Global Research

Reportedly Trump met with his trade officials on Thursday, a decision reached to impose around $50 billion in tariffs on a range of Chinese goods – an announcement of the move expected on Friday or early next week.

According to an unnamed administration source, Trump’s “trade team has recommended tariffs. If there are not tariffs, it will be because the president has decided that he’s not ready to implement” them.

Interviewed by Fox News on Wednesday, Trump said he intends “very strongly clamping down on trade,” adding “you’ll see over the next couple of weeks.”

Trump’s Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and White House trade adviser Peter Navarro recommended toughness in dealing with China.

On Thursday, Bloomberg News said

Trump “is preparing to release a refined list of the first batch of Chinese products to be hit with tariffs on Friday that hones in on technologies where China wants to establish itself as a leader, according to people familiar with the matter. In April, the US revealed an initial list targeting about 1,300 products worth $50 billion in Chinese imports.”

If imposed, things will move closer to a trade war, harming both countries and global economic health if things go too far, lingering long enough unresolved.

Bloomberg said the Trump administration is nearing “completion of a second list of products ordered by Trump, worth $100 billion” – tariffs on them possibly to be imposed within or shortly after 60 days.

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said

if Washington “rolls out unilateralist and protectionist measures that harm China’s interests, then we will respond immediately with necessary measures to safeguard our rights and interest.”

On June 1, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel imports, along with 10% tariffs on aluminum imports from EU countries, Canada and Mexico.

On Thursday, Brussels approved $3.3 billion in tariffs on US motorcycles, blue jeans, whiskey, cranberries, orange and cranberry juice, sweetcorn, peanut butter, and perhaps other products – to be imposed in late June or early July.

Mexico announced its intention to impose duties on US pork bellies, apples, grapes, cheeses, cold and/or flat rolled steel, among other products.

Canada announced tariffs on US steel, aluminum, whiskey and orange juice.

Economist Tom Orlik said

“(t)he US-China trade conflict appears to be entering a new and potentially damaging phase.”

On Friday, the state-run China Daily said

“it is high time that China and other major economies joined hands to better cope with the challenges created by the US’s aggressive pursuit of trade advantages.”

Economist Hu Yifan expects “a prolonged (US/China) trade battle” ahead, not easily resolved “through a few rounds of (bilateral) talks.”

*

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

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at [email protected]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri.

---

Title: Follow the Money

Author: Dennis J. Bernstein

ISBN: 9781387362622

Publisher: Left Coast Press

Published: April 9, 2018

Pages: 424

Price: $15.97

Click here to order.

The world events of the past days are significant far beyond the apparent divide within the G7 industrial nations. If we imagine the planet as a giant electric force field, the lines of flux are in dramatic reordering as the post-1945 global dollar-based system comes to its disordered end phase. Europe’s political elites are currently split between rationality and irrationality. The developments to the East however are drawing more and more force and we are seeing the early phases of what might be called a geopolitical polarity reversal within the EU from West to East. The latest developments across Eurasia including the Middle East, Iran and above all between Russia and China are gaining in importance as Washington offers only war, whether trade war, sanctions war, terror war or kinetic war.

The spectacle of a US President tweeting about its long-standing NATO ally and bordering country, Canada, openly calling the Canadian Prime Minister “dishonest and weak,” and threatening new import tariffs for cars imported from Canada, is from all appearances not some whim of an erratic US President but rather a calculated strategy of putting all US allies off balance. It comes after Washington unilaterally tore up the Iran nuclear agreement to the dismay of Europe, Russia and China as well as Iran. On top of that the US announced new trade war tariffs on EU aluminum and steel in open violation of WTO agreements.

No more Mr Nice Guy

If we take these actions as symptoms of something deeper, we need only to look at the exploding US debt levels as I have noted before. The latest Trump tax legislation will bring an estimated $1 trillion in annual Federal budget deficits for the next decade, added to the current $21 trillion Federal debt. Household private debt is at levels higher than before the 2007 financial crisis. Corporate debt, including junk bond or “below investment grade” debt, is sky high owing to a decade of Fed near zero interest rates.

There is another element to the actual US economic situation little noted. According to a recent study by the USA Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while average family income in comparison with many other countries appears nominally high, the reality of fixed costs such as food, housing, mandatory health insurance, has created a new kind of poverty. The survey concluded that near 50% of Americans have difficulty paying monthly bills and as many as one-third have at times lacked money for food or a decent living place or medical treatment. A recent study estimated that health care costs alone for a family of four costs more than $28,000 a year or half median income.

Added to the grim US domestic outlook, the Boards of Trustees for the state Medicare insurance fund just announced that the trust fund will be depleted in 8 years. As well the Social Security Trust Fund, owing to the large number of the postwar Baby Boomer generation taking retirement and the declining number of younger workers paying in, will run the first deficit this year since 1982, as both fertility rates and population growth decline. And the State of New Jersey just froze all spending as financial disaster looms. As the Fed raises interest rates, a chain-reaction of corporate and household loan defaults is pre-programmed.

In brief the US economy has been bled by the tiny 1% of the wealthy to the breaking point. While the US stock market currently enjoys new highs owing to the decade of easy money, the underlying economic reality of the United States is precarious to put it mildly. In terms of preserving her Sole Superpower grip on the world, increasingly there are two ways open for the powers that be: War or triggering a global new financial crisis worse than that of 2008 and using the crisis to regain control over world capital flows.

The fact that a US President is forced to initiate such tactics as trade wars against established G7 allied nations suggests that desperate measures are on the agenda. In reality the battle is for the future of the EU, especially Germany.

Eurasian Contrast

Notable in this regard are the recent visits of the German Chancellor Merkel to meet with both Russian President Putin and China President Xi Jinping. Presumably more was discussed than the Iran nuclear agreement. The paradox of an official German government support for the sanctions on Russia at the same time Germany signals it needs Russia as an ally in certain areas, underscores a kind of political schizophrenia in the EU today. Economically it is increasingly clear that growth markets lie in the East, notably with the vast China-led Belt, Road Initiative of high-speed trans-Eurasian rail and deep water port links and the vast economic potentials of Russia as well as Iran.

Russia, despite imposition of draconian new sanctions by Washington, just concluded its most successful annual St. Petersburg International Economic Summit where heads of government and industry leaders in record numbers attended to discuss economic cooperation. In the context of the SPIEF talks, as one instance, the CEO of the state Russian Railways announced Russian plans to participate in construction of the Trans-Arabian Railway that will go along the southern edge of the Persian Gulf from Kuwait to Oman. If actualized it would bring Russia, Saudi Arabia and China into closer economic relations. China has already secured some $130 billion in investment projects into Saudi Arabia and, for all his defects, it seems Prince bin Salman genuinely wants to make Saudi Arabia into a tri-continental economic hub for Afro-Eurasia.

That Russian SPIEF meeting was immediately followed by another meeting in Beijing between Putin and Xi Jinping at which the China president presented Putin with China’s highest honor to a foreigner, a golden “Medal of Friendship” declaring the Russian leader his “best, most intimate friend.” Then followed an enlarged meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Qingdao with both Pakistan and India as full SCO members for the first time and Iran as Observer. SCO states now include Pakistan, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Russia and China.

At a tripartite meeting of the leaders of Russia, China and Mongolia, Putin announced plans to spend $260 million by 2020 to upgrade the Ulaanbaatar Russian−Mongolian railway and adjacent sections. He noted that volume of container traffic on the China−Mongolia−Russia route to Europe increased 2.7 times in 20127 and by four times in the first three months of this year.

This all was in sharp contrast to the clashes and tensions of the G7. As Putin noted, the G7 should “stop this creative babbling and shift to concrete issues related to real cooperation.” Putin notably expressed no interest in Russia’s being welcomed back into the G7 as Trump called for, further indication the economic and political center of gravity of the world has shifted East.

The economic potentials of Eurasia are now emerging as a realizable alternative to a collapsing Atlantic dollar-based system bloated with debt. With Russia and China both accumulating central bank gold reserves at a record pace, using national currencies instead of the sanction-vulnerable dollar new possibilities for multi-polarity are emerging. And the expansion of the BRI infrastructure projects are beginning to be felt. A new study by the Dutch ING Bank estimates that the BRI could increase levels of global trade by 12% or more. Economist Joanna Konings noted,

“Trade between Asia and Europe…accounts for 28% of world trade so making those trade flows easier has a large potential impact.”

With the Euro in a critical phase, with the banking crisis of the EU unresolved and economic recession across most of the EU outer rim countries from Italy to Portugal to Greece, the prospect of joining in building up a new economic space, new markets for EU products across Eurasia, is the only realistic alternative to trade war, financial war with the US and worse. The lines of force are becoming dramatically clear and soon the countries of the EU must decide between the Atlantic system and a new emerging Eurasian alternative. The aggressive pressures from Washington are forcing that decision ever closer.

*

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

---

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Seven years on from the British-led NATO war in Libya in 2011 to remove leader Muammar Gaddafi, the country remains riddled with conflict and lacks effective governance. And one year on from terrorist attacks in the UK whose perpetrators are linked to that war, major questions remain about the links between British foreign policy and terrorism. 

Rather than simply marking the terrorist attacks with a minute’s silence and solemn pledges of defiance, what is really needed is a full public inquiry into the British role in that 2011 war and what has flowed from it.

The case for holding such an inquiry is overwhelming. The principles under scrutiny – whether the government violated international law, told parliament the truth and colluded with extremist forces – are as serious as over the invasion of Iraq.

Regime change

There are three main cases for the government to answer. First, British bombing in Libya, which began in March 2011, was a violation of UN Resolution 1973. This authorised member states to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and to use “all necessary measures” to prevent attacks on civilians. What it did not authorise was the use of ground troops or regime change. Yet then prime minister David Cameron promoted both.

General David Richards, then chief of the defence staff, told a parliamentary inquiry in 2016 that Britain “had a few people embedded” with rebel forces in Libya, saying that they were “in the rear areas” and “would go forward and back”. He also repeatedly told the inquiry that British policy amounted to regime change.

Indeed, British bombing clearly went beyond preventing attacks on civilians. Three weeks after Cameron assured parliament in March 2011 that the object of the intervention was not regime change, he signed a joint letter with US President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy committing to “a future without Gaddafi”.

That these policies were illegal is confirmed by Cameron himself. He told Parliament on 21 March 2011 that the UN resolution “explicitly does not provide legal authority for action to bring about Gaddafi’s removal from power by military means”. This is, if anything, an even clearer-cut case than Iraq of a British government violating international law.

Collaboration with extremists

The second case to answer is over Britain’s collaboration with Islamist extremists in the war. Britain saw such forces as its boots on the ground when it was prevented from, and didn’t want to, openly deploy forces of its own.

Two militants who had fought in Afghanistan led the military campaign against Gaddafi’s forces in Derna, to the east of Benghazi. Abdel Hakim al-Hasidi, an influential Islamic preacher who spent five years at a jihadist training camp in eastern Afghanistan, oversaw the recruitment, training and deployment in the conflict of around 300 rebel fighters from Derna.

Both Hasidi and his field commander on the front lines, Salah al-Barrani, were former members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), the Islamist force that Britain covertly funded in a failed attempt to assassinate Gaddafi in 1996.

Image on the right: Salman Abedi and Ramadan Abedi

In April, in answer to a parliamentary question, Alastair Burt, the British Foreign Office minister for the Middle East, revealed that the British government probably had contacts with the LIFG during the Libya war. The information is especially significant in that Salman Abedi, the terrorist who blew up 22 people in Manchester last year, and his father, Ramadan, had both fought with the LIFG in 2011. Ramadan Abedi is believed to have been a prominent member of the LIFG, which he joined in 1994.

As Middle East Eye revealed last year, the British government operated an “open door” policy that allowed Libyan exiles and British-Libyan citizens living in the UK to join the 2011 war, even though some had been subject to counterterrorism control orders. These dissidents were members of the LIFG, and most were from Manchester, like the Abedis.

Journalist Peter Oborne subsequently revealed that they were “undoubtedly encouraged” by MI6 to travel to Libya to oust Gaddafi. Indeed, after the Libyan leader was overthrown, these fighters were allowed back into Britain “without hesitation”.

Arms embargo

The third case to answer relates to the arms embargo imposed on Libya in 2011. Resolution 1973 called on UN member states to ensure the “strict implementation” of this embargo. A Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry concluded that the international community, without mentioning Britain, turned a “blind eye” to the supply of weapons to the rebels. This was a generous way of putting it. We might ask what those “embedded” British forces were actually doing in Libya, and whether they were involved in supplying arms to opposition forces.

Moreover, a massive $400m worth of arms was provided to the rebels by Britain’s ally, Qatar, much of which went to Islamist radicals. It is inconceivable that this military support was not known to British ministers, and backed by them, as they consistently supported Qatar’s prominent role in the campaign against Gaddafi.

The Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq was launched in 2009 and reported in 2016. The key questions it addressed were:

“whether it was right and necessary to invade Iraq in March 2003 and whether the UK could – and should – have been better prepared for what followed”.

These are also key questions for the Libya war of 2011, so why has no such inquiry been launched in this case?

A key answer is that the Libya war is not regarded as so controversial or disastrous as Iraq in the mainstream media or politics. But this is wrong. Libya has also been plunged into chaos and has also seen the emergence of terrorist groups. If the 2005 7/7 bombings in London were blowback from Iraq, then the 2017 Manchester bombing was likely blowback from Libya.

Unanswered questions

The real reason for failing to hold an inquiry is that the government simply does not want to shed any light on this dirty, murky episode, which involves not only Cameron but also Theresa May, who was home secretary at the time. Did May in 2011 know about or authorise the despatch of Libyans living in the UK to Libya, and were Salman or Ramadan Abedi specifically part of this process? Did the LIFG receive UK assistance to fight in Libya at this time? Why were the Abedis allowed to return to the UK after fighting in Libya with no questions asked?

The Labour opposition should commit to holding a public inquiry into the Libya war if it attains office.

*

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

Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz investigated Hillary Clinton’s unsecured private server use for official State Department business – including easily hacked documents marked “classified,” “secret” and “top secret.”

She’s criminally culpable for violating State Department rules and US statute laws, prohibiting documents and other information pertaining to national security and defense from being moved or removed from their “proper place of custody.”

Former FBI director James Comey obstructed justice, dismissively calling her criminality “extreme carelessness,” making him complicit in serious wrongdoing.

Ordinary Americans are held to one standard, privileged ones another, justice whatever powerful figures want it to be. Rule of law principles don’t matter.

Horowitz found evidence of FBI “willingness” to damage Trump’s presidential campaign when James Comey served as director.

The 500-page IG report included detailed information on FBI and DOJ dysfunctional and unaccountable actions throughout the probe into Hillary’s private server use for official State Department business.

A damning text message between FBI agent Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page, former attorney for then-deputy agency director Andrew McCabe, said:

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it…”

Page said Trump is “not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Strzok responded:

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

Strzok served as deputy assistant director to special counsel Mueller’s Russiagate witch-hunt investigation, leading the probe – later removed because of anti-Trump text messages with bureau lawyer Lisa Page.

Strzok changed the FBI’s language about Hillary’s illegal email server use for official State Department business from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” an attempt to whitewash her criminality.

Text messages between Strzok and Page showed Comey lied to Congress under oath, claiming he didn’t consult with the DOJ or White House about the Hillary probe.

In his report, Horowitz said Strzok’s text messages and actions are “not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects,” adding:

The Russiagate probe “potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations.”

That alone is reason enough to end the witch-hunt – what never should have been initiated in the first place, begun and continuing solely to delegitimize Trump for the wrong reasons (not the right ones) and bash Russia. Nothing justifies what’s going on.

In response to the IG report, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton issued the following statement:

“The IG report has destroyed the credibility of the Department of Justice and the FBI. It confirms what Judicial Watch has investigated and revealed for nearly two years.”

“The Obama DOJ/FBI investigation of Clinton was rushed, half-baked, rigged, and irredeemably compromised by anti-Trump and pro-Clinton bias and actions.”

“As Judicial Watch uncovered the Clinton email scandal, it is outrageous to see a politicized FBI and DOJ then so obviously refuse to uphold the rule of law.”

“The IG report details repeated DOJ/FBI deference to Hillary Clinton, her aides and their lawyers.”

“Americans should examine the report and judge for themselves whether the over-the-top deference to Hillary Clinton can be explained as anything other than political, especially from agencies that at the same time were actively collaborating with the Clinton campaign’s Fusion GPS to spy on and target then-candidate Trump.”

“The IG report details how at least five top FBI agents and lawyers exchanged pro-Clinton and anti-Trump communications.”

“The IG shares the concerns of Judicial Watch and millions of Americans that this bias cast a cloud over the credibility of the Clinton email and Russia investigations.”

“As Judicial Watch has demonstrated through its independent investigations and lawsuits, there is more than enough evidence that Clinton knowingly and intentionally mishandled classified information while using a non-government email system to conduct government business.”

“Will the Sessions Justice Department now do the right thing and conduct a Clinton email investigation properly?”

“Or will it let James Comey and (Obama attorney general) Loretta Lynch have the last word on Hillary Clinton’s evident email crimes?

“In the meantime, Judicial Watch will continue its ongoing FOIA lawsuits and investigations into the Clinton email scandal and the related Obama administration cover-up.”

Law Professor Jonathan Turley said the following:

“The IG sinks Comey’s narrative with a finding that he ‘deviated’ from Justice Department rules and acted in open insubordination.”

“There is now a comprehensive conclusion by career investigators that Comey violated core (FBI) rules…In other words, there was ample reason to fire James Comey.”

There’s clear ample reason to hold Hillary, Comey and others accountable for their unlawful actions.

*

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

Claims of North Korean human rights abuses spearheaded attempts to undermine US-North Korean negotiations in Singapore. While the talks are unlikely to change the long-laid agendas of special interests across the West who have cultivated and profit from the ongoing conflict, it is important to confront these claims and diminish the intended effect they are meant to have in buttressing the notion of American exceptionalism and justifying American interventionism.

Tales of North Korean human rights abuses are so pervasive and persistent that even those opposed to US exceptionalism and interventionism have shied away from confronting and refuting them.

Rumors Built Upon Rumors 

One would expect such significant accusations to be backed up by an equally significant amount of evidence. Yet – like most of what the Western media produces and spreads among the public consciousness – there is little evidence at all.

In most cases, tales of North Korean abuses are derived from hearsay by alleged witnesses and supposed defectors who no longer reside in North Korea.

The New York Times provides a prime example of the sort of abuses unquestioningly cited and repeated by pundits, politicians, and political “experts” alike. In its recent article, “Atrocities Under Kim Jong-un: Indoctrination, Prison Gulags, Executions,” the New York Times would claim:

Mr. Kim rules with extreme brutality, making his nation among the worst human rights violators in the world. 

In North Korea, these crimes “entail extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation,” concluded a 2014 United Nations report that examined North Korea.

The source of the New York Times’ assertions is admittedly a “2014 United Nations report that examined North Korea,” officially titled the, “Report of the detailed findings of the commissionof inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (PDF).

The 372-page report – however – admits under an introductory section titled, “Methods of work,” that (emphasis added):

In the absence of access to witnesses and sites inside the DPRK, the Commission decided to obtain first-hand testimony through public hearings that observed transparency, due process and the protection of victims and witnesses. Victims and witnesses who had departed the DPRK, as well as experts, testified in a transparent procedure that was open to the media, other observers and members of the general public. More than 80 witnesses and experts testified publicly and provided information of great specificity, detail and relevance, sometimes in ways that required a significant degree of courage.   

In other words, the entirety of the UN’s 372-page report – cited as “evidence” of North Korean “atrocities” by prominent media organizations like the New York Times – is based on hearsay gathered by an investigation that never stepped foot once inside North Korea. Despite a lack of actual evidence to substantiate these claimed abuses, the New York Times depicts the UN report’s conclusions as fact.

The New York Times would also report other unverified incidents as fact. The article would claim:

In 2016, Kim Yong-jin, the deputy premier for education, was killed in front of a firing squad after showing “disrespectful posture” in a meeting. Hyon Yong-chol, a general over the armed forces, fell asleep in a meeting. He was executed with an antiaircraft gun. 

Yet even notoriously unreliable media organizations like Reuters would carefully distance themselves from reporting such stories as fact. In its article, “North Korea executes vice premier in latest purge: South,” Reuters would report (emphasis added):

North Korea has executed its vice premier for education and rebuked two high-ranking officials, South Korea said on Wednesday, which, if true, would mark a new series of measures by leader Kim Jong Un to discipline top aides.

The article would refer to the alleged death of Hyon Yong-chol by claiming (emphasis added):

A former defense minister, Hyun Yong Chol, is also believed to have been executed last year for treason, according to the South’s spy agency.

Regarding the alleged death of Hyon Yong-chol, the Washington Post would claim in its article, “North Korea said to execute top official by antiaircraft gun,” that (emphasis added):

North Korea’s equivalent of a defense minister has been executed by antiaircraft gun for insubordination and treason — including for sleeping during a meeting in which Kim Jong Un was speaking, South Korea’s intelligence agency said Wednesday. The report, if true, would starkly illustrate the brutal extent to which the young North Korean leader is going to consolidate power.

More recent hearsay reported on by the Washington Post would even include the word “rumor” in the title of its article, “The latest rumor from North Korea: Another general executed,” which stated (emphasis added):

Yet another North Korean general is killed by the Pyongyang regime. 

That’s the story that’s been doing the rounds this week after a South Korean news agency quoted an anonymous South Korean official from an unnamed South Korean agency as saying that Ri Yong Gil, chief of the Korean People’s Army [KPA] general staff, had been executed for corruption. 

It fit with the pattern that has emerged since Kim Jong Un took over the leadership of North Korea from his father at the end of 2011: Aging member of the old guard dispatched by young upstart leader.

But clearly, the “pattern” Washington Post writer Anna Fifield and many others claim to have spotted is merely a pattern of unverified claims being made by the Western media – built upon previously and likewise unverified claims, creating a cartoon-like vilification of a state writers at the New York Times and Washington Post know readers are unfamiliar with. The Western media understands their narratives are difficult for the public to question without conducting their own, extensive and time-consuming research. They depend on readers not clicking links – if links are even included – to long UN reports and understanding the paper-thin credibility of such reports when built entirely on “witness testimony.”

Image on the right: Kim Jong-nam (Source: Daily Star)

The New York Times article also cites the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s brother, Kim Jong-nam, and attributes responsibility by claiming, “the United States said evidence showed that North Korea was responsible for the attack.” Of course, what evidence the US was referring to has never been made public and apparently publications like the New York Times hold no qualms about repeating ascertains without such evidence.

AFP would admit in its article, “US slaps new sanctions on North Korea over killing of Kim Jong Nam,” regarding US statements assigning blame for the murder to North Korea that:

The statement gave no details or evidence on how the US had come to their conclusion.

Thus, the New York Times has presented a case against North Korea that depends solely on supposed witness “testimony” and the credibility of the United States government – and did so presented as fact rather than speculation – or more likely – familiar fabrications.

Adding Up to a Familiar Mountain of Lies 

One would assume that North Korea – portrayed as a central security threat to both the United States and the world – would have a considerable amount of verified evidence to substantiate this process of vilification.

The fact that central accusations made against North Korea are built entirely upon hearsay alone indicates that North Korea – like other nations previously targeted by US aggression and regime-change – is being intentionally demonized to advance an agenda borne in Washington and otherwise indefensible in the light of truth.

It should be remembered that publications like the New York Times played a central role in previous episodes of baseless, intentionally dishonest campaigns of demonization.

It was the New York Times’ Judith Miller who fed audiences fabrications regarding “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq that helped build a public case for the disastrous 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. No weapons of mass destruction were found, and it was later revealed that the supposed intelligence indicating that any such weapons existed was intentionally fabricated and intentionally sold to the public to justify an otherwise indefensible war of aggression.

While Anna Fifield of the Washington Post imagines “patterns” regarding unverified North Korean human rights abuses, a real pattern takes shape considering Judith Miller’s WMD fabrications also included hearsay from less than reputable “witnesses.”

In a December 2001 New York Times article by Miller titled, “A Nation Challenged: Secret Sites; Iraqi Tells of Renovations at Sites For Chemical and Nuclear Arms,” such witness testimony was provided, with the article claiming (emphasis added):

An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago.

Miller would go on to claim that US intelligence officials were attempting to verify the claims, noting that “experts said his information seemed reliable and significant.”

Multiple articles regarding Miller’s lies can now be found across the web, including from other publications who likewise helped sell similar lies including the Washington Post.

If similarities seem to exist between pre-war lies regarding Iraq and the current campaign to demonize North Korea – that’s because they are similar – and in some instances, exactly the same.

Reports across the Western media referencing earlier accusations to bolster the credibility of new accusations, all of which are collectively unverified and based solely on the word of defectors like those cited as “reliable and significant” sources  by Western propagandists like Judith Miller, should be at the center of the North Korean debate.

Instead, North Korea’s “villain status” seems to be the first concession even those opposed to US intervention are willing to make – apparently assuming some sort of evidence actually exists – perhaps based merely on the size of the mountain of lies built up by the Western media over decades of covering North Korea.

Instead, the debate regarding North Korea should center on the absolute lack of evidence the West has regarding allegations made against the nation. It should also center on the fact that while North Korea has been baselessly labelled a human rights abuser based on “witness testimony” gathered from defectors living outside of North Korea – the United States is openly pursuing itself or sponsoring multiple wars of aggression around the globe – each replete with extensively documented human rights abuses based not only on witness testimony, but also on photographic, video, and physical evidence collected onsite.

North Korea is a nation whose military exists within its own borders while the United States maintains hundreds of military bases in over a hundred nations across the globe. The US currently occupies the nations of Syria and Afghanistan. It also maintains troops in Iraq as part of its enduring interference in that nation’s affairs following the 2003 invasion. It maintains a campaign of drone strikes stretching from Africa to Central and South Asia.

For pundits, politicians, and “political experts” to decry negotiations with North Korea as “legitimizing” North Korea’s leadership, is to deny every aspect and verified abuse regarding the last several decades of US foreign policy – from the millions killed during the US-led Vietnam War, to its perpetual military aggression in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia to its very presence on the Korean Peninsula itself.

Behind Every Mountain of Lies, an Agenda 

The systematic vilification of North Korea is of paramount importance to US objectives in Asia-Pacific. The US military presence on the Korean Peninsula is a necessity of America’s long-stated goal of encircling and containing the rise of China.

The withdrawal of US troops from the Peninsula would represent an irreversible waning of American “primacy” in Asia-Pacific. To prevent such a withdrawal, North Korea has been built-up by special interests across the West as an imminent threat to international peace and stability – a process aided and abetted by a complicit Western media.

The supposed threat North Korea represents is just one of several alleged threats the US itself carefully cultivates across Asia to continue justifying its involvement in a region literally an ocean away from its own shores – or in the case of the Indo-Pacific – two oceans away.

Within the so-called “Pentagon Papers” – officially the “Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force” and compiled by the US Department of Defense and leaked in 1969 – it was revealed that the Vietnam War was one part of a greater strategy aimed at containing and controlling China.

Screenshot from the Office of the Historian

Three important quotes from these papers reveal this strategy. It states first that:

…the February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.

It also claims:

China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30′s, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.

Finally, it outlines the immense regional theater the US was engaged in against China at the time by stating:

…there are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR “contains” China on the north and northwest): (a) the Japan-Korea front; (b) the India-Pakistan front; and (c) the Southeast Asia front.

The Pentagon Papers provide for us today the context within which to properly view current tensions across Asia-Pacific including upon the Korean Peninsula. The vilification of North Korea represents the primary means by which Washington continues to justify its engagement along the “Japan-Korea front” against China as well as eastern Russia.

Of course, Washington’s attempts to maintain “primacy” in Asia-Pacific is ultimately an unsustainable strategy. While recent negotiations with North Korea are unlikely to yield real results and the threat of a “Libya-style” betrayal is still likely in the cards, there will be an eventual point in the near future where the US will have to choose between leaving Asia-Pacific kicking and screaming, or doing so with grace – reestablishing ties to the region as a partner and guest, rather than an occupying hegemon.

In the meantime, for those attempting to decipher events unfolding upon the Korean Peninsula – should their understanding be built upon the West’s mountain of lies rather than the wider and admitted geopolitical context US-North Korean tensions serve, they face an impossible task. At worst, the most egregious deceivers will end up like Judith Miller – exposed and discredited. At best, some may find themselves writing hypocritical critiques of Miller-esque lies to deflect away from their own role – wittingly or otherwise – in spreading baseless and destructive war propaganda.

*

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

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one of the most translated and celebrated documents in the world, marking its 70th anniversary this year. But relatively few people are aware of the significance of its 25th Article, which proclaims the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living—including food, housing, healthcare, social services and basic financial security. As our campaign group Share The World’s Resources (STWR) has long proposed, it is high time that activists for global justice reclaim the vision that is spelled out in those few simple sentences. For in order to implement Article 25 into a set of binding, enforceable obligations through domestic and international laws, the implications are potentially revolutionary.

Since the Universal Declaration was adopted by the General Assembly in 1948, the United Nations never promised to do anything more than “promote” and “encourage respect for” human rights, without explicit legal force. The Universal Declaration may form part of so-called binding customary international law, laying out a value-based framework that can be used to exert moral pressure on governments who violate any of its articles. But in the past 70 years, no government has seriously attempted to adapt its behaviour in line with the Declaration’s far-reaching requirements.

While civil and political rights have enjoyed an increasing degree of implementation throughout the world, the historical record on economic and social rights is far less sanguine. This is forcefully illustrated by the UN’s current Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston. In his first report submitted to the Human Rights Council, he argued that economic and social rights are marginalised in most contexts, without proper legal recognition and accountability mechanisms in place. Indeed, he even questioned the extent to which States treat them as human rights at all, and not just desirable long-term goals.

Even many of the States that enjoy the world’s highest living standards have disregarded proposals to recognise these rights in legislative or constitutional form. Most of all, the United States has persistently rejected the idea that economic and social rights are full-fledged human rights, in the sense of “rights” that might be amenable to any method of enforcement. It is the only developed country to insist that, in effect, its government has no obligation to safeguard the rights of citizens to jobs, housing, education and an adequate standard of living.

In their defence, governments may point out the historical progress made in reducing extreme poverty across the world, which has generally been achieved without adopting a strategy based on the full recognition of economic and social rights. But the extent to which these rights remain unmet for millions of people today is unconscionable from any kind of moral perspective. Consider that more than 60 percent of the world population struggles to live on less than $5 per day, an amount which the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has considered the minimum daily income which could reasonably be regarded as fulfilling the right to “a standard of living adequate for… health and well-being”, as stipulated in Article 25.

The International Labour Organisation of the United Nations also estimates that only 27 percent of people worldwide have access to comprehensive social security systems, despite almost every government recognising the fundamental right to social security, as also enshrined in Article 25. The fact that many thousands of people continue to die each day from poverty-related causes, while the number of chronically undernourished people increases once again, is an affront to the very idea that everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living.

Even in the most affluent nations, millions of people lack access to the financial system, struggle to pay for food or utilities and die prematurely. Across the European Union, for example, one in four people are experiencing income poverty, severe material deprivation and/or social exclusion. There is no country which has secured fundamental socioeconomic rights for the entire population, including the generous welfare states of Scandinavia that are also being gradually eroded by market-driven policies.

Such facts demonstrate how far we have strayed from realising the modest aspiration expressed in Article 25. The challenge is well recognised by civil society groups that advocate for a new direction in economic policymaking, beginning with a reversal of the austerity measures that are now expected to affect nearly 80 percent of the global population within a couple of years.

Rendering Article 25 into a truly “indivisible”, “inalienable” and “universal” human right would also mean, inter alia, reforming unfair tax policies that undermine the capacity of countries to invest in universal social protection systems. It would mean rolling back the wave of commercialisation that is increasingly entering the health sector and other essential public services, with extremely negative consequences for human wellbeing. It would also demand regulatory oversight to hold the out-of-control finance sector to account, as well as domestic legislative action in support of a living wage and core labour rights.

In short, implementing Article 25 would call for a redistribution of wealth, power and income on an unprecedented scale within and between every society, in contradistinction to the prevailing economic ideology of our time—an ideology that falsely views economic and social rights as inimical to “wealth creation”, “economic growth” and “international competitiveness”.

This only serves to underline the enormous political implications of achieving Article 25. For it is clear that rich countries prefer to extract wealth from the global South, rather than share their wealth in any meaningful way through a redistribution of resources. Yet we know the resources are available, if government priorities are fundamentally reoriented towards safeguarding the basic needs of all peoples everywhere.

To be sure, just a fraction of the amount spent on a recent US arms deal with Saudi Arabia, estimated at over $110 billion, would be enough to lift everyone above the extreme poverty line as defined by the World Bank. If concerted action was taken by the international community to phase out tax havens and prevent tax dodging by large corporations, then developing countries could recover trillions of dollars each year for human rights protection and spending on public services.

Fulfilling the common people’s dream of “freedom from fear and want”, therefore, is not about merely upscaling aid as a form of charity; it is about the kind of systemic transformations that are necessary for everyone to enjoy dignified lives in more equal societies with economic justice.

These are just some of the reasons why the human rights of Article 25, however simply worded and unassuming, hold the potential to revolutionise the unfair structures and rules of our unequal world. Because if those rights are vociferously advocated by enough of the world’s people, there is no estimating the political transformations that would unfold. That is why STWR calls on global activists to jointly herald Article 25 through massive and continual demonstrations in all countries, as set out in our flagship publication.

The UN Charter famously invokes “We the Peoples”, but it is up to us to resurrect the UN’s founding ideal of promoting social progress and better standards of life for everyone in the world. It is high time we seized upon Article 25 and reclaimed its stipulations as “a law of the will of the people”, until governments finally begin to take seriously the full realisation of their pledge set forth in the Universal Declaration.

*

This article was originally published on Share The World’s Resources.

Featured image is from riacale, flickr/creative commons.

The Student Federation of India (SFI), a four-million-strong national organization, joined the global campaign to boycott Hewlett Packard over its record of complicity in Israel’s violation of human rights against Palestinians. 

Apoorva Gautam, coordinator for the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) National Committee for South Asia, announced the SFI joined the campaign on June 9, and explained

“this means that Hewlett Packard companies now risk losing over 4 million potential clients in India because of their complicity in Israel’s gross violations of Palestinian human rights.”

HP has provided technology to support Israel’s military occupation and racial profiling by providing the Israeli government with the servers for the country’s population registry used in military checkpoints and for the ID card system that underpins movement restrictions for Palestinians.

According to the BDS movement, HP also provides the Israeli navy with the necessary technology to impose the over-a-decade-long blockade of Gaza.

United States-based churches have previously divested from HP. In 2012 the Friends Fiduciary Corporation, the investment firm serving over 300 Quaker institutions divested. In 2014 the U.S. Presbyterian Church voted to divest from HP, and a year later the United Church of Christ did the same.

The SFI resolution condemned Israel’s use of lethal force against Palestinians participating in the Great March of Return in Gaza, which resulted in over 120 deaths and 13,000 injuries. It also criticized the Indian government for its “close security and military ties with Israel [becoming] the largest arms buyer from Israel.”

Gautam celebrated the decision by the SFI, saying

“what Palestinians and Indian students are showing is that companies seeking to profit from Israel’s military occupation and discriminatory regime face growing popular opposition and risk a serious hit to both their reputations and pocket-books.”

The Israeli occupation has faced increasing international pressure due to the BDS movement. In a span of less than a month Shakira canceled her concert in Tel Aviv, Argentina canceled the friendly soccer match with Israel, and many well-known and international artists and filmmakers pulled out of Tel Aviv’s LGBT film festival and Paris’ France-Israel Season.

Washington’s decision to resume funding for White Helmets after a brief freeze highlights how important the controversial group is for the US-promoted regime-change agenda, journalists and Syrian conflict observers have told RT.

We know that the Western narratives about the war on Syria are entirely false, so what are some of the real reasons that are driving this overseas holocaust, and who is benefiting from it?

To be blunt, Western policymakers seek to destroy secular democracy in Syria, along with its socially uplifting political economy, with a view to installing a compliant fascist Wahhabi government.

The end result is chaos, the enrichment of the transnational “oligarchs” and the impoverishment of Syria.

In doing this, the policymakers are also impoverishing the vast majority of people in Western countries1, destroying nation-state sovereignties, and endeavouring to create a totalitarian World Order.

What does this dystopian scenario look like on the ground?

Image on the right: Terrorist-destroyed Syrian bank, Sheik Najjar industrial City, Aleppo, Syria. (Source: Mark Taliano)

International financial institutions see local banking as a threat. Consequently, in Aleppo, Syria, terrorists destroyed local banking institutions.

Western pharmaceutical monopolies seek to obliterate competition, and to advance their predatory tentacles. Hence, Western-supported terrorists targeted domestic Syrian pharmaceutical plants2 which previously produced most of the pharmaceuticals required by Syrians. Additionally, targeting such life-support systems kills multitudes of Syrians (which is the plan) by depriving them of life-saving medications. Illegal sanctions also serve this purpose.3

Fortunately, some pharmaceutical plants are back in operation, and this is reflected in the shelves of Syrian pharmacies where the vast majority of products are Syrian-made.

Source: Philip Tierney

Western-supported terrorists also targeted school book printing facilities and schools. Terrorists deprive children trapped in occupied areas of a secular education, and the opportunity to attend school. All of this serves to erase Syria’s identity, and to create a compliant, easily manipulated, and uneducated population.

Manufactured sectarianism is another useful imperial weapon. The photo below shows the war-damaged Umayyad Mosque in Aleppo, Syria. Terrorists launched mortars from the mosque, and then took cover, knowing full well that the SAA would retaliate, and that they would inadvertently destroy the mosque. The terrorists sought to create sectarianism by blaming the army for the damage while at the same time omitting the fact that the terrorists themselves precipitated the warfare.

Terrorists seek to obliterate Syria’s tolerant and pluralist identity. Syrians self-identify as Syrians, and not by any religious affiliation.

Aleppo Citadel (Source: Mark Taliano)

Terrorists attack, loot, and destroy the industrial and commercial base with a view to destroying the economy and impoverishing the population, and destroying morale, all of which serves to enhance economies of plunder and terrorism.

War-damaged Al-Medina Souk, Aleppo, Syria (Source: Mark Taliano)

Once a country is destroyed and occupied, local industries can be replaced by predatory monopolies. Currently, for example, Western military forces occupy oil rich areas of Syria. Big Oil would be a driver behind this.

Additionally, the criminal occupation of vast swathes of Syria enables occupiers to protect, recruit, and train their terrorist proxies.

Independent journalist Sharmine Narwani recently toured strategic areas of Syria and noted the following:

The on-going war also enriches the weapons manufactures, courtesy domestic taxpayers who buy the lies.4

Huge public subsidies to the Big monopolies divert monies from life-enhancing, job-producing economies and the uplift of public sectors, which are increasingly being gutted by the current political economy and its Life-destroying agendas. Publicly bailed out monopoly neoliberal, “capitalism” preys on us all, and these are important drivers behind the war on Syria.

Governments and media monopolies deny and obscure all of this, but it is happening nonetheless.

*

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Notes

1 Chloe Farand, “US has regressed to developing nation status, MIT economist warns.” Independent. 21 April, 2017. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-developing-nation-regressing-economy-poverty-donald-trump-mit-economist-peter-temin-a7694726.html) Accessed 15 June, 2018.

2 “Large Pharmaceutical Factory in Syria Rebuilt After Being Destroyed by Militants.” Sputnik. 10/09/2017. (https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201709101057265071-syrian-pharmaceuticals-plant-starts-up/) Accessed 15 June 2018.

3 Darius Shahtahmasebi, “Exclusive: The Silent Killer of Children in Syria Nobody Wants to Talk About.”ANTIMEDIA. 1 February, 2018. (http://theantimedia.com/silent-killer-children-in-syria/) Accessed 15 June, 2018.

4 Prof. Michel Chossudovsky. “War is Good for Business”: Insider Trading, Secret Information and the US-led Attack against Syria.” 21 April, 2018. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-is-good-for-business-insider-trading-secret-information-and-the-us-led-attack-against-syria/5637056) Accessed 21 April, 2018.

---

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

300,000 children risk death, injury and starvation as they are trapped in Yemen’s main port city which is under assault from Saudi-led Arab states, aid groups said on Wednesday.

