to conservation, Wheeler said,

“I agree with you that we have a responsibility in the stewardship of the planet to leave it in better shape than we found it for our children, grandchildren, and nephews.”

Wheeler’s long track record of lobbying suggests precisely the opposite. But Pruitt’s reign was so mercifully short that many of his efforts to roll back critical vehicle emissions standards and the Clean Power Plan, and end full scrutiny of toxic chemicals common in household products, were only in beginning stages. When Wheeler was a lobbyist behind the scenes, it was easy for him to help industry erode the EPA’s science-based mission of protecting public health and the environment.

As the face of an EPA roiling with disillusion and dissent among its scientists, he will not find it so easy to do the bidding of his former masters. This is his chance to act like an administrator for the people, not an abdicator on behalf of industry.

Note: This post is adapted from an earlier version that appeared April 6, 2018, when Andrew Wheeler was nominated to be deputy administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency.

*

Featured image is from the author.

The criteria used for this research of political scandals covers a period from 1918 to the present day. In the last 100 years there have been 8 Conservative, 7 Labour and 2 Coalition governments. A period covering 1931 to 1945 had a government called the National government which was a mix of coalitions to start that then led into governing the country through the war years with both a coalition and national government.

What is interesting is that when a party is in power, the political 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.

In total, encyclopedias list 71 political scandals since 1918. Of that 30 can be attributed to the Conservative party, 20 to Labour, 10 to the Liberal parties and the balance encompass scandals involving both parties.

Due to the nature of investigative journalism and technology, the number of scandals has seriously increased since the 1980s. However, this could also be attributed to the advent of neoliberal capitalism that drove up bribery and corruption to influence government policy, which is evident from this report.

See our first report: The Top 10 Political Scandals Series: The Tories and our second report: The Top 10 Political Scandals Series: The Labour Party.

Lastly, it’s important to understand what is a scandal. The top 10 are those formally listed in encyclopedias. However, there are many more scandals that are not.

In chronological order the top 10 political scandals since 1918 are:

1922 – Liberal – Cash for Peerages – Lloyd George: – Honours sold for large campaign contributions

1963 – Conservative – Profumo Affair – John Profumo: Secretary of State for War had an affair with prostitute Christine Keeler who was having an affair with a Soviet spy at the same time.

1960’s – Liberal – The Jeremy Thorpe Affair:  Subject of rumours that he was homosexual and tried to murder an ex-lover

1972  – Conservative – Reginald Maudling:  Seriously dodgy business activities involving bribery and corruption.

1974 – Labour – John Stonehouse:  Ended up being a spy for the Czech republic – Remembered for his unsuccessful attempt at faking his own death

1994 – Conservative – Cash for questions: – London’s most successful parliamentary lobbyist, Ian Greer had bribed Conservative Members of Parliament in exchange for asking parliamentary questions.

2003 – Labour – The Dodgy Dossier: Documents ultimately used by the government to justify its involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

2006 – Labour – Cash for honours Labour:  Peerages for secretly lending the Labour party money.

2009 – Parliamentary Expenses scandal: Widespread misuse of allowances and expenses permitted to MP’s

2009 – Labour – Cash for influence: Details of covertly recorded discussions with 4 Labour Party peers and their ability to influence legislation. There was also a Cash for Influence scandal in 2010 paying lobbyists to influence government policy.

Other political scandals

From the Suez crisis to Harold Wilson’s Lavender List, the sale of arms to Iraq to Ron Davis’ ‘moment of madness’ – the list is long. David Cameron’s decision to attack Libya, supported by France and NATO (USA) is not listed as a scandal but it ended up being an international disaster with both the public and parliament deceived over a ‘humanitarian’ cover-story that was supposed to save people from a dictator. The result was the crushing of Africa’s most stable and wealthy nation that now boasts open slave markets, is run by tribal gangs, where terror organisations like ISIS flourish that ultimately led to an uncontrollable migrant crisis and the destabilisation of the EU.

More recently, Britain’s involvement in the civilian catastrophe of Syria and Yemen are scandals in the making as is the myth perpetuated by the West that is now termed ‘Russiaphobia’ that is stoking the perils of a new cold war simply to keep citizens in fear and government in power. Again, there are many to choose from.

The biggest single political scandal in 100 years

Without any doubt the biggest political scandal in 100 years was a document called; Iraq – Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation. This became known as the Iraq Dossier, the February Dossier or most commonly, the ‘Dodgy Dossier’. It was a 2003 briefing document for the British PM Tony Blair’s Labour Party government and was issued to journalists on 3 February 2003 by Alastair Campbell, Blair’s Director of Communications and Strategy, which concerned Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Together with the earlier September Dossier, these documents were ultimately used by the government to justify its involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequently found to be baseless.

This also led to one of the most censored stories in the mainstream press and broadcast media ever – the scale of fatalities directly related to the conflict in Iraq. You can read that report, which has been updated in an article entitled: Shocking Truth Of UK Involvement In The Deaths of 6-8 million in Iraq and Afghanistan

The nastiest party

In 2002, the Tories, out of power and led by leader Iain Duncan Smith, were accused by newly appointed chairwoman of the party Theresa May, of being the ‘nasty party’ after it had “sunk into corruption, incestuous feuding and the electorally disastrous exclusion of women and minorities”. Today, it would be fair to say that the Tories are truly a nasty party and considerably worse now than envisaged back then.

However, to be fair, from the information we have so far, it would only be right to say that the nastiest party over the last 100 years has, on balance, been the Labour party. You may have a different view, it is a subjective question, but Iraq has clearly eclipsed any scandal ever achieved by any party.

Going forward

Brexit is the biggest domestic political issue facing the country since the world war. With senior Brexiteers jumping ship and Nigel Farage keeping his £73,000 EU pension and allowing his children dual citizenship to gain free movement within Europe, to hard Brexiteer Nigel Lawson applying for French residency. From Arron Banks and the Leave.EU funding scandal to Cambridge Analytica’s deep connections to the ruling Conservative party. Will Brexit finally break the union and become the political scandal that beats them all since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215. Brexit is a huge gamble that could lead to either a new resurgence of prosperity globally or the final nail in its coffin as the empire continues its descent into oblivion. Only time will tell but for Britain.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

The five foreign ministers, minus US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, of the countries signatory to the 2015 Iran deal on curbing its civilian nuclear enrichment program, will meet in Vienna on Friday to explore ways of preserving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action after the treaty was violated by the Trump administration.

The JCPOA was signed by Britain, France, Russia, and China on the UN Security Council plus Germany as an informal representative of the European Union.

Trump is attempting to sabotage the deal, which placed severe restrictions on Iran’s enrichment activities in return for an end of UNSC sanctions. The deal implied that US sanctions would be lifted or lightened, as well, but that never happened because of the hostility of the Republican Congress to the deal.

I’m of a generation where the idea of the UN Security Council meeting without the US is hard to imagine. The conference is eloquent about how isolated and increasingly irrelevant Trump has made America. The rest of the world now sees Washington as an annoying problem to get around.

Moreover, think of it. This meeting involves three of America’s closest military and economic allies–Britain, France and Germany– having been pushed by Trump into the same corner with Russia and China in seeking to have better relations with Iran. I guess Trump has taught *them* a lesson.

Trump is ordering the US Department of the Treasury to slap third-party sanctions on non-US firms who do business with Iran. Companies like Total, S.A., the French oil giant, who do business with the US, cannot afford to buck the Treasury Department and so are pulling out of planned Iran investments.

Smaller European firms that do not do business with the US and who can use Euros or some other currency and go through non-US banks could conceivably go on doing business with Iran with no exposure to the wrath of the enormously powerful Treasury Office of Foreign Asset Control. China’s gas giant Sinopec has said it will defy US sanctions, as has the Turkish foreign ministry, and Russian officials and concerns also reject Trump’s bullying. While the Indian government has warned the country’s corporations to be ready for anything, New Delhi will make a stand for economic independence of the US and plans to buy Iranian oil with rupees. The US Treasury Department only has authority over dollar exchanges, and over banks that have branches in the US or do business with the US.

Iran gave up perhaps 90% of its enrichment activities, keeping only a small number of centrifuges and enriching uranium only to the 3.5% needed to run its 3 Russian-built nuclear power plants at Bushehr. Tehran has therefore demanded economic guarantees from the remaining signatories.

Although Emmanuel Macron in France has said his government is committed to finding ways to protect French trade with and investment in Iran from Trump, few dispassionate observers think he is likely to succeed in that quest, with regard to the larger French firms. At most, small business might be sheltered.

Iranian president Rouhani has made a lot of blustery threats about what will happen if Europe reneges on the JCPOA, including that Iran could start back up its more ambitious enrichment program, and, more recently, could interfere with oil and gas exports from the Gulf (from which 22% of world petroleum originates). Iran is saying that if it cannot export its oil from the Gulf, then it can’t see why its enemies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates should be allowed to.

It is hard to imagine such a scenario. Even during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, relatively little oil sabotage took place, because each side was afraid of lasting damage to its own industry. But that Iran could resume its enrichment program is entirely plausible. And that Iran could turn spoiler is also plausible, though in less overt ways.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Agrarian Crisis and Climate Catastrophe: Forged in India, Made in Washington

Trump Regime Remains Adversarial Toward North Korea

July 9th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

Washington doesn’t negotiate. It demands, wanting all other nations bowing to its will – Trump and neocons infesting his regime more hardline than their predecessors.

From Truman to Trump, 13 US presidents maintained an uneasy armistice with North Korea instead of formally ending the 1950s war – orchestrated by Washington, launched by the South against the North, not the other way around.

Despite publicly amicable Kim Jong-un/Trump interactions in Singapore last month, US relations toward Pyongyang remain adversarial – wanting the country denuclearized in return for empty promises.

America can never be trusted, Trump’s JCPOA pullout the latest example. His abandonment of an international agreement endorsed by the world community, unanimously adopted by the Security Council making it binding international law, shows what the DPRK is up against.

On July 6 and 7, Mike Pompeo visited North Korea for talks with its officials, Kim Jong-un not included. Notoriously hawkish on the country, he earlier said

“(t)he previous administration was negotiating from a position of weakness.”

“This administration will be negotiating from a position of enormous strength,” calling for “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of North Korea,” offering nothing substantive in return at the time.

Asked if he got closer to a timeline for DPRK denuclearization after concluding his visit on Saturday, he declined to say anything more than claim “progress in every element of our discussions” was made.

Both sides said further clarification of things discussed was needed. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Pompeo sought three basic goals – complete, verifiable, irreversible DPRK denuclearization, security assurances, and repatriating remains of US soldiers from the 1950s war.

In June, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono said Pompeo made 47 demands of North Korean officials during his last visit to achieve denuclearization, eliminating its ballistic and other missiles, along with relevant infrastructure before any lifting of sanctions or US security guarantees are given.

Hours after Pompeo’s departure on Saturday, North Korea’s Foreign Ministry spokesman diverged sharply from his “progress (achieved) in every element of our discussions” remark, saying:

“We were expecting the US…to come up with constructive measures to help build confidence in the spirit of reunion and talks.”

“However, the attitude of the US was indeed regrettable,” making unilateral demands, pledging nothing substantive in return, adding unsettling talks created a “dangerous phase that might rattle our willingness for denuclearization that had been firm.”

Instead of “offer(ing) constructive measures that would help build trust based on the spirit of the leaders’ summit…the attitude and stance (Pompeo) showed in the…meeting was regrettable.”

Hopes that Kim/Trump summit talks would lead to “lasting and stable peace…on the Korean peninsula” are more illusion than reality.

Washington wants pro-Western puppet regimes replacing all sovereign independent governments – North Korea very much included.

Peace and stability on the peninsula depend on its subservience to US interests.

Dark forces in Washington want North Korea co-opted as a US vassal state, part of its plot to isolate China, its key regional adversary.

Obama’s 2011 Asia pivot was all about advancing Washington’s military footprint to counter Beijing’s growing economic and military might, checking Russia in the Pacific at the same time.

Containment is longstanding US policy against key rivals, a dominant feature of Cold War politics, back with a vengeance under Trump.

US imperial wars rage in multiple theaters. Given Washington’s unbending hegemonic aims, conflicts against other sovereign independent nations could erupt any time at its discretion.

North Korea remains on the Trump regime’s target list if it refuses to accept US demands – with no assurances any of its own being met.

*

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


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Militants Threaten China’s OBOR Initiative in Myanmar

Five Years Since the Suspension of Proactive Recommendation of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine in Japan

July 9th, 2018 by National Attorneys Association for the HPV Vaccines Lawsuits in Japan

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Five Years Since the Suspension of Proactive Recommendation of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine in Japan

The Hidden History of the Women Who Rose Up

July 9th, 2018 by John Pilger

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Hidden History of the Women Who Rose Up

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Pyongyang on a two day visit “ to press leader Kim Jong-un for details on his plans for denuclearisation.”

It was a polite and courteous welcome, Korean style.

But with Pompeo in charge of negotiations, what are the prospects?

Back in October 2017, Pompeo  hinted in no uncertain terms when he was head of the CIA:

“If Kim Jong-un suddenly dies, don’t ask me about it … “

“With respect, if Kim Jong-un should vanish, given the history of the CIA, I’m just not going to talk about it,”

“We are going to become a much more vicious agency…” 

And that’s the guy who’s in charge of “negotiating peace” with North Korea.

Fruitful negotiations? According to the New York Times, there was “distrust on both sides. ...The harsh North Korean reaction may have been a time-tested negotiating tactic” (emphasis added) intimating that the DPRK still constitutes a threat to America’s national security. But what about the national security of North Korea which lost more than a quarter of its population as result of US led bombings (1950-53)?

Pyongyang negotiates with a U.S Secretary of State (former CIA Chief) who casually announced (of course “with respect”) that Kim Jong-un was on the CIA’s assassination list.

Not surprisingly, hours following Pompeo’s departure,  Pyongyang accused the Trump administration of pushing a “unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization.” A mild understatement.

The DPRK statement was most likely directed against Mike Pompeo’s demands formulated behind closed doors during the Pyongyang encounter. According to the DPRK foreign ministry spokesman:

“the U.S. betrayed the spirit of last month’s summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un by making such unilateral demands regarding “CVID,” or the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea.”

“We expected that the U.S. side would come with productive measures conducive to building trust in line with the spirit of the North-U.S. summit and (we) considered providing something that would correspond to them,”

“It would be the shortest path toward realization of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula to … boldly break away from the failure-ridden methods of the past, push for whole new approaches and seek to resolve problems one by one based on trust and in a phased and synchronous principle,”

North Korea Should Opt for the “Vietnam Miracle”

Pompeo casually called upon North Korea to adopt the “Vietnam miracle” of improved ties with the US.

Lest we forget, Hanoi’s acceptance (conditional upon the lifting of the US embargo in 1993) was conducive to the transformation of Vietnam into a new cheap labour frontier of the global economy, indebted and impoverished, not to mention “regime change” and a military cooperation agreement with the US against China.

This is what happened to Vietnam in an agreement signed with the US in 1993: (author’s field research conducted in Vietnam in 1991, and 1994):

Vietnam never received war reparations payments from the U.S. for the massive loss of life and destruction, yet an agreement reached in Paris in 1993 required Hanoi to recognize the debts of the defunct Saigon regime of General Thieu. This agreement is in many regards tantamount to obliging Vietnam to compensate Washington for the costs of war.

