Global Research

Featured image: Dan Margalit

This logic has been uttered by a prominent Israeli journalist: Mass shootings of Palestinians have saved their lives. Reporting from the sniper positions near the Gaza fence, Dan Margalit writes in his Hebrew-only Haaretz opinion (Saturday):

From this position, the events looked a bit different than from the Karni crossing near Nahal Oz. Now I am convinced, more than at the beginning of the fighting about 10 weeks ago, that the massive shooting at the beginning of the battles [sic] has saved many Palestinian lives, and of course, first and foremost, lives of Israelis.”

And just how does he get to the logic, that mass shooting of Palestinians is good for them (and of course, first and foremost for us, and despite the fact that no real “battles” have really occurred in these demonstrations)? Margalit elucidates:

“It is necessary to understand the tactic: The Palestinians raise a pillar of smoke in hope to cause the soldiers breathing difficulty. Under the cover of smoke and while the soldiers are busy defending themselves from it, the Palestinians hope to breach the fence, bypass the sniper positions, and to insert in to Israeli territory terrorists and children and handicapped. Breach of the fence and the setting up of a temporary Palestinian outpost upon Israeli soil within Green Line (pre-1967) territory would have caused an increased shooting in order to expel them and increased the number of killed. Perhaps the Hamas leadership is interested in this, but not the protesters. Have they despaired? It is unclear.”

So this is the scare scenario, which Margalit assumes: “terrorists and children and handicapped” would set up a temporary outpost. And what would happen then? We would have to massacre them, of course, like we’ve regularly done to “infiltrators” since the state was established. And who would want that? Do Palestinians just want to die? Apparently, Margalit even concedes that Palestinians generally don’t want to die. But Hamas wants them to. Hamas wants to use children and handicapped (and don’t forget medics too) as human shields – human cannon fodder – because they know Israeli soldiers can’t help massacring an outpost of Palestinian children and handicapped.

We’ve seen this logic before, the one that says that killing Palestinians is good for Palestinians – in the Shmuel Rosner massacre apologia in the pages of the New York Times.

“I believe Israel’s current policy toward Gaza ultimately benefits not only Israel but also the Palestinians.”

It’s important to note, that Margalit is not a journalistic lightweight, and it is clear that Haaretz is not a lightweight outlet. Margalit’s recent engagement with Haaretz began exactly a year ago, just after he was fired from the Adelson funded Netanyahu-propaganda daily Israel Hayom. Margalit wrote for Israel Hayom since its founding in 2007. He was also chief editor for the centrist daily Maariv for a short period, and is a regular TV host on main Israeli channels. This is all to say, that this kind of commentary is not from an occasional right-wing fringe – it is centrist and central. And it’s in Haaretz – which is generally considered left.

One is perhaps left to assume, that Haaretz would be ashamed to publish such opinion on in its English version – such opinions could scare off liberal readers. But then again, when looking at a recent Margalit opinion in English titled “The Arabs chose to be refugees” (May 24th), one could have the impression that Haaretz hasn’t got that much shame after all. Here, Margalit peddles classical Zionist Hasbara saying that Palestinians chose to flee despite calls from Jewish leaders to stay, and so it’s all on them. In that piece Margalit also cheer leads the ideological assault against the UN refugee agency UNRWA and advocates its dismantling for supposedly perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem.

Screenshot from Haaretz

But back to Margalit’s Hebrew piece, which is titled “From the position of the snipers, things look different: a visit to the dwindling protests at the border fence.”

Here, Margalit notably accentuates that every shot is fired precisely, “by order of a senior commander, and every bullet has a precise address.”

This message is reminiscent of the IDF tweet from the first day of protests within the Great March of Return (March 30th), where it claimed that

“nothing was carried out uncontrolled; everything was accurate and measured, and we know where every bullet landed.”

That day, 15 Palestinian protesters were killed. The army had immediately removed the tweet, apparently realizing what a damning admission this was. But B’tselem saved the screenshot.

Ali Abunimah in Electronic Intifada:

The army’s deletion of the tweet is hardly surprising. The admission that its killings of demonstrators were premeditated down to the last bullet means it cannot deny responsibility for apparent war crimes, such as the lethal shooting of Abd al-Fattah Abd al-Nabi, 19, as he ran away from the Israel-Gaza boundary fence. Abd al-Nabi was reportedly shot in the head. Video of the slaying, widely shared on social media, shows Abd al-Nabi running alongside two other Palestinians far away from the boundary fence when the crack of a gunshot is heard and he falls suddenly.”

So Margalit is peddling this “precision” notion. He repeats it in the piece:

“Not one lead bullet is fired without an explicit order.”

Nonetheless, there are exceptions, he qualifies:

“In the case of mortal danger, the soldiers are permitted to defend themselves according to their own judgement.”

One is thus left to wonder, whether 19 year old Al-Nabi was sniped by explicit command, or by the judgement of a soldier fearing that one day, Al-Nabi might hurl that tire hundreds of meters away towards the soldiers and cause their imminent death.

“But if that is not the case”, Margalit emphasizes, “the IDF shoots one bullet at a time, and every bullet has an address. The snipers aim towards the legs, and the Palestinians have begun to appear at the battle with metal sheets which serve as a protective for their knees. They too extract conclusions.”

Margalit also refers to incendiary kites:

“Across from Nahal Oz, kites have been seen in the skies for some hours. The Palestinians have improved their precision, and on their tails is more than one incendiary device. […] Vast areas of land have blackened in Nahal Oz, Kfar Aza and Nir Am. But some kites were fixed in the skies and not released. It’s a diversion attempt, a shrewd effort to distract the attention of the soldiers, although they do not pose a danger.”

Aye, Public Security (and Hasbara) minister Gilad Erdan has recently suggested that Israel apply “targeted assassinations” of those who fly kites. He said:

“The fact that Hamas is enabling the shooting and the sending of the kites means we must return to targeted assassinations, and the kite launchers and Hamas commanders should be targeted for killing.”

One is left to wonder whether children flying non-incendiary kites anywhere in Gaza will now be targeted – even if the kites are non-incendiary, they may be practicing to become “Hamas terror kite operatives”, or perhaps operators of “deception kites” meant to distract the soldiers. That could be just as bad.

Israeli playwriter Yehoshua Sobol talks about the kites in an interview in Maariv (Hebrew):

Interviewer: Do you identify with the those who fly incendiary kites?

Sobol: I tried to imagine myself as a kid in the Gaza strip, when my neighbors are wounded and killed. My relatives are returned home as handicapped or as perforated bodies, and I asked myself: ‘What would I do as a kid?’ And I answered: ‘I would fly an incendiary kite.’ I remember myself as a kid in the 1940’s in the Sharon (central coast area, Palestine). We flew kites. Not incendiary kites, because we were not in despair.”

But kites are not the main point of Margalit’s piece. The main scare scenario is the “temporary Palestinian outpost”, and Palestinians should be so happy that we don’t let them do it. Because then it would be much, much worse. We’d just massacre their handicapped and children (as if we don’t anyway).

Margalit notes that even Palestinians seem to be sensible enough to be hesitant, despite the Hamas calls:

“As I neared the fence, I heard the calls from the leaders towards the 2.500 Palestinians who had gathered in the Karni crossing zone, to storm the fence. I did not understand the words, but I heard the aggressive voice, and most Palestinians did not act according to the call – as those soldiers who sense how foolish it is to die on the last day of the war. Perhaps it is merely a wish of the heart.”

Margalit didn’t really understand what the leader was saying, but he is certain, from the “aggressive” tone of the voice, that this was a suicide order.

Perhaps it is but “a wish of the heart,” but Margalit knows what the plan is – a “temporary outpost” of children and handicapped on the Israeli side – which as we all know would be an imminent and existential danger, to which we would have to respond by massacring. This wouldn’t look good, but hey, we get away with it don’t we. Most of all it would be “foolish” for the Palestinian children and handicapped, because they would die just before their inevitable defeat.

The logic that “it could be much worse” is the one informing Margalit’s piece. And the idea that Israel is doing a great job at preventing it. This logic appeared yesterday two days ago in Haaretz in Gadi Taub’s piece “Why Western ‘Liberals’ So Easily Buy Into Hamas’ anti-Semitic Blood Libel.” Taub contends that live sniper fire is the only effective means of response to the Gaza protests, and repeats, like Margalit, that “permission to use it was given only by high-ranking officers, and instructions were to aim below the knee.” Then Taub hails the outcome:

“Those instructions were followed scrupulously, as can be seen from the outcome: The number of people killed on the day the U.S. Embassy was moved to Jerusalem, was 62… According to Haaretz, about 2,770 were wounded, of these an estimated 1,350 from live ammunition. This means that 95 percent of those hit by snipers were neutralized without being killed, despite the smoke, noise and pandemonium.”

That’s fantastic, isn’t it? We managed to kill only 62 protesters! That’s just 5%!

By the standards of Margalit et al, Palestinians should really just stop complaining, go home, recognize their defeat, and die quietly and slowly from their poisoned water (and soon maybe from Typhoid and Cholera).

And Haaretz publishes all this. Ah, I forgot to mention – Margalit ends his piece with a critique of Netanyahu. If you criticize Netanyahu, then you’re a ‘liberal’, and then you can say whatever you want.

Every time the mainstream media touts some “wonderful new economic numbers” I just want to cringe.  Yes, it is true that the economic numbers have gotten slightly better since Donald Trump entered the White House, but the rosy economic picture that the mainstream media is constantly painting for all of us is completely absurd.  As you are about to see, if honest numbers were being used all of our major economic numbers would be absolutely terrible.  Of course we can hope for a major economic turnaround for America under Donald Trump, but we certainly are not there yet.  Economist John Williams of shadowstats.com has been tracking what our key economic numbers would look like if honest numbers were being used for many years, and he has gained a sterling reputation for being accurate.  And according to him, it looks like the U.S. economy has been in a recession and/or depression for a very long time.

Let’s start by talking about unemployment.  We are being told that the unemployment rate in the United States is currently “3.8 percent”, which would be the lowest that it has been “in nearly 50 years”.

To support this claim, the mainstream media endlessly runs articles declaring how wonderful everything is.  For example, the following is from a recent New York Times article entitled “We Ran Out of Words to Describe How Good the Jobs Numbers Are”…

Doesn’t that sound great?

It would be great, if the numbers that they were using were honest.

The truth, of course, is that the percentage of the population that is employed has barely budged since the depths of the last recession.  According to John Williams, if honest numbers were being used the unemployment rate would actually be 21.5 percent today.

So what is the reason for the gaping disparity?

As I have explained repeatedly, the government has simply been moving people from the “officially unemployed” category to the “not in the labor force” category for many, many years.

If we use the government’s own numbers, there are nearly 102 million working age Americans that do not have a job right now.  That is higher than it was at any point during the last recession.

We are being conned.  I have a friend down in south Idaho that is a highly trained software engineer that has been out of work for two years.

If the unemployment rate is really “3.8 percent”, why can’t he find a decent job?

By the way, if you live in the Boise area and you know of an opening for a quality software engineer, please let me know and I will get the information to him.

Next, let’s talk about inflation.

According to Williams, the way inflation has been calculated in this country has been repeatedly changed over the decades…

Williams argues that U.S. statistical agencies overestimate GDP data by underestimating the inflation deflator they use in the calculation.

Manipulating the inflation rate, Williams argues in Public Comment on Inflation Measurement , also enables the US government to pay out pensioners less than they were promised, by fudging cost of living adjustments.

This manipulation has ironically taken place quite openly over decades, as successive Republican and Democratic administrations made “improvements” in the way they calculated the data.

If inflation was still calculated the way that it was in 1990, the inflation rate would be 6 percent today instead of about 3 percent.

And if inflation was still calculated the way that it was in 1980, the inflation rate would be about 10 percent today.

Doesn’t that “feel” more accurate to you?  We have all seen how prices for housing, food and health care have soared in recent years.  After examining what has happened in your own life, do you believe that the official inflation rates of “2 percent” and “3 percent” that we have been given in recent years are anywhere near accurate?

Because inflation is massively understated, that has a tremendous effect on our GDP numbers as well.

If accurate inflation numbers were being used, we would still be in a recession right now.

In fact, John Williams insists that we would still be in a recession that started back in 2004.

And without a doubt, a whole host of other more independent indicators point in that direction too.  The following comes from an excellent piece by Peter Diekmeyer…

Williams’ findings, while controversial, corroborate a variety of other data points. Median wage gains have been stagnant for decades. The U.S. labour force participation rate remains at multi-decade lows. Even our own light-hearted Big Mac deflator suggests that the U.S. economy is in a depression.

Another clue is to evaluate the U.S. economy just as economists would a third world nation whose data they don’t trust. They do this by resorting to figures that are hard to fudge.

There, too, by a variety of measures—ranging from petroleum consumption to consumer goods production to the Cass Freight Index—the U.S. economy appears to have not grown much, if at all, since the turn of the millennium.

In the end, all that any of us really need to do is to just open our eyes and look at what is happening all around us.  We are on pace for the worst year for retail store closings in American history, and this “retail apocalypse” is hitting rural areas harder than anywhere else…

This city’s Target store is gone.

So is Kmart, MC Sports, JCPenney, Vanity and soon Herberger’s, a department store.

“The mall is pretty sad,” says Amanda Cain, a teacher and mother. “Once Herberger’s closes, we’ll have no anchors.”

About two-thirds of Ottumwa’s Quincy Place Mall will be empty with Herberger’s loss.

Of course it isn’t just the U.S. economy that is troubled either.

We are living in the terminal phase of the greatest debt bubble in global history, many nations around the globe are already experiencing a very deep economic downturn, and our planet is literally in the process of dying.

So please don’t believe the hype.

Yes, we definitely hope that things will get better, but the truth is that things have not been “good” for the U.S. economy for a very, very long time.

*

Michael Snyder is a nationally syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters.

Featured image is from The Daily Coin.

Federal courts are supremely pro-business, including the nation’s highest one throughout its history.

The nation’s first Supreme Court chief justice John Jay arrogantly said America should be run by the people who own it. The nation’s second president John Adams said the rich, well born and able should rule.

The Supreme Court’s 1886 ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway was arguably the most infamous one high court history – granting corporations legal personhood.

Henceforth, corporate predators have had the same rights as people, not the responsibilities. Limited liability exempts them.

The words “Equal Justice Under Law” adorning the Supreme Court’s west facade, along with its “Justice, the Guardian of Liberty” motto facing east reflect a travesty of what judicial fairness is supposed to be all about.

Since the High Court’s 1789 establishment, it’s been supremely deferential to wealth, power and privilege. “We the people” means powerful interests exclusively.

Ordinary folks don’t matter, less today than ever in the modern era. Federal district and appeals courts are ideologically similar to the Supremes.

Privilege always counted most in America. Egalitarian principles exist in name only. Checks and balances, equity and justice, as well as democratic values are meaningless figures of speech.

America is run by men and to a much lesser degree by ideologically likeminded women – not laws or high moral standards.

Executive, congressional, and judicial officials systematically lie, connive, and pretty much do what they please for their own self-interest.

Democracy is pure fantasy. Most High Court and other federal judges are as unprincipled and deferential to powerful interests exclusively as political officials in Washington, states and local governments.

On Tuesday, US District Court Judge Richard Leon approved the monstrous At&T/Time Warner merger without imposing conditions.

The Justice Department suit to block the merger failed. It’s likely a done deal despite Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, saying:

“We will closely review the Court’s opinion and consider next steps in light of our commitment to preserving competition for the benefit of American consumers” the Trump regime doesn’t give a hoot about.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act, deregulating communication industries, paved the way for greater consolidation, less competition, less concern about diversity and choice, as well as higher profits at the expense of consumer-friendly policies.

At the time, Vice President Al Gore deceitfully called the measure an “early Christmas present for the consumers.” Its fallout was polar opposite.

Media scholar/critic Robert McChesney called the law “a farce…written by the lobbyists for the communication firms it affects.”

Nearly everything touted about the measure was false – more proof that politicians lie. Nothing they say should be believed.

Consumers got higher, not lower prices. Industries supporting the legislation claimed it would create 1.5 million new jobs. By 2003, half a million were lost through consolidation.

Media scholar Victor Pickard earlier said the proposed AT&T/Time Warner merger would “create a media behemoth with dangerous concentrations of political and economic power,” adding:

“With one corporation controlling so much production and distribution of news and entertainment media, this vertical integration poses significant potential hazards for millions of consumers…It raises serious antitrust concerns.”

Approving it represents a colossal press freedom affront, exacerbated by gutting Net Neutrality if the FCC’s ruling stands.

It assures another wave of telecom and media consolidation, a boon for corporate control and profit-making, a dagger in the heart of press freedom – digital democracy threatened.

FreePress.net said: “Forget Ma Bell.” The AT&T/Time Warner merger is “Monster Bell” – nearly three times the size of the huge 2011 Comcast/NBC Universal deal.

The AT&T/Time Warner merger is valued at over $107 billion, including $22 billion in debt AT&T will assume, increasing its debt burden to over $350 billion, perhaps making it too-big-to-fail like banking and other corporate giants.

Following the deal’s approval, FreePress.net’s Matt Wood explained it’s hugely anti-consumer and anti-press freedom.

“Now that AT&T is free for the time being of all federal Net Neutrality obligations, there is literally nothing stopping it from using its power in the broadband market to discriminate and favor its own content and services,” he said, adding:

“With the dismantling of the FCC’s 2015 privacy protections, a combined AT&T-Time Warner will be able to surveil its customers across the entire internet and target ads to them in ways that even Google and Facebook would be hard-pressed to match.”

“This merger will further strengthen AT&T’s overall market power, making it far more difficult for rivals to compete against it in any of its business lines.”

“Today is a bad day for all internet users and media consumers. The Justice Department’s failure to bring a winnable case will now set off a wave of communications and media consolidation that was unthinkable even a few years ago.”

“All of us, regardless of our broadband carrier and no matter what we watch, are about to see higher bills, fewer choices, worse quality for competing options and a further erosion of our privacy rights.”

Unless overturned by Supreme Court rulings, ending Net Neutrality and the AT&T/Time Warner merger could kill digital democracy in America – the last frontier of press freedom.

*

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

The Liberal-Globalists are carrying out another socio-political experiment in the Balkan petri dish, this time using the Macedonians as lab rats for testing how to most effectively erode a people’s identity before rolling out their weaponized model for replicating this on a continental scale, which they hope will enable them to erase the various nationalisms of Europe in their quest to transform the EU into a “federation of regions”.

The Republic of Macedonia and Greece reached a tentative deal to change the former’s constitutional name to the so-called “Republic of North Macedonia” as a “compromise” for Athens agreeing to Skopje’s membership in the EU and NATO. The news of this deal was largely overshadowed by the Trump-Kim Summit in Singapore, though this probably wasn’t a coincidence because it plays into both Balkan parties’ hands to have the media draw specious comparisons between their pact and the one between the US and North Korea. Instead of the win-win outcome that the much more publicized agreement was, this lesser-known one is a lose-lose for each country involved because they’re selling out their national interests to the transnational Liberal-Globalists.

The Macedonian-Greek Identity Conflict

Although it’s a very complex topic beyond the scope of fully explaining within this present analysis, the Macedonian-Greek dispute has become a core component of each people’s national identity, with the Macedonians insisting that they, their culture, language, and history be referred to as Macedonian, while the Greeks are adamant that this is a “misappropriation” of the ancient Hellenic heritage that they fully claim as their own, to say nothing of the fear that they have of Skopje one day making official territorial pretensions to the northern province of “Macedonia” that only came (or “returned”, as the Greeks frame it) under Athens’ control a little over a century ago. Understandably, both countries have deep-seated irreconcilable differences when it comes to this issue.

National identity, however, has always been the greatest impediment to the Liberal-Globalists’ plans for an ever-expanding transnational government, hence their disdain for both people’s stances towards this highly emotive issue and the pressure that they placed on each of their representatives to “compromise” in agreeing to this lose-lose deal. Greece’s official recognition of its northern neighbor’s self-identification as Macedonians is thought by some people to be a partial surrender of its heritage that they’re afraid could then lead to the salami-slicing of its identity between their Albanian, Bulgarian, and Turkish neighbors too one day. Likewise, Macedonian patriots believe that adding a geographic or any other sort of qualifier to their country’s name is a step in the direction of diluting their national identity prior to dividing their state between its identity-expansionist Albanian and Bulgarian neighbors, each of which informally claims parts of its territory as their historic own.

Both countries’ most vocal supporters of their respective positions do have a point, however, and it’s that the Balkans have always been used as a petri dish by Liberal-Globalists for perfecting the strategies and tactics that they’d later employ elsewhere in the world. The most powerful example of this is the externally provoked militant dissolution of Yugoslavia using a hybrid combination of internal (Croatian Ustasha fascists and Mideast-backed Bosnian Salafists) and external (debt, NATO) instruments that would later be applied all throughout the “Global South” and especially in the Mideast during the 2011 “Arab Spring” theater-wide Color Revolutions. Fittingly, the former Yugoslavia is once again being used as the centerpiece for experimenting with a new form of identity warfare as evidenced through the developments that have recently taken place in the Republic of Macedonia.

Remaking Macedonia

After two failed back-to-back Color Revolutions and a thwarted 2015 Hybrid War, the Liberal-Globalists finally succeeded in overthrowing the democratically elected and legitimate Macedonian government of Nikola Gruevski through a “constitutional coup” in 2017 which has since seen their “socialist” proxy Zoran Zaev (image on the right) enter into a worrying parliamentary alliance with the most nationalist members of the country’s Albanian minority. Gruevski and other Macedonian patriots warned that Zaev’s foreign-backed rise to power would lead to the erosion of their national identity via what would later turn out to be the “compromise” that was just reached on Macedonia’s constitutional name, though the Soros-affiliated politician consistently denied that this would ever happen until he and his CIA allies succeeded in “cleansing” the state of the former ruling party and felt comfortable enough in power to admit what his true mission was all along.

Still, in order to implement the agreed-upon name change, Zaev needs to amend the constitution, which requires that he marshals a two-thirds parliamentary majority in order to do so. As it stands, the ruling coalition falls short of this and will have to engage in some political horse trading with the VMRO-DPMNE opposition if this plan is to officially succeed, which there’s no guarantee that it will unless the post-coup Macedonian “deep state” weaponizes its US-obtained wiretaps from the past couple of years in order to blackmail their opponents into capitulating. As counterintuitive as it may sound, it’s much more likely for Macedonia to “honor” its end of this agreement than Greece despite the former having much more to lose by it because Tsipras’ government might fall before the deal is promulgated if the nationalist fury against him prompts snap elections that lead to his political downfall.

The failure of the Liberal-Globalists in getting Greece to agree to its end of this Faustian bargain following a prospective populist revolution in the country might temporarily or even indefinitely delay Macedonia’s expedited membership into the EU and NATO, but it wouldn’t save the country from its doom unless something similar happens there as well. The reason for this gloomy outlook is because Zaev’s other mission that he has yet to publicly acknowledge but which would inevitably follow any amendment to Macedonia’s constitutional name is to expand the provisions of the 2001 Ohrid Agreement to de-facto or possibly even officially “federalize” the country in facilitating the institutional expansion of the World War II-era geopolitical monstrosity of “Greater Albania”, which would be the death knell of Macedonian identity in dooming the country to eventual partition between Albania and Bulgaria with time.