The biggest battle in a three-year war, which has already created the world’s biggest humanitarian crisis, on Hodeidah, the main route for food and aid to reach most Yemenis, 8.4 million of whom are on the verge of famine.

Jolien Veldwijk, acting country director for the charity CARE International called the attack “catastrophic, hopeless and devastating”, worsening hunger as food will become harder to find and more expensive.

“If the port closed, even for a day, then the number of people at risk of famine will increase because no food will come into the country,” she said by phone from the capital Sanaa.

“Kids are most vulnerable so they will die first … Parents will have to make a decision of either feeding their children or treating them.”

People fled the Red Sea port city on Wednesday as Arab warplanes flew overhead.

“With this assault, (children) are now suffering more hunger and death,” Anas Shahari, a spokesman for Save the Children, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation by phone from Sanaa.

Shahari said he feared that the condition of some 300,000 children would worsen with less access to food, water and medicine, describing an already dire situation when he visited Hodeidah three months ago.

“I could see children who are hungry, children who are on the streets with their ribs sticking out, babies unable to cry because they are so malnourished,” he said. “That was the situation before, and now it is going to get worse.”

The United Nations estimates that 600,000 people live in the area, and in a worst-case scenario, a battle could cost up to 250,000 lives, as well as cutting off aid and other supplies to millions of people.

*

Featured image is from Yemen Press.

There are mounting signals that Donald Trump’s much-delayed Middle East peace plan – billed as the “deal of the century” – is about to be unveiled.

Even though Trump’s officials have given away nothing publicly, the plan’s contours are already evident, according to analysts.

They note that Israel has already started implementing the deal – entrenching “apartheid” rule over Palestinians – while Washington has spent the past six months dragging its heels on publishing the document.

“Netanyahu has simply got on with deepening his hold on the West Bank and East Jerusalem – and he knows the Americans aren’t going to stand in his way,” said Michel Warschawski, an Israeli analyst and head of the Alternative Information Centre in Jerusalem.

“He will be given free rein to do what he likes, whether they publish the plan or, in the end, it never sees the light of day,” he told Middle East Eye.

Eran Etzion, a former Israeli foreign ministry official, agreed:

“Israel has a much freer hand than it did in the past. It feels confident enough to continue its existing policies, knowing Trump won’t stand in the way.”

Netanyahu ‘the winner’

According to the latest reports, the Americans may present their plan within days, soon after the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Yossi Alpher, a former aide to Ehud Barak during his premiership in the late 90s, said it was clear Netanyahu was being “kept in the loop” by Trump officials. He told MEE:

“He is being apprised of what is coming. There won’t be any surprises for him.”

Analysts are agreed that Netanyahu will emerge the winner from any Trump initiative.

Yossi Beilin, a former Israeli politician who was a pivotal figure in the Oslo peace process of the early 90s, said Netanyahu would cynically manipulate the plan to his advantage.

“He knows the Palestinians will not accept the terms they are being offered,” he told MEE. “So he can appear reasonable and agree to it – even if there are things he is unhappy with – knowing that the Palestinians will reject it and then be blamed for its failure.”

Alpher agreed.

“If the plan is rejected, Trump will say he did his best, he offered the parties the greatest deal ever, and that they must now be left to settle the issues on their own.”

He added that the only obstacle to Washington presenting the plan were fears about Abbas’s waning health. Trump’s team might then prefer to shelve it.

Even then, he said, Netanyahu would profit.

“He can then continue with what he’s been doing for the past 10 years. He will expand the settlements, and suppress the rights of Israelis who oppose him. He will move Israel towards a situation of apartheid.”

Fragments of land

In an early effort to win Trump’s favour, reported by MEE a year ago, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas proposed a land swap ceding 6.5 percent of the occupied territories to Israel. That was more than three times what had been accepted by the Palestinians in previous peace talks.

But the Palestinians appear to have lost the battle and are now braced for the worst. Abbas has derided the plan as “the slap of the century”, and has said he will not commit “treason” by agreeing to it.

According to Palestinian officials, they are likely to be offered provisional borders over fragments of land comprising about half the occupied territories – or just 11 percent of what was recognised as Palestine under the British mandate.

The Palestinian areas would be demilitarised, and Israel would have control over the borders and airspace.

Israel and the Palestinians would then be left to “negotiate” over the status of Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, with Trump likely to back Netanyahu to the hilt, according to the analysts.

It is widely assumed that the Americans have rejected any principle of a right of return for Palestinian refugees, either to Israel or to the areas of the occupied territories that Israel wins US approval to seize.

Gaza and Golan windfalls

The US embassy’s move to Jerusalem last month appears to signal that the Trump administration will recognise all of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. That would deny Palestinians East Jerusalem, long assumed to be the capital of any future Palestinian state.

And separate reports this month suggest that the announcement of the peace plan may be timed to coincide with new measures for Gaza and the Golan Heights. There have been rumours for several years that Washington and Israel have been pressuring Cairo to let Palestinians in Gaza settle in Sinai.

According to Israeli reports, Washington may be close to unveiling a scheme that would weaken the border between Gaza and Egypt, and allow Palestinians to work and maybe live in northern Sinai.

The aim would be to gradually shift responsibility for the enclave away from Israel on to Egypt and further undermine prospects for a Palestinian state in historic Palestine.

And in a separate move that would complete Netanyahu’s windfall, an Israeli government minister claimed late last month that the Trump administration may be ready to recognise Israeli sovereignty over the Golan.

The Heights were seized by Israel from Syria during the 1967 war and annexed in violation of international law in 1981.

No longer ‘occupied’

A Jerusalem Post report last month suggested that the White House document would be unlikely to include a commitment to a “two-state solution”, reflecting previous comments from Trump.

That would free Israel’s hand to seize areas of the West Bank it has colonised with its ever-expanding settlements.

Noticeably, the latest annual report from the US State Department on the human rights situation by country, published in April, drops for the first time the term “occupied Palestinian territories”, implying that the Trump team no longer views much of the West Bank as under occupation.

Netanyahu told a recent meeting of his Likud faction:

“Our successes are still to come. Our policies are not based on weakness. They are not based on concessions that will endanger us.”

So given Israel’s recent moves, what can we infer about the likely terms of Trump’s peace plan?

1. Gerrymandering Jerusalem

The most sensitive of the final-status issues is Jerusalem, which includes the incendiary Muslim holy site of al-Aqsa. Trump appears to have effectively recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital by relocating the US embassy there last month.

The embassy move is likely to be interpreted by Netanyahu as a retroactive seal of approval from the US for a series of Israeli measures over recent months designed to engineer a Greater Jewish Jerusalem.

The main thrust are two legislative proposals to gerrymander the city’s boundaries and its population to create an unassailable Jewish majority. Both have been put on hold by Netanyahu until the announcement of the peace plan.

The first – called the Greater Jerusalem Bill – is intended to annex several large Jewish settlements close by in the occupied West Bank to the Jerusalem municipality. Overnight that would transform some 150,000 West Bank settlers into Jerusalem residents, as well as effectively annexing their lands to Israel.

In a sign of the impatience of members of Netanyahu’s cabinet to press on with such a move, the bill is due to come up for consideration again on Sunday.

A separate bill would strip residency in the city from some 100,000 Palestinians who are on the “wrong side” of a wall Israel began building through Jerusalem 15 years ago. Those Palestinians will be all but barred from Jerusalem and assigned to a separate council.

In addition, Israel has intensified harsh measures against Palestinians still inside East Jerusalem, including night arrests, house demolitions, the closing down of businesses, the creation of “national parks” in Palestinian neighbourhoods, and the denial of basic services. The barely veiled aim is to encourage residents to relocate outside the wall.

Experts have noted too that Palestinian schools inside the wall are being pressured to adopt the Israeli curriculum to erode a Palestinian identity among pupils.

2. Abu Dis: a Palestinian capital?

With Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital, Trump’s team is reported to be seeking a face-saving alternative location for a future Palestinian “capital” outside Jerusalem’s municipal borders.

According to rumours, they have selected the town of Abu Dis, 4km east of Jerusalem and cut off from the city by Israel’s wall more than a decade ago.

The Abu Dis plan is not new. At the end of the 90s, the US administration of Bill Clinton proposed renaming Abu Dis “al-Quds” – Arabic for “the Holy”, the traditional name of Jerusalem because of its holy places. That was seen as a prelude to designating it the future capital of a Palestinian state.

Reports about the elevation of Abu Dis in the new peace plan have been circulating since late last year. In January, Abbas rejected the idea outright.

Only last month Yair Lapid, leader of Israel’s centre-right Yesh Atid party, highlighted reports about the imminent change of Abu Dis’s status in comments directed at Netanyahu.

Abu Dis is a densely populated village home to 13,000 Palestinians. In practice, it is all but impossible to imagine how it could function meaningfully as the capital of a Palestinian state – something that makes it an attractive proposition for most of Netanyahu’s coalition.

Currently, most of Abu Dis’s lands are under Israeli control, and it is hemmed in by the wall and Jewish settlements, including the 40,000 inhabitants of Maale Adumim.

Several government ministers have made Israel’s annexation of Maale Adumim a priority. Netanyahu has delayed such a move, again citing the need to wait for the announcement of the Trump peace plan.

Beilin said it was mistakenly believed that he and Abbas agreed on Abu Dis as a Palestinian capital back in the 90s.

“It wasn’t credible as an idea then, and the map looks very different now,” he said. “The Palestinian capital has to be in East Jerusalem. Nothing else will work.”

3. Access to al-Aqsa

There has also been talk of a plan to create a narrow land corridor from Abu Dis to the al-Aqsa mosque, so Palestinians can reach it to pray.

However, Israel has been allowing ever larger numbers of settlers into al-Aqsa, which is reputedly built over two long-destroyed Jewish temples.

Meanwhile, Israel has been tightly restricting access to the site for most Palestinians. There have been long-standing Palestinian fears that Israel is seeking to engineer a situation where it can impose its sovereignty over the mosque.

David Friedman, Trump’s ambassador to Israel and a benefactor to the settlements, only heightened such fears last month when he was pictured apparently accepting a photo doctored by religious settlers that showed al-Aqsa mosque replaced by a new Jewish temple.

4. Jordan Valley

Under the Oslo accords, some 62 percent of the occupied West Bank was classified as Area C, under temporary Israeli control. It includes much of the Palestinians’ best agricultural land and would be the heartland of any future Palestinian state.

Israel never carried out the withdrawals from Area C intended in the Oslo process. Instead, it has been accelerating the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements there, and making life as hard as possible for Palestinians to force them into the confines of the more densely populated Areas A and B.

The Trump plan is reported to offer recognition of provisional Palestinian borders on about half of the West Bank – effectively awarding most of Area C to Israel. Much of that land will be in the Jordan Valley, the long spine of the West Bank that Israel has been colonising for decades.

Last December, as the Trump plan took shape, Israel announced a massive programme of settlement expansion in the Jordan Valley, designed to more than double the settler population there. Three new settlements will be the first to be built in the valley in nearly 30 years.

At the same time, Israel has lately been intensifying the harassment of the ever-shrinking Palestinian population in the Jordan Valley, as well as other parts of Area C.

In addition to denying Palestinians access to 85 percent of the Valley, Israel has declared military firing zones over nearly half of the area. That has justified the regular eviction of families on the pretext of ensuring their safety.

Israel has also been developing accelerated procedures to demolish Palestinian homes in the Jordan Valley.

5. The rest of Area C

Israel has been speeding up efforts to expand the settlements in other parts of Area C. On 30 May, it announced nearly 2,000 new homes, the great majority of them in isolated settlements that it was previously assumed would be dismantled in any peace deal.

Additionally, Israel has been quietly preparing to “legalise” what are termed “outposts” – settlements, usually built on private Palestinian land, that violate a “no new settlements” agreement with the US dating from the 90s.

At the same time, Israel has been destroying Palestinian communities in Area C, especially those that stand in the way of efforts to create territorial continuity between large settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Late last month, France objected after Israel’s supreme court approved a plan to demolish the Bedouin village of Khan al-Ahmar, next to Maale Adumim. The families are supposed to be moved to a garbage dump in Abu Dis.

The French statement warned that Israeli actions were threatening “a zone of strategic importance to the two-state solution and the contiguity of a future Palestinian state”.

In its place, it was recently revealed, Israel is planning to build a new settlement neighbourhood called Nofei Bereishit.

In another sign of mounting international concern, some 70 Democratic members of the US Congress appealed last month to Netanyahu to stop the destruction of the Palestinian community of Sussiya, between the Gush Etzion settlements and Jerusalem.

US lawmakers expressed concern that the move was designed to “jeopardise the prospects for a two-state solution”.

6. Gaza and Sinai

It is becoming hard for the Trump administration and Israel to ignore the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza – one Israel helped to engineer with an 11-year blockade and intermittent military attacks. The United Nations warned some time ago that Gaza would soon be “uninhabitable”.

Seeking a solution, the White House hosted 19 countries at a meeting in March to consider the situation in Gaza. The PA boycotted the meeting.

At the time, Arab media reported that the Trump peace plan might include a commitment from Egypt to free up northern Sinai for a future Palestinian state. According to a Hamas official, Cairo offered reassurances that it was opposed to “settling Palestinians in Sinai”.

But a report in Haaretz has revived concerns that the White House may try to achieve a similar end by other means, by launching a Gaza initiative to coincide with the peace plan.

The paper noted that the Trump team had picked up proposals from an Israeli general, Yoav Mordechai, who participated in the White House meeting in March.

A reported initial stage would see Palestinians from Gaza recruited to work on $1.5bn worth of long-term projects in northern Sinai, funded by the international community. The projects would include an industrial zone, a desalination plant and a power station.

Egyptian opposition to such an initiative is reported to be weakening, presumably in the face of strenuous pressure from Washington and Arab allies.

Palestinian protests

The Palestinians are doing their best to try to halt the peace plan in its tracks. They are currently boycotting the Trump administration to show their displeasure.

Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki called last month on Arab states to recall their ambassadors from the United States in protest.

And an emergency meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has proposed that an international peacekeeping force, modelled those used in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 90s, be deployed to protect Palestinians.

In another sign of anger at the Trump initiative, the Palestinians defied the US by submitting a referral for the International Criminal Court at the Hague to investigate Israel for war crimes last month.

Etzion, the former Israeli foreign ministry official, however, warned that a turning point could be on the horizon.

“A Palestinian implosion is coming and that could change the situation in unexpected ways,” he told MEE. “The question is which implosion comes first: the humanitarian catastrophe about to engulf Gaza, or the political vacuum created when Abbas leaves.”

Arab pressure

Nonetheless, the Palestinians are facing huge pressure to give in to the peace plan.

The Trump administration has already cut funding to the UN refugee agency, UNRWA, which cares for more than two million refugees in the occupied territories. It is also poised to pull more than $200m of funding to the Palestinian Authority this summer.

Trump has also sought to recruit the Arab states to lean on Abbas. According to reports, the Palestinian leader was presented with a 35-page document originating from the Americans when he visited Saudi Arabia last November, and told to accept it or resign.

In recent years the Saudis have increased their aid to the Palestinian Authority, giving them greater leverage over the Palestinian leader.

In exchange for the Arab states acceding to Trump’s plan, Washington appears to be rolling out a more draconian policy towards Iran to limit its influence in the region.

The Arab states understand that they need to first defuse the Palestinian issue before they can be seen to coordinate closely with Israel and the US in dealing with Tehran.

*

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Introduction

Although the U.S. State Department’s direct role in stoking the Maidan conflagration and toppling a democratically elected president is widely accepted as part of the historical record of the political and civil upheaval in Ukraine, little is reported about the initial and ever evolving U.S. military presence in the country. Former Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland’s intercepted phone calls and former U.S. President Barrack Obama’s public admission of the U.S. government’s $5 billion investment in funding fundamentally altering Ukraine’s political, economic and cultural alignment in the world received coverage, even by western main stream media. What has not received extensive media scrutiny is the involvement of the U.S. military and CIA very early on, and increasingly since the civil strife in the country began.

Setting aside the wealth of research suggesting the presence of western-trained snipers on the Maidan that fateful February 20^th, 2014, the then Director of the CIA John Brennan’s visit to the new coup leadership just two months later in mid-April was a sign to the world that the U.S. clandestine intelligence services were fully involved in the unfolding drama. U.S. intelligence gathering aid was apparently on offer, yet soon proved to be of little help to the hapless Ukrainian defense establishment. The declaration by the Kiev government of an Anti-Terrorist Operation was a clear sign that the United States was behind the attempt to militarily confront the growing opposition in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Lugansk. Anyone refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of the coup government would be labelled a terrorist. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) was given command of the operation, not the Ministry of Defense. Paradoxically what followed was a systematic campaign to terrorize and subjugate the rebellious population of two regions that had very real concerns and fears that their culture, interests, and welfare would not be embraced and protected by the new government that had seized power by force, and had even attempted to assassinate the deposed President Yanukovich, a president whom these dissenting regions had overwhelmingly voted for.

The U.S. Congress approved an aid package of $1 billion to Ukraine in March of 2014, followed up by an additional $53 million in non-lethal military aid later that same year.  The European Union and International Monetary Fund had already given $26 billion in financial aid to the ruling government in Ukraine. By the beginning of September of that year, the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) military offensive was roundly defeated, culminating in the encirclement battle of Ilovaisk. By April of 2015, the U.S. Congress approved a further $75 million in military aid to the new Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko by passing the European Reassurance Initiative. The UAF tried a second time to settle the issue in the east by military means, launching their 2015 winter offensive to divide and conquer the proclaimed Donetsk Peoples Republic (DPR) and Lugansk Peoples Republic (LPR). This offensive ended in the disastrous Debaltseve encirclement. At this point, if the DPR and LPR militias had had adequate manpower, the entirety of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions could have been secured and the line of contact as it exists today would look quite different. During that winter’s engagements, the rebels destroyed or recovered a number of U.S. supplies counter-battery radars, numerous HMMWV light utility vehicles, and a number of U.S. supplied small arms, sniper rifles and munitions.

After a year of successive and stunning defeats on the battlefield, the United States decided to embrace and push the Poroshenko propaganda excuse for Ukrainian defeat by stating that Russian regular military forces intervened in the conflict, engaging in a de-facto invasion of the country. Although totally unfounded; Russian volunteers and military advisers did aid the DPR/LPR forces and supplied them with arms and intelligence support, they did not inject regular military forces into the conflict. The same Russian military secured the strategically vital Crimean peninsula in 2014 while suffering no casualties, and facing no resistance from the UAF. It is highly improbable, and there exists no verifiable evidence, that Russian regular Army units took part in the devastating defeat meted out to the UAF in January of 2015. Evidence and truth mean little to the U.S. deep state, which ramped up the anti-Russian hysteria in all the political and media channels available. Beginning in February 2015, a month after the Battle of Debaltseve, the United States Army began planning the first of many deployments of U.S. Army soldiers to Ukraine with the stated aim of training the Ukrainian military and establishing a new military training center in the west of the country. In the intervening years, the U.S. Army, as well as the militaries of the UK and Canada have sent soldiers to Ukraine as trainers and advisers. Regular rotations of U.S. Army troops have been deployed for this purpose for three years now. Additional packages of military aid have continued unabated over the same time period. What started out as an operation to train members of the Ukrainian National Guard, has morphed into a much larger and concerted effort to train the Ukrainian Armed Forces as a whole, to successfully conduct offensive operations.

Preliminary Stated Goals and Deployments

The U.S. Army began its training mission with a small contingent of 300 troops of the 173^rd Airborne Brigade based in Vicenza, Italy. Their deployment to the International Peace Keeping and Security Center at the Yavoriv training base in western Ukraine, not far from L’viv, occurred just 3 months after the battle of Debaltseve. The initial goal was to train four companies of the Ukrainian National Guard. As quoted by Defense News at the time, a Department of Defense spokeswoman named Lt. Col. Vanessa Hillman stated that the training was meant “to assist Ukraine in strengthening its law enforcement capabilities, conduct internal defense, and maintain rule of law.”

The Yavoriv International Peace Keeping and Security Center located in the extreme west of Ukraine and the break-away republics of the Donbass in the extreme east.

The original stated intent of the U.S. Army’s effort was to train battalion sized elements of the Ukrainian National Guard to increase law enforcement and civil defense capabilities. It was not long before U.S. official announcements, main stream media and independent media coverage began to show U.S. soldiers training their Ukrainian counterparts in small unit tactics and the proper employment of small arms and light support weapons. This soon expanded to advising Ukrainian officers on effective command and control technics and processes, as well as successful combined arms warfare and asymmetric warfare technics to counter Russian “hybrid warfare” in use in Donbass.

So how has this mission changed in the intervening three years? Currently, the U.S. Army is now training brigade sized Ukrainian Army units with the help of trainers from other NATO countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, Poland and Lithuania. U.S. Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR) has actively been training Ukrainian Spetsnaz as well, although this topic has received little media attention. The growing relationship between U.S. SOCEUR and Ukraine’s Special Operations Forces Command (SOFCOM) likely had its origins in the April 2016 meeting conducted between the heads of these respective commands, USAF Major General Gregory Lengyel and UAF Major General Ihor Lunyov. Ukrainian special operators have increasing been seen training and conducting operations equipped with U.S. pattern uniforms and small arms.

An Unofficial Military Component of NATO

The U.S. Army mission to train battalion sized units of the Ukraine National Guard has grown into an operation to develop a Ukraine-led training center. At Yavoriv, 55-day training rotations conducted by U.S. Army units focus on the training of brigade-sized Ukraine Army units and bring them in line with NATO interoperability standards. The UAF as a whole is being transformed into a military that is 100% interoperable with all other NATO forces, regardless of the fact that Ukraine is not an official member of the NATO alliance. An interview conducted as part of an article posted by Defense One in October of 2017 with a spokesperson for the Joint Multinational Training Group-Ukraine, U.S. Army National Guard Captain Kayla Christopher makes this extremely clear:

“Every 55 days we have a new battalion come in and we train them…And at the end of that 55-day period, we’ll do a field training exercise with that battalion. But that’s not the real end state. Essentially, what we’re trying to do is get them to the point where they are running their own combat training center. Our overall goal is essentially to help the Ukrainian military become NATO-interoperable. So the more they have an opportunity to work with different countries — not just the U.S., but all their Slavic neighbors, and all the other Western European countries that come.”

Is this just another example of U.S. military “mission creep” or was it the intended mission from the outset? Despite the constant proclamations coming out of the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon that are adamant that Russian aid to the Donbass militias is a violation of international law and has only fueled the conflict in the country, the U.S. seems to have no issue with doing the same thing. The United States is not a party to the Minsk II agreement, nor is it bound in any formal defensive treaties with Ukraine, and yet it is playing a growing part in the military conflict in that country. The mission has also morphed from an effort to increase the law enforcement and civil defense capabilities of the Ukrainian National Guard, a very uncontroversial and unprovocative sounding aim, into a mission to train the entire UAF into a force that can fight alongside NATO forces. All the training being conducted at the Yavoriv Combat Training Center can be employed by the UAF in either defensive or offensive military operations.

U.S. instructors and Ukrainian Army soldiers review assault on defensive positions and clearing of trenches at the Yavoriv training center.

Capt. Kayla Christopher made it clear how the U.S. military views the Donbass Republics and why the Poroshenko regime labeled the initial attempt to take the rebellious oblasts by force as an anti-terrorism operation (ATO):

“They’re called anti-terrorism operations rather than something else because of the issue with the Russian-backed separatists. So they’re not really Russians, you know. They’re essentially terrorists.”

This is a revealing statement for a number of reasons. It reveals the U.S. origin of the initial use of the term ATO by Kiev, and the early influence of the U.S. over the new regime from the outset. It also refutes the often toted mantra that the UAF is fighting Russian military personnel directly in Donbass. Furthermore, while the message coming out of official U.S. diplomatic channels are in agreement with the guarantors of the Minsk-II agreement, that the only solution to the conflict is a peaceful, political one, the U.S. military has lumped all those that refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the Kiev government under the label of terrorists. This may just be the ignorance of one low level military officer on display, as another comment made by Capt. Christopher seems wholly disconnected from the bloody reality of the conflict and how it has effected all of Ukraine, most notably the civilians living in the breakaway regions whose only crime is the place they call home, and in most cases, their refusal to kneel to an illegitimate ruler:

“It’s actually pretty remarkable how little you feel the effect of the conflict on the western side of Ukraine. It’s almost as if nothing is happening…And if I didn’t work directly with soldiers every day, I don’t think you would really know. I mean, we see it on the news every day, and I work with soldiers every day. So we know about it. But you go out into Lviv, or any of the other big cities around this area and you really don’t feel the effects of there being war here.”

Such comments are either an attempt to distance the U.S. Army mission from the actual combat being conducted, or are a very real exhibition of just how disconnected from reality the U.S. military is in another failed “nation building” project. The brutal realities of this war are very clear to the civilians living in Donbass, who are subjected to indiscriminant artillery shelling by the UAF on a daily basis. The many families on both sides of the conflict who have lost loved ones could educate Capt. Christopher, and enlighten her as to just how real the war is.

Is this a terrorist that deserves to lose what little comfort and security she has in this world, or an innocent civilian caught between warring factions fighting over land she has called home her entire life?

Lethal Aid and a Growing U.S. Presence in the Region in General

U.S. weapons manufacturers have been providing the UAF with specialized small arms and sniper rifles chambered in NATO standard ammunition as well as non-standard high- powered rifle rounds. Russian equivalent rocket-propelled grenades (RPG) systems and projectiles manufactured in the U.S. have also been provided. Most recently, President Trump approved the sale of Javelin ATGMs to Kiev. The initial $47 million sale consists of 210 missiles and 37 launch units. While some analysts see this more as a symbolic move meant to send a message to Russia that U.S. foreign policy under Trump is still one of containment of Russia, by expanding NATO right up to Russia’s borders in every region, other see it as an initial “testing of the waters”. Will Russia acquiesce to the sale or respond in kind by supplying the DPR/LPR with another high-tech weapon system? Regardless, Ukraine is becoming a de-facto NATO military camp, along with the Baltic States, Poland and Romania.

The FGM-148 Javelin ATGM is a fire-and-forget weapon with a reusable command launch unit (CLU). It is man-portable, although quite heavy at approximately 50lbs. (22.6 kg.). It can be used to attack in line-of-sight or “top attack” mode. It is a more complicated ATGM that requires added operator training to use.

Ukraine special operations forces have clearly undergone a transformation since U.S. military involvement in the country. UAF special operators more closely resemble those of NATO nations. They are now wearing U.S. military issue Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP) “multicam” battle dress uniforms and gear, and are increasingly using western manufactured firearm accessories, optics, and night vision equipment. More notably, the UAF special operations units have adopted a number of small arms and sniper weapons systems that utilize NATO standard ammunition such as the 5.56x45mm intermediate rifle round and the 7.62x51mm rifle round. Sniper rifles chambered in .308 Winchester and .338 Lapua have also been adopted in limited numbers. Ukraine Special Forces, the SBU, and a number of airborne forces have adopted the Israeli Tavor TAR-21, built under license in Ukraine by the Fort firearms manufacturer. The Fort assault rifles have been manufactured and issued in both 5.45x39mm Russian caliber and 5.56x45mm NATO caliber. A contingent of 25^th Airborne Brigade paratroopers were issued with Fort-21 assault rifles during the parade to celebrate Independence Day on August 24^th, 2016.

Ukrainian Special Forces are being trained, equipped and armed by the U.S. to the point that they are hard to distinguish from their benefactors. It is also true that Russian Spetsnaz have followed a similar transformation, at least in the use of western tactical gear and firearms accessories.

A more alarming trend from the point of view of the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD) is the growing presence of U.S. special operations soldiers on Russia’s borders. The deployment of these highly trained operators has increased nearly 300% in just 11 years. According to a report published in The Nation in October of 2016, European deployments of U.S. special operations forces accounted for 3% of the total in 2006, increasing to 12% by 2017. These elite soldiers were deployed to nations all along Russia’s Western and South Western borders, in countries such as Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Moldova, Georgia, and even Finland. Just as they have increased training regimens with Ukrainian special forces, they have increased inter-operability with special forces in many other European nations. In 2016 alone, U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) conducted no less than 37 Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET) exercises on the European continent, with 18 such exercises in nations bordering Russia.

The message being send to the Russian MOD is clear. The United States is sending soldiers especially trained in asymmetrical warfare to its borders, and has increased cooperation and influence with peer forces in those same nations. Most of these nations had long been in Russia’s sphere of influence. Operation Rapid Trident or similar training exercises have been held in Ukraine in some form or another since 1995, and have been attended by a growing list of NATO, NATO-aligned and non-NATO countries located on Russia’s periphery in increasing number in recent years. It is not hard to image the U.S response to Russia deploying Spetsnaz forces in increasing numbers in training exercises in Canada, Mexico, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. The hypocrisy is obvious when viewed in these terms. U.S. SOCOM deploys soldiers to roughly three quarters of the nations of the world over the course of a year, increasingly to nations bordering Russia and the continent of Africa, and yet NATO complains when Russia conducts military exercises within its own borders, or in conjunction with its global allies.

Canada, another NATO member, has been heavily invested in the inter-operability training from the very beginning. Canadian PM Justin Trudeau even visited the Yavoriv training center during an official state visit to Ukraine on July 12, 2016.

Conclusions

A brief study of U.S. military involvement in Ukraine reveals that it started before the Maidan, increased during the initial ATO, and continued to increase after the disastrous defeat of the UAF in the winter months of 2015, culminating in the Battle of Debaltseve. The U.S. government has been supplying the Ukrainian state with both non-lethal and lethal aid, military training and support, and crucial monetary support. The goal of making the Ukrainian Armed Forces a de-facto NATO inter-operable fighting component have been underway for three years now at an ever accelerating pace.

The Pentagon has clearly been tasked with tipping the military balance of power in Ukraine to the advantage of Petro Poroshenko’s regime. The U.S. government is not a signatory of Minsk-II, nor do they have any apparent desire to see the conflict settled through dialogue and compromise. Regrettably, the U.S. State Department ceased to be a diplomatic service decades ago, and only acts to reinforce threats and coercion coming from the White House and the military industrial complex that directs it. There will be no peace, no compromise and no reconciliation in Ukraine as long as Uncle Sam is coddling a corrupt oligarch-made-ruler, and encouraging him to crush the “terrorists” in the east that he claims to represent as a democratically elected president. Unfortunately, he was not elected by the people of Donbass, as these regions were not included in the political process, nor were many of the political parties they may have voted for.

As witnessed in so many other conflicts, from Georgia to Syria, Russia has decide to be reactionary while the U.S. has decided to take the offensive initiative. There will undoubtedly come a time in the Ukraine conflict, as the U.S. continues to up the ante, when Russia will have to decide it its historic interests in Ukraine and Crimea are worth a wider conflict, or if it will allow its centuries-old connect to this region, its land and its people, slip away. The history of bloodshed and heroic sacrifice on the part of Russian soldiers to defend and preserve this connection through a multitude of conflicts from the 14^th century through the present should give U.S. political and military decision makers reason to re-evaluate their present course; however, imperial power and hubris recognize no limitations.

*

Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years.

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: Ibrahim Jahalin, a Bedouin shepherd, has vowed to stay in Khan al-Ahmar “whatever happens” (MEE/Peter Oborne)

It takes barely 30 minutes to drive from Jerusalem to the doomed Bedouin community of Khan al-Ahmar, situated on the main road to Jericho on the West Bank.

But there’s no turning off the main road. We have to park in a nearby lay-by, jump over metal barriers, dodge fast oncoming traffic, then scramble up a steep slope to reach the village.

Khan al-Ahmar is home to 173 people, many of them Bedouin shepherds who have lived in the area since time immemorial. But the Israeli state is determined to demolish it to make way for the expansion of the nearby settlement of Kfar Adumim.

Three weeks ago, after years of legal battles, the government received clearance from the Supreme Court to relocate the Bedouin. The judges ruled that the demolition can go ahead because the Bedouin do not have building permits. But this is a sham: the Bedouin have no way of getting permits.

As far as the Bedouin are concerned, now it’s just a case of waiting for the arrival of bulldozers and the Israeli army to drive them out.

They have been designated a new home next to a garbage dump in east Jerusalem. In this urban location, about which they were not consulted, there is no room to graze their flocks and little prospect of other work. Indeed, the Bedouin say that their proposed new home is foul-smelling, contaminated, toxic and unfit for human habitation.

I travel with a guide from the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem. When we reach the village we meet Ibrahim Jahalin, a shepherd. His 11-year daughter plays nearby. What will he do, I ask, when the bulldozers come?

“Why should I even have to go anywhere?” he says. “I was born here. They are the ones who came afterwards. We won’t leave, whatever happens. We will stay here.”

Series of humiliations

This threat of resettlement is just the latest in a series of humiliations meted out towards the Palestinian Bedouin by the Israelis.

Jahalin belongs to a tribe who were expelled from the Negev desert by the Israeli military during the 1950s. They moved to where the neighbouring settlement of Kfar Adumim is now, but were then expelled from there as well.

Israel denies the Bedouin access to public services and basic infrastructure, as it does to most Palestinians living in Area C of the West Bank. They have no access to the electricity grid. In 2015 the Israeli civil administration confiscated 12 solar panels that had been donated to the Bedouin, although these have since been won back following a legal battle.

There is no access to the Jericho-Jerusalem highway, even though it’s barely 100 metres away and we can hear the cars rushing past as we talk.

Ibrahim tells me:

“It takes 10 minutes to get to Jericho on the highway. Because we are disconnected from the road, it takes half an hour.”

This isolation has tragic consequences. Ibrahim lost his young daughter Aya in a domestic accident. He blames delays in getting her to hospital.

“She died but she could have been saved,” she says.

Ibrahim and I talk in the yard of the nearby school, to the sound of children singing in the classroom. The site – which serves more than 150 pupils, many from neighbouring communities – is also scheduled for demolition.

I tell Ibrahim about the mounting anger in Britain and the West at plans to demolish his village. Boris Johnson, the British foreign secretary, is “deeply concerned” while 100 MPs have written to the Israeli ambassador, suggesting that the demolition may breach international humanitarian law.

Minister for the Middle East @AlistairBurtUK and UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson call upon #Israel not to demolish Palestinian Bedouin village of #KhanAlAhmar. pic.twitter.com/585NwC93vv

— UKinJerusalem?? (@UKinJerusalem) June 12, 2018

But the Bedouin are understandably cynical about this latest manifestation of Western concern. They are all too used to shows of support from the West that mean nothing. The village’s visitor’s book reads like a roll call of the great and good. Alistair Burt, Minister of State for the Middle East, his predecessor Tobias Ellwood, Ed Milliband, former Labour Leader, Valerie Amos, the UN Under Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator), Martin Schulz, former leader of the German Social Democratic Party, Emily Thornberry, the Shadow Foreign Affairs Secretary, William Hague, former Foreign Secretary, are among the 60 odd names in the book. Briefings have been held in the UN, the British Parliament, the European Parliament, in Sweden, Norway. It has absolutely no effect on Israel.

If Israel goes ahead with demolition then it will be a defining moment in the history of the occupation of the West Bank. For the past few decades, Israel has pursued a policy which, for the most part, has stopped short of forced population transfer.

Instead the authorities have made conditions so dreadful for Palestinians in the hope that they eventually move of their own accord. Now they are moving towards deportation: in effect the replacement of one ethnic group by another through violence.

That’s ethnic cleansing.

In the words of B’Tselem:

“This is not a trivial or insignificant violation of International Humanitarian Law, but a breach that constitutes a war crime.”

‘Step-change’ in occupation

After our visit to Khan al-Ahmar, we go back to the road and drive up to the neighbouring settlement of Kfar Adumim. We pass small businesses, a photographic studio and a primary school. In glaring contrast with our journey to the Bedouin village, access is easy along metalled roads. The settlers live in comfortable detached houses with sweeping views over scenery resonant of the Bible.

We park at the top of the hill and look down at the Bedouin village below.

I asked myself: what do the settlers see when they look down on the Bedouin? Criminals? Terrorists? A human sub-species which can be disposed and redisposed of at will?

Buildings in Khan al-Ahmar are mostly constructed from tin sheets and wooden panels (MEE/Yumna Patel)

Ibrahim told me how some settlers from Kfar Adumim were on his side. They came down at night to sleep in his encampment so they can help if the bulldozers come. A vestige of humanity. But it was the settlers of Kfar Adumin who brought the petition which demanded the destruction of the village school.

Ibrahim told me:

“I fear it will happen this weekend when there is a holiday at the end of Ramadan.”

It looks inevitable that this community will be swept away and become another casualty of the occupation. And that will be a giant step towards the creation of an urban settlement block that would split the southern and northern parts of the West Bank in two.

It will also mean a step change in the occupation as Israel moves to a policy of forcibly transferring other communities. And the two-state solution will look that much more like a ruined dream.

*

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

As Trump stokes tensions around the world, he’s adding fuel to the fire by demanding even more Pentagon spending. It’s a dangerous military buildup intended to underwrite endless wars and enrich defense contractors, while draining money from investment in the American people.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted,

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Eisenhower was a Republican and a former general who helped win World War II for the allies, yet he understood America’s true priorities. But Washington–and especially Trump–have lost sight of these basic tradeoffs.

Since 2001, the Pentagon budget has soared from $456 billion–in today’s dollars–to $700 billion, including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other national security expenses. All told, when you include spending on the military and war, veterans’ benefits, and homeland security, military-related spending now eats up 67 percent of all federal discretionary spending.

According to the 2018 Military Balance report by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, the United States already spends more on the military than the next 10 nations combined. Even if the Pentagon budget were cut in half, the United States would still outspend China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea combined.

The military budget has become bloated with waste and abuse. According to the Pentagon’s own internal figures, the department could save at least $125 billion by reducing operational overhead.

Out-of-control defense contractors also drive up spending. In the coming years, cost overruns alone are projected to reach an estimated $484 billion. Meanwhile, the CEOs of the top 5 defense firms took home $97.4 million in compensation last year.

Despite all this, some still argue that military spending is necessary to support good-paying jobs and economic growth. Baloney. America would be much better served by a jobs program that invested in things we really need – like modern roads and highways, better school facilities, public parks, water and sewer systems, and clean energy – not weapons systems.

The biggest reason for increases in Pentagon spending is the incredible clout of the military-industrial complex – Eisenhower’s term. Every year, defense contractors spend millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions to keep federal dollars flowing their way. More than 80 percent of top Pentagon officials have worked for the defense industry at some point in their careers, and many will go back to work in the defense industry.

Since taking office, Trump has increased military spending by more than $200 billion. Let’s take a second to look at how else that $200 billion could be spent.  We could, for example:

Offer free public colleges and universities, as proposed by Bernie Sanders.

And fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

And expand broadband Internet access to rural America.

And meet the growing needs for low-income housing, providing safe living conditions for families and the elderly.

And help repair the physical devastation in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria.

Spending more on bombs and military machinery funnels money away from the American people and into wars. It’s time to rein in Pentagon spending and this endless war machine, and demand investment in America.

*

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies. He served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century.

This article was first published in April 2015.

On my many walking visits to the vast Normandy battlefield in France, I kept recalling the ever so wise dictum of Prussia’s great monarch, Frederick the Great:  ‘he who defends everything, defends nothing.’  On this 74^th anniversary of the D-Day landings, it’s well worth recalling the old warrior-king.

Adolf Hitler, a veteran of the infantry, should certainly have known better. Defending the European coast from Brittany to Norway was an impossibility given Germany’s military and economic weakness in 1944.  But he did not understand this.  Having so brilliantly overcome France’s Maginot Line fortifications in 1940, Hitler and his High Command repeated the same strategic and tactical errors as the French only four years later: not having enough reserves to effectively counter-attack enemy breakthrough forces.

Germany’s vaunted Atlantic Wall looked formidable on paper, but it was too long, too thin, lacked defensive depth and was lacking in adequate reserve forces.  The linear Maginot Line suffered the same failings.  America’s fortifications protecting Manila and Britain’s ‘impregnable’ fortifications at Singapore also proved worthless. The Japanese merely marched into their undefended rears.

In 1940, the German Wehrmacht was modern history’s supreme fighting machine.  But only four years later, the Wehrmacht was broken.  Most Americans, British and Canadians believe that D-Day was the decisive stroke that ended WWII in Europe. But this is not true.

Germany’s mighty Wehrmacht, which included the Luftwaffe, was destroyed by Stalin’s Soviet Union.  The Red Army claims to have destroyed 507 German divisions, 48,000 German tanks, 77,000 German aircraft, and 100 divisions of Axis troops allied to Germany from Italy, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia,  and Finland.