Moreover, the adoption of sweeping macro-economic reforms under the supervision of the Bretton Woods institutions was also a condition for the lifting of the U.S. embargo. These free market reforms now constitute the Communist Party’s official doctrine. With the normalization of diplomatic relations with Washington in 1994, reference to America’s brutal role in the war is increasingly considered untimely and improper.

No agent orange or steel pellet bombs, no napalm, no toxic chemicals: a new phase of economic and social destruction has unfolded. The achievements of past struggles and the aspirations of an entire nation are undone and erased almost with a stroke of the pen.

Debt conditionality and structural adjustment under the trusteeship of international creditors constitute in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, an equally effective and formally nonviolent instrument of recolonization and impoverishment affecting the livelihood of millions of people.

(For further details see Michel Chossudovsky,  Who Won the Vietnam War, Peace Magazine, 1995, chapter in The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, 1997, 2003)

Pompeo’s  “Vietnam miracle” message to Pyongyang under the threat of military aggression is to adopt neoliberalism and the IMF’s deadly “economic medicine”, forget about US war crimes, phase out your social programs, privatize and open up to foreign investors.

And America will help you! Meanwhile, Kim remains on the “CIA assassination list”.

.

Michel Chossudovsky, GRTV Interview from Seoul, South Korea, June 14, 2018

 

 

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Washington’s Message to North Korea: Denuclearize, Accept Neoliberalism and the “Vietnam Miracle”. Meanwhile Kim Remains on the “CIA Assassination List”

Football, Politicians, Hypocrisy and Lies

July 8th, 2018 by Richard Galustian

Not one UK official nor anyone from the British Embassy was in the stadium to see England’s decisive win against Sweden on Saturday afternoon. It exemplifies British politicians utter contempt for their public.

I predict if the British Government are going to keep to their silly and pointless boycott of Russia, it will prove to be electoral suicide for the Tories back in the UK one day, such is the importance of football.

Don’t forget precisely how important the game of football is, described universally as ‘the beautiful game’ and best summed up by the legendary Liverpool manager, the late, great Bill Shankly

“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it’s much more serious than that.”

This passion for the game, not only for the British, is simply not understood by the Prime Minister and her fellow elitist millionaire class of Ministers. But make no mistake, the ordinary British voter has forever noted what amounts for them as the treachery of the lie that are these Salisbury events claims that have damaged their sacred and beloved World Cup. Even the simplest of Britons will tell you they know they are being lied to by this Prime Minister and her buffoon Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson.

Another twist: Russia on Saturday night lost their Quarter final match against Croatia in a cruel penalty shoot, however all will agree that their team leave the World Cup with dignity and all have admiration for their players’ unwavering spirit. Russian and non Russian football supporters alike are proud of the Russian team, I assure you!

So why is a British ally, France and its President Emmanuel Macron, attending France’s World Cup semi-final in Russia, a fact his office confirmed on Friday?

Does, I suspect, France not take seriously the British diplomatic boycott of the tournament over an alleged and very suspicious “military grade” nerve agent attack in Salisbury, near the scientific and biological Ministry of Defence facility at Porton Down?

Macron had promised before the French team won their last match to attend the if France reached the semi-finals which they did on Tuesday against Uruguay in Saint Petersburg,

“Well done to our boys in blue. See you on Tuesday!” Macron tweeted after Tuesday’s game.

British officials however continue to boycott the tournament and Russia, blaming Moscow for the alleged attempted assassination of MI6 double agent Sergei Skripal in March.

The Kremlin has strongly denied that it was behind the said to be Novichok attack on Skripal and his daughter, which hospitalised them for weeks but strangely didn’t kill them. They since have made a total miraculous recovery; so where are they now in UK one might ask? The Russians are asking, as is their right.

The row is back in the spotlight after another couple in Salisbury fell ill last week after being exposed allegedly to the same ‘chemical’, spreading fear among local residents and angering and reminding British politicians afresh. How timely!

A little background for readers is necessary. Prime Minister Theresa May announced an official boycott of the World Cup earlier this year and reiterated the stance this week after the new alleged poisoning.

Several of Britain’s Western allies followed suit with the boycott at the time.

Ahead of the World Cup, the UK Foreign Affairs Committee – essentially Boris Johnson – further issued a statement unnecessarily insulting Russia warning Britons that “racist and/or homophobic intimidation, violence from hooligans and anti-British hostility” may put fans’ safety at risk.

Find me one, only one, British fan that had anything but good to say about their experience in Russia at the World Cup and I will join a monastery!

That above British Government statement came after the UK-Russia relations reached an unprecedented low following the Skripal poisoning and resultant tit-for-tat expulsion of Russian diplomats worldwide.

More examples: Iceland snubbed the tournament altogether, after indefinitely postponing all meetings with Russia. Officials from Sweden and Denmark boycotted the June 14 opening ceremony, though since then all have attended games.

Ignoring the lies of The PM and the eccentric Boris Johnson, Belgium’s King Philippe took his sons to Russia to watch his country play Tunisia, while Spain’s King Felipe VI took a private jet to Russia to see his nation beaten by hosts Russia.

In the last hours, Theresa May has “hinted” that the boycott on Ministers and Royals attending the World Cup could be eased if England make it to the final.

What is her logic if she truly believes Russia committed such a heinous act in Salisbury? Where are her principles?

Asked whether the position could change, the Prime Minister, who offered her ‘huge congratulations’ to British Football Manager Gareth Southgate said: ‘We take this every game at a time’. What hypocrisy.

One might ask why don’t Russia boycott them? I’ll answer. Because the Russian Government have proven to the world that they have more dignity and graciousness than the much ridiculed, once greatly respected, British.

It should be noted that the whole of Britain is suffering an unprecedented uncomfortable extreme heatwave but a record estimated at over 35 million British fans watch the games on TV.

This coming Wednesday’s (11th July) England semi-final in Moscow will be the first time England has reached a semi-final of the World Cup in 28 years and over 35 million Britons will watch it.

But relentlessly stubborn Prime Minister dampened her congratulatory message to England Manager, Southgate by adding

“There was a reason why Ministers haven’t been going to Russia saying “It was because of the attack that took place on the streets of a British city, an attack using a chemical weapon.”

That however didn’t stop Prince William who is president of the English Football Association tweeting his joy for England’s victory.

That a sitting British government should be so out of touch with its own public ensures that if there were political circumstances that caused a snap General Election, that the Tories – not forgetting their disastrous handling of Brexit, NHS, et al – would lose such an election by a landslide.

Regardless of reservations many British people may have of Corbyn’s Labour Party, especially if both Jeremy Corbyn and Prince William were to attend the World Cup, separately of course, especially Wednesday’s Semi Final and hopefully the Final too on the 15th July, should England beat Croatia.

Continuously Ill advised, nevertheless, as stated previously, the Prime Minister Theresa May repeated her official boycott of the World Cup, reiterating her position this week after this other alleged poisoning incident.

Yet, as also stated earlier, President Emmanuel Macron will attend France’s World Cup semi-final in Russia, his office confirmed Friday, despite British allegations of a “military grade nerve agent attack” on British soil by the Russians, Without evidence or proof to back that statement up. Is it possible that the French don’t  believe the British?

Macron had promised to attend the match if France reached the semi-finals Tuesday in Saint Petersburg, and that confirmation came shortly after the team went through with a 2-0 win against Uruguay.

The row is back in the spotlight as of last week after a couple, in Salisbury, one a heroin addict, whose immune system presumably must be fairly low, assuring his inevitable death (if it was, as we are told Novichok exposure) appeared to have been poisoned.

Odd that members of the Royal Family, politicians and other British VIPs and dignitaries had, since the Skripal event in March, visited Salisbury on other business and were neither warned, took precautions nor contracted Novichok poisoning.

And so the myth continues as do the obvious lies from Theresa May and Boris Johnson.

Needless to say, Russia has strongly refuted that it was behind the attack on Skripal and his daughter.

I predict that it will be football that will bring down this incompetent British government.

The Russia bashing has to stop is what the EU Head Jean Claude Juncker said recently. One thing I can agree with him on.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Football, Politicians, Hypocrisy and Lies

Any move by US President Donald Trump to threaten economic sanctions on China for its trade with Iran could set off global chaos as support for such moves among US allies in Europe evaporates, former CIA officer Phil Giraldi told Sputnik.

“It will be interesting to see what happens when Washington tries to sanction the Central Bank of China over business dealings with Iran — utter chaos on top of the already existing trade war!” Giraldi said on Friday.

The participants in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear agreement, confirmed on Friday at the meeting of the JCPOA Joint Commission in Vienna the need to continue the full and effective implementation of the agreement.

The JCPOA participants including the United Kingdom, France and Germany affirmed their support for continued export of Iran’s oil and gas condensate, petroleum products and petrochemicals and for further trade with and investment in Iran, their joint statement said.

However, Giraldi cautioned that that British Prime Minister Theresa May, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron could face major pressure from Washington to scrap their ties to Iran, and that they might surrender to it.

“I think this is admirable, but it will come up against the hard reality of US sanctions if Trump pushes the issue, which I think he will do based on recent statements by [presidential adviser Rudy] Giuliani and [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo that nothing short of regime change for Iran is envisioned by the White House,” he said.

Faced with such pressure, May, Merkel and Macron might yield to Washington’s demands, Giraldi advised.

“The Western Europeans will likely crumble because the threat of blocking them out of the US financial system would be too hard a pill to swallow if Trump really wants to make them squirm,” he said.

Giraldi pointed out he was concerned that the current major European leader slacked the determination to stand up to trump for their nations’ best interests.

“Of course, the US economy will also suffer greatly, which will be a card they can play, but I do not see leaders of the caliber of Merkel, May and Macron fighting very hard on behalf of what they know to be right and correct relating to Iran,” he said.

Trump was listening to extremists on the Iran issue and was unlikely to change direction, Giraldi assessed.

“It comes down to Trump and his God-awful advisers wanting something much more than the Europeans do so they will give in. Russia and China will, of course, do the right thing,” he said.

Philip Giraldi is executive director of the Council for the National Interest, a group that advocates more even-handed US government policies in the Middle East.

Robert (Bob) Parry was born in 1949 and died suddenly from pancreatic cancer in January 2018. An enthusiastic tribute to him and his work was recently held in Berkeley California. A video of the event is online here. 

Although Robert Parry never became personally famous, many readers will recall news stories he played a key role in bringing to public consciousness. He uncovered the “Iran-Contra scandal” where the US secretly sold weapons to Iran via Israel with profits supporting mercenary “Contras” attacking the Nicaraguan government. He uncovered Lt. Col. Oliver North secretly working at the Reagan White House to supervise support for the Contras. He exposed CIA collusion with criminals sending weapons to the Contras and receiving tons of cocaine on return flights from Colombia and Central America. 

In 1988, Parry co-authored an article which documented CIA and State Department activities to misinform the public to promote the desired public policy. 

Next, Parry worked with the television documentary “Frontline” to uncover the “October Surprise”. That story involved Ronald Reagan’s election team clandestinely negotiating to delay the release of American hostages held in Iran. These stories appeared in mainstream media but were ultimately swept under the carpet. 

The CIA-Contra-Cocaine Connection

The story about CIA complicity with drug-dealers was especially explosive because of the impact of drugs in poor communities across the US. There was an epidemic of cheap crack cocaine flooding poor and especially African American communities. 

Robert Parry originally reported the CIA-Contra-Cocaine story in the mid 1980’s. Ten years later, in 1996,  investigative journalist Gary Webb uncovered what happened after the cocaine arrived in the U.S.: crack cocaine had flooded poor and African American communities, especially in California. The negative consequences were huge. The San Jose Mercury News published Gary Webb’s investigation as an explosive front page 3-day series titled “Dark Alliance”. 

The story was initially ignored by the foreign policy and media establishment. But after two months of rising attention and outrage, especially in the African American community, a counter-attack was launched in the NY Times, Washington Post and LA Times. The LA Times alone assigned 17 reporters to what one reporter dubbed the “Get Gary Webb team”. They picked apart the story, picked apart Gary Webb’s personal life and distorted what he wrote. The attack succeeded. The Mercury News editors published a partial “correction” which was taken to apply to the whole story. Gary Webb was demoted and then “let go”. His reputation was destroyed and he ultimately committed suicide. An 2014 movie titled “Kill the Messenger”, made in consultation with Gary’s family and Bob Parry, depicts the events. 

When the establishment media was going after Gary Webb, with the quiet encouragement of the CIA, many journalists were silent or joined the pack attack. Later, when an internal CIA investigation confirmed the veracity of Webb’s research and writing, they mostly ignored it. Robert Parry was one of the few national journalists to defend Gary Webb and his reporting from beginning to end. 

At the Berkeley tribute, journalist Dennis Bernstein recalled being with Bob Parry and Gary Webb:

I remember the power that those guys had with audiences. It was easy to understand why people would be afraid of them. They were truth tellers.”

The Birth of Consortiumnews 

As other western journalists were being pressured into compliance or driven out of the profession, Robert Parry chose a different path. Together with his oldest son Sam Parry, he launched the first investigative magazine on the internet: Consortiumnews. In his last article Bob Parry explained,

“The point of Consortiumnews, which I founded in 1995, was to use the new medium of the modern internet to allow the old principles of journalism to have a new home, i.e., a place to pursue important facts and giving everyone a fair shake.” 

For the past 23 years, Consortiumnews has published consistently high quality research and analysis on international issues. To give just a few examples: In March 1999, Bob Parry surveyed the dangers of the Russian economic collapse cheered on by Western neoconservatives while Mark Ames exposed the reality of Russian economic gangsters. In February 2003, Consortiumnews published the First Memorandum to the President by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) after Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council. VIPS presciently warned of “catastrophic” consequences if the US attacked Iraq. 

In 2005, Bob Parry exposed the bias and deception behind the rush to blamed the Syrian government after Lebanese leader Rafik Hariri was assassinated. In April 2011, as the US was pushing to overthrow Gadaffi in Libya, Parry drew parallels to the disastrous consequences of overthrowing the socialist leaning Afghan government three decades earlier. 

Beginning in 2014, Bob Parry exposed the dubious accusations regarding the downing of Malaysian Airlines MH-17 in Ukraine. Over the past two years, Bob Parry wrote and edited dozens of articles exposing the bias and lack of evidence behind “Russiagate”. A few examples can be seen here.  

Commitment to Facts and Objectivity

Sam and several other speakers at the Berkeley Tribute noted that Robert Parry was not ideological. He believed in following the leads and facts wherever they led.  The new editor of Consortiumnews, Joe Lauria, said,

“Bob was not a lefty radical… He was just reporting the facts and where they led. That turned out to be kind of a left wing position in the end because that’s what happens when you follow the facts wherever they go. But he didn’t start out from an ideological position or have a preconceived notion of what the story should be.” 

Bob Parry’s investigations in the 1980’s revealed the U.S. administration plans and propaganda aiming to “glue black hats” on the Nicaraguan government and “white hats” on the Contra opposition. Thus he was well prepared to critically examine the disinformation campaigns accompanying “regime change” campaigns over the past decades: from Yugoslavia to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine and others. 

Under Bob Parry’s leadership, Consortiumnews has exposed “fake news” at the highest levels. As journalist Norman Solomon said at the tribute,

“It’s important to remember that the most dangerous fake news in the last few decades has come from the likes of the front page of the New York Times and Washington Post. There are a million dead Iraqis and many dead Americans to prove it.” 

Bob Parry wrote several books including “Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, The Press and Project Truth” (1999), “Fooling America: How Washington Insiders Twist the Truth and Manufacture the Conventional Wisdom” (1992), and America’s Stolen Narrative: From Washington and Madison to Nixon, Reagan and the Bushes to Barack Obama” ( 2012). 