From The Geopolitical To The Metaphysical

While representing a seemingly obscure and geographically confined development, the steady erosion of Macedonian identity by the Liberal-Globalists has continental implications for all other Europeans because of the very real potential that this weaponized template has for being applied against all other nationalities in the EU. There was a time during the early days of the regime change campaign against Gruevski that the US and its allies’ main motivation in targeting the Republic of Macedonia was geopolitical in the sense of preventing the country from becoming a crucial transit state for Russia and China’s multipolar megaprojects of the Balkan Stream pipeline and Balkan Silk Road high-speed railway respectively, but the modus operandi for continuing this mission and the attendant dismantlement of Macedonian identity is now mostly metaphysical.

To explain, Russia’s project will now be diverted through Bulgaria after Zaev sabotaged Macedonia’s geostrategic role in multipolarity, while China’s can be “managed” through Serbia’s eventual membership in the EU following Vucic’s inevitable selling out of Kosovo, so the original geopolitical drivers for the Hybrid War on Macedonia are no longer as relevant as they once were. That being said, the newfound metaphysical motivations for erasing Macedonian identity by advancing the plot to chance the Republic’s name and eventually “federalize” it are actually much more important for the Liberal-Globalists than disrupting, controlling, or influencing multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects because of the potential that it has for “reforming” the EU from a collection of clearly defined nation-states into an identity-less blob that’s intended to become nothing more than a “federation of regions”.

Last year’s dramatic exacerbation of the “Catalan Crisis” and any subsequent spillover effect that its future development might have on the Flanders region of Belgium could spark a chain reaction of geopolitical changes within the EU that rapidly moves the bloc closer to misleadingly “decentralizing” into what would in effect actually amount to the much more centralized “federation of regions”, though this can’t happen at the pace that the Liberal-Globalists would prefer without an adaptable model being created for expediting the erasure of national identities in each of the bloc’s member states. Therein lays the significance of the “Macedonian Model” in its top-down imposition of anti-nationalist policies disguised by the illusion of bottom-up (Color Revolution) demand in order to ultimately remove Macedonia from the map in the nominal sense.

The fast “progress” being made in this regard is attributable to an internal political alliance of “socialists”-“progressives” and ethno-regional minorities (Zaev’s SDSM and the Albanians) that could easily be replicated in the Western European countries that already embrace semi-leftist ideologies and whose leaderships have displayed their tendency to side with Muslim migrants over their own native inhabitants. The end result of transplanting a nationally customizable variant of the “Macedonian Model” onto other European states could also lead to them changing their names and/or engaging in extreme “decentralization” to the point of making their respective regions much more influential as de-facto independent actors than their national governments themselves, thereby facilitating the “federation of regions” that the Liberal-Globalist elite believe should be the EU’s post-Brexit future.

Concluding Thoughts

Whatever the reader’s personal views may be on the historical legitimacy of the Macedonian people’s claims to their identity and the constitutional name of their Republic, it should objectively be recognized that the implications of changing their country’s name will indeed be continental in ultimately affecting every other single state in the EU. When analyzed through the larger perspective that was elaborated upon in this article, the Macedonian name deal comes to be seen less as the North Korean-like win-win agreement that the media is deceptively comparing it to and more like the threat to each of Europe’s individual identities that it actually is.

What began as a geopolitical goal to undermine Russia and China’s multipolar Balkan megaprojects has evolved into a metaphysical mission to “reform” the very essence of European identities by literally “Balkanizing” each and every one of them (and especially those in the Western European countries that are already under siege) via the “Macedonian Model” being perfected in the Balkan petri dish, with the outcome being the erasure of their unique composite whole and replacement with a chaotic mix of artificially created regional ones that are much more easier for the elite to divide and rule.

*

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

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) calls on the people of the United States to ensure the leaders of the U.S. state remain committed to continued diplomacy to end the U.S.-Korea conflict. The meeting between Kim Jong Un and the president of the United States was a positive step toward a peaceful resolution of the 68-year Korea war. The decision on the part of the U.S. occupying power to end the provocative and illegal war games with the South Korea state is a necessary concession to demonstrate a commitment to easing military tensions on the Korean peninsula. As the foreign power with 32,000 soldiers and a nuclear umbrella over the North from its bombers and submarines, the United States was correct in responding to North Korea’s unilateral decision to halt nuclear tests and testing of ballistic missiles with the decision to end the U.S.-South Korea military drills.

BAP is concerned with the irresponsible and reckless comments by various political leaders who are opposed to ending the military exercises and are characterizing the outcome of the summit as a win for North Korea. For BAP, the winners of the summit are the South Korean people and all those who cherish peace and an international community committed to law and the principles of the United Nations charter.

As the state primarily responsible for the division of the Korean Peninsula and the subsequent war of annihilation waged against the North, it is only natural that the United States would need to demonstrate a good-faith commitment to a peace process.

The use of sexist and patriarchal imagery along with subtle appeals to white supremacy emanating primarily from Democrats to goad the administration into taking a more aggressive position on North Korea demonstrates once again that Democrats offer no alternative to the politics of domination and aggressive imperialism that has defined U.S. behavior for decades.

BAP considers both parties to be war parties that are committed the use of war, repression and various forms of violence, including economic sanctions, to maintain the global hegemony of the United States. That is why any political space that is created that might move the United States away from its preferred method of using violence to advance the interests of the 1% is positive and must be supported by the people. Left to their own devices, the bought-and-paid-for politicians will never pursue peace when militarism continues to make their patrons rich!

Keeping pressure on the politicians who represent the interests of the capitalist oligarchy requires the re-building of an anti-war, pro-peace and anti-imperialist movement in the United States. The demands for peace voiced by the people of both Koreas are what drove the leaders of North and South Korea to move toward a new relationship between the nations. If the Korean people did not have to deal with the reality of the United States as a foreign neo-colonial power, it would have been able to resolve their differences many years ago.

That is why the issue is not de-nuclearization but de-colonization. We must demand an end to U.S. occupation, withdraw all U.S. troops, close the military bases, and remove the nuclear threat posed by U.S. bombers and submarines.

The Black Alliance for Peace says, “Close all foreign U.S. bases”! Defeat the giant triplets of racism, militarism and materialism that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., identified. And commit to “not one drop of blood from the working class and poor to defend the interests of the capitalist oligarchy.”

The Syrian military is deploying additional Pantsir-S1 short to medium range air defense systems in southern and eastern Syria, according to pro-government sources.

Additional Pantsir-S1 systems had been deployed in the area near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, the Hezbollah media wing in Syria said on June 12. This move is clearly aimed at strengthening the air-defense capabilities of the government forces in case if Israel reacts to a military operation against militants in Daraa with airstrikes.

On June 11, reports also appeared that additional Pantsir-S1 systems will be deployed in the province of Deir Ezzor where tensions are steadily growing between government forces and the US-led coalition.

Separately, the Syrian Army and its allies repelled another ISIS attack in the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert; this time in the Humaymah-T2-Muazilah triangle. The situation on the western bank of the Euphrates remains tense.

Italian troops have deployed in the province of Deir Ezzor to support the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Turkish media reported on June 12 citing local sources.

According to the report, the troops entered Syria from Iraq, reached the city of Hasakah and then arrived at the US military base in the Omar oil field area in the province of Deir Ezzor. The number of Italian troops is unknown.

The SDF has captured Tal al-Jayer, Hulwah and Daral Khattab from ISIS west of the town of Dashishah, near the Iraqi border. Summing up the recent SDF advances, the group has captured over 20 settlements.

*

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

In this Dark Age when already-withering Individual Liberties are under renewed attack, an offering dedicated to Courageous Truth-Tellers and to Stout-Hearted Men and Women who stand resolute before the Forces of Darkness.

A long, long time ago, ages and epochs ago, there lived The Mountain, as if the lord of its realms. It had lived for hundreds and thousands of years. It was particularly huge and hard, reaching five miles into the sky and composed primarily of granite and stone. From the tiniest pebbles to the highest hills, all of The Mountain’s vassals and compeers were very respectful of him – indeed, were a little fearful of him.

The miasma of fear was quite at odds with the prettiness of the locale. Carbonate, limestone, and marble deposits near the surface and a scattering of tinted and translucent pebbles lent a lustrous, sometimes shimmering, aspect to the landscape.

One day, of all the geologically diverse denizens of that pretty locale, a little stone got into a squabble with The Mountain.  

“You keep stomping on little stones! You even shove around the hills!” cried the stone. “You’re such a mean bully!” 

This had been nothing but the plain truth. The Mountain did keep stomping on little stones and did keep shoving around the hills.  The Mountain was a mean bully. But mean bullies do not take kindly to the truth and The Mountain was no exception.

The Mountain hollered, “Running your mouth ’cause you got a shine on you? You insignificant, wee thing!” 

“Why don’t you let us all live in peace, you—” began the little stone, but it got no further. The Mountain had slid right on top of it!

The angry Mountain twisted round and round a few times, grinding the little stone into the earth. “That’ll teach the twinkly twerp a thing or two!” he growled to himself. The Mountain was well aware that by twisting and grinding he was eroding himself and losing some of his height but in his vengeful frame of mind he did not care. Deep down under his base, The Mountain felt the little stone emit a faint moan of agony. Just perhaps he was mistaken – the sound may have been a suppressed giggle. Or, perhaps, The Mountain was over-sensitive in his fraught state: for, given his incalculable weight, by now any little stone would surely be pulverized into fine dust.

Many an age passed, dotted with numerous earthquakes and hurricanes.

The ireful Mountain’s rage did not subside – far from it. He cultivated his resentment of his adversary, ‘insignificant’ and ‘wee’ though he considered the latter to be, and kept fretting. Now and then in mountain time, or, about once a century, The Mountain would convulse and jar himself. It was uncomfortable and injurious to The Mountain himself but he wanted to punish the little stone by squashing it. “I’ll show the glittery pygmy who’s boss!” he would fume.

An epoch or two went by as did countless volcanos and tsunamis.

Once, The Mountain thought he heard some shrieks of pain from way down below – no doubt it was the little stone, finally regretting his brazenness. But The Mountain was so immensely tall and his head was in the clouds so he could never hear exactly what may be going on down at the levels of the mundane and the earthbound. Just perhaps The Mountain was mistaken – what he heard may have been a few peals of laughter. Or, perhaps, he was imagining things altogether in his obsessive vengeance: for, given the horrendous punishment The Mountain had meted out, by now any little stone surely would have been crushed out of existence.

And thus passed ages and ages, epochs and epochs. When the little stone’s perceived impudence came to the forefront of the irascible Mountain’s mind, which it did every so often – that is to say, every few hundred years – he would make special efforts to twist around so as to grind his already-ground-down adversary. “Being smushed into the dirt will take the shimmer off that rascal,” the vindictive Mountain would mutter bad-temperedly to himself. As if his small antagonist could even have survived so brutal and sustained a ‘smushing.’

More ages, more epochs, and many an earthquake, hurricane, volcano, and tsunami later, came the era of (so-called) Civilized Man. Humans had long been farming and growing crops, they had built many walled cities, they had established renowned lycea, they had recently navigated the vast oceans, and now they were crossing both oceans and continents by flying through the air!

On a blustery spring afternoon, an aeroplane flew quite low over a vast scrubby plain, so low that a few passengers could even see two little figures down on the plain, apparently a man and a boy. “What could those two be doing out there?” a passenger asked her husband.  

Actually, ‘those two’ happened to be a father and a son and what they were doing was taking a day hike. The bespectacled man, of average height and sinewy build, was carrying a small backpack.  The brown-haired, slim boy beside him looked like an energetic twelve-year-old.

Presently, the father decided to proceed with his plan to show his son how to build a campfire on a windy day and heat some beans. He sent the boy to scour the nearby area for brushwood and scrub while he started to scoop out a circular pit for the campfire and look for suitable rocks to ring it with.

The father had dug no more than half the campfire pit when his son came running back, quite excited, and without any brushwood or scrub. “Dad, dad, see what I’ve found!” he yelled. The boy was holding something, which he handed to his father.  “What a twinkly, glittery little stone.” He had a feeling that he had made a real find.  

The father took the ‘stone’ and what he saw rendered him speechless for a few seconds. “I’ll be— this is incredible!” exclaimed the father upon recovering his composure. “Yes, though it’s small, for a diamond it’s huge!” Father and son fascinatedly inspected the precious stone all round and over, admiring it with ‘oohs’ and ‘aahs.’ After a couple of minutes the father carefully put the diamond in his jacket’s inner pocket and zipped it shut.

“Well done, son! You’ve found a very valuable diamond,” said the father, clapping his son on the back and ruffling his hair.  “Where did you find it?”

“Some ways over there— it was sticking out beneath a little mound,” the boy replied, pointing back to where he had been.

“What little mound? Show me.”

“Sure dad, this way.” 

The boy started to jog in the direction he had indicated and his father began to trot beside him. “The mound was a wee little thing, only about this big,” he said, raising his arms and holding his hands apart about six inches from one another.

“Hmm,” said his father, who was a geologist. “Nearly a hundred million years ago, these were not flatlands . . . some huge mountains used to stand right here.”  

Father and son jogged along, the gusting wind making their mufflers flap and flutter like pennants.

In less than a minute the boy spoke. “That mound,” he said, pointing. But both father and son saw that the object pointed to was only a little hump no more than three inches.

Just then a hard gust of wind scattered what had been left of the disintegrating little mound.

“Oh! There goes the last of it,” said the boy.

“It’s gone for good!”

“Dad, may I please have another look at the diamond?”

“Sure, son,” said the father unzipping his pocket and taking out the stone. “Do you know nothing is harder and tougher than a diamond? It simply cannot be broken or destroyed.”

As the boy held the uncut diamond in his fingers, its sharp edges and grooves made a whistling sound in the blowing wind, the note and pitch varying as the boy turned the stone this way and that. Intrigued, he put the diamond to his ear. In a moment or two he glanced at his father, a quizzical expression on his face. He opened his mouth as if to say something but then just shook his head.

“What? What?” asked the father, curiosity piqued.

The boy took his hand away from his ear and returned the precious stone to his father. He replied, “Well, it’s strange but . . . but I could swear that I heard the diamond laugh – I – I mean, it made a laughing sound; a, a— like a laugh of triumph. Must’ve been the wind, of course.”

The father smiled. “Of course!”

“Nobody is above the law,” Donald Trump declared during the 2016 campaign. But as special counsel Robert Mueller zeroes in on him, the president is carving out an exemption for himself. Trump and his attorneys are claiming absolute power for the president.

Trump’s attorney and mouthpiece Rudy Giuliani told HuffPost that Trump could not be indicted even if he “shot” former FBI director James Comey in the Oval Office.

A confidential January 29, 2018, memo written by Trump lawyers John Dowd and Jay Sekulow contends that Trump essentially is above the law. As the French King Louis XIV said, “L’etat c’est moi” (I am the state). All political power resides in the king. Trump’s attorneys are arguing that the president is immunized against legal consequences for his actions.

“Unitary Executive” Theory of Presidential Power

Another Trump attorney, Marc Kasowitz, also wrote a confidential memo to Mueller, on June 23, 2017. It advocates the “unitary executive” doctrine, a radical rightwing theory of extensive presidential powers.

“As a constitutional matter,” Kasowitz wrote, “the President also possesses the indisputable authority to direct that any executive branch investigation be open or closed because the Constitution provides for a unitary executive with all executive power resting with the President.”

Trump is not the first president to make sweeping claims of executive power.

In 2000, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito told the conservative Federalist Society that the

Constitution “makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that. The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power — the whole thing.”

Shortly after 9/11, legal mercenary John Yoo saw to it that George W. Bush included “unitary executive” in several of his signing statements, purporting to limit the parameters of statutes Congress had enacted. Yoo also made the astounding claim that a president could legally crush the testicles of the child of a person being interrogated. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas used the phrase “unitary executive” in his dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, a case in which the high court upheld due process rights for US citizens held as enemy combatants.

The Dowd-Sekulow memo makes a series of assertions of unbridled executive power. It says that a president should not have to submit to an interview by the special counsel; he cannot be compelled to testify in court; he can’t commit the crime of obstruction of justice, and even if he could, he can’t be criminally charged; he has the power to fire the special counsel; and he can grant himself a presidential pardon for any conceivable crimes.

That memo is a desperate attempt to avoid subjecting Trump to Mueller’s questioning or a grand jury subpoena. His lawyers know it would be a legal minefield as the president has a compulsive habit of contradicting himself.

Must the President Submit to a Mueller Interview?

Trump’s legal eagles argue that the president is protected by executive privilege against being compelled to talk to Mueller. Moreover, they contend the documents he has provided and witnesses he has made available for depositions cover everything Mueller would ask about, so there’s no need for the president to personally converse with the special counsel.

The hole in their argument is that in order to establish whether Trump engaged in obstruction of justice, Mueller has to determine whether the president had the intent to obstruct the FBI investigation. That decision can best be made by speaking directly to Trump.

On June 3, Giuliani revealed the real reason Team Trump fears a Mueller interview of the president.

“This is the reason you don’t let this president testify in the special counsel’s Russia investigation,” Giuliani told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” adding, “Our recollection keeps changing, or we’re not even asked a question and somebody makes an assumption.”

Can the President Obstruct Justice?

Dowd and Sekulow maintain that the president cannot commit the crime of obstruction of justice.

Trump’s actions, “by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction of justice because that would amount to obstructing himself,” the lawyers wrote in their memo.

The two primary bases for an obstruction of justice case against Trump are: (1) his firing of former FBI director James Comey to stop the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn for improper communication with Russia during the campaign; and (2) Trump’s memo misstating the purpose of Donald Trump Jr.’s meeting with a Russian lawyer to get dirt on Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

Trump’s lawyers claim there was no obstruction of justice because Section 1505 of Title 18 of the US Code forbids obstructing “any pending proceeding before a department or agency of the United States, or Congress,” and since the FBI has only investigative — not adjudicatory — authority, it can’t conduct “proceedings.”

Apparently, Dowd and Sekulow were unfamiliar with the superseding obstruction of justice statute 18 U.S. Code § 1512, enacted in 2002, which prohibits corruptly obstructing proceedings that haven’t yet begun — a grand jury investigation that could arise from the FBI case. The lawyers never mentioned that statute in their memo.

Moreover, Trump’s attorneys contend the president can fire the FBI director for any reason whatsoever — even a corrupt one.

But the Supreme Court has held that Congress can set limits on the president’s power to fire officials and require good cause.

The lawyers also argue that Trump didn’t fire Comey to halt the FBI investigation into Russian influence in the Trump campaign.

But Trump’s own televised statements to NBC’s Lester Holt and the president’s boasts to Russian diplomats in the Oval Office prove otherwise.

Perhaps the biggest bombshell is his lawyers’ admission that Trump drafted the June 2017 memo falsely stating the purpose of Donald Trump Jr.’s Trump Tower meeting with a Russian attorney in June 2016. The Dowd-Sekulow memo says,

“the president dictated a short but accurate response to The New York Times article on behalf of his son, Donald Trump, Jr.”

For a year, beginning with Sekulow’s July 2017 statement on “Meet the Press,” Trump’s lawyers had insisted Trump did not draft that memo.

In the memo he drafted, Trump said the people present at the Trump Tower meeting “primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children” and the topic of the meeting was “not a campaign issue at the time.”

But when he had been told the meeting could produce negative information about Hillary Clinton, Trump Jr. replied by email, “if it’s what you say I love it.”

Trump’s lawyers made the damaging concession that Trump himself had drafted the false statement in order to reinforce their contention that it’s unnecessary for Mueller to interview the president as he has already conceded he wrote that memo.

Former White House counsel Bob Bauer told The Washington Post that by conceding that Trump authored the July 2017 memo, Dowd and Sekulow actually bolstered the rationale for a Mueller interview with Trump:

This raises all sorts of questions as to why he did it. What did you know at the time you wrote it? Who did you know it from? And why did you write something we now know wasn’t true? The moment that they concede that they lied about [Trump’s role], the argument for the interview is strengthened, not weakened.

Furthermore, Bauer noted,

“The dictating of the false statement is [part of] an ongoing effort to cover up something,” adding Trump was “active in writing the cover up.”

Can the President Be Compelled to Testify in Court?

If Trump refuses to submit to Mueller’s interrogation, the special counsel is likely to serve the president with a subpoena to testify before a grand jury.

There is some precedent for compelling a president to testify in court. In 1998, Bill Clinton was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury after refusing to voluntarily appear during the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Clinton made a deal with the independent counsel to voluntarily testify under oath remotely and the subpoena was withdrawn. Statements Clinton made during that testimony led to his impeachment in the House of Representatives for obstruction of justice for committing perjury before the grand jury. The Senate later acquitted Clinton of the charges.

Nixon produced the tapes and resigned two weeks later to avoid impeachment. Lawfare’s Steve Vladeck and Benjamin Wittes argue that, in all likelihood, a Mueller subpoena to compel Trump to testify would be upheld, citing United States v. Nixon. The Supreme Court held that Nixon had to comply with a subpoena to provide some of the Watergate tapes to the independent counsel. The high court recognized a qualified executive privilege against disclosure of confidential executive branch communications. In the Nixon case, the Court held the privilege was superseded by “the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice,” adding,

“The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”

Although the Nixon case affirmed a subpoena to produce items at trial, not grand jury testimony as in the Trump situation, the same principle would likely apply.

In Clinton v. Jones, the Supreme Court ruled that a sitting president does not have total immunity from civil litigation for conduct occurring before he took office. Vladeck and Wittes explain, “the interests of the grand jury are generally regarded as far weightier than the interests of any private civil litigant.”

On June 6, a New York judge ruled that Trump must submit to a deposition in a defamation lawsuit filed by a former contestant on “The Apprentice.” Plaintiff Summer Zervos is charging the president with defamation for his public assertion that she had falsely claimed that Trump had kissed and groped her without permission in 2007. Judge Jennifer Schechter set a deadline of January 31, 2019, to complete the deposition but her ruling is being appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Can the President Be Charged With a Crime?

No president has ever been charged with a crime. Neither Richard Nixon nor Bill Clinton was prosecuted for crimes, including obstruction of justice, which was one of the articles of impeachment against them. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, and Clinton made a deal with the independent counsel to avoid prosecution.

The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel during both the Nixon and Clinton administrations took the position that presidents are immune from prosecution during their time in office.

But a memo from independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s investigation of Clinton said a president can be indicted for criminal activity:

“It is proper, constitutional, and legal for a federal grand jury to indict a sitting president for serious criminal acts that are not part of, and are contrary to, the president’s official duties. In this country, no one, even President Clinton, is above the law.”

Source: The New York Times

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, writing in The Washington Post, concurs and explains why a sitting president could be charged with a crime.

“An indicted president is a terrible proposition,” he wrote. “But so is the continuation of a presumed felon in office — one who clings to power as a shield from accountability.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court would decide whether a president could be criminally charged.

Can the President Fire the Special Counsel?

Could the president fire Mueller?

“He certainly believes he has the power to do so,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in April.

But since Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, the power to fire Mueller resides only with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has said he sees no cause to dismiss the special counsel.

The Department of Justice regulation says a

special counsel can “be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the attorney general,” and only “for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause.”