Few Americans have ever heard of the Soviet Far East offensive of 1945, a huge operation that extended from Central Asia to Manchuria and the Pacific.  At least 450,000 Japanese soldiers were killed, wounded or captured by the Red Army, 32% of Japan’s total wartime military losses.  The Soviets were poised to invade Japan when the US struck it with two nuclear weapons.

Of Germany’s 10 million casualties in WWII, 75% were inflicted by the Red Army.  The once mighty Luftwaffe was decimated over Russia.  Almost all German military production went to supplying the 1,600 km Eastern Front where Germany’s elite forces were ground up in titanic battles like Kursk and Stalingrad that involved millions of soldiers.

Soviet forces lost upwards of 20 million men. Total US losses, including the Pacific, were one million.  To Marshal Stalin, D-Day, the North African and Italian campaign were merely diversionary side-shows to tie down Axis forces while the Red Army pushed on to Berlin.

D-Day was without doubt one of the greatest logistical feats of modern military history. Think of General Motors versus the German warrior Siegfried.  For every US tank the Germans destroyed, ten more arrived.  Each German tank was almost irreplaceable.  Transporting over one million men and their heavy equipment across the Channel was a triumph.  But who remembers that Germany crossed the heavily defended Rhine River into France in 1940?

By June, 1944, German forces at Normandy and along the entire Channel coast had almost no diesel fuel or gasoline.  Their tanks and trucks were immobilized.  Allied air power shot up everything that moved, including a staff car carrying Marshal Erwin Rommel strafed by Canada’s own gallant future aviator general, Richard Rohmer.  German units in Normandy were below 40% combat effectiveness even without their shortages in fuel.

The Germans in France were also very short of ammunition, supplies and communications.  Units could only move by night, and then very slowly.  Hitler was reluctant to release armored forces from his reserves. Massive Allied bombing of Normandy alone killed 15,000 to 20,000 French civilians and shattered many cities and towns.

Churchill once said, ‘you will never know war until you fight Germans.’  With no air cover or fuel and heavily outnumbered, German forces in Normandy managed to mount a stout resistance, inflicting 209,000 casualties on US, Canadian, British, Free French and allied forces.  German losses were around 200,000.

The most important point of the great invasion is that without it, the Red Army would have reached Paris and the Channel Ports by the end of 1944, making Stalin the master of all Europe except Spain.  Of course, the Allies could have reached a peace agreement with Germany in 1944, which Hitler was seeking and Gen. George Patton was rumored to be advocating.  But the German-hating Churchill and left-leaning Roosevelt were too bloody-minded to consider a peace that would have kept Stalin out of at least some of Eastern Europe.

Relevant article selected from the GR archive, first published in October 2016.

False flagging has hundreds of years of history; successful history that is. Otherwise the method of lying and bullying people into false beliefs would not have survived the times.

But false flags took on a new dimension since 9/11. The subsequent terror acts, including the Arab Spring and ‘Color Revolutions’; downing of a Russian plane over Egypt; shooting down of a Malaysian plane over the Ukraine; Paris murderous shootings at ‘Charlie Hebdo’ and ‘Bataclan’; Brussels; Nice; Munich; Orlando, Florida; San Bernardino, California – to name just a few over the last years – were perpetrated by the very actors claiming to fight terror, namely predominantly the secret services of the US, UK and Israel, the European vassals and NATO. The purpose of such acts of terror is to create fear, to justify a police crackdown on the populations and doing away with every time more of the democratic civil rights still left in western society.

The penultimate goal is total militarization of the western world, to prevent and suppress protests and revolts if and when the population eventually wakes up to the flagrant lies that it has been force-fed by the presstitute media for years on end.

And that in itself is a crucial step towards the ultimate goal of Full Spectrum Dominance of the world, or world hegemony, by a small corporate and financial elite.

Alas, militarization of the west and ongoing wars and chaos throughout the world, causing millions of death – estimated between 12 and 15 million in the last 15 years – will not suffice to dominate the eastern powers led by Russia and China.

Do the elites who pull the strings in Washington want a nuclear war? It may fulfill their pathological objective of total annihilation of the world as we know it, possibly with hundreds of millions of casualties.  Just look at Aleppo and multiply this image by a million. See also Kissinger’s 1974 Plan for Food Control Genocide. See this.

Is reduction of world population by any means a major objective: Kissinger’s 1974 ‘study’ on famine as genocide, was commissioned in full connivance with Monsanto and the GMO technology – a food war, the preparation of which is ongoing as the world is facing a nuclear threat.

Intensified through four decades of Cold War, the US has grown increasingly dependent on the military – security industry for its economic advances. Creating weapons to exploit and destroy in foreign lands what later needs reconstruction is an easy way to making huge profits, sustaining an otherwise outsourced production economy and an ever poorer local population that lives off imported junk.

This is true for the misinformed US and European public.  The West is sinking by its own inaction into a deep hole.

However, the need for more sophisticated weaponry and more destruction is spiraling exponentially, as greed, avarice and power know no limits. A WWIII scenario is becoming an imminent danger. Do the neocon architects of US foreign policy hope to survive a nuclear inferno in their lush bunkers?

The western presstitute media portrays the US as fighting in the Middle East and elsewhere ‘humanitarian wars’ to stamp out terrorism and other atrocities committed by the new Killary anointed Axis of Evil, Russia-Iran-Syria, and by association, China.

The basic premise is, they are the “good guys” and the Russians under Putin’s orders are constantly interfering with America’s humanitarian deeds. This sick understanding, continuously touted by the western media controlled by the six Zionist-Anglo media giants, and repeated hourly, will make massive, credible false-flagging like a walk in the park – a walk in which about a billion ‘westerners’ are cheering for war against the eastern evil.

Currently the US is secretly on DEFCON level 3 warning against a Russian nuclear attack (DEFCON = Defense Readiness Condition). The American public doesn’t know it. – Level 3 means an attack could be days away; level one would imply an imminent attack within less than an hour. This in itself is a false flag, a make-believe that a first strike may come from Russia, when the Pentagon hawks openly boast that a first preventive strike is not off the table. Some high level generals even push for it.

There is a massive orchestrated build-up of potential false flags around the globe that would allow a first strike nuclear attack on several fronts against Russia, Syria, Iran and China, by the US armed forces, NATO and the European vassals’ own armies. Israel is poised to launch an attack against Iran.

Syria – the 20-nation Peace Talks of Saturday 15 October 2016 in Lausanne, Switzerland, focusing on an Aleppo cease fire, predictably failed to produce any tangible results. Nevertheless, in a real humanitarian effort, Russia has declared an 8-hour truce to begin on Thursday, 20 October, “We have taken a decision not to waste time and to introduce ‘humanitarian pauses’, mainly for the free passage of civilians, evacuation of the sick and wounded and withdrawal of fighters.

The ceasefire would run from 0800 to 1600 local time (0500 GMT to 1300 GMT) “in the area of Aleppo. During this period the Russian air force and Syrian government troops will halt air strikes and firing from any other types of weapons,” as ‘vanguardngr.com’ quoted senior Russian military officer Sergei Rudskoi as saying at a press briefing. – Later the truce has been extended to 11 hours and at yesterday’s (19 October) ‘peace discussion’ in Berlin, hosted by Madame Merkel, Mr. Putin said he would be prepared to extend it to 3 days, if all the parties were committed to observe it.

What if – in defiance of this mini-ceasefire – US, US-proxies, or NATO fighters keep bombing Syrian army ground troops in the Aleppo region, as well as hospitals and civilian populations, to encourage Al-Nusra, cum IS terrorists to stay their course and keep sowing misery and killing civilians? – Russia has warned Washington that any attack on Assad’s troops would be the object of retaliation. Might such a scenario be a provocation to start a hot WWIII? – Precedents of defying cease fire agreements and blaming Russia for it exist in the not so distant past: 17 September, when the US air force ‘by mistake’ attacked Assad’s ground forces killing 62 soldiers – and who knows how many civilians – then, through the complicit MSM blamed Russia for it.

It is not inconceivable that US war planes painted to look like Russians, could attack their own Air Force in Syria or Iraq, blaming Russia, thereby triggering a US first strike. With the brainwashed western population, the false flag would be an easy sell as a Russian aggression, justifying Washington’s ‘first strike’.

america’s indefectible British ally has recently given its fighter jet pilots ‘permission’ to fire on Russian aircraft in Syria. – What if they actually do so, as a US proxy? – And Russia retaliates against a NATO country – which is according to NATO rules an aggression against all NATO. This could mean an all-out war. US and NATO bases in Europe would not be spared. By now there are 24 bases, an increase from 14 since 1991, when the West promised not to expand NATO. This would plunge Europe for the third time in 100 years into – this time an all-annihilating – war scenario.  How can Europe not see and understand this?

Yemen – Since March 2015 a Saudi led coalition, for which until recently Washington provided weapons, logistical and intelligence support, is bombing the Houthi rebels. The Houtis, fighting for freedom from the western domination, have seized the Presidential Palace in Sana’a, sending the despotic US puppet President Hadi to Saudi Arabia into exile. The Houthis enjoy the backing of the majority of the Yemeni population and are considered the legitimate government. They also receive logistics support from Iran. They control about a quarter of the Yemeni landmass but more than three quarters of the population. The Saudis have been cowardly targeting mostly civilian populations, family celebrations, like weddings and funerals, humanitarian food and medical supplies and hospitals, slaughtering tens of thousands of mainly women and children. A couple of weeks ago the US and UK Air Forces have joined the Saudis in this atrocious war.

While the Houthis have called on President Putin for help, the US has now called, through the UN, for a 72-hour ceasefire to enter into effect on 19 October mid-night. The official purpose is ‘humanitarian aid’, but the real reason is for the alliance of aggressors to regroup and strategize. It is unconceivable that the Master of Chaos would let go of such an optimal strategically placed country, overlooking the Gulf of Oman and the Iran controlled Strait of Hormuz, through which currently about 25 % of the world’s hydrocarbons sail. A western planted false flag, depicting a Russian intervention, could easily activate a full-scale war.

Israel, entering friendly relations with the Saudis, has asked the House of Saud for access to Saudi airfields which they may use to launch a ‘preemptive’ attack against Iran.

Internet spying and cyber war accusations against President Putin – most ridiculous, but with sledgehammer propaganda the American and most of European population will gulp this lie as the truth – and encourage US, UK and Israeli secret services (the infamous trio) to do likewise. The argument is that Mr. Putin wants to derail US elections in favor of Donald Trump and hacking into DNC computers to divulge Democratic party corruption scandals – laying bare Madame Clinton’s corruption and lies. Apparently the CIA has already declared a cyber war against President Putin.

Russia could potentially retaliate, jamming key US strategic war systems with DRFM (Digital Radio Frequency Memory) technology, already successfully applied in 2015 in Syria, near Latakia, disrupting all US-NATO Radar and Satellites Communication systems. – Might such a possible retaliation and escalation in cyber warfare be translated into a lethal aggression by Russia, justifying a full-out war, with nuclear consequences?

On 19 October, Presidents Putin, Hollande and Poroshenko traveled to Berlin at the invitation of Madame Merkel to discuss Syria and implementation of a peace plan for eastern Ukraine. First, how come, a sovereign country like Syria is discussed by foreign powers, without – and I mean without any representation of Mr. Assad’s government? It is a human and diplomatic aberration. But what else would we expect from the west. Still, people need to be reminded that what appears normal is NOT normal at all.

The little that emerged from the meeting is that Mr. Hollande went home frustrated since Mr. Putin did not stand up to ‘his responsibilities in Ukraine’- what a flagrant lie! And Hollande knows it! – Also was disclosed that no real agreement was reached on how to go about achieving peace in Syria.

Obviously for the western stooges of Washington, present in Berlin, there is only one way a ‘solution’ could be found: ‘Regime Change’. They will not let go. Even though Hollande and Merkel know absolutely well, why the US instigated the war in Syria, by recruiting and preparing, arming and funding terror groups already in 2007 (look for ‘Syria’ in this article)

On Ukraine – Poroshenko has promised a new road map for peace, nothing more exciting. The practical deadlock on Syria and ‘no news’ on Ukraine was to be expected. It is of course being blamed by both Hollande and Merkel on Vladimir Putin, who has never played a role in either conflict, both of them are the result of the evil fist of Washington.

Mr. Putin entered Syria only at the demand of Mr. Assad, to defend and rid the country of western implanted terrorists. He is also doing everything possible to pacify Ukraine, to no avail. The west doesn’t want peace, but they want to blame Russia for the conflicts. Failure of the Merkel meeting might possibly be followed by a false flag against Kiev or Aleppo, to be put on Putin’s account, what else. Remember, the US Air Force has jets painted as Russian jets.

China

Would a US provocation on the Chinese controlled Spratly Islands, or an infringement on China’s air and land space, as there have been many in the past, become a trigger for engaging China in a nuclear aggression?

Hot spots around the world devastated to chaos by the empire abound. Anyone of them is a potential launch path for an atomic mushroom. Should this happen before the upcoming US elections, Obama might just stay on for another term. He has all the experience it needs to create more chaos and more division to conquer than any of his predecessors. He is also an obedient servant to those that pull the strings and watch through the eye on top of the pyramid, so clearly depicted in the US dollar bill, the symbol for Zionist-Freemason total hegemony. But importantly, he, like Hillary, would most likely not hesitate to push the Red Bottom, when asked to do so by their masters.

*

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media, TeleSUR, TruePublica, 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.

Through this letter I express my unequivocal condemnation of Amnesty International with regards to the destabilizing role it has played in Nicaragua, my country of birth. 

I open this letter quoting Donatella Rovera, who at the time this quote was made had been one of Amnesty International’s field investigators for more than 20 years:

“Conflict situations create highly politicized and polarized environments (…). Players and interested parties go to extraordinary lengths to manipulate or manufacture “evidence” for both internal and external consumption. A recent, though by no means the only, example is provided by the Syrian conflict in what is often referred to as the “YouTube war,” with a myriad techniques employed to manipulate video footage of incidents which occurred at other times in other places – including in other countries – and present them as “proof” of atrocities committed by one or the other parties to the conflict in Syria.”

Ms. Rovera’s remarks, made in 2014, properly describe the situation of Nicaragua today, where even the preamble of the crisis was manipulated to generate rejection of the Nicaraguan government. Amnesty International’s maliciously titled report, Shoot to Kill: Nicaragua’s Strategy to Repress Protest, could be dismantled point by point, but doing so requires precious time that the Nicaraguan people don’t have, therefore I will concentrate on two main points:

• The report completely lacks neutrality and;
• Amnesty International’s role is contributing to the chaos in which the nation finds itself.

The operating narrative, agreed-upon by the local opposition and the corporate western media, is as follows: That president Ortega sought to cut 5 percent from retirees’ monthly retirement checks, and that he was going to increase contributions, made by employees and employers, into the social security system. The reforms sparked protests, the response to which was a government-ordered genocide of peaceful protestors, more than 60, mostly students. A day or two after that, the Nicaraguan government would wait until nightfall to send its police force out in order to decimate the Nicaraguan population, night after night, city by city, in the process destroying its own public buildings and killing its own police force, to then culminate its murderous rampage with a Mothers’ Day massacre, and so on.

While the above narrative is not uniformly expressed by all anti-government actors, the unifying elements are that the government is committing genocide, and that the president and vice-president must go.

Amnesty International’s assertions are mostly based on either testimony by anti-government witnesses and victims, or the uncorroborated and highly manipulated information emitted by U.S.-financed anti-government media outlets, and non-profit organizations, collectively known as “civil society.”  

The three main media organizations cited by the report: Confidencial, 100% Noticias, and La Prensa, are sworn enemies of the Ortega government; most of these opposition news media organizations, along with some, if not all, of the main non-profits cited by the report, are funded by the United States, through organizations like the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has been characterized by retired U.S. Congressman, Ron Paul, as:

 “… an organization that uses US tax money to actually subvert democracy, by showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas. It underwrites color-coded ‘people’s revolutions’ overseas that look more like pages out of Lenin’s writings on stealing power than genuine indigenous democratic movements.” 

Amnesty’s report heavily relies on 100% Noticias, an anti-government news outlet that has aired manipulated and inflammatory material to generate hatred against the Nicaraguan government, including footage of peaceful protesters, unaware of the fact that the protesters were carrying pistols, rifles, and were shooting at police officers during incidents reported by the network as acts of police repression of opposition marches. On Mothers’ Day, 100% Noticias reported the purported shooting of unarmed protesters by police shooters, including an incident in which a young man’s brains were spilling out of his skull. The network followed the report with a photograph that Ms. Rovera would refer to as an incident “…which occurred at other times in other places.” The picture included in the report was quickly met on social media by links to past online articles depicting the same image.

One of the sources (footnote #77) cited to corroborate the alleged denial of medical care at state hospitals to patients injured at opposition events –one of the main accusations repeated and reaffirmed by Amnesty International- is a press conference published by La Prensa, in which the Chief of Surgery denies claims that he had been fired, or that hospital officials had denied care to protesters at the beginning of the conflict.

“I repeat,” he is heard saying, “as the chief of surgery, I repeat [the] order: to take care of, I will be clear, to take care of the entire population that comes here, without investigating anything at all.”

In other words, one of Amnesty International’s own sources contradicts one of its report’s main claims. 

The above-mentioned examples of manipulated and manufactured evidence, to borrow the words of Amnesty’s own investigator, are just a small sample, but they capture the essence of this modality of U.S.-sponsored regime change. The report feeds on claims from those on one side of the conflict, and relies on deeply corrupted evidence; it ultimately helps create the mirage of a genocidal state, in turn generating more antigovernment sentiment locally and abroad, and paving the way for ever more aggressive foreign intervention. 

A different narrative

The original reforms to social security were not proposed by the Sandinista government, but by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and they were supported by an influential business group, known as COSEP. They included raising the retirement age from 60 to 65 and doubling the number of quotas necessary to get full social security from 750 to 1500. Among the impacted retirees, approximately 53,000, are the families of combatants who died in the armed conflict of the 1980s, from both the Sandinista army and the “Contras,” the mercenary army financed by the United States government in the 1980s, around the same time the NED was created, in part, to stop the spread of Sandinismo in Latin America. 

The Nicaraguan government countered the IMF’s reforms by rejecting the cutting out of any retirees, with a proposed 5% cut to all retirement checks, an increase in all contributions to the social security system, and with fiscal reform that removed a tax-ceiling that protected Nicaragua’s biggest salaries from higher taxation. The business sector was furious, and together with nongovernmental organizations organized the first marches, using the pretext of the reforms in the same manipulative way Amnesty International’s report explains them:

“… the reform increased social security contributions by both employers and employees and imposed an additional 5% contribution on pensioners.”

The continuing narrative, repeated and validated by Amnesty International, is that the protesters are peaceful and the genocidal government is irrationally bent on committing atrocities in plain sight. Meanwhile, the number of dead among Sandinista supporters and police officers continues to rise. The report states that ballistic investigations suggest that those shooting at protesters are likely trained snipers, pointing to government involvement, but fails to mention that many of the victims are Sandinistas, regular citizens, and police officers. It also does not mention that the “peaceful protesters” have burned down and destroyed more than 60 public buildings, among them many City Halls, Sandinista houses, markets, artisan shops, radio stations, and more; nor does it mention that the protesters have established “tranques,” or roadblocks, in order to debilitate the economy as a tactic to oust the government. Such “tranques” have become extremely dangerous scenes where murder, robbery, kidnapping, and the rape of at least one child have taken place; a young pregnant woman whose ambulance wasn’t let through also died on May 17^th.  All of these crimes occur daily and are highly documented, but aren’t included in Amnesty International’s report.

While the organization is right to criticize the government’s belittling response to the initial protests, such response was not entirely untrue. According to the report, Vice-President Murillo said, among other things, that

“…they [the protesters] had made up the reports of fatalities (…) as part of an anti-government strategy.”

What Amnesty leaves out is that several of the reported dead students did turn up alive, one of them all the way in Spain, while others had not been killed at rallies, nor were they students or activists, including one who died from a scattered bullet, and another who died from a heart attack in his bed.

Amnesty’s report also leaves out that many of the students have deserted the movement, alleging that there are criminals entrenched at universities as well as at the various “tranques,” who are only interested in destabilizing the nation. Those criminals have created a state of sustained fear among the population, imposing “taxes” on those who want passage, persecuting those who refuse to be detained, kidnapping them, beating them, torturing them, and setting their cars on fire. In a common practice, they undress their victims, paint their naked bodies in public with the blue and white of the Nicaraguan flag, and then set them free, prompting them to run right before shooting them with homemade mortar weapons. All of this information, which did not make the report, is available in numerous videos and other sources.

Why Nicaragua?

The most basic review of the history between Nicaragua and the United States will show a clear rivalry. Beginning in the mid-1800s, Nicaragua has been resisting U.S. intervention into the country’s affairs, a resistance that continued through the 20^th century, first with General August C. Sandino’s fight in the 1920s and 30s, and then with the Sandinistas, organized as the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), which overthrew the U.S.-supported, 40-year Somoza family dictatorship in 1979. The FSLN, despite having gained power through armed struggle, called for elections shortly after its triumph in 1984, and eventually lost to yet another U.S.-supported coalition of right-wing political parties in 1990. The FSLN once again managed, aided by pacts made with the church and the opposition, to win the election of 2006, and has remained in power since.

In addition to Nicaragua’s close ties with Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, and especially China, with whom the country signed a contract to build a canal, the other main reason the United States is after the Sandinistas, is Nicaragua’s highly successful economic model, which represents an existential threat to the neoliberal economic order imposed by the U.S. and its allies.

Despite always being among the poorest nations in the American continent and the world, Nicaragua has managed, since Ortega returned to power in 2007, to cut poverty by three quarters. Prior to the protests in April, the country’s economy sustained a steady annual economic growth of about 5% for several years, and the country had the third fastest-growing economy in Latin America, and was one of the safest nations in the region. 

The government’s infrastructural upgrades have facilitated trade among Nicaragua’s poorest citizens; they have created universal access to education: primary, secondary, and university; there are programs on land, housing, nutrition, and more; the healthcare system, while modest, is not only excellent, but accessible to everyone. Approximately 90% of the food consumed by Nicaraguans is produced in Nicaragua, and about 70% of jobs come from the grassroots economy –rather than from transnational corporations- including from small investors from the United States and Europe, who have moved to the country and are a driving force behind the tourism industry. 

The audacity of success, of giving its poorest citizens a life with dignity, of being an example of sovereignty to wealthier, more powerful nations, all in direct contradiction to the neoliberal model and its emphasis on privatization and austerity, has once again placed Nicaragua in the crosshairs of U.S. intervention. Imagine the example to other nations -their economies already strangled by neoliberal policies- becoming aware of one of the poorest countries on earth being able to feed its people and grow its economy without throwing its poorest citizens under the iron boot of capitalism. The United States will never tolerate such a dangerous example. 

In closing

The Nicaraguan government has deficiencies and contradictions to work on, like all governments, and as a Sandinista myself I would like to see the party transformed in various important ways, both internally and externally. I have refrained from writing of those deficiencies and contradictions, however, because the violent protests and ensuing chaos we have seen are not the result of the Nicaraguan government’s shortcomings, but rather, of its many successes; that inconvenient truth is the reason the United States and its allies, including Amnesty International, have chosen to “…create highly politicized and polarized environments (…). [And to] go to extraordinary lengths to manipulate or manufacture “evidence” for both internal and external consumption.”

At a time when even the Organization of American States, the United Nations, and the Vatican have called for peaceful and constitutional reforms as the only way out of the conflict, Amnesty International has continued to beseech the international community to not “abandon the Nicaraguan people.” Such biased stance, obscenely bloated on highly manipulated, distorted, and one-sided information, has made the terrible situation in Nicaragua even worse. The loss of Nicaraguan lives, including the blood of those ignored by Amnesty International, has been used to manufacture the “evidence” used in the organization’s report, which makes the organization complicit in what future foreign intervention might fall upon the Nicaraguan people. It is now up to the organization to correct that wrong, and to do so in a way that reflects a firm commitment first and foremost to the truth, wherever it might fall, and to neutrality, peace, democracy, and always, to the sovereignty of every nation on earth.

Sincerely,

Camilo E. Mejia,
Iraq war veteran, resister, and conscientious objector (2003-2004)
Amnesty International prisoner of conscience (June 2004)
Born in Nicaragua, citizen of the world

It is no easy task to run an independent online media, relentlessly working around the clock with limited resources. Our ultimate objective has been to contribute to promoting “real” anti-war activism, confronting corrupt and criminal politicians in high office, while also contributing to changing the course of history.

Global Research is independent in the true sense of the word. We don’t receive funding from war-makers and “banksters”, therefore our news is free of corporate agendas. This is only possible thanks to our readers who show their commitment to the truth by sending in donations, creating memberships and purchasing books from our online store in order to get in-depth information on today’s pressing issues.

To help us in continuing to deliver the “stories behind the stories”, please consider showing your support for Global Research. Empowerment now means peace for the future. We can do this together.

There are different ways that you can support Global Research:

DONATE ONLINE (Click button below):

DONATE BY MAIL

To send your donation by mail, kindly send your cheque or international money order, in US$, Can$ or Euro, made out to CRG, to our postal address:

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

Tax Receipts for deductible charitable contributions by US residents

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

---

BECOME A MEMBER

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

---

BROWSE OUR BOOKS

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

Thank you for supporting independent media!

The situation for independent media has changed significantly over the past year. In the face of large corporations attempting to censor our content and curtail our traffic and revenue, we are still here – largely thanks to you, our core readership.

Our goal, however, is not to survive but to thrive. We want the anti-war message to resonate far and wide. If the past year is anything to go by, to be in a position to do so, we must ready ourselves to meet new disruptions and challenges to freedom of expression.

Addressing these issues takes time and resources. We ask you to help us ensure that Global Research remains a valuable online research tool for years to come. Keep independent media alive. If you value our work, please make a donation by clicking the image below.

*     *     *

Video: The USA and the EU Quarrel, But Remain United Against Russia and China

By Manlio Dinucci, June 14, 2018

The meeting of 29 Defense ministers (for Italy Elisabetta Trenta, 5 Stelle), on June 7, unanimously decided to strengthen the anti-Russisa command structure by more than 1,200 personnel; to set up a new Joint Force Command for the Atlantic, based in Norfolk (USA), against “Russian submarines that threaten maritime communication lines between the United States and Europe”; to set up a new Logistics Command, based in Ulm (Germany), as a “deterrent” against Russia, with the task of “moving troops faster across Europe in any conflict”.

Cameroun: The Battle of Languages Serves Colonial Masters

By J. B. Gerald, June 14, 2018

Captured from German interests during WWII by the Free French the Camerouns were divided into British Cameroun to the North and French Cameroun to the South. At its Independence from France January 1, 1960, French Cameroun became the Republic of Cameroun or Cameroun as we know it. To the North, under plebiscite, the southern portion of British Cameroun voted to join the French speaking Republic of Cameroun, while the northern (Muslim) portion of British Cameroun voted to join English speaking Nigeria.

Syria’s President Assad Says US, French, Turks, Israeli Troops Are Occupying Forces

By Press TV, June 14, 2018

Assad made the remarks on Wednesday during an interview with the al-Alam News Network, where he stressed that Syria’s position is to support “any act of resistance, whether against terrorists or against occupying forces regardless of their nationality.”

Good Bye to All That: Donald Trump and the End of the U.S. Global Empire

By Roy Morrison, June 14, 2018

The retreat from U.S.leadership on trade, economics, military security, climate change and ecological protection by Donald Trump is leading in the short term to a world that will emerge as more chaotic, more violent, more polluted, with dictators more emboldened and the poor more desperate.

The Kim-Trump Summit. Geopolitical Implications

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky and Michael Welch, June 15, 2018

In this interview recorded the morning after U.S. President Trump’s ‘historic’ meeting with Chairman Kim Jong-Un of the Democratic Republic of Korea, Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization gives his assessment of the meeting, outlines the threat of a reunified Korean peninsula to U.S. military and economic interests, comments on the coincidence of the G7 and other international summits taking place in the same week, and elaborates on the cross-cutting economic alliances which are challenging U.S. autonomy in the region.

Rep. Ro Khanna Says Fellow Democrats Should Support Diplomacy with North Korea

By Adam Dick, June 14, 2018

On Monday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), joined by 14 fellow Democratic United States House of Representatives members, sent a letter toPresident Donald Trump supporting Trump pursuing diplomacy and “incremental progress” with North Korea. The letter also expresses concern about efforts toward peace being hindered by people — both Republican and Democrat, and both inside and outside the Trump administration — seeking “to scuttle progress by attempting to limit the parameters of the talks, including by insisting on full and immediate denuclearization or other unrealistic commitments by North Korea at an early date.”

It appears to have been no coincidence that when President John F. Kennedy’s spoke to the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27,1961, ten days after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, he tacitly referred to the Joint Chiefs and the CIA who had orchestrated the Cuban invasion and then lied to gain his approval for military action.   

In that speech, Kennedy expressed what became a quintessential JFK quote:

“the very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.  We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it.” 

On May 24th, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) met behind closed doors and  approved the massive 1140 page National Defense Authorization Act  (NDAA S 2987 ) of 2019  by a 25-2 vote which authorizes ‘funding and provides activities for the US military.’  At the same time, the Committee‘s l0 page Executive Summary  and its 654 page Committee report were released explaining ‘details’ of the $716 billion legislative package.   

While the Committee dutifully heard public testimony on the NDAA including Department of Defense Secretary James Mattis and Gen. Joseph Dunford, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on April 26^th , once the SASC subcommittees began their mark up on May 21 and May 22 and the Full SASC met to begin its two day mark-up on May 23 and May 24^th,  all SASC consideration of the NDAA was declared “SECRET” as committee doors were sealed shut preventing all public and press attendance.  

Screenshot from US Committee on Armed Services

There is, of course, a stark difference between public testimony at a legislative hearing which generally focuses on gathering information and opinions on the pending legislative; while a ‘markup’ is when the elected body debates, amends or rewrites the proposed legislation.  It is when the public gets to see its electeds in action; asking intelligent questions, exhibiting a grasp of the issues and otherwise strutting their stuff so the folks back home know there is a vigorous participant with their sleeves rolled up…or not.   

In fact, the word “SECRET” is not included in the Senate’s official Glossary of Terms although ‘closed session’ may be invoked for obvious sensitive matters such as Impeachment.  So let’s assume that the SASC mandarins decided in a massive overreach of their Constitutional authority to hold every single word, every utterance, all 1140 pages worth of discussion and debate of the committee mark up in complete and total SECRECY making no careful thoughtful distinction as to what truly constitutes a ‘national security’ matter – there is no public record available on the SASC website of the committee members discussing or making that determination.   

The SASC website offers no video of either the subcommittees or the full committee meeting  going through the motions of formally declaring their meetings SECRET under the guise of national security, much as Kennedy forewarned more than fifty years ago.  In fact, there is no video available for public view at all proving that the SASC even met on the prescribed dates, that a quorum was present or that they conducted the business they claim to have conducted.  Is it beyond the realm of possibility that a conference call linking all SASC members substituted for a real-time old-fashioned, public committee meeting?   

Neither is there a video on the SASC website of any of the debate or discussion that took place during the mark up nor evidence of the 25-2 roll call vote which precludes us from knowing who the two opposing votes were.   In other words, every iota of debate or amendments offered and every vote taken as well as all discussion were conducted in SECRET which sounds more like a Banana Republic or an authoritarian state of which the US frequently accuses other countries.  

There is little doubt that the American public would have benefited from SASC discussion on certain unmentionables like DOD’s missing $2.3 Trillion,  DARPA projects,  the military role in cyberspace,  the “secret space” program and weaponizing space,  cost overruns, military monitoring of extraterrestrial flights,  long term impacts of AI or other ‘dark’ op programs – but wasn’t that always part of the intent.  

While the Executive Summary reads like preparation for modern day Punic Wars, it is the shortest and easiest read of the available documents.   Once you get past the militaristic mumbo-jumbo, consists mostly of a compilation of funding targets.   Here are some items that caught my attention:

$69 B     Overseas Contingency Ops 

$7.6 B    Assorted F35 Funding   

$5.2 B    Afghanistan

$1.2 B    R&D for AI, space and emerging technology  

$850 M  Train/equip Iraqi forces to counter ISIS

$500 M  Israel’s Iron Dome, Arrow and David’s Sling weapon systems

$300 M  Train/equip ‘vetted’ Syrian opposition 

$200 M  Ukraine ‘legal security assistance’

as well as increased funding for the following:

$150 M    DOD research w/commercial tech industry and academia 

$110 M    Space Constellation efforts

$  75 M    University research

$  20 M    Quantum Information Sciences

$  15 M    DARPA Microelectronics research

Meanwhile, the full House Armed Services Committee (HASC) met in a public yet tightly controlled setting on May 9^th to mark up their version of the NDAA with a publicly available video of the entire committee meeting using an expedited voting process to address hundreds of amendments.  

One of the House NDAA amendments which passed unanimously  on May 24^th was that no AUMF (Authority for Use of Military Force) exists that gives the President authority to launch a military strike on Iran.

*

Renee Parsons served on the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and as president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist for Friends of the Earth and a staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

In August 2001, Australia’s dour Prime Minister John Howard demonstrated to the world what his country’s elite soldiers could do. Desperate, close to starvation and having been rescued at sea from the Palapa I in the Indian Ocean, refugees and asylum seekers on the Norwegian vessel, the MV Tampa, were greeted by the “crack” troops of the Special Air Services.  

A bitter, politicised standoff ensued.  The Norwegian vessel had initially made its way to the Indonesian port of Merak, but then turned towards the Australian territory of Christmas Island.  Howard, being the political animal he was, had to concoct a crisis to distract.  The politics of fear had a better convertibility rate than the politics of hope.  

Australian authorities rebuked and threatened the container ship’s captain, claiming that if Rinnan refused to change course from entering Australia’s territorial sea, he would be liable to prosecution for people smuggling.  The vessel was refused docking at Christmas Island.  As was remarked a few year later by Mary Crock in the Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal,

“The stand taken by Australia in August 2001 set a precedent that, if followed by other refugee receiving countries, could only worsen the already deplorable problems facing asylum seekers in the world today.”

And so it has transpired. Italy’s response to the migrant rescue ship, MV Aquarius, eerily evoked the Tampa and its captain’s plight.  The charity ship, carrying some 629 African refugees, found all Italian ports closed to it under the express orders of Matteo Salvini, who has debuted in stormy fashion as Italy’s new deputy prime minister and minister for the interior.  

Salvini had, at first instance, pressed Malta to accept the human cargo, but only got an offer of assistance with air evacuations. 

“The good God,” he bitterly surmised, “put Malta closer to Africa than Sicily.” 

The result was initial diplomatic inertia, followed by growing humanitarian crisis, and a Spanish offer to accept the vessel. 

The situation clearly, as it did in the case of the Tampa, was calculated for maximum political bruising.  One of Salvini’s many political hats is federal secretary of the populist Lega party, which capitalised, along with the Five Star Movement, on the shambles of Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte’s failure to form a government in May.  The nature of that calculation was made clearer by the uneventful rescue of 937 refugees off the Libyan coast who were taken to Catania in Sicily by the Italian warship, the Diciotti on Tuesday. Little fuss arose from that engagement.

The target seemed to be the French-based non-governmental organisation SOS Méditerranée, who so happens to own the Aquarius.  The implication here is the Salvini camp are none too pleased with those rescue organisations they accuse of feeding a people smuggling racket.  

Again, this very sentiment accords with Australia’s manic obsession in breaking what is termed by all major parties to be a “market model” that ignores humanity for profit.  In categorising such activity with an accountant’s sensibility, it becomes easier to dispose of the human subjects in a more cavalier manner.

The sentiments expressed by the newly emboldened Italian authorities do not merely speak volumes to a change of heart which, given the boatloads of irregular arrivals in the wake of Libya’s collapse in 2011, was bound to happen.  They point to a disintegration of a common front regarding the rescue and processing of asylum seekers and refugees, a general fracturing of the European approach to a problem that has been all too disparate in responses.

Over the last few years, the number of arrivals fell but this has been occasioned by patchwork interventions by such countries as Greece, which has in its place a questionable agreement with Ankara to keep a lid on arrivals from Syria. Italy has much the same with Libya, courtesy of a 2017 memorandum of understanding hammered out by Marco Minniti ostensibly in the field of security and cooperation to stem illegal immigration.  Salvini lay, in due course, in not-so-quiet incubation, becoming a vocal representative of a front suspicious of intentions in Brussels and northern European states.   

Righteous France, fuming at Italy’s conduct, has done its bit to keep pathways to its territory with Italy shut.  Ditto Austria.  Other states such as Spain and Malta have preferred indifference, leading to the assertion by Salvini that his country has become the “refugee camp of Europe”.  

For the interior minister, the Australian “stop the boats” mantra is something like a godsend, a note of clarity in the humanitarian murkiness.  He has also admired the firm-fisted approach of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, who supplied Salvini with ample electoral ammunition on the refugee crisis in Europe, not to mention those bleeding, yet stingy hearts in Brussels. 

The Tampa platform has become something of an inspiration to a range of European politicians, be it Germany’ Minister of the Interior Horst Seehofer, and Austria’s Sebastian Kurz, not to mention Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia.  They form a collective of hardening irritables who are taking the issue of regulating refugees away from the centralised assumptions of the EU polity.

The Italian government’s plans on the issue of irregular migration refocus interest in evaluating asylum applications in countries of origin or transit, stemming migrant flows at external borders, targeting international trafficking utilising the assistance of other EU states, and establishing (Australian politicians would delight in this) detention centres in all of Italy’s 20 regions. The standout feature here is abolishing the Dublin Regulation obliging countries on the border of the EU – and in this, Italy is most prone – to host arrivals.

Had the warnings and urgings of the previous Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni been heeded, notably on the sharing of the housing and processing burdens across other countries, the spectacle of a rebuffed Aquarius may well have been averted.  EU complicity in this debacle is unquestionable and it is not merely refugees who need rescuing, but the European Project itself, which will require a Good Samaritan to storm in with vision and purpose.  To save one may well save the other.

*

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]

What will come out of this week’s summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un of North Korea remains to be seen, and one must hope for the best, but the bullets are already beginning to fly in the US media with The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof declaring impulsively somewhat implausibly that Trump gave away the store by canceling military training exercises with South Korea and in legitimizing Jong-un’s rule by meeting with him without getting anything substantive in return.  

Lost in the flood of news coming out of Singapore are Trump’s positive comments delivered at the earlier G-7 meeting in Canada, which may have opened the door to a possible meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin and a return of Moscow to a reconfigured G-8. One hopes that China will soon also make it into the ultimate insiders’ club, which will have to be renamed G-9.

Washington’s most important relationship is with Moscow, and the possibility of détente should be welcomed by everyone who wishes to avoid a nuclear holocaust. But The Times’ Paul Krugman, among others, cannot overcome his visceral dislike for Russia, citing its “invasion” of Ukraine and its relatively small economy as good reasons to block its membership in a reconstituted G-8. He also suggests that Putin has some kind of “hold over Trump,” a serious charge that he cannot substantiate except by innuendo, also claiming that Trump is some kind of Quisling “who defended Russia while attacking our closest allies.” It is odd that Krugman, a Nobel laureate in Economic Sciences, chooses to ignore the fact that Moscow punches well above its weight both economically and politically while also sitting on what is presumed to be the world’s most resource-rich region in Siberia. Also, Krugman should do a fact check on who started what in Ukraine. He might be surprised to learn that it was the United States and its proxies.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

The Krugman and Kristof excursions into fantasy demonstrate clearly how media punditry in the United States is a fascinating plant that grows in darkness. It is rarely fact-based, is never held accountable, and it is nearly always ideologically driven. Talking heads sitting across the right/libertarian divide are as bad as traditional liberals like Krugman and Kristof. Justin Raimondo, for example, praises Donald Trump’s performance in insulting and rebuffing the six other nations at the recently concluded G-7 Summit because those conniving non-Americans are relying on the United States to provide their defense so they can sit around all fat and happy. He calls them “Euro-weenies.”

While I too would like to see the end of NATO given my belief that Russia does not threaten Eastern or Western Europe, there is more than a touch of hypocrisy in those like Raimondo who favor dismantling military alliances as part of their embrace of what they perceive to be an antiwar doctrine while at the same time failing to mention the terrible decisions that the White House has made that have actually increased tension in volatile parts of the world.