Challenging the New McCarthyism 

In his last article , published just two weeks before his death, Parry informed Consortiumnews readers about his health issue. He speculated on possible contributing factors including “the unrelenting ugliness that has become Official Washington and national journalism.” 

Parry described the decline in journalistic standards and objectivity.

“This perversion of principles – twisting information to fit a desired conclusion – became the modus vivendi of American politics and journalism. And those of us who insisted on defending journalistic principles of skepticism and even-handedness were increasingly shunned by our colleagues, a hostility that first emerged on the Right and among neoconservatives but eventually sucked in the progressive world as well…. The demonization of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russia is just the most dangerous feature of this propaganda process – and this is where the neocons and the liberal interventionists most significantly come together. The US media approach to Russia is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. 

At the Berkeley event, writer Natylie Baldwin addressed this issue. In her presentation she said,

“Robert Parry referred to the phenomena of careerism and group think. He argued that it was ruining journalism …When our most experienced academic expert on Russia, Stephen Cohen, can hardly get an interview on CNN and cannot get an op-ed published by the New York Times or the Washington Post, but a neo-con ideolog like Michael Weiss, who has no on the ground experience or educational credentials about Russia can be hired as a commentator by CNN on the subject, it’s dangerous. When someone like Rachel Maddow, who from her past investigative reporting knows better, has allowed herself to be used as a cartoonish purveyor of anti Russia propaganda, virtually ignoring coverage of more immediate issues facing average Americans and distracting them away from confronting the Democratic Party’s failures and dishonesty, it’s dangerous.” 

Natylie Baldwin elaborated on the current critical situation and need for honest and objective journalism. She said,

“Our media, like our political system, is in crisis. Indeed, these two crises reinforce each other as both our media and our political system are corrupted by money and have been largely reduced to a cheap spectacle. According to polls, large majorities of millennials have contempt for these establishment institutions. They’re open to and looking for alternatives to these broken systems. This makes Robert Parry’s legacy and the space for genuine investigative journalism that he fostered at Consortiumnews more important than ever.” 

Reflections on Bob Parry 

Joe Lauria said,

“Bob was a skeptic but not a cynic – there’s a big difference.” 

Sam Parry said,

“Dad was a patriot. I think that he really loved America. He loved our ideals, he loved the people, he loved the idea of holding the institutions that govern us accountable. That was his passion. That was what he was all about and what really drove him and propelled him through his life.” 

Australian journalist John Pilger wrote about Robert Parry:

His founding of Consortiumnews was a landmark. He was saying in effect, ‘We must not lie down in the face of media monoliths, the Murdochs, the liberal pretenders, censors and collaborators.’”

Bob Parry exposed the double standards and bias of mainstream media but maintained connections there. At the east coast Celebration of the life of Robert Parry, former neighbor, family friend and executive editor of the NY Times, Jill Abramson, made the understated but accurate summary:

“Bob Parry certainly did his part to challenge the established order.”

Robert Parry’s website continues; his work and life continue to inspire. 

*

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. He can be contacted at [email protected].

NED Pursues Regime Change by Playing the Long Game

July 8th, 2018 by Dr. Edward Hunt

Featured image: Carl Gershman

During a recent congressional hearing, the heads of three influential non-profit organizations that operate in numerous countries around the world revealed the subtle ways in which the United States meddles in the internal affairs of other countries by playing what the officials called “the long game.”

The three officials—Carl Gershman, Daniel Twining, and Kenneth Wollack—told Congress about their long-term efforts to empower the opponents of U.S. enemies and boasted about their ability to change foreign governments. They said that they had recently helped their political allies gain political power in Malaysia, acknowledged that they have helped train thousands of activists in Nicaragua, and speculated about the potential to create new governments in China, Russia, and North Korea.

All three men strongly defended their activities, insisting that they are critically important to the advancement of democracy in the world.

“We’re not asking people to do anything that they don’t want to do,” Gershman said. “We’re supporting their own aspirations and giving them some of the tools to realize those aspirations.”

Gershman is the president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a U.S. taxpayer-funded nonprofit created by the U.S. government in 1983. As the president of NED, Gershman oversees the issuance of grants to its political-party-associated organizations, including the International Republican Institute (IRI), which is headed by Twining, and the National Democratic Institute (NDI), which is headed by Wollack.

Facing skepticism about their work from the Trump administration, which views the organizations as unnecessary expenses and wants to cut their funding, Gershman and his colleagues provided Congress with a broad overview of how their work affects the world. They defended their ongoing operations, trying to persuade Congress that they should continue to receive funding.

Ultimately, the three officials revealed how they are helping the U.S. government interfere in numerous countries around the world.

The NED Approach

The general strategy of NED is to empower like-minded activists to build new political movements in their home countries. NED helps these activists become influential political actors, often with the goal of creating new possibilities for political change.

Officials typically describe their approach as one of “democracy promotion.” They argue that they are helping democratic forces introduce democratic politics into countries ruled by authoritarian leaders.

“These leaders, their strategic Achilles heel is fear of their own publics,” Twining explained. “And I think we should think about the old Reagan message of exploiting that a little bit.”

The strategy requires a long-term commitment in the countries where the NED is active. Twining calls it “playing the long game.” Gershman calls it “long-term work.”

The officials discussed numerous examples. Twining said that IRI has been working with opposition forces in Malaysia since 2002. He credited IRI with helping opposition forces prevail in the country’s recent parliamentary elections, calling the victory “an example of playing the long game.”

U.S.-backed opposition forces are “now in-charge of this very strategic country right there on the frontlines of the South China Sea, right there on the frontlines of the Islamic world’s intersection with rest of Asia,” Twining said. “And that’s good for America.”

The NED has also been active in Nicaragua, where opposition forces are organizing major protests against the Nicaraguan government. The protesters are trying to bring down the government of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, a popular leftist leader who has been in power since 2007.

“We have been working on youth leadership programs and have worked with more than 8,000 youth on a very extensive coursework and academies to develop U.S. engagement,” Wollack said.

Although Wollack denied that the organizations are training their grantees for the purpose of overthrowing Ortega, Gershman indicated that regime change is the ultimate goal.

“Time for him to go,” Gershman said, referring to Ortega.

The three officials also cited many additional opportunities to influence governments around the world. They are especially excited about opportunities in Armenia, where a major social movement recently ousted a government backed by Russia.

Twining speculated about the possibility of achieving regime change in Russia, calling Putin a “very brittle” leader who is “frankly quite insecure.”

Gershman saw potential for a similar outcome in North Korea.

“This is an eroding totalitarian system, so we shouldn’t give up hope on the possibilities for internal change,” he said.

Gershman believes that the primary focus should be on China, however. He called China “the most serious threat our country faces today.”

Although Gershman said that the U.S. government will initially respond to challenges from China with a mix of military, economic, and geostrategic power, he insisted that the long-term solution could be found in the “unhappy people” who oppose the Chinese government.

“We have to not give up on the possibility for democratic change in China and keep finding ways to support them,” he said.

The Controversy in Washington

The open talk of U.S. meddling in other countries around the world was so commonplace that the U.S. mass media spent no time covering the hearing, even though the speakers did encounter some pushback. Not all members of Congress are on board with the programs.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) made the strongest critique, insisting that U.S. meddling destabilizes countries while creating more problems for the United States in the long run. Rohrabacher blamed recent U.S. meddling for destabilizing Ukraine. He argued that the U.S. involvement in national protests that led to the downfall of the government of Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014 prompted the subsequent Russian invasion of the country and the war that continues there today.

“I don’t believe the Russians would have invaded Ukraine had we not arrogantly involved ourselves to overthrow that democratically elected government in Ukraine,” Rohrabacher said.

Rohrabacher also insisted that the U.S. should support dictators. He singled out Egypt, saying that the country should continue to be ruled by General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the military dictator who gained power by overthrowing the country’s first democratically elected government in 2013.

“I know I am making everybody mad at me, but I had to say it,” Rohrabacher commented.

Faced with Rohrabacher’s criticisms, the remaining participants in the hearing made some effort to counter his arguments but otherwise said very little, preferring instead to blandly praise NED for performing admirable work by promoting democracy around the world.

The general feeling in Congress is that the U.S. government should continue to fund the work of the NED and its affiliated institutes. Most members of Congress view the organizations as important assets in the U.S. government’s toolkit, believing they play an important role in U.S. global strategy.

Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-VA) unabashedly praised NED, IRI, and NDI, calling their work “exciting.” He told the three officials that “nothing does America prouder than the work frankly you’re doing.”

*

Edward Hunt writes about war and empire. He has a PhD in American Studies from the College of William & Mary.

On Friday July 6th, the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is tasked to determine whether there was a gas or other chemical attack on April 7th in Douma Syria (and which alleged occurrence the U.S., French and British forces launched 105 missiles into Syria to punish on April 13th), issued its interim report, and this report states that no conclusive evidence has yet been concluded to confirm that such an attack occurred. Here is the complete main portion of this interim report:

2.5 The results of the analysis of the prioritised samples submitted to OPCW designated laboratories were received by the FFM team on 22 May 2018. No organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties. Various chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from Locations 2 and 4, along with residues of explosive. These results are reported in Annex 3. Work by the team to establish the significance of these results is ongoing. S/1645/2018 page 3

2.6 The FFM team visited Locations 2 and 4, where it observed the presence of an industrial gas cylinder on a top floor patio at Location 2, and the presence of a similar cylinder lying on the bed of a top floor apartment at Location 4. Close to the location of each cylinder there were crater-like openings in the respective reinforced concrete roofs. Work is ongoing to assess the association of these cylinders with the incident, the relative damage to the cylinders and the roofs, and how the cylinders arrived at their respective locations. 

2.7 Based on the equipment and chemicals observed during the two on-site visits to the warehouse and the facility suspected by the authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic of producing chemical weapons, there was no indication of either facility being involved in the production of chemical warfare agents. 

2.8 The FFM team needs to continue its work to draw final conclusions regarding the alleged incident and, to this end, the investigation is ongoing.

*

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

The OPCW long ago lost credibility, functioning as a pro-Western imperial tool, violating core Chemical Weapons Convention provisions it’s sworn to observe and uphold.

Its reports on Syria have been one-sided, objectivity abandoned, likely on orders from Washington and Brussels.

Three months after the alleged April 7 Douma CW incident, the organization finally released its unacceptably long delayed report.

The so-called incident was a victimless nonevent – no one killed, hospitalized or ill from exposure to toxic chemicals of any kind.

Douma eyewitnesses and local medical personnel debunked the falsified Western narrative.

In April, days after the alleged incident, Russian technical experts found no traces of chemical toxins in soil samples and other analysis.

In late April, Russia and Syria brought 17 credible Douma eyewitnesses to OPCW headquarters in the Hague.

Their testimonies proved no CW incident occurred. No forensic evidence corroborated one.

At the time, Russia’s envoy to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin issued a statement, saying:

“Taking part in the news briefing (were) eyewitnesses of shooting of the footage that featured the fake pseudo-humanitarian action staged by the White Helmets and that provided grounds for the US/UK/French missile strikes at Syria on April 14,” adding:

“In all, there (were testimonies from 17 witnesses), including physicians who were right at the scene on that day. They recount(ed) the true story of the (false flag) incident.”

“(D)elegations (of OPCW member states got) first-hand evidence on the forged footage that misled the world community.”

“The briefing (was) organized in support of the OPCW fact-finding” Douma mission to investigate the alleged incident and report on its findings.

“(W)e had no doubt that the allegations of chemical use in Douma are a fabricated and provocative play staged by the so called White Helmets and Western media outlets.”

“We can prove that the video of the White Helmets is fabricated, and therefore there is no basis or validity to the signals of Western countries that this material is evidence of a chemical attack in the city of Douma.”

Facts on the ground didn’t matter. The OPCW report failed to debunk the falsified Western narrative.

While saying “results (of its so-called analysis) show(ed) no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products…in the environmental samples or in the plasma samples taken from alleged casualties,” it turned truth on its head adding:

“(V)arious chlorinated organic chemicals were found in samples from two sites, for which there is a full chain of custody.”

The OPCW claimed to find what Russia’s technical analysis said didn’t exist.

So-called witnesses it interviewed included al-Qaeda-linked White Helmets and other anti-government elements.

Following Douma’s liberation, Russian forces found a laboratory operated by terrorists in the town able to produce chemical toxins. Video footage by Russian journalists showed large stockpiles of chemical agents.

At the alleged sites of the Douma false flag incident, Russian experts found no traces of chemical toxins.

Arriving 11 days after the victimless nonevent, the OPCW in its report claimed evidence of CWs Russian analysis proved didn’t exist.

Make your own judgment about the veracity of its long-delayed report. What should have taken days to produce, at most a few weeks, took three months.

Its findings attempted to justify the unjustifiable US, UK, French aggression on Syrian sites days after the Douma false flag.

The attack had nothing to do with Douma, CWs, their alleged production or use – everything to do with advancing Washington’s imperial agenda based on Big Lies, pretexts for all acts of aggression.

It’s likely the Trump regime will use the OPCW report as red meat justification to continue the rape and destruction of sovereign Syria threatening no one.

*

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

First published on December 28, 2015

The IMF is the leading international monetary agency whose public purpose is to maintain the stability of the global financial system through loans linked to proposals designed to enhance economic recovery and growth.

In fact, the IMF has been under the control of the US and Western European states and its policies have been designed to further the expansion, domination and profits of their leading multi-national corporations and financial institutions.

The US and European states practice a division of powers:  The executive directors of the IMF are Europeans; their counterparts in the World Bank (WB) are from the US.

The executive directors of the IMF and WB operate in close consultation with their governments and especially the Treasury Departments in deciding priorities, deciding what countries will receive loans, under what terms and how much.

The loans and terms set by the IMF are closely coordinated with the private banking system.  Once the IMF signs an agreement with a debtor country, it is a signal for the big private banks to lend, invest and proceed with a multiplicity of favorable financial transactions.  From the above it can be deduced that the IMF plays the role of general command for the global financial system.

The IMF lays the groundwork for the major banks’ conquest of the financial systems of the world’s vulnerable states.

The IMF assumes the burden of doing all the dirty work through its intervention.  This includes the usurpation of sovereignty, the demand for privatization and reduction of social expenditures, salaries, wages and pensions, as well as ensuring the priority of debt payments.  The IMF acts as the ‘blind’ for the big banks by deflecting political critics and social unrest.

Executive Directors as Hatchet Persons

What kind of persons do the banks support as executive directors of the IMF? Whom do they entrust with the task of violating the sovereign rights of a country, impoverishing its people and eroding its democratic institutions?

They have included a convicted financial swindler; the current director is facing prosecution on charges of mishandling public funds as a Finance minister; a rapist; an advocate of gunboat diplomacy and the promotor of the biggest financial collapse in a country’s history.

IMF Executive Directors on Trial

The current executive director of the IMF (July 2011-2015) Christine Lagarde is on trial in France for misappropriation of a $400-million-dollar payoff to tycoon Bernard Tapie while she was Finance Minister in the government of President Sarkozy.

The previous executive director (November 2007-May 2011), Dominique Strauss-Kahn, was forced to resign after he was charged with raping a chambermaid in a New York hotel and was later arrested and tried for pimping in the city of Lille, France.

His predecessor, Rodrigo Rato (June 2004-October 2007), was a Spanish banker who was arrested and charged with tax evasion, concealing ϵ27 million euros in seventy overseas banks and swindling thousands of small investors who he convinced to put their money in a Spanish bank, Bankia, that went bankrupt.

