Last week was the 90^th 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]

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 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

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.

NATO, as the world knew it, is dead, and the organization’s demise is attributable to the combination of President Putin deft diplomacy in advancing the Russian-Turkish rapprochement and his American counterpart’s revolutionary reconceptualization of the very essence of the alliance, both of which wouldn’t have been possible had it not been for Obama.

NATO, as it was previously conceived of for decades, is dead, and while it might be reborn in a different format sometime in the future, its previous model has exhausted its purpose and is entering into the dustbin of history. The organization still officially exists, but everything about it is changing to the point where it might soon become unrecognizable. The consistently anti-Russian driving force behind the bloc has been decisively neutralized by President Putin’s deft diplomacy in winning over its second-largest military member, Turkey, as Russia’s newest strategic partner, while Trump’s revolutionary reconceptualization of the alliance as an equal collection of states combating the asymmetrical security challenges of terrorism and illegal migration will fundamentally transform what it means to be a NATO member.

The Shadow Of Obama

Before going through the post-mortem in detail, it’s worthwhile to describe how Obama’s shadow hangs heavy in the sense that he orchestrated the three greatest mistakes that inadvertently led to NATO’s demise. The 2011 NATO War on Libya has the chance of being seen in hindsight as the final flash of a fast- fading star, with its “shock-and-awe” destruction of the former Jamahiriya going down in history as perhaps the last real instance of the bloc’s members working on coordination with one another to conventionally wage war against a targeted state. The self-congratulatory pomp that followed this brief military campaign has since been proven to have been premature because of the country’s ongoing civil war and role as a transit state for facilitating the flood of hundreds of thousands of migrants into Europe, which sparked its own crisis that has since led to the rise of EuroRealist populists in the continent.

In addition, the Libyan model of Hybrid War destabilization was also applied to Syria, albeit minus the final conventional warfare form, and this exacerbated the Migrant Crisis to the point of no return in guaranteeing the inevitable rise of right-wing politicians in Europe. Taken together, the Wars on Libya and Syria, waged in different manners but nevertheless following the same neo-imperialist regime change form, generated unprecedented humanitarian blowback to the point of triggering far-reaching political changes in NATO’s EU members, making many of them reconsider the official anti-Russian purpose of the bloc when it could be better put to use in defending the organization’s southern shores from swarms of migrants. For as “constructive” of an idea as this may have been, it led to deep divisions within the EU itself between the pro-migrant Western countries, the anti-migrant Central & Eastern European ones, and the anti-Russian Baltic States, Poland, and Romania.

While these intra-NATO disagreements were percolating, Obama made another massive mistake in giving the greenlight for the failed pro-American coup attempt against Turkish President Erdogan in summer 2016, and the blowback from this sloppy operation was almost instantaneous in making the bloc’s second-largest military deeply suspicious of US intentions from then on out. Although Turkey had hitherto been mostly focused on facilitating American strategic objectives in the Mideast (which for the most part were disadvantageous to Russia’s long-term regional vision), its unchanging geopolitical position as an irreplaceable part of NATO’s anti-Russian “containment” policy was thought to have retained a consistent function that had been taken completely for granted up until that point. That was a huge error, as will be seen, because President Putin’s deft diplomacy succeeded in its judo-like maneuver to flip Turkey from an enemy into a partner.

Putin’s Judo

Taking advantage of President Erdogan’s understandable distrust of what he had presumed was his country’s closest ally, President Putin reached out to extend his support for the embattled Turkish leader in demonstrating which of the two Great Powers really had Ankara’s best interests in mind. It shouldn’t be forgotten that unconfirmed reports also alleged that Russian intelligence might have tipped President Erdogan off right before a fighter jet flown by one of the coup conspirators was set to bomb his residence, therefore saving his life and sealing a new bond of friendship between both countries. It might never be known whether that actually happened or not, but in any case, the Russian-Turkish rapprochement that followed soon thereafter was swift and even saw Moscow passively accepting Ankara’s limited “Euphrates Shield” incursion into northern Syria later that summer, something that would have been utterly unthinkable just a few months prior.

The revival of the Turkish Stream pipeline project and a related agreement on nuclear energy cooperation served as physical testimonies to the strength of the Russian-Turkish Strategic Partnership, which went one dramatic step much further in officially including a military dimension per Ankara’s desire to buy Moscow’s state-of-the-art S-400 air & missile defense system despite Washington’s threats to sanction it if the deal goes through. In the course of less than two years, President Putin’s deft diplomacy flipped the tables on the previous US-Turkish Strategic Partnership by replacing America with Russia and totally changing the overall dynamics of Mideast geopolitics. The de-facto removal of NATO’s second-largest military force from the organization, which is essentially the true state of affairs at the moment given Ankara’s planned S-400 military cooperation with Moscow and Washington’s CAATSA sanction threats, dealt a heavy blow to bloc from which it has yet to recover.

Decades’ worth of strategic planning that went into using Turkey as a bulwark against the spread of Russian influence towards the Mediterranean are now worthless after Ankara has for all intents and purposes turned its back on the bloc out of protest of the US’ role in the failed summer 2016 coup attempt. The organization can no longer count on the cornerstone of its Mideast, Black Sea, and Eastern Mediterranean policies, and this has inevitably led to the alliance having to reinvent itself. As it happened, this took place concurrent with the rapid politicization of the Migrant Crisis and its resultant intra-NATO/-EU disputes about how best to respond to this civilizational challenge, further exacerbating divisions within the West and making Turkey’s “defection” (brought about through President Putin’s masterful diplomacy) all the more impactful of a destabilizing move for the already confused alliance.

Trump’s Turnaround

The last and most powerful factor that contributed to the death of NATO was Trump himself, who decided to turn everything around and reorient the bloc from its official anti-Russian purpose by transforming it into something entirely different. It’s true that some of the anti-Russian functions will still remain because of the Baltic States, Poland, and Romania’s membership as “frontline states”, but Trump’s vision is to use NATO as a platform for responding more to asymmetrical security threats such as terrorism and illegal immigration instead of conventional ones like Russia was portrayed as being since the organization’s inception. Words are one thing, but transforming them through action is another, and it’s here where Trump is “walking the walk” much more than “talking the talk” like his predecessors did in visibly pressuring his “allies” to contribute their required 2% of GDP towards defense like they were always supposed to do to begin with.

Trump, being the successful businessman that he is, can’t fathom why the US should subsidize the EU’s “socialist welfare states” especially given that the “foreboding challenge” of a “Soviet invasion” no longer makes that necessary like it may have once did. Seeing world affairs from an economic perspective and therefore perceiving the EU to be America’s rival in this respect, Trump knows that the best way to “level the playing field” and “get a better deal” is to put pressure on America’s military underlings by compelling them to pay more for defense in order to advance their interests in a reconceptualized NATO, with this being coordinated alongside the US’ campaign to get the EU to lift its anti-American tariffs. The knock-on effect of this “double whammy” could hit the Europeans’ economic growth and possibly compel them into “cutting a deal’ of some sort for relief, one which can only be speculated upon at this time but which would undoubtedly strengthen American influence.

Far from representing the “united” West that NATO did during the Old Cold War and the brief period of unipolarity that followed, the New Cold War has seen the bloc weakened from within because of the blowback caused by Obama’s disastrous Wars on Libya & Syria as well as the failed pro-American coup attempt against President Erdogan in summer 2016.

President Putin skillfully exploited the latter in rapidly turning Turkey into a close partner and convincing it that its future interests are best served by keeping the bloc at arm’s length, while Trump dealt the deathblow against the alliance for his own reasons mainly having to do with a different view on contemporary security challenges and his economically driven vision of foreign affairs. While the shell of NATO still exists, its functional capacities are now divided into different regional blocs mostly constituting the new anti-migrant European Intervention Force in Western Europe and the remaining anti-Russian forces in the East, though Turkey’s de-facto “defection” means that the organization will never be the same as before.

*

This article was originally published on InfoRos.

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

Featured image is from Activist Post.

The military operation of government forces in southern Syria was once again resumed after the Damascus government and local militants groups had failed to reach any kind of fully-fledged reconciliation agreement that would allow to settle the situation in the area via a peaceful way.

On July 5, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), the Tiger Forces and their allies liberated the town of Saida and the nearby abandoned air defense base in the province of Daraa. Additionally, the SAA advanced along the border with Jordan liberating over 10 villages between the border points of 71 and 79.

According to pro-government sources, the SAA faced a little resistance during their operation along the border. Russian troops were spotted there.

The operation is also supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces. Nonetheless, the number of airstrikes is limited. Currently, government forces are developing their operation in the direction of the Nassib border crossing.

Clashes between Turkish-backed militants, reportedly members of Ahrar al-Sharqiyah, and government troops have taken place in the village of Tadef in the province of Aleppo. Turkish-backed forces captured some positions, but were forced to withdraw from them later. According to pro-government sources, the withdrawal was ordered by the Turkish military to de-escalated the situation.

Such incidents show the real sentiments among the so-called moderate opposition groups backed by Turkey and limitations of Ankara’s control of these groups.

The ISIS-linked news agency Amaq claimed that on July 4 ISIS fighters had ambushed a convoy of the US-led coalition in the village of Namliyah in the eastern part of Deir Ezzor province. According to Amaq, ISIS employed 18 IEDs against the convoy killing four US troops. Other sources say that only two US servicemen were killed. The US-led coalition has not commented on these reports so far.

Meanwhile, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have captured the villages of Madinah and Qabr Taha from ISIS in the southern part of Hasakah province. The SDF is continuing it operation in the direction of the Tuwaymin area.

*

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront,

Washington demands all other countries bow to its will. That’s how imperialism works, diabolically pursuing what’s harmful to most people worldwide.

Endless wars of aggression, financial wars, currency wars, sanctions wars, bloody coups, color revolutions, political assassinations, and other hostile tactics show how far the US will go to achieve its aims – on trade and virtually everything else.

Three rounds of Trump regime trade talks with China failed to resolve key outstanding differences.

Beijing vowed to retaliate in kind to US tariffs and other trade impediments if imposed – making it clear if Trump wants a trade war, he’ll get one.

On July 6, it began with 25% US tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese products becoming effective, $16 billion more to follow.

The Trump regime threatened similar duties on another $400 billion worth of Chinese goods if Beijing retaliates in kind.

China’s Commerce Ministry responded straightaway, saying

Beijing “will not fire its first shot, but is inevitably forced to strike back to defend the core interest of the nation and its people. We will report to the World Trade Organization on a timely basis.”

Trade wars assure losers, not winners. China is a major world power, not about to roll over for Washington, a reality Trump apparently doesn’t understand or won’t accept. In time, he will – the hard way if he remains rigid.

He’s mainly targeting Beijing’s Made in China 2025 strategy – a 10-year plan to transform the country into a global industrial and high-tech manufacturing superpower.

Follow-up plans aim to further enhance China technologically and industrially by 2049, the People’s Republic of China’s 100th anniversary.

US economic and financial confrontation with Beijing has nothing to do with America’s trade deficit, caused by letting the nation’s corporate predators offshore its industrial base to low-wage countries.

Paul Craig Roberts explained it in his book, titled “The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism,” saying

“half of US imports from China consist of the offshored production of US corporations.”

Millions of US production and other jobs were lost, China unfairly blamed for the actions of corporate America, Washington OKing what happened.

Roberts put it this way, saying

millions of Americans “lost their middle class jobs not because China played unfairly, but because American corporations betrayed the American people and exported their jobs.”

“ ’Making America great again’ means dealing with these corporations, not with China” – laying blame where it belongs.

Representing Beijing’s view, China’s Global Times (GT) slammed the Trump regime, saying it’s “determined to rewrite world trade rules,” benefitting US interests exclusively.

China is the world’s second largest economy, heading toward surpassing America in the years ahead, including by becoming a manufacturing and high-tech superpower – what Washington wants to prevent.

What’s inevitable won’t be prevented. President Xi Jinping doesn’t want a trade war.

“But if (Trump) wants to contain China’s high-tech development and marginalize its promising high-tech industry, it will be quite another case,” GT explained, adding:

“It is China’s right to develop its high-tech industries, including aerospace, telecommunications and artificial intelligence.”

“It does not make sense that China cannot set foot in these fields just because the US is in the lead or believes that if Beijing ever achieves any results, they would all be ‘stolen’ from Washington. This is a severe distortion of the spirit of intellectual property.”

“If the US is determined to escalate conflicts with China, then so be it. Perhaps the Trump administration can only clear its mind after a fight.”

So far, US duties on Chinese products target engines, motors, construction and farming machinery, electric transportation, telecom equipment and certain precision instruments.

Beijing’s countermeasures target US soybeans and other agricultural commodities, vehicles and aquatic products.

The Trump regime’s trade dispute with China and other countries is all about pursuing its hegemonic goals – seeking unchallenged US economic, financial, technological, political and military dominance over all other nations.

When pursued the hegemonic way Washington operates, it’s the stuff global wars are made of.

*

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

Israel’s Supreme Court ordered late on Thursday a pause on the demolition of the Palestinian Bedouin town of Khan al-Ahmar in the occupied West Bank, Israeli media outlets reported.

Israel has faced mounting international condemnation as its security forces continued preparations to demolish the town.

On Wednesday morning, Israeli soldiers cracked down on activists who had come to support the town’s residents, injuring 35, four of whom were hospitalised. Thirteen people were arrested, including a teenage girl, a PLO official said.

The High Court had upheld the demolition order against the town of 180 residents in May.

The suspension was issued on Thursday to examine claims about the ownership of the land. A judge gave the Israeli government until 11 July to challenge the injunction.

An interim injunction was issued allegedly regarding the claim that the land where Khan Al Ahmar sits is privately owned by residents of Anata & was expropriated in 1975. The injunction is until the State answers these claims

— Sharona Weiss (@sharona_weiss) July 5, 2018

Save the Children country director Jennifer Moorehead highlighted in a statement on Friday that the injunction mean little more than a postponement of the demolition.

“The school and community of al Khan al-Ahmar have received a last minute reprieve for possibly a few days.  But the legal options for this community have been exhausted,” she said. “The community is terrified that the bulldozers will be back.

“This community has already suffered so much and the impending threat of demolition is having a huge impact on the psychological wellbeing of the children,” she added, noting that Khan al-Ahmar is home to school that serves some 170 Palestinian children living in Bedouin communities in the area.

Israel regularly demolishes Palestinian homes and schools in the West Bank, arguing that they are built without permits.

However, Human Rights Watch notes that

“the Israeli military refuses to permit most new Palestinian construction in the 60 percent of the West Bank where it has exclusive control over planning and building, even as the military facilitates settler construction”.

Palestinian activists and officials say the scheme to displace Palestinian residents in the area aims to expand illegal settlements, isolate East Jerusalem from Palestinian communities in the West Bank, as well as to effectively cut off the southern and northern West Bank, forcing Palestinians to make even lengthier detours to travel from one place to another.

Walid Assaf, head of the National Committee to Resist the Wall and Settlements, credited activists on the ground for the injunction. He also thanked foreign diplomats and lawyers who worked on the case and visited the community regularly in support.

“We will persist here until a final decision is issued,” Assaf was quoted as saying by official Palestinian news agency Wafa.