Taken in order of magnitude, Trump’s renunciation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was a major disaster, eliminating a successful program that was preventing nuclear proliferation on the part of Iran and replacing it with nothing whatsoever apart from war as a possible way of dealing with the potential problem. And then there is Syria, where there have been contradictory signals, but also two pointless cruise missile attacks. It looks like the US Army is in for the long haul, having recently set up a trap to kill Russian mercenaries while also seeking to destabilize President Bashar al-Assad and continuing the occupation of the Syrian oil fields. And in Afghanistan there are now more troops on the ground than there were on inauguration day.

The United States also has a new military base in Israel which will serve as a tripwire for automatic American involvement if Israel goes to war, has given the green light to the Israeli slaughter of Palestinians, has backed off from détente with Cuba, and has been periodically threatening some kind of intervention in Venezuela. It is engaged in aggressive war games on the Russian borders. It has increased involvement in Somalia and has drones and special ops units operating worldwide. Giving the Europeans a possibly deserved bloody nose over their refusal to spend money defending themselves would hardly seem to balance the equation.

The hypocrisy in national security policy exhibited by the Trump regime is best illustrated by comments from Tony Blinken, Deputy Secretary of State under President Barack Obama, who helped negotiate the JCPOA agreement with Iran, as well as by Scott Ritter, former arms inspector. They have opined that a successful deal with North Korea will likely look very much like the what was negotiated with the Iranians: curtailment or elimination of any weapons development program coupled with rigorous inspections and major incentives to include a non-aggression pact and the lifting of sanctions. In any international agreement no one ever gets everything they want, but they can get enough to make the enterprise worthwhile. It is a lesson that Donald Trump must learn.

*

Philip Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Turkey’s President Erdogan makes no secret of his ambition to spread his neo-Ottoman wings all over the Balkans. He views Macedonia as another Turkish satellite in the making, which sadly the Macedonian government seems to have embraced without carefully assessing the long-term adverse ramifications. Very few Albanian voices in Macedonia have the courage to publicly criticize Erdogan, fearful of becoming a target of threats and insults by a huge propaganda machine directed by many of his cronies. Erdogan has been extremely successful in influencing the majority of Albanians in the country, many of whom consider him as their one and only trusted leader.

For more than a decade, Erdogan has invested heavily in spreading his influence among Albanians, through building mosques and Turkish schools, and funding media, religious institutions, and most recently political parties, which are directly controlled by his close associates and have dramatically increased his influence over the Albanian community.

Anyone who dares to criticize Erdogan or discuss his personal ambitions in Macedonia is attacked publicly by the ‘internet brigade’ as an Islamophobe or traitor.

“I was personally a target of these attacks twice”, says Xhelal Neziri, an experienced investigative reporter from Macedonia. “They cannot stop me from telling the truth, but it is a fact that many of my colleagues do not want to talk about this topic, because of the ‘lynching threats.’”

A majority of Albanians in Macedonia identify themselves as Muslims rather than by their Albanian national identity. There are voices within these fanatical religious groups saying that Albanians should not recognize Mother Theresa as a saint, even though she was an Albanian from Macedonia, because she does not represent the interests of the Muslim community. The number of those who believe that other national Albanian heroes like Gjergj Kastrioti ‘Skenderbeg’, who led a rebellion against the Ottoman Empire in the 1400s, should not be recognized because they were Christians, is increasing rapidly.

Compared to other Balkan states where Albanians live who don’t consider religion to be a dominant factor in their lives, Albanians in Macedonia are the staunchest supporters of Erdogan and his Islamic agenda. Erdogan’s strategy for restoring Turkey’s influence in the Balkans, akin to what the Ottoman Empire once enjoyed, had early success with the Albanians in Macedonia.

Nearly two-thirds of the population in Macedonia are ethnically Orthodox Christian Macedonians, and the other third of the population are predominantly Albanian Muslims. In 2001, tensions between the two groups escalated into an armed conflict between government security forces and the Albanian National Liberation Army (NLA).

The conflict was short-lived and ended with the Ohrid Agreement—a peace treaty that saw NLA commanders rebranded as legitimate politicians, gaining enhanced social and political rights which were granted to Macedonia’s Albanian citizens. While armed hostilities ended nearly 17 years ago, relations between the different groups are still raw.

Albanians are disadvantaged and neglected, and continue to suffer from inequality. Macedonia denied their basic human rights. The Albanian language was not recognized until March of 2018, when Macedonia’s parliament passed a law extending the official use of the Albanian language, despite massive Macedonian protests from the right-wing opposition.

The country’s Slavs and Albanians still live largely separate and do not enjoy equal rights. Erdogan has used ethnic and political problems between Macedonians and Albanians as a “golden opportunity” to portray himself as the greatest defender of the Albanians. Meanwhile, all of Turkey’s economic investments and trade deals are focused on the Macedonian side.

According to the World Bank, in 2016 Turkey’s exports to Macedonia totaled $378 million and imports amounted to $82.6 million. The Turkish Statistics Institute (TÜİK) reports that around 100 Turkish businesspeople currently have investments worth €1.2 billion ($1.47 billion) in Macedonia. These investments are focused in the parts where Macedonians live, while in the Albanian side Erdogan has invested in religious institutions to promote his Islamic agenda.

Erdogan has used Albanians as a trump card in his economic and financial investments to Macedonia. This way, he pretends to guarantee stability to the Macedonian state by converting the troublesome Albanian nationalism into a strong Islamic identity among Albanians.

In public speeches, Erdogan has repeatedly flirted with corrupt Macedonian government officials. He stated that Turkey and Macedonia share a bond of brotherhood and that “Turkey will always be on Macedonia’s side.”

“For us, Ankara and Skopje have no differences and we will never leave our brothers alone, we will always be with them, and we will always help and stand behind them,” Erdogan said in February 2018.

In a conversation with Artan Grubi, a parliamentarian in Macedonia representing the largest Albanian political party (the Democratic Union for Integration, BDI), he stated that

“The influence of the current Turkish government in the political setting in Macedonia is undoubtedly serious and present.”

Erdogan does that “through government financial aid, cultural exchange, [and] serving as a role model [to inspire] political parties and politicians such as the newly established entity BESA”, said Grubi, adding that the party he represents will not allow any marginal influences to stray them away from their projected path of integration into NATO and the EU.

The BESA Movement is a political party in the Republic of Macedonia founded in November 2014 by Bilall Kasami and Zeqirija Ibrahimi, chief editor of Shenja magazine, which is one of the most pro-Erdogan media outlets in Macedonia.

Leaders of this political party deny having direct links with Turkey, but they openly follow Erdogan’s line. In their first elections three years ago, they won five seats in the Parliament. We sent questions to the BESA leaders, but they did not respond.

Professor Ymer Ismaili, one of the most critical voices in Macedonia, declared publicly during the last elections in 2016 that the

“BESA Movement is [a] religious sect with the open mission of spreading Erdogan’s Islamic agenda among Albanians in Macedonia.”

In a conversation with us, Ismaili said that Albanian nationals in the Balkans (especially in Macedonia) are Erdogan’s favorite “target” because of their religion, poverty, and functional educational illiteracy.

“Erdoganism wants the Balkans ‘neo-invasion,’ not with military but with financial and religious means to undermine the ‘Christian’ Europe! In this ‘journey’ in certain situations, his political-geostrategic ally is Putin’s Russia. Both are united in their personal cult and their mission: They both are ‘dictators’ and anti-Western”, said Ismaili.

Many Albanian emigrants, after the Second World War and the establishment of the communist regime, fled to Western European countries or the US to find jobs or seek political asylum.

“Almost every Albanian family has one member in the West and can obviously distinguish between what the West has to offer, culturally, politically, and in human rights, and what Erdogan can provide”, said Neziri.

Nevertheless, they continue to be manipulated by Erdogan.

The Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TİKA), the Turkish government’s aid agency, maintains an office in Skopje staffed with a country coordinator and completed almost 600 projects in Macedonia by the end of 2017.

Yunus Emre, the Turkish government’s cultural promotion agency, is also active in Macedonia. According to Turkish Minute,

“It is clear that Erdoğan is pushing all the government agencies to focus on [Macedonia] with all sorts of schemes, ranging from mosque building to establishing schools as part of a grand design to create a vassal state that will be loyal to his Islamist rule.”

To be sure, Erdogan’s “peaceful onslaught” on Macedonia has one and one purpose only: to dominate the country under the guise of a long history of brotherly relations. This is Erdogan’s modern “Trojan Horse,” and the Albanians in Macedonia must realize that they are unwittingly falling into Erdogan’s trap.

*

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
[email protected] Web: www.alonben-meir.com

Arbana Xharra authored a series of investigative reports on religious extremists and Turkey’s Islamic agenda operating in the Balkans. She has won numerous awards for her reporting, and was a 2015 recipient of the International Women of Courage Award from the US State Department.

Lunacy and Profits

It is difficult to describe adequately the cruelties and inhumanities embedded in the reception and detention systems based on the frontier islands. The fact that refugees have to risk their lives and spend vast amounts to make the short journey from Turkey is simply outrageous when there are regular daily ferry crossings at around 30 -50 Euros per head. For the authorities safe passage is a total non starter. As far as they are concerned safe passage would open the gates to waves of refugees. Their stated objective as exemplified by the ever expanding European border force, Frontex, is about hardening and patrolling borders making it ever more difficult and expensive for refugees to get out of Turkey and into Europe. In 2015 Frontex had 300 guards which has risen to 1500 guards in 2015. In May this year the EU Commission announced its plan to create a standing corps of 10,000 guards which is to be up and running by 2027. In 2006 the Frontex annual budget was 19 million Euros. By 2011 it was 118 millions and in 2016, 232 million Euros. And on it goes with seemingly no limit. The EU Commission announced in May that it will increase the budget on ‘external borders, migrant and refugee flows from 13 to 34 billion Euros by 2027 which is the biggest proposed spending increase within the entire EU. 

And for the refugees? What can they expect?

Not much when out of the total of EU resources for refugee policy, 46% goes on securing borders, 16% to send them back and just 17% on the refugees themselves (2014 figures).

All of this makes for joyous times to those who profit from surveillance and the hard ware from ships to drones and who can confidently predict a rosy future. They will never succeed in stopping the flow any more than the EU/Turkey pact of 2016 has stopped the refugees from getting to the frontier islands. They might be effective in reducing the numbers and in closing some routes, but hell will freeze over before they can prevent entry into Europe. But what the hell. The ever shifting relationship between the refugees and the European authorities simply justifies ever more costly inappropriate and ultimately ineffective strategies.

The big players in Europe’s border security complex include arms companies Airbus, Finmeccanica,
Thales and Safran, as well as technology giant Indra. Finmeccanica and Airbus have been particularly prominent winners of EU contracts aimed at strengthening borders. Airbus is also the number one winner of EU security research funding contracts

Finmecannica, Thales and Airbus, prominent players in the EU security business are also three of the top four European arms traders, all active selling to countries in the Middle East and North Africa.
Their total revenues in 2015 amounted to 95 billion euros

(Source)

Deliberate Cruelties

“Virtually all of the top five asylum producing countries for the EU are on the visa black list (the exception is Albania). These are: Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Albania and Pakistan (according to FRONTEX 20 January 2015). There are EU and/or national sanctions on carriers such as airlines and ferry companies of €5,000 at least for each passenger they bring to the EU without proper documentation (including a valid passport and visa). There are no EU delegations open in Syria which issue visas. So instead of paying the €30 which EU citizens hand over for a day trip from the Turkish coast to the Greek islands or the other way around, Syrians have to pay smugglers according to latest calculations more than US$ 1,000 per person for a dangerous and sometimes fatal trip. This is simply because no authorised carrier will accept refugees without passports or visas or both. “ (Source)

From the very beginning of their contact with Europe the refugees arriving on the frontier islands are not welcome arrivals. They have not come ‘legally’. The tone is set. The island hotspots look like and are open prison camps.

The problem for the refugees on Samos and on all the frontier islands is that such barbarity is deliberate. It is a key element of the European deterrence objective. The Hotspots/Camps they argue should minimally sustain but no more, or they would attract more unwanted arrivals. The consequences are well known as countless reports from countless bodies have made clear. But nothing changes fundamentally. No one bears any consequence or is held to account for the shortcomings and abuses such reports reveal. There are no refugee champions amongst those who have any say in determining policy or practice. Although there are some individual police and other officials well down the pecking order of power who try to make a difference. But this is becoming less common as police are drafted in from both Greece and other EU countries on short rotations which inhibit any meaningful relationships with the refugees.

Until the 2016 EU/Turkey pact, camps on the frontier islands were primarily transit points. The refugees were moved on to the mainland, many within weeks of their arrival and the majority after 3 months. During 2014/15 when arrivals were at their hight refugees were being moved on within 24-72 hours. Now many are detained for 2 years or more on the island. They are not allowed to move on. Tourists can now forget their dreamy ideas of Greek islands as being laid-back, with music and welcoming locals at the ports greeting them. On Samos at least, ferry departures are distasteful events involving armed and tooled up ninja turtle like police checking lorries and vans and plain clothes police mingling with the departing passengers pulling out those who remotely look like a refugee. Samos is a prison island for refugees.

And this is set to continue. On April 17^th 2018 the Council of State (the supreme court of Greece) declared that the detention of refugees on the islands of Lesvos, Rhodes, Chios, Samos, Leros and Kos is void. In its majority ruling it said that “the practice of indiscriminate imposition of the geographical restriction, initially by the Police and then by the Asylum Service, against every newly arrived person on the islands since the launch of the EU-Turkey Statement has led to a significant overcrowding, whereby people have been obliged to reside for prolonged periods in overcrowded facilities, where food and water supply is insufficient, sanitation is poor and security highly problematic”. (Source)

The EU response was immediate. This was not acceptable. Refugees had to be kept on the islands and processed there. Onward passage to the mainland was to be dependent on a successful asylum application. Otherwise deportation. On no account do the EU authorities want them on the mainland where some of the refugees have more opportunities to move clandestinely, on into Europe. In contrast to almost any other area of policy the Syriza Government took almost immediate action to restore the restrictions by issuing on April 20^th an administrative order which annulled the Council of State decision. Even by Greek standards such a decision to ignore the supreme court’s ruling is of massive significance in terms of the relationship between the legislature and the judiciary. Moreover, it was not achieved by new legislation debated in parliament but but through an administrative order. But then of course the subject is refugees which might explain the muted response to such an important and dangerous development.

A New and Bigger Camp

In a further consolidation of this policy the Greek government announced at the end of May 2018 that the camps on the islands are to be expanded, and in the case of Samos, moved from its present location near the main town. In addition a new prison would be built for those who have been unsuccessful in their asylum bid and are to be deported.

Nothing is ever certain in Greece so whether these decisions will result in any action remains to be seen. But what is certain is that there are no plans to change the policy of island detention.

Not surprisingly the recent announcements about expanding and re-developing the camps on the frontier islands has met with immediate opposition from the local authorities. Singularly and collectively the respective mayors of the islands affected have condemned the decision which flies directly in the face of their demands that the islands must be de-congested (of refugees). The response by the mayor of Samos on June 4^th 2018 is shared by all the frontier islands and unlike in the past he draws on the suffering of the refugees in the existing facilities as a significant reason for de-congestion and, for good reason thinks that there is every possibility that any new expanded camps would continue to be places of hardship and inhumanity for the refugees. Given the long standing antagonism towards refugees by Michalis Angelopoulis, the mayor of Samos, this is just the latest example of his unprincipled exploitation of any issue which he believes will strengthen his case.

These factors now sit alongside their longer standing arguments that the presence of refugees has damaged tourism – their biggest source of income – and adversely affected the local population whose tolerance has been pushed to its limit. Ironically, the Samos mayor acknowledged the government’s decision to move the existing camp away from its close proximity to the centre of the island’s capital as at least giving legitimacy to his long-standing and untrue claim that the camp has placed an intolerable strain on the residents of Samos town. The irony lies in the fact that the ‘refugee business’ is the biggest single year round economic activity in Samos town. It accounts for the employment of hundreds or people. Who in turn spend money in the town including hotel accommodation and the like. Then there is the far more limited spending power of the refugees, but when numbered in thousands bring considerable returns to local shops and supermarkets. The majority of refugees are buying basic food stuffs to supplement and transform the meals provided in the camp. Spices and fresh vegetables can and do make the unpalatable edible. The possibility that the camp will be removed to some remote spot on the island is going to have a profound negative impact on the economic well being of Samos town. And as for the refugees where will they shop, where will they be able to wander around a town like any normal human being, how will they access the money transfer businesses vital to so many and so on?

As is common here the idea to move and enlarge the camp in a more remote area has simply not been thought through and such thoughtlessness will bear down hard on the refugees. For example, the refugees get their medical care from the only hospital on the island. It is one and half kilometres from the camp. It will be disastrous for the refugees to be moved further away from such a vital resource especially on an island which at the moment has just 2 working ambulances.

Islanders and Refugees

Whatever the mayor claims about the stresses on the local population as a result of the refugee presence, it is the case on Samos at least, there is no evidence to support the notion that there is such a problem. Unlike Chios and Lesbos there has been no noticeable growth in racist or fascist responses against the refugees. There is Samos SOS, of which we wrote about earlier, which does it best to foretell doom and despair as the islanders are islamicised but such claims are more likely to invoke laughter rather than anger. Instead what is daily evident is that refugees are just another aspect of life in the town who like others do their shopping, walk by the sea, play with their children on the swings and roundabouts, sit in the platias and town garden with their friends, swim and fish. There is no evident tension. Neither refugees nor locals display any unease by the others presence. And as for the tourists from northern Europe there is nothing unusual about seeing the kind of ethnic diversity which is both common and more extensive in their cities than on Samos.

Refugees arriving in Samos

Refugees have been easy targets for blaming the problems confronting tourism on Samos. There has been no focus on the multi-national tour operators who determine the flights and destinations. Without any local consultation or any accountability, they decided that refugees would make islands such as Samos unattractive to their customers and so reduced their charter flights and hotel bookings. There have never been refugees on the south side of the island where many of the biggest tourist facilities are located. Even in 2014/15 many tourists would never have encountered a single refugee. The refugees are concentrated overwhelmingly in Samos town and are rarely seen in Kokari or Pythagorio the 2 principal tourist centres on the island.

That relationships between the locals and refugees in Samos town are neither fraught nor tense owes much to the refugees. Now that the refugees are here for such long periods increasingly locals recognise that they bring to the town a vitality that was not there before, especially outside the summer season. Laughing children in the playgrounds draw smiles and bring joy. Eating falafel and hummus in the town square is celebrated rather than condemned as some underhand cultural challenge. Of course it is not all sunshine and light and the refugees can tell you of the bars, shops, hairdressers and gyms which will not serve them.

Without question many islanders are suffering badly. But this has nothing to do with the presence of refugees. It is the never ending economic and social crises which have and continue to devastate the lives of so many islanders. This is as much a humanitarian disaster as that of the refugees. Needless to say the multi national tour operators who turn the tap on and off with respect to tourism have exploited this by paying wages which can not sustain a worker and demand working hours in excess of 50 hours per week. At the end of May 2018, Keep Talking Greece, reported that 30% of workers in the private sector were paid below 365 Euros a month (which is the level of unemployment benefit for the minority who are eligible).

Children

As we have written before, the big story that never gets attention is why the Samos camp has not exploded. The presence of so many police and guards of all kinds in the town; the parked up buses with riot police regularly seen near the camp all indicate the authorities’ awareness that they are managing and sustaining a powder keg. Of course there is no short or simple answer to why apart from some relatively minor disturbances that the camp has not descended into chaos and protest.

The following observations provide some clues. Go to the camp and one is immediately aware of the very large numbers of children running around and playing with their friends.

They are everywhere and those under 12 years old now account for around 30% of the camp’s inhabitants. Despite the grim conditions in and around the camp the sight and sounds of so many children playing have an uplifting effect. For many refugees their concern over their children’s safety and future drove them from their homes. They thirst to see their children safe and happy and turn away from actions which might threaten them. And the fact that women account for 21% of the refugees here is also a factor in the avoidance of violent and destructive actions. There must be times when some of the young men might want to burn the camp down but the presence of so many children and babies makes such a prospect appalling. Of course, that is not to say that such desperate actions will never happen.

As noted earlier, easy access into the town functions as an important safety valve. The camp is open and there is no reason to stay inside the camp 24/7. In the town and on the beaches they can pass their time. Many make use of the Alpha Centre which is run by the Samos Volunteers for the refugees.

In a large building near to the bottom gate to the camp refugees can meet together to drink tea, use the wi fi and attend a wide range of classes and activities. It is amazing to see the fluency in English that some have achieved through these classes. And importantly, a number of these activities and lessons draw on the talents and experiences of the refugees themselves who now lead or assist with their delivery.

Many of the refugees are busy. Some are incredibly busy! They play a huge role in sustaining life and morale in the camp. Those who are fluent (enough) in English are in great demand to accompany refugees to the hospital which has no translator. Most of the doctors speak English so they can manage. Very few refugees learn Greek as they have no intention of staying in this country once they get their papers. Virtually every interaction with the camp authorities needs an interpreter and refugees have learnt it is better for them to have someone doing this who they trust and who knows them.

But as much as we laud the resilience and creativity of the refugees we cannot ignore the pain and depression which damages so many refugees. Deep depression is ever present with all its painful consequences. To survive as a human being in these conditions is a huge challenge.

Disdain

One of the biggest flaws which has characterised refugee policy and action in Greece over decades has been the absence of any constructive engagement with the refugees. This is all the more clueless now refuges are stuck for years in camps all over Greece and have the time to be more involved. As Saad pointed out in nearly one year in the Samos camp he was never asked for his opinion on anything. No psychologist or social worker ever asked him if knew of anyone who needed their help. Yet the refugees often know well who amongst them is struggling. In its various forms this lack of engagement, and here we would include most of the NGOs, portrays a fundamental disdain of the refugees.

But in its absence the refugees in a myriad of ways make their lives better. Those who can cut hair set up their workplaces. Cooking groups abound where evening meals are cooked and shared. Artists paint and draw. Nails are manicured. And so on with the spaces filled by Facebook and Whatsap. With a little bit of imagination and most importantly trust in and respect for the refugees life even in these appalling open prisons could be so much better. It is unlikely to happen but we can still dream.

Finally in trying to understand why there are so few explosions within the camp we should not forget that the police and the army are in their midst. They carry guns. They have tear gas and batons. And in Greece as we all know, they will use violence without much provocation.

*

This article was originally published on Samos Chronicles.

It might seem like Norway’s request for a doubling of US Marines on its territory and their relocation closer to the country’s Arctic border with Russia is obviously aimed against Moscow, and while that’s definitely the implied short-term military reason, the real long-term strategic one is that America is making a power play for exerting influence along China’s “Ice Silk Road”.

Norway made the news earlier this week after requesting that the US more than double the number of Marines that were first deployed there last year to at least 700, with this announcement drawing even more attention because of the related plans to relocate them closer to the country’s Arctic border with Russia. Moscow rightly viewed this as a hostile development, not just because it’s the latest move in a four-year-long series of them in transferring American troops ever closer to its territory, but because the planned “rotating deployment” essentially amounts to a permanent base that contradicts the Nordic state’s 1949 decision to not host any foreign troops on its soil. The optics obviously point to this being squarely aimed against Russia, though that’s only the implied short-term military reason for what’s happening, as the real long-term strategic one is that the US is making a power play for exerting influence along China’s “Ice Silk Road”.

The People’s Republic is spearheading several trans-hemispheric connectivity routes for expanding its trade with the EU, one of which is China’s envisioned usage of Russia’s “Northern Sea Route” through the Arctic. The US already has its eyes on what Chinese media have referred to as the “Ice Silk Road” and demanded a few months ago that Russia go against its own legislation in permitting only Russian-flagged vessels from transiting this route and allow American ships (possibly also military ones) to transit through its maritime territory under so-called “freedom of navigation” principles. The author analyzed this development in his mid-April article about how “America’s Arctic Aggression Might Prompt Russia To ‘Balance’ With The AAGC”, which should be skimmed by the reader if they’re interested in getting an idea about the US’ Arctic strategy and its unintended geopolitical implications for Russia. Simply put, the US is doing everything that it can to portray itself as a pivotal Arctic player.

As per its guiding stratagem in the New Cold War, it aims to disrupt, control, or influence China’s Silk Roads, and it’s with this objective in mind that one needs to view its decision to double its Marine deployment in Norway and move them closer to Russia’s Arctic borders. The masses generally have a difficult time understanding long-term strategic planning and are more receptive to immediate military-related reactions, hence why this anti-Chinese move is being marketed as a much more “easily digestible” anti-Russian one for public consumption, but no one would be under any illusions about who it’s really aimed against. 700 Marines – dual-use land and sea special forces – aren’t going to cross the Arctic tripwire, invade Russia, and spark World War III, but they can have a much more effective use in having their very deployment lay the basis for “reinterpreting” the 1920 Treaty of Spitsbergen over the Svalbard Archipelago.

This early 20^th-century agreement reaffirmed the islands’ ownership by Norway but also regulated its special international status as something akin to a “free zone” where all signatory nations and their citizens living there could continue carrying out their economic activities with scant governmental interference. One of the most significant clauses was Article 9, which stipulated that

“Norway undertakes not to create nor to allow the establishment of any naval base in the territories specified in Article 1 and not to construct any fortification in the said territories, which may never be used for warlike purposes”.

This importantly demilitarized these strategic islands, but that provision might soon come under threat now that Oslo is informally “reinterpreting” its 1949 decision to not host any foreign troops on its territory, just like Japan is “reinterpreting” its post-war pacifist constitution via various workarounds.

The deployment of US Marines to Norway last year was the first time that another nation’s soldiers had been stationed in the nominal Kingdom, though the government of course refuses to recognize it as such and instead resorts to the use of different euphemisms for describing Oslo’s abrogation of its 1949 commitment. Something very similar could ultimately happen in the Svalbard Islands if the state makes the argument that the construction of “coast guard” facilities and/or stationing of its own or even foreign NATO (US) ships near the archipelago is necessary to ensure “maritime security” and isn’t intended to “be used for warlike purposes”.  The whole point in taking this provocative step is to tighten the US’ control over China’s future trade routes, just like its planned deployment in Poland is supposed to do vis-à-vis the northern expansion of the Balkan Silk Road.

Russia, like always, is just being used as the scapegoat for advancing this policy given the ease with which the European public will accept any military move in its direction as opposed to grappling with the more complicated concept of long-term strategic planning against China. Furthermore, even admitting the latter motivation behind all of this might be seen as “paranoid” by a populace unable to fully comprehend the nuances of proactive geopolitical positioning, as well as “giving China too much credit” by prematurely making the “China threat” in Europe public before the masses have been adequately conditioned to accept it. Nevertheless, the presence of 700 Marines along the southern point of the “SvalNor” gap – one of two, along with “GreenBard”, that control Arctic-Atlantic trade – is designed to push the Norwegians into “reinterpreting” Svalbard’s demilitarized status in order to give America an Arctic edge against China by keeping its future trade routes in check.

*

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.

This article was originally published in July 2012.

Featured image: A Palestinian man walks front of graffiti that reads “Returning” as palestinians attend “camp of return” to mark refugees’ ties to lands lost on May 14, 2011 in Rafah, southern Gaza Strip, during a gathering to mark the 63th anniversary of the “Nakba” (catastrophe). Nakba means “catastrophe” in reference to the birth of the state of Israel 63 years ago in British-mandate Palestine, which led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who either fled or were driven out of their homes during the 1948 war over Israel’s creation. (Photo by Abed Rahim Khatib / Flash 90)

Since the idea of Zionism first gripped the minds of a few intellectuals and the limbs of many agrarian pioneers in the early 20th century, the state of Israel has presented its settlement of the land of Palestine, and its uprooting of the Palestinian people, as a rejuvenation of the earth. By “greenwashing” the occupation, Israel hides its apartheid behind an environmentalist mirage, and distracts public attention not only from its brutal oppression of the Palestinian people, but from its large-scale degradation of the earth upon which these tragedies unfold.

Determined to “make the desert bloom,” an international organization – the Jewish National Fund-Keren Kayemet LeYisrael (JNF-KKL, or JNF) planted forests, recreational parks and nature reserves to cover over the ruins of Palestinian villages, as refugees were scattered far from, or worse, a few hilltops away from, the land upon which they and their ancestors had based their lives and livelihoods.

Today, as Israel portrays itself as a ‘green democracy’, an eco-friendly pioneer in agricultural techniques such as drip irrigation, dairy farming, desert ecology, water management and solar energy, Israeli factories drain toxic waste and industrial pollutants down from occupied West Bank hilltops into Palestinian villages, and over-pumping of groundwater aquifers denies Palestinians access to vital water sources in a context of increasing water scarcity and pollution.

Jewish National Fund

The Jewish National Fund (JNF), perhaps the first transnational environmental NGO, was established in 1901, as the first wave of Jewish immigrants were settling in Palestine under the banner of Zionism. Throughout the 20th century, as the indigenous Arab population of Palestine found itself either expelled from its homeland or oppressed under the hand of a foreign invader, the JNF succeeded in raising enormous amounts of money to acquire and develop land throughout the territory that, in 1948, would become known as the State of Israel. Distinct from other transnational Zionist fundraising and advocacy organizations, such as the Jewish Agency, the JNF portrayed itself, from the beginning, as an environmental organization, serving, according to its website, to “protect the land, green the landscape and preserve vital ecosystems” by “planting seedlings, maintaining forest health, combating desertification, protecting watersheds and managing water flow … [and] balancing the phenomenal growth and development Israel has experienced in the last decade with the maintenance of an ecologically sound environment.”

Source: The Bullet

Proud that “Israel is the only country in the world that will enter the 21st century with a net gain in numbers of trees,” the JNF credits itself with planting 250 million trees, building more than 210 reservoirs and dams, developing more than 250,000 acres of land, creating more than 1000 parks and providing the infrastructure for more than 1000 communities throughout Israel. Suiting a state constructed for a single cultural-religious group, the JNF promotes an exclusionary, discriminatory brand of environmentalism. From its inception in 1901 – when the JNF controlled but a single olive grove in a land where 94% of its neighbours were Arab – to today, working closely with the Israel government, the JNF directly owns 13% of Israel’s land and effectively controls another 80%. The JNF’s constitution has explicitly stated that its land cannot be rented, leased, sold to or worked by non-Jews.

Throughout the first half of the 20th century, the JNF – helping to exile hundreds of thousands of Palestinian families, bulldoze their homes and clear the land to make way for Jewish settlement – bought large tracts of land from absentee landowners, evicted local Arab tenant farmers, uprooted natural vegetation of olive, carob and pistachio trees, and planted throughout the land, in place of indigenous arboreta, vast swaths of European pinera (conifers) and eucalyptus trees.

Forests, parks and recreational facilities were strategically placed atop the ruins of destroyed Palestinian villages, so that the fast-growing pines would erase the history of Palestinian existence and prevent refugees from ever returning to their homes. In addition, pine forests were planted to guard and expand settlements built atop stolen land and, after 1967, to seize and divide Palestinian territory within east Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank.

The pines helped evoke images of a European wilderness, creating a familiar ‘natural’ environment for the mostly European Jewish settlers, so much so that settlers affectionately nicknamed Carmel National Park, planted partially over the destroyed Palestinian village of al-Tira, “little Switzerland” for its resemblance to the Swiss Alps. Foreign species, these pine forests, then and now, often fail to adapt to the local soil and require frequent re-planting. As they age, they demand more water and become more prone to problems like pests, disease and conflagrations, such as the 2010 Carmel wildfire, deemed the worst in Israel’s history. As their fast-growing acidic pine needles fall to the ground, they destroy all other surrounding small plants, thus ruining the livelihood of Palestinian shepherds, whose animals depend on grazing land.

Clear-felling Palestinian Villages

The JNF’s time-tested method of ethnically cleansing and then ‘greening’ the desert continues to this day. An ongoing $600-million, 10-year JNF program called Blueprint Negev seeks to develop reservoirs, pine afforestation and water conservation programs in the Negev desert at the expense of more than 150,000 Palestinian Bedouin, whose ‘unrecognised’ villages, as a direct result of Israel’s policies, already lack electricity, running water and sewage disposal.

Since 2010, the JNF has attempted to “green” the Negev by planting the 1 million-pine “GOD TV Forest” over the Palestinian village of Al-Araqib, which, as it steadfastly resists extinction, has been demolished eight times. GOD TV Forest is named after its proud sponsor, a far-right, pro-settler Evangelical Christian organization whose stated purpose is “to plant a million trees to prepare the land for the return of [God’s] son.” As GOD TV Forest and Blueprint Negev seek to flood the semi-arid Negev with the invasive European pine trees, Israel seeks to tear the historically semi-nomadic Bedouin from their ancestral grazing lands, and to herd them into unnatural, sedentary lifestyles in impoverished and isolated townships. Social strife and decay of traditional values inevitably accompany this forced acculturation process.

Growing up in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., my family, along with the larger middle-class Jewish community, was, knowingly or not, complicit in the JNF’s environmental colonialism. Nearly every room of our local synagogue and Hebrew School displayed the iconic blue, tin JNF donation box, where, by simply dropping a coin, one could affirm one’s ethnic nationalism by helping “plant a tree in Israel.” Throughout my early childhood, my mother worked at a local JNF donation office, helping U.S. Jewish families “plant a tree in Israel” to commemorate the death of a loved one.

Today, after a century of expulsion, settlement, development and rapid industrialization, indigenous arboreta make up only 11% of Israeli forests, and pre-1948 growth accounts for only 10% of Israel’s greenery. Jewish National Fund pine forests, parks and recreation areas blanket the hills of Israel, and tour guides, in the midst of a hike, dread the inevitable moment when someone asks “what is that old abandoned mosque doing in the middle of this forest?” The parallels with European colonization of the American continent are obvious, and in a cruel twist of historical irony, the construction, by JNF Canada, of Israel’s Canada National Park, covering over the destroyed Palestinian village of ‘Imwas in the mid-1980s, was initiated as a simultaneous twinning project along with Toronto’s Downsview Park, which sits atop unacknowledged First Nations territory.

Zionist Image

The actions of the JNF fulfil the Zionist desire to transform and control the land of Palestine, to shape its hills in the Zionist image. When the pioneer Zionist movement arrived from Europe in the late 1800s, they found themselves dissatisfied with the rocky, semi-arid eastern shore of the Mediterranean, and they sought to “make the desert bloom” as proof that the Jewish people, and not the indigenous Arabs, were the destined cultivators of “a land without people for a people without land.”

Bringing little agricultural experience from their mostly lower-middle class urban backgrounds, these pioneers first adopted local Arab small-scale dryland subsistence farming methods, producing mainly unirrigated wheat, barley, potatoes, grapes, olives and figs for domestic consumption. Soon, however, they dismissed centuries-old sustainable Palestinian agricultural practices as “undeveloped,” and, funded by French banker-philanthropist Baron de Rothschild, used sophisticated European steam engines, mechanized ploughs, reapers and threshers to develop capital-intensive vineyards and cash-crop plantations for commercial marketing.

The passionate attachment to the land evinced by these Zionist pioneers often concealed an anthropocentric kernel. Many of the first European Jewish immigrants struck the soil of Palestine with a devout and even mystical appreciation of nature, driven to escape the economic, industrial and social alienation of European society and, through the sweat of agricultural labour, to birth themselves, and the Jewish people, anew as an ecologically integrated, utopian socialist community. Living in collectivist communes called kibbutzim, their sense of destiny magnified by the redemptive, exalted status that the land beneath their feet held for thousands of years of Jewish cultural mythology, they filled their journals with passionate, sensual, ecstatic, mystical and sometimes erotic descriptions of the joys of the earth and agricultural labour. As Israel’s first president, Chaim Weizmann observed, “it seems as if God had covered the soil of Palestine with rocks and marshes and sand, so that its beauty can only be brought out by those who love it and will devote their lives to healing its wounds.”

At the same time, their ecological zeal betrayed a deeply colonial, anthropocentric desire, not to respect and adapt to the land, but to subjugate and transform it, to conquer it through the machinations of human development. “Where we modern ones appear with our auxiliaries,” announced Zionist prophet Theodore Herzl at the turn of the century, “we turn the desert into a garden.” The motif of “making the desert bloom” emphasises not the desert rocks, but the human agency which controls nature for its own purposes. In one fell swoop, the land of Palestine would be cleared, along with its people, the Arab Palestinians, who, Weizmann maintained, were no different than “the rocks of Judea … obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path.”

Green, Racist Capitalism

Today, thanks to decades of largely U.S. aid, the old kibbutzim have become factory suburbs, and the small, start-up socialist Zionist experiment has ballooned into the fourth-largest arms exporter in the world, the privatized, globally competitive, hyper-militarized Israel that markets itself abroad as a model for 21st century green capitalism, while perpetuating widespread ecological devastation and blatant environmental racism on the ground. “What country would not experience environmental woes,” says Jewish eco-socialist Joel Kovel in his book, Overcoming Zionism, “with a sixfold population increase in half a century in a context of rapid industrialization?” Kovel describes the steady expansion of Israel’s infrastructure of occupation, and the irreversible build-up of its desert war machine, as an “eco-destructive accelerant,” wedding colonizer and colonized together in a “parasitic order” that “builds parallel systems, of roads, water and sewage, electrical networks… [that] both colonize and destroy the land of the Palestinians, while creating, necessarily, a myriad of spaces … chaotically thrown up and turning into sites of a proliferating set of ecological degradations.”

Today, Israel covertly transports waste products from its own country into dumps and quarries throughout the occupied West Bank, polluting the Palestinian earth and water supply, while Israeli settlers in the West Bank – who produce similar amounts of wastewater to the Palestinian population, despite being outnumbered more than six to one – deliberately poison the water, land and livestock of nearby Palestinian villages. Solid wastes from Israeli settlements and military camps throughout the West Bank are dumped without restriction on Palestinian land, fields and side roads, and industry regularly moves from Israel to the West Bank, where labour is cheaper, environmental regulations are lenient and waste products, generated from the production of aluminium, leather tanning, textile dyeing, batteries, fiberglass, plastics and other chemicals, can flow freely down to Palestinian villages in surrounding valleys.

At least seven industrial zones, and at least 200 factories, have either moved from Israel into the West Bank, or have been constructed by the Israel government, inside the West Bank, a blatant violation of international law.

After one such factory, Geshuri Industries, moved its pesticide, insecticide and fertilizer production from Israel, where it was declared a health hazard, into the West Bank in 1982, the owner began the courteous practice of closing the factory for the one month every year that a change in wind direction would blow its pollutants toward Israel.

The construction, beginning in 2002, of Israel’s mammoth separation/apartheid wall, while separating Palestinian farmers from their fields, has destroyed Palestinian legally owned fertile agricultural land, and has brought with it all the extensive contamination of natural habitats associated with the use of heavy machinery and millions of tons of concrete. The wall has isolated Palestinian communities from vital water sources, and has interfered with natural drainage systems in the West Bank, causing flooding and substantial environmental and agricultural damage in times of high rainfall.

West Bank and Gaza

The JNF’s “greening” of Israel does not extend to the West Bank and Gaza, where the infrastructure of occupation breeds widespread deforestation. While the JNF made the hilltops within the internationally recognized borders of Israel bloom with forests, parks, playgrounds and recreation areas so that, to quote its website, “the heroic men and women of the Israel Defense Forces can share precious time with their loved ones,” 95% of the forests of Gaza have disappeared between 1971 and 1999, due to the extensive spread of settlements and military bases alongside Israel’s pervasive bombing. Contrary to the JNF’s commitment to “combat desertification,” the threat of permanent desertification looms over the West Bank, as increasing illegal settlement expansion, facilitated by the JNF, steals large tracts of land traditionally used by Palestinian villages for grazing, leaving the few remaining grazing areas available to Palestinian pastoralists threatened by overgrazing.

For Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, the monitoring, maintenance and protection of natural ecosystems becomes impossible, as the Israeli occupation paralyses their sovereign ability to regulate usage of a contiguous piece of land. Restrictions on freedom of movement, such as road closures, checkpoints and permanent roadblocks, impede the collection, processing, treatment and disposal of waste products, which, when released into residential areas, agricultural land and groundwater aquifers, cause soil contamination and potentially irreversible ground water pollution.