His predecessor a German, Horst Kohler, resigned after he stated an unlikely verity – namely that overseas military intervention was necessary to defend German economic interests, such as free trade routes.  It’s one thing for the IMF to act as a tool for imperial interests; it is another for an IMF executive to speak about it publically!

Michel Camdessus (January 1987-February 2000) was the author of the “Washington Consensus” the doctrine that underwrote the global neo-liberal counter-revolution. His term of office witnessed his embrace and financing of some of the worst dictators of the time, including his own photo-ops with Indonesian strongman and mass murderer, General Suharto.

Under Camdessus, the IMF collaborated with Argentine President Carlos Menem in liberalizing the economy, deregulating financial markets and privatizing over a thousand enterprises.  The crises, which ensued, led to the worst depression in Argentine history, with over 20,000 bankruptcies, 25% unemployment and poverty rates exceeding 50% in working class districts . . . Camdessus later regretted his “policy mistakes” with regard to the Argentine’s collapse.  He was never arrested or charged with crimes against humanity.

Conclusion

The criminal behavior of the IMF executives is not an anomaly or hindrance to their selection.  On the contrary, they were selected because they reflect the values, interests and behavior of the global financial elite:  Swindles, tax evasion, bribery, large-scale transfers of public wealth to private accounts are the norm for the financial establishment.  These qualities fit the needs of bankers who have confidence in dealing with their ‘mirror-image’ counterparts in the IMF.

The international financial elite needs IMF executives who have no qualms in using double standards and who overlook gross violations of its standard procedures.  For example, the current executive director, Christine Lagarde, lends $30 billion to the puppet regime in the Ukraine, even though the financial press describes in great detail how corrupt oligarchs have stolen billions with the complicity of the political class (Financial Times, 12/21/15, pg. 7).  The same Lagarde changes the rules on debt repayment allowing the Ukraine to default on its payment of its sovereign debt to Russia.  The same Lagarde insists that the center-right Greek government further reduce pensions in Greece below the poverty level, provoking the otherwise accommodating regime of Alexis Tsipras to call for the IMF to stay out of the bailout (Financial Times, 12/21/15, pg.1).

Clearly the savage cut in living standards, which the IMF executives decree everywhere is not unrelated to their felonious personal history.   Rapists, swindlers, militarists, are just the right people to direct an institution as it impoverishes the 99% and enriches the 1% of the super-rich.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The “Dirty Work” of the International Monetary Fund, Lays the Groundwork for Worldwide Financial Conquest

Indefinite Detention of Migrants Violates International Law

July 8th, 2018 by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

Pursuant to its “zero-tolerance” policy, the Trump administration separated some 2,300 migrant children from their parents at the US-Mexico border since May 5, 2018. Widespread international condemnation ensued. On June 26, a federal judge in San Diego ordered the government to reunite the families and established a timetable for reunification.

On June 29, the Department of Justice filed a notice of compliance with the court order, but indicated its intention to indefinitely detain families together. Indefinite detention violates international law.

“The Government will not separate families but detain families together during the pendency of immigration proceedings when they are apprehended at or between ports of entry,” the Justice Department wrote in its notice of compliance.

That would amount to indefinite detention as immigration cases can last for months or even years.

A 1997 settlement called the Flores agreement requires that detained immigrant children be released after 20 days. In its notice of compliance, the Justice Department asked the court to modify the Flores agreement to allow indefinite detention of migrants.

Meanwhile, on July 2, a federal judge in Washington ordered the government to give asylum applicants a meaningful opportunity to be released. More than 1,000 applicants have been incarcerated for months or years with no resolution of their cases.

Indefinite detention violates the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Refugee Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

A Violation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The United States has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, making its provisions part of US law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which says treaties “shall be the supreme law of the land.”

The UN Human Rights Committee is the expert body that monitors compliance with the covenant.* The committee has stated that detentions are arbitrary if they do not accord with due process and are manifestly disproportional, unjust or unpredictable.

Indeed, according to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions, under the covenant,

“‘arbitrariness’ is not to be equated with ‘against the law’, but must be interpreted more broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, lack of predictability and due process of law.”

Keeping families locked up for months with no good reason is unjust and inappropriate. It denies them due process and a timely resolution of their legal claims. And their time of release is unpredictable.

Moreover, the Human Rights Committee has said that even if detention is initially legal, it could become “arbitrary” if unduly prolonged or not subject to periodic review.

People deprived of their liberty are entitled to a speedy trial. When they are arbitrarily detained, they have the right to compensation under the covenant.

The covenant’s provisions are not limited to citizens, but apply in cases of immigration control as well. Parties to the covenant may refuse to comply with them only “in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.”

Alfred de Zayas, UN independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, and former secretary of the Human Rights Committee, wrote in 2016 that,

“Neither the war on terror nor restrictive immigration policies justify indefinite detention.”

Experts report that prolonged indefinite detention can cause anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts.

Even brief detentions can result in permanent physical and mental harm to children. The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote a 2015 letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, which stated,

“The act of detention or incarceration itself is associated with poorer health outcomes, higher rates of psychological distress, and suicidality, making the situation for already vulnerable women and children even worse.”

Documents obtained by the ACLU reveal that children in the custody of Customs and Border Protection between 2009 and 2014 suffered horrific brutality and physical, sexual and verbal abuse.

Negative effects of prolonged detention may amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in violation of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the United States has ratified.

A Violation of the Refugee Convention

The United States is also a party to the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees, which prohibits parties from imposing penalties on refugees for illegal entry or presence. The refugees must either: (1) come from a place where their life or freedom was threatened; or (2) enter or be present without authorization. They are required to present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their unauthorized entry or presence.

Indefinite detention constitutes a penalty prohibited by the Refugee Convention.

After an initial period of detention, the Refugee Convention allows countries to impose restrictions on movement if they are “necessary” for national security or in special circumstances, such as a mass arrival of refugees.

Neither of those two conditions was present before Trump ordered indefinite detention of families.

Contrary to Trump’s nativist claims, immigrants are actually less likely to commit crimes than US citizens. And a Customs and Border Protection report concluded that rates of illegal entry at the UN border in 2017 were “at the lowest level … on record.”

A Violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states,

“No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.”

Although the United States has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the US has signed it. A signatory to a treaty cannot take action inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

A primary object and purpose of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is to protect the best interests of the child. Ravina Shamdasani, spokesperson for the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, stated that,

“Detention is never in the best interests of the child and always constitutes a child rights violation.”

Pentagon Builds Migrant Housing on Military Bases

As it formulates plans to indefinitely detain migrant families, the Pentagon is constructing temporary housing for them at two Texas military bases — Fort Bliss in El Paso and Goodfellow Air Force Base near San Angelo.

A US Navy internal document says the Navy is planning to build tent cities to house migrants, including two camps in California slated to house up to 47,000 people each. They will be called “austere” tent cities.

Since 1983, one of the sites, the former Concord Naval Weapons Station in California, has been undergoing “clean-up of Navy contamination and is not suitable for transfer nor human occupation,” according to Concord Mayor Edi Birsan.

“The idea that you put almost 50,000 people in a tent city facility in the middle of the Bay Area, an urban area, is absurd,” California Rep. Mark DeSaulnier wrote in a letter to the secretary of the Navy. “This does remind me of World II and Japanese internment. We don’t want to be a party to that.”

In the meantime, local officials across the United States are resisting Trump’s inhumane policies. Officials in Texas near Austin, California’s Sacramento County, Springfield County in Western Oregon, and Alexandria, Virginia, have cancelled deals with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain migrants.

*

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and an advisory board member of Veterans for Peace. An updated edition of her book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, was recently published. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Note

*This is a different body than the UN Human Rights Council, from which the United States recently withdrew.

On July 6, the OPCW—the body charged with investigating the accusations that Syria had used a nerve agent or other chemical weapon in Douma, Syria—reported that “no organophosphorous nerve agents” were detected in the prioritized samples they had taken, including from “alleged casualties”.

The OPCW states that its investigation included on-site visits in Douma, and interviews with witnesses.

While corporate media was screaming that Syria had used a chemical weapon or nerve agent against civilians in Douma, based on the claims of the US-funded Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) and the Syrian Civil Defense (White Helmets), independent journalists went to Douma and spoke to medical staff at the hospital in question, as well as civilians.

I did so myself in late April. Numerous testimonies I and others before and after me took said no chemical attack had taken place. Seventeen civilians from Douma, including medical staff and a boy featured in an unverified video, testified at the OPCW headquarters at the Hague that there had not been a chemical attack. And yet, corporate media dismissed their testimonies, and the on the ground testimonies of many journalists, instead declaring that Syria was guilty of a chemical attack.

As I previously wrote, Marwan Jaber, a medical student present at the hospital on April 7, the day of the alleged attacks, told me:

Patients who came in were being treated for normal shelling injuries, as well as for breathing difficulties, due to the combination of dust and their having taken refuge for extended periods in basements. While staff were treating normal bombing injuries and breathing cases, “strangers” entered screaming about a chemical attack and started hosing people with water. Hospital staff calmed the situation down and went back to treating the patients as ‘normal’ shelling victims, as they had not exhibited any indications of having been exposed to a chemical agent.”

These strangers appear, with the White Helmets, in the unverified videos presented to the world as “evidence” that the Syrian government had used a chemical or nerve agent against its people. The videos of the White Helmets were “evidence” enough for the US, UK and France to illegally bomb Syria over 100 times the night before OPCW inspectors arrived in Syria to investigate.

Marwan Jaber also told me:

“Patients’ symptoms were “not in line with the symptoms of a chemical attack. There wasn’t pupil constriction or Broncho-constrictions leading to death,” Jaber recalled. “The symptoms we received were all symptoms of choking, patients affected by the smoke and regular war injuries. They came here, we treated them, and dispatched them home.”

Jaber said that none, not one, had died, and that none of the hospital staff were affected, as one might expect they would be had a chemical agent been used.

The OPCW investigation included samples from rooms shown in the unverified video including the room with a bed and a large missile delicately perched on a non-shattered bed, supposedly having fallen through the roof. In their report, the OPCW noted that samples from the bed, pillow, resulted in: “No CWC-scheduled chemicals detected.” Same for samples from a basement room, also shown in the White Helmets video, strewn with re-arranged bodies. “No CWC-scheduled chemicals detected.” [No chemicals that are prohibited in the Chemical Weapons Convention.] “No nerve agent related chemicals detected.” The latter comment is regarding a sample taken from “piece of cloths from victim.”

The OPCW found traces of “chlorinated organic chemicals”, but not Sarin, as widely alleged by corporate media and supposed investigators.

The issuance of this latest report finding allegations of chemical or nerve agents being used in Douma to thus far not be based on evidence is another important negation of the stories spun by corporate media and think tanks, and confirms what Syrian civilians and medical staff themselves testified on numerous occasions to numerous journalists: that they had not experienced a chemical attack in Douma.

Those promoting the lies to the contrary are guilty of war propaganda and have Syrian blood on their hands for promulgating a narrative that could lead to further illegal intervention and bombing by the US and allies.

*

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine. She is a recipient of the International Journalism Award for International Reporting, Mexican Press Club, 2017. Visit her personal blog, In Gaza. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

As American motorists complain of rising gasoline prices, the Trump Administration and the oil and banking interests behind it are smiling on their way to the proverbial bank. If we look at seeming disparate events in Iran, in Venezuela and now in Libya it becomes clear there is a coherent strategy to promote disruption in key oil flows to the immediate advantage of US oil domination.

A decade ago the idea that the United States could displace Saudi Arabia or the Russian Federation as the world’s largest oil producer was considered unthinkable. Today it is clearly a foreign policy priority of the Trump Administration and the major Wall Street banks financing US shale oil production. The strategy is geopolitical and ultimately aims to weaken Russia, Iran and the other independent world oil producing powers like Venezuela.

If we look at several recent events that have dramatically impacted global oil prices a clear pattern emerges not of free market forces but of geopolitical manipulation, above all by Washington. The cases of Iran, of Venezuela and most recently of Libya make the case clear that Washington is determined to push an oil price high enough to again make economical investment in its developed shale oil industry.

Iran not about nuclear but oil

The obvious point about the Trump administration unilateral rejection of the Iran nuclear agreement, an agreement that was to have enabled Iran to be free from Western economic sanctions and open the way for billions of dollars of foreign investments, above all in her oil and gas industry, is the fact that it had nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear plans per se. It has immediately to do with an excuse to re-impose economic sanctions on Iran oil sales and oil and gas development.

Ignoring UN IAEA reports finding Iran compliant with the nuclear agreement, the Trump Administration in May unilaterally announced a de facto end to the agreement to the protests of EU, Russia and China signatories. On November 4, barring an unlikely Iran capitulation to Washington demands, severe new sanctions targeting mainly Iran oil exports will come into force. Washington is linking its actions to Iran’s agreeing to withdraw support for Shi’ite forces in Yemen and Assad in Syria. Since the nuclear agreement, Iran’s state oil company has managed to rebuild oil exports to almost 4 million barrels daily, near the pre-sanction levels. Through secondary sanctions Washington is making clear EU or other companies aiding Iran to continue oil exports will be sanctioned in any business in the US, a hard hurdle. Already the French energy giant Total has said it will end its joint venture in Iran’s huge energy sector.

On July 2, a senior US State Department official made clear Washington aims in Iran:

“Our goal is to increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its revenues from crude oil sales. We are working to minimize disruptions to the global market, but we are confident that there is sufficient global spare oil production capacity.

Venezuela as well

At the same time the Trump administration renews targeting Iranian oil in world markets, with a delay until November, it is encouraging the complete collapse of the Venezuela oil production as part of Washington’s ongoing financial and political war against the Maduro government.

At the time of the latest Venezuelan election victory of incumbent socialist President Maduro, Washington escalated sanctions that cut off all access of state oil company PDVSA and Venezuela to US banks, as well, cutting off all refinancing of new debt. Prior to the recent OPEC ministers meeting, Venezuela Oil Minister Manuel Quevedo declared,

“These sanctions are very strong, the sanctions are practically immobilizing PDVSA…It’s an attack on the oil market.”

According to the International Energy Agency, Venezuela oil production averaged 1.36 million barrels of oil daily in June, down from 2.9 million bpd five years ago.

Then with convenient timing, the major US oil company ConocoPhillips seized about $636 million in assets belonging to Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA due to a2007 nationalization of the US oil major’s projects in Venezuela. The seizure has blocked PDVSA from meeting its export obligations and creating tanker bottlenecks at Venezuelan ports. To counter significant loss in Venezuela oil imports, China’s Development Bank has just announced a US$5-billion loan for Venezuela’s oil industry. Among the major importers of both Venezuela and Iran oil is China, a fact well known to the US Treasury and State Department.

And Libya now

While oil traders have reacted to the supply reductions in both Iran and Venezuela sending prices for various grades of crude oil sharply higher above $70 for the first time in three years, the market situation, seen from the standpoint of the US oil industry, especially shale oil, is not yet secure. That is changing, however,  given recent developments in Libya.

Ever since Washington’s “humanitarian” bombing of Qaddafi’s Libya, then one of the most economically advanced countries in Africa, the country has been in a de facto civil war and political division. On the one side is a UN-imposed and Washington supported regime in Tripoli, a deceptively-named Government of National Accord, under an appointed Prime Minister and alsohead of the Presidential Council (PC), Fayez Al-Sarraj. Al-Sarraj is backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, the secretive political Salafist organization behind the Washington-backed Arab Spring and the Mohammed Morsi regime in Egypt. The Tripoli group is also backed by the USA, UK and France.