In a statement published by the PLO’s Negotiations Affairs Department on Thursday, Khan al-Ahmar residents had called on the international community to “hold Israel accountable for its crimes”.

“The issue of Khan al-Ahmar illustrates Israel’s objective of widespread and systematic forcible displacement of Palestinians and replacement with Israeli settlers, as part and parcel of Israel’s broader scheme of creeping annexation,” the statement said.

“Though various in form, these policies and practices share a common underlying force: the forcible transfer of Palestinians based on their ethnicity, under the semblance of legality.”

On Thursday, prior to the court’s decision, the United Nations warned that displacing Palestinian villagers has “serious human rights and humanitarian law consequences”.

“The latest developments are of serious concern as it is evident that they are undertaken with the objective of relocating the concerned communities, as well as causing serious distress to the vulnerable residents who are watching what appear to be preparations for the demolition of their community,” Scott Anderson, the director of operations in the West Bank for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, said in a statement.

“These pastoral communities are mostly Palestine refugees – originally displaced from their tribal lands in the Negev. They should not be forced to experience a second displacement against their will.”

Many European countries have also called on Israel to halt the demolitions. On Thursday envoys from France, Sweden, Belgium, Italy, Ireland, Switzerland, Finland, Spain and the European Union visited the area but Israeli police denied them access to a school funded by several European countries.

“We wanted to show our solidarity to this village which is threatened with destruction, for reasons both humanitarian (…) and because it is a major issue of international law,” said the consul general of France in Jerusalem, Pierre Cochard.

“This is a very clear violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention which determines the obligations of the occupying powers in the occupied territories,” he added.

“This decision complicates a little more and significantly the search for peace and a peace based on two states” – one Israeli, one Palestinian, he added.

Villagers have vowed not to abandon their land.

Yusuf Abu Dawoud, a 37-year-old resident of Khan al-Ahmar, told Middle East Eye on Wednesday that Israeli forces and bulldozers were beginning to attack the village “without any humanity”.

“The Israelis are racist, they do not want any Palestinians in this area, because it is the gateway to East Jerusalem,” he said. “They want to erase Jerusalem from any Palestinian heritage and influence. They want to kick us out of our lands, but we will stay.”

*

Featured image is from i24NEWS.

This article (edits and updates in 2018) focusses on China’s capitalist system under a “Communist” label.

Wages are exceedingly low, productivity is high. These are the social realities of commodities “Made in China”, marketed Worldwide.

China is an advanced capitalist economy integrated into the World market.  Wages for non-skilled labor in Chinese factories are as low as 300$ a month (or lower), a small fraction of the minimum wage in Western countries.   

The factory price of a commodity produced in China is of the order of 10% of the retail price in Western countries. Consequently, the largest share of the earnings of  China’s cheap labor economy accrues to distributors and retailers in Western countries. 

In recent developments, Trump has duly instructed his administration to impose tariffs on about $50 billion worth of Chinese imports.

His stated objective is to reduce the trade deficit with China.

What Trump does not realize is that the trade deficit with China contributes to sustaining America’s retail economy, it also contributes to the growth of America’s GDP.

Trade sanctions directed against China would immediately backlash against America.

China is not dependent on US  imports. Quite the opposite. America is an import led economy with a weak industrial and manufacturing base, heavily dependent on imports from China.

Imagine what would happen if China following Washington’s threats decided from one day to the next to significantly curtail its “Made in China” commodity exports to the USA.

It would be absolutely devastating, disrupting the consumer economy, an economic and financial chaos.

“Made in China” is the backbone of retail trade in the USA which indelibly sustains household consumption in virtually all major commodity categories from clothing, footwear, hardware, electronics, toys, jewellery, household fixtures, food, TV sets, mobile phones, etc.

Importing from China is a lucrative multi-trillion dollar operation. It is the source of tremendous profit and wealth in the US, because consumer  commodities imported from China’s low wage economy are often sold at the retail level more than ten times their factory price.

Production does not take place in the USA. The producers have given up production. The US trade deficit with China is instrumental in fuelling the profit driven consumer economy which relies on Made in China consumer goods.

A dozen designer shirts produced in China will sell at a factory price FOB at $36 a dozen ($3 dollars a shirt). Once they reach the shopping malls, each shirt will be sold at $30 or more, approximately ten times its factory price. Vast revenues accrue to wholesale and retail distributors. The US based “non-producers” reap the benefits of China’s low cost commodity production. (Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, 2003).

Trumps recent threats against China follow those formulated in 2017 in relation to China’s trade with North Korea, which are analysed in the first part of this article.

Chinese policy makers are fully aware that the US economy is heavily dependent on “Made in China”.

And with an internal market of more than 1.4 billion people, coupled with a global export market, these veiled threats by President Trump will not be taken seriously in Beijing.

China: Capitalist Restoration

In 1981-82, based at the University of Hong Kong, Centre for Asian Studies (CAS), I started my research on the process of capitalist restoration in China. I took a crash course in Mandarin at the HKU Language School as well as in Taiwan.  This research –which extended over a period of 4 years–  included fieldwork conducted in several regions of China (1981-83) focussing on economic and social reforms, analysis of the defunct people’s commune and the development of privately owned capitalist industry including the cheap labor export economy.

I started reviewing Chinese economic history including structures of the factory system prior to 1949, the development of the treaty ports established in the wake of the Opium wars (1842) and came to the realization that what was being reinstated in terms of special economic zones was influenced by the history of the treaty ports, which granted extraterritorial rights to Britain, France, Germany, the US, Russia and Japan.

In the 1980s, the consensus among Leftists was that China was a socialist country. Debating the restoration of capitalism in China in Leftist circles was a taboo.

Most “Left wing”  economists and social scientists dispelled my analysis: “What you are saying Michel is an impossibility, it goes against the laws of history” said Brazil’s political economist  Theotonio dos Santos (in response to my presentation, Second Congress of Third World Economists, Economistas del Tercer Mundo, Havana, 26-31 April 1981).

A dogmatic perspective prevailed: Chinese socialism could not be reversed. The Socialist Mainstream refused to even acknowledge the facts pertaining to land concentration, ownership, the collapse of social programs and the rise of social inequality.

I completed the manuscript of my book entitled “Towards Capitalist Restoration? Chinese Socialism after Mao” in 1984. It was  casually turned down by Monthly Review Press: “We unfortunately have no market for a book on this subject”.

While this  was a slap in the face from what I considered to be an important and powerful socialist voice, I came to realize that MR (Harry Magdoff in particular) throughout the 1980s remained  firmly supportive of the post-Mao regime under the helm of Deng Xiaoping.  I had previously met and was in contact with both Paul Sweezy and Harry Magdoff for whom I had high regard.

The book was subsequently published by Macmillan in 1986. Click to download in pdf  (very slow due to size of file)

Eighteen years later, Monthly Review came out with a book by Martin Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett entitled “China and Socialism: Market Reforms and Class Struggle” (Monthly Review, 2004) which concludes that

“market reforms” have fundamentally subverted Chinese socialism…. Although it is a disputed question whether the Chinese economy can be still described as socialist, there is no doubting the importance for the global project of socialism of accurately interpreting and soberly assessing its real prospects.

Income inequality has been rising rapidly in China and now surpasses that of the U.S. by a large margin, say University of Michigan researchers.

That is the key finding of their study based on newly available survey data collected by several Chinese universities.

“Income inequality in today’s China is among the highest in the world, especially in comparison to countries with comparable or higher standards of living,” said University of Michigan sociologist Yu Xie. University of Michigan study. 

While China plays an important and positive balancing role on the geopolitical chessboard, it does not constitute a viable “socialist” alternative to Western capitalism. In contrast to the US, however, China has no imperial ambitions.

Unlimited Reserves of Cheap Labor: 287 Million Internal Migrant Workers

China’s has currently, according to official figures[ 275 million (2015) ] 287 million in 2017 internal migrant workers employed in the cheap labor export economy, construction and infrastructure projects as well as in the urban service economy.

A formidable labor force almost the size of the population of the US (325 million in 2017).

China’s 287 million migrant workers also constitute the driving force behind the development of infrastructure, roads and transport corridors not to mention the PRC’s “Belt and Road” Eurasian trade and investment initiative.

These workers largely from rural areas and townships constitute more than a third of the labor force. They do not have the right of abode in urban areas.

Moreover, since the abolition of the People’s Commune (1983), agricultural land has in large part been privatized. In turn, many of the small scale rural industries of the Maoist period have been closed down. People in rural areas largely rely on remittances from migrant employment in the cities and “special economic zones” in manufacturing and construction.

My book on Capitalist Restoration, Chinese Socialism after Mao can now be downloaded in pdf format by clicking the cover page above. (Note: very slow download)

The Largest Cheap Labor Factory in the World 

The following 2009 documentary video describes a tendency towards a highly regulated social fabric which serves the development of the low wage (profit driven) industrial economy.

Imperialism will be on Trial in the UK in a series of Conference events in July.  

These events bring together an array of speakers from the world of politics, academia, journalism, former diplomats and clergy to offer their insights and expertise on the subject of imperialism and neoliberalism.

They will cover Eurasia, Latin America, Ireland, Palestine, Syria, Iran, Bahrain, Yemen, Wahhabism, Korea, the Balkans, Russia, Ukraine, and the subjects/countries.

We provide a platform where an alternative perspective and analysis is presented to the audience and on-line viewers, which challenges the mainstream narrative.

All speakers are driven by a profound and sincere desire for an end to these endless wars of aggression, and regime changes. We all want peace, diplomacy, and good international relations to replace what has become the norm for the hegemony the US and it’s vassal states- of coercive diplomacy, sanctions, threats of war, hot wars, cold wars and proxy wars.

We welcome an alternative to the unipolar vision advanced by the neoliberal and imperialist elites; and embrace a world which has multispheres of influence, where no one country, or group of countries dominate others.

We believe that trade and international relations should be based on parity, and not coercion and subservience. We espouse the rights for countries to have national sovereignty and self-determination, and to not live in fear of war or economic hardship from sanctions.

We are anti-imperialists, and don’t pick favourites. We don’t victim-blame. A victim of imperialism is a victim. No person, no country, no leader is perfect. It is not the role of the West, or any nation to impose its will on another sovereign nation.

Several of the speakers including Eva Bartlett, Peter Kuznick, Peter Ford and Adam Garrie, are frequent contributors to Global Research.

Eva Bartlett: Torture, Starvation, Executions: Eastern Ghouta Civilians Talk of Life Under Terrorist Rule, By Eva Bartlett, July 06, 2018

Peter Kuznick: The Untold History of US War Crimes, By Peter Kuznick and Edu Montesanti, July 06, 2018

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.

Scroll down for details.

Dear Readers,

“For much of this year, independent media –including Global Research– has felt the sting of increased online censorship”, in the form of a “crackdown on news that challenges official government narratives.”

With mounting time and resources being dedicated to finding our way through the maze of biased algorithms and online censorship, we’re asking for your help in meeting our monthly costs.

Our last drive for donations was sent out via e-mail on June 28th to just under 50,000 people.

It was also visible on the Global Research site to our 1 million monthly visitors.

Despite this only a few donations were made.

If  you value Global Research and you haven’t done so yet, please consider making a donation.

We are extremely grateful to those who have made a contribution so far, without you we would not be able to continue our activities.

Click the donate button below to make a contribution. Thank you for supporting independent media! 

Donation by mail

Kindly send your cheque or money order to the following address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
PO Box 55019
11 Notre-Dame Ouest,
MONTREAL, Qc, H2Y 4A7
CANADA

For donations from the US, the money order should be “International” payable outside the US.

Click image below

Thank you for help in keeping independent media alive!

This incisive article by Adam Garrie was first published in September 2017

Adam Garrie will be speaking at a series of events in the UK (10-16 July) together with 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),, Ken Livingstone (Former Mayor of London), Rev Andrew Ashdown (Doctoral Research Student in ‘Christian-Muslim relations in Syria’), Catherine Shakdown (goepolitical analyst and writer) and more!

This series of events being held in four cities in the United Kingdom offers an alternative narrative on global politics and war, to that presented by the mainstream media. Scroll down for details at the foot of this article.

***

Russia has slammed Reuters UK for a breach of journalistic integrity, after the organisation published outright lies which have been derived from the propaganda arm of al-Qaeda in Syria.

Western governments, including those of the US and UK, have engaged in a concerted effort to publicly rehabilitate al-Qaeda, the notorious Gulfi funded Takfiri jihadist group which the US held responsible for the 9/11 atrocities. It was the group al-Qaeda in Iraq which eventually became ISIS and in Syria al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch commonly known as al-Nusra, has been responsible for countless acts of barbaric in parts of western and central Syria.

Enter a fake charity/aid group called White Helmets, sometimes confusingly referred to as Syrian Civil Defence. The group has no affiliation from real aid groups in Syria such as Syria’s actually civil defence service, nor are they at all affiliated with the UN recognised White Cross and White Crescent aid groups.

Among other things, White Helmets have been exposed by Russia as staging chemical attacks and staging them poorly at that. At various times, White Helmets actors were seen handling bodies that were supposedly infected with toxic gas, without gloves or proper masks. One image also showed a White Helmet actor smoking a cigarette in an area which was supposed to be cloaked in gas.

Even more seriously, the group has been exposed has participating in the killing of children as well as the exploitation of children.

The group which has been photographed carrying al-Qaeda flags during savage celebrations has been named and shamed multiple times by the Russian Foreign Ministry and Russian Defense Ministry.

In October of last year, RT’s CrossTalk explored the extent of the dangerous fraud that is White Helmets when Peter Lavelle interviewed Patrick Henningsen, Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett, three journalists who helped expose the sham to the wider public.

After the Battle of Aleppo was won in 2016, al-Qaeda’s fortunes in Syria were dashed. Today, one of the only areas in Syria where al-Qaeda and therefore the White Helmets still have a presence is in Idlib Governorate. Idlib is currently home to a civil war between al-Qaeda/al-Nusra and various factions of the FSA as well as some jihadist groups linked to the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

In an effort to pacify the region, the most recent meeting of the Astana Group created a new de-escalation zone in Idlib Governorate which is largely policed by Turkey. The new zone, like other de-escalation zones, allows for the continued targeting of al-Qaeda and ISIS.

Russia has recently struck al-Qaeda forces in Idlib who martyred civilians in Latakia, when they began firing rockets at the birthplace of the Assad family, the mountainous town of Qardaha.

The reach of White Helmets has gown down in-line with the reduction of al-Qaeda as a formidable force in Syria. However, as Russia works to help Syria squeeze the group out of Idlib, they decided to engage in yet another propaganda drive against Russia and Syria. Al-Qaeda/White Helmets has accused the Russian Aerospace Forces of targeting urban neighbourhoods and killing civilians even though the strikes targeted weapons outposts and storage facilitates away from populated areas.

While lies from groups like White Helmets are less and less noticed, UK Reuters picked up the propaganda as though it was deriving from a reliable source. It is also crucial to realise that the al-Qaeda/White Helmets report was released on the day Russian President Vladimir Putin lands in Ankara for talks with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Al-Qaeda is clearly worried about Turkey’s pivot to Russia and away from western backed terrorist factions in Syria.