Water

Israel’s discriminatory distribution of water is an instance of environmental racism at its worst. “Presently,” writes Joel Kovel, Israel “faces both an absolute shortage of water owing to persistent overconsumption, as well as persistent contamination of the existing water thanks to rampant ‘development’ and industrialization.” As population growth, combined with a rising standard of living, has led to an over-utilization of renewable water sources, Israel embarks on costly cloud-seeding and desalination experiments to increase its water supply, while destroying the rain-water cisterns and wells of agrarian Palestinian villages.

The Jordan River, an international river basin unilaterally monopolized by Israel, has seen its average flow decrease from 1250 million cubic metres (mcm)/year in 1953 to 152-203 mcm due to two enormous reservoirs, and has become so polluted by Israeli settlement and industry run-off that, to the dismay of Christian pilgrims worldwide, the environmental group Friends of the Earth Middle East decreed it unsafe for baptism in 2010. As the Jordan River is drained to a trickle, the Dead Sea, also polluted, has shrunk into two separate, and rapidly drying, seas further downstream, as its salts are pumped by Israeli companies to flood the global market with exotic cosmetic products.

As over-pumping of regional underground aquifers, all monopolized by Israel, has lowered the groundwater table below sea level and caused saline water intrusion in many areas, growing water scarcity is used by Israel as a tool of oppression against the Palestinians. In the Jordan Valley, an oppressive matrix of checkpoints, closed military zones, army training grounds, nature reserves, settlements and settler-only roads striates the desert with the infrastructure of environmental racism, isolating Palestinian Bedouin villages from access to water sources.

Impoverished communities – 40 per cent of whom consume less water than the minimum global standard set by the World Health Organization – must travel across a desert, criss-crossed with Israeli checkpoints, to bring overpriced and often unsanitary water tankers home to scattered villages of makeshift shacks and mud-brick houses. While the 56,000 Palestinian Bedouin in the Jordan Valley consume an average of 37 million cubic metres (mcm) of water per year, the 9400 Israeli settlers consume an average of 41 mcm.

Sustainable agricultural practices are made difficult because of water scarcity, and perishable produce, delayed for hours at Israeli checkpoints, often spoils on its way to market. While “unrecognized” Bedouin villages live in dire poverty, cut off from basic services such as health care, education and employment, and barred by Israel’s laws from building any permanent structure, be it a water well, an animal pen, a storage shed or a family home, 36 Israeli Jordan Valley agricultural settlements utilise state-of-the-art technology, along with an unlimited water supply, to grow a wide variety of genetically modified fruit and vegetable produce, propelling Israel into the international agribusiness industry as the world’s sixth-largest cultivator of genetically modified crops.

While Bedouin families see their makeshift structures demolished by Israeli bulldozers on a daily basis, every Israeli settler family in the Jordan Valley is given, in addition to an unlimited water supply, a free house, US$20,000, 70 dunnams (km2) of land, free health care and a 75% discount on electricity, utilities and transportation.

Lake Hula

The ethnic cleansing and ecological degradation of Lake Hula in 1950 provides a perfect example of the JNF’s catastrophic failure as an environmental organization, and cruel success as a colonial enterprise. In 1933 the Palestine Land Development Corporation, using JNF and private funds, forcibly evicted the Ghawarani tribe from one of the oldest documented lakes and wetlands in history, the Huleh Valley in the eastern Galilee near Syria. Descendants of deserters from the invading Egyptian army in the 1830s, and Algerian refugees from the failed 1847 revolt against French rule, the Ghawarani had lived for two centuries in reed huts, mud-brick shacks and woollen tents, practicing reed basket and mat weaving, seasonal agriculture, fishing and the raising of livestock such as chicken, geese and water buffalo.

Echoing founder of Israel David Ben-Gurion’s 1944 proclamation that “we must conquer the sea and the desert, for those will provide us with room for new settlers and will serve as a laboratory for the development of new forms of economic and agricultural endeavor,” the JNF, anxious to form a buffer of agricultural expansion between Israel and Syria, drained Lake Hula in 1950 without a study of its ecological impact, ignoring the warnings of scientists that the peat soil under the swamps would not make fertile land.

Agricultural development of the exposed peat soils, weathered and eroded by wind without their vegetation cover, proved unsuccessful, and the reckless experiment destroyed a rich, diverse ecosystem of aquatic biota, flora and fauna unique to the region. Despite one JNF hydrologist’s certainty that “our peat is Zionist peat … our peat will not do damage,” the decomposing peat soils released nutrients and ground pollutants into the Jordan River and the entropic Lake Tiberius, creating crop-damaging black dust and making large tracts of land susceptible to damaging underground fires. The Hula Valley was left stagnant and largely depopulated, until a $23-million JNF re-flooding in 1996 created the smaller and shallower Lake Agmon, restoring a meagre portion of the area’s now-extinct wildlife.

Justice

As the dependence of the imperial West on Gulf oil increases precipitously, Israel’s occupation of Palestine becomes a crucial focal point for the global dominance of Empire, and a concentrated site of its cruellest eco-genocidal machinations. In Israel’s occupation of Palestine, we see how environmental devastation coincides with ethnic cleansing, and how the former is used to deepen the latter. The quest for justice in Palestine lies at the heart of anti-imperialist struggle worldwide, a struggle in defence of the Earth, and the dispossessed who wander upon it.

In the words of Coya White Hat-Artichoker, member of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota and founding member of the LGBTQ Two Spirit First Nations Collective:

“I see what is happening in Palestine as an indigenous struggle for sovereignty, at times, even the right to exist. It is also one of genocide… I see Israel’s systemic and intentional destruction and removal of Palestinian lives, homes, and communities as very similar to the destruction of communities, lives, and removal of Native people from their traditional lands. I no longer see terrorists there anymore; I see people resisting and fighting extinction… I believe that as people in the U.S. who make these connections, it’s important to be thoughtful about what is happening, in our names and with the U.S. government’s money.”

*

“If you stayed you died and if you tried to escape you died  … [I escaped by] walking over the blood of those who were blown up as they tried to flee ahead of us’’. Munira Hashish, air strike and mines survivor – Source: Amnesty International Report

“We are the good guys and the innocent people on the battlefield know the difference.” James Mattis, US Defence Secretary – Source: Amnesty International Report

During 2017 the Isis Caliphate was finally overthrown in Syria and Iraq. Its capital in Raqqa, Syria was captured by Kurdish led SDF forces strongly supported by massive air and artillery strikes provided by America and its French/British allies. During the siege of Raqqa (July-October 2017), while SDF troops slowly captured district after district from Isis forces, the international community ignored warnings from Amnesty International and other human rights groups about the large number of civilian casualties being caused by the massive and indiscriminate air and artillery strikes by Coalition forces.

It was only after the city was fully recaptured by SDF troops in mid October 2017 that the full horror of the American led war of annihilation came to light. This article will draw very heavily from the research provided by Amnesty investigators who went to Raqqa and interviewed hundreds of survivors. Their investigation has produced a very harrowing report entitled – “War of Annihilation – Devastating Toll On Civilians, Raqqa – Syria’’

The war of annihilation waged by America and its allies is best described by the civilians who survived this horrific war crime. The amount of bombs and artillery shells fired into Raqqa by the U.S. led coalition is highly reminiscent of the extermination campaigns waged by American imperialism during its war in Vietnam.

The experiences of the Badran family illustrate the living hell that civilians in Raqqa had to endure while the American led coalition pulverised the city with heavy artillery and air strikes.

The SDF campaign to capture the city began in June 2017. The experiences of the Badran family illustrate the living hell that civilians in Raqqa had to endure while the American led coalition pulverised the city with heavy artillery and air strikes.

On 18 July the Badran family made their first escape attempt from the city. They used two cars to make their way out of the living hell that was Raqqa. One of the cars was hit by an American air strike killing four family members. A surviving family member told Amnesty:

“Shortly afterwards, a few streets away we saw the car which had taken the women and children slightly earlier on. It had been struck by an air strike I think, and it was burning. The men inside the car were killed. Initially I only saw two bodies, at the front, and then the other two, at the back’’.

Those killed trying to escape in one of the cars were:

“1. Mustafa Mohammed Badran (aka Steif), 14 (Shamsa’s son)

2. Khaled Ismail Said, 17

3. Mohamed Hussein Shamari (Khood’s son), 24

4. Hassan Dandoush Ibn Hsein (son of Zarifa Sahu)’’.

Five members still waiting for the cars to come back and pick them up were then killed by another air strike that completely obliterated the house. One of the female family members told Amnesty investigators:

“We buried them. There wasn’t one body left intact. We took them out in pieces. We put the piece into plastic bags and we buried them’’.

Those killed in the American air strike on the Badran family home were:

“1. Mohamed Ahmed Badran Ibn Mohammed, 40 (Shamsa’s husband)

2. Daham Badran Ibn Ahmed, 50 (Shamsa’s husband’s brother)

3. Ismael Said, 55 (Sadeeqa’s husband)

4. Ibrahim Said Ibn Ismael, 15 (Sadeeqa’s son)

5. Khaled Badran Ibn Ibrahim, 52

6. An unidentified man

7. An unidentified man’’

The surviving members of the Badran family returned to their neighbourhood and stayed with a neighbour while several members received treatment from a hospital nearby. By mid August they were forced to flee to the Harat Al-Sakhani neighbourhood in the Old City in search of a doctor. The Badran family hooked up with several other families with a view to escaping Raqqa. On 18 August they started their escape but didn’t get far as they encountered several Isis members who fired upon their group of 65 killing two people. The group was forced to return to Harat Al-Sakhani.

Retreating back to the Old City further tragedy struck. Rasha, a member of the Badran family describes what happened next:

“So we went back to al-Sakhani. We had no other options. Two days later [on 20 August] we were bombed, both houses where we were staying got bombed. Almost everybody was killed. Only I, my husband and his brother and cousin survived. The strike happened at about 7pm. I fainted and when I regained consciousness I heard my husband’s cousin, Mohammed, calling out. I could neither move nor speak. Then my husband and his brother found me. My husband was the most seriously injured – he had a head wound and blood was pouring from his ears. It was dark and we could not see anything. We called out but nobody else answered; nobody moved. It was completely silent except for the planes circling above.

We hid in the rubble until the morning because the planes were circling overhead. In the morning we found Tulip’s body; our baby was dead. We buried her near there, by a tree.

Both houses were pulverised; nothing was left standing, there was only rubble. These were simple Arab houses, they were not sturdy. I don’t understand why they bombed us. Didn’t the surveillance planes see that we were civilian families?’’

Badran family members killed in the main house at Harat al-Sakhani by American and British air strikes were:

“Six siblings – six sisters and one brother (Ali):

1. Thuraya Daham bint Mustafa, in her 60s
2. Summaia Daham bint Mustafa, 55 (widowed, without children)
3. Abta bint Mustafa Dahab, in her 50s
4. Ali Badran Ibn Mustafa, 50
5. Khood Daham bint Mustafa, 48
6. Shamsa Daham bint Mustafa, 40 (Shamsa’s husband was killed at Nazlet al-Shehada)
7. Sadeeqa Daham bint Mustafa, 38 (Sadeeqa’s husband was killed at Nazlet al-Shehada) Thuraya’s son and his family:
8. Ibrahim Daham Ibn Khaleel, late 20s/early 30s
9. Madonna Daham, mid 20s (Ibrahim’s wife – originally from Damascus)
10. Madonna’s son, five
11. Madonna’s other son, three
12. Madonna’s daughter, nine months Abta’s children:
13. Qaisal Sahoo Ibn Mohammed, 20 (Abta’s son)
14. Mais Sahoo bint Mohammed, 19 (Abta’s daughter) Khood’s daughter:
15. Rana Shamari bint Hussein, 18 (Khood’s daughter) Shamsa’s children:
16. Sahar Badran bint Mohammed, 18
17. Saja Badran bint Mohammed, 16
18. Ahmed Badran Ibn Mohammed, 10
19. Hamsa Badran Ibn Mohammed, nine
20. Daham Badran Ibn Mohammed, four (As well as her husband, Shamsa’s sixth child, Mustafa, was killed previously at Nazlet al-Shehade) Sadeeqa’a children:
21. Sidra Said bint Ismael, 12
22. Munthir Said Ibn Ismael, 11
23. Aseel Said Ibn Ismael, six
24. Khatooneh Wahab, 75 Four others who were not from the Badran family also were killed:
25. Abu Riad, 60s
26. Souad, 50s (Abu Riad’s wife – originally from Iraq)
27. Maha, mid 20s (daughter of Abu Riad and Souad)
28. Ammina Raqim, 60s (Abu Riad’s sister)’’.

Only Rasha, her husband and two other family members survived the Coalition air strike. They were forced to try and find shelter elsewhere. Her two cousins went to find shelter with a neighbour only to be killed by a drone strike upon the house. The 3 floored building was destroyed yet Rasha and her husband were able to hide in the basement for 3 days until they were discovered by an Isis patrol.

They were driven towards the stadium and Harat al-Badu by the Isis patrol to be used as human shields against Coalition air strikes. On 17 September, Rasha her husband and 22 others used the cover of morning prayers to mask the noise of their steps to escape by crossing the SDF front lines. After weeks of hiding and terror, never knowing from one moment to the next if they were going to be killed by a coalition air or artillery strike, Pasha and her husband had reached safety. They had lost their baby Tulip and 38 members of their family.

The story of the Badran family was all too common during the SDF conquest of Raqqa that began in early June 2017 and was supported by an unprecedentedly heavy bombardment by American, British and French forces.

On 14 October the Coalition issued a statement about the SDF truce with ISIS:

“We do not condone any arrangement that allows Daesh terrorists to escape Raqqah without facing justice, only to resurface somewhere else…’’.

Yet on 15 October 2017 the remaining Isis forces in Raqqa, numbering several hundred, were allowed by the SDF and their American sponsors to leave the city in safety with large quantities of weapons and with complete impunity for their many crimes. Local residents have told Amnesty investigators that Isis fighters were allowed to evacuate before civilians. Jaira, a mother of two trapped in Harat Al-Badu told Amnesty:

“When we heard that there was a truce and we would be allowed to leave Raqqa, we thought this was for us, the civilians, but then when the buses came we realised they were for Daesh. We had to make our own way out of the city. I couldn’t believe it, but we were happy to get out by whatever means.”

The so called International Coalition that helped the SDF destroy Raqqa and kill thousands of civilians was largely an American affair supported by France and the UK. The U.S. had over 2,000 troops supporting the SDF siege of Raqqa while the UK and France had small numbers of special forces close to the front lines.

The American contingent comprised: the Army High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems firing very powerful 237 mm rockets and hundreds of marines who provided artillery support with M777 howitzers firing 155 mm shells into Raqqa. The American artillery fired tens of thousands of rockets and shells into Raqqa. Meanwhile, the US, and its French and British allies pounded Raqqa with over 4,000 air strikes.

Incredibly, over 100,000 people have returned to the ruins of Raqqa despite the large number of unexploded bombs/IED’s and the stench of dead bodies buried below the rubble. Since its recapture the surviving residents of Raqqa have faced the prospect of trying to rebuild their shattered lives with very little aid from those who were responsible for the city’s destruction. Unexploded American bombs and Isis IED’s litter the city with no prospect in sight of any help with this grave threat to residents lives. Everyday people are killed and injured as they try to clear up the rubble of their destroyed homes, bury dead bodies and go about their daily business.

Matters have been compounded by widespread looting throughout the city. Residents have complained to Amnesty that SDF soldiers have been complicit in many acts of looting while providing no security on the streets at night time allowing criminal elements to steal with impunity.

In April of this year the United Nations refugee agency entered Raqqa with much needed relief aid. They were horrified by what they found, “the UN team entering Raqqa city were shocked by the level of destruction, which exceeded anything they had ever seen before”.

After destroying Raqqa , America and its allies in the coalition of the killing refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for helping rebuild the city or to provide any kind of humanitarian assistance. In April Jerry Guilbert from the U.S. State Department responded to a journalists question by declaring rather smugly:

“… we never went into this from the beginning with the view that the international community was going to clear Raqqa or clear Syria. Ultimately, this has to be viewed as a Syrian problem that is in need of a Syrian solution”.

The Raqqa Civil Council (RCC) that has been set up by the Kurdish led SDF to govern Raqqa has acknowledged that America and its allies have provided no assistance to the destroyed city. Laila Mustafa of the RCC told Amnesty:

“Residents come to us every day asking us to recover the bodies of their relatives trapped in the rubble of destroyed buildings but we only have very few bulldozers and mostly not of the right kind, so we cannot satisfy most of these requests. We need equipment for lifting large quantity of heavy rubble full of mines and we just don’t have it’’.

It has often been said that history is written by the victors and this was never more true than in the Coalition war of annihilation waged in Raqqa against Isis. On 17 September U.S. commander Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend proudly declared:

“ … there has never been a more precise air campaign in the history of armed conflict”.

Meanwhile, other partners to these stupendous war crime have denied all culpability for the consequences of their disproportionate and indiscriminate actions in Raqqa. On 8 January 2018 the UK government blithely stated:

“In carrying out air strikes, expert analysts routinely examine data from every UK strike to assess its effect… We co-operate fully with NGOs such as Airwars, who provide evidence they gather of civilian casualties. After detailed work on each case, we have been able to discount RAF involvement in any civilian casualties as a result of any of the strikes that have been brought to our attention’’.

The 70 page report produced by Amnesty into the destruction of Raqqa by America and its allies makes it very clear that their claim to have carried out precision strikes that caused very few civilian casualties is a down right pack of lies. The coalition of the killing carried out massively disproportionate and indiscriminate air and artillery strikes whose objective was nothing less than the total destruction of a city that had hundreds of thousands of civilian residents.

The people of Raqqa have undergone a shattering experience and suffered such terrible trauma. There is no recognition of this by the western media or the politicians who carry on with their everyday business oblivious to the crimes against humanity committed under the cover of the “War On Terror’’.

The deafening silence of the political classes over the annihilation of Raqqa stands in sharp contrast to the hysteria that accompanied the liberation of Aleppo by the Syrian and Russian forces in early 2017. Media headlines incessantly screamed that Russia and Assad’s forces were using barrel bombs and indiscriminate air attacks to destroy the city and defeat the so-called ‘’moderate terrorists’’. More recently, we have seen the hypocritical outrage over the alleged use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces while the American use of white phosphorous in Raqqa is completely ignored.

The destruction of Raqqa and the war of annihilation waged by America and its blood stained allies will stand in the halls of infamy as a terrible crime whose immorality would make the devil himself proud of this achievement.

*

Featured image is from South Front.

The United States is closely following developments in Hudaydah, Yemen. I have spoken with Emirati leaders and made clear our desire to address their security concerns while preserving the free flow of humanitarian aid and life-saving commercial imports. We expect all parties to honor their commitments to work with the UN Office of the Special Envoy of the Secretary General for Yemen on this issue, support a political process to resolve this conflict, ensure humanitarian access to the Yemeni people, and map a stable political future for Yemen. – Complete official statement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, June 11, 2018

With the antiseptic, opaque prose of diplomatic hypocrisy, the US secretary of state officially turned a blind eye to the pending carnage its ally the UAE (United Arab Emirates) is preparing to unleash on Yemen, already the world’s most serious humanitarian crisis. According to the UAE website, the UAE in Yemen is: “Facilitating a peaceful transition in Yemen and preventing extremist control.” Translated, that means the UAE has intervened in the Yemeni civil war on the side of the deposed puppet government allied with Saudi Arabia. For its part, the US has participated in Saudi Arabia’s genocidal air war on Yemen since 2015 and now offers no objection to a UAE-led military offensive to raise the death toll in ground combat. Unacceptable as international criminality has been in Yemen, it could be worse, since the US recently suggested adding more American forces on the ground to support the UAE current attack plans (US forces already fight in Saudi Arabia along the border and occasional combat missions elsewhere).

“The United States is closely following developments in Hudaydah, Yemen,” says Secretary of State Pompeo’s official statement.

Actually, the developments worth following involve the military advance of UAE troops on Hudaydah, which has been held relatively conflict-free since 2015 by the Houthi rebels, who control roughly the northwestern third of Yemen with two-thirds of the country’s 27 million people. Hudaydah (also referred to as Al Hudaydah, Hodeidah, and other spellings) is Yemen’s fourth largest city, with a population of about 400,000 on the Red Sea along Yemen’s west coast. More importantly, Hudaydah is Yemen’s second largest port (after Aden on the south coast) and is vital for supplying inland Yemen with food, medicine, and other necessities. The US-Saudi aggression first bombed Hudaydah in 2015 and closed the port with a US-Saudi naval blockade. The Houthi rebels have nothing that resembles a navy; Hudaydah’s only significance is providing humanitarian aid.

Even though the military stalemate of the past three years shows no sign of changing, there is much concern in recent days that the Saudi-coalition forces might somehow attack Hudaydah, even though they remain more than fifty miles away. The UN is actively trying to head off this “expected” attack, the UN Security Council has been “urgently meeting,” and aid agencies have been evacuating staff, but the US has pretty much just shrugged. As Pompeo put it:

“I have spoken with Emirati leaders and made clear our desire to address their security concerns while preserving the free flow of humanitarian aid and life-saving commercial imports.”

The UAE has NO meaningful security concerns in Hudaydah, and tangential security concerns derive from the UAE’s criminal war against Yemen. The US can’t possibly address UAE “security concerns” and keep the port open for “humanitarian aid and life-saving commercial imports,” but of course Pompeo knows that, but it sounds good. And if there is an actual threat, where is it coming from? The UAE has apparently made quiet threats, with unofficial US backing, that even The New York Times treats as credible. Supposedly the UAE will use the distraction of the US/Korean summit as cover for its assault on Hudaydah.

Reporting is sketchy and unreliable at best, but the Saudi coalition has been touting an attack on Hudaydah since mid-May. The UAE-led forces, numbering in the thousands perhaps, were then some 50 to 100 miles south of Hudaydah. Besides UAE troops, the force includes Yemeni government, tribal, and Sudanese units. They have reportedly made unspecified gains in recent weeks, and they have met resistance from Houthi forces, who control the territory between the ill-defined front and Hudaydah. That territory is densely populated with Houthi supporters, and any major offensive would likely kill many civilians (more than a million people live in the region). On June 10, the same news service (Reuters) reported Yemeni forces in places only 6 and 18 miles from Hudaydah, “local military sources said.”

Pro-Saudi coalition reporting is equally sketchy and unreliable, featuring gains by coalition forces west of Taiz, which is 154 miles south of Hudaydah. This report also claimed that a Houthi-launched missile was destroyed by the Saudi Royal Air Defense Forces, with no casualties resulting. The report went on to observe, without apparent irony, that:

“Launching ballistic missiles towards densely populated cities and villages is in violation of international humanitarian law.”

Quite true, like the Saudi bombing of civilians almost daily since 2015.

Whatever the military reality of any ground offensive against Hudaydah, the psychological offensive has already had an impact. At about the same time Pompeo was officially saying pretty much nothing, Code Pink offered a more excited view:

This morning in Yemen, the Saudi-led coalition bombed a cholera treatment center. They have also just announced an imminent major military assault on the port of Hodeida. Aid groups like the United Nations have been given three days to leave the area. But there is no safety available for the 250,000 people who could die if this military operation is launched.

In the UK, Oxfam called on the government to intervene diplomatically to prevent any attack on Hudaydah. Oxfam said it was alerted about the attack and told to leave the city within three days, but didn’t say where the message came from. Oxfam added:

Hodeida is a key port that handles key imports of food, fuel and medicine. With more than 22 million people reliant on humanitarian aid and more than 8 million people one step away from famine, aid agencies have long warned of the humanitarian fall out of such an attack.

In Congress, the reaction is limited but for seven members of both parties who are asking colleagues to sign a letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis to be delivered June 13, according to The Hill:

“The letter is being circulated for signatures by Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.).”

The letter says, in part:

In light of your April 2017 remarks that the war must be resolved ‘politically as soon as possible,’ we urge you to use all tools at your disposal to dissuade the Saudi-led coalition from moving forward with this offensive and reject the provision of U.S. logistical, military and diplomatic support for any such operation.

More than a year after the defense secretary’s remarks, the US continues to make Saudi Arabia’s war of aggression possible, and the secretary of state has already articulated the official expectations of the US government in all its mendacity:

We expect all parties to honor their commitments to work with the UN Office of the Special Envoy of the Secretary General for Yemen on this issue, support a political process to resolve this conflict, ensure humanitarian access to the Yemeni people, and map a stable political future for Yemen.

This is exactly what the US has refused to do for years. The US under President Obama took part in a political process that imposed a Yemeni government in the country that was unacceptable to the Houthis and the Yemeni majority, leading to a coup. This annoyed the US, since it disrupted the US use of Yemen as pretty much of a free fire zone for drone strikes. So the US green-lighted the illegal Saudi war on Yemen and made it possible with military support, including target choice, mid-air refueling, and a naval blockade. The US has consistently undermined any political peace process. The US has participated in bombing humanitarian access to the Yemeni people. Now, under Trump, people are calling for the US to head off yet another potential atrocity of mass death at the hands of war criminals. Yes, it’s the right thing to do, but it was the right thing to do in 2015 and then it would have been a much better thing and, possibly, even an effective thing.

*

This article was originally published on Reader Supported News.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, 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.

Russia and Turkey have reached an agreement on the situation in the town of Tell Rifaat in the province of Aleppo, the London-based newspaper al-Araby al-Jadeed reported on June 14.

Under the agreement, units of the Turkish military will allegedly be deployed in Tell Rifaat side by side with the Russian Military Police, which was deployed there a few months ago. The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the Kurdish People Protection Units (YPG) will withdraw from the town. Members of Turkish-backed militant groups will not be allowed to enter the area.

The agreement is allegedly aimed at de-escalating the situation and allowing civilians to return to their houses in the town.

According to some pro-government sources, the SAA already began preparations to withdraw from Tell Rifaat. Earlier in 2018, SAA units were deployed in the town amid the Turkish military operation against the YPG in Afrin.

The Russian Aerospace Forces have carried out strikes on positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) and the Syrian Liberation Front (formerly Ahrar al-Sham) in the province of Aleppo. The strikes were a response to repeated hit and run attacks by these militant groups on the government-held area of Aleppo city.

On June 14, unknown gunmen shot and killed Doctor Musa Qanbas, a member of the reconciliation committee in southern Syria, in front of his clinic in the town of al-Harra in northwestern Daraa. On June 2, three other members of the committee – Tufiq al-Ghunim, Mohamad al-Ghunim and Mufaq al-Bargas were also assassinated. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), at least twelve members of the committee were assassinated during the last two months.

Syrian experts describe this series of assassinations as an attempt by some militant groups and their foreign sponsors, mostly the US and Israel, to undermine the Damascus government efforts to restore control of southern Syria by a peaceful way.

*

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

BTC: 13iYp9CDYZwgSnFXNtpEKgRRqaoxHPr2MH,

BCH:1NE49pQW8yCegnFCMvKuhLUnuxvTnxNUhf, 

ETH: 0x962b312a9d41620f9aa0d286f9d7f8b1769bfae6

Israel will be testing their Arrow 3 weapons system from the island of Kodiak, just off the coast of Alaska. 62 shipping containers that have been renovated into sleeping quarters for the Israeli troops and have already been shipped to the Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska, where the missile tests will take place. Yet, we’ve heard nothing on mainstream media about foreign troops coming to train on American soil.

The secret behind military operations and missile launches is the pollution left behind, mainly from the toxic rocket fuel. That fuel is difficult to transport, ship, store, use, and to clean up. Kodiak is still being cleaned up from the mess made back during WW2! The Pentagon has already admitted that it can not be cleaned up completely.

62 Shipping Containers renovated into sleeping quarters at PSC-A, Kodiak.

Fencing with barbed wire on top have recently been installed at PSC-A, Kodiak.

Since being built in 1998, the spaceport has had 17 launches and two of them exploded. The last explosion in 2014 caused the spaceport to close off large areas to the public which restricted access for over a year. Since then, a new road and more launch pads have been constructed on a ridge above the public’s favorite recreational area, Fossil Beach, further exposing people to contamination from rocket fuel. The most recent contract of $80 million dollarswith the Missile Defense Agency has escalated more development during the last year that includes an expanded housing area for the Israeli military, and a new road leading to another launch pad.

The reason given for Israel to begin testing their missiles (funded and developed by both Israel and America) is that the Arrow 3 interceptor is an exoatmospheric missile. The missile literally flies into space and comes back to crash on Earth’s surface. Being that the Mediterranean Sea is too small an area to test such a missile, they somehow managed to squeeze their way into pristine Alaskan territory. The question then would be asked, who is Israel targeting? Why do they need missiles to go above and beyond the Mediterranean Sea?

The land provided for the Israeli military on Kodiak Island at the Pacific Spaceport Complex is public land leased from the State of Alaska and is not federal land, where most all other US Department of Defense test sites are located. This should obligate the DOD and the Alaska Aerospace Corporation to be better stewards of the land but it doesn’t seem to be working out that way. Further, there seems to be little to no control over any of the development by either the local Kodiak Island Borough or the state. Normal zoning codes have not been applied by the local government and no taxes have been levied.

*

All images in this article are from The Peace Report.

Folks, it’s really telling where you are in the fight for human liberation based on who attacks you.

A few weeks ago, a group of “leftists”—who comrade Danny Haiphong refers to as “fake leftists” in his latest piece—attacked BAP National Organizer Ajamu Baraka for speaking against U.S. imperialist intervention in Syria.

By hurling the term “Assadist” at Ajamu, who has only advocated for the self-determination of peoples and nations, they showed themselves to be aligned with the white-supremacist empire. Workers World newspaper also took note of the irony.

Now folks online and in real life are going at it over Korea after Kim Jong Un met with Donald Trump.

Let us be clear: Korea deserves to be able to determine its own fate, with absolutely no intervention on behalf of the United States and its vassal states (we’re looking at you, Japan).

We believe the issue objectively comes down to Korea’s de-colonization, not any de-nuclearization, as Ajamu recently wrote.

These struggles on the left sharpen the divisions and help us see who’s on the side of human liberation.

A revolutionary formation that upholds peace, social justice, and the struggle against war and militarism within the context of an anti-imperialist frame is a deep threat. When you consider the base we are attempting to politicize and organize is African/Black working class-oriented activists and organizers, it is just too much for this racist, capitalist system to handle.

We are only able to do this revolutionary work with support from anti-imperialist folks like yourself. Can we count on your to keep building the Black anti-war movement in the United States?

No compromise.

No retreat.

Struggle to win,
Ajamu, Ana, Jaribu, Kali, Lamont, Lukata, Margaret, Netfa, Paul and Yolande
Coordinating Committee
Black Alliance for Peace

*

Featured image is from Black Agenda Report.

The act of playing and watching football should always remain apolitical, but it’s impossible not to notice the political dimensions of hosting the World Cup, all of which decisively play to Russia’s favor.

It was a very prudent move for President Putin to work his hardest over the years in getting FIFA to ultimately grant Russia the global honor of hosting the 2018 World Cup. This renowned privilege will assuredly be to Moscow’s political advantage despite the act of playing and watching football being a decidedly apolitical pastime. Here are the three benefits that Russia stands to reap through its hosting of this event, beginning with those that are most relevant from a grassroots level and then proceeding to the ones that are within the realm of International Relations:

1.  Showcasing Russia’s Soft Power

The rising Russian Federation of 2018 is nothing like the collapsing Soviet Union of the late 1980s that it’s misportrayed as being by the Mainstream Media, and although the country recently hosted the Sochi Winter Olympics in 2014, the soft power significance of that event pales in comparison to the FIFA World Cup that’s taking place in 11 separate Russian cities instead of only just one, to say nothing of the global populace’s comparatively higher level of engagement with football compared to winter sports. For the first time since the beginning of the New Cold War that broke out shortly after the Sochi Winter Olympics when the Western-backed urban terrorist movement of “EuroMaidan” succeeded in overthrowing the democratically elected and legitimate Ukrainian government, people from all across the world are willing to travel to Russia out of love for the favorite pastime and will actually get to see what the country that’s been so gruesomely reviled by the Mainstream Media is really like.

Russia’s come a far way in the over quarter-century since its post-Soviet independence, and while some socio-economic and infrastructure problems still persist from communist times (which President Putin boldly called out in March and promised to fix during his fourth and final term in office), there’s no doubt that the situation in the country has markedly improved since President Putin entered office at the beginning of the century, and it’s this New Russia that he and his people want to showcase to the world. They have a lot to be proud of, and the world has plenty to be surprised about when fans see just how wrong the prevailing narrative about Russia has been, which is exactly what Moscow is counting on. In this day and age, the more than two million visitors that are expected to travel to the country over the next month will probably share their first-hand experiences on social media with their friends and family, who trust these tourists’ impressions.

This is important to emphasize because it will undercut the weaponized infowar narrative that Russia is a barren land of angry, impoverished people living under a devilish dictatorship that poisons former spies and Syrian civilians alike while shooting down airliners with impunity. The scary stereotypes that have been spread about Russia are all wrong but served a strategic purpose in getting people – and especially those in the West – to fear it, both deterring them from visiting and also making them more likely to accept their governments’ provocative moves in deploying NATO forces closer to Russia’s borders. Now, however, many people will find out that what they were told for almost the past half of a decade was wrong, and that Russia is a prosperous country with friendly people who are living in a functional democracy that has invested billions over the years in the country’s physical development. The Western elite fear this awakening, but alas, they’re powerless to do anything about it.

2. Security & Diplomatic Coordination

Moving up the ladder from the grassroots to state level, it’s inevitable that some degree of security and diplomatic coordination will occur between Russia and the countries from where the most fans will be attending. This is ordinarily an unremarkable observation but takes on a new meaning in the context of the New Cold War after European countries severely downgraded or in some cases outright cut off their security ties with Russia. Now, however, there’s a practical reason for resuming them, at least on a small scale, and that’s to make the World Cup as safe and comfortable of an event for everyone who’s attending.

There’s no reason why the UK, for example, wouldn’t inform Russia of an impending terrorist plot against a stadium or fan event if it found out about one because its own citizens could be caught in the mayhem. On the diplomatic front, embassies are receiving information about different World Cup-related events from the Russian government, which will help to make fans’ experience in the country much more enjoyable, provided of course that they reach out to their countries’ diplomatic facilities for assistance. Altogether, the security and diplomatic coordination that will naturally be resumed between Russia and some Western countries could provide the basis for a future rapprochement

3. Leadership Meetings

President Putin made it no secret that he will be meeting with each national leader that attended the World Cup Opening Ceremony, which also implies that he’ll do the same to any others who show up at any time throughout the next month to cheer on their teams as he relishes in his personal responsibility to be a gracious host. While some of these interactions will probably be more of a casual greeting than anything politically relevant, others will carry with them a very heavy political significance, such as President Putin’s hosting of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) as his guest of honor on the day that the tournament began. It was a coincidence that brought those two together on that day since neither of them could have planned for their teams to face-off against the other in the World Cup’s first match, but it couldn’t have been more fortuitous for the de-facto Saudi leader.

MBS needed a high-profile and friendly opportunity for reentering public life after his mysterious weeks-long disappearance, and his presence at President Putin’s side as the Russian leader’s guest of honor during the opening match of the World Cup tournament provided just that. Furthermore, President Putin had nothing but praise for the young royal when they met in the Kremlin, politely referring to him as “Your Highness” and reminding him that “You know about our warm feelings for you”. In a stroke of fate, their meeting occurred on the last day of Ramadan for Russian Muslims(which came a day before some other Muslims’ because of the lunar sighting), which is why President Putin began his greeting by saying that “First of all, I would like to wish you a happy Eid al-Fitr, the holiday which marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan”, making this meeting one of crucial soft power significance that can’t be downplayed in any way.

The Saudi King, which is what MBS will become once his elderly father passes away or steps down, is the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques in Mecca and Medina and therefore a powerful symbol for all Muslims, so for future-King MBS to be in Russia on the eve of the sacred feast of Eid al-Fitr that commemorates the end of the fasting season instead of remaining in his Kingdom with his people testifies to the sincerity of the Russian-Saudi rapprochement and the importance of the business that both sides were so eager to conduct with one another. This publicly involved OPEC+ coordinationand Riyadh agreeing to invest $100 million in a Russian technological park but likely also had something to do with Syria, too. In any case, the extraordinarily successful and mutually beneficial Putin-MBS Summit that occurred on the opening day of the World Cup will probably presage similarly significant meetings with other visiting world leaders throughout the coming month.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Featured image is from Rehlat.

On 14 June 2018, the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice ruled that the FBI was correct to have recommended that the U.S. Department of Justice not prosecute, nor even investigate and place before a grand jury for consideration, a charge that Hillary Clinton had violated, even just a single one of the following 6 U.S. federal criminal statutes. But do you think she violated one or more of them? Here they are:

18 U.S. Code § 2232 — Destruction or removal of property to prevent seizure

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure

Whoever, before, during, or after any search for or seizure of property by any person authorized to make such search or seizure, knowingly destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of preventing or impairing the Government’s lawful authority to take such property into its custody or control or to continue holding such property under its lawful custody and control, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction

Whoever, knowing that property is subject to the in rem jurisdiction of a United States court for purposes of civil forfeiture under Federal law, knowingly and without authority from that court, destroys, damages, wastes, disposes of, transfers, or otherwise takes any action, or knowingly attempts to destroy, damage, waste, dispose of, transfer, or otherwise take any action, for the purpose of impairing or defeating the court’s continuing in rem jurisdiction over the property, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1512 — Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

(c) Whoever corruptly

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 2071 — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

18 U.S. Code § 641 — Public money, property or records 

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use, or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof, …

Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years or both. …

18 U.S. Code § 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information …

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer —  

Shall be fined not more than $10, 000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. 

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy, shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy. 

*

What do you think? As you consider the matter, you might want to know two things:

First, that the FBI’s ‘investigation’ of Clinton’s privatized email system was faked: it ignored each one of these six statutes.

Second, there were at least two cases that had been mentioned in the news media in which the U.S. federal Government did, in fact, investigate, and bring charges, and win a conviction on one or more of these federal charges, and which at least seem to differ from what Clinton did in only one respect — that she did it far more extensively, and more brazenly, than did that prosecuted person. The independent journalist who goes by the pseudonym “Tyler Durden” headlined, only a day after Mr. Comey on 5 July 2016 exonerated Ms. Clinton, “Meet Bryan Nishimura, Found Guilty For ‘Removal And Retention Of Classified Materials’,” and that conviction of Nishimura was won on the same statute for which the FBI’s Comey, as Clinton’s would-be policeman, jury, and judge, peremptorily exonerated her — refused to bring any charge at all. “Durden,” at his famous “Zero Hedge” site, noted:

“Here is the FBI itself, less than a year ago, charging one Bryan H. Nishimura, 50, of Folsom [California], who pleaded guilty to ‘unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials’ without malicious intent, in other words precisely what the FBI alleges Hillary did (h/t@DavidSirota).”

Screenshot from the FBI

He linked to this case. Nishimura was sentenced to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. He was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance, and to never again seek such a clearance. (Hillary Clinton continued to have her security clearance, and to run for the U.S. Presidency.)

Furthermore, even before Comey had announced Clinton’s exoneration, Josh Gersten at Politico had already headlined on 27 May 2016, “Sub sailor’s photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails”, and he reported that,

“A Navy sailor [Kristian Saucier] entered a guilty plea Friday in a classified information mishandling case that critics charge illustrates a double standard between the treatment of low-ranking government employees and top officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and ex-CIA Director David Petraeus. … To some, the comparison to Clinton’s case may appear strained. Clinton has said none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time.”

Politico’s Gersten took her word for it, that “none of the information on her server was marked classified at the time,” but is the FBI supposed to do that — to take a suspect’s allegation at face-value, instead of to check it out? (Should Gersten even have done that?)

There probably are other such prosecutions that have successsfully been pursued, but the news media don’t seem to be interested in following up on this matter now, any more than the U.S. federal Government has done. If the U.S. federal Government doesn’t want to investigate Clinton on any of these six criminal statutes, then that’s good enough for the news-media — or is it? Will it be “enough”?

So, wherever the present article is published, and if there is a reader-comments section there, then: What do you think? Is this treatment of what Hillary Clinton did, “Equal Justice Under Law”? Obviously, it’s bipartisan, politically (unless Trump will now demand his FBI to examine what she did on each one of these six statutes); but, in terms of justice: Is this matter, thus far, equal justice under law? Or not? And, if it’s not, then what does that say about whether our country is a democracy? What do you think about these questions?