Al-Sarraj’s prime opponent is Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar who has de facto established military control through the anti-Salafist Libyan National Army, with backing of key tribal leaders in the oil-rich eastern Libya and who is backed by the elected Libyan Libyan House of Representatives (HOR).

Haftar, a bitter foe of the Muslim Brotherhood whom he calls terrorists, has de facto established military control in the eastern part of the country in the Oil Crescent. When his forces tookcontrol of key sections of eastern Libya in recent days, including the vital oil ports at Hariga and Zueitina, Haftar went in direct opposition to the Tripoli US-backed regime and announced that control of the eastern oil ports would go to the separate Benghazi-based National Oil Company, affiliated with the eastern government, which is not recognized by the UN. At that point, with Washington backing, the Tripoli Western NOC declared force majeure over the eastern ports and brought shipments of up to 850,000 barrels/day of Libyan oil off the world market on July 2.

Haftar’s army is known to be very close to Egyptian President al-Sissi, also a bitter foe of the Muslim Brotherhood. Haftar also has good relations with Putin’s Russia. Preventing Haftar’s forces in the oil-rich east from creating a parallel oil economy independent of the US-backed Tripoli regime is adding to the dramatic change in global oil markets and is almost certain to push world market prices well above $80 a barrel, to levels not seen since 2014.

Conveniently that would be a profitability level that would give a huge boost to US shale oil output.

US Shale: a New Oil Geopolitics?

Scott Sheffield the chairman of the Texas-based Pioneer Resources, one of the largest US shale oil producers, in a recent interview in Vienna during the recent OPEC meeting, declared that before the end of this year, that the United States will pass Russia to become the world’s largest oil producer. He stated that US production will exceed 11 million barrels daily in 3-4 months and could “very quickly” reach 13 million bpd, and 15 million bpd within seven or eight years, based on production of shale oil from places like the Permian Basin in Texas. He stated that the most favorable price for shale right now is in a range of $60 to $80 a barrel. Could it be that by targeting the oil supplies of Iran, of Venezuela and now of Libya the influential energy companies behind the Trump foreign policy, are aiming to insure that US shale oil floods the world market in coming months to displace not only that oil but also, increasingly, Russian oil?

Notably, Iran has accused the United States of withdrawing from the JCPOA in order to raise the price of oil. On May 11, Iranian oil minister Bijan Namdar Zangemeh declared

“President Trump playing double game in oil market. Some OPEC members playing into US hands. US seeking to boost shale oil production.”

The longer-term problem with the Washington oil domination strategy is the uncertainty of shale oil supply. While technology investment in recent years has improved well productivity and production rates, shale oil has major problems. One is that a given shale or tight oil well depletes far more rapidly than a conventional oil well, with production declines of 75% or more after the first year typical. To maintain overall volume then, more wells and more expensive wells are required.  The other limit is the high requirement for added well water for fracking, in some places like Permian Basin, 5 barrels of water per barrel oil. Industry reports suggest that beginning 2020 the golden years of shale oil production in the US will be over as rising costs, lower quality acreages and other constraints limit shale oil growth and with it US oil output. That will have a major negative impact on the current Trump Administration strategy to make America the great oil king. It is a strategy ultimately built on myths, lies and, yes, oil wars.

*

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

North Korea Thinks Pompeo Has Reneged on the Deal

July 8th, 2018 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Pyongyang has voiced its regret over America’s attitude during high-level talks with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and accused Washington of seeking unilateral and forced denuclearization from North Korea.

“We were expecting the US… to come up with constructive measures to help build confidence in the spirit of reunion and talks. However, the attitude of the US was indeed regrettable,” said a statement released by the Korean Central News Agency.”

Let this be a lesson to Putin, as if he needs another one, that no deal with Washington can be trusted.  As Assad recently said, talking with Washington is a waste of time, because Washington’s word doesn’t mean anything.  Washington says one thing and does another.

Putin also has the example of Trump tearing up the nuclear agreement with Iran.  Now apparently North Korea.  Russia herself has a long miserable experience of stupidly trusting Washington:  “NATO won’t move one inch to the East.”  The ABM Treaty, and so on.

If Putin is constrained by starry-eyed Russian Atlanticist Integrationists and isn’t on his toes when he meets with Trump in a few days, Russia will again have a miserable experience.  Already the Western-worshiping Atlanticist Integrationists are planting stories in the media about the concessions Putin is prepared to make to Washington.  

Why should Putin make any concessions?  The problem is Washington’s hegemonic ideology, not Russia.  Putin should make no concessions.  If he does, he will collect nothing in return.  

How long will it take for Russia to learn this lesson?

*

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 The Unz Review.


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

This article first published June 2016 provides an insight into Russia’s military doctrine. It points to the nature of  the weapons systems which would be used by Russia in response to a US-NATO military operation directed against the Russian Federation. The information presented in this article are of crucial importance. Global Research does not necessarily share the views presented by the author.

*      *      *

US rules the globe, having a navy three times stronger than that of Russia. Moreover, the Pentagon has created a strategic command to deploy large units of land forces, consisting of hundreds of cargo ships of large capacity. All of these vessels are organized in very strong expeditionary naval groups and around aircraft carriers, amphibious landing ships, and naval convoys of troops and military equipment.

With troops deployed in Europe and Asia, with the armies of allied states, the US can trigger an invasion of Russia. Therefore Russia’s new military doctrine establishes that the biggest risk to Russia’s security groups is the American expeditionary naval groups, which can transport invasion troops to the Russian border.

Several types of anti-ballistic shield protect US naval expeditionary groups and zones of landing for troops from transport ships. The first is the naval system AEGIS armed with SM-3 block 1b mounted on US destroyers and cruisers AEGIS, plus anti-ballistic shields in Poland and one in Romania. The second is the mobile THAAD system of the US land forces, defending landing zones. Add to this the mobile long-range missile anti-aircraft batteries like Patriot with anti-ballistic capabilities against missiles that are in their final stage of the path, under an altitude of 35,000 m.

The premise from which Russian experts started building hypersonic vehicles was that American antiballistic missiles cannot intercept any projectile flying in the mesosphere (at altitudes of 35.000- 80.000 m), and that Russia, unlike the US, owns a number of very powerful rocket engines. For example, the Pentagon and NASA cannot send satellites into orbit if Russia does not deliver the RD-180 rocket engines. Russia is on the verge of creating, starting in 2018, the surest antidote to this vulnerability by means of a hypersonic battle. Aerial vehicles are classified according to the airspeed as follows: subsonic (below the speed of 1,220 km/h, – Mach 1) supersonic (speeds between Mach 1 and Mach 5 – up to 6000 km/h), and hypersonic (with speeds between Mach 5 and Mach 10 – up to 12,000 km/h).

Russian hypersonic weapons

The main Russian hypersonic weapon are derived from space glider Yu-71 (Project 4202), which flew during tests at a speed of 6000-11200 km/h over a distance of 5,500 km at a cruising altitude below 80,000 m, receiving repeated pulses from a rocket engine to climb, execute maneuvers and cornering trajectory. It is estimated that the glider is armed with warheads that are spatially independent, with autonomous guidance systems similar to the air-ground missiles Kh-29 L/T and T Kh-25 (which provides a probable deviation of 2-6 m). Although it may take nuclear warheads, the space glider will be armed with conventional warheads and will be powered by a rocket launched normally from nuclear-powered Russian submarines.

Another variant of the hypersonic weapon derived from the Yu-71 would be those launched from the Russian military transport aircraft Il-76MD-90A (II-476). Since 50% of the missile’s fuel is spent solely on take off and rising though the layers of extremely dense atmosphere of up to 10,000 m, mass launcher and glider space represents 50% of the rocket carrier used to launch from nuclear-powered submarines.

The second type of weapon different from hypersonic spatial glider is the Zirkon 3M22 missile, which is launched from maritime patrol aircraft. Zirkon has a speed of Mach 6.2 (6500 km/h) at a cruising altitude of 30,000 m and a kinetic energy at impact with the target 50 times higher than existing air-ship and ship-to ship missiles.

3M22 Zircon

Hypersonic concept for a war

The new Russian military doctrine states that an attack on the American invasion fleet is to be executed in three waves, three alignments, thus preventing American expeditionary naval groups from positioning themselves near the Russian coast of the Baltic Sea. The first wave of hypersonic weapons, consisting of space gliders arranged on Russian nuclear-powered submarines under immersion in the middle of the Atlantic, starts fighting US naval expeditionary groups as they start crossing the Atlantic to Europe. The American naval groups need 7-8 days to cross the Atlantic; the plane Il-76MD-90A has a maximum flight distance of 6300 km and can be powered in the air, reaching the middle of the Atlantic Ocean in a few hours.

If the first wave does not destroy the targets, the second wave of hypersonic weapons will be launched on the US naval groups when they are located 1,000 km from the eastern shore of the Atlantic Ocean. The attack will be launched from the Russian submarines in the Barents Sea or Plesesk base of strategic missiles, located near the Arctic Circle and the White Sea.

The third wave of hypersonic attack will be executed by missiles 3M22 Zirkon launched on American naval groups when they would be in the Skagerrak strait (crossing the North Sea to the Baltic Sea), on the assumption that NATO is attacking Russia through the Baltics. If the American expeditionary naval group head to the Black Sea, it will be hit by the third wave of hypersonic weapons in the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russia’s Hypersonic Weapons: Dismantles the Myth of the American Navy’s Invincibility

UPDATE: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Pyongyang on a two day visit “to press leader Kim Jong-un for details on his plans for denuclearisation.”

It was a polite and courteous welcome, Asian style.

But with Pompeo in charge of negotiations, what are the prospects?

Back in October 2017, Pompeo  hinted in no uncertain terms when he was head of the CIA:

“If Kim Jong-un suddenly dies, don’t ask me about it … “

“With respect, if Kim Jong-un should vanish, given the history of the CIA, I’m just not going to talk about it,”

“We are going to become a much more vicious agency…” 

And that’s the guy who’s in charge of “negotiating peace” with North Korea.

Fruitful negotiations? According to the New York Times, there was “distrust on both sides”.

Pyongyang negotiates with a U.S Secretary of State (former CIA Chief) who casually announced last October that Kim Jong-un was on the CIA’s assassination list.

Not surprisingly, hours following Pompeo’s departure,  Pyongyang accused the Trump administration of pushing a “unilateral and gangster-like demand for denuclearization.” A mild understatement.

Michel Chossudovsky, July 8, 2018 ( text below published by GR on May 27, 2018)

***

In May of last year, the DPRK accused both the CIA (headed by Mike Pompeo) and the ROK’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) of “a failed plot to assassinate its leader Kim Jong-un with a biochemical bomb at a military parade in Pyongyang.”

Neither the CIA nor the White House responded to these accusations.

While press reports acknowledged the CIA’s “long history” of political assassinations, the DPRK’s accusations were casually dismissed.

According to The Guardian (May 5, 2017)

“The CIA has a long history of helping to kill leaders around the world. US intelligence agency has since 1945 succeeded in deposing or killing a string of leaders, but was forced to cut back after a Senate investigation in the 1970s”

Guardian screenshot, May 5, 2017

.

Mike Pompeo’s Unannounced May 1, 2017 Mission to Seoul 

What the Western media failed to notice was that the announcement of the alleged assassination attempt  directed against Chairman Kim (May 5, 2017)  took place 5 days AFTER Mike Pompeo’s arrival in Seoul on the weekend of April 29-30 for (unannounced) consultations with his intelligence counterparts on May 1.  While there is no evidence that Pompeo’s presence in Seoul on May 1 is related to the May 5 announcement of the alleged assassination plot, Pompeo’s mission to Seoul was scheduled in the week PRIOR to the elections on May 9.

April 29-30 Arrival of Mike Pompeo in Seoul, with his wife

May 1 Seoul: Pompeo Consultations with intelligence and military counterparts, US military and US Embassy

May 5, Pyongyang: Announcement of an alleged failed assassination directed against Kim Jong-un

May 9, National elections

May 10, Inauguration of President Moon Jae-in

The timing of Pompeo’s meetings in Seoul was crucial: in early May 2017, the intelligence team at the ROK National Intelligence Service (alias KCIA) headed by Langley’s crony Lee Byung-ho, was STILL under the control of the appointees of impeached president Park Geun-hye (daughter of the late dictator Park Chung-hee assassinated in 1979).

South Korean media confirmed that Pompeo had behind closed doors meetings with NIS spy chief Lee Byung-ho as well as “high-level officials in the presidential office” which was under the helm of Park crony and acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn (who held the positions of Justice Minister and Prime Minister in the government of impeached president Park).

The NIS team during Mrs. Park’s presidency (appointed by her predecessor) had been actively involved in an illicit propaganda scam to influence the vote in the 2012 elections which led to Mrs Park’s victory. Following her impeachment and the election of President Moon, legal procedures were implemented directed against:

Lee Byung-ho [who met Mike Pompeo on May 1, 2017] and two other NIS chiefs during the Park government suspected of having provided billions of won from the spy agency’s special activities budget to the top office. The NIS is exempted from having to disclose where the funds, allocated for classified security operations, are used.” (KBS World Radio, November 10, 2017)

.

Screenshot of Lee Byun-ho who met Pompeo behind closed doors on May 1, 2017, Source KBS World Radio

.

Following Moon’s accession to the presidency on May 10 2017, a new head of the ROK National Intelligence Service (NIS) Suh Hoon was duly appointed. While a major shuffle was undertaken within the spy agency, Suh Hoon’s appointment had nonetheless been (formally) approved by Langley. The important question: has the CIA lost control of its historical clutch over the ROK’s  National Intelligence Service (NIS)?

Mike Pompeo’s Grotesque Insinuation

In a bitter irony, a few months later in October 2017 (see SCMP report)  CIA Director Mike Pompeo (now Secretary of State) jokingly denied and acknowledged (without referring to the May 5, 2017 alleged assassination attempt during a military parade in Pyonyang) that there is a  plot to assassinate Chairman Kim, which is part of the CIA’s longstanding history of political assassinations. .

“If Kim Jong-un suddenly dies, don’t ask me about it, says CIA chief”

“With respect, if Kim Jong-un should vanish, given the history of the CIA, I’m just not going to talk about it,” the CIA director said on Thursday, when asked what would happen if Kim suddenly died.

We are going to become a much more vicious agency

… “The president’s made it very clear. He’s prepared to ensure that Kim Jong-un doesn’t have the capacity to hold America at risk. By military force if necessary.”

.

.

In a bitter irony, the same Mike Pompeo who casually refers to the “CIA history” of political assassinations, has come to play a central role in the “peace” negotiations with Pyongyang.

The ROK’s NIS Chief Suh Hoon together with Moon’s  National Security Advisor Chung Eui-yong were put in charge of a process of trilateral negotiation: DPRK-ROK-US, with ROK officials operating as a go-between. On March 6, Chung Eui-yong, together with four other senior ROK officials including Suh Hoon, met up with the DPRK leadership in Pyongyang.

This meeting on March 6, 2018 had set the stage for the former CIA director’s followup “secret meeting in Pyongyang”: Mike Pompeo who had intimated that political assassination of Chairman Kim was on the CIA’s drawing board travelled to Pyongyang over the Easter holiday for talks with the DPRK leadership with a view to negotiating the terms of the Singapore Summit which had been set for June 12.

North Korean leaders were fully aware of Pompeo’s real intent. They nonetheless played the game.