Russia’s Defense Ministry Spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov has blasted Reuters UK and others who picked up the story as falling victim to fake news.

He stated,

“Syria’s Civil Defense which UK news agency Reuters cites, reporting of alleged civilian deaths, is the same thing as the White Helmets. The attempt of the British to pass these war scammers off as a new brand of objective information sources is a manipulation for amateurs.

The Russian Aerospace Forces’ planes to not carry out airstrikes on residential neighbourhoods in settlements to avoid civilian casualties. The targets are terrorist bases, armoured vehicles and munitions depots, identified with unmanned devices and confirmed through other channels.

This week, all airstrikes of Russian planes in the province of Idlib were concentrated on equipment, reserves and groups of Nusra Front militants who were trying to rescue terrorists from the Akerbat encirclement in eastern Hama with a sudden offensive. The actions of Russian planes in Syria derailed this operation, and the terrorists participating in it were destroyed”.

This video of the airstrikes, clearly corroborates Russia’s statement. It is apparent from the footage that Russia is not targeting an urban or residential area.

Russian airstrike on Nusra (HTS) terrorist hideout turns it upside down #Idlib #Syria pic.twitter.com/SUUBVWbvKF

— The'Nimr'Tiger ???? (@Souria4Syrians) September 28, 2017

The racist Sunni supremacist White Helmets have simply produced more propaganda to bolster their increasingly hopeless cause. The real shame is with so-called ‘respectable’ outlets who have reported blatant propaganda as fact.

Imperialism on Trial Conference Events in the Uk (July 10-16)

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

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

Featured image is from the author.

Eva Bartlett will be speaking in a series of Conference venues next week in the U.K. alongside several other prominent authors including Peter Ford (former UK Ambassador to Syria and Bahrain),  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!

Imperialism on Trial: This series of events being held in four cities in the United Kingdom (10-16 July) offers an alternative narrative on global politics and war, to that presented by the mainstream media. For details, scroll down to foot of this article.

***

Featured image: The author with Douma residents

Last week (early June 2018) I wrote about what civilians from Ghouta told me regarding unverified claims of the Syrian Army attacking them with chemicals, but they also talked about crimes committed by terrorists and the White Helmets’ role.

***

Munitions factory Saqba

“Every time there was a case that was a bit severe, they would say you must amputate this person. They would say that we are in short of medical supplies and so amputation is the best choice. They didn’t use to treat people. Even people who had minor surgery, they would just amputate it.”

Claims of lack of medical supplies turned out to be false, as in eastern Aleppo. In an underground hospital in Saqba alone, I saw rooms full of medicines and stolen medical equipment. Syrian journalists documented such stores elsewhere in eastern Ghouta.

According to Hanadi Shakr,

“All of the medical and food aid that was brought in, it would just vanish, they would sell it and take the money. Everything went to the leaders of the terrorist factions.”

When eastern Ghouta was being liberated, corporate media was busy churning out fake reports of massacres, just as corporate media did when Aleppo was being liberated. They produced stories  emanating from supporters of terrorist factions, always blaming the Syrian government for starvation, and above all, whitewashing the crimes and terrorism of extremist groups occupying eastern Ghouta.

In reality, Ghouta civilians had much to say about their captors’ crimes, and also about their relief at being liberated by the Syrian Army, but corporate media isn’t interested it doesn’t fit their regime-change narrative.

*

Eva Bartlett is a freelance journalist and rights activist with extensive experience in the Gaza Strip and Syria. Her writings can be found on her blog, In Gaza. 

All images in this article are from the author.

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

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

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

Peter Kuznick will be speaking in a series of Conference venues next week in the U.K. alongside several other prominent authors including Peter Ford (former UK Ambassador to Syria and Bahrain), Eva Bartlett (investigative journalist), Professor Peter Kuznick (Co-Author with Oliver Stone, Untold History of the United States), Adam Garrie, (Director, Eurasia Future), Ken Livingstone (Former Mayor of London), Rev Andrew Ashdown (Doctoral Research Student in ‘Christian-Muslim relations in Syria’), Catherine Shakdown (geopolitical analyst and writer) and more!

Imperialism on Trial: This series of events being held in four cities in the United Kingdom (10-16 July) offers an alternative narrative on global politics and war, to that presented by the mainstream media. For details, scroll down to foot of this article.

In this exclusive interview, Prof Peter Kuznick speaks of: the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagazaki; US crimes and lies behind the Vietnam war, and what was really behind that inhumane invasion; why the US engaged a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and how that war and the mainstream media influences the world today; the interests behind the assassinations of President Kennedy; US imperialism towards Latin America, during the Cold War and today, under the false premise of War on Terror and War on Drugs.

Edu Montesanti: Professor Peter Kuznick, thank you so very much for granting me this interview. In the book The Untold History of the United States, Oliver Stone and you reveal that the the launch of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by President Harry Truman was militarily unnecessary, and the reasons behind it. Would you comment these versions, please?

Peter Kuznick: It is interesting to me that when I speak to people from outside the United States, most think the atomic bombings were unnecessary and unjustifiable, but most Americans still believe that the atomic bombs were actually humane acts because they saved the lives of not only hundreds of thousands of Americans who would have died in an invasion but of millions of Japanese.

That is a comforting illusion that is deeply held by many Americans, especially older ones. It is one of the fundamental myths emanating from World War II. It was deliberately propagated by President Truman, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and many others who also spread the erroneous information that the atomic bombs forced Japanese surrender. Truman claimed in his memoirs that the atomic bombs saved a half million American lives.

Hiroshima after the Bomb

President George H.W. Bush later raised that number to “millions.” The reality is that the atomic bombings neither saved American lives nor did they contribute significantly to the Japanese decision to surrender. They may have actually delayed the end of the war and cost American lives. They certainly cost hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives and injured many more.

As the January 1946 report by the U.S. War Department made clear, there was very little discussion of the atomic bombings by Japanese officials leading up to their decision to surrender. This has recently been acknowledged somewhat stunningly by the official National Museum of the U.S. Navy in Washington, DC, which states, “The vast destruction wreaked by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the loss of 135,000 people made little impact on the Japanese military.

However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria…changed their minds.” Few Americans realize that six of America’s seven five star admirals and generals who earned their fifth star during the war are on record as saying that the atomic bombs were either militarily unnecessary or morally reprehensible or both.

That list includes Generals Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, and Henry “Hap” Arnold and Admirals William Leahy, Ernest King, and Chester Nimitz. Leahy, who was chief of staff to presidents Roosevelt and Truman, called the atomic bombings violations of “every Christian ethic I have ever heard of and all of the known laws of war.” He proclaimed that the “Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender…The used of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. In being the first to use it we adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the dark ages.”

Eisenhower agreed that the Japanese were already defeated. MacArthur said that the Japanese would have surrendered months earlier if the U.S. had told them they could keep the emperor, which the U.S. did ultimately allow them to do.

What really happened? By spring 1945, it was clear to most Japanese leaders that victory was impossible. In February 1945, Prince Fumimaro Konoe, former Japanese prime minister, wrote to Emperor Hirohito, “I regret to say that Japan’s defeat is inevitable.”

The same sentiment was expressed by the Supreme War Council in May when it declared that “Soviet entry into the war will deal a death blow to the Empire” and was repeated frequently thereafter by Japanese leaders.

The U.S., which had broken Japanese codes and was intercepting Japanese cables, was fully aware of Japan’s increasing desperation to end the war if the U.S. would ease its demand for “unconditional surrender.” Not only was Japan getting battered militarily,

it’s railroad system was in tatters and its food supply was shrinking. Truman himself referred to the intercepted July 18 cable as “the telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.” American leaders also knew that what Japan really dreaded was the possibility of a Soviet invasion, which they maneuvered unsuccessfully to forestall.

The Japanese leaders did not know that at Yalta Stalin had agreed to come into the Pacific War three months after the end of the fighting in Europe. But Truman knew this and understood the significance. As early as April 11, 1945, the Joint Intelligence Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was reporting that “If at any time the USSR should enter the war, all Japanese will realize that absolute defeat is inevitable.”

Yalta Conference 1945

At Potsdam in mid-July, when Truman received Stalin’s confirmation that the Soviets were coming into the war, Truman rejoiced and wrote in his diary, “Fini Japs when that comes about.” The next day he wrote home to his wife, “We’ll end the war a year sooner now, and think of the kids who won’t be killed.”

Potsdam July 1945, Churchill, Truman and Stalin

So there were two ways to expedite the end of the war without dropping atomic bombs. The first was to change the demand for unconditional surrender and inform the Japanese that they could keep the emperor, which most American policymakers wanted to do anyway because they saw the emperor as key to postwar stability. The second was to wait for the Soviet invasion, which began at midnight on August 8.

It was the invasion that proved decisive not the atomic bombs, whose effects took longer to register and were more localized. The Soviet invasion completely discredited Japan’s ketsu-go strategy. The powerful Red Army quickly demolished the Japan’s Kwantung Army. When Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki was asked why Japan needed to surrender so quickly, he replied that if Japan delayed, “the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea, Karafuto, but also Hokkaido.

This will destroy the foundation of Japan. We must end the war when we can deal with the United States.” The Soviet invasion changed the military equation; the atomic bombs, as terrible as they were, did not. The Americans had been firebombing Japanese cities for months. As Yuki Tanaka has shown, the U.S. had already firebombed more than 100 Japanese cities.

Destruction reached as high as 99.5 percent in downtown Toyama. Japanese leaders had already accepted that the United States could wipe out Japanese cities. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two more cities to vanquish, however thorough the destruction or horrific the details. But the Soviet invasion proved devastating as both American and Japanese leaders anticipated it would.

But the U.S. wanted to use atomic bombs in part as a stern warning to the Soviets of what was in store for them if they interfered with U.S. plans for postwar hegemony. That was exactly how Stalin and those around him in the Kremlin interpreted the bombings. U.S. use of the bombs had little effect on Japanese leaders, but it proved a major factor in jumpstarting the Cold War.

And it put the world on a glide path to annihilation. Truman observed on at least three separate occasions that he was beginning a process that might result in the end of life on this planet and he plowed ahead recklessly. When he received word at Potsdam of how powerful the July 16 bomb test in New Mexico had been, he wrote in his diary, “We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world.

It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era after Noah and his fabulous Ark.” So the atomic bombings contributed very little if anything to the end of the war, but they began a process that continues to threaten humanity with annihilation today–70 plus years after the bombings. As Oliver Stone and I say in The Untold History of the United States, to kill innocent civilians is a war crime. To threaten humanity with extinction is far, far worse. It is the worst crime that can ever be committed.

Edu Montesanti: In the Vietnam War’s chapter, it is revealed that the US armed forces conducted in that small country the launch of a greater number of bombs that all launched during World War II. Would you please detail it, and comment why you think it happened, professor Kuznick?

Peter Kuzinick: The U.S. dropped more bombs against little Vietnam than had been dropped by all sided in all previous wars in history–three times as many as were dropped by all sides in WWII. That war was the worst atrocity–the worst example of foreign aggression– committed since the end of WWII. Nineteen million gallons of herbicide poisoned the countryside. Vietnam’s beautiful triple canopy forests were effectively eliminated. The U.S. destroyed 9,000 of South Vietnam’s 15,000 hamlets.

It destroyed all six industrial cities in the North as well as 28 of 30 provincial towns and 96 of 116 district towns. It threatened to use nuclear weapons on numerous occasions. Among those who discussed and occasionally supported such use was Henry Kissinger. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told my students that he believes that 3.8 million Vietnamese died in the war.

Thus, the war was truly horrific and the Americans have never atoned for this crime. Instead of winning a Nobel Peace Prize for ending the war, Henry Kissinger should be in the dock in the Hague standing trial for having committed crimes against humanity.

Edu Montesanti: Please speak of your experiences in the 60’s in Vietnam, and why the US decided to engage a war against that nation.

Peter Kuznick: Oliver and I approached the war from different perspectives. He dropped out of Yale and volunteered for combat in Vietnam. He was wounded twice and won a medal for combat valor. I, on the other hand, was fiercely opposed to the U.S. invasion of Vietnam from the start.

As a freshman in college, I started an anti-war group. I organized actively against the war. I hated it. I hated the people who were responsible for it. I thought they were all war criminals and still do. I attended many antiwar marches and spoke often at public events. I understood, as my friend Daniel Ellsberg likes to say, we weren’t on the wrong side. We were the wrong side.

The U.S. got gradually involved. It first financed the French colonial war and then took over the fighting itself after the Vietnamese defeated the French. President Kennedy sent in 16,000 “advisers,” but realized the war was wrong and planned to end it if he hadn’t been killed. U.S. motives were mixed. Ho was not only a nationalist, he was a communist. No U.S. leader wanted to lose a war to the communists anywhere.

This was especially true after the communist victory in China in 1949. Many feared the domino effect–that Vietnam would lead to communist victories across Southeast Asia. That would leave Japan isolated and Japan, too, would eventually turn toward the communist bloc for allies and trading partners. So one motivation was geopolitical.

Another was economic. U.S. leaders didn’t want to lose the cheap labor, raw materials, and markets in Indochina. Another reason was that the military-industrial complex in the U.S.–the “defense” industries and the military leaders allied with them–got fat and prosperous from war. War was their reason for being and they profited handsomely from war in both inflated profits and promotions.

So it was a combination of maintaining U.S. preeminence in the world, defending and exploiting U.S. economic interests, and a perverse and corrosive anti-communist mentality that wanted to defeat the communists everywhere.

Edu Montesanti: What were the real reasons behind the US Cold War with the Soviet Union?

Peter Kuznick: George Kennan, the U.S. State Department official who provided the theoretical rationale for the containment theory, laid out the economic motives behind the Cold War in a very illuminating memo in 1948 in which he said, “We have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population…we cannot fail to be the object of envying resentment.

Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.” The U.S. pursued this task. Sometimes that required supporting brutal dictatorships. Sometimes it required supporting democratic regimes. The fight occurred on the cultural as well as the political, ideological, and economic realms.

Henry Luce, the publisher of Time and Life Magazines, said, in 1941, that the 20th century must be the American Century. The U.S. would dominate the world. The U.S. set out to do so. The Soviets, having been invaded twice through Eastern Europe, wanted a buffer zone between themselves and Germany. The U.S. was opposed to such economic and political spheres that limited U.S. economic penetration.

Although the U.S. and the U.S.S.R, never went to war, they fought many dangerous proxy wars. Human beings are lucky to have survived this dismal era.

Edu Montesanti: How do you see US politics towards Cuba since the Cuban Revolution, and towards Latin America in general since the Cold War?

Peter Kuznick: The U.S. completely controlled the Cuban economy and politics from the 1890s until the 1959 revolution. Batista carried water for U.S. investors. The U.S. had intervened repeatedly in Latin American affairs between 1890 and 1933 and then often again in the 1950s. Castro represented the first major break in that cycle.

The U.S. wanted to destroy him and make sure that no one else in Latin America would follow his example. It failed. It didn’t destroy his revolution, but it guaranteed that it would not succeed economically or create the people’s democracy many hoped for.