*

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Overview

Since 30 March 2018, the Gaza Strip has witnessed a large increase in Palestinian casualties in the context of mass demonstrations taking place along Israel’s perimeter fence with Gaza. The demonstrations have occurred as part of the ‘Great March of Return’, a series of mass protests. The large number of casualties among unarmed Palestinian demonstrators, including a high percentage of demonstrators hit by live ammunition, has raised concerns about excessive use of force by Israeli troops. Gaza’s health sector is struggling to cope with the mass influx of casualties, due to years of blockade, internal divide and a chronic energy crisis, which have left essential services in Gaza barely able to function.

Key humanitarian needs

• Rapid deployment of quality-assured emergency medical teams to conduct complex lifesaving surgeries.
• Procurement of essential drugs, disposables and medical equipment to ensure accurate diagnostics and treatment of the injured.
• Increase the presence of civil society partners to document possible human rights violations.
• Legal aid to address restrictions impeding medical patients from receiving treatment outside Gaza.
• Mental health and psychosocial support for children and families affected by violence.
• Access for critical medical cases to treatment outside Gaza.

*This figure includes 17 Palestinians (two of them children) killed in unclear circumstances during the 14 May demonstrations, as well as 17 Palestinians (including one child) killed since 30 March in contexts other than demonstrations; among the latter are six people whose bodies are being reportedly withheld by the Israeli authorities.

**Additional 6,803 were treated in field medical trauma stabilization points.

Source of Palestinian casualty data: Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza.

Source of Israeli casualty data: Israeli media.

Disclaimer: Data and analysis provided in this snapshot is based on preliminary information available. Further assessments are pending.

After a quarter-century of intense study, we now know the unequivocal truth: Antarctica is losing ice to the oceans, and that ice loss is picking up speed.

Forty percent of sea level rise since 1992 has happened in just the past five years — a three-fold increase in the pace at which icebergs are breaking away from land, according to a comprehensive new study based on satellite data, ground measurements, and models. In West Antarctica, where the ice sheet is inherently unstable, the last five years saw an average net outflow of 159 billion tons of ice. In total, the frozen continent has lost 3 trillion tons of ice since 1992.

“As we observe the system for longer, we see more and more changes of the type we feared could happen as the climate warms,” says Helen Fricker, a scientist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California-San Diego who worked on the study, in an email to Grist.

The collective work, published in this week’s special edition of the journal Nature, assembles a half-dozen papers written by the world’s top experts on Antarctica. It serves as a major update to our understanding of how human activity affects the Earth’s largest store of ice — and what it would take to prevent a worst-case scenario.

Antarctica’s glaciers are massive enough to flood every coastal city on Earth. So it’s no exaggeration to say that what happens in Antarctica over the next few decades will determine the fate of not just Miami and Mumbai, but also the course of human history. If we’re lucky and quickly start cutting emissions, Antarctica’s glaciers might mostly remain in place. The alternative is unthinkable.

There’s still so much we don’t know about Antarctica. But a series of major breakthroughs in recent years have raised the urgency and scale of scientists’ efforts. This week’s papers put that information into context. The clear takeaway: There is no sign of a slowdown in Antarctica’s melt rate.

After five major Antarctic ice shelf collapses in the past 25 years, there is now enough data for an emerging science of ice shelf “damage mechanics.” Ice shelves — floating extensions of glaciers grounded on solid bedrock — are vulnerable to melt from both warm air above and warm water below. Their health is increasingly at risk as climate change intensifies. In recent years, scientists have learned that ice shelf collapses are probably a precursor for major glaciers to accelerate toward the ocean — and therefore a requirement for worst-case scenarios of sea level rise in our lifetimes.

The biggest of these shelf collapses so far, Larsen B back in 2002, raised alarms throughout the research community. In a matter of weeks, a 10,000-year old mass of ice the size of Rhode Island was gone. Last year, a smaller and partial collapse of the nearby Larsen C ice shelf produced one of the largest icebergs ever seen.

Thanks to all the science that’s taken place since, we have the ability to project forward what could happen over the next 50 years. It’s the same story we know, but with more certainty: We are at a make-or-break moment when it comes to climate change. The ice shelf collapses that humanity has already kickstarted can’t be rolled back, so the goal now is to prevent more of them.

More than any other region on Earth, Antarctica holds humanity hostage — but humanity also has a way out.

“The next few years will be a pivotal period for decision making with regard to Antarctica,” Fricker says. “Depending on what is decided, we could be looking at significant and irreversible changes over the next 50 years.”

Believe it or not, there’s a clear bright side here. Quickly slash emissions, and the ice shelves should still remain stable across most of the continent. Doing so would require an unprecedented era of global cooperation, but the collaborative research taking place right now in Antarctica — an effort shared by dozens of scientists from 17 countries in this week’s update alone — could serve as inspiration. It’s a symbol of what’s possible when people work together for a common cause.

“If you are optimistic, you can find good news here,” says Christina Hulbe, a polar expert at the University of Otago in New Zealand. “Some amount of future change has been locked in by our past decisions, but there is still time to avoid the worst thatcan happen.”

Hulbe, whose first trip to Antarctica was in 1991 but was not directly involved with this week’s report, sees it partly as the culmination of what she’s been working for her entire life. In her view, the way the report is framed — as a stark choice presented to humanity — “accomplishes something that charts and graphs never will.”

In narrative prose unusual for a formal scientific study, the researchers imagine what Antarctica might be like in 2070 — with and without rapid cuts to emissions. Given the incredible size of the Antarctic ice sheets, actions taken in the next decade, the researchers conclude, will reverberate for millennia.

“I’ve never been at an Antarctic or climate conference where people said, ‘That happened slower than I thought it would,’” Hulbe says. “There is nothing here to be complacent about.”

*

Featured image is from Glenn Jacobson / Australian Antarctic Division.

US Representatives Mark Pocan (D-WI), Justin Amash (R-MI), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Walter Jones (R-NC), and Ted Lieu (D-CA) this week led a bipartisan letter calling on Secretary of Defense James Mattis to stop a disastrous military assault by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates on Hodeida, Yemen’s major port city. In the letter, Members called for the US to reject providing logistical, military, and diplomatic support for the Saudi-led coalition’s operation, as well as disclose the full scope of the US involvement in the Saudi-led war.

“We urge you to use all available means to avert a catastrophic military assault on Yemen’s major port city of Hodeida by the Saudi-led coalition, and to present Congress with immediate clarification regarding the full scope of US military involvement in that conflict,” wrote the Members. “We remind you that three years into the conflict, active US participation in Saudi-led hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis has never been authorized by Congress, in violation of the Constitution.”

“We are concerned that in the midst of a Senate effort to exercise its constitutional authority to end unauthorized hostilities – including US targeting and refueling assistance for Saudi-led airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthis – the Pentagon may have concealed key information from members of Congress regarding the full extent of on-the-ground US military participation in the Saudi coalition-led war,” continued the Members.

“We call on you to immediately disclose the full extent of the US military role in the Saudi-led war against Yemen’s Houthis, including the use of special operations forces; disclose any role that the Pentagon is currently performing, has been asked to perform, or is considering performing regarding an attack on the port of Hodeida; and issue a public declaration opposing this impending assault and restating the Administration’s position that Saudi Arabia and other parties to the conflict should accept an immediate ceasefire and move toward a political settlement to resolve the conflict,” Members wrote.

“In light of a possibly disastrous offensive on Hodeida, we remind you that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare and authorize war, and the War Powers Resolution allows any individual member of Congress to force a debate and floor vote to remove US forces from unauthorized hostilities,” concluded the Members.

The Saudi-led war against Yemen’s indigenous Houthi rebels, now over three years old, has created “the worst humanitarian crisis in the world,” accordingto international relief agencies, leaving 17.8 million Yemenis, or 60 percent of the population, food insecure, and 8.4 million a step away from famine. The port city of Hodeida, already under a Saudi-imposed blockade, receives 80 percent of the country’s food imports, and experts warned that an assault on the city could immediately threaten the lives of 250,000 people and put millions more at risk of starving to death.

Pocan and Amash have previously worked together to raise concerns to the Trump Administration in two separate letters regarding the humanitarian threat posed by a Saudi coalition attack on Hodeida, obtain the Trump Administration’s legal justifications for the war, and call for the immediate end of US hostilities, which include targeting and midair refueling assistance for Saudi-led airstrikes.

In September, Pocan joined Khanna, Massie, and Jones to introduce H.Con.Res 81, a privileged measure invoking the War Powers Resolution to remove US Armed Forces from unauthorized Saudi-led hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis. That resolution obtained 53 House cosponsors and led to a companion measure to end US participation, introduced by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Chris Murphy (D-CT), which 44 Senators voted to consider in March.

The full letter is available here.

Hitachi is seeking billions of pounds from the British government to help build a new nuclear power plant at Anglesey in Wales – but experts say the technology being used is far from proven.

Last week Hitachi-rival Toshiba confirmed that they are pulling out of a major nuclear power project in the USA which planned to use a similar reactor type to the one planned for Wylfa. Toshiba said in a press release that the South Texas Project had “ceased to be financially viable” due to prevailing economic conditions. The announcement leaves the UK as one of the last countries looking to build this technology, called the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR).

Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Greenwich, said that while there are some small differences between the European reactor led by Hitachi and the abandoned US reactor from Toshiba, the “perception that this is proven technology is not supported by the facts”.

Although there are four similar reactors that have been built in Japan, plans for construction elsewhere have seen a series of failures.

And because of the long lead-in times for developing and building nuclear reactors, power plants built today may have been designed decades ago, Thomas said

“The technology that has been built already is actually 30 year old technology, which has been updated twice over. So the plants that are operating do not really represent what we would build, and also the performance of the plants in terms of their reliability has actually been very poor.”

Technology breakdowns

A principal argument for nuclear power relates to the large amount of time reactors can generate electricity over a given period, as opposed to the time they are offline because of maintenance or malfunction. This is described as the ‘load factor’ – the technical term for the proportion of power generated over a year, and an industry shorthand for reliability – and the sector often cites 80-90% as an average figure. This is why nuclear reactors are seen as a reliable source of electricity.

But the four Japanese reactors fall short of this standard, as the amount of power they have been able to generate over a year has fallen dramatically across their lifespan.

The most recently constructed reactors are the Hamaoka 5 and Shika 2, which both have a lifetime load factor of around 45% over less than 10 years — and that’s before they were taken offline due to Fukushima.

Part of this is due to Japan’s vulnerability to earthquakes, which can cause automatic shutdowns of nuclear power plants. After the Fukushima disaster, for nearly two years between 2013 and 2015, Japan had no nuclear reactors running at all. To come back online, all Japanese reactors now have to pass new safety tests in order to be allowed to operate.

But some of the Japanese ABWR reactor’s unreliability came from engineering issues. In 2005 and 2006, both Hamaoka 5 and Shika 2 were found to have turbine failures which meant they were closed for lengthy periods. Following the tighter post-Fukushima regulations, it’s not clear whether either reactor will ever come back online.

The two other reactors, part of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant, were built in the mid-90s. They have not operated since 2012 and 2013 respectively and were shut down for a spell following the Chuetsu earthquake of 2007. Prior to these forced shutdowns, they performed relatively well –  with a lifetime load factor of around 70%. However, ongoing lawsuits are challenging the operation of these ABWRs, and the others in Japan, over alleged design safety issues that make them vulnerable to accident.

When approached about these issues, Horizon, the Hitachi-owned subsidiary that are building Wylfa, told Unearthed that they are confident of achieving “a sector-leading load factor for Wylfa Newydd of at least 90%.”

They added:

“The factors that have affected the load factor of the ABWRs in Japan – safe shutdowns due to earthquakes, issues with non-nuclear technology, and shorter fuel cycles and longer outages – are not related to the ABWR technology itself and would not be replicated in the UK with Wylfa Newydd.”

In Hitachi’s presentations around the ABWR to be used at Wylfa, it’s not clear how these historic reliability issues are to be addressed in the UK.

Building nightmares

Last week’s announcement by Toshiba to walk away from its South Texas project is the most recent ABWR construction failure outside of Japan.

Toshiba agreed to make two reactors in 2008 but fell into licensing difficulties, and the US utilities company working with them wrote off $331m worth of investment in 2011 due to regulatory uncertainties following Fukushima. Toshiba had been funding the licensing processes and searching for investors ever since.

Similarly, an ABWR project in Taiwan has been dragged down by complications. Begun in 1999, a first reactor was due to enter commercial operation in 2006 and a second in 2007 – but contractual disagreements and wavering political support caused delays and cost overruns. The project was finally mothballed in 2014.

Back in Japan there are still two ABWR units in construction, but both of these have been beset with years of construction delays. Largely complicated by Fukushima, operation of Ohma nuclear power station has been moved from 2012 originally to at least 2023, while the other, Shimane 3, was due to begin operating in 2011 and inspections for a restart to development are still underway.

While not all of the difficulties building these power stations reflect specific issues with the ABWR itself, they do mirror the enormous financial and technical struggles of building a reliable nuclear power plant.

In the press release announcing its South Texas decision, Toshiba reiterated that “no investors have expressed an interest in participation, even though the project has received combined licenses” from the US authorities.

“In these circumstances, there is no clear pathway to securing profitability,” they added.

*

Featured image is from the author.

The United States will resume funding for the controversial, militant-linked White Helmets, a month after the group had its financial support frozen. The State Department also lauded the group for saving “100,000 lives” in Syria.

Whatever happens ahead for good, most likely ill, a US president and North Korean leader meeting for the first time ever was clearly unexpected earlier, notably memorable now.

The problem with achieving a durable bilateral agreement lies in Washington, not Pyongyang. Its government only pursued a nuclear deterrent because of justifiable fear of US aggression.

With the threat of it removed, the nation’s security guaranteed by America and China most of all, along with the world community, a high bar to cross, a powerful deterrent isn’t needed.

In Singapore, ABC News interviewed Trump after summit talks ended. Both sides reached a framework agreement and more not in it.

“They’re going to get rid of certain ballistic missile sites and various other things. We’re gonna put that out later. But we have the framework of getting ready to denuclearize North Korea,” said Trump.

There was no discussion about eliminating Washington’s regional nuclear umbrella – unrelated to protecting South Korea and Japan, he failed to explain.

It’s all about challenging China, Washington’s main regional adversary, North Korea a sideshow, a previous article explained.

Kim “ha(s) to get rid of” DPRK nuclear weapons…I think that they will. I really believe that he will. I’ve gotten to know him well in a short period of time,” said Trump.

“He’s committed to not starting (ballistic missile tests) again.” It’ll take years for North Korea to dismantle its nuclear and ballistic programs. “They’re gonna start immediately.”

North Korea will announce additional steps to be taken “shortly.” Trump insists he’ll stop regional war games – most likely not once Pentagon commanders and bipartisan congressional hardliners demand they continue.

Nothing was discussed about pulling US troops out of South Korea – deployed there more with China in mind than North Korea. The same goes for US forces in Japan.

Asked what kind of security guarantees he gave Kim, Trump said

“I don’t wanna talk about it specifically, but we’ve given him, he’s going to be happy.”

“I trust him,” Trump said about Kim. “I think he trusts me, and I trust him.” Inviting Kim to the White House may follow.

Separately, longtime North Korea skeptic Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe praised Kim’s pledge to denuclearize, saying:

“There is great meaning in chairman Kim’s clearly confirming to President Trump the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ spokesman said

“(i)mplementing today’s and previous agreements reached, in accordance with relevant Security Council resolutions, will require patience and support from the global community.”

South Korea wants clarification from Trump on suspending joint military exercises post-summit.

South Korean Lt. Col. Jennifer Lovett said

“(i)n coordination with our ROK partners, we will continue with our current military posture until we receive updated guidance from the Department of Defense (DOD) and/or Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM).”

South Korean President Moon Jae-in said

“(w)e will be there together with North Korea along the way.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stressed

“we can only welcome the fact that an important step forward has been made. Of course, the devil is in the detail, and we have yet to delve into specifics. But the impulse, as far as we understand, has been given,” adding:

Moscow is ready to help craft and implement the deal that will further cooperation with North Korea. He hopes six-party talks will occur ahead, involving North and South Korea, China, Japan, Russia and Washington.

John Bolton called for abandonment of North Korea’s nuclear weapons before easing US toughness.

China and Russia both urged a dual track approach earlier – DPRK denuclearization along with security guarantees, halting US regional military exercises, and a process for establishing regional peace. Kim wants a “phased and synchronous” approach, “action-for-action.”

China’s Foreign Minister Yang Yi called the Kim/Trump agreement something his government long called for.

“We hope that the two leaders will work to eliminate barriers, build mutual trust, overcome difficulties, and reach basic consensus and make substantive progress in promoting denuclearization and establishment of a peace mechanism on the Korean Peninsula,” he said, adding:

Beijing intends playing a constructive role in furthering peace on the Korean peninsula.

Iran warned Kim about US duplicity, an issue the DPRK understands well.

“We are facing a man who revokes his signature while abroad,” justifiably calling Trump untrustworthy for pulling out of the JCPOA, President Hassan Rouhani’s spokesman said.

Smiles, handshakes, and positive statements in Singapore will fade ahead if promises made are broken, most unlikely by Kim.

It’s a major issue in dealing with Washington no matter which right wing of its duopoly government is in power.

*

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

In this interview recorded the morning after U.S. President Trump’s ‘historic’ meeting with Chairman Kim Jong-Un of the Democratic Republic of Korea, Professor Michel Chossudovsky of the Centre for Research on Globalization gives his assessment of the meeting, outlines the threat of a reunified Korean peninsula to U.S. military and economic interests, comments on the coincidence of the G7 and other international summits taking place in the same week, and elaborates on the cross-cutting economic alliances which are challenging U.S. autonomy in the region.

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Reporting from  Seoul, South Korea

Während die G-7 als Folge des Zollkieges zerbrechen, finden sich die Beteiligten wieder zusammen, indem sie die NATO und ihr Partnernetzwerk stärken.

Trumps taktischer Vorschlag, die G-8 – durch Einbinden Russlands in eine G-7+1 – wieder herzustellen und Russland so von China zu trennen, wurde von den europäischen Führern und der EU selbst abgelehnt, die befürchten, dass sie durch Verhandlungen zwischen Washington und Moskau übergangen werden.

Stattdessen genehmigte dies der neue italienische Premierminister Conte. Trump nannte ihn „einen guten Jungen“ und lud ihn ins Weiße Haus ein.

Jedoch bleibt die übliche Strategie. Dies wird durch die jüngsten Beschlüsse der NATO bestätigt, deren wichtigste Mitglieder die Vereinigten Staaten, Kanada, Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien und Italien sind, sowie Japan als Partner, d.h. alle G7-Mächte.

Das Treffen der 29 Verteidigungsminister (für Italien Elisabetta Trenta, 5-Sterne-Bewegung) hat am 7. Juni einstimmig beschlossen, die Kommandostruktur in der Anti-Russland-Funktion zu verstärken und den Stab um mehr als 1.200 Mitarbeiter aufzustocken; ein neues gemeinsames Kommando für den Atlantik in Norfolk (USA) gegen “die russischen U-Boote, die die Linien der maritimen Kommunikation zwischen den Vereinigten Staaten und Europa bedrohen”, einzurichten; ein neues logistisches Kommando in Ulm (Deutschland) einzurichten, als “Abschreckung” gegen Russland, mit der Aufgabe, “die Truppen in jedem Konflikt schneller durch Europa zu bewegen”.

Die “militärische Mobilität” steht im Mittelpunkt der Zusammenarbeit zwischen der NATO und der EU, die durch ein neues Abkommen im nächsten Juli verstärkt wird.

Die NATO wird bis 2020 in Europa 30 mechanisierte [Panzer-] Bataillone, 30 Luftgeschwader und 30 Kampfschiffe stationieren, die in höchstens 30 Tagen gegen Russland einsatzbereit sind.

Zu diesem Zweck haben die europäischen Verbündeten, wie von den USA gefordert, ihre Militärausgaben seit 2014 um 87 Milliarden Dollar erhöht und sich verpflichtet, sie weiter zu erhöhen. Deutschland wird es 2019 auf durchschnittlich 114 Millionen Euro pro Tag bringen und plant, dies bis 2024 um 80% zu erhöhen.

Während sie in Kanada beim G-7-Gipfel mit den USA über Abgaben streiten, nehmen Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Kanada und Italien in Europa unter US-Kommando am Saber Strike-Manöver teil, das 18.000 Soldaten aus 19 Ländern mobilisiert und vom 3. bis 15. Juni nahe dem russischen Territorium in Polen und dem Baltikum stattfindet,.

Dieselben Länder, sowie Japan, die anderen sechs Mitglieder der G-7, werden im Pazifik, ebenfalls unter dem Kommando der USA, am der RIMPAC 2018 teilnehmen, der weltweit größten Anti-China-Marineübung.

An diesen Kriegsübungen von Europa bis zum Pazifik nehmen erstmalig israelische Streitkräfte teil.

Die Westmächte, gespalten durch gegensätzliche Interessen, bilden eine gemeinsame Front, um mit allen Mitteln – mehr und mehr Krieg – die imperiale Herrschaft der Welt aufrecht zu erhalten, die durch die Entstehung neuer staatlicher und sozialer Themen in eine Krise geraten ist.

Zur gleichen Zeit, als die Frage der Zölle die G-7 in Kanada spaltete, unterzeichneten China und Russland in Peking neue Wirtschaftsabkommen. China ist Russlands größter Handelspartner und Russland ist Chinas größter Energielieferant. Der Handel zwischen den beiden Ländern wird in diesem Jahr auf ca. 100 Milliarden Dollar ansteigen.

China und Russland kooperieren bei der Entwicklung der Neuen Seidenstraße durch 70 Länder in Asien, Europa und Afrika. Das Projekt, das zu „einer multipolaren Weltordnung und demokratischeren internationalen Beziehungen“ (Xi Jinping) beiträgt, wird von den USA und der EU abgelehnt. 27 der 28 EU-Botschafter in Peking (außer Ungarn) bemängeln, dass das Projekt den Freihandel verletze und Europas Spaltung zum Ziel hat.

Nicht nur die G-7 sondern die unipolare Weltordnung des Westens ist in der Krise.

(il manifesto, 12. Juni 2018)

Übersetzung: K.R.

VIDEO :

Se bem que o G-7 se divide em virtude da guerra aduaneira, esses países litigantes reagrupam-se, fortalecendo a NATO e a sua rede de afiliados. A proposta táctica de Trump de restabelecer o G-8 – destinada a vigiar a Rússia como um G-7 + 1, afastando-a da China – foi rejeitada pelos líderes europeus e pela própria União Europeia, que temem ser surpreendidos por um acordo Washington/Moscovo.

Pelo contrário, esse projecto foi aprovado pelo novo Primeiro Ministro italiano, Giuseppe Conte, definido por Trump como “um rapaz corajoso” e convidado para a Casa Branca. No entanto, a estratégia permanece comum. As últimas decisões tomadas pela NATO, cujos membros principais são os Estados Unidos, o Canadá, a Alemanha, a França, a Grã-Bretanha e a Itália, além do Japão como parceiro, ou seja, todas as potêncas do G-7,confimam esse facto.

A reunião dos 29 Ministros da Defesa (em representação da Itália, Elisabetta Trenta,  MoVimento 5 Stelle) em 7 de Junho, decidiu por unanimidade:

• reforçar a estrutura de comando nas missões contra a Rússia, aumentando o pessoal em mais de 1200 unidades;
• criar um novo Comando Atlântico conjunto, em Norfolk, nos EUA, contra “submarinos russos que ameaçam as linhas de comunicação marítima entre os Estados Unidos e a Europa”;
• estabelecer um novo Comando Logístico, em Ulm, na Alemanha, como “dissuasão” contra a Rússia, com a tarefa de “mobilizar as tropas mais rapidamente através da Europa, em qualquer conflito”.

A “mobilidade militar” está no centro da cooperação NATO/UE, que será reforçada através de um novo acordo em Julho.

Em 2020, a NATO instalará na Europa, 30 batalhões mecanizados, 30 esquadrões aéreos e 30 navios de combate, disponíveis em 30 dias ou ainda menos, contra a Rússia. Para este fim, conforme solicitado pelos EUA, os aliados europeus e o Canadá aumentaram as despesas militares em 87 biliões de dólares desde 2014 e estão empenhados em aumentá-las. A Alemanha elevá-la-á, em 2019, para uma média de 114 milhões de euros por dia e planeia aumentá-la em 80% até 2024.

Se bem que a Alemanha, a França, a Grã-Bretanha, o Canadá e a Itália, reunidos no G-7, no Canadá, disputem as taxas aduaneiras com os EUA, de facto, na Europa participam sob o comando USA no exercício Saber Strike que, mobiliza 18.000 soldados de 19 países e decorre de 3 a 15 de Junho, na Polónia e no Báltico, próximo do território russo.

Esses mesmos países e o Japão (os outros seis membros do G-7) participarão no Pacífico, sempre sob comando USA, no RIMPAC 2018, o maior exercício naval do mundo numa missão contra a China. Nestes exercícios de guerra da Europa no Pacífico, participam, pela primeira vez, forças israelitas. As potências ocidentais, divididas por diversos interesses, fazem uma frente comum  para manter a todo custo – e cada vez mais, a guerra – o domínio imperial do mundo, posto em desequilíbrio pelo aparecimento de novas questões estatais e sociais.

No mesmo momento em que no Canadá, o G-7 se dividia sobre a questão das taxas aduaneiras, a China e a Rússia estipulavam novos acordos económicos em Pequim. A China é o principal parceiro comercial da Rússia e esta é o primeiro fornecedor de energia da China. O intercâmbio entre os dois países aumentará este ano para cerca de 100 biliões de dólares. A China e a Rússia cooperam no desenvolvimento da Nova Rota da Seda em 70 países da Ásia, Europa e África.

Esse projecto – que contribui para “uma Ordem Mundial Multipolar e para relações internacionais mais democráticas” (Xi Jinping) – tem a oposição quer dos EUA, quer da União Europeia: 27 dos 28 Embaixadores da União Europeia, em Pequim (excepto a Hungria), afirmam que o projecto viola o comércio livre (free trade) e visa dividir a Europa.

Em crise não está só o G-7, como também a Ordem Mundial Unipolar  imposta pelo Ocidente.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 12 de Junho de 2018

 

Artigo em italiano :

USA e UE in lite ma uniti contro Russia e Cina L’arte della guerra

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Video em português com subtítulos em português :

On Monday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), joined by 14 fellow Democratic United States House of Representatives members, sent a letter to President Donald Trump supporting Trump pursuing diplomacy and “incremental progress” with North Korea. The letter also expresses concern about efforts toward peace being hindered by people — both Republican and Democrat, and both inside and outside the Trump administration — seeking “to scuttle progress by attempting to limit the parameters of the talks, including by insisting on full and immediate denuclearization or other unrealistic commitments by North Korea at an early date.”

The Khanna letter contrasts with a letter seven US Senate Democrats sent Trump last week that argues several major North Korean concessions should be required in any deal. The signers of that earlier letter include two top Democratic leaders in the Senate — Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) — as well as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Bob Menendez (D-NJ).

Interviewed Tuesday at Democracy Now, Khanna discussed in more detail his concerns about some members of his own party seeking to prevent diplomatic steps in regard to North Korea. Addressing fellow Democrats’ criticism of Trump meeting with North Korea leader Kim Jong-un, Khanna states:

Imagine if it weren’t Donald Trump there but if it were Barack Obama there having that kind of breakthrough. I think there would be a reaction from almost every progressive Democrat cheering that on.

Further, the criticism by Democrats of engaging in the diplomatic discussion, suggest Khanna, will tarnish Democrats’ reputation. In particular, Khanna notes

“Democrats risk looking like we’re being excessively partisan by attacking the president from the right” in regard to a meeting Americans will view as “a constructive step and a success.”

Khanna describes the letter Schumer and other Democratic senators sent Trump as “basically parroting the talking points of” Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton that the US should not engage in any diplomacy with or make any concessions to North Korea unless North Korea undergoes “complete denuclearization.”

This approach, argues Khanna, “is not realistic.”

Instead, says Khanna, an “incremental approach” is needed, including possible steps on the US side in regard to military exercises near North Korea and on the North Korea side in regard to nuclear testing.

Watch Khanna’s interview here.

On Wednesday, UN General Assembly members overwhelmingly condemned excessive Israeli force against peacefully demonstrating Gazans.

Some 120 nations supported the nonbinding resolution, 45 weak-kneed ones abstained, only 8 against it: the US, Israel, Australia, and five small Pacific Islands virtually controlled by Washington.

Since March 30, Israeli snipers murdered over 125 Gazans threatening no one in cold blood, over 14,000 others injured, many seriously, the death toll sure to rise.

Premeditated Israeli viciousness throughout the illegally occupied territories continues with no end of it in prospect, no liberation for a long-suffering people.

On all things relating to Israel, only one nation matters, America alone, partnering with the Jewish state, supporting its occupation viciousness, indifferent to Palestinian rights – the rest of the world community failing to challenge what no just societies tolerate.

UN resolutions don’t matter, not binding Security Council ones or nonbinding General Assembly actions.

Throughout its history, Israel flagrantly ignored dozens of UN resolutions with impunity, including ones condemning its violence, calling settlements illegal, and designating Jerusalem an international city, among others.

Israel systematically, repeatedly, and flagrantly flaunts the rule of law, operating by its own rules alone, serving its own interests exclusively, getting away with it always because of firm US support.

Both nations partner in each other’s high crimes, the world community failing to contest what’s going on – not the EU, Russia, China or most other nations.

Israel rules the Territories illegally by Kafkaesque militarized control, bureaucratic strangulation, and brute force – the way it’s always been since the June 1967 preemptive Six Day War, naked aggression by any standard, seizing the remaining 22% of historic Palestine not gotten in 1948.

Longstanding Israeli policy calls for maximum Jews and minimum Arabs, Jews alone served, others unwanted, Palestinians viciously mistreated – brutalized, traumatized, intimidated, harassed, aiming to break their will, hoping they’ll give up the struggle, leaving their historic homeland for exclusive Jewish development and settlement.

Perhaps no other people have been tormented longer and persisted resolutely throughout it all since Balfour for fundamental rights they’re denied than Palestinians – mistreated like Jim Crow mistreatment of Blacks in America during their darkest times, no pun intended.

For Israel, settlements are key, all development in the West Bank and East Jerusalem woven around them.

Control is maintained by checkpoints, state land, the apartheid wall, other barriers, closed military zones, parks, commercial areas, nature reserves, commercial areas, Jews-only roads, no-go areas, free-fire zones, along with virtually imprisoning two million Gazans, waging wars or otherwise brutalizing them, a daily nightmare for its people, suffering under humanitarian crisis conditions.

They’re trapped behind off-limits land and sea barriers, denied access to valued agricultural land by buffer zone oppression, fishermen mistreated the same way, farmers shot in their fields if stray in areas Israel declared off-limits.

All of the above is solely for political reasons, unrelated to security. Israel flagrantly violates international law with impunity repeately.

Every day is Kristallnacht in Occupied Palestine, Gazans oppressed most of all. Occupation harshness enforces apartheid state terror, and collective punishment of a long-beleaguered people.

Peaceful demonstrations are assaulted throughout the Territories. Free expression and movement are prohibited, population centers isolated, borders closed, Gaza blockaded, the Strip attacked at Israel’s discretion.

UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions haven’t changed a thing. As long as the Jewish state has full US support, as long as the rest of the world community fails to challenge longstanding injustice, nothing ahead will change.

Israel will continue getting away with mass murder and much more because nothing stands in its way, able to do whatever it wants unaccountably.

*

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

An extraordinary article by regular financial columnist Steven Pearlstein in the June 10 Washington Post warned that a surge in corporate debt has created “the mother of all credit bubbles,” and put the U.S. (and world) financial systems on the road to a new crash worse than that of 2007-8. The full-page spread featured charts showing that corporate debt, much of which is being used for stock buybacks, is increasingly risky, and that it is at record highs. Pearlstein adds that one in five companies have debt obligations exceeding their cash flow—i.e., they are zombies just waiting to die.

Much of what Pearlstein reports is not new to readers of more reliable financial reporters, such as Nomi Prins, Pam and Russ Martens, and others. This blog has reported on previous warnings by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Financial Research, which Pearlstein mentions, and by former FDIC officials Thomas Hoenig and Sheila Bair. Pearlstein also does not stress, for example, the link between the new shaky mountain of debt, and the major banks, which are intimately connected to the so-called “non-bank lenders” involved in the current bubbles.

But Pearlstein’s summary of the current problem is sharp, and ironically, points implicitly at the solution. He writes:

“Today’s economic boom is driven not by any great burst of innovation or growth in productivity. Rather, it is driven by another round of financial engineering that converts equity into debt… Rather than using record profits, and record amounts of borrowed money, to invest in new plants and equipment, develop new products, improve service, lower prices or raise the wages and skills of their employees, they are `returning’ that money to shareholders. Corporate America, in effect, has transformed itself into one giant leveraged buyout.”

How to reverse this process? We need the policies that do the opposite: that promote growth in productivity (credit for a revolutionized infrastructure and scientific frontiers), and convert debt into equity—specifically in the way that Alexander Hamilton transformed the debt of the fledgling United States into capital for the First National Bank. After taking away the rewards and incentives for speculative borrowing (by re-imposing Glass-Steagall), we need a new National Bank for Infrastructure into which certain categories of solid debt (such as Treasury and municipal bonds) can be traded in for capital stock, which will serve as the foundation for an investment boom in the real economy.

Is anyone in Congress or the Administration listening? When the mainstream media puts out a signal like this, continued inaction on the measures before them is foolish, if not insane.

What’s startling is how quickly Donald Trump, aided and abetted by a mixture of billionaires, sycophants, and far right ideologues is undermining the basic pillars of a U.S. imperium that emerged in 1945 with the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan ending the Second World War. Amidst the follies of Trump unleashed upon the world, it’s worth examining what has been and what is emerging.

Then: 1945 to 2016

With unparalleled power and global influence the United States waged a Cold War against the Soviets and global communism; organized a global system of military alliances; constructed a global network of military bases to encircle, contain, and threaten it’s rivals; engaged in endless arms races and spent trillions in building and maintaining dominant conventional and nuclear military forces; established a global financial order with the American dollar as global reserve currency and U.S. bonds on ultimate protector of value in hard times allowing the U.S. to run deficits and print money with impunity; waged a series of wars and proxy wars contesting for U.S. dominance and the control of oil and other strategic materials in the global South; as dominant economic, military, scientific, and cultural power, exercised an astounding global mixture of hard and soft power throughout the world ranging from engineering coups to providing disaster and crisis aid and home for refugees; offered food and development aid and plethora of military hardware; controlled international development groups like the World Bank; and managed the world in accord with the Washington Consensus based on free trade, structural adjustments imposed upon the poor nations of the global South using privatization, commodity exports to pay for mountains of development debt.

This was an empire that managed to emerge substantially unchanged and even more globally dominant after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s ideologues, like Francis Fukuyama, proclaiming an “end to history” as a liberal capitalist free-trading American empire encompassed the world. This was the only real choice moving forward, a matter of theme and variation.

The empire was shaken by 911 and the disastrous Iraq Invasion but it persisted and managed to bail out the bankers and speculators following the 2007-2008 global financial collapse. Terror replaced communism as the Enemy. Business and empire as usual would have persisted given the universally anticipated succession to power of Hilary Clinton.

Now

The consternation on the faces of the other leaders of the G-7 staring down at the petulant Donald Trump sitting with arms crossed tells it all just before Trump departed for his summit meeting with a dynastic and murderous Korean dictator. On the way, Trump refused to sign the carefully wrought G-7 statement while having his Economic Adviser and his Trade Representative attack Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

For many this is close to the last straw following a stream of perplexing actions including Trump’s reticence to support NATO and his withdrawal from the global Paris Climate Accords where the U.S.now stands alone as ecological catastrophe gathers and the Trump administration wants to burn more coal.

What is significant is more than the latest outrage. We need to examine the consequences combining what is done in the normal course of business; what is not done; and what happens in emergencies.

No Coherent Plan

There is, of course, no coherent design or understanding at work much beyond the reported White House staffer’s explanation for trashing the G-7. “This is America bitch.”

Trump hardly reads. His is an instinctive actor compulsively seeking self-aggrandizement of a fragile ego; endless personal and familial enrichment; revenge against those who have opposed or slighted him; expressing his lusts for young beautiful women including his daughter and his deeply racist and anti-immigrant sentiments. He rode to power on racism and nativism and will attempt to stay in power using racism and nativism. He’s all in.

This is not a recipe for sustaining a global U.S. empire. He clearly does not care. His instincts were to remove U.S. forces from Afghanistan and Syria and was talked out of it by the generals and White House handlers.

Trump’s world view is also incoherent. Trump makes common cause with Saudi Crown Prince and autocrat to be, Mohammed bin Salman and supports the genocidal Saudi War in Yemen and acts as if a Middle East War against Iran, dear to the heart of National Security Advisor John Bolton, would be an acceptable thing. While a negotiated settlement in Yemen can open the door toward more peaceful relations with Iran, the likelihood of pursuing such a path is poor.The odds currently appear to favor more the eruption of a Saudi-U.S-Israel vs. Iran-Hezbollah Middle Eastern War than a durable regional peace plan.

U.S. leadership that was globally central is suddenly become peripheral. Trade is now a weapon to be used as readily against the great liberal capitalist democratic members of the G-7 as against recalcitrant dictatorships. U.S. military alliances matter little. Trumps decision to end U.S.-South Korea military exercises was a strong signal to Seoul and Tokyo as well as to Pyongyang and Beijing and Moscow that the fearsome assertiveness of U.S. military might is taking a big step back.

The danger,of course, is that the end of U.S. military presence if not done the context of regional peace settlements, will instead embolden well armed dictators and lead countries like South Korea and Japan to pursue their own nuclear weapons programs.
The U.S. empire has prospered and thrived by rewarding its friends, punishing and, if necessary, destroying its enemies. That required some unspoken sense of limits and imperial judgement. But not for Trump. Power is to be used to serve his short term needs.

“Trade wars are easy to win,” said Trump.

And this is certainly true rhetorically and perhaps politically in the short term.

Bashing Canada for high protective tariffs shielding Canadian farmers from cheap U. S. Wisconsin dairy imports is likely to be helpful in 2018 mid-term elections in some Wisconsin Congressional districts. The U.S. has a net trade surplus with Canada, if that matters. Of course long term consequences of a trade war with G-7 and with China will seriously hurt the global economy and red state Trump Districts most of all through targeted retaliatory tariffs. Will Trump just talk tough and do little on trade? Who knows?

Xi Jinping treats Trump like a powerful but corrupt provincial governor providing pomp and circumstance and funneling cash to Ivanka through trademarks and patents on her products, providing a $500 million dollar loan to a Trump branded Indonesia resort project. Trump is a man with whom Xi Jinping can do business. So can the litany of of many other authoritarians worldwide both obscure and notorious.

His fondness for Vladimir Putin and multiple murky financial ties are headline news; Kim Jong-un is now a buddy soon to be invited to the White House. The murderous Duterte of the Philippines a pal. He has not met an authoritarian who has treated him royally he does not like.

Bankruptcy Man

Trump in the past has remarked that his experience in multiple and profitable bankruptcies, where the sucker investors end up holding the bag while he flushes bad debt, can be duplicated by U.S. default, for example, by not increasing U.S. debt limit. While this is more political trope to appeal to hs base and to gain political advantage, there is a grave risk of a global credit driven financial crisis to come in the few years. A global credit crisis can unfold quickly in the face of an economic dip given the potential trillions of defaulting corporate junk bonds, emerging market bonds, and non-recourse loans where there is no choice but to wipe our many trillions of bad debt by default through government mandated deleveraging and financial restructuring. There is simply too much corporate debt, consumer credit card debt, mortgage debt, sovereign debt, pension and health care liabilities on a global scale affecting everyone from the OECD nations to China and the global South. Worst case can be global depression while government acts to save the richest and impoverish most everyone else. What will the Donald Trump do as President if he has to step into the breach facing global financial chaos?

Conclusion

The retreat from U.S.leadership on trade, economics, military security, climate change and ecological protection by Donald Trump is leading in the short term to a world that will emerge as more chaotic, more violent, more polluted, with dictators more emboldened and the poor more desperate.