In his memo, Kasowitz uses the unitary executive theory to shore up his argument that the president has the “constitutional authority to terminate or direct an investigation” because he “controls all subordinate officers within the executive branch,”

Can the President Pardon Himself?

On June 4, Trump wrote that he has the “absolute right” to pardon himself, tweeting,

“As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong?”

He then proceeded to attack Mueller’s probe as a “never ending Witch Hunt.”

Kasowitz argued the president has “the power to pardon any person before, during, or after an investigation/and or conviction.”

The presidential pardoning power is located in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, which says the president “shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

In 1974, just before Nixon resigned from the presidency, the Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion stating,

“Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.”

Giuliani told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on June 3,

“Pardoning himself would be unthinkable and probably lead to immediate impeachment,” adding, “and he has no need to do it, he’s done nothing wrong.”

On ABC’s “This Week,” Giuliani said,

“I think the political ramifications would be tough. Pardoning other people is one thing, pardoning yourself is tough.”

Legal experts disagree on the validity of a presidential self-pardon.

Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and University of Minnesota law professor Richard Painter wrote in The Washington Post,

“The Constitution specifically bars the president from using the pardon power to prevent his own impeachment and removal. It adds that any official removed through impeachment remains fully subject to criminal prosecution. That provision would make no sense if the president could pardon himself.”

“Only if President Trump believes that he may be guilty of a crime would he be interested in pardoning himself,” University of Notre Dame Law Professor Jimmy Gurulé told Vox.

Indeed, a self-pardon by Trump might be used as evidence that he obstructed justice, according to Eric Posner, professor of law at University of Chicago. Posner and Daniel Hemel, also from University of Chicago law school, wrote in a 2017 New York Times op-ed that in the event Trump pardoned his relatives and assistants to cover up criminal behavior and hinder the Mueller investigation, he could be charged with obstruction of justice.

It remains to be seen whether Trump will give the Supreme Court an opportunity to decide if a president can pardon himself.

Trump’s claims of absolute power are reminiscent of Nixon’s infamous 1977 television interview with David Frost three years after Nixon resigned.

“Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal,” the disgraced former president stated.

*

 

Featured image: Red Squirrel by Malcolm Welch

Almost one in five of British mammal species face a high risk of extinction, according to the first comprehensive review of their populations for more than 20 years launched today by The Mammal Society and Natural England.

The red squirrel, wildcat and the grey long-eared bat are all listed as facing severe threats to their survival.

The review – commissioned by Natural England working in partnership with Scottish Natural Heritage and Natural Resources Wales – also found other mammals such as the hedgehog and water vole have seen their populations decline by up to 66% over the past 20 years.

Climate change, loss of habitat, use of pesticides and road deaths are all putting pressure on some of the best loved and most recognisable of Britain’s 58 terrestrial mammals, whose current status, historical and recent population trends, threats, and future prospects have all been assessed in the review. The work will prioritise conservation actions and also sets an agenda for future research efforts.

Image on the right: Wildcat by Rachel Profit

Prof Fiona Mathews, Mammal Society Chair and professor of Environmental Biology at the University of Sussex, said:

“This is happening on our own doorstep so it falls upon all of us to try and do what we can to ensure that our threatened species do not go the way of the lynx, wolf and elk and disappear from our shores forever.”

The Mammal Society is now calling for more research to be carried out urgently to get a clearer and more accurate picture of Britain’s mammal populations. For many species, including common animals such as rabbits and moles, very little information is available.

Last month, the Society launched a Mammal Mapper app so that any nature lover could record sightings of local mammals using just their smartphone.

Prof Mathews, lead author of the Review of the Population and Conservation Status of British Mammals, said:

“The report highlights an urgent requirement for more research to assess population densities in key habitats because at present, uncertainty levels are unacceptably high. It is possible that declines in many species are being overlooked because a lack of robust evidence precludes assessment. There is also an urgent need to quantify precisely the scale of declines in species such as the hedgehog, rabbit, water vole and grey long-eared bat. Effective and evidence-based strategies for mammal conservation and management must be developed before it is too late.”

The report does highlight that some British mammal populations are in more robust health. Five species have increased in numbers in 20 years, and 18 species have increased their geographical range. The otter, polecat, beaver, wild boar are all now found in more locations than they were 20 years ago although it is also notable that many of the ‘success stories’ are species recently introduced to Great Britain, such as the grey squirrel and muntjac deer.

Image below: Grey Long Eared Bat by Daniel Hargreaves

Surprisingly given their importance to both humans and wildlife, there is very little information on species such as brown rats and house mice: their population estimates are around 7 million, and 5 million respectively, but could in reality be much higher or lower.

Natural England Senior Specialist for Mammals, Katherine Walsh, who coordinated the project, said:

“This project has significantly improved our understanding of the current status of terrestrial mammals known to breed in Great Britain, which is essential to underpin our efforts to protect them and their habitats. Natural England has been leading the way in efforts to recover these vulnerable species, notably through the ‘Back from the Brink’ project which aims to support the recovery of mammals and other species through habitat improvements across England.”

Natural England have been leading the way in efforts to protect these vulnerable species, they have been working in partnership with a number of expert conservation organisations on the Back from the Brink project which aims to bring more than 20 species back from the brink of extinction. This project will benefit hundreds of species, improving habitats and helping to secure the natural recovery of mammals in Great Britain.

Liz Halliwell, Mammal Ecologist for Natural Resources Wales said:

“The project has given us a better understanding of  the status of many of the mammals in Wales. It has underlined the importance of having good data for all our mammal species, including some of our most common and widespread. Given the varying patterns of distribution across Britain, understanding area population trends is important.”

The Saudi-led coalition is desperate to be able to occupy Hodiedah province, where the main port of Yemen is located, from which all the essentials of life enter Yemen. The blockade has been in force for more than three years, for weakening the Yemeni front.

Presently, 90 percent of food and medicines come to Yemen via Hodiedah, making the port vital lifeline to Sana’a with some other ports under control of occupying forces. Since Saudi Arabia waged a war against Yemen on 27 March 2017, Saudis have take actions to wrest the major port from Ansar Allah forces. Air raids on the area’s infrastructure and Ansarullah positions is common during the three years of war.

According to the UN aid agencies, 60 percent of the Yemen’s population, i.e. 17 million people, are food insecure, with 7 million of them being in critical conditions. If this predicament does not ease, this number will touch 17 million Yemeni by end of the year, the UN adds. In general, over 22 million of the country’s 27-million population needs humanitarian aids.

Hodiedah is a central aid intake point. So, if the port fall or its encirclement is completed, Sana’a and other Ansarullah-held cities will slump in dire straits economically and nutritionally. Saudi Arabia struggles to control Hodiedah to tighten the noose on the Yemenis.

The Saudi leaders hope that a blend of war, military blockade, and famine will press Yemen into acceding to the Arab coalition’s demands. The plan alerted the UN, which on June 16, 2017, in a warning statement ask the Saudi-led forces to avoid staging an assault on the port city on the Red Sea coasts.

Yemen is already reeling from the world’s most urgent humanitarian crisis where 22 million people need vital assistance. Attacking the port would still manage to make it even worse. The US-Saudi assault would lead to mass starvation, and the loss of life would be measured in the hundreds of thousands or possibly millions.

But three years of war has taught the inexperienced Saudi decision-makers that they will never manage to defeat the united Ansar Allah and Yemen army for the full occupation of the Arab country. A war that was scheduled to end in fall of Sana’a the capital within three weeks, has lasted three years and shows no outlook for the end.

As a respod Sayyed Abdulmalik al-Houthi, in one of his speeches, warned the US-Saudi coalition from their continued closure of Yemeni ports, including the port of Hodiedah, stressing the right of Yemen to take any sensitive steps in response, “we know the sensitive areas that we could target if the ports kept closed.” Sayyed Abdulmalik explains that “today the port of Hodiedah is being threatened and we cannot turn a blind eye to that.”

Hodiedah is Yemen’s fourth largest city and is densely populated. Its port is a key lifeline, handling nearly 80 percent of the country’s food imports.

*

Featured image is from Yemen Press.

One can hardly overstate the significance of Paul Cézanne (1839-1906), an artist who not only transformed French painting, but in many ways invented modern art: “The father of us all,” as Picasso observed. To be a painter in the twentieth century, one had to come to terms with Cézanne – an artist whose work forces upon us the question of what it means to be a painter. For Cézanne, it was nothing less than to confront the mystery of the visible, the vitality and interpenetration of objects, the paradoxical nature of being itself.

The National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. is currently exhibiting a generous selection of Cézanne’s portraits, offering a window into the artist’s development, his readiness to experiment, his unflinching honesty and tireless commitment as a painter:

“I want to die painting,” he would say, “I am probably only the primitive of a new art.”

From the town of Aix-en-Provence, Cézanne was a man of independent means, and therefore did not require finding buyers for his work; he was able to devote his life to the solution of those artistic problems that consumed and obsessed him. He would say that he wanted to paint “Poussin from nature” – which presumably meant that he wanted to attain the perfect balance, harmonious design, and substantiality of the old masters, who he studied religiously at the Louvre, while remaining true to the discoveries of the Impressionists, whose exhibitions he would take part in as a young man. In short, to bring together the order and necessity of the old masters, with the fidelity to nature and the artist’s sensations that distinguished the great Impressionist painters of his generation – including, Monet, Renoir and Pissaro.

Not unlike Rembrandt, Cézanne painted self-portraits throughout his career, in what constituted a kind of running autobiography. The exhibition presents a number of these, including the bold, brash Self-Portrait with a Landscape Background (1875), painted when he was thirty-six years old. Cézanne has accentuated, even exaggerated his prematurely balding head; his side locks are wild and unkempt, while the bushy mustache and beard entirely covers over the mouth. He has no need for words: his arched brows accent the piercing eyes, giving the work a brazenly dramatic flair. He bellows and roars with those magnificent eyes and V-shaped brow, atop which sits a massively rounded forehead. We seem to be face to face with a painter who is aware of his power and wants to make us aware of it too.

Boy in a Red Waistcoat (1888-1890) is another standout in the show, one of a series of paintings Cézanne did of a young boy dressed in the garb of an Italian peasant. The contrapposto of the standing figure, evocative of classical sculpture, is unusual among Cézanne’s portraits, and lends the romantic youth a certain élan and dash. Perhaps what is most striking is the use of color – the pinks and greens and blues that respond in a varied and complex harmony with the lively red of the boy’s vest. Color was all-important for Cézanne: for him, the painter ‘spoke in colors’. What Cézanne said of Veronese could have just as easily been said of him: “his colors dance.” One is “reinvigorated by them. You are born into the real world. You become yourself. You become painting…” At the same time, colors existed only in relation to each other – for Cézanne, their significance was inseparable from their relationships, so that each spot seems to have “a knowledge of every other.”

A substantial portion of the show is devoted to the portraits of Cézanne’s wife Hortense, of which the painter did over thirty. While generally not unsympathetic, neither do these pictures flatter their subject, who is sometimes quite plain in her appearance. In more than a few we encounter a frank, even startling mixture of severity and impatience verging on outright displeasure.

Madame Cézanne in a Red Dress (1888-1890) – on loan from the Metropolitan Museum of Art – is an extraordinary painting, in which we find the subject seated in an elaborately furnished interior. Like so many of these works it is a rather strange and somewhat disconcerting portrait, all the more so for the odd tilt of the sitter and her surroundings, as if everything within the frame is in movement and in danger of sliding off the canvas entirely. Hortense wears a typical bourgeois housedress, however the vital red tones lend credence to Cézanne’s claim that no one could paint red as he did.

Madame Cézanne in a Red Dress (1890–189)

The portrait of art dealer Ambroise Vollard (1899) is undoubtedly among the most majestic and legendary of the works in this exhibition. It took some one hundred and fifteen sessions of posing to see the painting through, and still the piece was ultimately left unfinished – like so many of Cézanne’s canvases. Indeed, Giacometti went so far as to say that,

“[Cézanne] never really finished anything… That’s the terrible thing: the more one works on a picture, the more impossible it becomes to finish it.”

Portrait of Ambroise Vollard (1899)

In the works of his later years, Cézanne would often leave substantial portions of the canvas exposed. This is evident in his landscapes, a handful of which are housed in the National Gallery.

“The landscape,” he said “thinks itself in me, and I am its consciousness.”

The seeing of the painter was not the inspection of an in-itself world, for Cézanne – hence, his abhorrence of the photographic eye – but a vision that occurs in him:

“Nature is on the inside,” he would say.

The painter’s task is to trace the coming-to-itself of the visible – the way in which the mountain makes itself seen by the painter. The painter does not produce simply another thing: his achievement consists in unfolding the carnal essence of the thing – a visible to the second power, as it were.

“Nothing is beautiful except what is true,” Cézanne once said, “and only true things should be loved.”

As the philosopher Jacques Derrida put it:

“The truth in painting is signed Cézanne.”

Perhaps it is this above all else that makes him the indispensible painter for our times, this era of so-called ‘post-truth.’ For Cézanne “painting was truth telling or it was nothing.” That is what it meant to paint from nature, to be primitive, to be free from all affectation, to be like those “first men who engraved their dreams of the hunt on the vaults of caves…” This is why we need to look and look again at Cézanne. And it is perhaps best that he has come to the National Gallery, to D.C., but a stone’s throw away from where truth is daily made a mockery of, and lies are proffered with breathtaking ease.

*

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

“The psychopathology of white supremacy invisibilizes the absurdity and illegitimacy of the United States being in a position to negotiate the fate of millions of Koreans.”

The critics had already signaled their strategy for derailing any meaningful move toward normalizing relations between the United States and North Korea. Right-wing neoliberals from CNN, MSNBC and NPR are in perfect alignment with the talking points issued by U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and the Democrat Party that took the position that anything short of the North Koreans surrendering their national interests and national dignity to the United States was a win for North Korea.

For much of the foreign policy community, corporate media pundits and leaders of the two imperialist parties, the issue is North Korean de-nuclearization. But for the people in Korea and throughout the global South, the real issue has always been the unfinished business of ending the war and beginning the de-colonization of the Korean peninsula.

The interrelated issues of respecting the dignity and sovereignty of the North Korean nation and engaging in an authentic process of de-colonization are precisely why the U.S.-North Korean initiative will fail without a major intervention on the part of the people in the United States demanding that their leaders commit to diplomacy and peace.

“The threat of North Korea allowed the United States to continue a physical presence right at the underbelly of China.”

There should be no illusions about U.S. intentions. If U.S. policymakers were really concerned with putting a brake on the North Korean nuclear-weapons program, they would have pursued a different set of policies. Such policies would have created the necessary security conditions to convince the North Koreans that a nuclear deterrence to the United States was unnecessary.

The fact that those conditions were not created were less a result of the evil intentions of the North Koreans. than it reflected the need to maintain the justification for continued U.S. military deployment in South Korea and in the region. Being able to point to North Korea as a threat to regional security has provided the justifications for U.S. power projection in the region and the ever-expanding U.S. military budget.

With the growing power of China over the last few decades, the threat of North Korea allowed the United States to continue a physical presence right at the underbelly of China. That is why the “agreed framework” under Clinton was not implemented and then jettisoned by the Bush administration. It is also why the Obama administration’s so-called strategic patience was really about a series of increasingly provocative military exercises and no negotiations.

Full Spectrum Dominance and the Psychopathology of White Supremacy

Korea has historically played a significant role for the U.S. imperial project since the end of the Second World War.The emergent forces U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower identified as the military/industrial/complex are still present, but are now exercising hegemonic power, along with the financial sector within the U.S. state. Those forces are not interested in a diplomatic resolution of the Korean colonial question because their interests are more focused on China and maintaining U.S. regional hegemony in East Asia. The tensions in Korea have not only provided them the rationale for increased expenditures for various missile defense systems but also for bolstering public support for the obscene military budgets that are largely transferred straight to their pockets.

That is why the historic record is replete with the United States sabotaging negotiated settlements with the North, but then pointing to North Korean responses to those efforts as evidence of North Korean duplicity.

“The historic record is replete with the United States sabotaging negotiated settlements with the North.”

In addition to the material interests and hegemonic geopolitical objectives, the social-psychological phenomenon of inculcated white supremacy is also a factor and has buttressed imperial policies toward that nation for years.

For example, the psychopathology of white supremacy invisibilizes the absurdity and illegitimacy of the United States being in a position to negotiate the fate of millions of Koreans. The great “white father” and savior complex is not even a point of contestation because it is not even perceived–the rule of whiteness through the dominance of the Western capitalist elite has been naturalized.

Therefore, it is quite understandable that for many, the summit is the space where the North Koreans are essentially supposed to surrender to the United States. It is beyond the comprehension of most policymakers and large sectors of the public that North Koreans would have ever concluded it is not in their national interest to give up their defenses to a reckless and dangerously violent rogue state that sees itself beyond the law.

And it is that strange white-supremacist consciousness that buys into the racist trope that it was Trump’s pressure that brought North Korea to the table. The white-supremacist colonial mentality believes the natives will only respond to force and violence.

“It is inevitable that the Trump administration—like the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations—will mis-read the North Koreans.”

As U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the good old boy from South Carolina, argues

“The only way North Korea will give up their nuclear program is if they believe military option is real.”

But as Kim Kye Gwan , North Korea’s first vice minister for foreign affairs and former nuclear-program negotiator pointed out in relationship to the reasons why North Korea stayed with the process:

“The U.S. is miscalculating the magnanimity and broad-minded initiatives of the DPRK as signs of weakness and trying to embellish and advertise as if these are the product of its sanctions and pressure.”

Unfortunately, the white-supremacist world-view renders it almost impossible to apprehend reality in any other way. That is why it is inevitable that the Trump administration—like the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations—will mis-read the North Koreans.

The North Korea issue is a classic example of why it is impossible to separate a pro-peace, anti-war position from the issue of anti-imperialism. The concrete, geopolitical objectives of U.S. imperialist interests in the region drives the logic of regional dominance, which means peace, de-colonization and national reconciliation for Korea are counter to U.S. interests. And while we must support the U.S. state’s decision to halt military exercises, we must recognize that without vigorous pressure from the people to support an honest process, the possibility of conflict might be ever more alive now as a result of the purported attempt at diplomacy.

“Peace, de-colonization and national reconciliation for Korea are counter to U.S. imperial interests.”

The nature of the North Korean state is not the issue. What is the issue is a process has begun between the two Korean nations that should be respected. Therefore, de-nuclearization should not be the focus—self-determination of the Korean peoples must be the center of our discussions. On that issue, it is time for activists in the United States to demand the United States get out of Korea. The peace and anti-war movement must support a process that will lead to the closure of U.S. military bases, the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the elimination of the nuclear threat.

In short, U.S. based activists must support an end to the Korean war and the start of the de-colonization of South Korea.

*

This article was originally published on Black Agenda Report.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch. His latest publications include contributions to“Jackson Rising: The Struggle for Economic Democracy and Self-Determination in Jackson, Mississippi.”

Ajamu Baraka is a frequent contributor to Global Research. He can be reached at: Ajamubaraka.com.

Featured image is from the author.

In what was perhaps the most surprising announcement to emerge from today’s Trump-Kim summit, president Trump agreed to suspend military exercises with South Korea in return for a commitment to denuclearisation from North Korea.

As we reported earlier, Trump said the war games were expensive and “very provocative”, and yet stopping them has been called a “major concession”, something the US has previously rejected as non-negotiable on the grounds that the exercises are a key element of its military alliance with Seoul, and maintaining a deterrent against North Korea. In return, Trump said Kim had agreed in a joint statement to reassert “his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula”.

In other words, Trump made it appear that he is negotiating from a position of weakness to achieve a diplomatic goal which would have remained unachievable had Trump not taken the initiative. In doing so, however, he infuriated the neocons in his immediate circle. Immediately after the announcement, the WaPo’s Josh Rogin noted that

“Everything Trump is saying and doing goes directly against everything Bolton has ever said or believed about North Korea.”

Everything Trump is saying and doing goes directly against everything Bolton has ever said or believed about North Korea.

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) June 12, 2018

On the surface, anything that neocon warmonger Bolton hates can only be good.

But it wasn’t just Trump’s closest advisors that were shocked: both the South Korean government and US forces in the region appear to have been taken by surprise by Trump’s declared suspension of joint military exercises.

According to Reuters, US forces in Korea said they had not received updated guidance on military exercises.

“In coordination with our ROK [Republic of Korea] partners, we will continue with our current military posture until we receive updated guidance,” a spokesperson told Reuters.

Trump’s announcement also came as a surprise to the South Korean government.

“At this point, we need to know President Trump’s exact meaning or intentions,” according to a statement released by the office of South Korean President Moon Jae-in. “However we think that it is crucial to pursue various solutions for better dialogue.”

The South Korean military appeared similarly taken aback, with NBC News quoting a statement as saying:

“Regarding President Trump’s comment regarding ending of the combined military drills … we need to find out the exact meaning or intention behind his comments at this point.”

Military officials from both countries, including the US defence secretary, James Mattis, had vigorously opposed curtailing joint military exercises, on the grounds that doing so would undermine the alliance and its deterrent against North Korea.

Kelly Magsamen, a senior Pentagon official dealing with Asian and Pacific security in the Obama administration, blasted the surprise suspension of military exercises and their disparagement as expensive and provocative “continues Trump’s disturbing pattern of undermining our democratic alliances while praising our adversaries”.

Then again, with North Korea having repeatedly said that any denuclearization could only take place if the US stops naval drills in the region, Trump’s surprise decision just may be the missing link that gets North Korea to finally do what generations of western leaders have failed to achieve.

Trump said the summit on Tuesday would be followed next week by more negotiations between US and North Korean officials to work out the details of the agreement.

In an amusing twist, before his press conference, reporters were shown a video that Trump said he had played to Kim and his aides towards the end of their talks. It was made by Destiny Productions and was presented in Korean and English in the style of an action movie trailer.

It sought to illustrate alternative futures for North Korea: one a bright, colourful world of scientific progress and happiness, the other a monochrome world full of weaponry accompanied by ominous music. Only one person could choose between these two destinies, the film’s narrator said.

*

Featured image is from VOA News.

A military coalition formally led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and supported by the United States and Britain, bombed a newly constructed cholera treatment in Yemen on Monday, June 11.

This attack comes after Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East, suffered through the worst cholera outbreak in recorded history, with more than 1 million cases reported in 2017 alone.

The cholera treatment center was operated by the humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders (known in French as Médecins Sans Frontières, or MSF). It was located in Yemen’s northwestern Hajjah Governorate, an area that has been heavily bombarded by Saudi Arabia for more than 3 years.

MSF said in a statement that the cholera treatment center had markings on the roof that clearly identified it as a healthcare facility. It added that the center has been destroyed and is now completely non-functional.

The U.S.-backed Saudi coalition has repeatedly bombed medical facilities in Yemen, including several operated by MSF.

The humanitarian organization tweeted photos showing the aftermath of the air attack:

"This morning´s attack on an @MSF cholera treatment centre in Abs by the Saudi and Emirati-led coalition shows complete disrespect for medical facilities and patients. Whether intentional or a result of negligence, it is totally unacceptable." pic.twitter.com/1PUEQXSmvE

— MSF Yemen (@msf_yemen) June 11, 2018

#MSF has temporarily frozen its activities in #Abs #Yemen until we guarantee the safety of our staff and patients."¨João Martins, MSF's Head of Mission #Yemen pic.twitter.com/H7WhLrtaJt

— MSF Yemen (@msf_yemen) June 11, 2018

João Martins, who directs MSF’s work in Yemen, said the airstrike “shows complete disrespect for medical facilities and patients.”