However, it has succeeded in other ways. And the revolution has survived throughout the Cold War and since. It has inspired other Latin American revolutionaries despite all the U.S.-backed and U.S.-trained death squads that have patrolled the continent, leaving hundreds of thousands of dead in their wake.

The U.S. School for the Americas has been instrumental in training the death squad leaders. Hugo Chavez and others have picked up where Fidel left off in inspiring the Latin American left. But many progressive leaders have been brought down in recent years.

Today Dilma Rouseff is fighting for her life but Evo Morales and Alvaro Garcie Linera in Bolivia are standing proud and standing tall to resist U.S. efforts to again dominate and exploit Latin America. But across Latin America, progressive leaders have either been toppled or are being weakened by scandals. U.S.-backed neoliberals are poised once again to loot local economies in the interest of foreign and domestic capitalists. It is not a pretty picture. The people will suffer immensely while some get rich.

Edu Montesanti: According to your researches, Professor Kuznick, who killed President John Kennedy? What interests were behind that magnicide?

Peter Kuznick: Oliver made a great movie about the Kennedy assassination–JFK. We didn’t feel that we needed to revisit those issues in our books and documentaries. We focused instead on what was lost to humanity when Kennedy was stolen from us. He had grown immensely during his short time in office.

He began as a Cold Warrior. By the end of his life, following the lessons he learned during the first two years of his administration and punctuated by the Cuban Missile Crisis, he wanted desperately to end the Cold War and nuclear arms race. Had he lived, as Robert McNamara stated, the world would have been fundamentally different.

The U.S. would have withdrawn from Vietnam. Military expenditures would have dropped sharply. The U.S. and the Soviets would have explored ways to work together. The arms race would have been transformed into a peace race. But he had his enemies in the military and intelligence communities and in the military sector of the economy.

He was also hated by the Southern segregationists, the Mafia, and the reactionary Cuban exile community. But those behind his assassination would much more likely have come from the military and intelligence wing.

We don’t know who did it, but we know whose interests were advanced by the assassination. Given all the holes in the official story as detailed by the Warren Commission, it is difficult to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and that the magic bullet did all that damage.

Edu Montesanti: Do you think US imperialism against the region today, especially attacks against progressive countries are in essence the same policy during the Cold War?

Peter Kuznick: I don’t think the U.S. wants a new cold war with a real rival that can compete around the globe. As the neocons proclaimed after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. really wants a unipolar world in which there is only one superpower and no rivals.

Progressive countries have fewer major allies today than they had during the Cold War. Russia and China provide some balance to the U.S., but they are not really progressive countries challenging the world capitalist order. They both are beset by their own internal problems and inequalities.

There are few democratic socialist models for the world to follow. The U.S. has managed to subvert and sabotage most of the forward thinking and visionary governments. Hugo, despite all his excesses, was one such role model. He achieved great things for the poor in Venezuela. But if we look at what is happening now in Brazil, Argentina, Honduras, it is a very sad picture.

A new revolutionary wave is needed across the third world with new leaders committed to rooting out corruption and fighting for social justice. I am personally excited by recent developments in Bolivia, despite the results of the latest election.

Edu Montesanti: How do you see the Cold War culture influences US and world society today, Professor Kuznick? What role the Washington regime and the mainstream media play on it?

Peter Kuznick: The media are part of the problem. They have served to obfuscate rather than educate and enlighten. They inculcate the sense that there are dangers and enemies lurking everywhere, but they offer no positive solutions.

As, a result, people are driven by fear and respond irrationally. Former U.S. Vice President Henry Wallace, one of America’s leading visionaries in the 20th century, responded to Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech in 1946 by warning,

“The source of all our mistakes is fear… If these fears continue, the day will come when our sons and grandsons will pay for these fears with rivers of blood… Out of fear great nations have been acting like cornered beasts, thinking only of survival.”

This also operates on the personal level where people will sacrifice their freedoms to achieve greater security. We saw that play out in the U.S. after 9/11. We’re seeing that now in France and Belgium.

The world is moving in the wrong direction. Inequality is growing. The richest 62 people in the world now have more wealth than the poorest 3.6 billion. That is obscene. There is no excuse for poverty and hunger in a world of such abundant resources. In this world, the media serve several purposes, the least of which is to inform the people and arm them with the information they need to change their societies and the world.

The media instead magnify people’s fears so that they will accept authoritarian regimes and militaristic solutions to problems that have no military solutions, provide mindless entertainment to distract people from real problems, and narcotize people into somnambulence and apathy.

This is especially a problem in the United States where many people believe there is a “free” press. Where there is a controlled press, people learn to approach the media with skepticism. Many gullible Americans don’t understand the more subtle forms of manipulation and deception.

In the U.S., the mainstream media rarely offer perspectives that challenge conventional thinking. For example, I’m constantly getting interviewed by leading media outlets in Russia, China, Japan, Europe, and elsewhere, but I’m rarely interviewed by media in the United States.

Nor do my progressive colleagues get invited onto mainstream U.S. shows. So, yes, there is a certain measure of press freedom in the United States, but that freedom is undermined not by the government as much as it is by self-censorship and silencing of progressive voices. Much of the rest of the world is more open to criticizing the U.S. but not as forthright when it comes to criticizing their own governments’ policies.

Edu Montesanti: What could you say about the ideia that the current US “War on Terror” and even “War on Drugs” especially in Latin America are ways the US has found to replace the Cold War, and so expand its military power and world domination?

Peter Kuznick: The U.S. rejects the methods of the old colonial regimes. It has created a new kind of empire undergirded by between 800 and 1,000 overseas military bases from which U.S. special forces operate in more than 130 countries each year.

Instead of invading forces consisting of large land armies, which has proven not to work in country after country, the U.S. operates in more covert and less heavy-handed ways. Obama’s preferred method of killing is by drones.

These are of dubious legality and produce questionable results. They are certainly effective in killing people, but there is lots of evidence to suggest that for every “terrorist” they kill, they create 10 more in his or her place.

The War on Terror that the U.S. and its allies have waged for the past 15 years has only created more terrorists. Military solutions rarely work. Different approaches are needed and they will have to begin with redistribution of the world’s resources in order to make people want to live rather than to kill and die. People need hope.

They need a sense of connection. They need to believe that a better life is possible for them and their children. Too many feel hopeless and alienated. The failure of the Soviet model has produced a vacuum in its place. As Marx warned long ago, Russia was too culturally and economically backward to serve as a model for global socialist development.

The Revolution was challenged from the start by invading capitalist forces. Problems abounded from the beginning. Then Stalinism brought its own spate of horrors. To the extent that the Soviet model became the world standard for revolutionary change, there was little hope for creating a decent world. Nor did the Chinese model provide a better standard.

So some have turned to radical Islam, which brings its own nightmare vision. As progressive governments continue to stumble and fall, U.S. hegemony strengthens. But the U.S. has had little positive to offer the world. Future generations will look back at this Pax Americana not as a period of enlightenment but one of constant war and growing inequality.

Democracy is great in principle but less uplifting in practice. And now with the nuclear threat intensifying and climate change also threatening the future existence of humanity, the future remains uncertain. The U.S. will cling to wars on terror and wars on drugs to maintain the disparities that George Kennan outlined 68 years ago. But that is not the way forward.

The world may look upon U.S. internal politics as a descent into lunacy–an amusing sign of the complete failure of American democracy–but the outsider success of Bernie Sanders and even the anti-establishment revolt among the Republican grassroots shows that Americans are hungry for change. Both Hillary Clinton and the Republican establishment, with their Wall Street ties and militaristic solutions, do not command respect outside of certain limited segments of the population.

They may win now, but their time is limited. People everywhere are desperate for new positive, progressive answers. Some, clearly, as we see now across Europe, will turn to rightwing demagogues in times of crisis, but that is at least in part because the left has failed to provide the leadership the world needs.

A revitalized left is the key to saving this planet. We’re running out of time though. The road ahead will not be easy. But we can and must prevail.

Peter Kuznick, a History Professor and Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University at American University, Washington D.C., with Oliver Stone co-authored the 10 part Showtime documentary film series and book, both titled The Untold History of the United States.  A New Yorker who was active in the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, and remains active in antiwar and nuclear abolition efforts, Professor Kuznick is also author of Beyond the Laboratory: Scientists As Political Activists in 1930s America (University of Chicago Press), co-author with Akira Kimura of Rethinking the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Japanese and American Perspectives(Horitsu Bunkasha, 2010), co-author with Yuki Tanaka of Genpatsu to Hiroshima – Genshiryoku Heiwa Riyo No Shinso [Nuclear Power and Hiroshima: The Truth Behind the Peaceful Use of Nuclear Power (Iwanami, 2011)], and co-editor with James Gilbert of Rethinking Cold War Culture (Smithsonian Institution Press).

Edu Montesanti is author of Lies and Crimes of “War on Terror” (Ed. Scortecci, Brazil, 2012; Mentiras e Crimes da “Guerra ao Terror”, original in Portuguese), and writes forPravda (Russia) 

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

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

This article was published in January 2016, a year before the inauguration of Donald Trump as president of the United States.

Who the US elects is the world’s business, and our people and Parliament have every right to take a stand, argues Salman Shaheen

Everyone knows what Donald Trump thinks about the world. How he wants to build a wall to keep out the Mexicans, who he views largely as drug traffickers and rapists. How he wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US.

Extreme wealth, power and the platform afforded him by the US presidential race have beamed what would otherwise have remained the rantings of a backyard bigot into homes across the globe. Not surprisingly, a lot of people don’t much like what they hear. Moreover, they are terrified that they could be hearing the pronouncements of the soon-to-be most powerful person in the world.

Following Trump’s call to ban Muslims from the US a British petition to ban Trump from our shores swiftly attracted over half a million signatures, becoming the most popular government petition in British history and earning itself a debate in Parliament.

Despite the overwhelming revulsion MPs from across the political spectrum displayed towards Trump’s opinions, there was no vote. Of course, Britain was never actually going to approve a ban on a man with whom it may be forced into a special relationship next year. Nor should it. As a countryman of Trump’s once said, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Freedom of speech is vital. Trump is free to air his racist views and the world is free to call him to account for them.

Many Trump supporters expressed a range of emotions from bafflement to outright hostility when they heard another country’s parliament was debating the idea of banning their chosen rabble-rouser. In supporting last week’s debate on Russia Today, I was subjected to a number of outright racist comments from Trump’s tag-alongs. One said with a name like Salman Shaheen I couldn’t really be British — perhaps I too should release my birth certificate to silence the tin-hat birthers.

Trump himself called the campaign to ban him an “absurd waste of time.” Others said Britain has no right to comment on US internal affairs, that for MPs to pass judgement on what should be the preserve of the US democratic system was “neocolonialist paternalism.”

The debate was not a waste of time. And it is absolutely right that British politicians and people — and indeed people from all over the world — should voice their opinions on Trump. The US is the most powerful nation in the world. Who leads it and what they say and do affects us all.

We might not have a vote in November, but we will be profoundly affected nonetheless. Equally, a US president — especially one who may be prone to insulting half its population even before he’s dropped his first bomb — affects their country’s global standing.

Global opinion of the US fell sharply even among allies as George W Bush lit fires all over the Middle East. In 2000, 78 per cent of Germans held a favourable view of the US according to the Department of State. By Bush’s final year in office in 2008, this had fallen to just 33 per cent. The picture is similar in France, falling from 62 per cent to 42 per cent, and even in Britain it fell from 83 per cent to 53 per cent.

Turkey saw an even more marked decline, down from 52 per cent to 12 per cent, and at the starts of the Iraq war in 2003, only 1 per cent of Jordanians had a positive view of the US. Generally, global opinion of the US improved markedly once Barack Obama took office. It is, therefore, vital that in choosing their next president US voters consider his or her standing on the world stage.

And what is Trump’s standing? Unsurprisingly he has been universally condemned south of the border in Mexico, which, like Britain, is another key US partner. The nation’s newspapers rounded on him and its richest man, Carlos Slim, pulled the plug on a real estate project with Trump on the back of the Republican hopeful’s unflattering appraisal of Slim’s countrymen. In the aftermath, Trump pinatas experienced a surge in popularity.

North of the border, Canadians have been hanging their heads. “How could such a buffoon become the top candidate to lead the party of Lincoln and Eisenhower into the next election for US president?” wrote Marcus Gee of Canada’s Globe and Mail in August, as Trump was surging in the polls.

L Muthoni Wanyeki, Amnesty International’s regional director for East Africa, describes him as “arrogant, crass and uneducated,” decrying his offensive views on immigrants and women and the support he enjoys from white supremacists.

In France he has been likened to former National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen. And French Prime Minister Manuel Valls accused him of stoking hatred after his comments about banning Muslims from the US.

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s comments did little to endear him to Muslim nations. “Hate rhetoric” was how Egypt’s official religious body described Trump’s pronouncement. In Pakistan, another vital US ally, human rights lawyer Asma Jahangir accused him of bigotry and ignorance and said: “Although we are not as advanced as the US, we have never elected such people to power in Pakistan.” Even Benjamin Netanyahu — who has vigorously continued apartheid policies in Israel — condemned Trump’s remarks.

In a year’s time Trump could be the man with his finger on the nuclear button. Trump could have to negotiate an end to the Syrian civil war and a de-escalation of tensions with Russia. Trump could have to oversee the detentes with Cuba and Iran. Trump could have to work towards a lasting and equitable peace between Israel and Palestine. Trump could have to steer the global economy through the turbulent waters of China’s slowing growth. Can he be trusted to do this? At the end of the day, only US voters will decide. But they ignore the world’s opinion at their peril.

Salman Shaheen is editor-in-chief of The World Weekly. He has written for the Guardian, New Statesman and Huffington Post and is a regular commentator on current affairs on television and radio.

When it comes to fundamental Palestinians rights, Netanyahu operates like a tinpot despot.

His hardline coalition partners ruthlessly oppress a long-beleaguered people unaccountably, Gazans suffering most.

Newly enacted Knesset legislation permits withholding millions of dollars of welfare payments made by the PA to families of Palestinian political prisoners and other families of Palestinians killed or wounded by Israeli ruthlessness – funds deducted from taxes Israel collects to pass on to Ramallah.

On Monday, the measure was approved overwhelmingly by an 87 – 15 majority. Knesset members are predominantly hardline, especially relating to Palestinian rights they disdain.

Joint (Arab) List MK Jamal Zahalka called the new bill “despicable,” adding the Knesset is “stealing from the Palestinian people.”

In heated debate, he called co-sponsor of the law Avi Dichter a “terrorist.” Ziofascist Islamophobe best describes him and most other Knesset members – militantly hostile to Palestinian rights.

Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeiheh blasted the new measure, saying

“(w)e condemn the law to offset the prisoners’ benefits. It crosses a red line.”

It’s “a declaration of war on the Palestinian people and a severe blow to the Oslo Accords,” adding “all options are open for the Palestinian leadership, including the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council.”

Israel ignores international law and Security Council resolutions hostile to its interests with impunity – because of full, uncompromising support by Washington, no matter how vile, cruel or lawless its practices.

Over $330 million will be withheld, Palestinian money, not Israel’s. Taking it illegally amounts to grand theft – unrelated to the stated purpose, entirely related to forcing oppressive hardships on the Palestinian people, this action one of many.