Peace was never on the US agenda. And this was true prior to the appointment of John Bolton as National Security Adviser. The objective is to shunt the inter-Korean dialogue and impose a unilateral process of “denuclearization”.

The Kim-Moon dialogue is viewed by Washington as a potential obstacle. Acknowledged by Pompeo, there is a CIA Plot to assassinate Kim Jong-un. Is it Pompeo’s Plan B?

In recent developments, following the Moon-Kim May 26 meeting on the North Korean side of the Panmunjom truce village of the DMZ,  President Moon said that he was “perplexed” by Trump’s decision to cancel the Singapore summit and urged Washington and Pyongyang to resolve their differences through “more direct and closer dialogue”.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on “Peace Negotiator” Mike Pompeo: There is a CIA Plot to Assassinate Kim Jong-un?

As with many of my compatriots, there are many things about Britain and the British people that I admire. As someone whose whole life has been linked with literature, cinema and theatre, I have the greatest appreciation for English literature and the arts, for its writers and playwrights, actors and directors. As someone who had the good fortune to have played the iconic Englishman Sherlock Holmes in a very successful Soviet film series, I was honoured to have been awarded an MBE by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. I am grateful for a chance to have been part of the mutually enriching cultural kinship and synergy of our two countries. As someone who has lived a long life, I vividly remember the years of WWII when the Soviet Union and Britain were staunch and proud allies in the fight against Nazism.

Many Russians feel an affinity with many things English – from pubs and gardens to Scotch whisky and Welsh singing and luscious valleys. Ascot races, Chelsea flower shows, London museums and Stonehenge – many will have been or at least seen them on TV. Perhaps surprisingly, many entertain a lively interest in the British monarchy and the Royal family, Russian television and papers carry stories about the Queen and her grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Flattering stereotypes of Britain still abide. But more and more this idyllic picture is being marred by the political developments of recent years.

Today, as many of my compatriots, I am sad to see the state to which the relationship between our two countries has been reduced. While conflict situations can seldom be blamed on one party alone, I am convinced that the current deplorable and deepening crisis is primarily of London’s making.

Please do not make the mistake of writing this view off as a casualty of devious Kremlin propaganda. On the contrary, the view I hold and share with the vast majority of Russians has been shaped and honed, paradoxically, by incessant anti-Russian propaganda emanating from London’s corridors of power and the media that seems to have lost all capacity for independent reasoning, at least for anything Russian. Many in Britain may be surprised that Russian audiences are kept well informed of the international media coverage, certainly insofar as it concerns their country.

I do not intend to dwell on the long list of geostrategic and political differences between Moscow and London. Surely, each of side has its own interests and reasons for acting the way it does. Understanding these reasons is the job of respective governments and their foreign policy thinktanks. Manifestly refusing to understand those reasons is an abject failure of government. And that, I am sad to say, is exactly what I am seeing at the top of the British government and in much of the British press.

What we have been witnessing is London’s – and, more generally, Western – consistent refusal to treat post-Soviet Russia as an equal partner in international affairs. The more hawkish Western capitals – notably, London – have been trying to condemn Russia to be the defeated party in the Cold War, and to behave like one. Mind you, this is a view taken by most Russians who are also increasingly convinced that the West’s attacks are not directed at Putin or the Kremlin, but at their country as such, at the people and state of Russia.

Many will point to Crimea as proof of Russia’s aggressiveness and threat to world peace. But they should consider that Crimea, rather than being the cause, is a consequence of the total collapse of East-West dialogue in which London has played a significant role and often been the cheerleader. More importantly, it is, in the final count, down to the people of Crimea to decide where they want to be, certainly not to London or Washington.

The accusations London has been flinging at Russia’s door fly in the face of every complimentary stereotype that Russians have of Britain and its allegedly gentlemanly culture. People at the top of the British government have been talking down to Russians as some kind of ‘lesser people’ in a language that invokes the less flattering pages of the not so distant British imperial history.

PM Theresa May accusing Russia in the Skripals poisoning without any serious evidence was downright shameless.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson likening Russia’s upcoming World Cup to Hitler’s 1936 Olympics was the ultimate insult – not only to Russia, but to Britain itself and the rest of the anti-Hitler coalition.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson telling Russia to ‘shut up and go away’- does he even realise whom he is trying to bully? You can criticise Moscow all you want but it has never stooped to this level in talking to sovereign nations, big or small. Is an acute crisis in British education the reason for this excuse for statesmanship? What sort of policy do they think they are pursuing, what kind of world they are shaping? I feel genuinely sorry for Her Majesty the Queen that she has to call this government her own.

The current explosion of Russophobia and anti-Russian hysteria in Britain has no precedent in living memory. Not even the Cold War saw such blatant disregard for the norms and conventions of inter-state diplomacy. Anyone who calls for a meaningful engagement with Russia is branded a dangerous radical or traitor. People who even agree to talk to the Russian media are ostracised and side-lined. Anyone who simply calls for restraint or caution is vilified as a Putin puppet. Is there a name for it already? Un-British activities? A curious yet deeply troubling throwback to the McCarthy era in modern-day enlightened Britain.

It’s hard to escape the timing of this latest chapter in London’s lengthy anti-Russian saga with a crucial stage of the North Stream 2 project, the football World Cup and of course the recent presidential election in Russia. Which only goes to show that the instigators are quite ignorant of what the Russian people are like. Any hostile moves from the outside will unite us, we come together and find a response. They wouldn’t have attempted it if they knew the first thing about what makes Russia tick. They have to realise that in their poisonous campaign they are engaging not just the Kremlin or Putin, they are taking on the whole of the Russian people, including its political class and business elite.

We have no beef with the people of Britain. From what we can glimpse, more and more of them are sceptical of the anti-Russian propaganda spewed by the hawks in government and much of the media. The current cold winds will die down and our two countries will revert to a civilised and respectful relationship which has so much to offer.

As a proud recipient of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire I aspire to wise and dignified British statesmanship that will make it possible.

– Vasily Livanov

Vasily Livanov, is a legendary Russian actor, director and novelist, born in 1935. He was awarded an MBE by Queen Elizabeth in 2006 for his exceptional portrayal of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes in the hugely successful Russian film series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson.

Venezuela: Was Another World Possible?

July 8th, 2018 by Julia Buxton

“What we’re seeing is a reversal, complete erosion, of all of the gains that were made during this phase in the mid 2000s. Poverty is up, inequality is up, and these are for me extremely serious concerns which are simply not being addressed by the government’s economic policy.”

-Julia Buxton (Oct. 1, 2017)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

This week, we present special programming as part of the Global Research News Hour’s 2018 summer series.

Venezuela, once a beacon for democratic and social transformation for Latin American countries, and an inspiration for much of the progressive Left abroad, is now struggling under an unprecedented economic and political crisis.

Over the course of President Hugo Chavez’s first decade in power, Venezuela saw households in poverty reduced by 39 per cent and those in extreme poverty down by more than half. Enrollment in higher education had doubled. Real social spending per person had more than tripled. [1]

A recent survey however, put together by three universities, found 87 per cent of Venezuelan households to be living in poverty, a 38 per cent increase since 2014. In 2017, 64 per cent of Venezuelans had lost about 11 kg of weight due to hunger. The homicide rate in Venezuela increased by 345 per cent in 2017 over 1998. One in five Venezuelans in 2017 were the victim of some crime with 65 per cent preferring not to report to authorities out of distrust of the authorities. Six out of ten people between the ages of 18 and 24 no longer have access to higher education, and 38 per cent of children under 17 have stopped attending school citing problems with transportation, blackouts, and lack of food. [2]

Political chaos sweeping the country both from within and abroad has been taking its toll. Protests against Maduro’s government  sprang up in 2017. Foreign powers have rejected the results of the last presidential election as fraudulent, with the US and Canada imposing additional sanctions.[3]

To be certain, low oil commodity prices [which were the object of manipulation], Venezuela has been very dependent on its oil exports, is a big part of the problem. There has also been long-standing animosity toward the independence displayed by the Chavistas, in opposition to America’s military and economic hegemony of the South American continent.

But to dwell on these factors alone do a disservice to other problematic dynamics in play. For example, the failure to address legacies of corruption and social violence, ideological tensions between state and worker management, and those between the civilian and military elements of the ruling PSUV (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela) and government.

As Venezuela under newly re-elected President Nicolas Maduro struggles with this crisis, we present a rigorous dissection of the events there in the last two decades and explore the prospects for the country moving ahead.

Professor Julia Buxton has made Venezuela the particular focus of her research. In a keynote address delivered in Winnipeg on October 1 2017, the academic plows past the ideological rhetoric, and provides insights into the human experience of the changes brought about under Chavez, and unaddressed oversights which contributed to the turmoil of today. This speech was presented as part of the University of Manitoba based Geopolitical Economy Research Group’s Revolutions Conference.

 

Audio provided by videographer Paul S Graham.

Julia Buxton is Professor of Comparative Politics at Central European University’s School of Public Policy, and Senior Research Associate at the Global Drug Policy Observatory, Swansea University.  A specialist on Latin America and an expert on Venezuela, receiving her PhD from the London School of Economics, Buxton has thematic expertise on democratisation and transition processes, post conflict recovery, and conflict analysis, including conflict sensitive design and policy implementation, as well as gender and gender sensitive design. She has authored numerous books and articles on Venezuela in the Chavez period and on Latin America in general.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

  1. http://cepr.net/press-center/press-releases/report-examines-economy-and-social-indicators-during-the-chavez-decade-in-venezuela
  2. http://elucabista.com/2018/02/21/resultados-encovi-2017-radiografia-la-crisis-venezolana/
  3. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-rights/venezuela-systematically-abused-foes-in-2017-protests-rights-groups-idUSKBN1DT0J4?feedType=RSS&

Iran’s insistence that Europe do more to preserve the nuclear deal suggests that it’s worried about becoming too strategically dependent on Russia in the coming future and is anxious to find a “balancing” partner before that happens.

Iranian President Rouhani is in Europe trying to get the three relevant signatories to the 2015 nuclear deal to offer more loans and concrete investment plans for enticing the Islamic Republic to abide by the terms of this agreement.  The author wrote about some of Iran’s motivations for doing so in his earlier piece at the end of May about how “Iran ‘Blackmailing’ Europe Plays Right Into Trump’s Hands”, but the continued failure of this policy deserves a follow-up analysis to update the reader about the changing strategic calculations inherent to this approach. The original points from the aforementioned piece still stand, but what’s changed since then is that Iran is increasingly worried that it’s about to become more strategically dependent on Russia than ever before, hence its anxious search for a “balancing” partner to counteract any perceived (key word) infringement on its sovereignty that this forthcoming relationship might inadvertently lead to.

The Real Story About Russian-Iranian Relations

Theoretically speaking, the overreliance of any state on a single partner usually leads to a lopsided relationship between the two parties, whereby the weakest of them finds itself unable to resist the will of the other. Should Trump’s sanctions war on Iran lead to even “moderate” results, then the country will quickly find itself largely isolated in the economic sense, especially if the US’ new Indian ally abides by Washington’s warning to greatly scale back its relations with Tehran under pain of the same so-called “secondary sanctions” that the EU is also being threatened with. The only realistic “pressure valve” that Iran could turn to for across-the-board relief under these trying circumstances is nearby Russia, which would be more than eager to realize its centuries-long dream of establishing predominant influence over the former Persian Empire. Unlike the naked imperialist motivations of the past, the current driving force is to put Moscow in the driver’s seat of multipolarity and allow it to “manage” Iran on behalf of the world.

Although it’s “politically incorrect” to speak about and violates one of the “sacred” tenets of Alt-Media dogma, Russia is already “balancing” Iran in the Mideast, especially through the consequences of its game-changing military-strategic partnership with “Israel” which has seen Moscow quietly give Tel Aviv the greenlight to turn Syria into a country-wide bombing range against the IRGC and Hezbollah. Russia’s 21st-century grand strategy is to become the supreme “balancing” force in the Eurasian supercontinent, which therefore naturally necessitates playing the pivotal role in neutralizing the prospects of a Western-led War on Iran. Given its physical-military limitations and the prudent lack of political will for testing the boundaries of World War III in this regard, Russia’s “balancing” policy is complementary with the West’s in that it goes along with the notion that Iranian influence in the “Mashriq” (West Asia/Mideast) should be rolled back, though its multipolar twist is that it wants to redirect the country’s strategic focus eastward towards the Golden Ring in response.

Chasing Dreams Of Chinese Relief

It’s understandable why Iran would feel uncomfortable with seemingly being “downgraded” from an independent “subject” of International Relations to an “object” that can be “contained” and “corralled” in a certain direction like “cattle”, and it’s for that reason why it’s so actively seeking out a “balancing” partner. The first thought that most readers might instinctively have is for Iran to reach out to China, which is already its long-standing partner and extremely unlikely to bend to Trump’s will in abiding by his “secondary sanction” threats, unlike India. The challenge, however, is that Iran’s over-the-top rhetoric to raise the oil price has spooked the People’s Republic, which broke with its diplomatic custom of not openly trying to influence the affairs of other states by “chiding” the Islamic Republic after Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Chen Xiaodong said that it “should do more to benefit peace and stability in the region, and jointly protect peace and stability there. Especially as it is a country on the Gulf, it should dedicate itself to being a good neighbor and co-existing peacefully.”

Russia and China have both emphasized their commitment to fully implementing their responsibilities under the 2015 nuclear deal, but this in and of itself won’t be sufficient in compensating for the EU’s possible downscaling of its own under American pressure, which could deal a heavy hit to Iran’s budgetary planning especially in the context of Trump’s upcoming sanctions war against it. Unlike Russia, China might be reluctant to do more for Iran because of its new perception of the country as an increasingly irresponsible actor, to say nothing of Beijing’s needs to maintain a “balance” of interests between it and Saudi Arabia. Russia, too, is one of the Kingdom’s non-traditional but recently important strategic partners, especially as regards OPEC+, but the difference is that Riyadh understands the “containment”/”balancing”/”management” role that Moscow can play vis-à-vis Tehran which Beijing is unable to fulfill for simple reasons of geography and overall influence in the Mideast. Because of this, Russia can do much more for Iran as its “pressure valve”, which is accordingly why it’s received implicit “international approval” for this function.

Money Makes The World Go ‘Round

Another contributing factor influencing Iran’s strategic calculations regarding the “China card” is that the People’s Republic will probably limit its assistance to the economic sphere, which would surely be welcomed under the upcoming “Time of Troubles” but nevertheless has its risks in the sense that Beijing could essentially extend loans to the country at whatever interest rates and other terms that it wants, unless of course Russia was capable of presenting a competing offer. Encouraging “friendly competition” between Russia and China is a solid policy that would undoubtedly play out to Iran’s ultimate advantage, though provided that the two Great Powers don’t coordinate their economic approach to the country in order to keep rates artificially high in a relative sense, understanding that there aren’t any other realistic options available for the Islamic Republic. Europe, in this scenario, could be the perfect “third way”, which is why Iran is trying so hard to keep it committed to the nuclear deal so that it can “balance” out Russia and China.

In addition, despite prevailing Alt-Media wishes to the contrary and irrespective of wisdom, the euro is still very attractive to Iran, and the country’s decision makers would evidently prefer to conduct trade in that currency than Russia and China’s if given the choice (and all other factors being equal) for the very reason that they believe that it’s worth more in the global marketplace. It doesn’t matter that deal-signatory France hosts the MEK terrorist group that’s vowed to overthrow the Iranian government, because at the end of the day, “business is business” and “balancing is balancing”, and Iran is apparently willing to ignore the implications for its international image by trying to woo France as its much-needed “third partner” so long as this allows it to comfortably retain “equidistance” between Russia and China and therefore preempt any perceived overreliance on either (and especially Moscow). The pragmatism of this unofficial policy stands in stark contrast to the official “principle-driven” one that the state regularly promotes, but it nevertheless proves that all states are indeed guided by their interests first and foremost.