“Whether intentional or a result of negligence, it is totally unacceptable,” he said. “The compound was clearly marked as a health facility and its coordinates were shared with the SELC (Saudi and Emirati-led coalition).”

“With only half of health facilities in Yemen fully functional, nearly 10 million people in acute need, and an anticipated outbreak of cholera, the CTC (cholera treatment center) had been built to save lives,” Martins added.

No civilians were killed in this attack.

Saudi Arabia has in the past bombed numerous hospitals and other medical facilities in Yemen run by MSF, killing dozens of civilians. Some of these attacks have involved “double-tap strikes,” in which the coalition has returned minutes later to bomb first responders.

The military coalition has bombed Yemen since March 2015 in an attempt to push the rebel Houthi movement, which is formally known as Ansar Allah, out of power.

Although the coalition is formally led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, it enjoys significant assistance from the U.S. and U.K. Both countries have done hundreds of billions of dollars in arms deals with the Gulf regimes. Moreover, U.S. planes refuel Saudi jets, and American and British military officials have even physically been in the operation room for Saudi bombing.

Thousands of civilians have been killed by Saudi air strikes, which have devastated Yemen’s civilian infrastructure.

Due to the war, the medical system has effectively collapsed. Fewer than half the health facilitates in the majority of Yemen’s governorates are operational, and thousands of medical workers have gone more than a year without payment.

The United Nations World Health Organization reported in December that the number of suspected cholera cases in Yemen had reached a staggering 1 million, and this staggering figure has increased since then.

Despite this unparalleled humanitarian crisis, the UAE is pushing to accelerate the war in Yemen’s southwest. The U.S.-backed coalition is moving to attack the port city of Hodeida, which the U.N. has warned could lead to a massive catastrophe, in which millions of civilians starve.

*

Featured image is from the author.

The term “buffer zone” in land and at sea is used for land and sea areas, which were unilaterally and illegally declared by Israeli forces as areas with no access along the eastern and northern borders and in the sea of the Gaza Strip following the Israeli Disengagement Plan in 2005.

In violation of the provisions of the international humanitarian law, the Gaza Strip’s population are denied access to their property in the “buffer zone” in land while the fishermen are prevented from sailing and fishing in the “buffer zone” at sea . The area  of the buffer zone vary from time to time according to the Israeli forces declarations, without taking in consideration the international law that bans any changes to the occupied territories. According to Israeli forces instructions, the “buffer zone” extends to an area ranging between 100 to 1,500 meters in some eastern land borders, while ranges between 3 to 9 nautical miles in the Gaza Strip sea.

Israeli forces expanded the fishing area in the Gaza Strip from 3 to 6 nautical miles following the ceasefire agreement post November 2012 Israeli offensive. However, there is conflict over the Access Restricted Area (ARA) in land, which increases the risks endured by the Palestinian civilians. In a statement on his official website, the Israeli Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT) declared that fishermen could now access the sea up to 6 nautical miles offshore, and that farmers could now access lands in the border area up to 100 meters from the border fence. However, both references have since been removed from the statement, which obviously indicates the Israeli forces retreat of the abovementioned ceasefire. On 21 March 2013, the Israeli forces’ spokesperson announced re-reducing the fishing area allowed for Palestinian fishermen from 6 nautical miles to 3 nautical miles. The same announcement also included the re-expansion of the “buffer zone”  in land up to 300 meters. However, on 21 May 2013, the Israeli authorities decided to allow fishermen to sail up to 6 nautical miles.

Following the latest Israeli offensive on the Gaza Strip in 2014, a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Palestinian armed groups was brokered by the Egyptian government, which allowed fishermen to sail up to 6 nautical miles. However, the Israeli naval forces have not allowed fishermen to sail up to this limit. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) observed that all the Israeli attacks have taken place within less than 6 nautical miles. On 07 March 2015, the Israeli naval forces declared via loud speakers that the allowed fishing area reduced to 4 nautical miles and warned Palestinian fishermen from approaching this area along the Gaza Sea. On 01 April 2016, the Israeli authorities expanded the fishing area from 6 to 9 nautical miles between the area from Gaza valley to the southern Gaza Strip, while denied access to more than 6 miles in the other areas. On 03 May 2017, the Israeli authorities allowed fishermen to fish up to 9 nautical miles, instead of 6 nautical miles in the Sea in Gaza City and the northern Gaza Strip.

According to field updates followed up by PCHR, the Israeli occupation forces have escalated their attacks against the Palestinian civilians, including farmers and fishermen, and prevented them from safe and free access to their lands and fishing areas. This constitutes a violation of their rights according to the international human rights standards, including their right to security, personal safety and protection of their property, their right to work, the right to adequate standard of living, and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. Enforcing the “buffer zone” through the use of live fire which has often led to direct targeting of civilians, is a war crime, where killings under these circumstances constitute a wilful killing in grave violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

Attacks

May 2018

Consequences of attacks

1. Deaths and injuries

2. Property related violations

3. Detention

Notes:

• A civilian was arrested at Beit Hanoun “Erez”
• Seventeen civilians who were on board of the “Breaking the Siege” ship.
• Among the wounded were 27 journalists and 7 paramedics.

*

Featured image is from Green Left Weekly.

The ongoing war in Yemen has reached an even more deadly stage, as the Saudi-led coalition begins strikes against Hodeidah. 

The town includes the biggest port in Yemen, and has provided a vital lifeline for many across the country, with over 70% of Yemen’s imports, food and aid shipments flowing through it.

Humanitarian organisations have warned that strikes would be devastating. Save the Children said that vital aid will be cut-off and a further 340,000 people could be displaced.

Since the bombing of Yemen began in March 2015, the UK has licensed £4.6 billion worth of arms to the Saudi regime, including:

• £2.7 billion worth of ML10 licences (Aircraft, helicopters, drones)
• £1.9 billion worth of ML4 licences (Grenades, bombs, missiles, countermeasures)

It has also licensed substantial amounts of weaponry to the United Arab Emirates and the other regimes taking part in the ongoing bombing campaign.

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

 “The crisis in Yemen is one of the worst in the world, and almost every major aid agency and international organisation has warned that these strikes will make the situation even more dire.

There is no doubt that UK arms will play a central role in the bombardment. This terrible war could not have been fought without the complicity of politicians like Theresa May and her colleagues, who have armed and supported the Saudi-led coalition every step of the way.”

Featured image: President Trump and Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini. CreativeCommons, Shutterstock.

In a span of a little more than five months, North Korea and the United States have gone from trading verbal insults and mobilizing for war to engaging in vibrant diplomacy. Pyongyang now appears willing to consider eliminating its nuclear weapons and bringing an end to the state of war that has existed on the Korean peninsula since 1950.

Concurrent with this seemingly stunning progress, President Donald Trump has sought to change the rules of the game vis-à-vis Iran, pulling out of a multilateral nuclear accord that everyone (including the United States) agreed Tehran was abiding by. In doing so, Trump appears to be trying to recreate the formula that’s worked so well with North Korea—impose stringent economic sanctions while threatening military action should Iran be foolish enough to reopen its nuclear program.

But while Trump and Kim seem to be embracing peace and denuclearization, the devil is always in the details. When Trump and his team approached North Korea as a defeated nation bending to the will of the United States, negotiations collapsed; when North Korea was treated with respect and dignity, the negotiations were revived. How this translates into a manageable and verifiable disarmament agreement acceptable to all parties is not yet clear.

There are historical models out there that the Trump team can draw upon in framing an agreement. The lack of reciprocal disarmament makes the bilateral precedent of U.S.-Soviet arms control moot beyond the practical experience of organizing and implementing a robust on-site inspection regime. However, successful unilateral disarmament examples do exist. Both South Africa and Ukraine voluntarily gave up their nuclear arsenals without significant infringement on their sovereignties, and Ukraine, Belorussia, Kazakhstan, and (in a separate agreement) Argentina all surrendered their ballistic missile capabilities, again in a manner respectful of their sovereignty and national security.

Any agreement eventually reached with North Korea that eliminates its nuclear weapons, interconnectional ballistic missile capability, and limits its short- and medium-range missile force (as will be required by both Japan and South Korea) would do well to draw on those historical examples.

The one model that Trump and his advisors clearly won’t be turning to as a template for success is the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA—the Iran nuclear agreement negotiated in 2015 that Trump withdrew from last month. That agreement was the product of years of difficult and trying talks, conducted amidst concerted economic, political, and (to a lesser yet significant extent) military pressure on Iran. Despite those pressures, in the end the agreement that was reached was a compromise rather than a dictated solution. The West yielded on the issue of Iran’s right to have an indigenous uranium enrichment program, and Iran permitted unprecedented access by international inspectors to its nuclear and non-nuclear infrastructure.

The fact that the JCPOA was a product of compromise, rather than surrender, has stuck in the craw of the Trump administration. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, in his first major address since taking up his post, took on the challenge of articulating American policy towards Iran in the wake of Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, and in doing so seemed to sweep the notion of compromise right off the table. In a speech titled “After the Deal: A New Iran Strategy,” Pompeo outlined the Trump administration’s hardline approach to dealing with what he termed Iran’s “malign behavior” in a post-JCPOA world. Delivering broad-brush policy prescriptions that sounded more like ultimatums than negotiating positions, Pompeo’s speech seemed detached from reality, treating Iran as if it were a defeated nation instead of a regional power whose nuclear policies, though rejected by the Trump administration, are supported by Europe, China, and Russia.

In setting out the conditions under which the Trump administration would consider diplomatically re-engaging with Iran on nuclear issues, Pompeo listed a dozen steps Iran would have to fulfill that, when taken collectively, represented de facto terms of surrender that no Iranian political figure could ever agree to and hope to survive. That isn’t to say that the government in Tehran would be averse to negotiations of any kind—Iran had shown some flexibility in discussions with European parties prior to the American withdrawal on several of the issues contained in Pompeo’s 12-step program, including ballistic missiles, relations with Hezbollah, and a resolution to the Syrian crisis. There were some indications that Iran would even be willing to discuss ways to manage how it would proceed with enrichment once the so-called “sunset clauses” limiting the number of operational centrifuges expired.

The Trump administration, however, has shown no inclination towards engaging in negotiations of that sort. Pompeo’s speech was about more than simply rejecting the JCPOA—it was a virtual declaration of war against Iran. Many of the 12 preconditions set down by Pompeo were so preposterous—full Iranian withdrawal from Syria, termination of all extraterritorial activity by the Revolutionary Guards, permanent cessation of enrichment operations, no-notice inspections of military facilities—as to make it impossible for there to be any chance of a negotiated settlement with Iran.

This seems to be the true intent of Pompeo’s new Iran strategy: to break Iran economically to foster regime change from within, and, failing that, to defeat Iran militarily. In this, Pompeo seems to be drawing from the same playbook that led to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. What Pompeo and the others advising Trump on Iran policy seem to have forgotten is that the opening chapter of the Iraq playbook was the military defeat of Iraq in Desert Storm and the devastation of sanctions on the Iraqi economy and infrastructure. Iran today is neither defeated nor isolated, and the United States will learn the hard way that it will take much more than renewed economic sanctions and threats of military strikes to alter its policy.

When in the mid-2000s global pressure was initiated against Iran to constrain its nuclear program, it had fewer than 100 centrifuges in operation; when the JCPOA was signed in 2015, it had nearly 20,000. The notion that “maximum pressure” is the key to success is, simply put, unfounded. Trump began his presidency boldly proclaiming that North Korea would never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon or the means to deliver one to American shores; by early 2018, North Korea possessed a nuclear-tipped ICBM that could reach all of the United States. Trump was driven to negotiations by the reality of North Korea’s nuclear capability just as much as Obama was driven to negotiate with Iran because of the reality of its expansive uranium enrichment capacity. Obama and the rest of the world were compelled to deal with the reality of a sovereign, undefeated Iran when negotiating a solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. The result was the JCPOA Trump despises.

Trump is about to learn that he can bluster all he wants about “maximum pressure,” but North Korea is a sovereign, undefeated nation, and whatever disarmament deal that emerges from the U.S.-North Korean summit will be framed by the four corners of that reality. The Singapore summit is an accomplishment and Trump deserves credit for it. But getting North Korea to sit down at the table and getting North Korea to sign an acceptable disarmament agreement are two different things altogether. The irony is that, should these negotiations succeed, Trump may very well find himself defending a deal that more resembles the JCPOA in construct that the fanciful Iranian “surrender” envisioned in Pompeo’s speech.

*

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of Deal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West’s Road to War.

Featured image: President Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, walk together to their expanded bilateral meeting, Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at the Capella Hotel in Singapore. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Negative fallout ahead is more likely than overall ongoing afterglow continuing longer than short or perhaps intermediate term – the way US agreements most always play out.

Believing this time is different with the most extremist US regime in power is foolhardy at least, hugely dangerous at worst given Washington’s rage for regime change in all sovereign independent countries, North Korea no exception – not now, not earlier or ahead.

What follows Kim Jong-un/Trump summit talks will be playing out for months and years to come – most likely for ill, not good.

Post-summit talks, Trump stunningly said “war games are very provocative. It is inappropriate to be having” them, ending them in East Asia clearly not about to happen, adding:

“The sanctions will come off when we are sure the nukes are no longer a factor.”

(Denuclearization) takes a long time scientifically.”

Trump is erratic, unpredictable, contradictory and disingenuous – often doing something entirely different from what he says, trusting him and bipartisan hardliners infesting Washington sure to disappoint.

Nuclear related sanctions on Iran were only partially rescinded. The Obama regime breached the JCPOA straightaway, betraying the Islamic Republic, never getting key benefits promised – well before Trump pulled out altogether.

Make what you will out of him saying

“(w)e are are going to take care of a very big and very dangerous problem for the world.”

Agreed on positive change is meaningless unless and until it unfolds as pledged – the rare exception to the rule in US dealings with most nations, notably sovereign independent ones.

A new chapter in bilateral relations may be no different than what’s gone on for decades.

A NYT commentary claimed “Trump was outfoxed in Singapore…hoodwinked” by Kim Jong-un, adding:

“Kim forced the American president, through his nuclear and missile tests, to accept North Korea as a nuclear equal, to provide security guarantees to North Korea, and to cancel war games with South Korea that the North has protested for decades.”

“…Trump seems to have won astonishingly little” in return.” The framework agreement reached lacked details.

The devil is always in them, what’s unknown so far, the jury very much out until they’re known at a later time, along with actions by both countries going forward to play out in the months and years ahead.

The historical record isn’t encouraging. Betrayal defined US/North Korea relations before. Nothing positive between both countries ever happened. Earlier deals agreed on collapsed, Washington fully to blame, not Pyongyang.

Why expect a new leaf by Washington toward the DPRK now when never before under less extremist US regimes than Trump’s.

The Times complained about what wasn’t in the joint statement – relating to its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, along with inspections for verification of specifics agreed on.

That’s not what a framework statement is all about – following a few short hours of Kim/Trump talks and preparatory pre-summit ones preceding them, details to come later.

They’ll likely unfold incrementally, both sides testing each other to assure pledges made are fulfilled – never before by Washington in dealing with the DPRK, no reason to think this time will be different.

For now, things have come a long way from Trump’s “fire and fury like the world has never seen” threat and rage to “totally destroy” North Korea to “develop(ing) a very special bond” with Kim, along with calling talks “a good prelude to peace.”

Have “rocket man” Kim and “dotard” Trump become buddies? Far from it! The threat of US betrayal haunts unfolding events ahead like always before.

Deplorable US duplicity is likely to surface, shattering hopes for durably stepping back from the brink on the Korean peninsula for real.

DPRK leadership is well aware of what it’s up against in dealing with any US regime.

A breakthrough for peace and normalized bilateral relations with Pyongyang is less likely under Trump than his predecessors.

The fullness of time will have final say. Then we’ll know the outcome of unfolding events. Tuesday talks barely scratched the surface. The hard stuff hasn’t begun.

*

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

Since 2001, Global Research has been delivering critical analysis to its readers as well as direction for the questions we should be asking.

If you look to our website as a resource for information and understanding, to stay current on world events or to experience diversity and transparency in your news, please consider making a donation to Global Research.

Global Research is an independent organization that is funded exclusively through the support of its readers.

We should mention that we are currently running a monthly budget deficit. 

Every contribution helps us continue to bring you the up-to-date, incisive information that you count on.

Support Global Research.

*     *     *

Historic Kim Jong-un/Trump Agreement? Hold the Cheers!

By Stephen Lendman, June 12, 2018

Washington doesn’t negotiate in good faith, especially with sovereign independent countries like North Korea – demanding everything in return for what inevitably becomes empty promises.

US hostility toward the DPRK has been implacable since the late 1940s, irreconcilable differences separating both countries.

Full Text of Trump-Kim Joint Statement at Historic Summit in Singapore

By The White House, June 12, 2018

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Trump/Kim Meeting Shows Value of Policy over Politics

By Rep. Ron Paul, June 12, 2018

The neocons demand that North Korea give up all its bargaining chips up front in return for vague promises of better relations with the US. Yet in the post-Libya era no serious person would jump at such an offer. Their biggest fear is that peace may break out and they are doing everything to prevent that from happening. Conflict is their livelihood.

The Democrats Out-Right the Right on North Korean Summit

By Ajamu Baraka, June 12, 2018

The Democrats asserted that the planned summit could only be judged successful if the North Koreans agreed to dismantle and remove all their nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, end all production and enrichment of uranium, dismantle its nuclear weapons infrastructure, and suspend ballistic missile tests.

How Corporate Media Got the Trump-Kim Summit All Wrong

By Gareth Porter, June 12, 2018

The idea that North Korea could not possibly agree to give up its nuclear weapons or its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) has become an article of faith among the journalists covering the issue for big media. Two themes that have appeared again and again in their coverage are that the wily North Koreans are “playing” Trump and that previous administrations had also been taken by North Korea after signing agreements in good faith.

There is a wonderful line, from where I do not really know (or care) that says it all: “So much is gained when only one person stands up and says… NO!” For those of us who  see through the hype and spin of this empire, our nation is on the precipice of economic and moral ruin. This black hole or abyss runs deep, away from the ‘seas of reason’ that founded this republic. The Gordon Gecko character in Oliver Stone’s masterpiece film Wall Street expressed what the movers and shakers of this current Military Corporate Empire hold dear: “Greed is good.” Thus, we working stiffs, who make up the overwhelming majority of our population, are always on the receiving end of their ‘anal shaft’.

Sadly, it matters not, in the grand scale of things, who of this Two Party/One Party con job has the final word. Yes, the far right wing of this empire’s political system  is always the worst offender. Yet, looking at the other, the right of center Democratic Party wing, they too carry the water for their warmongering corporate masters. Mr. Trump may be the epitome of Gordon Gecko’s legacy, but the Obamas and Clintons did their due diligence to protect the empire too. Here’s the kicker: you look at all of the G-7 leaders and should realize that they ALL serve their individual nation’s super rich. ALL of them! They may hide things a bit better than people like ‘The Donald’, but in the end their own working stiffs are on the receiving end of that anal shaft.

When the mainstream media is controlled so thoroughly by the uncles, aunts and children of Gordon Gecko, we working stiffs never get the truth. Talk about ‘Fake News’; they decide what news we all get handed to us by their talking heads. When was the last time you heard on the mainstream news shows (and even many so called ‘independent media’ shows) that over HALF of your federal tax dollars goes towards military spending? Imagine how many fiscal problems could be solved if even half of that half went elsewhere? Name a need of choice of your own to loosen the cherished safety net, and see how much  of that $ 150 + BILLION could be diverted that way. Imagine if the Congress acted primarily for the interests of the majority of us, how they could stop the funding of these phony wars on other nations, close most of the 1000+ foreign military bases, and send home our cherished military personnel.

It is time for we working stiffs to get out on the street corners of our towns and cities to demand change. All it takes is a well worded sign and some courage to counteract our foolish propagandized  neighbors, even just for ONE HOUR a week… same time and same place. That is how we who ‘know better’ can better educate our fellow citizens about the truth. Try it… you may like it.

*

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 300 of his work posted on sites like Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Counterpunch, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected]

Featured image is from the author.

Can President Donald Trump’s white, rural and older base in America be ever moved from their granite-like mindset that seedy operatives and duplicitous right-wing spinsters on GOP-controlled media and church pulpits solidified since the days of Goldwater and Nixon? They are the card-carrying smug Republican patriots with children sometimes aghast at their ignorance or children so indoctrinated by them that a deeper racism and bigotry has now so divided the country that comparisons made to days preceding the Civil War and War of Independence are not too far-fetched.

Make no mistake about it: racism and bigotry are the roots of the Trump phenomena. It is directed against people of color, gender, sexual orientation, immigrants, people of non-Christian beliefs, people espousing human rights and world peace, people opposed to the war machine, people who dare insult “the flag”, people who detest and counter the libertarian creed of neoliberalism and market-based governance, or people who simply protest, disagree, dissent or oppose the deadly anti-democratic forces now undermining this nation. The word “democracy’ is hardly uttered by Republicans; instead, they chant money, profits, markets, GDP and the one word that rivets the voter’s attention and excels beyond all other canards to gain votes: TAXES!

Money, markets, taxes, profits, greed, ruthless competition, do-or-die economic Darwinism, material wealth, property values, consumerism – this is the religion that now grips this once-great nation and threatens its birthright; for America is no longer the great hope of the world but under the spell of its aspiring world autocrat, President Donald J. Trump, is quickly becoming the world’s pariah.

Donald J. Trump is not God’s chosen saviour of America as some evangelicals continue to believe. He is a demagogue and tyrant. He is the choice of the very ones who turned reality on its head when they applied those labels to Barack Obama. He is the choice of the very ones who turn the Sermon on the Mount on its head by sadistically denying government assistance to help cloth the naked, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless. Republicanism is the choice of those seniors who vote to take away future health care benefits from their very own children and grandchildren while lavishly consuming Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid for themselves – benefits awarded them by FDR in 1930s and LBJ in the 1960s (Democrats all!). They, together with the mushrooming forces of wealth, corporatism and Wall Street, have turned The Great Society on its head and installed the John Birch Society in its place.

Because of the Republicans’ allegiance to a political party that champions, justifies and coddles a lawless, anarchic president who disdains legality, human rights, freedom of speech and the press – if not the actual Constitution itself – the children and grand-children of elderly Republicans should be asking them: “Why do you, who benefit the most, vote to steal health care, unemployment benefits and other safety net programs from me, should I ever need them? Why?” They should be asking them, “Why do you preach God and call yourself Christians when your party revokes every unambiguous injunction given in the Gospels? You are hypocrites!” They should be asking them, “Why do you support a party that deregulates powerful corporations and is taking away every legal protection we have against business malfeasance, malpractice and corruption?” They should be asking them, “Why do you vote to give industry the right to pollute and emit poisons into your own, mine and your own grandchildren’s bloodstreams?”

Donald J. Trump is no leader of the free world, and the party of Trump – the Republicans – is leading this nation into a death spiral. He and they do not deserve to be called leaders of the free world, or the G7 or of any American who cherishes justice, freedom, equal rights and democratic rule. He is the leader of those voters (less than half in the 2016 election) who wish to advance bigotry, racism, xenophobia, nationalism and hatred for each and every social and humanitarian advance achieved by our nation over the last century. The Trump-evangelical is no Christian and the Trump-nationalist is no patriot.