PLO executive committee member Hanan Ashwari called the new law “nothing short of highway robbery,” adding:

“This is real piracy. They are stealing Palestinian funds. It’s not theirs to decide what to do with it. If we were free, we wouldn’t need Israel to collect customs.”

Freezing funds effectively steals them.

Israel’s grand theft measure follows harsh Trump regime actions against Palestinians, withholding vitally needed UNWRA funding, the agency providing humanitarian aid to millions of Palestinian refugees – along with freezing US aid to the PA entirely following enactment of so-called Taylor Force legislation.

It calls for withholding aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) unless it meets four unacceptable conditions:

• terminating financial aid to families of Palestinians unjustly called terrorists by Israel;
• revoking laws authorizing the aid;
• taking “credible steps” to end justifiable Palestinian resistance against a ruthless occupier falsely called terrorism; and
• investigating alleged Palestinian violence, publicly condemning it.

The legislation ignored Israeli high crimes of war and against humanity, its daily state terror against millions of defenseless Palestinians, falsely blaming them for Israeli crimes committed against them.

The Trump and Netanyahu regimes partner in waging war on people they want subdued, on fundamental rights they want destroyed, on rule of law principles they ignore, on democratic values they reject, on peace and stability they abhor.

*

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

It all risks becoming pornographic, looped and re-run with an obsessive eye for updates and detail about despair and hope.  The twenty-four hour news cycle tends to encourage this sort of thing, ever desperate for snippets, obsessively chasing the update.  With a soccer team of twelve youths and their coach trapped in Tham Luang Nang Non cave some one kilometre below the surface, the curious, the gormless, and those with an unhealthy interest in the morbid have assumed couch position.

First came the discovery of the team by British divers after the group had gone missing for nine days.  They were found on a ledge inside the Northern Thai cave system.  Divers Rick Stanton and John Volanthen were feted as being among the best in the world, the former having been awarded an MBE for, of all things, services in cave diving.

There was much hooting and tooting in celebration, something prompted by the fact that any hope of finding them alive, according to the governor of Chiang Rai province, was nigh impossible. But the mechanics of extricating the team from the cave started to mount in complexity and desperation, bursting the initial balloon of celebration.

With 2.5 miles of flooded cave between the team and the entrance, a sense of imperilment has grown.  This is compounded by a dreaded risk that adds a televisual ghastliness to the tale: the prospect of more heavy rain on the weekend, something that will foil current efforts to drain the excess water.

A village of international rescue experts including military personnel has grown around the enterprise, not to mention a vast hive of media representatives.  Four questions seem to be doing the rounds: to leave the team in the cave till there is a receding of the water level (dangerous given the monsoon season); pumping out the water to an extent to enable the trapped team to wade out; teaching the youths how so scuba dive, something which would be no mean feat given the length of time it would take for them to journey out of the cave (some five hours) and their status as virginal divers; and finally, drilling into the cave system.

Thai Navy Seals have been deployed, and much help is at hand, but the goriness has not been entirely dissipated.  The Navy Seal Chief Rear Adm. Arpakorn Yoo-kongkaew has been feeding the story to journalists keen to strike the optimistic note.

The Rear Admiral did not disappoint.

“Now we have given food to the boys, starting with food that is easy to digest and provides high energy.”

Thai soccer team gets diving lessons as rescuers prepare for extraction from cave (Source)

He stressed that care has been given to the youths “following the doctor’s recommendation.  So do not worry, we will take care of them with our best.  We will bring all of them with safety.  We are now planning how to do so.”  Such confidence was given a dint with the subsequent death of one of his crew, Samarn Poonan, who perished due to lack of oxygen during a dive.

One similar incident stands out to what is currently unfolding in Thailand: the initial loss, the recovery and sanctifying of the “Los 33”, the Chilean miners who became celebrities of salvation in 2010.  They spent 69 days in the collapsed San Jose mine near Copiapó.  Over time, a process of mythologising began to take place.

It was fame imposed on the ordinary, confected by the mere fact, as important as that fact was, that they had survived.  Like Church miracle artefacts, they were vested with allure, attraction, and sheer pulling power.  They were also there to be exploited, used, and interpreted.  Otherwise, they were uncomplicated creatures of animal and mineral, many of whom believed that God had been the thirty-fourth miner keeping them resolute.

As the rescue effort unfolded, the minor celebrity bandwagon grew.  US radio personality Ryan Seacrest sent prayers and well wishes hoping, rather insipidly, “to see everyone on the surface soon.” The clownish Irish song duo of Jedward sent their own message of tinny idiocy:

“All the miners remember it’s not about mining it’s about finding dinosaurs and dragons.”

The late English presenter Keith Chegwin expressed some mock shame that “Dig Brother” had ended.  “Wonder what Chile 4 will put on now.”

The miners would subsequently add a touch of mysticism to the rescue, essentially sacralising it.  Jorge Galleguillos spoke of seeing “a white species… a butterfly” falling “like a paper” into the mine.  “Faith is nourishment… Faith is life.”  Stories abounded of how medical ailments were healed by prayer.  The drill used to tunnel to the miners was guided, according to miner Ariel Ticona, “by the hand of God”.

The miners became the heralds of a modern success story.  They were invited as guests of honour to Manchester United.  They did the US chat show circuit.  As a statement of pure fantasy, they went to that composite of fantasy, Disneyland. Then, for another sort of miracle dream work, they ventured to the Holy Land.  Expenses were footed.

Amidst the celebratory orgy typical of myth came a few sceptical qualifiers.  The degree of medical danger posed to them, for instance, had been given undue embellishment.  Dr. James Polk, deputy chief medical officer and chief of space medicine at NASA put this down to “not having all the facts, and things that people did not know about the situation”.

The workers were, for instance, trapped at sea level and could hardly have suffered from decompression sickness.  The miners were less confined as was portrayed, able to continue their labours underground.  Nor were they at risk of Vitamin D deficiency.

“Chilean authorities,” according to Polk, “anticipated this, and they gave them a large dose of Vitamin D3 as part of their nutritional supplementation.”

Many of the rescued miners subsequently faced the ruination of imposed fame.  Mario Sepúlveda spoke of “fame but not money. It is the worst possible thing.”  The camera that had given him and his colleagues celebrity had also consumed them.  His world remains one of anti-depressants and a return to mining, where the darkness comforts.

The “Los 33” effect is very much at play regarding this young football team even as the rescue crews are busying themselves on tactics.  The big and the moneyed are seeking their place in the sun, offering advice.  Some are constructive; others are simply sentimental.  Elon Musk, according to a spokesman, has revealed that negotiations are underway on supplying location technology using Space Exploration Technologies Corp. or Boring Co. technology for digging purposes, or providing Tesla Inc. Powerwall battery packs.  But to every little bit of brain storming comes the deadly qualifier: engaging such services as that of Boring Co., with its colossal drills, might simply be too dangerous.

Even now, the young team has drawn on the heartstrings of the football community, encouraging a measure of faith.  Liverpool Football manager Jürgen Klopp, in an official video intended for the youngsters and their coach, spoke of “hoping every second that you see the daylight again.  You’ll never walk alone.” Such language, heartfelt yet tinged with a sense of funereal doom.

*

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

Featured image is from Idaho Statesman.

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. 

*     *     *

UK Mounts Fresh Offensive Against Russia Following Second Alleged Novichok Poisoning

By Chris Marsden, July 06, 2018

Britain’s Conservative government has used a second alleged novichok nerve agent poisoning incident in the Salisbury area of England to launch a fresh provocation against Russia.

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

By Dr. Ludwig Watzal, July 06, 2018

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

Novichok Hoax 2.0?

By Stephen Lendman, July 06, 2018

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

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

The Amesbury Mystery. The “Novichok” Nerve Gas Used against the Skripals is “Extremely Persistent”

By Craig Murray, July 05, 2018

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

Bonus article:

We’re Protesting Trump’s Visit by Flying an Inflatable Trump Baby Over London

By Leo Murray, July 06, 2018

Theresa May practically fell over herself to invite the orange sex pest here, despite nearly two million people signing a petition asking her not to. And that was before he started snatching babies from their parents at the border and locking them in cages. Any ‘special relationship’ May tries to sign us up for with the Trump regime is obviously going to be an abusive one.

Britain’s Conservative government has used a second alleged novichok nerve agent poisoning incident in the Salisbury area of England to launch a fresh provocation against Russia.

Based solely on previous and unproven accusations that the Putin regime was responsible for the attempted assassination of double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Julia, Moscow is now accused of responsibility for a “collateral damage” incident that has left two British citizens in a reportedly critical condition.

The circumstances surrounding the latest accusations are as dubious and baseless as those initially made regarding the March 4 incident, which led to a global diplomatic rupture as Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson secured the agreement of the US and other allies to expel more than 100 Russian diplomats.

UK Security Minister Ben Wallace yesterday identified Russia with the poisoning of Dawn Sturgess, 44, from Salisbury, and Charlie Rowley, 45, from Amesbury—located just seven miles away.

“The working assumption would be these are victims of the consequences of the previous attack or something else but not that they were directly targeted,” he told the BBC.

Wallace spoke less than 24 hours after Neil Basu, Britain’s top counter-terrorism officer, told the media that scientists at the Porton Down chemical weapons facility had supposedly identified novichok exposure as the reason for the couple’s collapse.

Later, Home Secretary Sajid Javid, after chairing a meeting of the government’s emergency Cobra committee, told parliament that the UK “will be consulting with our international partners and allies following these latest developments.”

“The eyes of the world are currently on Russia, not least because of the World Cup. … It is now time that the Russian state comes forward and explains exactly what has gone on.”

It is the UK government who should properly be asked to explain what is going on. The timeline of events leading up to these latest accusations is extraordinary.

The first time the alleged poisoning in Wiltshire came to national attention was Wednesday morning, July 4, as police said that they were now questioning their earlier hypothesis that the two had been made ill by contaminated heroin or crack cocaine and were seeking the assistance of Porton Down. Novichok was confirmed as the apparent cause later that evening.

The two supposed victims fell ill on Saturday, June 30—with Sturgess taken to hospital after 11:00 a.m. and Rowley at 6:30 p.m. To believe official accounts of the extraordinary delay requires accepting that Rowley being a registered heroin addict and Sturgess a drug user created such confusion that no police officer considered the possibility of a connection to the Skripal affair. This is despite the two being found at an address just seven miles from Salisbury and reportedly showing symptoms very similar to the Skripals.

Only yesterday did reports finally appear supposedly explaining how the two had possibly been exposed to novichok—miraculously overlooked by a clean-up operation involving hundreds of police officers and others costing over £10 million.

British officials previously said that the novichok agent used on the Skripals had not proved lethal because it was delivered as a gel smeared on a door-handle and would have by now been rendered completely ineffective by being broken down by water and evaporation.

To account for a nerve agent used four months ago still having such a devastating effect, it is suggested that Rowley was visiting Sturgess, who became homeless and lives in the John Baker House hostel in Salisbury, when they found and for some reason picked up an undiscovered syringe containing the novichok used against the Skripals while visiting the Queen Elizabeth Gardens park, near where the Russians were found slumped on a bench.

Chemical weapons expert Richard Guthrie had told BBC Breakfast that if the couple had come across novichok in a syringe “or pot,” it might have been better preserved. Chemical weapons expert Hamish de Bretton-Gordon told the MailOnline that novichok could survive for “months or longer” inside a syringe.

The Guardian focused on revising the previous account of novichok’s properties, citing Alastair Hay, an environmental toxicologist at the University of Leeds, asserting,

“How long they [novichoks] take to degrade is certainly not data that is publicly available, but from discussions with people at Porton Down, I understand they are slow to degrade.”

The latest account relies solely on the testimony of Sam Hobson, a friend who accompanied Rowley and Sturgess throughout that day and said Sturgess began feeling ill after “touching an item” in Queen Elizabeth Gardens.

After Sturgess was taken to hospital, Rowley apparently spent the day picking up his prescription from Boots, visiting a hog-roast with Hobson and then buying red, white and blue hair dye in preparation for upcoming England’s match against Colombia in the World Cup. He fell ill only after returning home to Muggleton Road, run by a housing association.

The claim that the police only considered the involvement of chemical weapons later is belied by eye-witnesses, who report that paramedics who came to pick up Rowley were wearing hazmat suits.

Neighbour Amy Ireland told the Daily Mail that the estate was packed with firemen, police and paramedics on Saturday.

“Cordons were set up and people were being moved back. … People thought it was a gas leak at first.”

Another neighbour told the Daily Mirror that

“we were all told to stay in our homes.”

Chloe Edwards, a 17-year-old college student who lives opposite Rowley’s flat, said,

“There were ambulances, fire engines, lorries, and the people that got out were wearing yellow and green suits.”

She also told the Independent that firefighters had connected a hosepipe to the water mains, which the newspaper notes is

“a procedure that is commonly used for decontamination. A specialist ‘decontamination shower’ was taken to the scene by Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Service on Saturday, but a crew from Swindon later tweeted that ‘thankfully the incident wasn’t serious and our decontamination shower wasn’t required’. The tweet has since been deleted.”

All of this was kept secret for days. And nothing that has since been reported can be taken at face value, given the long record of lies surrounding the Skripal affair. One needs only recall the initial presentation of Sergei Skripal as being long retired, before former British Ambassador Craig Murray revealed in May that D-Notices had been issued to the media to prevent reporting on Skripal’s MI6 handler, Pablo Miller.

Murray is now questioning the account of Rowley and Sturgess as homeless, unemployed addicts and asking whether Pablo Miller “knows Rowley and Sturgess, living in the same community?”

What is certain is that the UK government has every reason to put a fire under its fast-fading and discredited Skripal provocation. Javid’s citing of the World Cup indicates the degree to which the Tories have been embarrassed by the tournament’s success. With all the main parties, including Labour, and the Royal family boycotting proceedings, the government now faces the prospect of England in the quarter finals and possibly even playing Russia in the semi-finals, with no official presence.

More serious still are the growing concerns that President Donald Trump will seek a new modus vivendi with President Vladimir Putin at a summit meeting scheduled for July 16 in Helsinki, Finland, just one day after his long-delayed trip to the UK and a week after July 11-12 NATO summit to discuss reinforcing the military alliance’s eastern operations on the Russian border.

Two days before the events in Wiltshire, on June 28, the Guardian ’s diplomatic editor, Patrick Wintour, wrote,

“The UK, through choice and circumstance, has been the western power most hostile to Putin, and now risks finding its position badly undercut…the fear is that the Trump-Putin summit will echo his summit with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. Will he make an impulsive gesture that blindsides Europe, or will he be impatient at the Nato and May meetings, just as he was at the G7 ahead of his bilateral with Kim?”

We all have the odd laugh-or-cry moment, and nations are no exception. Trump’s visit to the UK this month is just such a moment.

Theresa May practically fell over herself to invite the orange sex pest here, despite nearly two million people signing a petition asking her not to. And that was before he started snatching babies from their parents at the border and locking them in cages. Any ‘special relationship’ May tries to sign us up for with the Trump regime is obviously going to be an abusive one.