Concluding Thoughts

In order to avoid any deliberate twisting of the author’s words, it must be unambiguously stated at this point that no claim or suggestion is being made about Russia having any ill intentions in mind by advancing the policy that was described in this analysis, which is presumably understood in Moscow policymaking circles as the best strategy available to them for simultaneously securing their country’s interests in the Mideast and most “responsibly” maintaining its multipolar gains by “balancing” Iran for the reasons that were already mentioned. Iran, for its part, doesn’t have any “anti-Russian” motivation for seeking out a “balancing” partner for mitigating the country’s predicted overreliance on Moscow, nor does China have any “malicious” desire in potentially take advantage of the Islamic Republic’s situation in order to spin an impressive profit.  As regards France, Iran isn’t “selling out” on its principles by courting it and the rest of the EU as the country’s envisioned “third balancer” but is simply pursuing the most pragmatic option available to it under the geostrategic circumstances.

The interest-driven interrelated dynamics of the aforementioned states may surprise those who had hitherto naively assumed that one, some, or all of those countries only try to “do the right thing” and don’t care about the advantages or costs that this brings them, but therein lays one of the fundamental takeaways from this analysis. The Neo-Realist (or one could even say, Hyper-Realist at this point) paradigm is the most accurate model for understanding the emerging Multipolar World Order in the New Cold War, with even friendly countries like Russia, China, and Iran competing with one another as they try to lock in their geostrategic positions at this pivotal opening stage of the global systemic transition. Chaos Theory teaches that the initial conditions of any complex system disproportionately influence their development and ultimate outcome, which is why every player so urgently wants to carve out their niche at this time, though with Russia having an unparalleled advantage in this regard. That’s precisely what Iran fears, however, and which is why it’s so desperately seeking a “balancer” in the EU.

*

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.


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

In June 2018 alone, more than 500 refugees drowned in the Mediterranean Sea. Their boats were refused access to land in either Malta, or Italy. They were force-driven back by gun-boats to the North African shores they came from, mostly Libya, but many boats capsized and countless refugees didn’t make it.

These are de facto murders, high crimes against humanity, committed by the very European Union. The same “leaders” (criminals, rather), whose forebears are known to have raped, exploited, tortured, ravaged peoples and their lands of Asia, Africa, Latin America over the past 1000 years of abject colonization. Europeans have it in their genes – to be inhuman. This can possibly be extended to the ‘superior’ greedy white race in general. At least to those who make it to political or corporate high office in the formidable EU or exceptional US, or to those who appoint themselves into the European Commission. We should call them “The Heartless Bunch”.

This is the so-called West, now led by the United States of America – basically the British empire transplanted across the Atlantic, where they felt safer between two shining seas, than as a rickety island in the Atlantic, just in front of the enormous, contiguous land mass called Eurasia. The Old Continent, alias Europe, was given by the new trans-Atlantic empire, the new masters of the universe, a subservient role. And that was in the making for at least the last 100 years, when the new empire started weakening Europe, with two World Wars.

Today’s European (EU) leaders are puppets put in place by the Atlantist elites, to make sure that the rather educated Europeans do not go on the barricades, that they are debilitated regularly by free market corporatism creating unemployment, taking their hard worked-for social safety nets away, saturating them with fake news – and gradually oppressing them with growing police states, with a massive militarization – and finally using the articulately planned flood of refugees from the very US-EU-NATO destroyed countries – destroyed economically and by wars – as a further destabilizing weapon. Greece should serve as a vivid example of what’s really going on and is planned, starting with “inferior” southern EU states, those bordering on the strategic and economically important sea way – the Mediterranean Sea.

You think I’m crazy? – Start thinking again and connect the dots.

The refugee death toll in the Med-Sea in 2017 was about 3,200, 40% down from 2016, and more than 600 up to end of April 2018, and another more than 500 in June. This figure is bound to increase drastically, given the European closed-border policy – and more. The EU is contracting among others, the Libyan Coast Guard with gun boats to chase refugee vessels back to the Libyan shores, many sink – and saving those thrown into the sea is ‘forbidden’ – they are simply left to die. That’s the rule. Malta, a little island-appendix to Brussels, but important as a refugee transit, has issued strict bans on private fishing boats and NGOs trying to rescue refugees.

As a consequence, the by now well-known German NGO “Lifeline” boat with 234 rescued refugees and migrants on board from Africa and the Middle East – miserably poor, sick, desperate people – struggling for sheer survival, many with small kids, who wanted nothing more than their children to have a better life – was rejected by Malta, turned back into the sea, under guidance of NATO and EU hired military-type private contractor gun-boats. Eventually Portugal offered her safe shores for the refugees. Malta has a Partnership for Peace (PfP) Agreement with NATO, i.e. obeys NATO orders. NATO, a killer organization, has, of course, not a shred of humanity in its structure, nor in the blood of the people at its helm – anywhere in the world.

Imagine – in this context, an EU summit took place at the end of June 2018 to “arrange” and agree on how to handle the refugee crisis in the future, in other swords, how to keep them out of Europe. None of the countries, other than Germany, were even considering accepting some of these poor souls out of sheer humanitarian reasons, to give them shelter, food and medication. The discussion even considered where to build a wall – yes, fences were discussed to keep them out – Europe a xenophobic free-port for the rich, acting in questions of migration as a carbon copy of Trump. They deserve each other, Trump and Brussels, trade wars not withstanding – let them shred each other to pieces.

Well, this almost happened during, before and after the now-called “mini-summit”, with Madame Merkel almost losing her Chancellor’s job, as she, against all odds, represented the most humanitarian view of all the 28 neolibs. This did not go down well with her partner party, the ultra-conservative Bavarian CSU. Calls for her resignation abounded. The German Interior Minister, Horst Seehofer, was about to resign over Merkel’s alleged refugee ‘generosity’ – in which case the highly fragile right-left coalition would have collapsed – and who knows how Germany may have continued to govern. Perhaps new elections would have had to be called, and then only god knows what might have happened. The empire could not allow this uncertainty to prevail, because Washington needs Germany as the chief-slave driver to lead Europe into total disarray and serfdom. It worked. Germany is alive and saved – and ticking.

Instead, the European refugee / migrant policy is in shambles. The EU are literally out to kill refugees, as a means of dissuasion? – Mass-murder as a means of discouraging the desperate to seek shelter in those very countries that were instrumental in destroying their livelihoods, their families, their towns, their infrastructure, their education and health facilities – their youth? Generations of young Middle Eastern and African people are gone, destroyed.

Did these high-ranking EU officials in Brussels mention their own huge responsibility for the refugee floods with one single word? – No, of course not. Not with one breath. Has the conscience in one single head of these fake, neolibs-neonazis, as it were, self-serving EU heads of state been awakened by this very fact of guilt for what they are to confront? – Has it caused sleepless nights? I doubt it. They are far from this level of human compassion, they are monsters.

Then, there was and is Italy, with her strange new coalition, a coalition of convenience. The leftish 5-Star Movement in alliance with the right-wing Lega Norte, selling their human conscience to be able to reign, giving away their responsibility for migration to the xenophobic, narcissistic, and yes, close to fascist Lega Norte – which is adamant not to receive migrants. They would boycott any result that would force Italy to take in refugees, or even build border transit camps. In the end, they reached a toothless agreement; a non-agreement, rather; an accord that obliged none of the parties to do anything. Everything is voluntary. Period. And Macron said that this was the best refugee summit the EU ever had. So much for dismal brainlessness.

All was voluntary. The only agreement they could book for themselves, is to build refugee camps in North African countries for the shipped-back survivors. Fortunately, every North African country, from Egypt to Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco said no. Having seen what happened in such literal slave camps in Libya, they had at least the compassion for these desperate human beings to prevent this from reoccurring. Compassion, a term, a feeling or sensation, the Europeans are devoid of.

However, no Israeli- Trump- Brussels-type wall or barbed-wire fence will keep the desperate in their economically, or by war, or western terrorism destroyed countries. The west, and only the west, is responsible for the endless destructive chaos, torture and lawlessness in these nations that the west wants to dominate, for myriad reasons – to steal their energy, minerals; for their strategic location, and finally on the way to total full spectrum world hegemony. This, the west will not achieve. That’s for sure. Evil will not prevail in the long run. Darkness will eventually cede to light. That’s the way nature works. But on its way to collapse, Evil will maim and kill millions of lives. Countless children will have no future, no parents, no education, no health services, no drinking water. They will be made to slaves as a means for their survival, to be raped and exploited or eventually killed. The European crime is of infinite dimension and nobody sees it, let alone stops it.

*

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.

Featured image is from TruePublica.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Refugee Crisis and the Mediterranean Sea – The Largest Graveyard in Modern History

Increased Pakistani dependence on China to help it avert resorting to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to avoid a financial and economic crisis spotlights fears that the terms of Chinese investment in massive Belt and Road-related projects would not pass international muster.

Concerns that China’s US$ 50 billion plus investment in Pakistani infrastructure and energy, the Belt and Road’s crown jewel dubbed the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), potentially amounts to a debt trap, compound suggestions that Pakistan increasingly will have no choice but to toe Beijing’s line.

The concerns are reinforced by the vision spelled out in a draft plan for CPEC. The plan envisioned a dominant Chinese role in Pakistan’s economy as well as the creation of a Chinese style surveillance state and significant Chinese influence in Pakistani influence.

Pakistani officials, concerned that Chinese loans offer a band-aid rather than a structural solution, have cautioned China, in a bid to keep the People’s Republic committed to bailing them out, that CPEC projects would be at risk if their country was forced to seek help from the IMF.

The officials said that they would have to disclose the terms of CPEC projects if they are forced to revert to the IMF and that this could lead to projects being cancelled.

“Once the IMF looks at CPEC, they are certain to ask if Pakistan can afford such a large expenditure given our present economic outlook,” the Financial Times quoted a Pakistani official as saying.

China has so far been willing to bail Pakistan out with Chinese state-owned bank giving the South Asian country some $5 billion in loans in the last 12 months in addition to a US$1.5 billion trade facility.

Pakistan’s foreign currency reserves plunged to US$9.66 billion last month from US$16.4 billion in May 2017.

Pakistani efforts to avert a crisis could not come at a more sensitive moment with elections scheduled for July 25. Political tension in the country were heightened this week by the sentencing to prison on corruption charges of ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his daughter, Maryam, as well as the likely participation of a large number of Islamic militants in the polls.

To make things worse, China last month did not try to shield Pakistan from being grey-listed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an international anti-money laundering and terrorism watchdog. that threatens to impair the country’s access to international financial markets.

Pakistan is struggling to avoid being blacklisted by the group.

Pakistani concern about disclosing terms of CPEC projects, even if it may involve a degree of opportunistic hyperbole, reinforces widespread worries in the country itself as well as in the international community that Chinese-funded Belt and Road projects put recipients at risk of walking into a debt trap and losing control of some of their key assets.

Malaysia this week suspended China-backed projects worth more than US$20 billion on the grounds that many made no financial sense. The projects included a railway and two pipelines.

China has written off an undisclosed amount of Tajik debt in exchange for ceding control of some 1,158 square kilometres of disputed territory close to the Central Asian nation’s border with the troubled north-western Chinese province of Xinjiang. Sri Lanka, despite public protests, was forced to give China a major stake in its port of Hambantota.

Pakistan and Nepal withdrew last November from two dam-building deals. The withdrawal coincided with mounting questions in Pakistan about what some saw as a neo-colonial effort to extract the country’s resources.

A report published in March by the Washington-based Center for Global Development warned that 23 of the 68 countries benefitting from Belt and Road investments were “significantly or highly vulnerable to debt distress.”

The centre said eight of the 23 countries – Pakistan, Tajikistan, Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, Laos. the Maldives, Mongolia, and Montenegro, Pakistan, and Tajikistan – were particularly at risk.

Djibouti already owes 82 percent of its foreign debt to China while China is expected to account for 71% of Kyrgyz debt as Belt and Road-related projects are implemented.

“There is…concern that debt problems will create an unfavourable degree of dependency on China as a creditor. Increasing debt, and China’s role in managing bilateral debt problems, has already exacerbated internal and bilateral tensions in some BRI (Belt and Road initiative) countries,” the report said.

With analysts predicting that China will ultimately be unable to stabilize Pakistan financially, Pakistan is ultimately likely to have to revert to the IMF in a move that could seriously impact the Belt and Road initiative, widely perceived as an infrastructure driven effort to cement Chinese economic and geopolitical influence across a swath of land that stretches from South-eastern Europe and the Atlantic coast of Africa to the People’s Republic.

Analysts estimate that Pakistan this year needs US$ 25-28 billion to service its debt and ensure investor confidence in its ability to put its financial house in order. An IMF technical assistance team this week concluded a week-long visit to Pakistan.

Said one analyst:

“Ultimately, the IMF is Pakistan’s only option. If an IMF-imposed regime has consequences for BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) projects, it could impact perceptions of the terms China imposes.”

*

This article was also 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 Investors Lounge.

90 Years After Che Guevara’s Birth

July 7th, 2018 by Prof Susan Babbitt

Last week was the 90th anniversary of Che Guevara’s birth. He was a revolutionary and a doctor. Most importantly, he was a philosopher. He had ideas, needed today. Che argued with the Soviets about human motivation. He said human beings are not motivated by televisions and cars, not for what matters.

Capitalist economists say he was right, although he doesn’t get credit. 1 For simple, uninteresting challenges, we act for gain. But for tasks of sacrifice, discovery and creation, material gain is often irrelevant. Moral incentives, Che said, are what drive us to change the world.

He meant “moral” in a broader sense than mere cultivation of virtue. He meant experiencing growth as a human being: realizing essentially human capacities, emotional and intellectual.

European philosophers had a silly view about straight lines. They said reason depend upon ends: Know what you want and find ways to get it. Some even say you can’t live without ends: something to look forward to. They call it hope.

I wrote a doctoral dissertation on this view, called “instrumental rationality”. It wasn’t because I was interested in it. I wanted to know why academic philosophers liked it. It was really the only view out there, in analytic philosophy.

It rules out discovery, the kind Che knew was necessary for anti-imperialists – discovery of humanness.

I thought about Che when I read Ramzy Baroud’s powerful book, The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto 2018). The book is personal stories of catastrophe, by generations of Palestinians, in the Middle East and abroad.  Joe Catron is the only non-Palestinian in the book. In a crucial way, his story is central.

Joe is from Hopewell, Virginia. He discovers that the Palestinians’ struggle is his. He goes to Gaza for a few days and stays years. He stays through two wars. Death hangs over Joe like it hangs over Gazans. But Joe feels alive. He learns that it is not his death he cares about.

As a human shield at the El-Wafa Medical Rehabilitation centre, with 12 critical patients who can’t be moved, bombarded for days, Joe Catron goes from being “an activist with many questions and few answers to … a man, still with few answers but with a clear sense of a calling”.

It wasn’t an end he’d dreamed up back in Hopewell, and then set out to achieve, following a plan. No straight lines explain the relevance and depth of what Joe understands and acquires in Gaza. As he describes it, what happens to him in Gaza is, quite simply, friendship.