The present American dilemma fraught with extreme division is on par with similar periods preceding the Civil War and War of Independence. It is worthy of the title Founder Thomas Paine gave his broadside, “The American Crisis”.

Citizens of the Western world, if not the entire world, are asking themselves, “How could that great nation elect such a man as Trump?” “Why hasn’t he been stopped?”

The answer is found in studying the details of the “Crisis”. But if the Trump phenomena advances in America without restraint, and metastasizes to other Western democracies, liberal democracy itself will be buried.

“These are the times that try men’s souls,” wrote Paine in 1776 – as true today in America as then.

Americans had used the doctrine of popular sovereignty–“democracy”–as the rationale for their successful rebellion against English authority in 1776. Today Red state, far-right and libertarian Republicans often quote Ben Franklin who upon leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was ask by a group of citizens, “What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?” Franklin replied, “A republic if you can keep it.” The question today isn’t whether America will remain a republic; it is what type of republic will America become under continued right-wing Republican control? A tyrannical one like the Republic of North Korea and People’s Republic of China, or will it remain the republic that gave the world its template of democracy?

The November elections will be a verdict on these questions of whether this great nation will remain a democracy or become an authoritarian right-wing plutocracy benefiting the most wealthy at the expense of all others.

Today, Dr. Franklin, if asked, might clarify his answer, “You still have a republic and it will remain one, but it is more. You also have a democracy.

“Will you keep it?”

*

Michael T. Bucci is a retired public relations executive from New Jersey currently residing in New England. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Source

Richard R. Beeman, Ph.D., “Perspectives on the Constitution: A Republic, If You Can Keep It”

Featured image: US B-26 Invaders bomb logistics depots in Wonsan, North Korea, 1951. (USAF photo/National Archives)

Faked and baked ‘news’ promoting mainstream American media has maximized world attention on the ongoing negotiations between American President Donald Trump and Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong-Un in Singapore. In American media the United States of Americans is identified as heroic and the North Korea of Koreans is identified as something beyond the pejorative, a terrible place and communist no less.

Though it probably matters very little that the First World audience of American entertainment and news conglomerates mostly accepts hook line and sinker, criminal media characterization of the two nations Trump and Kim represent, let us hope a good part of majority humanity in the Third World remembers at least some of the real history of American and North Korean behavior in Korea. It is to the Third World that one must look for the salvation of the specie homo sapiens. Nobel Prize in Economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz says that this shall be “The Chinese Century.” Whenever there are critical negotiations with Americans it can plausibly be a matter of life and death that the nations involved in negotiating be honestly identified. 

If not openly stated, it should be kept in mind during the negotiations in Singapore that Americans are indelibly identified as having long begun a holocaust for the three nations of French Indochina, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in the name of anti-communism about the same time as its second invasion of Korea for the same openly declared reason, anti-communism.

The North Koreans can be clearly identified as having invaded South Korea on June 25th, 1950, as the forces of South Korea’s unloved leader Syngman Rhee immediately collapsed, several crack units of the South Korean military defecting to the North, while South Korean police and soldiers who remained loyal to Syngman Rhee devoted nearly as much time and energy to hunting down and murdering Rhee’s domestic political opponents—perhaps as many as 100,000 of them, just during the summer of 1950—as they did to defending their country from the North Korean attackers. [see documentation by the South Korea Truth and Reconciliation Commission further down in this essay] 

The North Koreans completed their occupation of Seoul in just four days. In less than a month, North Korean forces gained control of almost the entire country, with South Korean troops—and their American allies, just beginning to arrive in Korea—confined to a small area around Pusan, at the very southern tip of the Korean Peninsula. In less than a month the North Koreans had reunified their country. 

During the first American invasion, Americans had unceremoniously cut Korea in two, overthrown a democratically elected Korean government the departing Japanese had allowed to be formed, declared US military law, and eventually installed in the south what would be the mass murderous dictatorship of Syngman Rhee (who was flown in from Washington in General MacArthur’s plane).

For further identification of past American behavior in Korea, we can turn to an unlikely US source, the criminal media-giant all-wars-promoting Washington Post newspaper, which in 2015 published former Post reporter, Blaine Harden’s piece on its opinion page: 

The U.S. War crime in 1950 North Korea Won’t Forget. Quote:

“The story dates to the early 1950s, when the U.S. Air Force, in response to the North Korean invasion [of what had been the southern part of their own country], “ bombed and napalmed cities, towns and villages across the North. It was mostly easy pickings for the US Air Force, whose B-29s faced little or no opposition on many missions. The bombing was long, leisurely and merciless, even by the assessment of America’s own leaders. “Over a period of three years or so, we killed off — what — 20 percent of the population,” Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay, head of the Strategic Air Command during the Korean War, told the Office of Air Force History in 1984. Dean Rusk, a supporter of the war and later secretary of state, said the United States bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.” After running low on urban targets, U.S. bombers destroyed hydroelectric and irrigation dams in the later stages of the war, flooding farmland and destroying crops. 

Although the ferocity of the bombing was criticized as racist and unjustified elsewhere in the world, it was never a big story back home. U.S. press coverage of the air war focused, instead, on “MiG alley,” a narrow patch of North Korea near the Chinese border. There, in the world’s first jet-powered aerial war, American fighter pilots competed against each other to shoot down five or more Soviet-made fighters and become “aces.” War reporters rarely mentioned civilian casualties from U.S. carpet-bombing.” 

It is still the 1950s in North Korea and the conflict with South Korea and the United States is still going on,” says Kathryn Weathersby, a scholar of the Korean War. “People in the North feel backed into a corner and threatened. There is real value in understanding this paranoid [“paranoid”?] mind-set. It puts the calculated belligerence of the Kim family into context. It also undermines the notion that North Korea is merely a nut-case state…

Since World War II, the United States has engaged in an almost unbroken chain of major and minor wars in distant and poorly understood countries. Yet for a meddlesome superpower that claims the democratic high ground, it can sometimes be shockingly incurious and self-absorbed. In the case of the bombing of North Korea, its people [Americans] never really became conscious of a major war crime committed in their name.” [The Washington Post, March 24, 2015]

Is this American self-absorbed unconsciousness something that Kim might try to address in Singapore negotiations? As negotiations continue, will Kim remind Trump of the massive death and destruction North Koreans suffered during the American invasion, and the suffering in the North intended by Americans during the nearly seventy years of a US international economic blockade? 

Since the North Koreans seek a peace treaty, will they try to hold Americans to some responsibility for creating two Koreas, for installing a mass murderous dictatorship in the South? Will Kim try bring up the grim findings of the South Korea Truth and Reconciliation Commission set up by the South Korean National Assembly in 2005, as a way of explaining the North’s decision to invade.

Image on the right: South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung

South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung (once condemned to death under military governments), established a first Truth Commission in 2000. When this Commission completed its work in 2004, the Parliament felt that a further, much broader Truth and Reconciliation Commission was needed to examine Japanese colonialism, the partition of the Peninsula, and decades-long anticommunist dictatorships. In 2005, the South Korean Assembly therefore enacted a law establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Here are excerpts of Commission member of five years Prof. Kim Dong-choon’s article for Asia-Pacific Journal, March 1, 2010, titled: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Korea:  Uncovering the Hidden Korean War -The Other War: Korean War Massacres:

“Few are aware that the South Korean authorities as well as US and allied forces massacred hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians at the dawn of the Korean War on June 25, 1950. The official records of government, military and police, as well as survivor testimonies, reveal that mass killings committed by South Korean and U.N forces occurred before and during the Korean War (June 1950 to July 1953). These incidents may be categorized into four types.

The first category involves summary executions of civilians and political prisoners suspected of opposing or posing a threat to the ROK (Republic of Korea) regime.The second category involves the arrest and execution of suspected North Korean collaborators by the ROK police and rightist youth groups. … 

The second category involves the arrest and execution of suspected North Korean collaborators by the ROK police and rightist youth groups. …

The third category includes killings conducted during ROK counterinsurgency operations against communist guerillas.The ROK employed a three-all policy (kill‐all, burn‐all, loot‐all), which was a scorched earth policy used by Japanese Imperial forces while suppressing anti‐Japanese forces in China. [Officers of the Southern armed forces were made up of Koreans who fought in the Japanese Army, whereas the cadre of the Northern armed forces were Korean guerrillas who had distinguished themselves fighting the Japanese in Manchuria.]

Counterinsurgency atrocities also occurred in North Korean occupied territory. As the ROK police and rightist youth groups followed the U.S. military across the 38th parallel, they encountered people they suspected to be communists and collaborators. A typical massacre occurred in Sinchon (a county located in southern North Korea). North Korea accused American troops of killing 35,380 civilians, but newly released documents disclose that right‐wing civilian security police, assisted by a youth group, perpetrated the massacre.

The fourth category involves civilian and refugee deaths from bombings and shootings in U.S. combat operations.

A History of Silencing Bereaved Families and Oppressing Memories of Atrocities

The Jeju Island April 3 incident of 1948 occurred shortly before the first general election, and was unique in the number of victims, and the lasting effect on the Jeju Island. Since the incident occurred during the period of US military government, the operation, which resulted in numerous civilian deaths, was conducted under the sponsorship of U.S forces. Embedded in a strong collective regional identity, the Jeju people’s tragedy became a popular theme for novels and poems. The world’s most famous artist Pablo Picasso painted his masterpiece Massacre in Korea. There is a wall in Jeju Island Peace Memorial Park with the names of the estimated 30,000 Jeju uprising victims.  While the final report of committees of investigation failed to confirm or spell out a US or UN role, it concluded that 86% of the 14,373 deaths reported were committed by security forces including the National Guard, National Police, and rightist groups. 

After the 1960 student uprising toppled the U.S.‐supported Rhee Syngman government, bereaved families initiated a series of demonstrations to demand investigation into mass killings during the war. In response to the large number of petitions from bereaved families, the National Assembly quickly organized the Special Committee on the Fact‐finding of Massacres. However, after the May 16 Coup in 1961, the new military government disrupted these efforts by arresting and prosecuting the leaders of the association and demolishing the joint cemetery. These actions sent a clear message that any person attempting to raise the issue of truth verification on deaths during the Korean War would be regarded as a communist and considered a threat to the state.

For 27 years (1961‐1987), under the military dictatorship, all sympathetic discourse on raising awareness of massacres was subject to prosecution. The bereaved families suffered severe discrimination as authorities systematically marginalized them from civil society and politics and placed them under police and Korea Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) surveillance.

Frantic anti-communism paralleled the rise of McCarthyism in the U.S., heavily influencing South Korea’s political atmosphere from 1953 onward and resulting in society’s collective amnesia over the mass killings committed by ROK and U.S. troops.

Politicians and major media outlets under the authoritarian regime were reluctant to cover or even mention the incidents. This attitude continued down to today as authorities and the media repeatedly ignore investigations and the pleas of heartbroken victims.  [Asia-Pacific Journal, Volume 8 | Issue 9 | Number 5, March 1, 2010]

Kim Dong-choon is a former Standing Commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, ROK, and professor of sociology, SungKongHoe University, Seoul. He served the Korean government as a standing commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission from December 1, 2005 to December 10, 2009 As a commissioner, he directed the first government investigation of the Korean War massacres since the incidents. His book, The Unending Korean War, has been translated into German, Japanese, and English. He wrote this article for The Asia-Pacific Journal.

In 2008, President Ro Moo-Hyun made an official apology on behalf of the state for the massacres of the Korean War.

In 1996, Chun Doo-hwan, former South Korean army general who ruled as the President of South Korea from 1979 to 1988, ruling as an unelected coup leader was sentenced to death for his role in the Gwangju Massacre His successor as president, Roh Tae Woo, was sentenced to 22 1/2 years in prison. The Gwangju Uprising, alternatively called May 18 Democratic Uprising by UNESCO^, and also known as May 18 Gwangju Democratization Movement.  This past February 2018, it was revealed for the first time that the army had used McDonnell Douglas MD500 Defender and Bell UH-1 Iroquois attack helicopters to fire on civilians. Defense Minister Song Young-moo made an apology.

Mangwol-dong cemetery in Gwangju where victims’ bodies were buried (Source: CC BY-SA 3.0)

This frenzy of defamation and murder of communists in South Korea and in so very many other defenseless nations after the Second World War took place in the so called ‘Free World,’ still run by the white racist Colonial Powers with nearly half of the world’s non-Caucasian population either outright colonial subjects or under the control of the empires of Europe and America. 

Your author, who has Korean family and lived in Korea for six years, has never met a Korean happy that his or her dear family member was ‘saved’ from living under a communist party run government by a violent death brought about by an American war in Korean’s own beloved country. From my experience all Koreans, there is only one Korea, and the northern part is looked up to for being a less Westernized behavior and practice of Korea’s sensitive traditional arts, culture and traditions.

Most of the families and friends of the millions of people in countries like Korea and Vietnam, who were designated to be ‘better dead than red’ as in the slogan preached by Americans, don’t realize that these US crimes were, and still are, prosecutable under the Nuremberg Principles of International Law, and that some day they might well receive financial compensation once Americans are no longer in the neocolonial driver seat, and a reconstituted United Nations is providing courts to adjudicate lawsuits for compensation for millions of unlawful deaths and injuries, indemnity for ultra massive destruction of property and reparations for mega theft of natural resources.

It would make little sense if the reality of the decades long American backed murderous military dictatorships in South Korea, both before, during and after the American Korean War, is left out of what is discussed, for it is the key to understanding the history up to today. And if Americans decide it be in their interests to be a friend of all Koreans, they might remember President Theodore Roosevelt cut off relations with Koreans and recognizing Korea as territory of the Japanese Empire in return for Japanese recognition of the Philippines as territory of the United States of America. President Woodrow Wilson made it official. So, after suffering thirty-five years of deadly brutal Japanese occupation, the US and Soviet Armies occupied Korea, as just that, the territory of Japan rather than with respect for the ancient nation of Korea.  

No one can change bitter human history, but accepting the real honest history of horrific even genocidal events, though improbable soon given the necessity of imperialist media to maintain the horrendous lies and falsehoods of the past, will eventually be unavoidable when all documentation becomes uncovered. The job of an archival research peoples historian is to make that eventuality arrive just a little earlier than otherwise.

In the meantime, we monitor influential criminal media, fed by neocolonial capitalism’s covert agency, CIA (‘Criminally Insane Assassins’ not Central Intelligence Agency), and continue to write tracts encouraging majority humanity to have confidence in a future featuring major sources of truthful information and an eventual just world of noble citizens.

*

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India and in the US by Dissident Voice, Global Research; Information Clearing House; Counter Currents and others; now resides in NYC.

Everything about this summit is in the showy warm-up run.  “I am on my way to Singapore,” tweets US President Donald J. Trump, “where we have a chance to achieve a truly wonderful result for North Korea and the World.”  Such descriptions from America’s ever hustling television president tend to become child like, whether glowingly or indignantly. On this occasion, he was glowing. 

“It will be certainly an exciting day and I know that Kim Jong-un will work very hard to do something that has rarely been done before”.

Detractors and sceptics were fretting in the woodwork.  Former US Representative from Florida David Jolly was one:

“Under scrutiny from loyal allies, Trump chooses to strengthen his alliance with Putin and Kim Jong Un.”

The slip into psychobabble becomes easy:

“Notwithstanding geopolitical consequences, it demonstrates a grown man unable to hold his own among peers, so instead seek affirmation among adversaries willing to provide it.”

Holding the summit on Sentosa Island suggested a deliciously disturbing twist. Now a resort destination drawing some 20 million visitors a year dotted by theme parks, beaches and Singaporean state propaganda, it had been known as Pulau Belakang Mati, “island of death from behind.”  During the Second World War, summary executions of members of the Singaporean Chinese population were common on the island, as were instances of brutality towards British and Australian servicemen after their surrender to the Japanese in 1942.

This past did not distract. The two hefty figures approached before their flags.  Pressed the flesh.  Exchanged remarks.  Before them stood two flags displayed with equal relevance (the free world types would have quaked), and a display that preceded an initial discussion between the two leaders.  Importantly, that discussion was unencumbered by the machinery that has historically done as much to scupper smooth sailing than anything else.  Only the two interpreters accompanying them at the initial stage will ever know.

The horror that this television, social media tart of a figure might pull off a durable peace venture is not something that is missed by journalists and pundits.  The press conference was filled with baffled queries:  What about Kim’s appalling human rights record? What of the actual details, the sort usually left for the mechanists to worry about after the photo snaps are taken.

This did not bother Trump. He had a show to perform, and accordingly ran it.

“There is no limit to what North Korea can achieve when it gives up its nuclear weapons and embraces commerce and engages with the rest of the world.”

For Trump, reminders were important, and praise directed when required: the Chairman “has before him an opportunity like no other to be remembered as the leader who ushered in a glorious new era of security and prosperity for his people.”

Then came that other horror: one of legitimacy.  Both men, meeting alone, initially unencumbered by their advisors and policy staff; both, shaking hands and standing in front of their respective flags, levelling, legitimising, making those present complicit.  This very fact would have made those familiar with the cultic regime padded by its ideological doctrine of Juche uncomfortable.  It also showed the DPRK chairman that he had scored what was, some months ago, the unthinkable, and, more to the point, the unfathomable.

A curious perversion was effectively at play.  To have reached this point necessitated a nuclear program that effectively terrified and tormented US strategists with sufficient bite to take Kim seriously.  To bargain it away in the absence of various onerous security guarantees supplies the greatest talking point of all.  The White House mythology is to see different triggers: crippling sanctions, maximum, pig-headed pressure, the indignation of the “Little Rocket Man” school of rhetoric.

Details of the Sentosa agreement have been sparse; the fastidious bookish types will be left disappointed.

“President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK,” went the salient part of the joint statement, “and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

Much of the previous work done to get the two leaders to Singapore was simply reiterated.  The Panmunjom Declaration, signed by South Korea and the DPRK after the April 27 meeting committing both states to the complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, was reaffirmed.

If words are weapons to be forged, then some were sufficiently sharp to draw some attention.  “Mutual confidence-building” measures were deemed essential to promote the goal of denuclearisation.  Both states committed “to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.”  A “lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula” would be worked towards.  Then, something for the populist metre was also inserted for the voters back home: a commitment to recover US “POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.”

No timetable could be ventured on denuclearisation, the word that is keeping the astrological fraternity in international relations teased, but this did not stop Trump from insistent vagueness (“very soon” he hazarded and “as fast as it can mechanically and physically be done”).  Sanctions, Trump observed, would “come off when we are sure that the nukes are no longer a factor.”

For one thing, both men insisted that what was signed did not necessarily incorporate what was said.  Matters were tagged on, as if in a fit of absentmindedness.  At stages during a press conference that resounded of Dada experimentation, Trump would tantalise journalists with remarks about record keeping – or its lack of. “We have notes or something,” he claimed offhandedly about the discussions.

As ever, Twitter, with its brevity and short bursts of attention was a source to return to.

“Great progress was made on the denuclearization of North Korea.  Hostages are back home, will be getting the remains of our great heroes back to their families, no missiles shot, no research happening, sites closing”.

The end, perhaps, of a certain beginning, done from behind.

*

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

The US is rolling out a new approach for managing the emerging Multipolar World Order, and the Trump-Kim deal is expected to be its centerpiece in showing other countries what the New Washington Consensus entails.

America’s Response To Multipolarity

The successful Trump-Kim Summit in Singapore saw the two leaders agree to begin the process of North Korea’s denuclearization and to strengthen their relations with one another. It’ll undoubtedly be a long process despite what Trump said about his expectation that it’ll move along real fast, but the point of this analysis isn’t to critique the language used by either leader or the words included within the document that they both just signed. Rather, it’s much more constructive to explain what the US is trying to achieve from all of this in a grand strategic sense and its overall relevance in the context of the New Cold War. The US is well aware that it’s lost its unipolar edge over the years as the emerging Multipolar World Order has become inevitable through the coordinated efforts of Russia and China, though this statement of fact doesn’t mean that America’s global hegemony is anywhere close to finished.

In response to this systemic challenge, the US has been pressed into pioneering a new multilateralism through its “Lead From Behind” (LFB) model of regional management which sees subordinated Great Powers such as India and Japan “contracted” to advance American foreign policy goals in which they’re led to believe that they have a shared interest. The Great Power constellation that the US is creating in order to “contain China” runs from Japan to Indonesia and India, with the smaller- and medium-sized states in between them the object of competition between the US’ LFB partners and the People’s Republic. This strategic network is expected to be economically maintained through the Indo-Japanese “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” (AAGC) that its founders want to complement, but also compete with, China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) global vision of New Silk Road connectivity. The main selling point is that it’s supposed to provide an alternative to China for developmental assistance and trading ties.

The Illusion of Choice

It’s that prevailing idea of presenting a choice to China that’s expected to become the most attractive characteristic of the AAGC, which itself can be conceptualized as the economic front for the US’ LFB strategy of new multilateralism in confronting the challenge of the emerging Multipolar World Order. Unipolarity is fading, but it’s not completely gone, at least not yet, and the previous world system marked by the Washington Consensus of American-centric neoliberal trading networks still persists. In fact, a polar reorientation of sorts is in the process of taking place whereby China is replacing the US as the center of globalization while the US is replacing China as the new champion of protectionism. In fact, the US’ Indo-Japanese allies are also somewhat protectionist in the sense that they have yet to fully open their markets to the unrestricted entrance of Chinese goods and services out of the fear of their mutual neighbor overwhelming their economies, despite it already being their top trading partner.

The concept at play is that the US wants the AAGC to function as a semi-protectionist Afro-Pacific trading bloc whose main appeal is that it provides a credible alternative to China, though the credible part of this equation has yet to be seen. Most of the “Global South” is already working on deepening its OBOR connectivity with China due to the expectation that they’ll receive win-win benefits by throwing their lot in with Beijing’s model of Silk Road Globalization, believing that this new framework will provide a more balanced and equal stake for them in the emerging world system than tying their fates to the New Washington Consensus, which is perceived as just a rebranding of the old system that exploited so many of them. The US’ Indo-Japanese LFB Great Power proxies are in essence providing a multipolar front to the perpetuation of an originally unipolar system whose strings are still pulled by the US through its management of this reformed systemic model.

Not only does this particular observation cast doubts on the credibility and ultimate success of the AAGC, but so too does the obvious fact that India and Japan are entering the connectivity game much later than China is and therefore can only position themselves as the “anti-China”, or in other words, embrace a “negative identity” of being opposed to something else instead of a positive/constructive one in building something new  (seeing as how this framework is pretty much just retaining a reformed version of the old system). What Trump urgently needs in order to more convincingly sell this model to the rest of the world is a credible success story that showcases how the New Washington Consensus can deliver results to those who are trying to “balance” China, which is where the American-North Korean rapprochement comes in because of the potential that it has for doing just that if everything goes according to plan.