I’ve heard plenty of establishment opining that protocol demands Britain keeps things civil with Trump; ‘respect the office, if not the man’, the argument goes. But being rude to Trump is respecting the office of US president, which he brings deeper into disrepute with each passing day. In case nobody has noticed, normal diplomatic protocol has been suspended. Diplomacy under Trump now literally consists of him flicking sweets at Angela Merkel during G7 meetings.

So it’s on everyone who knows the difference between right and wrong to resist this grotesque excuse for a president when he comes here. He needs to be run out of town, figuratively at least. But how? This is a man who lacks the capacity for moral shame. Liberal outrage just makes him smirk harder.

To really get through to Trump, you have to get down on his level and talk to him in a language he understands: personal insults.

That’s why my friends and I have made a six-metre-high, orange, inflatable baby with tiny hands and a malevolent, constipated expression on his face, which we intend to fly over Parliament during the president’s visit on July 13th.

Ridiculing tyrants and despots is a proud British tradition, so we can think of this as the whistling ‘Hitler has only got one ball’ of our times. If this generation is going to have to fight fascism again, we may as well have a bit of a laugh while we are doing it.

This point is key. The day Donald Trump won the US presidential election, I found myself gripped by a profound sense of dread. It was a feeling that I had not experienced since I first got to grips with the looming threat of catastrophic climate change, the issue I now work on every day.

But my rising panic over Trump’s election wasn’t about climate change exactly. It was about a crushing sense of my own powerlessness to prevent terrible, unconscionable things happening to vulnerable people on an enormous scale. For me, in the face of a humanitarian disaster like climate change or Donald Trump, it really is a case of having to laugh, or cry. So I choose laughter.

To begin with, officials in the London Mayor’s office were not super pumped about our application to fly an unflattering effigy of the US president over Parliament on 13th July, telling us that Trump Baby was “art” and inflatables did not qualify as legitimate protest.

But there was nothing in the rules about not flying inflatables, and all our paperwork was in order. We began to wonder if this might not be an important test of the health and vitality of our democracy.

So we started a petition to the Mayor to let Trump Baby fly – and the great British public did not disappoint. In under three weeks the petition has been signed by over 10,000 people, while our crowdfunder to cover the costs of the protest smashed its initial target in 48 hours, with money pouring in from every corner of Britain and beyond. Trump Baby seems to have captured the mood of the moment.

It is therefore an honour and a privilege to be able to today confirm – Trump Baby will fly!

City Hall has granted us consent for Trump Baby to make a majestic two hour flight over the seat of Britain’s democracy, between 9.30 and 11.30am on Friday the 13th July. His flight will be a beacon of light in a dark time, a historic national gesture of defiance against the rise of Trump’s barbarous and hateful politics, and a welcome reminder that parts at least of Britain’s democracy are still working how they are supposed to.

But the story doesn’t end there. Our crowdfunder has already raised £15,000 – three times the amount we set out to spend humiliating Trump on his visit to the UK. So, thanks to everyone’s ridiculous generosity and enthusiasm for the project – Trump Baby is going on world tour!

After Trump Baby’s UK debut, we plan to draw up an itinerary of Trump’s scheduled diplomatic visits over the next 12 months, and reach out to local activist groups around the world who want to help.

The crowdfunder will keep rolling, and as long as people keep giving, Trump Baby will keep popping up in the skies above little Donald wherever he goes, an unmistakable reminder of how the rest of the world really sees this unsavoury stain on the office of US president. Great work team!

*

Featured image is from londonist.com.

The new U.S. leadership is resorting to every ploys and lies to demonize Iran. The new project of Iranophobia has intensified since Pompeo confirmed as secretary of state in late April. He seems to be superseding in animosity against Iran in comparison to John Bolton, the national security advisor to Trump.

Pompeo’s degree of hatred toward Iran was fully laid bare during his speech at the Heritage Foundation on May 21 in Washington.

It is quite clear to the entire world that it is Saudi Arabia and the UAE – the United States’ close friends – which have created human tragedy in Yemen by strangulating and starving millions of people in the poor Arab country. Maybe it is the easiest way to blame Iran for what Washington’s friends have been doing.

How can Iran, even if it wanted, to help Yemeni rebels while the country is besieged by the Saudi-led alliance. Attempts to link the miseries of the Yemenis to Iran can never hide the crimes being committed by the Saudi-led coalition.

In addition to efforts to demonize Iran, Pompeo probably wants to facilitate and justify the sale of more arms to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Pompeo’s boss, Donald Trump, who has a covetous eye on the immense wealth of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, should be happy with the war on Yemen because he wants to sell more and more “beautiful” weapons to these two wealthy states in order to say that he is creating jobs in the United States.

However, Pompeo and other hawks in the U.S. cannot fool the public opinion about the realities of the Yemen war. The people around the world know that it was Saudi Arabia that started the war against Yemen in March 2015 and it is Saudi Arabia along with it coalition partners which erroneously think that they should pound Yemen until it surrenders.

If the U.S. had been really concerned about the sufferings of the Yemenis it would have put pressure on Saudi Arabia to end the war. The irony is that the U.S. itself is an accomplice in this tragedy. It not only sells arms to Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners, it also shares intelligence with them and refuels their fighter jets in mid-air.

Pompeo also claimed that Iran’s support for Houthis has enabled Yemen to launch attacks on Saudi Arabia and the UAE. This statement shows the Saudi-led coalition, despite support by the U.S., has not only failed to defeat Yemenis it has also made them more resilient and stronger.

History is a great lesson. If the United States, along with a support by NATO, after 17 years had succeeded to bring the Taliban to its knees in Afghanistan then it could have been imagined that the Saudi-led coalition may one day win over the Yemenis. Now it is the U.S. which is begging talks with the Taliban but the Taliban reject it.

People familiar with the Yemeni society say that the people in this poor country are even more battle-hardened than Afghans who fought the Soviets in the 1980s and finally made the Soviets to leave the country in disgrace.

In the light of these facts vicious attempts by Pompeo to fault Iran for the human tragedy in Yemen are flawed, lamentable and also laughable.

*

Featured image is from the author.

Faced with the return of U.S. sanctions, Iran is studying a revival of a plan to barter crude oil for goods, possibly resuming the scheme that it used to try to blunt the impact of the previous round of sanctions between 2012 and 2016.

Unable to bring in U.S. dollars and euros ahead of the new U.S. sanctions that kick in in early November, Iran is open to accepting agricultural products and medical equipment in exchange for its crude oil, Iranian Labor News Agency (ILNA) quoted the spokesman of the Parliament’s energy committee, Asadollah Gharekhani, as saying.

According to Gharekhani, Iran will only trade with countries that buy its oil.

Considering that the U.S. is pushing for “zero” Iranian oil exports and is pressing other countries to stop importing Iran’s oil, Tehran may not have many countries left to trade with.

“We have informed our oil customers that we will only buy their commodities if they buy our crude,” Gharekhani said.

In the previous sanctions on Iran between 2012 and early 2016, when Europe also imposed sanctions alongside the U.S. to punish Iran for its nuclear program, Tehran resorted to barter and was offering gold bullions in vaults overseas or crude oil in exchange for food. Back then, the sanctions severely limited Iran’s ability to pay for imports of basic goods, which led to a spike in food prices. Those sanctions were not banning companies from selling food to Iran, but the transactions with banks were very difficult.

This time around, the U.S. sanctions and the tough U.S. approach to try to cut off as many Iranian oil barrels as possible have spooked banks, insurers, and shippers, who have started to wind down business with Iran for fear of coming under secondary sanctions.

In June, Iran’s crude oil exports stood at 2.280 million bpd, and condensate exports were 330,000 bpd, Iran’s oil ministry news service Shana reported earlier this week. Those levels are lower than the record-high in April and the still-high exports in May—the month in which U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal and announced fresh sanctions on Iran.

Just after President Trump’s announcement, oil prices jumped, and analysts started to guesstimate how much Iranian oil barrels could be taken off the market by the end of this year. Few thought it would be 1 million bpd or more.

But the tough U.S. stance on Iranian oil exports over the past two weeks has had even India—Iran’s second-largest oil customer after China—preparing for a drastic reduction of oil imports from Iran, as its companies and the sovereign are reportedly worried that they would lose access to the U.S. banking system if they continue to import Iranian oil.

According to Bank of America Merrill Lynch, oil prices will hit $90 a barrel by the second quarter of 2019, as Iranian oil barrels are removed from the market and other supply disruption risks threaten the tightening oil market.

Morgan Stanley thinks that oil prices will jump to $85 a barrel as early as the second half of this year, because of the U.S. push to remove as much Iranian oil from the market as possible. Morgan Stanley expects that Brent Crude will average $85 a barrel over the next six months—$7.50 higher than its previous estimate. Early on Thursday, Brent Crude was down 0.5 percent at $77.77.

Before lifting its oil price forecast this week, Morgan Stanley had expected that Iran would lose 700,000 bpd in oil exports through 2019 from the sanctions. But the tougher U.S. approach now makes the bank’s analysts think that Iran’s exports to Europe, Japan, and South Korea—a total of 1 million bpd—would “fall to minimal levels.”

“Over the course of last week, downside risk to future Iranian oil supply has increased rapidly,” Martijn Rats, global oil strategist and head of the bank’s European oil and gas equity research, told CNBC.

*

Featured image is from the author.

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

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

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

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

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

The government press release begins with some facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published on Reader Supported News.

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

Featured image is from Blasting News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from Sky News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: NATO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Featured image is from PRP Channel.

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

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

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

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

Here are some screaming finger-pointing headlined reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RT reported Twitter awash with Russia conspiracy rubbish, adding:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chances of Russian responsibility earlier and now are virtually nil!

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manlio Dinucci

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from OTA Photos/Flickr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Dr. Giraldi is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump declared:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L’homme est une contradiction ambulate …

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bypassing the Fed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Growing Support for Public Banks

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a statement following his appointment, Shany said that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research. Email: [email protected]

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

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

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

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

Here is a news report from RT.

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

Elections in Tehran

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

Image on the right: Azadi Tower, Tehran

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

Naqsh-e Jahan Square (Imam Square), Isfahan

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

All images in this article are from the author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: PandoraTV

*

This article was originally published in Italian by Il Manifesto.

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

Author’s Introductory Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBC 1996 News documentary: HAARP – US military weather weapon

Michel Chossudovsky, May 18  2015

The Ultimate Weapon of Mass Destruction:

“Owning the Weather” for Military Use

 by Michel Chossudovsky

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

Weather Warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climatic Manipulation by the US Military: The HAARP Program

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

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

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

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

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

World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as

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

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

He and others fear a secret second stage where HAARP would

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

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

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

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

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

Weather Warfare: A Corporate Bonanza

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eastlund described this deadly technology as capable of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Owning the Weather”: Towards the Expanded Final Stage

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

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

• Developmental Prototype (DP) (See  http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/dp.html )
• Filled DP (FDP),
• Limited IRI (LIRI)
• Full size or final IRI (FIRI). See http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/fdp.html

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

(See Figure 1 below)

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

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

“the largest ionospheric heater ever built”.

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

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

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

(quoted in Scott Gilbert, op cit) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Figure 1:

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

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

Image 1: Aerial Photo of the HAARP Alaska Site

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

Image 2: HAARP Antenna Array

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

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

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

Image 3 Transmitter Shelter. [no longer available ]

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

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

Image 4: Inside the Transmitter Shelter

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

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

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

Testing of HAARP Equipment (2003- 2004)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 2: Comparison of IRI Phases

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

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

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

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

Weather Warfare against “Rogue States”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Annex 

Country Case Studies:

Unusual Weather Occurrences 

Note:

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

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

North Korea (1995-1999)

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

The first major flooding occurred in 1995.

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

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

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

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

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

Cuba (1998-2004)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Afghanistan and The former Soviet Republics of Central Asia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The Guardian, 0ct 30, 2001,

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

Iraq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 3 de Julho de 2018

Tradução :Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

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

By Peter Ford, July 04, 2018

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

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

By Whitney Webb, July 04, 2018

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

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

By Israel Shamir, July 04, 2018

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

The Battle for Iran: Policy or Regime Change?

By James M. Dorsey, July 04, 2018

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

Feeding the Monster: Washington’s Spinelessness Enables Israeli Brutality

By Philip Giraldi, July 04, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conditioning Western opinion for the next aggression

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pentagon acting as Al Qaida air wing

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

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

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

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

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

Siege warfare is not the unique vice of the Syrian government

Enough praise for the Commission. Now for some caveats

I quote:

‘we visited 44 sites and interviewed 112 civilian residents’

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

‘we found no information indicating that fighters were present’   

‘they used unguided mortars and unguided artillery’

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

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

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

Horrendous, yes? Shocking, yes?

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

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

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

Crimes of aggression

Other issues are also ignored.

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

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

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

Other acts of illegality are ignored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forced displacement

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

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

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

Two possible futures for Syria

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

There are basically two possible futures for Syria.

Spoiler strategy of the West

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

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

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

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

Use sanctions to keep the Syrian economy weak

Prevent international aid for reconstruction from reaching Syria

Keep Syria depopulated by discouraging return of refugees to Syria

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

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

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

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

A military solution

The second future is this:

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

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

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

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

Western powers, get used to it.

Stop trying to delay the inevitable and prolonging the agony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US Senator Lindsey Graham in a visit to the SDF-held Minbej#SDF #Minbej #Syria #USA
#LindseyGraham pic.twitter.com/nL42linAka

— Hussein Akoush (@HuSiNAk94) July 2, 2018

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

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

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

Graham walking a new fine line

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

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

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

*

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

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Syria Deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The second is the fate of the rebels.

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

Q- Please go ahead!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: What about future prospects?

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

*

Translated by Suchandra De Sarkar

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

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

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

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

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

We assured them that some Americans were, in fact, very worried about Trump, and a solid majority disapproved of him and his policies. I told the tour guide that as a columnist I had been comparing Trump with Benito Mussolini since the early days of his presidential campaign. Still, we conceded that for the most part, whether out of ignorance, timidity or a naive belief in the myth of exceptionalism, Americans were reluctant to consider whether their head of state actually is a fascist.

No more.

The issue of Trump’s fascism has finally reached center stage in the U.S., sparked by the administration’s shameful treatment of Central American refugees and its Gestapo-like “zero tolerance” policy on unauthorized border crossings.

On June 17, protesters at a Mexican restaurant in Washington, D.C., heckled White House aide Stephen Miller, widely credited as the principal architect of Trump’s immigration crackdown, as a fascist. Two days later, another group hurled similar epithets at Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, who like Miller had cluelessly chosen to dine Mexican.

Even liberal media pundits are throwing down the “F” word. Michelle Goldberg, for example, referred to “Trump’s fascist instincts” in her June 21 New York Times column on the separation of immigrant families.

In a June 24 op-ed for the Duluth News, iconoclastic writer and entrepreneur John Freivalds, who was born in Latvia and now lives in Minnesota, went further, charging,

“[I]n every dictionary definition I have come across, the president is a fascist. This label is not so much a pejorative as a fact.”

It doesn’t get much more heartland than the Duluth News.