The healing response to Trump’s excess is not a return to U.S. empire as usual, but to use this opportunity to establish principles, polices and programs needed to start to build a global ecological civilization based on ecological and social justice and peace. Now is the time to articulate what such a just, peaceful and sustainable system would be, and how we get from here to there.

Beyond U.S.global militarism, for example, what is the shape of global security arrangements. Mature democracies do not fight wars with one another. How can global democracies develop sufficient security guarantee against tyrants like Kim, and, at the same time, pursue paths toward peace and justice.

Above all, the essential need for a global transition to efficient renewable energy and sustainable practices in manufacturing, forestry , agriculture and aquaculture within a context of peace and social justice can establish the basis for a peaceful global convergence on sustainable norms like 3 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per person per year and an end to poverty. Many tens of trillions must be unvested in building a sustainable and just future that will save us, and not continue on squandering our future on war spending and pollution and ecological destruction as usual.

We should not waste the opportunity the opportunity provided by theTrump disruption to develop and start to implement plans and programs for an ecological and peaceful future.

*

Roy Morrison‘s Latest Book is Sustainability Sutra (2017). He is working on building solar on working farms www.dual-cropping.com.

 

While the G7 is fissuring over the war on customs duties, the same conflicting actors are regrouping to reinforce NATO and its network of partners.

Trump’s tactical proposal to restore the G8 – aimed at harnessing Russia to a G7 + 1, thus separating it from China – was rejected by European leaders and even the EU itself, who fear being overridden by Washinton-Moscow negotiations.

However, the proposition was approved by the new Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte. Trump called him a “good boy” and invited him to the White House.

Nonetheless, this remains a communal strategy. This is confirmed by the latest decisions taken by NATO, whose main members are the United States, Canada, Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy, plus Japan as a partner – in other words, all the powers of the G-7.

The meeting of 29 Defense ministers (for Italy Elisabetta Trenta, 5 Stelle), on June 7, unanimously decided to strengthen the anti-Russisa command structure by more than 1,200 personnel; to set up a new Joint Force Command for the Atlantic, based in Norfolk (USA), against “Russian submarines that threaten maritime communication lines between the United States and Europe”; to set up a new Logistics Command, based in Ulm (Germany), as a “deterrent” against Russia, with the task of “moving troops faster across Europe in any conflict”.

“Military mobility” is at the heart of the NATO-EU cooperation, which will be strengthened by a new agreement next July.

By 2020, NATO will deploy in Europe, 30 mechanised battalions, 30 air squadrons and 30 combat vessels, ready to use within 30 days or less against Russia.

To this end, as requested by the US, the European allies and Canada have increased their military spending by 87 billion dollars since 2014 and are committed to increasing it even more. Germany will take it in 2019 to an average of 114 million Euros a day and plans to increase it by 80% by 2024.

Germany, France, Great Britain, Canada and Italy, while they quarrel with the US at the G7 in Canada about customs taxes, in Europe are participating under US command in the Saber Strike excercise which mobilises 18,000 soldiers from 19 countries. The excercise was scheduled between 3 and 15 June in Poland and the Baltic, close to the Russian territory.

The same six members of the G7, plus Japan, will be participating in the Pacific, still under US command, in Rimpac 2018, the largest naval exercise in the world, aimed at China.

In these ‘war games’, from Europe to the Pacific, Israeli forces are participating for the first time.

The Western powers, divided by contrasting interests, are composing a united front in order to hold on, by any means necessary – war and more war – to their imperial domination of the world, which is threatened by the emergence of new state and social subjects.

At the same time as the G7 was splitting on the question of customs duties in Canada, China and Russia signed new economic agreements in Beijing. China is Russia’s biggest trade partner and Russia is China’s largest fuel supplier. Trade between the two countries will increase this year to around 100 billion dollars.

China and Russia cooperate in the development of the New Silk Road through 70 countries of Asia, Europe and Africa. The project – which contributes to “a multipolar world order and more democratic international relations” (Xi Jinping) – is opposed by both the US and the European Union – 27 of the 28 EU ambassadors in Beijing (with the exception of Hungary) claim that the project violates free trade and aims to divide Europe.

It is not only the G7, but the unipolar world order imposed by the West, which is under threat.

Source: PandoraTV

*

This article was originally published on Il Manifesto.

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

There is increasing likelihood of a civil war in Cameroun.

Captured from German interests during WWII by the Free French the Camerouns were divided into British Cameroun to the North and French Cameroun to the South. At its Independence from France January 1, 1960, French Cameroun became the Republic of Cameroun or Cameroun as we know it. To the North, under plebiscite, the southern portion of British Cameroun voted to join the French speaking Republic of Cameroun, while the northern (Muslim) portion of British Cameroun voted to join English speaking Nigeria.

Currently the President of Cameroun, Paul Biya, has countered a rebellion by elements of Cameroun’s English speaking minority who object to discrimination and selective denial of services and are countering the state’s security increasingly with armed force. Rebel forces are pushing to secede, to form a country called “Ambazonia”.

Rebel strength is primarily in the north-west along the border with English speaking Nigeria, with some strength along the coast which traditionally draws wealthier people. There is some representation in the Capital Yaounde to the southeast.

Taking advantage of Cameroun’s tendency toward tropical drift under Paul Biya, Anglophone groups of the West declared independence for “Ambazonia”, October 1, 2017, as a small western region snuggled up to Nigeria and hosting an expensive TV network and electronic startups.

One may remember that at Cameroun’s Independence in 1960, the peoples were not chary of blood which unfortunately surprised European merchants in the bush, while neighbouring countries met independence more gently. With the the French and English demarcation lines decided by popular vote, Cameroun is a poor area for English language interests to arbitrarily assert themselves. That could only and inevitably lead to repression, then wider conflict. So any Anglophone expansion is very likely planned and furthered by outside interests. Cameroun’s domestic Anglophone and English militant organizations have acted unwisely.

Remember as well that part of the package which Paul Kagame‘s Tutsi forces took along from Uganda in their invasion of Rwanda, was the English language and a most favourable exchange rate for the U.S. dollar. In choices between colonial languages Rwanda’s Hutu were basically French speaking yet the usage of both the English and French languages are foreign elements to African interests.

Part of the Anglophone strategy for Cameroun seems to be calling the persecution of English speakers ‘genocidal,’ as headlined by The Guardian, quoting a lady in the bush. At this point the conflict rises from disruption of state services, acts of violence by Anglophone militants, and a predictable response to calls for Anglo secession. Reported enthusiastically by U.S.A. not-exactly-pacifist sources such as Waging Nonviolence, the English language western media tend to place their language and funding before war or peace. Partly as a result of our moral ignorance, and partly because there’s a reasonable suspicion of a tactical use of genocide, the Camerounais of both European language alliances may be endangered and share an early genocide warning.

We’ve learned from Rwanda that it’s necessary to establish the mutual risk of genocide for both language groups in a civil war; in Rwanda both the Hutu and Tutsi suffered mass slaughters although under the Tutsi victory and rule it has became against Rwandan law to mention the genocide of Hutu (Note the case of Rwandan political prisoner Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza).

*

This article was originally published on Night’s Lantern.

Partial Sources

“‘This is a genocide’: villages burn as war rages in blood-soaked Cameroon,” Peter Zongo, May 30, 2018, The Guardian;

“Cameroon military and separatists fuel ‘cycle of violence’, says Amnesty,” June 12, 2018, BBC News;

“Ambazonians struggle for independence from Cameroon amid military takeover,” Phil Wilmot, June 12, 2018, Waging Nonviolence.

Saudi Arabia has much at stake when its national soccer team enters the pitch for the opening match of the 2018 World Cup in Moscow.

With politics a permanent fixture, Saudi Arabia is playing in the World Cup finals for the first time in more than a decade at a moment that the kingdom is vying for enhanced influence in global and regional governance of the sport.

In a world in which international sports associations stubbornly maintain the fiction that sports and politics are separate, Saudi sports czar, Turki al-Sheikh, the chairman of the kingdom’s General Sport Authority and a close associate of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was unequivocal in his assertions that his decisions were based on what he deemed “Saudi Arabia’s best (political) interest.”

Barely 24 hours before the opening match, Saudi Arabia made good on Mr. Al-Sheikh’s assertion that the kingdom’s international sports policy would be driven by former US President George W. Bush’s post 9/11 principle of “you are either with us or against.”

With Morocco’s bid for the 2026 World Cup in mind, Mr. Al-Sheikh had earlier warned that

“to be in the grey area is no longer acceptable to us. There are those who were mistaken in their direction … If you want support, it’ll be in Riyadh. What you’re doing is a waste of time…,” Mr. Al-Sheikh said.

An analysis of the Arab vote in world soccer body FIFA’s ballot in which Morocco lost out against a joint bid by the United States, Canada and Mexico, produced a mirror image of the deep divisions in the Arab world over regional disputes, including the one-year-old Saudi-United Arab Emirates-led economic and diplomatic boycott of Qatar and the kingdom’s rivalry with Iran.

Angry at what they asserted was a successful Saudi campaign to persuade Arab and Islamic countries to break with the principle of Arab, African and Muslim solidarity and to vote for North America rather than Morocco, Moroccan officials suggested that the vote was likely to deepen divisions and further strain once close ties between the two kingdoms.

Adopting a Saudi Arabia First approach, Mr. Al-Sheikh noted that the United States “is our biggest and strongest ally.” He recalled that when the World Cup was played in 1994 in nine American cities, the US “was one of our favourites. The fans were numerous, and the Saudi team achieved good results.”

Mr. Al-Sheikh’s remarks followed a veiled threat by President Donald J. Trump, in violation of guidelines regarding political influence of world soccer body FIFA, against nations that may oppose the US-led proposition.

The FIFA vote on the eve of the World Cup was the latest element in the Saudi attempt to exert influence in soccer governance with the kingdom’s spat with Morocco only one of several public controversies involving Saudi Arabia and Mr. Al-Sheikh.

Casting a shadow over Saudi Arabia’s success in qualifying for the World Cup was the fact that hours before the opening match, Saudi fans remained deprived of legal access to broadcasts of matches.

Saudi Arabia has yet to reach an agreement with BeIN, the sports subsidiary of the Qatar-owned Al Jazeera television network that owns the broadcasting rights.

The states boycotting Qatar are demanding that the Gulf state shutter Al Jazeera or at least curb its freewheeling reporting and talk shows that often challenge the policies of countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

As a matter of principle, BeIN has been blocked in the boycotting states for the past year. While Saudi Arabia has sought to ignore Qatar’s rights by creating beOutQ, a 10-channel bootlegging operation based in the kingdom, the UAE backed down at the 11^th hour from its blockage of beIN broadcasts but maintained its jamming of Al Jazeera.

beOutQ transmits over Arabsat, a Riyadh-based satellite provider Arabsat owned by Saudi Arabia.

Unable to challenge the Saudi action in Saudi courts, Qatar has urged world soccer body FIFA to take action against what it described as Saudi pirate broadcasters

Egypt, a member of the anti-Qatar, alliance has asserted that the awarding of the broadcasting rights to beIN violated its competition law and said it would oblige FIFA to allow its state broadcaster to broadcast 22 matches free to air, including those of the Egyptian national team.

The Confederation of African Football (CAF) warned Saudi Arabia and Egypt by implication on the eve of the World Cup not to pirate World Cup broadcasts.

“Recently, an entity called beOutQ has put in place a major piracy operation against BeIN Media Group. In this regard, CAF strongly condemns the practice of the audio-visual piracy of sport events, a real scourge for our industry. CAF is determined to take all necessary against beoutQ if any of CAF matches are pirated,” the soccer body said.

The Saudi national squad’s geopolitical baggage in Russia contains more goodies.

Against the backdrop of a Saudi-UAE campaign to get FIFA to deprive Qatar of its 2022 hosting rights, Saudi Arabia has been manoeuvring to ensure that it has greater say in the issue while at the same time isolating Iran in the global soccer family.

In a further bid to complicate life for Qatar, Saudi Arabia backed a proposal to speed up the expansion of the World Cup to 48 teams from 32, which is now scheduled for 2026, by making it already applicable to the 2022 World Cup. FIFA has delayed a decision on the issue.

If adopted, Qatar could be forced to share the hosting of the 2022 tournament with others in the region. Iran has already offered to help Qatar.

The Saudi-UAE moves come on the back of a two-pronged Saudi effort to gain a measure of control of global soccer governance.

Global tech investor Softbank, which counts Saudi Arabia and the UAE among its largest investors, is believed to be behind a $25 billion proposal embraced by FIFA president Gianni Infantino to revamp the FIFA Club World Cup and launch of a Global Nations League tournament. If approved, the proposal would give Saudi Arabia a significant voice in global soccer governance.

Complimenting the Saudi FIFA bid is a Saudi effort to undermine the position of the 47-nation Asian Football Confederation AFC headed by Salman Bin Ibrahim Al-Khalifa, a member of the Bahrain ruling family and one of the most powerful men in global soccer.

To do so, Saudi Arabia has unilaterally launched a new regional bloc, the South West Asian Football Federation (SWAFF), a potential violation of FIFA and AFC rules.

The federation would be made up of members of both the AFC and the Amman-based West Asian Football Federation (WAFF) that groups all Middle Eastern nations except for Israel and is headed by Jordanian Prince Ali Bin Al-Hussein, a prominent advocate of soccer governance reform.

All of this could come to a head on the pitch if both Saudi Arabia and Iran were to make it out of the group stage and clash in the semi-finals.

“Saudi Arabia’s clash with Iran would be an explosive affair,” said a headline in the Asia Times.

*

This article was originally published on The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title as well as Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, co-authored with Dr. Teresita Cruz-Del Rosario,  Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa, and the forthcoming China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

True enough, the Kim Jong-un/Trump summit was historic, a first-time ever face-to-face meeting between leaders of both countries.

A few hours of talks, what preceded them, and framework agreement at their conclusion changed nothing about US imperial aims.

US regimes virtually never negotiate in good faith, notably not with sovereign independent countries like North Korea. Rare exceptions prove the rule.

Washington demands everything in return for empty promises. Trump gave away nothing, no concessions other than rhetorical ones, nothing binding, nothing assuring durable peace on the peninsula, nothing suggesting a new US leaf in dealing with the DPRK fairly.

That’s not how imperialism works, seeking dominance over other nations. Washington seeks global hegemony.

The Trump regime wants Pyongyang subservience, denuclearization a step toward achieving it, leaving the country defenseless against a future US onslaught if it goes along and current talks turn out unsuccessfully.

A nuclear deterrent is its most effective defense against long-feared US aggression, a way to prevent it.

Throughout its history, North Korea never attacked another nation, threatening none now, no reason for anxiety in the South and Japan.

Not according to the NYT, saying the Kim/Trump summit left regional nations “with new anxieties…exacerbat(ing) their fears about the United States’ long-term commitment to safeguarding the region.”

The only threat is America’s presence, its imperial rage for dominance, nothing else. The region would be much safer with all US forces withdrawn, not the other way around.

Suspending US military exercises, other than short-term, and withdrawing US forces from South Korea is highly unlikely, most likely Trump bluster alone, steps not to be taken.

The Times:

“Since World War II, the United States has been a leader in East Asia, providing security assurances to allies in Japan and South Korea.”

America is an occupying power, its regional presence largely about challenging China, not North Korea, despite no threat from either country.

Regional security would be much better served by ending Washington’s military presence. It’s provocative, destabilizing the region, not protecting it.

North Korea rightfully views US-led military exercises as rehearsals for attacking the country. China is justifiably outraged by Pentagon warships approaching or encroaching on its territorial waters – unacceptable hostile acts when occur.

The Times:

“For China, the ultimate goal is to reduce American influence in the region as it seeks to consolidate and expand its own power.”

“The removal of American troops from South Korea, held out by Mr. Trump as a possibility, is a long-held goal of Beijing.”

Washington has a disturbing history of intruding in parts of the world not its own – virtually everywhere.

Beijing rightfully opposes provocative US actions. If its warships approached America’s east or west coasts, or sailed into the Gulf of Mexico, if its troops were positioned near northern and/or southern US borders, Washington would likely consider the actions a casus belli.

Yet its empire of bases threaten world peace and stability, surrounding Russia, China and other countries with hostile forces, actions it would never tolerate from other nations.

Washington’s imperial agenda, its permanent war policy, and hegemonic ambitions are the only legitimate reasons for regional anxieties – not threats from China or North Korea. None exist.

Both countries seek cooperative relations with others, not dominance over them, not war on anyone.

*

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

Assad made the remarks on Wednesday during an interview with the al-Alam News Network, where he stressed that Syria’s position is to support “any act of resistance, whether against terrorists or against occupying forces regardless of their nationality.”

Referring to the presence of fighters of the Lebanese resistance movement of Hezbollah in Syria, Assad said that

“the battle is long and the need for these military forces will continue for a long time.”

He also stressed that there are no Iranian military bases in Syria, but Damascus will not hesitate to allow them if there is a need.

Assad also noted that it is not yet decided how the situation in Syria’s militant-held southwest will be resolved.

“We are giving the political process a chance. If that doesn’t succeed, we have no other option but to liberate it by force,” he said.

In an earlier interview with the Daily Mail, Assad accused the West of fueling the crisis in his country in an attempt to oust his government.

“We are fighting the terrorists, and those terrorists are supported by the British government, the French government, the Americans and their puppets whether in Europe or in our region,” he said.

“The whole approach toward Syria in the West is, ‘We have to change this government, we have to demonize this president, because they don’t suit our policies anymore.’” Assad said.

“They tell lies, they talk about chemical weapons, they talk about the bad president killing the good people, freedom, peaceful demonstrations,” he added.

Iran has been offering military advisory support to Syria at the request of the Damascus government, enabling its army to speed up its gains on various fronts against the terror groups. Hezbollah forces have also been aiding the Syrian government clear areas bordering Lebanon of terrorist groups.

Concerned over Syrian advances, the US and Israel, which support anti-Damascus terrorists, have called for Iranian advisors and Hezbollah’s fighters to leave Syria.

The Tel Aviv regime launches frequent attacks against targets inside Syria in what is widely viewed as an attempt to prop up the terrorist groups that have been suffering heavy defeats at the hands of Syrian soldiers.

---

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.

Internal documents exclusively obtained by the Grayzone Project (and embedded after this article) show how Cambridge Analytica’s UK-based parent company, SCL group, conducted a surveillance operation in Yemen called Project Titania. The initiative relied on psychological profiling, “strategic communications campaigns,” and infiltration of foreign operatives into indigenous communities through unwitting local partners whom they were instructed to deceive.

According to the materials detailed here, Project Titania was to be implemented by SCL “on behalf of Archimedes.” Archimedes is a US-based private contractor that advertises its ability to provide “Systems Integration, Engineering, and Mission Support solutions to government and businesses worldwide.”

The partnership between SCL and Archimedes highlights the seamless web of relationships between private intelligence firms and Western governments engaged in counter-intelligence activities in the Middle East. These large scale surveillance operations have been conducted without the knowledge of the Western public or input from elected officials, and would have remained mostly unknown had a series of leaks and hacking operations not placed them in the public domain.

Communications obtained legally by the Grayzone Project indicated that a former Archimedes staffer named Tim Riesen was a key contact for the Yemen operation. Little information is publicly available about Riesen; he is currently the the CEO of an international corporate consultancy firm called Madison Springfield, Inc.

While he is also listed as an adjunct political science professor at the school of graduate studies at Norwich University, a private military academy in Vermont, published material by Riesen is difficult to find online. Riesen did not respond to an interview request delivered by the Grayzone Project to his email at Madison Springfield.

One of Riesen’s few public appearances consists of a brief cameo in a 2011 video by AFRICOM, the US military command center that operates in 53 African countries. In the video below, an AFRICOM staffer describes a briefing Riesen delivered on the demographics and political tendencies of South Sudan ahead of its independence referendum that year.

Despite his negligible online footprint, or perhaps because of it, Riesen has made himself a considerable player in the world of private intelligence. That is clear from the tranche of emails that surfaced when the private intel firm HBGary was hacked in 2010 by the Anonymous collective.

The HBGary hacks were first reported by journalist Barrett Brown, who was prosecuted by Obama’s Department of Justice and sentenced to five years in prison for publicizing the emails. When their contents were published in full at Wikileaks, HBGary and consortium of intelligence firms were exposed for planning to carry out a full-scale attack on American social justice activists and journalists.

The firms homed in on journalist Glenn Greenwald and Wikileaks, plotting to undermine both through a campaign of “disinformation,” spawning internal rifts and “creating messages around actions to sabotage or discredit the opposing organization.” HBGary was also considered by the US Chamber of Commerce to launch a smear campaign against its critics.

In a separate initiative, HBGary aimed to develop a “persona management” system for the US Air Force that enabled users to spam social media with replies from users with false but detailed personas that gave the impression of organic consensus. The project outlined in the emails closely resembles the kind of troll and bot farms that have gained infamy amid America’s furor over Russian meddling, however, this one was made in the USA.

According to Barrett Brown, the contract for the system was ultimately won by a subsidiary of Cubic, a major multi-national arms, combat training company, and infrastructure company.     

Archimedes and the ROMAS/COIN mass surveillance plan

Though the HBGary emails generated a brief flurry of media interest, little attention was devoted to one of the most disturbing programs they exposed. In a series of communications between intelligence firm directors, an operation came to light that Brown described as “a secretive and immensely sophisticated campaign of mass surveillance and data mining against the Arab world, allowing the intelligence community to monitor the habits, conversations, and activity of millions of individuals at once.”

That plan was Romas/COIN, with “COIN” referring to counter-intelligence — the same acronym used in the FBI’s notorious COINTELPRO program. Riesen’s Archimedes was a key player in the development of the initiative.

According to details of the program gathered by Brown and a collection of online researchers, Apple was also an active team partner, communicating regularly with HBGary CEO Aaron Barr and his peers. In one email, Apple’s “Homeland Defense Manager” Andy Kemp rescheduled a meeting with Barr by explaining,

“I’ve been requested to be [in] phoenix by a senior member at ODNI [the Office of the Director of National Intelligence] – someone That I don’t say no to.”

Romas/COIN focused heavily on mobile phone software and applications. Its designers aimed to develop specialized “social media monitoring tools” and linguistic analysis systems, presumably to surveil the communications of younger, activist-minded Arabs on platforms like Facebook.

To emphasize the Arab-centric nature of Romas/COIN, Chris Clair of the intelligence firm TASC proposed a bold name to his colleagues:

“Can we name COIN Saif? Saif is the sword an Arab executioner uses when they decapitate criminals. I can think of a few cool brands for this.”

In the end, the private spies agreed to call their program “ROMAS.”

“ROMAS is the name of a middle eastern spider. ? I thought I was pretty clever,” HBGary’s Barr wrote. “I am glad they are going to continue to use the name.”

Riesen appears in several emails with Clair, Barr, and a handful of partners pursuing what he called a “potential collaboration opportunity.” He described his company, Archimedes, and Barr’s HBGary, as subcontractors to Clair’s TASC on the project.

Together, they brainstormed a plan to compete with the contractor Northrup Grumman for a lucrative contract from an unnamed US government client seeking advanced capabilities in surveillance and “IO” — the acronym for influence operations.

On July 23, 2010, the ROMAS/COIN team decided on an informal setting to brainstorm their proposal.

“And we are on Thursday,” Clair informed Riesen. I’ll have the steaks ready to grill and the beer will be chilled. I am sure it will be loads of fun.”

Massive State Department contracts to SCL for covert propaganda

In a recent exchange at the US State Department, spokesperson Heather Nauert confirmed that the US government had provided SCL with lucrative contracts to advance its propaganda goals on the international stage. Nauert acknowledged that in late 2016, the US State Department’s Global Engagement Center was granted a $120 million budget to wage war on online ISIS recruitment and Russian “disinformation.”

The counter-propaganda initiative promptly doled out two contracts, totaling $496,232, to SCL in February and March of 2017 to carry out “target audience research.” According to Nauert, the contracts to SCL were aimed at supplementing US anti-ISIS operations in the Middle East.

Before folding into Emerdata, SCL removed endorsements from NATO and the State Department from its website (image from NBC News)

The Global Engagement Center is an international influence operation run out of heart of the State Department. Originally formed as the Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications, and with a mission initially focused on fighting ISIS-oriented propaganda, the operation shifted its focus — and massively expanded its budget — as soon as the national panic over Russian meddling erupted during the 2016 election.

According to Richard Stengel, the center’s former director,

“we supported credible counter-Russian voices in the region. We pretty much stopped creating content ourselves.”

Which voices Stengel was referring to remains unclear, but as the former managing editor of Time Magazine, his remarks raised questions about whether the US government was covertly paying or promoting journalists to advance its agenda in Eastern Europe.

At a Council on Foreign Relations forum on “fake news” this May, Stengel made an unusually candid disclosure.

“My old job at the State Department was what people used to jokingly [call] the chief propagandist job,” he declared. “I’m not against propaganda, every country does it and they have to do it to their own population and I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.”

At a Council on Foreign Relations forum about "fake news," former Editor at Time Magazine Richard Stengel directly states that he supports the use of propaganda on American citizens – then shuts the session down when challenged about how propaganda is used against the third world pic.twitter.com/ClAT5POv7G

— William Craddick (@williamcraddick) May 11, 2018

Rebranding a toxic name

Just weeks after the collapse of Cambridge Analytica and SCL, the firm’s principals, including Rebekah Mercer, magically resurfaced as directors of a newly minted, London-based company called Emerdata that appears to differ from SCL in name only. In fact, the firm is even headquartered at the same office formerly occupied by SCL Elections.

The brazen rebranding of SCL/Cambridge Analytica might be disturbing, but these firms are only part of a much wider web of private intelligence firms determined to manipulate the behavior of the public for the benefit of powerful clients. And before these cynical operators applied their methods in Western elections, they tested them on populations in conflict zones like Yemen.

Back in 2011, when he exposed the Romas/COIN mass surveillance program, Barrett Brown warned of the coming blowback for the West.  

“It is inevitable, then, that such capabilities as form the backbone of Romas/COIN…will be deployed against a growing segment of the world’s population,” Brown wrote. “The powerful institutions that wield them will grow all the more powerful as they are provided better and better methods by which to monitor, deceive, and manipulate. The informed electorate upon which liberty depends will be increasingly misinformed. No tactical advantage conferred by the use of these programs can outweigh the damage that will be done to mankind in the process of creating them.” 

*

Max Blumenthal is the editor of the GrayzoneProject.com and the co-host of the podcast Moderate Rebels. He is an award-winning journalist and the author of books, including the best-selling “Republican Gomorrah: Inside the Movement That Shattered the Party,” “Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel” and “The Fifty One Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza.”

Featured image: The LAV III armoured vehicle (AV) is the latest in the Generation III Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) series of armoured cars built by General Dynamics Land Systems, and is the primary mechanized infantry vehicle of the Canadian Army.

American defense contractors were practically drooling over the prospect of all-out war with North Korea as President Donald Trump was recklessly flinging “fire and fury” last year, but Tuesday’s summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un appears to have dampened war profiteers’ dreams of yet another catastrophic U.S.-led military conflict—at least for now.

Demonstrating that even the slightest whiff of peace is enough to scare investors in America’s most profitable military contractors, USA Today reported on Tuesday that shares of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics all “took a dive” as Trump and Kim signed a vague, non-binding agreement that is merely the first step toward a lasting diplomatic solution.

“Peace is bad for business,” noted writer Ajit Singh in response to the new report.

According to USA Today:

Shares of Raytheon, which makes Patriot and Tomahawk missiles, fell 2.6 percent. Lockheed Martin, which supplies the Pentagon with air and missile defense systems as well as the F-35 Stealth fighter jet, tumbled one percent. And Northrop Grumman, which has increased its focus on cyber warfare and missile defense systems more recently, declined 1.3 percent. Boeing, which makes Apache helicopters and aerial refueling aircraft, dipped 0.2 percent. General Dynamics, a Navy shipbuilder, fell one percent.

By contrast, the Dow Jones industrial average edged up 20 points.”

As financial analyst Brad McMillan noted in an interview with USA Today, falling defense stocks represent investors’ fears that the chance for a hot war between the U.S. and North Korea—which he describes as “one of the big potential growth stories recently”—could be slipping away.

“If weapons are used they need to be replaced. That makes war a growth story for these stocks,” McMillan added. “What the agreement [between Trump and Kim] does, at least for a while, is take military conflict off the table.”

Let’s take a moment to think about the real victims of the North Korea peace talks…[checks notes] defense stocks pic.twitter.com/61OB9rf9a7

— Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) June 12, 2018

But before you start feeling bad for America’s war profiteers—and before you give Trump credit for dragging their stocks down—just remember that Democrats and Republicans in Congress just granted the U.S. president’s wish for a $717 billion Pentagon budget, much of which goes straight into the pockets of companies like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin.

On January 13, the Saudi-led coalition launched a new operation to capture the Yemeni port city of Hudaydah from the Houthis.

“Liberation of the port is the beginning of the fall of the Houthi militias. It will secure navigation in the Bab al-Mandab Strait and cut off the hands of Iran,” the Saudi-backed government of Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi said in a statement.

The ground operation is reportedly supported by the air and naval forces of the Saudi-led coalition. Pro-Saudi and pro-UAE sources claim that the attack is ongoing from multiple directions. However, according to local sources, the advance is mainly taking place south of Hudaydah, near the airport.

On the same day, the Yemeni Navy [loyal to the Houthis] announced that it had targeted a vessel of the Saudi-led coalition off the coast of Hudaydah with two anti-ship missiles. According to the Navy, the vessel was one of the many participating in the attack on the city. The vessels attempted to carry out a landing operation in the framework of the advance on Hudayadh, but were forced to retreat after the strike.

Over the past months, the coalition’s forces have made multiple attempts to reach and capture Hudaydah. However, they have not been able to achieve this goal.

Pro-coalition sources also claim that the Houthis use the port to smuggle weapons from Iran. The city also hosts at least one of the facilities used by the Houthis to make water-born improvised explosive devices to attack the coalition’s vessels.

At the same time, Hudaydah is the last remaining humanitarian lifeline in the Houthis-controlled part of the war-torn country.

*

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,

On May 21, in his first formal public address, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (sworn in May 2) effectively declared war on the sovereign nation of Iran. Pompeo has no constitutional authority to declare war on anyone, as he well knows, so his declaration of war is just short of overt, though it included a not-so-veiled threat of a nuclear attack on Iran. Pompeo’s declaration of war is a reactionary move that revitalizes the malignant Iranaphobia of the Bush presidency, when predictions were rife that Iran would have nuclear weapons by next year, next month, next week, predictions that never came true over twenty years of fearmongering. In effect (as we’ll see), Pompeo wants us to believe that everything bad that happened in the Middle East after Saudi terrorists attacked us on 9/11 in 2001 has been Iran’s fault, starting with Afghanistan. Almost everything Pompeo had to say to the Heritage Foundation on May 21 was a lie or, more typically, an argument built on lies.

Heritage Foundation host Kay Coles James called Pompeo’s 3,700-word speech “Bold, concise, unambiguous” and “a bold vision – clear, concise, unambiguous.”  It was none of those, except perhaps bold in its willingness to go to war with an imaginary monster. Even without open warfare, warmongering has its uses both for intimidating other states and creating turmoil among the populace at home. Buckle your seat belts.

The 2012 Iran nuclear deal (officially the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) was, by all reliable accounts, working effectively in its own terms up until May 8: inspectors confirmed that Iran had eliminated the nuclear programs it had promised to eliminate, that its uranium enrichment program for nuclear power plants was nowhere close to making weapons grade material, and so on. Whatever perceived flaws the deal may have had, and whatever other problems it didn’t cover, the deal was working to the satisfaction of all its other signatories: Iran, France, Great Britain, Germany, Russia, and China. As a measure of international cooperation, the deal not only worked, it was an available precedent for further negotiations among equal parties acting in good faith. The US was not such a party. On May 8, the US President, unilaterally and over the clear objections of all the other parties to the agreement, pulled the US out of the deal for no more clearly articulated reason than that he didn’t like it.  Or as Pompeo tried to re-frame it in his May 21 declaration of war:

President Trump withdrew from the [Iran nuclear] deal for a simple reason: it failed to guarantee the safety of the American people from the risk created by the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This is a Big Lie worthy of Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. What “risk created by the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” is there? Iran poses NO imminent threat to the US, and wouldn’t even if it had nuclear weapons (as North Korea and eight other countries have). Iran has no overseas bases, the US has more than 600, including a couple of dozen that surround Iran. A classified number of US bases and aircraft carriers around Iran are armed with nuclear weapons. Iran lives every day at risk from the US military while posing almost no counter-risk (and none that wouldn’t be suicidal). There is no credible threat to the American people other than fevered speculation about what might happen in a world that does not exist.

Mike Pompeo with Saudi King Salman (Source: Gulf News)

To clarify Pompeo’s lie, the President withdrew from the deal for a simple reason: to protect the American people from a non-existent threat. In reality, peremptorily dumping the deal without any effort to improve it first may well have made Americans less safe in the long term. There’s no way to know. And given the current US ability to manage complicated, multifaceted problems, there’s little reason for hope. Since no one else seems as reckless as the US, we may muddle through despite massive inept stupidity and deceit.

The frame for Pompeo’s deceitful arguments is the familiar one of American goodness, American exceptionalism, American purity of motive. He deploys it with the apparent self-assurance that enough of the American people still fall for it (or profit from it) that it gives the government near carte blanche to make the rest of the world suffer our willfulness. Pompeo complains about “wealth creation for Iranian kleptocrats,” without a word about American kleptocrats, of whom his president is one and he is too presumably. And then there’s the unmentioned collusion with Russian kleptocrats. Better to divert attention and inflate the imaginary threat:

The deal did nothing to address Iran’s continuing development of ballistic and cruise missiles, which could deliver nuclear warheads.

Missiles were not part of the nuclear agreement, so, of course, it didn’t address missiles. And even if Iran, which has a space program, develops missiles under the agreement, it still wouldn’t have nuclear warheads to deliver. There is no threat, but the US could move the projected threat closer by scrapping the agreement rather than seeking to negotiate it into other areas. That move both inflames the fear and conceals the lie. In effect, Pompeo argues metaphorically that we had to cut down the cherry orchard because it failed to produce beef.

Pompeo goes on at length arguing that all the problems in the Middle East are Iran’s fault. He never mentions the US invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq, or US intervention in other countries creating fertile ground for ISIS in Libya and genocide in Yemen. Pompeo falsely claims that

“Iran perpetuates a conflict” in Syria that has made “that country 71,000 square miles of kill zone.”

Pompeo falsely claims that Iran alone jeopardizes Iraq’s sovereignty. Pompeo falsely blames Iran for the terror and starvation in Yemen caused by US-supported Saudi terror bombing. Pompeo falsely blames Iran for US failure in Afghanistan. Pompeo uses these and other lies to support the long-standing Big Lie that

“Iran continues to be… the world’s largest sponsor of terror.”

This is another Bush administration lie that lived on under Obama and now gets fresh life from Pompeo, but without evidence or analysis. US sponsorship of Saudi bombing of defenseless civilians in Yemen probably accounts for more terrorist acts than Iran accomplishes worldwide. Israeli murder of unarmed protestors in Gaza has killed more people than Iran’s supposed terror. The demonization of Iran persists because of the perverse US public psychology that has neither gotten over the 1979 hostage-taking nor accepted any responsibility for destroying Iranian democracy and subjecting Iran to a brutal US-puppet police state for a quarter-century. The Big Lie about Iran is so ingrained in American self-delusion, Pompeo may not be fully aware of the extent to which he is lying to his core (he surely knows the particulars of specific smaller lies).

Only someone who is delusional or dishonest, or both, could claim with apparent sincerity that one goal of the US is “to deter Iranian aggression.” Pompeo offers no particulars of this Iranian “aggression.” So far as one can tell, in the real world, Iran has not invaded any other country in the region, or elsewhere. The US has invaded several countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and by proxy Yemen. American aggression has been real and deadly and constant for decades, but because the US is the one keeping score, the US doesn’t award itself the prize it so richly deserves year after year as the world’s number one state sponsor of terror. This is how it’s been since long before 1967 when Martin Luther King tried speaking “clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government.” That’s the way it was, that’s the way it still is, that’s the future Pompeo points us toward with a not so veiled threat of nuclear war:

And I’d remind the leadership in Iran what President Trump said: If they restart their nuclear program, it will mean bigger problems – bigger problems than they’d ever had before.

And then Pompeo launched on a lengthy description of Iran as he sees it, a self-serving interpretation of Iranian events that may or may not mean what Pompeo says they mean. What is most remarkable about the passage is that it could as well apply to the US today. Just change the Iran references to American references, as I have done in the text below, leaving everything else Pompeo said intact, and the likely unintentional effect is eerily like looking in a black mirror reality:

Look, these problems are compounded by enormous corruption inside of [the US], and the [American] people can smell it. The protests last winter showed that many are angry at the regime that keeps for itself what the regime steals from its people.

And [Americans] too are angry at a regime elite that commits hundreds of millions of dollars to military operations and terrorist groups abroad while the Iranian people cry out for a simple life with jobs and opportunity and with liberty.

The [American] regime’s response to the protests has only exposed the country’s leadership is running scared. Thousands have been jailed arbitrarily, and at least dozens have been killed.

As seen from the [#MeToo] protests, the brutal men of the regime seem to be particularly terrified by [American] women who are demanding their rights. As human beings with inherent dignity and inalienable rights, the women of [America] deserve the same freedoms that the men of [America] possess.

But this is all on top of a well-documented terror and torture that the regime has inflicted for decades on those who dissent from the regime’s ideology.

The [American] regime is going to ultimately have to look itself in the mirror. The [American] people, especially its youth, are increasingly eager for economic, political, and social change.

As an analysis of the US by a US official, that might suggest we were headed toward enlightened and progressive policy changes. Even for what it is, Pompeo’s self-deceiving pitch to “the Iranian people,” it could have led in a positive direction.  It didn’t. Pompeo followed this assessment with a dishonest offer for new talks. It was dishonest because it came with non-negotiable US preconditions, “only if Iran is willing to make major changes.” Then came a full page of preconditions, “what it is that we demand from Iran,” as Pompeo put it [emphasis added]. Meeting those US demands would be tantamount to a surrender of national sovereignty in exchange for nothing. Pompeo surely understood that he was making an offer Iran couldn’t do anything but refuse.

The Secretary of State’s bullying chest puffery continued for another two pages of falsehoods and repetitions. He called for a global alliance of democracies and dictatorships “to join this effort against the Islamic Republic of Iran.” Linking Egypt and Australia, Saudi Arabia and South Korea, Pompeo spun into a fully delusional statement about nations with little in common:

They understand the challenge the same way that America does. Indeed, we welcome any nation which is sick and tired of the nuclear threats, the terrorism, the missile proliferation, and the brutality of a regime which is at odds with world peace, a country that continues to inflict chaos on innocent people.

Wait a minute! Nuclear threats! Missile proliferation!  Brutality at odds with world peace! A country that continues to inflict chaos on innocent people! That’s us! That’s the US since 1945. And that’s absolutely not what Pompeo meant, insofar as anyone can be absolutely sure of anything. He made that clear with yet another lie: “we’re not asking anything other than that Iranian behavior be consistent with global norms.”

Pompeo came to the predictable conclusion familiar to other countries: Iran will “prosper and flourish… as never before,” if they just do what we tell them to do. And to illustrate US bona fides and good faith in all its dealings, Pompeo showed himself, however unintentionally, capable of true high hilarity:

If anyone, especially the leaders of Iran, doubts the President’s sincerity or his vision, let them look at our diplomacy with North Korea.

THAT is funny. It’s just not a joke.

*

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, 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. This article was first published in Reader Supported News. Read other articles by William.

---

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.

in relation to the recent Kim-Trump summit, we republish this article on the denuclearization game of the United States by the late Robert Parry first published in September 2017.

***

It is a popular meme in the U.S. media to say that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is “crazy” as he undertakes to develop a nuclear bomb and a missile capacity to deliver it, but he is actually working from a cold logic dictated by the U.S. government’s aggressive wars and lack of integrity.

Indeed, the current North Korea crisis, which could end up killing millions of people, can be viewed as a follow-on disaster to President George W. Bush’s Iraq War and President Barack Obama’s Libyan intervention. Those wars came after the leaders of Iraq and Libya had dismantled their dangerous weapons programs, leaving their countries virtually powerless when the U.S. government chose to invade.

In both cases, the U.S. government also exploited its power over global information to spread lies about the targeted regimes as justification for the invasions — and the world community failed to do anything to block the U.S. aggressions.