Setting Up The Summit

As it currently stands, China has monopolized a large chunk of its neighbor’s economy, not out of any malicious or neo-imperial intentions but simply because it’s been the only lifeline to the “Hermit Kingdom” since the Soviet Union collapsed and Moscow cut off all of its previous aid to the country. For all practical intents and purposes, China controls the North Korean economy, an open secret that’s known to even the most casual observers even if it’s “politically incorrect” to publicly say and is regularly denied by Beijing. The never-ending international sanctions had the effect of scaring off most other investors, and Russia entered the game way too late in the past couple of years to make any tangible difference. Moreover, by the time that Moscow got interested in North Korea’s economic potential as a transit state connecting the investment-hungry but energy-rich Far East region with cash-flush but energy-poor South Korea, international sanctions became tighter, and Russia itself also signed onto them together with China.

The cumulative effect of this latest development, particularly in terms of China’s honest participation in the latest round of sanctions (for reasons related to its unease at having a nuclear-armed neighbor play the “useful idiot” in bringing American anti-missile infrastructure closer to its borders), was that North Korea had little choice other than to negotiate with the US and reconsider its nuclear capabilities. Faced with the real fear of experiencing another nationwide famine such as the one that reportedly struck the country in the 1990s, Chairman Kim’s immediate interests were purely economic, and he painfully came to perceive of his “big brother” in the north as a Great Power who isn’t above playing political games in pursuit of its self-interests. In China’s defense, its global strategy of multipolarity was being endangered by what it considered to be Kim’s recklessness in engaging in so many nuclear and missile tests, but regardless, the bonds of trust were irrevocably broken between these two.

That, however, doesn’t mean that North Korea regards China as an “enemy”, but just that the young Kim had a rude awakening in terms of how the real world works, learning first-hand that slogans of ideological solidarity about a shared “communist struggle” don’t compensate for his country’s disadvantageous position as a pawn on the Hyper-Realist “19^th-Century Great Power Chessboard”. Disheartened by this realization and likely feeling some natural resentment towards his former benefactors, Kim decided to enter into unprecedented denuclearization talks with the US, though prudently taking care to involve China in all manner of his consultations so as not to inadvertently make an actual enemy out of it given how easily this very sensitive situation could have turned into a fast-moving security dilemma between Pyongyang and Beijing had he not had the wisdom to do so. Seeking sanctions relief and a “counterbalance” to China, Kim ultimately agreed to the Singapore Summit with Trump.

Hollywood Hopes

Having predictably been briefed on the psychological-economic factors that drove Kim to come to the Singapore Summit and in all likelihood agree beforehand on what the outcome of this historic event would be, Trump came to the event with the fullest of confidence but also with a secret ace up his sleeve to sweeten the deal that he was about to publicly clinch with his counterpart. It’s now been revealed that Trump showed Kim a Hollywood-style four-minute video extolling the economic and developmental benefits that North Korea could receive if its Chairman chooses the right path at this once-in-a-lifetime crossroad that the film dramatically hints he was fated to appear at. Evidently, Kim must have really enjoyed the promising message that was conveyed because all of his body language immediately after his private viewing of this film with Trump during their one-on-one meeting was exceptionally positive and radiated happiness, sincerity, and confidence as he agreed to advance his country’s denuclearization.

The futuristic footage of North Korea experiencing “First World”-level development after the successful implementation of a forthcoming denuclearization deal is probably premature and would take some time to enter into effect even under the most ideal and fast-moving of conditions, but it’s this promise of a materialistically better life for his country and its citizens that must have ultimately convinced Kim to go forward with this plan. There are of course very serious concerns that Bolton and Pence’s invocation of the so-called “Libyan model” was a bad omen presaging Kim’s eventual overthrow and assassination just like what happened to Colonel Gaddafi after agreeing to something similar roughly a decade and a half ago, though there’s also the chance that the US has an even greater self-interest in actually keeping its word and showcasing North Korea as a successful example of the New Washington Consensus, with the symbolism of this being all the more powerful given how much animosity had previously existed between these two countries prior to the summit.

The US has more to gain in a grand strategic sense by protecting North Korea and doing good on its pledge to develop it into a “First World” state (taking advantage of its citizens’ low wages, the country’s rare earth mineral wealth, and its location between China and South Korea) than to turn it into a failed state like it did to Libya. China is strong enough to protect itself from a prospective North Korean collapse, which would mostly harm South Korea and possibly even Japan if it led to Pyongyang lobbying a few nuclear missiles at their capitals out of last-minute desperation prior to being destroyed, but China would have a comparatively more difficult time confronting would be the emergence of a credible alternative to OBOR, namely if North Korea was held up as the model of how beneficial it could be it other countries joined the New Washington Consensus. With one-time anti-American Kim as its literal poster boy, the soft power appeal would be tremendous.

Concluding Thoughts

There’s always the possibility that Trump has deceived Kim and that the US forced North Korea into strategic submission through what can only be speculated might have been a new military technology that compelled him to enter into a “dignified surrender” as per the public relations spectacle that’s presently unfolding, but it also can’t be overlooked that the US might actually surprise the world by keeping its word and turning North Korea into the centerpiece of the New Washington Consensus. Trump himself seemed to hint at this happening by putting his business reputation on the line after emphasizing North Korea’s real estate potential, which dovetails with the dramatic images of “First World” luxury that were shown to Kim after his private viewing of the Hollywood-style film designed to allay any remaining reluctances that he may have had going into the summit.

The US’ interlinked strategic and narrative modus operandi in responding to the challenges of the emerging Multipolar World Order is to present itself and its LFB (and especially AAGC) partners as a credible alternative to China and its OBOR, with specific (and likely decontextualized) attention being drawn to what will probably be framed as Beijing’s predatory financial practices and market monopolization motivations in order to win over more hearts, minds, and ultimately countries in this New Cold War competition that’s being fought largely over competitive connectivity. There’s no more symbolic of a country to advertise as the success of the New Washington Consensus than North Korea considering its storied history of sincere anti-Americanism since the moment of its founding, with the message being that any country can cooperate with the US in “balancing” against China if even Kim of all people chose this path for his countrymen.

This elaborated vision is wholly dependent on North Korea completely and irreversibly fulfilling its denuclearization pledge and the US subsequently honoring its side of the bargain by turning the country into an economic powerhouse. There’s plenty that can go wrong between now and then even under the best circumstances of both sides being sincerely committed to carrying out this game-changing quid pro quo, be it natural differences that might arise throughout the course of negotiations and implementation (to say nothing of those that might be externally provoked through a third party’s interference) or internal sabotage by one or the other’s “deep state” operatives, but as of now, both sides seem to have entered into this agreement in good faith. That being the case, in the event that the “best-case” scenario that they’re both aiming to actualize is achieved, then the economic embodiment of the American-North Korean rapprochement could change the entire global dynamic of the New Cold War.

*

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 immitate.com.

Excerpts from a Daily Mail interview with President Bashar

President Bashar al-Assad has launched a furious attack on Britain, America and their allies, accusing them of deliberately prolonging the civil war in Syria.

Dismissing Theresa May as a colonialist and a liar, the Syrian leader claims Britain even helped stage April’s notorious chemical attack in the suburb of Douma and that its actions are giving support to the Islamic State terror group.

Today, in a rare and defiant interview, a man widely regarded as a pariah for his repressive regime – and widespread accusations that he has used chemical weapons – refuses to accept an iota of blame.

Instead, he places responsibility for the duration of the seven-year conflict squarely at the feet of Britain and America. Western powers, he says, should get out of Syria and allow the bloodshed to end.

Assad is in an outspoken mood – and believes he has good reason to be confident. Today, for the first time in six years, his forces are in full control of the Syrian capital while, thanks to the support of Russian and Iranian allies, rebel fighters and IS are firmly in retreat.

Watch the interview here.

‘I have always said that in less than a year we can solve this conflict, it’s not complicated,’ he tells me. ‘What has made it complicated is the external interference. The more we advance, the more support terrorists have from the West.

‘So, we think the more advances we make politically and militarily, the more that the West, especially the US, UK, and France, will try to prolong it and make the solution farther from the Syrians.’

‘The story you’re talking about [is] that this is a bad president; he’s killing his own people, and the world is against him,’ he says. ‘But he’s been in his position for seven years while he’s fighting everyone in this world. Can you convince your readers of this? It’s not logical. It’s not realistic. This president is in his position because he has the support of his own people.

‘We are fighting the terrorists and those terrorists are supported by the British Government, the French government, the American and their puppets.’

‘We consider the White Helmets to be a PR stunt by the UK. So yes, definitely, it was staged by these three countries together and the UK is involved.’

‘It was a lie. After we liberated that area our information confirmed the attack did not take place,’ he adds. ‘The British Government should prove with evidence that the attack happened, and then they should prove who is responsible. This did not happen.’

‘Britain and the US attacked Iraq illegally in 2003,’ he insists. ‘[They] killed millions, caused mass destruction, let alone the number of widows and amputees.’

‘This is colonial policy, that’s how we see it, and this is not new. They have never changed this policy… that existed in the beginning of the 20th century,’ he says.

‘For the US, the UK and France [their presence in Syria] is illegal. It is an invasion, they are breaching the sovereignty of Syria. They don’t accept anyone who has a different point of view.

‘The past five years have proved that I was right. Look at the terrorism spreading all over the world because the chaos that is supported by the West in Syria.

‘Syria is very independent in its political positions. We work for our national interests, we’re not a puppet state.’

‘The West supported the war from the very beginning and it supported the terrorists. The West is responsible first of all.’

Read complete Daily Mail article

*

Featured image is from Daily Mail Online.

Mentre si spacca il G-7 per effetto della guerra dei dazi, gli stessi litiganti si ricompattano rafforzando la Nato e la sua rete di partner. La proposta tattica di Trump di ripristinare il G-8 – mirante a imbrigliare la Russia in un G-7+1, dividendola dalla Cina – è stata respinta dai leader europei e dalla stessa Ue, che temono di essere scavalcati da una trattativa Washington-Mosca. La ha approvata invece il neo-premier italiano Conte, definito da Trump «un bravo ragazzo» e invitato alla Casa Bianca. La strategia resta però comune. Lo confermano le ultime decisioni prese dalla NATO, di cui sono principali membri Stati uniti, Canada, Germania, Francia, Gran Bretagna e Italia, più il Giappone quale partner, ossia tutte le potenze del G-7.

La riunione dei 29 ministri della Difesa (per l’Italia Elisabetta Trenta, 5 Stelle) ha deciso all’unanimità il 7 giugno di potenziare la struttura di comando in funzione anti-Russia, accrescendo il personale di oltre 1200 unità; di costituire un nuovo Comando congiunto per l’Atlantico, a Norfolk negli Usa, contro «i sottomarini russi che minacciano le linee di comunicazione marittima fra Stati uniti ed Europa»; di costituire un nuovo Comando logistico, a Ulm in Germania, quale «deterrente» contro la Russia, con il compito di «muovere più rapidamente le truppe attraverso l’Europa in qualsiasi conflitto».

La «mobilità militare» è al centro della cooperazione NATO-UE, che in luglio verrà rafforzata da un nuovo accordo. Entro il 2020 la NATO disporrà in Europa di 30 battaglioni meccanizzati, 30 squadriglie aeree e 30 navi da combattimento, dispiegabili entro 30 giorni o meno contro la Russia. A tal fine, come richiesto dagli Usa, gli alleati europei e il Canada hanno aumentato la loro spesa militare di 87 miliardi di dollari dal 2014 e si impegnano ad accrescerla. La Germania la porterà nel 2019 a una media di 114 milioni di euro al giorno e pianifica di accrescerla dell’80% entro il 2024. Germania, Francia, Gran Bretagna, Canada e Italia, mentre al G-7 in Canada litigano con gli USA sui dazi, in Europa partecipano sotto comando USA all’esercitazione Saber Strike che, mobilitando 18000 soldati di 19 paesi, si svolge dal 3 al 15 giugno in Polonia e nel Baltico a ridosso del territorio russo.

Gli stessi paesi e il Giappone, gli altri sei membri del G-7, parteciperanno nel Pacifico, sempre sotto comando USA, alla RIMPAC 2018, la più grande esercitazione navale del mondo in funzione anti-Cina. A queste prove di guerra, dall’Europa al Pacifico, partecipano per la prima volta anche forze israeliane. Le potenze occidentali, divise da contrasti di interesse, fanno fronte comune per mantenere con qualsiasi mezzo – sempre più la guerra – il dominio imperiale del mondo, messo in crisi dall’emergere di nuovi soggetti statuali e sociali.

Nel momento stesso in cui in Canada si spaccava il G-7 sulla questione dei dazi, a Pechino Cina e Russia stipulavano nuovi accordi economici. La Cina è il primo partner commerciale della Russia, e questa è il primo fornitore energetico della Cina. L’interscambio tra i due paesi salirà quest’anno a circa 100 miliardi di dollari. Cina e Russia cooperano allo sviluppo della Nuova Via della Seta attraverso 70 paesi di Asia, Europa e Africa.

Il progetto – che contribuisce a «un ordine mondiale multipolare e a relazioni internazionali più democratiche» (Xi Jinping) – viene osteggiato sia dagli USA che dall’Unione europea: 27 dei 28 ambasciatori della Ue a Pechino (salvo l’Ungheria) sostengono che il progetto viola il libero commercio e mira a dividere l’Europa.

In crisi non è solo il G-7, ma l’ordine mondiale unipolare imposto dall’Occidente.

Manlio Dinucci

Il manifesto, 12 giugno 2018

Video (PandoraTV) em italiano à

Most of the following quotes come from the thorough, extended article entitled “Psychiatry: Science or Fraud?” from ChemtrailsGeelong.com.

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends than that good men should look on and do nothing.” — John Stuart Mill

“[The DSM] is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document. To its credit it says so, although its brief apologia is rarely noted… Some take it seriously, others more realistically. It is the way to get paid… The issue is what do the categories tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with a problem? They don’t, and can’t, because there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder. So, where are we? [The American Psychiatric Association] as an organization has implicitly (sometimes explicitly as well) bought into a theoretical hoax. Is psychiatry a hoax—as practised today? Unfortunately, the answer is mostly yes.” – Loren Mosher, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, and Chief of the Center for Studies of Schizophrenia in the (US) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH, 1968–1980), and ex-American Psychiatric Association (APA) member

“Modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness…Patients [have] been diagnosed with ‘chemical imbalances’ despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and…there is no real conception of what a correct chemical ‘balance’ would look like.” — Dr. David Kaiser, Psychiatrist (US)

“There is a great deal of scientific evidence that stimulants cause brain damage with long-term use, yet there is no evidence that these mental illnesses…exist.”…”Despite more than two hundred years of intensive research, no commonly diagnosed psychiatric disorders have proven to be either genetic or biological in origin, including schizophrenia, major depression, manic-depressive disorder, the various anxiety disorders, and childhood disorders such as attention-deficit hyperactivity. At present there are no known biochemical imbalances in the brain of typical psychiatric patients—until they are given psychiatric drugs.” — Dr. Peter Breggin, US Psychiatrist and author of many books on the subject of psychiatric fraud, including “Toxic Psychiatry”, “Your Drug May Be Your Problem”, “Brain Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry”, “Talking Back to Prozac”, etc

“While there has been “no shortage of alleged biochemical explanations for psychiatric conditions…not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later proven false … No claim for a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation.” — Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, US psychiatrist, Harvard University Medical School and author of “Prozac Backlash”

There’s actually in fact dozens of studies showing that there isn’t any measurable imbalance, so [for example] psychiatrists will explain to patients all the time, “this is just like diabetes, in diabetes you have low insulin, we have to readjust the insulin level, in depression you have low serotonin, we have to readjust the serotonin level”, but actually we have already proven that there is nothing wrong with the serotonin levels, it’s completely a myth disproven by our own evidence.” — Dr. Colin Ross, Psychiatrist, President of the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (Canada)

“Within a few months of starting psychiatry, I was realizing there was something seriously wrong with it. It was immediately obvious to me that the psychiatrists were making claims…which simply were not justified in biology. But if you stand up and say that: ‘what you are doing, ladies and gentleman, is not science, it’s pseudoscience’, then you are challenging what’s holding the whole profession together…I think secretly [psychiatrists] know, deep inside, that if anybody criticizes this or examines this too closely it might fall apart. This…whole mess is held in place by the single injunction that ‘mental disorders are brain disorders’. That false claim is the single intellectual hook that holds this edifice in the air, that stops it all collapsing in a heap. They just make this claim: ‘mental disease is brain disease’, but that, as I’ve said, is an ideological claim. People are being told: ‘you have a chemical imbalance of the brain, which is genetically determined, and you’ve got it for life, and there’s nothing you can do about it, and you will forever be limited and restricted and you must take these tablets, which will dampen your creativity, your sensitivity, your awareness, and your sexuality, you’ve gotta do this because you’re ‘sick’, and we can see it, but you can’t. Now that to me is the catastrophe that has to be exposed.” –– Dr. Niall McLaren, Psychiatrist, Former head of Dept. of Psychiatry, Repatriation Hospital, (Australia)

“When psychiatrists label a child [or adult], they’re labeling people because of symptoms. They do not have any pathological diagnosis; they do not have any laboratory diagnosis; they cannot show any differentiation that would back up the diagnosis of these psychiatric ‘diseases’. Whereas if you have a heart attack, you can find the lesion; if you have diabetes, your blood sugar is very high; if you have arthritis it will show on the X-ray. In psychiatry, it’s just crystal-balling, fortune-telling. It’s totally unscientific.” — Julian Whitaker, MD (US)

“I think the use of so-called ‘psychiatric treatment’ is very effective as a political weapon in controlling the masses…If we were to have a mandatory ‘mental health screening’ as they like to call it, not only of all young people in school but all adults and everybody, it would become a terribly effective tool in the hands of totalitarians because surely you could find something in everybody’s questionnaire if they answer questions honestly: “Have you ever had feelings of anxiety or sadness?”; “Are you ever unhappy with what the government does?”… When you look at the area of psychiatry it becomes particularly worrisome because many people are not sensitised to the political implications of using that field…If we’re not willing to challenge and if we’re already afraid that somebody’s going to put this label around us, then we’ve already lost, there’s no turning it around… the time has come for us to stand on our conviction, to know what is right, to take the risks and stand for freedom.” — G. Edward Griffin

“While DSM has been described as a ‘Bible’ for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary… The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever.” — Thomas Insel, MD, the Director of the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). (Dr Insel stepped down from the NIMH in 2015)

“I want no part of a psychiatry of oppression and social control. ‘Biologically based brain diseases’ are certainly convenient for families and practitioners alike. It is no fault insurance against personal responsibility. We are all just (supposedly) helplessly caught up in a swirl of brain pathology for which no one, except DNA, is responsible… The fact that there is no evidence confirming the brain disease attribution is, at this point, irrelevant. What we are dealing with here is fashion, politics and money. This level of intellectual /scientific dishonesty is just too egregious for me to continue to support by my membership.” — Loren Mosher, Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, and Chief of the Center for Studies of Schizophrenia in the (US) National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH, 1968–1980), and ex-American Psychiatric Association (APA) member

“I believe, until the public and psychiatry itself see that DSM labels are not only useless as medical ‘diagnoses’ but also have the potential to do great harm—particularly when they are used as means to deny individual freedoms, or as weapons by psychiatrists acting as hired guns for the legal system.” — Dr. Sydney Walker III, Neuropsychiatrist (US) and author of “The Sherlock Holmes of Neurology”

“More and more problems have been redefined as ‘disorders’ or ‘illnesses’, supposedly caused by genetic predispositions and biochemical imbalances. Life events are relegated to mere triggers of an underlying biological time-bomb. Feeling very sad has become ‘depressive disorder’. Worrying too much is ‘anxiety disorder’. Excessive gambling, drinking, drug use or eating are also illnesses. So are eating, sleeping, or having sex too little. Being painfully shy has become ‘avoidant personality disorder’. Beating people up is ‘intermittent explosive disorder’. Our Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has 886 pages of such illnesses. … Making lists of behaviors, applying medical-sounding labels to people who engage in them, then using the presence of those behaviors to prove they have the illness in question is scientifically meaningless. It tells us nothing about causes or solutions. It does, however, create the ‘reassuring’ feeling that something medical is going on.” — John Read, Professor of Clinical Psychology (US)

“The fact of the matter is that there is no such disease (objective abnormality = disease) as ADHD. It is a contrived, faux disease – an illusion. This being the case, children said to have it are normal/disease-free and giving them ADHD drugs, or any psychiatric drugs, is not treatment, but poisoning. Once Ritalin or any psychiatric drug courses through their body, they are, for the first time, physically, neurologically, biologically, abnormal.”…”Saying any psychiatric diagnosis…is a brain-based problem and that the medications are normalizing function’, is an anti-scientific, pro-drug, lie – one that reflects FDA and government policy generally.”…”There is nothing more despicable than a physician who knowingly tells normal patients that they are ‘sick’, ‘ill’, or ‘diseased’, for profit. Yet this has become standard practice throughout medicine.”…”You at the FDA mandate the medical treatment of ADHD. Where is the proof that ADHD is a disease? Give us that reference, that citation. Right now please. Give us the reference-citation to the examination or test that demonstrates an objective abnormality child-by-child. The members of the panel provided me with no such references/citations either at the time of my request or at any time before, during, or after the day-long conference.” – Dr. Fred Baughman, Jr, Pediatric Neurologist (US), (from testimony at the [FDA] meeting of the Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee, 2006)

“All psychiatrists have in common that when they are caught on camera or on microphone, they cower and admit that there are no such things as chemical imbalances/diseases, or examinations or tests for them. What they do in practice, lying in every instance, is abrogating the informed consent right of every patient and poisoning them in the name of ‘treatment’ is nothing short of criminal.” — Fred Baughman Jr., Pediatric Neurologist (US)

“No behavior or misbehavior is a disease, nor can it be a disease. That’s not what diseases are. Diseases are malfunctions of the human body, of the heart, the liver, the kidney, the brain. Typhoid fever is a disease. Spring fever is not a disease; it is a figure of speech, a metaphoric disease. All mental diseases are metaphoric diseases, misrepresented as real diseases and mistaken for real diseases.” — Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus

“Psychiatry [makes] unproven claims that depression, bipolar illness, anxiety, alcoholism and a host of other disorders are in fact primarily biologic and probably genetic in origin… This kind of faith in science and progress is staggering, not to mention naïve and perhaps even delusional.”… “It has occurred to me with forcible irony that psychiatry has quite literally lost its mind, and along with it the minds of the patients they are presumably supposed to care for.” — David Kaiser, Psychiatrist (US)

“In short, the whole business of creating psychiatric categories of ‘disease’, formalizing them with consensus, and subsequently ascribing diagnostic codes to them, which in turn leads to their use for insurance billing, is nothing but an extended racket furnishing psychiatry a pseudo-scientific aura. The perpetrators are, of course, feeding at the public trough.” — Dr. Thomas Dorman, Internist and member of the Royal College of Physicians (UK)

“These people have no ethics at all. They’re morally bankrupt. They’re like the grave robbers in old England who provided cadavers for the medical schools.” — Paul McDevitt, Mental Health Counsellor (US)

“Legal, synthetic, dependency-inducing and increasingly unaffordable, brain-altering, intoxicating prescription psych drugs, just like their illegal, addictive, dependency-inducing, unaffordable, brain-altering, and intoxicating counterparts on the street, can permanently damage the brain cells and circuits. But neither the legal psych drugs nor the illegal street drugs ever cure anything. Perhaps the most nefarious difference between the legal drugs and the illegal drugs is that the legal ones create permanent, brain-altered, addicted patients for often well-meaning practitioners and the pharmaceutical industry, while the illegal drugs create permanent, brain-altered junkies for street-level dealers. That reality is great for both businesspersons, whether legal or illicit, but bad for the addicted user/abuser.” … “Iatrogenic, prescription-drug-induced suicidality, incidentally, is just one of the hundreds of adverse drug-effects that Big Pharma, Big Medicine, Big Media and almost all of our elected, Big Pharma-bribed legislators refuse to acknowledge. To the members of those groups, the drug-addicted junkie that over-dosed in the alley with a dirty needle in his arm is just an easily over-looked personal immorality issue for despised.” — Gary G. Kohls MD, Holistic Mental Health Practitioner (US)

“[While there has been] no shortage of alleged biochemical explanations for psychiatric conditions…not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was thought to have been found, it was later proven false.”…“No claim for a gene for a psychiatric condition has stood the test of time, in spite of popular misinformation.” – Joseph Glenmullen, Harvard University Psychiatrist (US) and author of “Prozac Backlash”

*

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, prosperity, democracy, civility and the health and longevity of the planet and the populace. Many of his columns are archived at

http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/gary-g-kohls;

http://duluthreader.com/search?search_term=Duty+to+Warn&p=2; or at

https://www.transcend.org/tms/search/?q=gary+kohls+articles

The UK has been accused of trying to “fudge” how much money it spends on subsidising coal mining and fossil fuel use despite its pledge to phase out environmentally harmful subsidies by 2020. 