Not everyone agrees with Goldberg and Freivalds, of course. Trump’s approval rating among Republicans stands at 87 percent. By and large, Republicans still see him as a champion of grass-roots democracy and an antidote to predatory corporate globalism.

Ironically, the president also has a small number of occasional defenders on the progressive left, who continue to view him, as some did during the campaign, as more likely to steer the world away from nuclear Armageddon than his defeated Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

Because of the gravity of the issue, debates about Trump’s fascism invariably devolve into heated emotional affairs, cleaved along racial and politically tribal lines. You’re either a patriot and support Trump’s promise to “make America great again” or you’re the opposite for failing to condemn him.

It may be impossible to set emotions aside entirely, but it’s not impossible to arrive at the truth, or at least to search for it through honest discourse. Although fascism, historically, is a complex ideology, it is as real today as a mass movement and a theory of governance as it was when Mussolini popularized the term in 1919.

Any rational discussion has to begin with a definition, and when it comes to fascism, there are many to examine. Among the most instructive is the one proffered by political scientist Robert Paxton in his classic study “The Anatomy of Fascism” (Harvard University Press, 2004):

“Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

Drawing on the work of Italian novelist and professor Umberto Eco, Cameron Climie, a Canadian economist, listed 14 fluid characteristics of fascism in an essay published last year by the website Medium.com. They are:

• A cult of traditionalism.
• A rejection of modernism (cultural, rather than technological).
• A cult of action for its own sake and a distrust of intellectualism.
• A framing of disagreement or opposition as treasonous.
• A fear of difference.  … Fascism is racist by definition.
• An appeal to a frustrated middle class—either due to economic or political pressures from both above and below.
• An obsession with the plots and machinations of the movement’s identified enemies.
• A requirement that said enemies be simultaneously seen as omnipotent and weak, conniving and cowardly.
• A rejection of pacifism. Life is permanent warfare.
• Contempt for weakness.
• A cult of heroism.
• Hypermasculinity.
• A selective populism, relying on chauvinist definitions of “the people” that it claims to speak for.
• A heavy usage of Newspeak—impoverished vocabulary, elementary syntax and a resistance to complex and critical reasoning.

Reasonable minds can differ about whether Trump, now in the middle of the second year of his presidency, is a full-blown fascist or, to be more precise, moving in a fascist direction.

In a May 2017 article in Harper’s Magazine, Paxton contended that Trump had even by then displayed numerous “fascist staples,” such as his “deploring national decline, which he blames on foreigners and despised minorities; disdaining legal norms; condoning violence against dissenters; and rejecting anything that smacks of internationalism, whether it be trade, institutions, or existing treaties.” Nonetheless, he concluded that Trump’s pursuit of “unchecked executive power indicates generic dictatorship” and “plutocracy” rather than fascism in particular.

Perhaps the best way of understanding Trump’s fascism is as a work in progress, or a form of “pre-fascism.” As journalist Fintan O’Toole asserted last week in an Irish Times column:

To grasp what is going on in the world right now, we need to reflect on two things. One is that we are in a phase of trial runs. The other is that what is being trialed is fascism—a word that should be used carefully but not shirked when it is so clearly on the horizon. Forget “post-fascist”—what we are living with is pre-fascism.

It is easy to dismiss Donald Trump as an ignoramus, not least because he is. But he has an acute understanding of one thing: test marketing. …

Fascism doesn’t arise suddenly in an existing democracy. It is not easy to get people to give up their ideas of freedom and civility. You have to do trial runs that, if they are done well, serve two purposes. They get people used to something they may initially recoil from; and they allow you to refine and calibrate. This is what is happening now and we would be fools not to see it.

I couldn’t agree more. It’s time to start talking about Trump’s fascism, and holding him fully accountable under that rubric.

*

Bill Blum is a former judge and death penalty defense attorney. He is the author of three legal thrillers published by Penguin/Putnam (“Prejudicial Error,” “The Last Appeal” and “The Face of Justice”) and is a contributing writer for California Lawyer magazine. His nonfiction work has appeared in such publications as Crawdaddy magazine, In These Times, The Nation, The Progressive, the ABA Journal, the Orange County Register, the San Jose Mercury News, the Los Angeles Times, LA Weekly and Los Angeles magazine.

Just as the World Cup had forced the British media to grudgingly acknowledge the obvious truth that Russia is an extremely interesting country inhabited, like everywhere else, by mostly pleasant and attractive people, we have a screaming reprise of the “Salisbury incident” dominating the British media. Two people have been taken ill in Amesbury from an unknown substance, which might yet be a contaminated recreational drug, but could conceivably be from contact with the substance allegedly used on the Skripals, presumably some of which was somewhere indoors all this time as we were told it could be washed away and neutralised by water.

Amesbury is not Salisbury – it is 10 miles away. Interestingly enough Porton Down is between Amesbury and Salisbury. Just three miles away from Muggleton Road, Amesbury. The news reports are not mentioning that much.

“I am all out of ideas Inspector. What can possibly be the source of these mysterious poisonings?”

Neither Porton Down nor the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has any idea where the substance to which the Skripals were allegedly exposed was made. Boris Johnson’s great “coup” of obtaining a majority vote at the OPCW to expand its powers to place blame for chemical attacks, has proven rather otiose as the OPCW has no evidence on which to base any blame for Salisbury. In fact, four months on, May and Johnson’s shrill blaming of Russia remains entirely, 100% evidence free.

I do however wish to congratulate the neo-con warmongers of the Guardian newspaper for verbal dexterity. They have come up with a new formulation to replace the hackneyed “Of a type developed by Russia”, to point the finger for a substance that could have been made by dozens of state or non state parties. The Guardian today came up with “Russian-created novichok”. This cleverly employs a word that can encompass “developed” while also appearing to say “made”. It also again makes out that novichok is a specific substance rather than a very broad class of substances. The Guardian’s Steven Morris, by this brilliant attempt deliberately to mislead his readers, runs away with this week’s award for lying neo-con media whore of the week. His achievement is particularly good as the rest of his report is largely a simple copy and paste from the Press Association.

I most certainly hope that the couple in Salisbury hospital recover from whatever is afflicting them. The media is, by making this the lead story on all broadcast news after last night’s football, inviting us to make the connection to the Skripals. In which case I assume the couple were perfectly well for five hours after contact, able to be very active and even to eat and drink heavily, before being mysteriously instantly disabled at the same time despite different ages, sexes, weights, and metabolisms and random uncontrolled dosages.

Replicating that would be quite a feat.

The term affirmative action was first included in the 1935 National Labor Relations Act – landmark New Deal legislation, letting organized labor bargain with management on a level playing field more than ever before.

It was the high water mark of labor/management relations, letting workers unionize, protecting them from discrimination on the job, Blacks and Latinos not protected by union bosses.

Legislative benefits gained were short-lived. Union bosses collude with management for their own self-interest. Workers are largely powerless, unsupported by Republicans, undemocratic Dems, and their leadership.

Nearly straightaway in office (March 1961), Jack Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925.

It required government contractors to “consider and recommend additional affirmative steps which should be taken by executive departments and agencies to realize more fully the national policy of nondiscrimination.”

“The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”

The EO established the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (PCEEO).

Government contractors failing to comply with the EO risked loss of government business. Kennedy’s order didn’t require preferential treatment for minorities.

It “advocat(ed) racially neutral hiring to end job discrimination.” In December 1961, a separate Commission on the Status of Women was established – charged with “examining employment policies and practices of the government and of contractors” with regard to gender.

In June 1963, Kennedy’s EO 11114 declared it was the “policy of the United States to encourage by affirmative action the elimination of discrimination in employment.”

The landmark 1954 Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education held that “separate educational facilities (are) inherently unequal” and unconstitutional.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination against students and college applicants on the basis of race or gender.

Affirmative action policies adopted by many US colleges and universities give special consideration to racial minorities, women, and other discriminated against groups.

In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action, ruling race to be a legitimate college admissions policy – excluding racial quotas it called unlawful.

In Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan’s Law School affirmative action admissions policy.

In Fisher v. University of Texas (2016), the High Court preserved the constitutionality of race-based admissions.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy highlighted the importance of “student body diversity,” calling it “central to its identity and educational mission.”

Despite the above High Court rulings, at least 10 states limit or banned affirmative action as a factor in college or university admissions.

On July 3, the Trump regime ordered the practice abandoned, a joint Education and Justice Department letter, banning “advocate policy preferences and positions beyond the requirements of the Constitution.”

The White House turned truth on its head, claiming affirmative action practices for college and university admissions creates discrimination.

Some background to Tuesday’s action. In August 2017, Trump’s Justice Department “challenge(d) (affirmative action practices) colleges and universities have undertaken to expand educational opportunity,” calling them “an affront to our values as a country.”

The DOJ began “investigating and suing universities over affirmative action admissions policies deemed to discriminate against white applicants.”

At the time, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights head Vanita Gupta issued a statement, saying

“(l)ongstanding Supreme Court precedent has upheld the constitutionality and compelling state interest of (affirmative action) policies, and generations of Americans have benefited from richer, more inclusive institutions of higher education.”

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law executive director Kristen Clarke said the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division was “created and launched to deal with the unique problem of discrimination faced by our nation’s most oppressed minority groups.”

The US Commission on Civil Rights accused Trump’s Justice Department and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos with “repeated refusal” to enforce federal civil rights, calling their actions “particularly troubling.”

Republican and undemocratic Dem governance serves privileged interests in America exclusively.

Trump’s domestic and geopolitical agenda exceeds the extremism of his predecessors – on the wrong side of virtually everything important to ordinary Americans.

*

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

When news reports first began to emerge that 81 of the migrant children recently separated from their parents had been sent into the care of one of the largest adoption agencies in the country, the response was swift alarm. Was the government planning on creating “social orphans” out of the children, then offering them up for adoption?

Horrified observers had already drawn parallels between the separation crisis and the blatantly assimilationist treatment of Native American children, starting with their mass removal to boarding schools in the late 19th Century and continuing through the Indian Adoption Project, which from the late 1950s to early 1970s removed 25 to 35 percent of all Native American children from their families. Or how U.S. slavery systematically broke apart families, selling children away from their parents. A number pointed out that the forcible transfer of children from one group of people to another fits the United Nations definition of genocide.

To adoption reform advocates, who monitor unethical and abusive practices in child welfare, it looked like any number of adoption crises in the past, like the airlifts out of Haiti in the wake of its cataclysmic 2010 earthquake. Then, masses of unaccompanied children were suddenly labeled orphans and became the focus of a deafening campaign in the U.S. to rescue them through inter-country adoption, even as Haitian adults were being warned not to try to come themselves.

Fears of a new adoption rush in today’s border crisis weren’t groundless. There was reason to be concerned. The former head of U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement under President Barack Obama warned that some of the children who’d recently been separated would remain separated “permanently” and potentially be adopted. Reports surfaced of mothers who were told that their children would be adopted as an incentive to “behave.” On Tuesday night, the Daily Beast reported that the threat of adoption has become weaponized, as a Guatemalan mother detained by Customs and Border Protection earlier this month was allegedly presented with the ultimatum that if she didn’t abandon her asylum appeal, she would be jailed for a year and her daughter put up for adoption. And conservative figures deeply hostile to immigrant families, like Fox News provocateur Laura Ingraham, herself an adoptive mother, toggled between mocking the detention of children as akin to “summer camp” and calling to “make adoption easier for American couples who want to adopt these kids.”

What policies and laws might apply to the children was so unclear that even many child welfare experts and former officials weren’t sure how to think about the threat. When migrant parents were taken into ICE custody at the border, their children became wards of Health and Human Services, specifically its Office of Refugee Resettlement, which facilitates the care of “unaccompanied alien children.” Although they’d arrived with parents, upon separation, the children had been officially transformed into unaccompanied minors with immigration cases distinct from the adults they’d arrived with. And it was already becoming clear that, despite its protestations to the contrary, the government had no real plan for bringing them back together.

Children, including infants, began arriving at care facilities around the country, sometimes in the dead of night, sometimes without being told where they were going, sometimes without paperwork noting their parents’ detention locations or even their names.

“Thus far, we’ve seen no evidence that any system has been put in place by the government to ensure these families are communicating or connecting,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, on a recent media call. “Some of us have been trying to reconnect the children, but it’s incredibly hard.” Young added, “It feels like our legal aid staff have become private investigators, working from what you have — a name, a birthday, an ‘A’ number” — an alien registration number.

Sometimes authorities claim they don’t have any information either: On a form filled out by a detained parent requesting a phone number to reach her daughter, an ICE official responded tersely, “I do not have this information.”

It was a system that Suzan Song, head of George Washington University’s child and family psychiatry division and a former humanitarian protection adviser for youth and families of forced migration with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said was more poorly organized than the process for reuniting refugee children who’d fled Syria.

“With this policy, the focus is really on the separation part,” said Song, “and it seems there’s very little planning or foresight about the complex processes for family tracing and reunification that has to happen.”

Part of the context for the advocates’ alarm over adoption is that international adoption as an industry has been in free fall for the last decade. Country after country has suspended or shrunk its adoption program, leaving a greatly reduced supply to meet a U.S. demand for adoptable children that hasn’t waned. At its peak in 2004, some 23,000 children were sent from abroad to the U.S. to be adopted, including thousands from Guatemala, the home country of many of today’s detained migrants.

International adoptions finally slowed down amid a pattern that replicated itself, country by country, of adoption booms, followed by ethical scandals, then the closure of that nation’s international adoption program. The scandals were as diverse as the countries supplying the children: coercion or baby buying in Vietnam; recruitment from poor, rural families in Ethiopia; even cases of outright kidnapping in Guatemala. The adoption programs of several frequent source countries were suspended over ethical concerns, in addition to other factors like the solidifying middle class in China, which provided stability and its own domestic adoption market, and political retaliation from Russia, which ended international adoptions to America after the U.S. passed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. International adoptions today are down nearly 80 percent since 2004. Some adoption agencies went out of business, and one adoption lobbying group closed shop as well.

As the family separation crisis unfolded on the border, adoption reform advocates noticed that the agency facilitating the foster care of some immigrant children in Michigan, Bethany Christian Services, announced a waiver of its $550 international adoption application fee for the month of June in a since-deleted Facebook post. The dissonance struck the anxious reformers as absurd on its face.

“Why in hell would they be lining people up for international adoption right now?” asked Karen Smith Rotabi, author of “From Intercountry Adoption to Global Surrogacy: A Human Rights History and New Fertility Frontiers” and a professor of social work at United Arab Emirates University. “There’s no way that lining people up for international adoption is ethical, because there simply isn’t the flow of children.” (Bethany Christian Services declined to comment for this story, but has stated that the children will not be offered for adoption and that it will continue to try to reunite children with their families.)

Bethany, which is caring for some of the separated children under a grant with the Office of Refugee Resettlement to offer transitional foster care for unaccompanied minors, has repeatedly said that they oppose the family separation policy and are involved because they believe that the children will suffer less in a family setting than in an institution. In a statement on its website, Bethany argued,

“Nobody benefits from creating more orphans.”

But reform advocates familiar with numerous allegationsregarding Bethany’s domestic adoption program, relating to coercive and misleading practices with birth parents — some of which I wrote about in my 2013 book, “The Child Catchers: Rescue, Trafficking and the New Gospel of Adoption” — worried that the agency was finding in the separated children a new adoption supply.