It changes him. It is moral incentive. When Che refers to el hombre nuevo (the new person), he means, in part at least, what happens to Joe: awareness of dependence on others, and direction based on that dependence. Joe doesn’t collect information about tunnels, political groups and strategies, as other foreigners in Gaza were doing. His “clear sense of a calling” is the person he becomes.

A recent best-seller tells us to abandon self-help books and read novels. 2 The author is interviewed around the world. Such a sensation shows how desperately the North needs ideas from the South and East: more sensible, naturalistic ones. The self-help industry is all about straight lines. They don’t notice that this is  so. There are no straight lines in nature.

We can learn this from good literature. True. Or we can learn it from life. Che did. So did Joe Catron. They knew it because they respected life, others’ lives. They wanted to know them.

And that’s been the message of countless wise philosophers, from across the globe, and throughout the ages, including Che, José Martí, Marx, Lenin, the Buddha. They didn’t tell us not to bother with straight lines. The idea never occurred to them in the first place. It doesn’t make sense. European liberals invented that unrealistic idea.

Brilliant Cuban politician and academic, Raúl Roa, in 1953, opens his Viento Sur (Southern Wind) with an echo of Marx’s “A specter is haunting Europe”: “A wind blows in the south”, Roa writes. No straight lines, no formulae, no pills can save us from existential complexity: insecure, decaying, contradictory.

But we can face that reality, with conciencia (awareness). It is eminently more interesting , and motivating.

Che told medical students in 1960:

“If we all use the new weapon of solidarity … then the only thing left for us is to know the daily stretch of the road and to take it. Nobody can point out that stretch; that stretch in the personal road of each individual; it is what he will do every day, what he will gain from his individual experience … dedicated to the people’s well- being.”  3

Why is it considered a new insight that we should learn to feel – through literature, for instance – rather than seek out a quick fix for our human condition? Fidel Castro said in Caracus in 1998,

“They discovered ‘smart weapons’ but we discovered something more powerful: that people think and feel”.

It’s not trivial. The viento sur is more useful than yet another self-help book, even if it tells us to read novels.  If we know the world, that is, if we discover what we did not know before, and if we learn how to live well in that world, humanly, it is because of capacity for connection, not because we reason in lines: el hombre nuevo. If we believe in science, there’s no other way.

It’s why Ana Belén Montes needs to be known now. She is a threat to what Che called “the myth of the self-made man”. She knows moral incentive. Ana is still silenced in a US jail. 4

Please sign petition here.

*

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014). She is a frequent contributor to Global Research. 

Notes

1. Pink, Dan (2010). The surprising truth about motivation. RSA Animate.

2. Svend Brinkman, Stand firm (Polity 2017)

3. Speech to medical students and health workers. In David Deutschman (Ed.), The Che Guevara Reader (NY: Ocean Press, 1997) 104

4. http://www.prolibertad.org/ana-belen-montes. For more information, write to [email protected] or[email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 90 Years After Che Guevara’s Birth
  • Tags:

Britain’s Most Censored Stories: Military

July 7th, 2018 by True Publica

In this article, we have attempted to identify the most censored stories of modern times in Britain. We have asked the opinions of one of the most famous and celebrated journalists and documentary film-makers of our time, a high-profile former Mi5 intelligence officer, a veteran journalist of the Iraq war, a gagged ex-army medic along with the head of one of the worlds largest charities.

One comment from our eclectic group of experts said;

the UK has the most legally protected and least accountable intelligence agencies in the western world so even in just that field competition is fierce, let alone all the other cover-ups.”

So true have we found this statement to be that we’ve had to split this article into two categories – military and non-military, with a view that we may well categorise surveillance and privacy on its own another time.

Without further ado – here are the most censored military stories in Britain since the 1980s, that we can publish – in no particular order. Do bear in mind that for those with inquisitive minds, some of these stories you will have read something about somewhere – but to the majority of citizens, these stories will read like conspiracy theories.

Iraq sanctions – the death toll that wasn’t

Before the full-scale British/American led attack on Iraq in 2003-11, a US, UK and UN sanctions regime was imposed on Iraq on the pretext of denying Saddam Hussein the materials necessary to make weapons of mass destruction. Items banned from Iraq under this rationale included a vast number of items needed for everyday life.

Undisputed UN figures have since shown that 1.7 million Iraqi civilians died due to the West’s brutal sanctions regime, half of whom were known to be children. The mass death was seemingly intended. Among items banned by the UN sanctions were equipment essential for Iraq’s national water treatment system.

A secret US Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) document discovered by Professor Thomas Nagy of the School of Business at George Washington University amounted to what he said was: “an early blueprint for genocide against the people of Iraq”.

Source

In his paper for the Association of Genocide Scholars, Professor Nagi explained that the DIA document revealed: “minute details of a fully workable method to ‘fully degrade the water treatment system’ of an entire nation” over a period of a decade.”

This means that in Iraq alone, the US-UK killed 1.9 million Iraqis from 1991, then from 2003 onwards another 1 million in the attack of Iraq: totalling just under 3 million Iraqis dead in two decades.

In May 2013 the reputable polling company ComRes asked a representative sample of the British public the following question: “How many Iraqis, both combatants and civilians, do you think have died as a consequence of the war that began in Iraq in 2003?” According to 59% of the respondents, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis died as a result of the war. The Britsh media totally ignored this story. How’s that for manipulating the minds of the masses?

Menwith Hill – The centre for kill-capture ops

For years, journalists and researchers have speculated about what really goes on inside Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire, while human rights groups and some politicians have campaigned for more transparency about its activities. Documents revealed by The Intercept showed how the NSA used the British base to aid “a significant number of capture-kill operations” across the Middle East and North Africa, fueled by powerful eavesdropping technology that can harvest data from more than 300 million emails and phone calls a day.

The NSA pioneered groundbreaking new spying programs at Menwith Hill to pinpoint the locations of suspected terrorists accessing the internet in remote parts of the world. The programs — with names such as GHOSTHUNTER and GHOSTWOLF aided covert missions in countries where the U.S. has not declared war.

The disclosures about Menwith Hill raise questions about the extent of British complicity in U.S. drone strikes and other so-called targeted killing missions, including many civilians deaths, which may in some cases have violated international laws or constituted war crimes.

To keep information about Menwith Hill’s surveillance role secret, the U.S. and U.K. governments have actively misled the public for years through a “cover story” portraying the base as a facility used to provide “rapid radio relay and conduct communications research.”

David Cameron – A Nuclear Weapons Deal – £18m syphoned off to Tory party funds

South Africa operated a covert nuclear ballistic missile program in the 1980s. The United Nations introduced a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa in the development and manufacture of such weapons. The result was that nine nuclear weapons were left after testing.

David Cameron's Secret Nuclear Weapons Deal Raised £17.8m For Conservative Party Funds - Sets Pretext for War

David Cameron bought and sold with taxpayers money three of those nuclear weapons, put them in unsafe hands in the Middle East and the Conservative party banked nearly £18 million.

Documentary filmmaker Peter Eyre:

“I find it amazing that David Cameron and others travelled to South Africa during the embargo period and not only violated international law but also violated international law in dealing with nuclear weapons that were not known to the UN. In 1989 David Cameron and others went down to South Africa to carry a plan that resulted in only 6 operational nuclear weapons going back to the US for decommissioning. The other three were to be purchased by the British Government as a standby mechanism against Saddam Hussain. Remember this is all under the radar of the United Nations!”

These weapons were not only stored unsafely in the Arabian peninsula but were stored in a volatile region, which subsequently went missing. Margaret Thatcher was asked to sign off these weapons in late 1990 under a special Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) describing them as metal cylinders rather than nuclear bombs.

Dr David Kelly (remember him?) was the only person in mainstream UK MOD tasked with being in the loop for that covert offshore procurement of battlefield nukes from Apartheid South Africa. Using money from the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to acquire the weapons, it was subsequently revealed later that £17.8 million was syphoned from this secret nuclear deal into Conservative Party funds. No wonder this story was kept under wraps.

Use of Thermobaric weapons

According to the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court (ICC) – The “employment of a thermobaric weapon against a population is about half of a war crime.” It is described like this because the international community has yet to officially name them as cruel weapons against the spirit of just about every law of war that exists.

Human Rights Watch quoted a study by the DIA on thermobaric weapons:

“The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique – and unpleasant. What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs. If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents.”

In other words, these weapons, awful as they are when they explode, are chemical weapons if they fail to go off.

The Ministry of Defence revealed for the first time – accidentally, just a few months ago – that British drones are firing thermobaric weapons in Syria.  The disclosure comes in a Freedom of Information (FoI) response to Drone Wars detailing the use of Reaper drones over the previous three months.

Dr David Kelly – Censored for 70 years

David Kelly (the same one as above) was an authority on biological warfare, employed by the British Ministry of Defence, and formerly a weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission in Iraq. Kelly was found dead two days after a parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee interrogated Kelly about the so-called ‘dodgy dossier.

The upshot was that Lord Hutton’s decision to classify documents about the death of Dr David Kelly faced claims of a whitewash amid claims by experts that there are increasing grounds to question the inquiry’s verdict of suicide.

The Hutton inquiry, which reported in 2004 that Kelly’s death was suicide after he cut an artery in his wrist, came under scrutiny from doctors who claim the medical account is improbable. Hutton subsequently ordered the documentation surrounding Kelly’s death, including the pathology reports and witness statements – to be classified for 70 years. Although Freedom of Information experts all agree there are strong grounds to release the documents – every angle, including legal challenge has been rejected.

“This is a revelation,” said Michael Powers QC, a former assistant coroner and expert in coronial law. “I can’t think of anything that would justify these documents being treated any differently.”

These documents have also been classified for twice as long as documentation of national security.

Questions have remained around the death of Dr Kelly after the initial inquest into his death was never resumed. In addition, the Hutton enquiry used a less stringent test than would have used in an ordinary inquest raising further suspicions that Dr Kelly was in fact murdered. Under these conditions, none of us living today are likely to hear what actually happened.

The US paid a British PR company to produce fake al Qaeda videos

The Pentagon gave a controversial British PR firm over half a billion dollars to run a top-secret propaganda programme in Iraq making fake videos of Al Qaeda atrocities, partly to keep taxpayers cash rolling in as the general public became more war-weary over time.

Bell Pottinger’s output included short TV segments made in the style of Arabic news networks and fake insurgent videos. The company was one of Britain’s most successful public relations organisations and was credited with honing Margaret Thatcher’s steely image and helping the Conservative party win three elections.

Bell Pottinger’s work in Iraq was a huge media operation which cost over a hundred million dollars a year on average. Documents unearthed shows the company was employing almost 300 British and Iraqi staff at one point.

Transactions worth $540 million between the Pentagon and Bell Pottinger were recorded for information what they termed ‘operations and psychological operations’ on a series of contracts issued from May 2007 to December 2011. The disgraced PR firm has since gone bankrupt over a series of scandals, including stoking up racial tensions in South African elections.

Had it not been for a whistleblower, this story would not be known at all today.

The White Helmets

The White Helmets brand was conceived and directed by a marketing company named “The Syria Campaign” based in New York. They have managed to fool millions of people. They recently won a 2016 Right Livelihood Award and Netflix released a special ‘documentary’ movie about the White Helmets. The Guardian and others even called on the Nobel Committee to award the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to the White Helmets.

They stole the name Syria Civil Defense from the real Syrian organization. They are not independent, are funded by governments that want regime change and are not apolitical. They do not work across Syria but only work in areas controlled by the armed opposition, mostly Nusa and Al Qaeda. Dozens of reports have emerged about how this group carry weapons and make publicity and propaganda videos.

The Swedish Doctors for Human Rights even demonstrated how the White Helmets were seemingly happy watching a baby die simply to make a video. (Viewer discretion – report and video HERE).

The real Syrian Civil Defense force works on a shoestring budget with real volunteers without a video team accompanying and promoting them. Most in the West are unaware that the 60+ year old Syrian Civil Defense team continues to work with absolutely no recognition.

Sadly, the White Helmets would sit very comfortably in another story in this report where it was found that the Pentagon paid a British PR company hundreds of millions of dollars to produce fake al Qaeda videos. It also fits nicely with the fact that the Syrian Observatory is funded by The Foreign Office and that Britain’s Conflict, Stability and Security Fund feeds the White Helmets millions in taxpayers money.

Syria Gas Attacks

Irrefutable, hard evidence came forward that totally destroyed the story of chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian government over its own people in Douma.  Twice winner of the British Press Awards‘ Journalist of the Year prize, and seven-time winner of the British Press Awards’ Foreign Correspondent of the Year, Robert Fisk, a Middle East correspondent since 1976 and since 1989 has been correspondent for The Independent, managed to make his journey unaccompanied by Russian or Syrian officials – to Douma.

This is the site of the so-called attack that the US, UK and France decided was enough evidence to be the pretext for attacking a sovereign state that could have escalated into something much worse – a major conflict with Russia, Iran and even China.

Far from what we had been told in the mainstream media – Fisk’s report went on to say “that many eye-witness accounts confirmed that there had never been any gas attacks.” The witness report confirmed many times over said:

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

Fisk was subsequently persecuted by his peers in the mainstream media and this important story largely went unreported.

Rendition and torture – New secret courts and secret evidence

It is no coincidence that the media has just reported that there are: “Allegations that the US government has intervened to censor a report into rendition and torture by UK spies.” Dominic Grieve, chair of the intelligence and security committee attacked the government, accusing it of acting “unacceptably” by leaking the report to the media (presumably for political reasons).

Over the past few years, increasing evidence has come to light of UK knowledge of, and involvement in, the CIA’s post 9/11 programme of extraordinary rendition and torture and in attempts to use information obtained through the use of torture as evidence in UK courts. This was backed up in recent years by a number of people who have been subjected to torture and other ill-treatment in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt and Morocco and elsewhere who have alleged that UK officials actively assisted their abusers.

There is also evidence that UK officials have passed on information to their American counterparts which was then used in abducting and subjecting people to extraordinary rendition and in torture interrogations.

The terms of the inquiry referred to above made sure that the Government’s most senior civil servant and not a judge presided – nothing less than the use of closed courts and secret evidence. It is clear that extraordinary steps have been taken to keep any information about possible UK complicity of torture secret.

As Liberty, the human rights organisation said:

“There is now effectively a parallel system of secret courts and secret evidence.”

We may never know the full extent of rendition and torture conducted by the United Kingdom since 9/11.

Drone Wars Don’t Exist

The UK has surrounded its use of armed drones with secrecy. The government is refusing to provide key documents even to the secretive Intelligence and Security Committee. Committee Chair Andrew Tyrie told that Guardian that without the documents the committee would not be able to do its job when it was investigating the illegal extra-judicial killing of a British subject in Syria under the Cameron government.

Another key secret is where Britain’s armed drones are based and where they are actually operating?  While the UK currently has a fleet of armed Reapers, the MoD refuses to say how many or where they are located, arguing that security concerns prevent disclosure.  No such security concerns affect other UK aircraft.  The real reason for the secrecy is that the UK wants to be able to operate them covertly just as the US does on kill missions in countries where no war is being conducted and where no permissions exist for their use in those countries.  We are simply not allowed to know.

Armed drones and the idea of ‘risk free warfare’ is a growing danger to global security and is a myth perpetuated by the UK and US governments.  In 2014 it was known that of 41 human targets identified to be killed by drones – 1,147 innocent civilians died as a result. This means that for every designated kill, over 30 completely innocent civilians are killed just for the crime of being in the wrong place.

These are just some of Britain’s most censored stories. There are so many of them that we have had to categorise them, which says something about how democracy, free speech, civil liberty and human rights are performing in Britain right now.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.