And, on a grim personal note, the two leaders, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, were then brutally murdered, Hussein by hanging and Gaddafi by a mob that first sodomized him with a knife.

So, the neoconservatives who promoted the Iraq invasion supposedly to protect the world from Iraq’s alleged WMDs — and the liberal interventionists who pushed the Libya invasion based on false humanitarian claims — may now share in the horrific possibility that millions of people in North Korea, South Korea, Japan and maybe elsewhere could die from real WMDs launched by North Korea and/or by the United States.

Washington foreign policy “experts” who fault President Trump’s erratic and bellicose approach toward this crisis may want to look in the mirror and consider how they contributed to the mess by ignoring the predictable consequences from the Iraq and Libya invasions.

Yes, I know, at the time it was so exciting to celebrate the Bush Doctrine of preemptive wars even over a “one percent” suspicion that a “rogue state” like Iraq might share WMDs with terrorists — or the Clinton Doctrine hailed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s acolytes enamored by her application of “smart power” to achieve “regime change” in Libya.

However, as we now know, both wars were built upon lies. Iraq did not possess WMD stockpiles as the Bush administration claimed, and Libya was not engaged in mass murder of civilians in rebellious areas in the eastern part of the country as the Obama administration claimed.

Post-invasion investigations knocked down Bush’s WMD myth in Iraq, and a British parliamentary inquiry concluded that Western governments misrepresented the situation in eastern Libya where Gaddafi forces were targeting armed rebels but not indiscriminately killing civilians.

But those belated fact-finding missions were no comfort to either Saddam Hussein or Muammar Gaddafi, nor to their countries, which have seen mass slaughters resulting from the U.S.-sponsored invasions and today amount to failed states.

There also has been virtually no accountability for the war crimes committed by the Bush and Obama administrations. Bush and Obama both ended up serving two terms as President. None of Bush’s senior advisers were punished – and Hillary Clinton received the 2016 Democratic Party’s nomination for President.

As for the U.S. mainstream media, which behaved as boosters for both invasions, pretty much all of the journalistic war advocates have continued on with their glorious careers. To excuse their unprofessional behavior, some even have pushed revisionist lies, such as the popular but false claim that Saddam Hussein was to blame because he pretended that he did have WMDs – when the truth is that his government submitted a detailed 12,000-page report to the United Nations in December 2002 describing how the WMDs had been destroyed (though that accurate account was widely mocked and ultimately ignored).

Pervasive Dishonesty

The dishonesty that now pervades the U.S. government and the U.S. mainstream media represents another contributing factor to the North Korean crisis. What sensible person anywhere on the planet would trust U.S. assurances? Who would believe what the U.S. government says, except, of course, the U.S. mainstream media?

Remember also that North Korea’s nuclear program had largely been mothballed before George W. Bush delivered his “axis of evil” speech in January 2002, which linked Iran and Iraq – then bitter enemies – with North Korea. After that, North Korea withdrew from earlier agreements on limiting its nuclear development and began serious work on a bomb.

Yet, while North Korea moved toward a form of mutual assured destruction, Iraq and Libya chose a different path.

In Iraq, to head off a threatened U.S.-led invasion, Hussein’s government sought to convince the international community that it had lived up to its commitments regarding the destruction of its WMD arsenal and programs. Besides the detailed declaration, Iraq gave U.N. weapons inspectors wide latitude to search on the ground.

But Bush cut short the inspection efforts in March 2003 and launched his “shock and awe” invasion, which led to the collapse of Hussein’s regime and the dictator’s eventual capture and hanging.

Gaddafi’s Gestures

In Libya, Gaddafi also sought to cooperate with international demands regarding WMDs. In late 2003, he announced that his country would eliminate its unconventional weapons programs, including a nascent nuclear project.

Gaddafi also sought to get Libya out from under economic sanctions by taking responsibility for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Scotland, although he and his government continued to deny carrying out the terror attack that killed 270 people.

But these efforts to normalize Libya’s relations with the West failed to protect him or his country. In 2011 when Islamic militants staged an uprising around Benghazi, Gaddafi moved to crush it, and Secretary of State Clinton eagerly joined with some European countries in seeking military intervention to destroy Gaddafi’s regime.

The United Nations Security Council approved a plan for the humanitarian protection of civilians in and around Benghazi, but the Obama administration and its European allies exploited that opening to mount a full-scale “regime change” war.

Prominent news personalities, such as MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, cheered on the war with the claim that Gaddafi had American “blood on his hands” over the Pan Am 103 case because he had accepted responsibility. The fact that his government continued to deny actual guilt – and the international conviction of Libyan Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was a judicial travesty – was ignored. Almost no one in the West dared question the longtime groupthink of Libyan guilt.

By October 2011, Gaddafi had fled Tripoli and was captured by rebels in Sirte. He was tortured, sodomized with a knife and then executed. Clinton, whose aides felt she should claim credit for Gaddafi’s overthrow as part of a Clinton Doctrine, celebrated his murder with a laugh and a quip,

“We came; we saw; he died.”

But Gaddafi’s warnings about Islamist terrorists in Benghazi came back to haunt Clinton when on Sept. 11, 2012, militants attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA station there, killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

The obsessive Republican investigation into the Benghazi attack failed to demonstrate many of the lurid claims about Clinton’s negligence, but it did surface the fact that she had used a private server for her official State Department emails, which, in turn, led to an FBI investigation which severely damaged her 2016 presidential run.

Lessons Learned

Meanwhile, back in North Korea, the young dictator Kim Jong Un was taking all this history in. According to numerous sources, he concluded that his and North Korea’s only safeguard would be a viable nuclear deterrent to stave off another U.S.-sponsored “regime change” war — with him meeting a similar fate as was dealt to Hussein and Gaddafi.

Since then, Kim and his advisers have made clear that the surrender of North Korea’s small nuclear arsenal is off the table. They make the understandable point that the United States has shown bad faith in other cases in which leaders have given up their WMDs in compliance with international demands and then saw their countries invaded and faced grisly executions themselves.

Now, the world faces a predicament in which an inexperienced and intemperate President Trump confronts a crisis that his two predecessors helped to create and make worse. Trump has threatened “fire and fury” like the world has never seen, suggesting a nuclear strike on North Korea, which, in turn, has vowed to retaliate.

Millions of people on the Korean peninsula and Japan – and possibly elsewhere – could die in such a conflagration. The world’s economy could be severely shaken, given Japan’s and South Korea’s industrial might and the size of their consumer markets.

If such a horror does come to pass, the U.S. government and the U.S. mainstream media will surely revert to their standard explanation that Kim was simply “crazy” and brought this destruction on himself. Trump’s liberal critics also might attack Trump for bungling the diplomacy.

But the truth is that many of Washington’s elite policymakers – both on the Republican and Democratic sides – will share in the blame. And so too should the U.S. mainstream media.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

All images in this article are from the author.

---

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

by Michel Chossudovsky

The Globalization of War includes chapters on North Korea, Ukraine, Palestine, Libya, Iran, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Syria and Iraq as well as several chapters on the dangers of Nuclear War including Michel Chossudovsky’s Conversations with Fidel Castro entitled “Nuclear War and the Future of Humanity”.

According to Fidel: “in the case of a nuclear war, the ‘collateral damage’ would be the life of all humanity”.

The book concludes with two chapters focussing on “Reversing the Tide of War”.

“The Globalization of War” is diplomatic dynamite – and the fuse is burning rapidly.”

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

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95 

Order directly from Global Research

Special Price: $15.00

America’s hegemonic project in the post 9/11 era is the “Globalization of War” whereby the U.S.-NATO military machine —coupled with covert intelligence operations, economic sanctions and the thrust of “regime change”— is deployed in all major regions of the world. The threat of pre-emptive nuclear war is also used to black-mail countries into submission.

Conversations on the Dangers of Nuclear War: Fidel Castro and Michel Chossudovsky, Havana, October 2010

This “Long War against Humanity” is carried out at the height of the most serious economic crisis in modern history.

It is intimately related to a process of global financial restructuring, which has resulted in the collapse of national economies and the impoverishment of large sectors of the World population.

The ultimate objective is World conquest under the cloak of “human rights” and “Western democracy”.

Order directly from Global Research

REVIEWS:

“Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the most realistic of all foreign policy commentators. He is a model of integrity in analysis, his book provides an honest appraisal of the extreme danger that U.S. hegemonic neoconservatism poses to life on earth.”

Relevant article first published on December 6, 2015.

The following article was presented in Berlin, Germany at the Second International Symposium on Peace and Prosperity in Korea  on November 25, 2015. The paper deals with Northeast Asian security  from a broader global lens where Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula are strategically interlocked to the other regions of Eurasia.

The US has pushed for the destabilization of the countries and economies of these regions in Europe and Asia. In this regard, the division of the Korean Peninsula and the threat of a nuclear war igniting between Pyongyang and the US are directly tied to Washington’s “active program of forceful intervention to prevent European or Asiatic unification” in Eurasia that has ushered the “Pivot to Asia” and the militarization of Japan and the Asia-Pacific as part of Washington’s strategy to encircle China.

Themes of security in Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula cannot be viewed as secluded issues from the rest of Asia, the Eurasia landmass, and, even more broadly, the rest of the world.  

Northeast Asia’s security and Korean security must be examined within the framework of the international rivalries and power politics taking place between the so-called “Great Powers.” Therefore, Northeast Asian and inter-Korean security must be analyzed in consideration of the United State of America’s “Asian Pivot” or “Pivot to Asia” and Washington’s strategic objectives vis-à-vis the People’s Republic of China and the geopolitical shift(s) being brought about by Eurasian integration and Beijing’s New Silk Road(s) (or “One Belt, One Road”) policy.

Examining the Asia-Pacific

Although there is a plethora of different definitions for the Asia-Pacific region, Northeast Asia and the Korean Peninsula are part of this broader region that may either include or exclude the Pacific countries of the Americas, Oceania (including the region of Australasia), Russia, and all of Asia. The Asia-Pacific is roughly analogous to the Pacific Rim. This is why the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, which was established in 1989, includes the United States, Canada, Mexico, Chile, and Peru as members.

Northeast Asia and specifically the Korean Peninsula are strategically important for the US strategy in Eurasia, which is influenced by the US strategist Nicolas Spykan’s containment theory about the Rimland. US Pacific Command (USPACOM) was formed on this basis of this too.

Empirically, these unified combatant commands and the strategic fronts they support are aligned with classical Cold War containment doctrine and with its underlying doctrine of strategic incursion, which became visible in the post-Cold War era tied to the master of containment theory Nicholas Spykman’s concept of the Eurasian Rimland. Spykman’s work builds on Halford Mackinder’s calls to create a shatter-belt around the Eurasian Heartland and amidst Germany and Russia from the Baltic to the Aegean Seas. Spykman was one of the figures in the US that aligned containment with incursion—making US defensive strategy effectively strategically offensive. Spykman argued that relying on isolationism, based on reliance on the oceans as a protective barrier to invasion, was bound to fail (Nazemroaya 2012:270).

In an introduction to Spykman’s work, Frederick Sherwood Dunn explains that Spykman’s strategy has prompted the US government to adopt “an active program of forceful intervention to prevent European or Asiatic unification” (Ibid.:271). This is the rationale behind the partition of Germany in 1945. “Any proposal for the unification of Europe would tend to put [Europe] in a subordinate position to Germany (regardless of the legal provisions of the arrangement) since Germany, unless broken up into fragments, will still be the biggest nation on the continent,” Dun explains (Ibid.) He summarizes this by stating:

The most important single fact in the American security situation is the question of who controls the rimlands of Europe and Asia. Should these get into the hands of a single power or combination of powers hostile to the United States, the resulting encirclement would put us in a position of grave peril, regardless of the size of our army and navy. The reality of this threat has been dimly realized in the past; on the two recent occasions when a single power threatened to gain control of the European mainland, we have become involved in a war to stop it. But our efforts have been belated and have been carried out at huge cost to ourselves. Had we been fully conscious of the implications of our geographical location in the world, we might have adopted a foreign policy which would have helped to prevent the threat from arising in the first place (Ibid).

It is in this context, Northeast Asia is viewed by US strategists as a bridgehead of power projection into the Eurasian landmass from its eastern periphery. Japan, like Britain on the western side of Eurasia, is viewed as a base of sea or oceanic power for the US. Korea on the other hand is viewed as Washington’s eastern perch into Eurasia. This is part of a longstanding US strategy that even predates the Cold War, which saw the US government encourage the Japanese to invade Korea in 1905.

In 2011, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that Washington was going to begin concentrating on East Asia and the Asia-Pacific region. Because of an article titled “America’s Pacific Century” that Hillary Clinton authored for the international relations magazine Foreign Policy, this US policy popularly became known as the “Pivot.” She argued that “Asia is critical to America’s future” and that the world’s balance of power would be decided in East Asia, and not Afghanistan, Iraq, or Southwest Asia (Clinton 2011). “One of the most important tasks of American statecraft over the next decade will therefore be to lock in a substantially increased investment — diplomatic, economic, strategic, and otherwise — in the Asia-Pacific region,” she concluded (Ibid.). This is why the US would recalibrate and redirect its attention and resources towards East Asia.

Two years later, a report authored by the British think-tank Chatham House described Washington’s redeployment efforts in the Asia-Pacific region like this: “The United States government is in the early stages of a substantial national project: reorienting significant elements of its foreign policy towards the Asia-Pacific region and encouraging many of its partners outside the region to do the same” (Andrews and Campbell 2013:2). “The ‘strategic pivot’ or rebalancing, launched four years ago, is premised on the recognition that the lion’s share of the political and economic history of the 21st century will be written in the Asia-Pacific region,” the Chatham House report points out (Ibid.). In one way or another, what this analysis insinuates is that the nation that controls the Asia-Pacific region will be dominate globally.

The Chinese view Washington’s “Pivot to Asia” as a containment policy directed against them. As Clinton (2011) wrote in her article, “China represents one of the most challenging and consequential bilateral relationships the United States has ever had to manage.” In fact, aside from the Korean Peninsula, one of the two areas that the US has repeatedly designated as a security concern in the Asia-Pacific region is the South China Sea, which directly involved territorial claims and disputes between Beijing and Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

The US has been busy consolidating a military and security network in the Asia-Pacific that targets Beijing and which is part of its broader goal of subordinating China (Nazemroaya 2012: 175-191, 268-278, 343). Characteristically, this has been executed regionally by the US through a misleading approach. The militarization of the Asia-Pacific region is taking place under the banners of peace and stability the region. The region is actually being destabilized by both its increased militarization and by the the stoking of tensions in the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula by the United States.

While Beijing prefers diplomacy and dialogue over territorial disputes, it has been forced into taking a defensive posture in its littoral zones in the South China Sea and East China Sea. The People’s Republic of China announced the establishment of the East China Sea Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea in November 2013. Despite the fact that the US and its allies had all setup air defence zones decades before China, the response of Washington and its allies was to portray the move as an act of Chinese aggression and militarism. The Pentagon even deliberately and defiantly flew two B-52 bombers over the newly established ADIZ.

It is important to note that “China’s establishment of the zone is conducive to identifying aircraft and thus avoiding unexpected frictions, but takes on another implication in public opinion” (“B-52’s defiance”) In other words, the antagonism over the Chinese ADIZ is manufacturing tensions and being used to demonize Beijing in public opinion. Additionally, according to the Global Times (Ibid.), the Chinese ADIZ has triggered “a political row over the East China Sea because it overlaps with the Japanese ADIZ over the Diaoyu Islands.”

Washington Vilifies Pyongyang to Target Beijing

On November 15, 2014, in parallel to the Group of Twenty (G20) Summit in Brisbane, US President Barack Obama delivered a keynote speech to diplomats, policymakers, faculty members, and students at the University of Queensland Washington’s on policy in the Asia-Pacific. In his speech, Obama warned potential aggressors to never question the resolve or commitment of Washington to its regional allies in East Asia and Oceania. Although President Obama did not emphasize this directly or too much, everyone knew which countries he was talking about, and the media vividly filled in the blanks. While President Obama directly named the nuclear program and missile arsenal of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) as a regional threat in the Asia-Pacific region, he was careful in how he talked about the People’s Republic of China. Beijing was mentioned casually in terms of regional territorial disputes. Reference to Russia was short too. The Russian Federation was only named once and briefly when President Obama said the Russians were a threat to the world because of their actions in Eastern Europe, specifically Ukraine.

It is with the above understanding that the billing the mainstream media narrative gave to Obama’s University of Queensland speech was one that understood Washington’s commander-in-chief was talking tough against Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang, as the Asia-Pacific’s rogues. Unlike Obama’s speech, the names of these three countries were repeatedly named and more openly demonized in the media reports about the G20 Summit in Brisbane and Obama’s speech at the University of Queensland.  Beijing, Moscow, and Pyongyang were either directly or tacitly been portrayed as some type of “Axis of Evil” in the Asia-Pacific region.

China was mentioned seventeen times throughout the body of the speech while the DPRK was mentioned twice and Russia once (Obama 2014). Even though Beijing was not directly or openly called an adversary in the speech, it was clear that the main US concern in the Asia-Pacific region is the Chinese. In reality, President Obama’s message was a US call to arms against the Chinese, which along with the Russians are Washington’s main global adversaries or rivals. US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter would make an omission of this on November 5, 2015; Carter would say that both the Chinese and Russians are endangering the US-dominated world order.

Although Pyongyang was thrown into the equation by Obama, the DPRK is merely a pretext for Washington to station the Pentagon’s forces and US nuclear assets in Northeast Asia and the southern portion of the Korean Peninsula and Japan. The objective of this is to target Beijing from its eastern seaboard, like Washington’s “Pivot to Asia” does. Under the justification of protecting Washington’s clients in the Republic of Korea (ROK), the Pentagon maintains Marines, soldiers, airmen, and sailors on standby for a nuclear war in the Korean Peninsula and Japan.

The US even has control over the ROK Armed Forces. Syngman Rhee, who was selected by the Pentagon to become the president of the ROK and flown into Seoul by the US military from Tokyo after the surrender of Japan in the Second World War, placed the ROK’s military under US control. Formally, the ROK would get control of its own military only by December 1994, but the US would maintain its influence and have undisputed control in the event of a war on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia (Su 2012:159). It was understood that in the event of a war that Washington will give the ROK military general command in Seoul their orders through the Pentagon. When this agreement was first revealed to the Korean people and world, it was said that this military arrangement between Washington and the ROK was not meant to last. It was supposed to be a Cold War precaution against the threat of a war with the DPRK that would only last until Seoul was ready to take charge of its own military affairs and security. Since then there has been anger and continuous protest by a vast spectrum of the Korean population in the ROK about the agreement giving the US operation command (OpCon) over the ROK’s military forces in a war. It has even become a campaign issue in South Korean politics.

The ROK-US agreement on operation command’s existence can only be justified through the continued vilification of the DPRK as a military threat to the ROK. With inter-Korean political dialogue and attempts at rapprochement between the DPRK and ROK, it has become harder to justify US control over the ROK’s military forces. In order for the agreement to continue, the DPRK has to be perceived as a threat and irrational. This is why there is an interest to depict the DPRK and its government as threats in the ROK.

In 2015, operational control was supposed to be transferred from the US back to the ROK. In October 2014, however, Washington and the ROK agreed to scrap “a long-standing time frame for Seoul to take control of its military in the event of war” in the Korean Peninsula (Schwartz). It was declared that the security question of operational control would be postponed until the mid-2020s. While it initially tried to ignore the issue, the Blue House in Seoul was forced to respond to public anger over the delay and violation of ROK President Park Geun-hye’s campaign promise to transfer wartime operational control of the ROK military from the Pentagon to Seoul.  “This is something that should be viewed rationally and realistically from the perspective of national security. It is not a violation of Park’s campaign pledge,” the Blue House’s spokesperson Min Kyung-wook argued (Seok and Park). In November 12, less than a year earlier, Park had pledged during a press conference for her presidential election campaign to prepare for the OpCon transfer without delay if she was elected as the president of the ROK (Ibid.).

The US does not want to surrender operational command of Seoul’s armed forces for strategic reasons tied to its regional approach:

If one of the unstated goals of the United States in South Korea is to have a strong presence in mainland Northeast Asia, beyond countering the DPRK and to perhaps balance China, then handing over OPCON makes the purpose of US troops deployed to South Korea a question for foreign observers. By recognizing the capacity of the ROK military in wartime, the OPCON transfer might encourage Beijing to wonder just what, or whom, the US military presence on the Korean peninsula (in addition to US bases in Japan) is geared toward. If the United States hopes to stay in the region and is using the continuing ROK-DPRK conflict as a crutch, then the OPCON transition would undermine the US argument for staying in South Korea (Su 2012:168)

Pyongyang and Beijing both are cognizant of this. In this context, it is not just the DPRK alone that views US military operations, exercises, and operational control in the Korean Peninsula as a threat. Beijing does too.

Chinese strategists understand that the DPRK is being demonized and targeted as an excuse for the US to keep its forces adjacent to mainland China. Like the disputes in the South China Sea, this is also why inter-Korean tensions are being promoted. By the same token, this was also the basis for the eventual Chinese intervention against the US military during Korea’s Liberation War in 1950, albeit China intervened unofficially by sending the People’s Volunteer Army. The Chinese intervened in the Korean Peninsula in 1950, because they did not want US troops directly on their border and in close proximity to Beijing. Aside from their historically close political and military relationship (in what is called their “blood ties”) with Pyongyang (Ong 2002:57-58), Chinese leaders realized that the DPRK was and still is a stepping stone towards the US goal of encircling, destabilizing, and eventually neutralizing the People’s Republic of China.

Realizing what the strategic objectives of the US are in Northeast Asia, the Chinese and the Russians have continuously worked to prevent a confrontation in the Korean Peninsula from occurring by mediating in the tensions that the DPRK has with the US and the ROK’s authorities. As the US continues its military buildup in the Asia-Pacific, the Russian military and Chinese military have begun coordinating joint large-scale aerial, land, and naval exercise to enhance their cooperation and preparedness. Moscow is also strengthening its ties with Pyongyang.

The Militarization of the Asia-Pacific Region

The Asia-Pacific region has steadily militarized in recent years. Steady streams of US Marines have been deployed to Australia and Southeast Asia while Washington’s military and security alliances with Australia and Japan are being deepened. The Australian Defence Ministry has talked about a regional arms race and issued reports on increased Chinese military spending and naval expansion while the Japanese government continually talks about the DPRK and China as military threats. Never once is it mentioned that the Chinese naval expansion and Beijing’s increased military spending are reactions to US militarism and Washington’s attempts to encircle the Chinese. China is acting defensively and trying to secure the Indian Ocean’s maritime trade routes and energy corridors from the US, because it fears the US could block them in the scenario of a confrontation (Nazemroaya:175-191).

Australia, Japan, and the ROK form key components of the US strategy against China (Ibid.:252-265). They are all part of the global missile shield system targeting the Chinese and Russians, which the US initially justified erecting using the demonization of the DPRK and Iran. Australia, Japan, and the ROK are homes to US-led rapid response military forces that are configured for immediate military action should a war ignite with China, Russia, and the DPRK. The policies of Canberra, Tokyo, and Seoul have also begun to radically change as they harden themselves as frontline states next to or near the Chinese (Ibid.). For example, the strategic aim of the Pentagon to encircle and contain China has encouraged successive Japanese governments to turn their backs on the Japanese Constitution, specifically Article 9, by re-arming Japan in an offensive context. Despite the objections and anger of many Japanese citizens and many more Asian societies, Tokyo has violated and breached the framework of its constitution by militarizing.

There is very little question that Japan is a full partner with Australia, the US, Singapore, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), against Beijing, Moscow, and their partners. In 2007, Japan signed its second post-Second World War bilateral security agreement. The first one was with the US, but the 2007 agreement was with the Commonwealth of Australia. This was the beginning of the Australia-Japan-US Trilateral Security Dialogue. The security agreement led to the eventual signing of the Japan-Australia Acquisition and Cross-servicing Agreement (ACSA) on 19 May 2010, which allows for the pooling and sharing of military resources by both Canberra and Tokyo. In 2015, for the first time ever, the Japanese joined the Australians and the US in their biennial Talisman Sabre military exercise as a dress rehearsal for conformation with the Chinese (Schogol).

As for Australia, it has had a steady stream of secret deals and talks with the US government and the Pentagon. The deal signed between the Australian and US governments over the Pentagon intelligence facility and signals base in Geraldton followed years of secretive discussions between both sides. In 2011, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her government allowed the US to deploy troops on Australian territory after a series of secret and public discussions. Gillard’s deal with the Pentagon was unwelcomed by the Chinese and seen as the first significant expansion of the Pentagon into the Asia-Pacific region since the Vietnam War. In 2013, the Chinese told the governments of Australia, Japan, and the US not to use their regional alliance to inflame local tensions any further or to instigate hostilities in East Asia by interfering in bilateral territorial disputes in the East China Sea and South China Sea (Ruwitch). As recently as 2015, a Chinese news outlet editorial said that a war with the US would be “inevitable” if the US continued its posture in the South China Sea (Ryall quoting Global Times).

The integration of Australia and Japan into a US-led military front against China and Russia has not only included the formation of the Australia-Japan-US Trilateral Security Dialogue. The creation of this Washington-led front includes NATO as a key feature of the strategy of militarily encircling all Eurasia. It is in this context that the accession of both Canberra and Tokyo, alongside New Zealand, the ROK, and Colombia, as NATO partners has occurred. These NATO partnerships are referred to by NATO Headquarters and the North Atlantic Council as NATO’s “global partners” program. Mongolia, post-2003 Iraq, and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan are also partners of the NATO program. NATO has also created different partnership programs that include countries like Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, the Republic of Georgia, Kuwait, Bosnia, and Mauritania.

The hardening lines being created, specifically with the instigation and agitation of the United States, are destabilizing factors in the international arena. This threatens to turn Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, including Northeast Asia, into war theatres. These regions could be theatres of a global confrontation or start off as theatres of regional wars that quickly escalate into broader hot wars.

Korea and the Global Multi-Spectrum War

The Cold War was more than an ideological struggle. Ideology was merely utilized as a justification for foreign policy and unacceptable actions. The divisions that were perceived to have existed during the Cold War did not or have not disappeared either, because the struggle fuelling the Cold War did not really end. In reality, there has been a “post-Cold War cold war” or a cold war after the Cold War. Over the years it has become increasingly clear that the divisions that existed in the Cold War have been carried on and merely transformed. Those divisions have slowly re-emerged and are displaying themselves again.

The specter of a nuclear war has not disappeared either. The US and its NATO allies “have always deemed the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)] to be null and void in the scenario of a world war” (Nazemroaya 2012:374).

In essence the NPT is nothing more than a convenient means of holding sway over non-nuclear states and insuring a partial US and NATO nuclear weapons monopoly to insure their dominance over other states; the moment that dominance fades, the US and NATO have no qualms in being unequivocal treaty violators as they themselves have warned (Ibid.:347-348)

In violation of the NPT, the US has even threatened to attack the DPRK and Iran with nuclear weapons. This is because Obama “redefined Washington’s NPT commitments in April 2010 by declaring that the” US government would violate “the NPT’s provision which barred a nuclear attack on certain non-nuclear states, meaning Iran and North Korea” (Ibid.:346). Although the DPRK is not legally obligated by the NPT since it cited the NPT’s Article 10 to withdraw on April 10, 2003, Washington’s justification for this was that it had unilaterally and illegally decided that both Iran and the DPRK were in noncompliance with the NPT.

In 2001, the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) acknowledged that the US had nuclear missiles pointed for an attack on Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, China, Russia, and the DPRK at all times. Since the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq and the NATO war on the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, the US continues to maintain nuclear weapons pointed at the DPRK, Iran, Syria, Russia, and China. In 2006, the Pentagon even launched a war game called Vigilant Shield 07 that simulated a nuclear attack on Iran, Russia, China, and the DPRK, respectively codenamed Irmingham, Ruebek, Churya, and Nemazee.

Like Russia and China, this is why the DPRK maintains its nuclear weapons as a strategic deterrence against the US. The nuclear factor also makes the signing of a formal peace treaty to officially end the Libration War between the US and the DPRK of great consequence to Eurasian and global security, because a conflict in the Korean Peninsula could escalate into a nuclear war with immediate global ramifications that would draw in China, Russia, Japan, and NATO.

The threat of nuclear confrontation has actually increased, because there is less pressure for constraint on public officials due to the fact that the general public is less aware of the nature of global rivalries and the dangers of nuclear escalation. This is directly tied to the role of the mass media and the information strategies of governments.

A chain of US-controlled alliances are being constructed and equipped around three main actors, China, Russia, and Iran—the “Eurasian Triple Entente.” In this context, the following was averred in 1997:

But if the middle space rebuffs the West, becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor, then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. The same would be the case if the two major Eastern players were somehow to unite (Brzezinski 1997:35).

Camouflaged behind thinly veiled liberal and academic jargon, what Zbigniew Brzezinski—the man making these statements—meant was that if the Russian Federation and the post-Soviet space manage to repulse or push back Western domination—meaning some combination of tutelage by the US and its allies—and manage to reorganize themselves within some type of confederacy or supranational grouping, either gaining influence in the Middle East and Central Asia or form an alliance with China, that Washington’s influence in Eurasia would be finished. This is why the US government is doing everything it can to prevent the “Middle Space” and the “Middle Kingdom” (Zhongguo/China) from uniting Eurasia. It is under this framework that the US opposes the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and China’s New Silk Road(s) or “One Belt, One Road” project. With the shifting balance of power, this is also the reason that the US was forced to revise its policies with Cuba and Iran.

While NATO has expanded eastward in Europe towards the borders of Russia and its allies in the post-Soviet space, the US has tightened its system of alliances in East Asia and Oceania against China, incubated the rise of the so-called “Islamic State” death squads to devastate Syria as a means of weakening Iran and its Resistance Bloc, and is working to control the Gulf of Aden and strategic Mandeb Strait through the Saudi-led war on Yemen. Chinese, Iranian, and Russian allies and partners, such as Belarus, Armenia, Syria, Kyrgyzstan, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela, are being target in various ways as a means of getting them to change their orbits. In this regard, this and the self-sufficiency aspects of the DPRK’s Juche ideology are additional reasons why Pyongyang is being targeted.

Land components of the missile shield have been kept and expanded in the Balkans, Israel, Turkey, and the Asia-Pacific region. Aside from land elements, the Pentagon’s missile shield project has been expanded to include a naval armada of ships that will surround Eurasia from the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf, South China Sea, and the East China Sea. In Europe and the Middle East the missile shield project includes NATO. Missiles that are pointing at Armenia, Iran, Syria, and Russia have been deployed to Turkey while infrastructure has been put in place in Poland on the direct borders of Russian ally and EEU founding member Belarus, as well as the Russian Federation’s Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad between Poland and Lithuania.

The militarization of the Russian and Belarusian borders by the NATO alliance puts the US and its allies in direct opposition to not just Russia and Belarus, but the entire Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which is the military pact of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and converges with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that includes China. Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan are full members of both the CSTO and SCO; Armenia is a member of the CSTO and a dialogue partner of the SCO; and Uzbekistan is a member of the SCO while it has suspended its participation the CSTO.  In 2007, the CSTO and the SCO signed a cooperation agreement, effectively creating a distinct Sino-Russian Eurasian security community covering the space from Shanghai and Vladivostok to St. Petersburg and Minsk through Dushanbe and Astana.

Economic sanctions have increasingly become a tool in the multi-spectrum war that the US is waging against its adversaries across the world. The DPRK has been one of the oldest targets of US sanctions, that deliberately target the civilian population to create internal instability and to cripple the country by means of crippling its most important resource—its people. Simply put, these sanctions are economic warfare.

Countries like the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Syria, Baathist Iraq, and the Russian Federation have also been targeted by US sanction regimes. Iran and Cuba, as two of the countries that have been sanctioned longest by Washington, have similar experiences against the US economic sanctions as the DPRK and in this regard have been unapologetic allies of Pyongyang as part of a network of international resistance to Washington’s system of economic coercion. The sanctions experience has made self-sufficiency an important security consideration in the DPRK and Iran.

Trade Blocs and Economic Rivalries

Washington’s militarization agenda is tied to a multilateral trade agenda that has hegemonic connotations. In other words, there is a trade dimension to the militarization and the stoking of tensions in the Asia-Pacific. The case is the same for the tensions with Russia in Europe. It is under this framework that the DPRK, China, and the Russian Federation are being instrumentally demonized to help increase US influence and justify a larger US presence in both East Asia and Europe. This is also part of a US strategy to marginalize and exclude the Russians and Chinese in the affairs of both Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. While Washington works to exclude China and Russia, the US goal is to integrate the other countries of these areas with itself using the tensions that it has promoted between Beijing, Moscow, and their neighbours.

In Europe, the objectives of the US are to create instability in the flow of Russian energy supplies to the European Union by instigating problems inside Ukraine and between the Russian Federation and the Ukrainians. What the US is actually doing through this is working to weaken both the Russians and the European Union economically. This includes the goal of disrupting trade ties. The deterioration of EU-Russian trade ties and relations is meant to aid US negotiations and weaken the European Union. This is part of the US strategy to eventually economically control and swallow the European Union under the framework of the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which is under negotiation between Brussels and Washington. Washington’s objective is to construct a single US-controlled Euro-Atlantic military, political, and economic space that would absorb the EU and Europe.

In the Asia-Pacific region the US is following or using the same strategy of artificially creating tensions and instigating problems between China and other countries in the region. This is exactly why US officials continuously showcase the territorial disputes that Beijing has and the reason why Washington has been getting itself involved in the bilateral or multilateral territorial disputes that China has in East Asia. Washington has used this to promote the secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the Asia-Pacific region.

Ultimately, what the US wants is to subordinate China and Russia. In the case of Russia, it wants to control Russia’s vast resources and technology. As Nikolai Patrushev notes, this is why Madeleine Albright, the former US secretary of state during the presidency of Bill Clinton, has had the nerve and audacity to say in doublespeak that the Russians have “unfair” control of the world’s resources on their country’s vast territory and should give the US and its allies “free access” to it “to serve humanity” (Yegorov).

The case with Beijing is different. There is a level of alignment between it and economic interests in the so-called West. This is why after Chinese President Xi Jinping’s very revealing October 2015 visit to London, one of the world’s financial hubs, the British declared that a “golden age” was starting with China. The visit to Britain came after Xi Jinping was in Washington making deals with the US.

In the case of the Chinese, the US wants to control China as an industrial colony. Washington and Wall Street want China to be a giant labour camp of manufacturing for US corporations. Thus, Washington’s goal is to put a leash on China as a subordinate. This is why Obama (2014) made the following points to his audience in Brisbane: “And the question is, what kind of role will it play? I just came from Beijing, and I said there, the United States welcomes the continuing rise of a China that is peaceful and prosperous and stable and that plays a responsible role in world affairs.” What Obama is saying is that Beijing serves Washington interests as a manufacturing hub. What he meant by China playing “a responsible role in world affairs” is that Beijing will be considered a “responsible” international actor by the US as long it follows Washington’s designs and scripts.  “So we’ll pursue cooperation with China where our interests overlap or align. And there are significant areas of overlap: More trade and investment,” Obama’s (Ibid.) admitted.

Korea: Peace at Home, Peace Abroad or Peace Abroad, Peace at Home?

Peace, security, and unification in the Korean Peninsula are internal matters for the Korean people, but there are important external factors involved. The key word here is “glocalism.” In other words, both local and global considerations must be taken into account for peace in Korea. North Korean-South Korean or inter-Korean relations are predisposed to external forces. As long as the government of the ROK is subordinated to Washington the external factor is a part of the equation.

As it should be realized, Chinese-US relations are another external factor in the equation. Even if a peace treaty is signed between the DPRK and the US, it will be ineffective for as long as Washington is targeting China and wants primacy in Eurasia. This is why, as declassified US government documents reveal, US Secretary of Defence James Baker instructed Richard (“Dick”) Cheney to make the ROK reject an inter-Korean deal with the DPRK to have US forces leave the ROK in exchange for the de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in cable dated November 18, 1991. As long as the US is targeting Beijing, Washington will want a military presence in the Korean Peninsula and maintain hostilities with the DPRK directly and by means of the leadership in the ROK. This means that the US will continue to obstruct Korean unification and continue to demonize the DPRK’s leadership as a means of weakening and dividing the unification movement in the ROK. Washington will maintain this position unless the DPRK surrenders to US edicts or there are tectonic shifts in Chinese-US relations.

The case of the USS Pueblo, the US Navy spy ship that was caught in DPRK waters in 1968, must be recalled too. To free the USS Pueblo’s crew, the US committed itself to halting any future violations of the DPRK’s territories and ending its spying missions. Washington never honoured its commitments to Pyongyang.

The increasing tensions between the US and Russia, the decline of the global influence of Washington, Eurasian integration, and the growing clout of Iran are also all important factors for how China and the US will act in Northeast Asia. Along with growing multipolarism, these events are giving the DPRK options, alternatives, and moving space.

Despite Washington’s intentions in Korea and against China, a peace treaty between the DPRK and the US is still an important step and ingredient towards Korean reunification. Such a treaty would give strength to the calls to remove the US military in the ROK and transfer operation control of the ROK military to Seoul. It would make it harder to justify the US military presence and command in the ROK.

In Turkey, it was once said that “peace at home” will translate to peace abroad.” For the Korean Peninsula, the case is inversed. “Peace abroad” will equate to “peace at home” in the divided homeland of the Korean people. This is because of the role that external factors play on local policies, politics, and security in the Korean Peninsula. Thus, the road forward for Korea will be a glocal one. 

WORKS CITED

Andrews, Briand, and Kurt Campbell. 2013. “Explaining the US Pivot to Asia.” London, UK: Chatem House.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. 1997. The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives. NYC: Basic Books.

“B-52’s defiance no reason for nervousness.” November 2, 2013. Global Times. Accessed November 7, 2015 <www.globaltimes.cn/content/828213.shtml#.UpaRe7VDvC0>.

Clinton, Hillary. October 11, 2011. “America’s Pacific Century.”  Foreign Policy. Accessed November 7, 2015: <http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/>.

Nazmeroaya, Mahdi Darius. 2012. The Globalization of NATO. Atlanta, GA: Clarity Press.

Obama, Barack. November 15, 2014. “Remarks by President Obama at the University of Queensland.” Office of the Press Secretary. Accessed November 7, 2015: <www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/15/remarks-president-obama-university-queensland>.

Ong, Russell. 2002. China’s Security Interests in the Post-Cold War Era. NYC: Routledge.

Ruwitch, John. October 6, 2013. “China warns U.S., Japan, Australia not to gang up in sea disputes,” Reuters. Raju Gopalakrishnan, ed. Accessed November 7, 2015: <www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/    07/us-asia-southchinasea-china-idUSBRE99602220 131007>.

Ryall, Julian. May 26, 2015. “US-China war ‘inevitable’ unless Washington drops demands over South China Sea.” Telegraph. Accessed November 7, 2015: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/11630185/US-China-war-inevitable-unless-Washington-drops-demands-over-South-China-Sea.html>.

Seok Jin-hwan and Park Byong-su. October 27, 2014. “Latest OPCON transfer delay is Pres. Park’s latest broken campaign promise.” Hankyoreh. Accessed November 8, 2015: <http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/661566.html>.

Schogol, Jeff. July 26, 2015. “Talisman Sabre: Trying to deter China.” Military Times. Accessed November 8, 2015: <www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/07/26/talisman-sabre-trying-deter-china/30574725/>.

Schwartz, Felicia. October 23, 2014. “U.S., South Korea Shift Plan on Wartime Military Control.” Wall Street Journal. Accessed November 7, 2015: <www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-south-korea-shift-plan-on-wartime-military-control-1414104612>.

Su, Shelley. 2012. “The OPCON Transfer Debate.” Pp.159-173 in 2011 US-Korea Yearbook. Baltimore, MD: The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University

Yegorov, Ivan. February 10, 2015. “Patrushev: US goal – to weaken Russia” [«Патрушев: Цель США – ослабить Россию»]. Rossiyskaya Gazeta [«Российской газеты»]. Accessed November 8, 2015: <http://rg.ru/2015/02/10/patrushev-interviu-site.html>.

This paper (original title: “Examining The Global Kaleidoscope: Glocalism and Korea”) was presented at the Second International Symposium for Peace and Prosperity on the Korean Peninsula, which just took place in Berlin, Germany from Nov. 24 to 27, 2015.