The country ranked first on its commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies but last on transparency in a new study led which ranks each G7 country on ending support for the production and use of oil, gas and coal ahead of a group meeting which starts in Canada on Friday.

The UK does not provide national reports on its fiscal support for fossil fuel production and consumption and the government has repeatedly denied providing fossil fuel subsidies. However, the report states that the UK is providing subsidies in the form of tax breaks for oil and gas exploration in the North Sea and the decommissioning of oil.

Researchers also argue that the UK is using public finance through the UK Export Finance, a government agency which underwrites loans to boost British companies’ exports, to support fossil fuel projects abroad – a finance stream they say the government should be counting as a subsidy.

A government spokesman said the UK was meeting its G7 targets since it has “no inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” following an assessment by the International Energy Agency.

He added: “We are leading the world in tackling climate change, delivering the biggest carbon reductions of any G7 nation over the last 25 years.”

Inconsistencies

The authors of the report have pointed out to the inconsistency between the UK government’s climate commitments and its failure to recognise it is still handing out generous support for fossil fuel use.

Matthew Crighton, of Friends of the Earth Scotland, told DeSmog UK the UK and Scottish goverments should be developing a joint approach for a transition away from fossil fuels rather than encouraging oil and gas exploration and production in the North Sea.

He said:

“By providing financial support for the enormously wealthy oil and gas industry whilst giving crumbs to renewables, the UK government is backing the wrong technologies and drastically slowing the much-needed just transition to clean energy. They should convert subsidies to fossil fuel extraction into incentives for the fossil fuel industry to move rapidly to develop the energy supplies of the future, not to get locked into systems which we know we will have to abandon.”

The study found that the world’s seven major industrial democracies spent at least $100 billion (£70 billion) a year to prop up oil, gas and coal consumption at home and abroad in 2015 and 2016 despite their pledge to end fossil fuel subsidies by 2025.

While France topped the overall ranking, the UK scored the fourth lowest score out of seven and the US was last. The data analysed does not cover the Trump administration.

Shelah Whitley, head of the climate and energy programme at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and lead author of the report, told DeSmog UK the research found that all G7 countries had increased their support for fossil fuel exploration since countries committed to limit global temperature rise “well below” two degrees under the Paris Agreement in 2015.

Describing the finding as “shocking”, she added:

“Increased support for fossil fuel exploration is one of the most egregious activities that countries can be doing and directly counters their pledges under the Paris Agreement. Yet, they are still doing it.”

Scientists have previously warned that more than 80 percent of global coal reserves, half of all gas reserves and more than a third of the world’s oil reserves had to stay in the ground to prevent dangerous global warming of more than two degrees.

Co-author Ivetta Gerasimchuk, from the International Institute for Sustainable Development, said:

“G7 governments committed to phase-out fossil fuel subsidies back in 2009, but since then have made very little progress.

“At the same time, less wealthy countries with similar commitments made under the G20, such as India and Indonesia, have reduced subsidies by billions of dollars. The richest countries must demonstrate leadership in ending handouts to fossil fuels.”

Transparency

The UK has made a series of commitments to phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.

As part of the G7 it pledged to end all fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. As part of the EU, the UK also agreed to cut all environmentally harmful subsidies by 2020 and end subsidies to hard coal mining by 2018.

Despite these pledges, the UK is the only G7 country with Japan which has not yet undertaken a peer review into its fossil fuel subsidies.

The report urged the UK to take part in the peer review arguing that “this should be a high priority for the country if it is to demonstrate transparency and accountability in meeting its international commitments”.

While the UK government says it is not subsidising fossil fuel production or consumption, Whitley, of ODI, said the UKgovernment was using its own definition of what counted as a fossil fuel subsidy.

She added that the evidence used by the ODI and others to track subsidies showed that the UK was handing out such subsidies and suggested this was a fact the government may be trying to “hide”.

She said:

“They are trying to fudge it. They’ve made their own definition of subsidies, they say they don’t have any but refuse to take part in a peer review, which is suspicious. If there isn’t any subsidies, they shouldn’t be afraid of taking part in the peer review.”

Whitley added that G7 countries did not have a system in place to track progress made in phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and warned that unless the group of developed countries put a system in place to hold themselves accountable, they won’t be able to reach the 2025 target.

Polluting abroad

According to Whitley, an estimated one billion pounds of UK public finance was spent on fossil fuel projects abroad mostly through the UKEF, which helps British companies enter the supply chain of major overseas projects.

While the UK government does not consider this to be a subsidy other global organisations do.

Whitley said the World Trade Organisation (WTO) included public finance money spent abroad as a subsidy and that the OECDwas developing a similar approach.

DeSmog UK has previously reported that the UKEF was spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to underwrite loans and guarantees supporting fossil fuel projects abroad — locking some developing countries into decades of fossil fuel use.

Some of the key countries which have received UK guarantees and public finance for oil and gas exploration and/or production include the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Brazil, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Singapore, and Vietnam.

At the end of last month, international trade secretary Liam Fox visited the UAE and Bahrain to support 68 projects worth more than £30 billion to investors. The nature of the projects were not revealed.

Brazil has also been the focus of Fox’ department. Internal documents obtained by freedom of information requests previously revealed Fox told executives at oil giant BP earlier this year about his recent trip to Brazil, adding “now is a great time to get into Brazil”.

It was later revealed that trade minister Greg Hands lobbied Brazilian officials on behalf of BP and Shell over taxation and environmental regulation, two months after BP’s meeting with Fox.

Eight countries also received public finance support for oil and gas-fired power projects, including Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Turkey, Ukraine and the UAE.

According to the report, 14 percent of UKEF credit exposure was to the oil and gas sector last year.

Supporting coal mining

The report ranked the UK fifth out of seven for supporting coal mining.

The finding comes despite the UK having launched the Powering Past Coal Alliance with Canada last year and pledged to end unabated coal by 2025.

Researchers found that although support for domestic coal mining was equivalent to zero in 2015 and 2016, support was still granted in the form of extraction allowance and abandonment costs.

Whitley added that the UK rated poorly compared to other countries because the subsidies were calculated relatively to the country’s GDP.

In 2016, the UKEF also provided a guarantee for the underwriting of coal mining equipment in Russia.

Whitley said remaining support for coal mining was “notable” and she urged the government to follow the lead of others countries which successfully ended that support.

This comes as DeSmog UK reported on the stories of the people of Kuzbass in Siberia, where coal production has been described as “hell on earth” and some of it is reported to be exported to the UK.

*

Featured image is from Creative Commons/Pexels/Pixabay/CC0

Featured image: This photo shows the aftermath of a Saudi-led airstrike against an MSF-supported cholera treatment center in Yemen’s northwestern province of Hajjah, on June 11, 2018. (Photo by MSF)

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) says it has “temporarily frozen” its humanitarian activities in northwestern Yemen after an airstrike carried out by warplanes of a Saudi-led military coalition hit a cholera treatment center run by the international medical charity.

“This morning’s attack on an MSF cholera treatment center by the Saudi and Emirati-led coalition shows complete disrespect for medical facilities and patients,” said Joao Martins, MSF’s head of mission in Yemen, in a statement on Monday.

His comments came hours after Saudi-led fighter jets struck a newly-built clinic of MSF in the Abs district in the northwestern province of Hajjah. Martins said that the center had been empty at the time of the airstrike, hence, left no casualties.

He added that the facility’s roof clearly identified it as a medical center and that its coordinates had been previously given to the so-called Saudi-led coalition.

“MSF has temporarily frozen its activities in Abs until the safety of its staff and patients is guaranteed,” Martins further said.

Since July 2015, the international charity group has been supporting the Abs hospital, which according to the MSF, is just one kilometer away from the cholera treatment center targeted on Monday.

On August 15, 2016, a Saudi-led airstrike ripped through part of the Abs hospital, killing 19 people, including an MSF staff member. It also inflicted injuries to 24 others. Shortly after the deadly aggression, MSF suspended operations in several facilities in the country’s north.

However, the group returned to Abs in last November after the hospital’s reconstruction was complete. Since then, MSF has employed some 200 national workers and a dozen international medical professionals.

In December 2016, the so-called coalition admitted that it had hit the MSF-supported hospital due to an “unintentional mistake.”

MSF’s renewed halt in operations comes just four days after the International Committee of the Red Cross announced that it had evacuated 71 staff members from Yemen due to security concerns.

Saudi Arabia and its allies launched the war on Yemen in March 2015 to install a former regime that had been loyal to Riyadh.

The Yemeni Ministry of Human Rights announced in a statement on March 25 that the Saudi-led war had left 600,000 civilians dead and injured until then.

The war and an accompanying blockade have caused famine across Yemen. The United Nations says a record 22.2 million people are in need of food aid, including 8.4 million threatened by severe hunger.

The Saudi aggression has also taken a heavy toll on the country’s facilities and infrastructure, destroying many hospitals, schools, and factories.

Since 2016, the impoverished nation has also been grappling with a deadly cholera outbreak, which has already killed thousands of people.

Several Western countries, the US and the UK in particular, are accused of being complicit in the aggression as they supply the Riyadh regime with advanced weapons and military equipment as well as logistical and intelligence assistance.

I recently was asked to speak at an online conference entitled Deep Truth: Encountering Deep State Lies. My panel addressed Understanding Zionism: Deconstructing the Power Paradigm and my own topic was How Jewish Power Sustains the Israel Narrative. Working on my presentation, I was forced to confront the evolution of my own views on both the corruption of government in the United States and the ability of powerful domestic lobbies to deliberately distort the perception of national interests to benefit foreign countries even when that activity does terrible damage to the U.S.

My personal journey began half a century ago. I became part of the U.S. national security state after being drafted for the Vietnam War when I graduated from college in 1968. I was at the time, vaguely pro-war, having bought into the media argument that international communism was mounting a major threat in southeast Asia. I also found the anti-war student movement distasteful because I was acquainted with many of its spokesmen and knew that they were chiefly motivated by a desire to avoid the draft, not due to any perception that the war itself was wrong or misguided. I knew a lot about the Punic Wars but precious little about former French Indochina and I suspect that those chanting “Ho-ho-Ho Chi Minh” might have known even less that I did.

Because I spoke some Russian, I wound up in an army intelligence collection unit in West Berlin for three years where I and my fifty or so comrades did absolutely nothing but drink and party. It was my introduction to how government really works when it was not working at all and it did provide me with GI Bill money to go to grad school. After my PhD came a relatively easy transition to CIA given the fact that my degree was so obscure that no one but the government would hire me.

The journey from an army unit that was asleep at the wheel to the CIA, which was in full downsizing crisis mode post-Vietnam, was educational. Whereas the army was too bloated and complacent even to fake it, the Agency was fully capable of creating crises and then acting like the defender of American interests as it worked to resolve the various situations that it had invented. The war against Eurocommunism, which I was engaged in, was hyped and billed as the next great threat against the American way of life after the Vietnam blunder, swallowing up resources pointlessly as neither France, nor Spain nor Italy ever came close to entering the Red orbit.

As I climbed up the CIA ladder I also noticed something else. There was the equivalent of a worldwide conspiracy to promote threats to keep big national security-based government well-funded and in place. When I was in Turkey I began to note considerable intelligence liaison reporting coming from the Israelis and others promoting their own agendas. The material was frequently fictional in nature, but the danger was that it was being mixed in with more credible reporting which gave it traction. U.S. government consumers of the reporting would inevitably absorb the dubious viewpoint being promoted that Arabs and Iranians were fundamentally untrustworthy and were in bed with the Soviets.

There was considerable negative reporting on Saddam Hussein also coming out of Israel and motivated by his support of the Palestinians. Some of this ultimately surfaced in the Pentagon’s Paul Wolfowitz-Doug Feith assessments of “intelligence that had been missed” which eventually became pretexts for the catastrophic Iraq War. I later learned that both Feith and Wolfowitz had a virtually revolving door of Israeli intelligence officials and diplomats running through their Pentagon offices in the lead-up to that war.

It did not take much to connect the dots and realize that Israel, far from being a friend and ally, was the principal catalyst for the many missteps that the United States has made in the Middle East. U.S. policy in the region was being deliberately shaped around Israeli concerns by American Jews ensconced in the Pentagon and White House who certainly knew exactly what they were doing. No one should blame the Israelis for acting in their own self-interest, but every loyal American should blame the Libbys, Feiths and Wolfowitzes for their willingness to place Israeli interests ahead of those of their own country.

After my departure from government in part over my disagreement with the Iraq War, this willingness to place the United States in peril to serve the interests of a foreign country began to bother me, and there is no country that manipulates the U.S. government better or more persistently than Israel. I gradually became involved with those who were pushing back against the Israel Lobby, though it was not generally referred to in those terms before Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer produced their seminal work The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy in 2006.

It does not take a genius to figure out that the United States is deeply involved in a series of seemingly endless wars pitting it against predominantly Muslim nations even though Washington has no vital interests at stake in places like Syria, Libya and Iraq. Who is driving the process and benefiting? Israel is clearly the intended beneficiary of a coordinated effort mounted by more than 600 Jewish organizations in the U.S. that have at least as part of their programs the promotion and protection of Israel. Ironically, organizations that promote the interests of a foreign government are supposed to be registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA) but not a single pro-Israel organization has ever done so nor even been seriously challenged on the issue, a tribute to their power in dealing with the federal government.

Those who are in the drivers’ seat of the Israel promotion process are what some would describe as the Israel Lobby but which I would prefer to call a subset of the Jewish Lobby, which in itself is supported by something I would designate Jewish Power, an aggregate of Jewish money, control over key aspects of the media and entertainment industries plus easy access to corrupted politicians desirous of positive press and campaign donations. This penetration and control of the public discourse has resulted in the creation of what I would refer to as the official “Israel narrative,” in which Israel, which claims perpetual victimhood, is reflexively referred to as “the only democracy in the Middle East” and “Washington’s closest ally and friend,” assertions that are completely false but which have been aggressively and successfully promoted to shape how Americans view the Israeli-Arab conflict. Palestinians resisting the Israeli occupation are invariably described as “terrorists” both in the U.S. and Israel.

Jewish Power is a funny thing. If you read the Jewish media or the Israeli press, to include Forward, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post, you will find frequent references to it, nearly always seen as completely laudable. Bottom feeder Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard recently boasted that

“Jews should not apologize for being so rich, controlling the media or influencing public debate…they have earned it…never apologize for using your strength…”

For many Jews like Dershowitz, Jewish power is something to be proud of, but they also believe that it should never be noticed or examined by non-Jews. Gentile criticism of Jewish collective behavior is something that must continue to be forbidden, just as the expression “Israeli Lobby” was largely taboo before Walt and Mearsheimer. Israeli partisans regularly engage in the defamation of individuals, including myself, who do not conform to the taboos as anti-Semites or holocaust deniers, labels deliberately used as weapons to end discussion and silence critics whenever necessary.

So why do I think that we have to start talking about Jewish Power as opposed to the euphemism Israel Lobby? It is because the wars in the Middle East, which have done so much to damage the United States and were at least in part arranged to benefit Israel, have been largely driven by wealthy and powerful Jews. If America goes to war with Iran, as is increasingly likely, it will be all about Israel and it will be arranged by the political and financial services Washington-Wall Street axis, make no mistake.

To my mind, Israel is America’s number one foreign policy problem in that it is able and willing to start potentially catastrophic wars with countries that it has demonized but that do not threaten the U.S. And those doing the manipulating are bipartisan Jewish oligarchs with deep pockets that support the multitude of pro-Israel organizations, think tanks and media outlets that have done so much to corrupt America’s political process. Hollywood producer Haim Saban, a principal Democratic Party supporter, has said that he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel. Principal GOP funder casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who served in the U.S. Army in World War 2, has said that he regrets that service and would have preferred to be in the Israel Defense Forces. They as well as others, including fund manager Paul Singer and Home Depot’s Bernard Marcus, are Jews laboring on behalf of the self-proclaimed Jewish State while the neoconservatives, fiercely protective of Israel, are also nearly all Jewish. Asserting that the fact that they are Jews acting for a Jewish state should be irrelevant as they are also doing what is good for America, as is commonly done by their apologists, is logically inconsistent and borders on absurdity. As for the frequently cited Bible belt Christian-Zionists who support Israel, they are, to be sure, numerous, but they do not have the access to real power in the United States that Jews have.

Jewish Power is also what has in part driven the United States into a moral cesspit. Israeli snipers shoot dead scores of unarmed Gazan demonstrators and hardly anyone in Washington has anything to say about it. America’s Ambassador to Israel, an Orthodox Jewish lawyer named David Friedman who has multiple ties to Israel’s illegal settlements, uses his position to defend Israel, ignoring U.S. interests. Last week he held a press conference in which he told reporters to “shut their mouths” in their criticism of Israel’s slaughter of Gazans.

When a young Palestinian nurse is deliberately targeted and killed while treating a wounded man, it hardly appears in the U.S. media. Arab teenagers are shot in the back while running away from Israeli gunmen while a young woman is sentenced to prison for slapping an Israel soldier who had just shot her cousin and was invading her home. Heavily armed Israeli settlers run amok on the West Bank, beating and killing Arabs and destroying their livelihoods. That is what Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are all about and that is precisely the kind of a nation that America should not want to become, but unfortunately the role of Washington as Israel’s obedient poodle has our once great country moving in the wrong direction. This has all been brought about by Jewish Power and it is time to wake up to that fact and address it squarely.

*

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Canada’s parliament has unanimously rejected the Trump agenda on trade and the Trump reaction on his departure from the G7 meeting recently held in Charlevoix, Quebec.

The motion contained six items:

• recognition of strong trade ties between the U.S. and Canada.
• that the government stand with the workers of Canada, particularly in aluminum and steel and potentially with autoworkers.
• “strongly oppose illegitimate tariffs” on steel and aluminum
• stand with the government to impose retaliatory tariffs
• support Canada’s supply management system for agricultural products.
• “reject disparaging ad hominem statements by U.S. officials”.

As frequently as I criticize many aspects of Canada’s government, particularly with foreign policy, this motion receives my full support. It is a motion primarily designed for domestic consumption, but contains some serious elements that could/will come into play as Trump and his team weave their own kind of economic theory around their allies.

The two elements that go beyond simple political rhetoric are the statements on supply management and retaliatory tariffs. Having made these statements unanimously they will be awkward – though in the world of politics not impossible – to go back on. They are however essential and necessary if Canada is to maintain both its perceived place in global affairs and its intention to put Canada’s workers first and foremost above and beyond Trump’s ‘art of the deal’.

Significantly, 75 percent of Canada’s trade is with the U.S., representing 25 percent of GDP. The latter figure – while not the best way to measure an economy – perhaps is more important than the first, as Canada is in process of reaching trade agreements with other groups of countries (Europe, Asian fringe). Whichever way it goes, this new trade war is a loss for both sides – workers in particular. At the same time it can open opportunities to diversify and support Canada’s economic standing and perhaps demonstrate that we are not a U.S. puppet in all areas.

Given all that, most trade agreements are not really about the workers of the world but about the corporations of the world and their ability to harvest the wealth of both the workers (labour, taxes, interest, wages) and the environment. Perhaps the position about standing with Canadian workers will expand to include working conditions and wages so that more of that trade wealth is directed where it properly belongs, with the workers who actually create it.

The U.S. is creating a peculiar line of economic defense around itself. Normally in the broader world it uses Thomas Friedman’s aptly described hidden fist of the military to support its economic power and control. That has never been a concern for Canada, so until Canada stops fully supporting U.S. military actions around the world – or supporting ignorant actions such as the motion condemning Russia with the Skripal affair (note how that has conveniently left the mainstream radar now that the Skripals have apparently recovered in reasonable health against the deadliest nerve gas known) – this economic tariff spat between Canada and the U.S. will have little impact on global affairs. Another false flag, another enemy created, another misinterpretation of foreign affairs and not too arguably Canada will fall in line again with U.S. intentions around the world.

Perhaps that is it in a nutshell. It is a local spat between two siblings. It will have little effect on international affairs. Canada will polish a bit of its reputation by standing united against Trump’s rhetoric and erratic actions, but will settle in nicely again into the U.S. embrace once the main theatrics have run their course.

*

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: President Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, walk together to their expanded bilateral meeting, Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at the Capella Hotel in Singapore. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

On June 12, a DPRK and US leader met face-to-face for the first time ever – never before since the Korean peninsula was divided post-WW II.

Make no mistake. Smiles, handshakes, public cordiality, an “excellent start,” a “historic…very comprehensive” agreement for “major change” didn’t change Washington’s imperial aims.

The good news is US/North Korean tensions eased. The Trump regime stepped back from the brink on the Korean peninsula – at least for now, longterm prospects another story entirely.

Washington needs enemies to justify unjustifiable levels of military spending, to maintain its global empire of bases – notably in NATO countries, the Middle East, Central Asia, and East Asia, especially in Japan and South Korea regionally.

America has been hostile toward the DPRK throughout its post-WW II history, using the nation as a punching bag, China the main US regional adversary.

Earlier DPRK/US denuclearization talks ended in failure – undermined by Washington, not Pyongyang. Will this time be different given the most hardline ever US administration in power?

Washington doesn’t negotiate in good faith, especially with sovereign independent countries like North Korea – demanding everything in return for what inevitably becomes empty promises.

US hostility toward the DPRK has been implacable since the late 1940s, irreconcilable differences separating both countries.

Longstanding US goals call for replacing all sovereign independent governments with pro-Western puppet regimes, North Korea no exception.

Trump met with Kim Jong-un for a few short hours. Discount his remark about “develop(ing) a very special bond,” jump-starting DPRK denuclearization “very, very quickly…leav(ing) the past behind…sign(ing) a historic agreement…major change” coming.

The devil in the details has yet to unfold regardless of what’s explained publicly in Singapore and days to follow.

A joint statement signed by both leaders gave few details, no mention of a peace treaty or removing sanctions.