Writing at Medium, Kimberly McKee, a Grand Valley State University professor and assistant director of the Korean American Adoptee Adoptive Family Network, predicted,

“Bethany Christian Services is laying the groundwork to turn these children into adoptable objects — transformed into disciplined bodies acceptable to white America.”

On June 20, protesters stood outside Bethany’s office in Grand Rapids, Michigan, holding signs that read, “No profit for kidnappers” and “End the contract,” a reference to their agreement with the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Bethany’s director of refugee and foster care programs, Dona Abbott, responded by telling Fox17 West Michigan that

“it would be hard to say we’re profiting off of them for adoption when we’ve not placed any of these children for adoption. And it’s so early on to say whether these children will be available for adoption at all.”

“If the kids aren’t reunified, what would the adoption process even look like?” asked Linh Song, a lecturer at the University of Michigan School of Social Work who described avid interest on adoptive parent listservs to take in the children. “Would it be international adoption? Would they have to petition for an orphan visa while being fostered in West Michigan?”

Given that the status of the children was so ambiguous, it remains unclear what policies would apply. Many worried that children being placed in foster care — not just with Bethany, but also other Office of Refugee Resettlement grantees around the country — could end up staying there so long that they would trigger a mechanism within the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act that was intended to keep children from languishing in foster care for years. The law provides that if a child has been in foster care for 15 out of 22 consecutive months, except in cases of relative foster care, child welfare agencies must stop working toward the goal of reunifying the child with their parents and instead, move to terminate parental rights and make the child available for adoption.

That law has become such a pivotal point in the child welfare process that parents whose children are taken into state custody are sometimes shown a video titled “The Clock Is Ticking,” emphasizing how quickly they could lose their parental rights if they don’t meet the requirements of their child protective services case plan. While in practice, many, many children do still remain in foster care for years — without either reunification or adoption — the law has also meant that parents who receive even short prison sentences for drug offenses may be left with far too little time to meet case plan objectives, such as making court or visitation appointments, and finding employment or housing.

The same principles could apply to the children separated at the border, legal analyst Danny Cevallos speculated last week on MSNBC.

“The initial goal is always reunification and state law usually requires that,” said Cevallos. “But the parents can’t meet any of the requirements such as visitation if they are detained or removed from the country.”

He added that, in cases in which foster parents develop an attachment to the child they’re caring for and seek to adopt, they often have a leg up on parents who have been separated from their children. Whereas foster parents are in the area and have access to the court system, he said, separated parents “may not even know anything about the process. And by the time they find out, it’s possible that parental rights have already been terminated by a court.” If court battles do ensue, he continued, the attachment that may have developed between foster parents and their wards could be taken into account by judges who are tasked with making decisions in the “best interest” of a child.

While there does exist an ICE directive that provides detained parents the right to be notified of any custody proceedings regarding their children, ICE isn’t required to notify a state child protective agency of a detained parent’s location so they could actually be informed. Nor does ICE have to transport parents to custody-related court hearings. Advocates worry that judges or caseworkers may wonder why parents went AWOL and aren’t showing up to fight for their child, and may eventually terminate their rights.

JaeRan Kim, a University of Washington professor who researches issues around child welfare and an adoptee herself, recalled that several years ago, as reports began to arise about family separations at the border, some adoption scholars began to worry about exactly this scenario.

“At a conference I was at several years ago, someone said we shouldn’t be surprised to see this as another avenue for adoption.”

Amid massive public outrage, President Donald Trump backtracked on the family separation plan on June 20, indicating that he’ll instead seek to detain families together and ultimately overturn the federal settlement, known as “Flores,” that mandates that children not be held in detention facilities longer than 20 days. After initial wavering from the administration about whether the at least 2,300 already separated children would be “grandfathered in” to the order came news that either 522 or “several hundred” children had been reunited with their parents. Simultaneously, a New York Times report cited the Department of Homeland Security in explaining that “some children will remain separated from the adults they were traveling with if a family relationship cannot be established or if there are concerns about the children’s safety with those adults.” And on Wednesday, a week after Trump issued his executive order, the New Yorker reported that migrant families who have arrived at the border since the policy change are still being threatened with separation as a deterrent to applying for asylum, including through being shown videos of crying children being taken away from their parents and of adults dying in immigration detention facilities.

“What’s the legal status of the kids down the road?” asked Linh Song. “The longer they stay, will there be foster parents who will contest for custody and adopt? It would be one thing if the kids are going as unaccompanied minors or teens. But if you have an infant with you, I bet there are parents who won’t want to give that child up.” She said, “What’s the likelihood of an indigenous Guatemalan mom fighting a family in western Michigan with access to law firms and large, conservative Christian megachurches? It’s really daunting.”

At present, any potential efforts to adopt these children don’t have the support of some of the most influential voices in the adoption world. Jedd Medefind, president of the Christian Alliance for Orphans — an umbrella group that once led a movement of evangelicals advocating widespread international adoption as a religious calling, but now focuses more of its efforts on other child welfare issues — said that within his community, there was “concerned speculation” about the implications of the family separation crisis. “Because clearly if a child’s temporary separation from their family became permanent, that is a profound tragedy for all involved.”

Chuck Johnson, president and CEO of the National Coalition for Adoption, an adoption industry interest group, was even more forceful.

“Not only do we not believe these children are candidates for adoption, but as we understand the policies, they would never be considered for adoption.”

The coalition just wrapped up its annual conference in Washington, D.C., he said, and among the hundreds of child welfare professionals in attendance — including from groups that have contracts or grants with Health and Human Services —

“I didn’t hear of anyone who said that they’d be willing to work with any family toward completing adoption processes for these children.”

“These children — the reason they’ve come here, the purpose, what’s happened to them — I think it would send the world a terrible signal for them to be adopted,” Johnson said.

Several former officials with Obama’s Health and Human Services Department said they believed that the threat of adoption doesn’t track with how they understand federal law to apply. At least as the Office of Refugee Resettlement functioned under Obama, they said, there was no provision for adoption for children in Health and Human Services custody. The forms of foster care offered by the Office of Refugee Resettlement — typically short-term care for young and special needs children, and longer-term care for teenagers who lack U.S. sponsors — are both distinct processes from state foster care and lack a mechanism for adoption. The Adoption and Safe Families Act, they believe, doesn’t apply.

State foster care is a child welfare program, which is fundamentally different from the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s mission to care for and reunite unaccompanied minors, according to Maria Cancian, the former deputy assistant secretary for policy at Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, which oversees the refugee resettlement bureau. While the latter uses some foster home placements, in addition to a lot of congregate care, such as group homes, Cancian explained,

“The mandate is different, the rules are different, the funding is different. It’s a really different program.”

“In [regular] foster care, the kids are typically in state custody because the state has determined that parents are doing an inadequate job keeping the kids safe,” said Cancian. “The mission of ORR is principally to reunite children with their parents, where the presumption is that parents are appropriate and adequate parents to provide for their children. It’s the circumstances that separated the kids, so it’s not like the parents have something to prove in the way that they usually do in a child welfare setting.”

On a practical level, Cancian added, state foster care systems are unlikely to want to take in this population, given that they’re chronically overburdened already, with many states already lacking enough foster care homes to accommodate the U.S. kids in their care.

Under the Obama administration, the former officials said, the Office of Refugee Resettlement focused on moving children quickly out of government custody into a ranked list of possible guardians: close relatives, who received the vast majority of children; followed by more distant relatives; then family friends. Longer-term stays in foster care were reserved typically for youth who didn’t have U.S. guardians to sponsor them. One former official, Marrianne McMullen, the former deputy assistant secretary for policy and external affairs at the Administration for Children and Families, said that although she didn’t have a complete overview of the agency’s work, she could only recall one adoption that had taken place out of Office of Refugee Resettlement custody, under unusual circumstances.

She said she couldn’t imagine these children being offered for adoption,

“but a lot of things are happening that I couldn’t have imagined. Could things change? Could the Trump administration overstep? Well, they already have. They’re moving out of the realm of child welfare in compromising the welfare of children in order to enforce immigration law. The question is how far will they go in harming children for the sake of enforcing immigration law? It’s not alarmist at this point.”

Given that the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s mission has now been further compromised by the demand that they share potential sponsors’ personal information and location with ICE — as a recent open letter from one resettlement office counselor details — McMullen added,

“It could become such an anti-immigrant police state that [potential guardians] might not claim their own children. It’s worth playing out how bad this could be if it’s not stopped right now.”

“This administration is doing pretty horrific things,” said another former official, whose current employer doesn’t allow her to speak on the record. “So I can’t say that that’s not something they’ll consider going forward — especially considering they’re seemingly paternalistic, with Scott Lloyd’s [position] that he’s the dad figure and can tell a teenage girl she can’t have an abortion” — a reference to the Office of Refugee Resettlement director’s maneuvering to prevent minors in custody from terminating pregnancies. “It makes sense that they might think that it makes more sense for kids to be adopted by good Christian families in the U.S., instead of deported parents.”

The official added,

“I want to be careful to say that could happen.”

What such a potential change in policy would require is unclear, the officials agreed.

“This was never something that was considered,” said the former official. “It goes against the best interests of a kid if the parents did nothing wrong other than being separated.”

But the 2012 case of Encarnacion Bail Romero (image on the left), a Guatemalan mother who was arrested on immigration charges while working at a Missouri chicken processing plant, demonstrates that it can happen, as a Missouri judge ruled that the very fact of Bail Romero’s illegal immigration made her unfit, since “illegally smuggling herself into the country is not a lifestyle that can provide any stability for the child.”

However, Bail Romero’s case was also distinct in an important way: She was already living in the U.S. when she was taken into ICE custody and her child ultimately adopted. And that, said Cancian, is likely the more immediate threat when it comes to migrants’ children being unethically adopted.

“I have concerns about everything about this program right now, because of the pressure it’s under,” said Cancian.

When it comes to fears of separated children being adopted, she said,

“I would worry about children whose parents have been deported who are in many cases U.S. citizen children.”

In those cases — where a U.S. citizen child has been living here with her undocumented parents — deportation can very well mean the transfer of the child to state foster care, thereby triggering the Adoption and Safe Families Act timer for how long a parent has to regain custody before their rights are terminated. As the Associated Press noted, a 2017 paper found that, partly due to immigration enforcement, the percentage of Hispanic children in state foster care systems rose by 15 to 21 percent between 2001 and 2015.

Late Tuesday, in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, a federal court in California issued a nationwide injunction to stop the Trump administration from separating families and ordered that all children be reunited with their parents within 30 days. Children younger than 5, the judge ruled, had to be reunited within 14 days. One of the two cases the ACLU brought was on behalf of the Brazilian mother who’d been threatened with adoption if she didn’t behave. Whether Attorney General Jeff Sessions appeals the decision, sparking a prolonged court battle, or how the order would be enforced, remain significant unanswered questions, especially as the administration has already conceded that it will have trouble meeting the judge’s deadlines. But even if the more than 2,000 currently separated children are returned to their parents within a month, for undocumented parents with U.S. citizen children, that threat — or, in some cases, anxious choice — remains.

“If a parent wanted their child back and couldn’t find them, and the kid is put in an adoption, that’s clearly an inappropriate adoption,” said Cancian. “The parent and child want to be together and because we failed to put them in contact, they’re not together. That’s an easy one. But what happens if a parent is deported to El Salvador and thinks their kid is going to be killed in gang violence and decides it’s better for the child to stay in the U.S., and that child is adopted by an American family? How do we think about that?”

“If I were a mother in El Salvador and I had to make that choice, it would really break my heart,” she said.

Lauren Heidbrink, an anthropologist at California State University Long Beach and author of “Migrant Youth, Transnational Families, and the State: Care and Contested Interests,” is one of the few scholars who has tracked the long-term trajectories of young people who have been in Office of Refugee Resettlement custody, conducting research within the office’s facilities from 2006 to 2010. For the last five years, she followed 50 young people who were deported to Mexico or Guatemala after being detained in the U.S. Heidbrink says that adoptions of unaccompanied minors do sometimes take place — not directly from Office of Refugee Resettlement facilities, but rather after they’ve been reclassified as an unaccompanied refugee minor, rather than an unaccompanied alien minor. (The office of Refugee Resettlement did not respond to a request for comment.) In order for that to happen, migrant children must receive legal status of some sort: asylum, a visa for victims of crime or trafficking, or being recognized as a special immigrant juvenile  if they’re found to have been abused, neglected, or abandoned.

Cases where children receive the special status deserve particular attention, Heidbrink added, because, unlike asylum applications, crime, or trafficking visas, special immigrant juvenile status is determined by a probate or family court judge seeking to determine the best interests of the child. In those court proceedings, Heidbrink said,

“what’s presented as abuse, abandonment, or neglect can instead be a parent who was deported or detained.”

While Heidbrink does believe that the federal government has the information necessary to reunite children and parents, she said a mechanism for communication between Health and Human Services’s Office of Refugee Resettlement, and the Department of Homeland Security, which detains the adults, is often lacking.

“If it doesn’t happen, and they’re mired in bureaucracy and lack of communication, what I’ve seen is the parents are deported, they try to find their child in the U.S. foster care system, whether federal or domestic, and it’s really difficult to meaningfully participate in those custody proceedings,” Heidbrink said. “ORR may say we don’t have unaccompanied children being adopted from ORR facilities and that the forced separations we’ve been seeing at the border won’t lead to adoption. But when you follow young children for much longer, you see the different trajectories they follow, some of which end in adoption.”

Even in these instances or potential cases in which immigrant children and their parents might want them to be adopted — as a means of securing U.S. citizenship or keeping the child safe — the National Council for Adoption’s Chuck Johnson notes that the laws governing adoptees’ citizenship have been so restrictively written that they apply only to children who have entered the country for the express purpose of international adoption. It would be unlikely in these cases, he said, that citizenship would then attach to those children.

That recalls a key fight around the time of the Haiti adoption airlifts, when Americans clamored to adopt Haitian children by the thousands, even as Haitian adults were being told — at the U.S. Embassy, through a U.S. Air Force plane broadcasting messages in Creole, and in the form of a fleet of Coast Guard ships patrolling the waters outside Port-au-Prince — not to attempt to flee themselves. To facilitate those adoptions, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., sponsored the Help HAITI Act, a bill that would have ensured that evacuated Haitian children who were adopted by Americans receive U.S. citizenship — something that, as many adult adoptees at risk of deportation know, is not guaranteed. The bill almost didn’t pass when rumors flew that Democrats were considering tying it to Obama’s DREAM Act, thereby also creating a path to legal residency for undocumented children whose biological parents had brought them into the country. At the time, the website Rightwing News responded with outrage:

“Think of it … if Republicans vote against the DREAM Act,” a post on the site said, “they would also be voting AGAINST the orphans.”

Then, as now, it was a potent illustration of the duality at the heart of discussions of immigration and adoption: of which sorts of people — adults or children — and even which sorts of children — infants or teenagers, those who are brought across the border by white adoptive parents or their brown biological ones — are viewed as worthy of help.

*

This article was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

Featured image is from the Center for American Progress.