In Beijing, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said

“there needs to be a peace mechanism for the peninsula to resolve North Korea’s reasonable security concerns.”

Tuesday summit talks were symbolic only, not a significant breakthrough in DPRK/US relations. Believing otherwise is foolhardy.

Asked if he’d invite Kim to the White House, Trump said: “Absolutely I will.” Kim called talks “a good prelude to peace.”

Separately he added:

“I think the entire world is watching this moment. Many people in the world will think of this as a scene from a fantasy…science fiction movie.”

The joint statement agree on said

“President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

The document includes four major terms agreed on with no elaboration:

1. The US and DPRK commit to establish new bilateral relations in pursuit of peace and prosperity.

2. Both countries will work toward building a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean peninsula.

3. In accordance with the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

4. Both countries commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Follow-up talks between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his North Korean counterpart will be held “at the earliest possible date.”

The Trump regime wants North Korea bending to its will, serving its imperial interests, likely wanting the country used to weaken China’s regional influence.

There’s nothing benign, even-handed, and cooperative about US geopolitics – dominance the goal by whatever it takes to achieve it.

Endless US imperial wars against nations threatening no one show how far Washington will go in pursuing its aims.

Its agenda threatens everyone everywhere – at home and worldwide. A possible budding US/North Korea friendship is pure fantasy, what never was and surely isn’t now.

Talks in Singapore were all about advancing America’s imperium, a notion Pyongyang understands well, enduring the threat of further US aggression throughout its history.

Momentary eased tensions changes little else. The DPRK developed nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles because of feared US aggression, another possible devastating war like the early 1950s.

The threat remains despite bilateral talks in Singapore, whatever is publicly and privately agreed on.

History shows Washington can never be trusted, one agreement after another breached throughout its history.

Will this time be different? Did America ever keep its word in earlier promises to the DPRK or other sovereign independent countries?

Why then expect earlier betrayals not repeating. Chances are virtually nil. Hegemons don’t operate this way, notably not America.

*

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

Featured image: President Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, walk together to their expanded bilateral meeting, Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at the Capella Hotel in Singapore. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)

Below is the English version of the full text of the “joint statement” signed by president Trump and Chairman Kim, as released by the White House.

***

Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at the Singapore Summit

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Convinced that the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:

1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.

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

3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.

Having acknowledged that the U.S.-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-up negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new U.S.-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.

(Signed)

DONALD J. TRUMP

President of the United States of America

KIM JONG UN

Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

June 12, 2018

Sentosa Island

Singapore

Greetings, Brother and Sisters, and Ramadan Mubarak!

On behalf of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War, I would like to thank the organizers for this opportunity to speak.

The status of Jerusalem/Al Quds will not be determined by the clownish performances of corrupt politicians such as Trump and Netanyahu in moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on the seventieth anniversary of the Nakba. Similarly, the right of national self-determination of the Palestinian people will never be extinguished through US imperial power or by brute force by its Israeli client state. The people of the world will never accept that.

The vote at the UN against the illegal US relocation of its embassy to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was 128-9. That’s because everyone on the planet who supports peace and justice supports the Palestinian cause. Everyone who opposes racism, colonialism, and imperialism supports Palestine. Only a tiny minority of people who endorse racism, white supremacy, and capitalism or follow a warped form of messianic Christian Zionism support the State of Israel.

Go-it-alone misleaders such as Trump and Netanyahu are increasingly isolated. The international campaign of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) is gaining ground. The Israeli Finance Ministry claimed BDS could cost it up to $40 billion annually. The whole world cheered as Messi and the Argentinian soccer team refused to play a “friendly” match with Israel. The people of the world applauded Shakira when she recently turned down a gig in Tel Aviv.

Even the Trudeau government, which shamefully voted at the UN against every pro-Palestinian resolution last fall, couldn’t bring itself to vote on the same side as the US and Israel on the recent UN vote on the illegal relocation of the US embassy. Spinelessly, it abstained. It was spineless because the Trudeau government should have stood WITH the majority of the member states of the United Nations in condemning Trump’s illegal move. Instead, even though Trudeau was terrified of aggravating his imperial master and spoiling a possible NAFTA trade deal, he knew he could never sell a vote in Canada to support the embassy move in Al Quds. The Trudeau government knows that, in two BBC opinion polls, two-thirds of Canadians oppose Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and a big majority supported special status for Palestine in UN General Assembly. A poll done by Independent Jewish Voices and Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East showed that Canadians, on the whole were light years ahead of their politicians on the question of criticism of the State of Israel and support for Palestine. So, brothers and sisters, if we want Canada to stop playing the role of enabler of Israel’s endless war crimes, we need to step up our work lobbying all the political parties in Canada, who rarely do anything significant to support the Palestinian cause.

At the same time that Trump and Netanyahu are increasingly isolated on the world stage, the balance of forces in the Mideast is changing in favour of Palestine. After 17 years of permanent war on a number of nearby countries, the Arab and Muslim people of the Mideast are making important gains. Iraq, which was devastated by the illegal Anglo-American attack in 2003, has just defeated both ISIS and a US/Israeli project to split away the northern mainly Kurdish territory of Iraq into a separate state. And guess what? In yesterday’s Globe and Mail, there was the report of General Vance, chief of Canada’s defence staff, that it will no longer train Iraqi Kurdish militants in the arts of war. Rather, it has switched over to giving basic training to the national Iraqi army. Brothers and sisters, it was Harper and then Trudeau, with your tax dollars who sent Canadian military trainers to Iraq to assist the US/Israeli plan to partition that country. But now, that plan has been foiled by the Iraqi government, which recently used its jets to attack ISIS inside of Syria, with the blessing of the Syrian government. A new government has also been elected in Iraq which will even more strongly resist the US presence in that country.

In Syria, the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War congratulates the government of President Bashar al Assad which foiled the attempted regime change operation that was inspired by the USA and strongly supported by Israel and other US allies such as Canada. Did you know that, most recently, the Trudeau government donated $4.5 million of your tax dollars to the fraudulent White Helmets in Syria, the propaganda arm of Al Qaeda in Syria? It’s shameful that the Canadian government is participating in this illegal regime change operation which violates the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. Israel too continues to violate Syrian sovereignty supporting terrorist mercenaries using the illegally-occupied Golan Heights as their base to fight the Syrian government. Israel has supplied ISIS with arms. Israel also used its air force to bomb Syria more than one hundred times during the course of the seven-year long war and supplied aid and weapons to separatist Kurdish elements in eastern Syria with a view to aid the USA in trying to partition that country.

Our Coalition also congratulates the courageous Syrian Arab Army for liberating Aleppo, Eastern Ghouta, and now Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp south of Damascus. Even as we gather here, the SAA is now advancing to liberate territories near Dara in the South of Syria right next to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. We wish them great success!

The lesson of Yarmouk, where Syrian soldiers and Palestinian militamen laid down their lives to liberate the homes of Palestinians, who were exiled once before from Palestine, shows that the Palestinian and Syrian national struggles are indivisible. If you are for Palestine, then you must also be for Syria. If you are for Syria, you must also be for Palestine!

Our Coalition also congratulates those allies of Syria who helped the win the battles against the terrorist proxy armies, namely Russia, Iran, Hezbollah of Lebanon, and the various Palestinian and popular militias. The war in Syria is not over yet. Turkish, US, and Israeli armies remain as occupiers in different parts of the country.

But the tide has turned in Syria and also in Lebanon, where Hezbollah, the popular movement and party which drove the the Israeli occupiers out of Lebanon over a period of bitter fighting lasting nearly two decades, succeeded, with its allies in winning a majority in democratic parliamentary elections. Similarly, amidst great suffering in Yemen, the outgunned but brave Ansrullah movement continues successfully to resist Saudi/US/NATO/Israeli aggression now into its fourth year, even though the Trudeau government continues shamefully to sell arms to the Saudis.

Because the tide is turning against the US Empire and its Zionist allies, I repeat that there will not be an imperial solution to Jerusalem/al Quds. Rather, in the fullness of time, there will be a democratic popular solution to the question of Palestine. Hopefully, BDS will do in Palestine what it did in South Africa. Just as BDS helped peacefullyto replace white minority apartheid rule with black majority rule, we hope that it will also peacefully replace Zionist minority apartheid rule with Palestinian majority rule, as no solution to the Palestinian national question is complete without the right of return of millions of Palestinian refugees to the former homes in all of historic Palestine. The Palestinians will have a state whose capital will be Al Quds. The nature and form of that state is up to the Palestinians to decide but we know that it will respect the freedom of religion of Muslims, Christians, Jews and will treat with respect its citizens no matter what their ethnicity.

As a Jew and a social justice and peace activist, my personal preference is for a majority Palestinian state in all of historic Palestine. That’s why I say, “Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea!”

Thank you for your kind attention!

*

Ken Stone is a veteran antiwar activist, a former Steering Committee Member of the Canadian Peace Alliance, an executive member of the SyriaSolidarityMovement.org, and treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War [hcsw.ca]. Ken is author of “Defiant Syria”, an e-booklet available at Amazon, iTunes, and Kobo. He lives in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from nkusa.org.

For two months now, I have been unjustly incarcerated without having committed any crime. For two months I have been unable to travel the country I love, bringing the message of hope of a better and more just Brazil, with opportunities for all, as I always did during 45 years of public life.

I was deprived of my daily life with my sons and my daughter, my grandsons and granddaughters, my great-granddaughter, my friends and comrades. But I have no doubt that they have put me here to prevent me from being with my larger family: the Brazilian people. This is what distresses me the most, because I know that outside, every day, more and more families are back to living in the streets, abandoned by the State that should protect them.

From where I am, I want to renew the message of faith in Brazil and in our people. Together, we have been able to overcome difficult times, serious economic, political and social crises. Together, under my government, we overcame hunger, unemployment, recession, the enormous pressures of international capital and its representatives in the country. Together, we reduced the age-old disease of social inequality that marked Brazil’s formation: indigenous genocide, the enslavement of blacks and the exploitation of the workers of the city and the countryside.

We fought injustice tirelessly. With our heads held high, we have come to be considered the most optimistic people in the world. We have deepened our democracy and we have gained international prominence with the creation of Unasur, Celac, BRICS and our relationship of solidarity with African countries. Our voice was heard in the G8 and in the most important world fora.

I am sure we can rebuild this country and dream, once again, like a great nation. That’s what keeps me fighting.

I will not settle with the suffering of the poorest and the punishment that is falling on our working class, just as I will not settle with my situation.

Judicial Farce

Those who accused me in Lava Jato (Operation Car Wash) know that they lied, because I never owned, never had possession, nor spent one night in the Guarujá apartment. Those who condemned me, Sérgio Moro and the TRF-4 judges, know that they set up a judicial farce to arrest me because I was able to prove my innocence in the case and they were not able to present proof of the crime that they accuse me of.

To this day I ask myself: where is the proof?

I was not treated by the prosecutors of Lava Jato, Moro and TRF-4 as a citizen equal to everyone else. I have always been treated as an enemy.

I do not cultivate hatred or hold any grudge, but I doubt my executioners can sleep with a clear conscience.

Against all injustices, I have the constitutional right to appeal out of jail, but this right has been denied to me so far, for the sole reason that my name is Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

That is why I consider myself a political prisoner in my country.

When it became clear that they were going to take me in by force, without crime or evidence, I decided to stay in Brazil and face my executioners. I know my place in history and I know the place reserved for those who persecute me today. I am sure that justice will make truth prevail.

Source: The Bullet

In the caravans I recently took part in, along Brazil, I saw hope in people’s eyes. And I have also seen the anguish of those who are suffering with the return of hunger and unemployment, malnourishment, school dropout, rights robbed from workers, destruction of the constitutionally guaranteed policies of social inclusion, that are now denied in practice.

I Am a Candidate – Again!

It is to end the suffering of the people that I am again running for President.

I take on this mission because I have a great responsibility with Brazil and because Brazilians have the right to vote freely for a project of more solidarity, a more just and a sovereign country, persevering in the project of Latin American integration.

I am a candidate because I sincerely believe that the Electoral Court will be coherent with its judicial precedents, since 2002, not bowing to the blackmail of exception only to hurt my right and the right of voters to choose who represents them best.

I ran many times during my career, but this race is different: it is my life’s commitment. Those who had the privilege of seeing Brazil advance on behalf of the poorest, after centuries of exclusion and abandonment, cannot sit out during the most difficult time for our people.

I know that my candidacy represents hope, and we will take it to the final consequences, because we have the strength of the people at our side.

We have the right to dream again, after the nightmare that was imposed on us by the 2016 coup.

They lied to overthrow the legitimately elected President Dilma Rousseff. They lied saying that the country would improve if the Workers’ Party was ousted from government; that there would be more jobs and more development. They lied to impose the program that was defeated at the polls in 2014. They lied to destroy the project of eradicating misery which we put in place under my government. They lied to give away the nation’s wealth and to favor the economic and financial powers, in a scandalous betrayal of the people’s will manifested clearly and unequivocally in 2002, 2006, 2010 and 2014.

The hour of truth is coming.

I want to be president of Brazil once again because I have already proved that it is possible to build a better Brazil for our people. We proved that the country can grow for the benefit of all when the government places the workers and the poorest at the center of the concerns, and does not become a slave to the interests of the rich and powerful. And we proved that only the inclusion of millions of poor people can make the economy grow and recover.

We govern for the people and not for the market. It is the opposite of what the government of our opponents, at the service of financiers and multinationals, who abolished the historic rights of workers, reduced real wages, cut off investments in health and education, and is destroying programs like Bolsa Familia, Minha Casa, Minha Vida, Pronaf, Luz Para Todos, Prouni and Fies, among many actions aimed at social justice.

I dream of being president of Brazil to end the suffering of those who do not have money anymore to buy gas, who now have to use wood for cooking or, even worse, use alcohol and become victims of serious accidents and burns. This is one of the cruelest setbacks caused by the policy of destruction of Petrobras and of our national sovereignty, led by PSDB supporters who backed the 2016 coup.

Petrobras was not created to generate gains for Wall Street speculators in New York, but to ensure oil self-sufficiency in Brazil at prices compatible with the popular economy. Petrobras must be Brazilian again. You can be certain that we are going to end this tale of selling its assets. It will no longer be hostage to oil multinationals. It will once again play a strategic role in the country’s development, including in directing the pre-salt resources to education, our passport to the future.

You can also be sure that we will prevent the privatization of Eletrobrás, Banco do Brasil and Caixa, the emptying of the BNDES and of all the tools available to the country to promote development and social welfare.

I dream of being the president of a country where the judge pays more attention to the Constitution and less to the headlines.

Where rule of law is the rule, without measures of exception.

I dream of a country where democracy prevails over anyone’s discretion, media monopoly, prejudice and discrimination.

I dream of being the president of a country where everyone has rights and nobody has privileges. A Country where everyone can have three meals a day again; where children can attend school, where everyone has the right to work for dignified wages and with the protection of the law. A country in which every rural worker has again access to land to produce, with finance and technical assistance.

A country where people will once again have confidence in the present and hope for the future. And where for this very reason is once again respected internationally, promotes Latin American integration and cooperation with Africa once again, and exercises a sovereign position in the international dialogues on trade and the environment, for peace and friendship amongst peoples.

Free and Democratic Elections

We know the way to carry out these dreams. Today it goes through the holding of free and democratic elections, with the participation of all political forces, with no rules of exception to prevent just one candidate.

Only then will we have a government with legitimacy to face great challenges, that can dialogue with all sectors of the nation supported by the popular vote. It is this mission that I am taking on by accepting my nomination as presidential candidate of the Workers’ Party.

We have demonstrated already that it is possible to make a government of national appeasement, where which Brazil walks in the direction of the Brazilians, especially the poorest and the workers.

My government was one where the poor were included in the Union’s budget, with more income distribution and less hunger; with more health and less child mortality; with more respect and affirmation of the rights of women, of blacks and of diversity, and with less violence; with more education at all levels and fewer children out of school; with more access to universities and technical education and fewer young people excluded from the future; with more popular housing and fewer occupancy conflicts in the cities; with more settlements and land distribution and fewer conflicts of occupation in the countryside; with more respect for the indigenous populations and quilombolas, with more salary gains and guarantees for the rights of workers, with more dialogue with unions, social movements and business organizations and less social conflicts.

It was a time of peace and prosperity, as we have never had before in history.

I believe, from the bottom of my heart, that Brazil can be happy again. And it can advance much more than we had already conquered together, when the government was of the people.

In order to achieve this goal, we must unite the democratic forces of all Brazil, respecting the autonomy of the parties and the movements, but always having as reference a project of more solidarity and a fairer Country that will rescue the dignity and hope of our suffering people. I am sure we will be together at the end of that path.

From where I am, with the solidarity and energies that come from all corners of Brazil and the world, I can assure you that I will continue working to transform our dreams into reality. And so I am preparing, with faith in God and a lot of confidence, for the day when I will once again unite with the beloved Brazilian people.

Only, if my life is taken, will this reunion not come to be.

And this reunion will not happen only if my life is lacking.

See you soon, my people.

Long live Brazil! Long live Democracy! Long live the Brazilian people!

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
Curitiba, June 8, 2018

*

Published in Portuguese at “Manifesto de Lula ao Povo Brasileiro.”

English translation by The Socialist Project

Renewable energy companies have decided to cancel or freeze $2.5 billion in investments on large solar panel projects following President Trump‘s decision to impose tariffs on imported panels, Reuters reported Thursday.

In an own goal for America – that number is more than twice the $1 billion that firms said they were planning to spend in the U.S. solar panel industry following Trump’s decision in January, according to Reuters.

As an example, Cypress Creek Renewables LLC told Reuters that it has cancelled or frozen $1.5 billion in projects in response to the tariffs. This is because the tariffs had increased its costs. Another company, Southern Current, also said that it put $1 billion worth of projects on hold. And that is just two companies that have already made decisions and announced project cancellations.

Neither of the companies gave Reuters any further details on the projects they were cancelling, saying that doing so would make sensitive information public.

However, both companies have asked that trade officials exclude large-scale panels used for their utility projects from the 30 per cent tariffs, which are set to last four years, falling by 5 per cent each year.

The vast majority of renewable energy companies and green groups opposed the tariffs when the Trump administration announced the measures earlier this year, saying they would make competition in the industry just too difficult to operate in.

The Solar Energy Industries Association made a prediction at the time that these new tariffs would raise prices and subsequently kill around 23,000 jobs in the USA.

Reuters reported that Trump’s tariffs have already boosted domestic manufacturing of solar panels, which it said could over time reduce prices for panels.

Two manufacturers, First Solar and JinkoSolar, have, for example, announced an $800 million investment to increase panel construction in the U.S. that they say could lead to 700 new jobs in Ohio and Florida.

On another note, Reuters also pointed out that the increased use of manufacturing automation could cut into the number of new jobs created anyway through increased production of panels in the United States.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

Featured image: President Donald J. Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, walk together to their one-on-one bilateral meeting, Tuesday, June 12, 2018, at the Capella Hotel in Singapore. (Official White House Photo by Stephanie Chasez)

When President Reagan met with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland, on October 11, 1987, it helped put into motion events that would dramatically change the global system. A line of communication was fully opened with an enemy of decades and substantive issues were on the table. Though the summit was initially reported as a failure, with the two sides unable to sign a final agreement, history now shows us that it was actually a great success that paved the way to the eventual end of the Cold War and a reduction in the threat of a nuclear war.

A year later Gorbachev and Reagan met in Washington to continue the dialogue that had been started and the rest is history. Success began as a “failure.”

We are now facing a similar situation with President Trump’s historic meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore. As with the Reagan/Gorbachev meetings, detractors on all sides seem determined to undermine and belittle the opening of a door to diplomacy and peace.

The neocons demand that North Korea give up all its bargaining chips up front in return for vague promises of better relations with the US. Yet in the post-Libya era no serious person would jump at such an offer. Their biggest fear is that peace may break out and they are doing everything to prevent that from happening. Conflict is their livelihood.

I also find it disheartening that many Democrat opponents of President Trump who rightly cheered President Obama’s efforts to reach a deal with Iran are now condemning Trump for opening the door to diplomacy with North Korea. Did they genuinely support President Obama’s diplomatic efforts with Iran, or did they just prefer the person who happened to occupy the Oval Office at the time?

The issue is about policy versus politics and I am afraid too many Americans of all political stripes are confusing the two. Many Americans, it seems, would prefer that we continue down the path to a potentially nuclear conflict on the Korean peninsula because they do not like the current US president. Does that make any sense? Has politics come to over-rule our common sense to the point we would go against our own interests and even our own lives? Let’s hope not!

The truth is, talking is always better than threatening. Just like trading is always better than sanctioning. Detractors on both sides miss the point while they desperately try to make political points. The current thaw with North Korea began with that country’s participation in the Olympic games in South Korea. From that point, North and South Korea came to see each other as neighbors rather than enemies. That process will continue regardless of what comes from the Trump/Kim summit and it is a process we should cheer.

Hopefully this historic Trump/Kim meeting is the beginning of a dialogue that will continue to dial back the tensions. Hopefully we can soon remove the 30,000 US troops that have been stationed in South Korea for seven decades. One thing Washington must do, however: stay out of the way as much as possible so as to allow the two Koreas to continue their peace process.

Despite tremendous hardship which the Venezuelan people are having to face, despite the sanctions and intimidation from abroad, President Nicolás Maduro has won a second six-year term.

Two weeks ago, at the Venezuelan embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, where I addressed several leaders of East African left-wing opposition, an acting Charge d’ Affaires, Jose Avila Torres, declared:

“People of Venezuela are now facing similar situation as the Syrian people.”

True. Both nations, Venezuela and Syria, are separated by a tremendous geographical distance, but they are united by the same fate, same determination and courage.

During the Spanish Civil War, Czech anti-fascist fighters, volunteers in the International Brigades, used to say:

“In Madrid we are fighting for Prague”.

Madrid fell to Franco’s fascists in October 1939. Prague had been occupied by German troops several months earlier, in March 1939. It was the blindness and cowardice of the European leaders, as well as the support which the murderous fascist hordes received from populations of all corners of the continent, which led to one of the greatest tragedies in modern history – a tragedy which only ended on May 9, 1945, when the Soviet troops liberated Prague, defeating Nazi Germany and de facto saving the world.

More than 70 years later, the world is facing another calamity. The West, mentally unfit to peacefully end its several centuries long murderous reign over the planet – a reign that has already taken several hundreds of millions of human lives – is flexing its muscle and madly snapping in all directions, provoking, antagonizing and even directly attacking countries as far apart as North Korea (DPRK), China, Iran, Russia, Syria and Venezuela.

What is happening now is not called fascism or Nazism, but it clearly is precisely that, as the barbaric rule is based on a profound spite for non-Western human lives, on fanatical right-wing dogmas which are stinking of exceptionalism, and on the unbridled desire to control the world.

Many countries that refused to yield to brutal Western force were recently literally leveled with the ground, including Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. In many other ones, the governments were overthrown by direct and indirect interventions, as well as deceit, as was the case in the mightiest country in Latin America – Brazil. Countless “color”, “umbrella” and other “revolutions” as well as “springs” have been sponsored by Washington, London and other Western capitals.

But the world is waking up, slowly but irreversibly, and the fight for survival of our human race has already begun.

Venezuela and Syria are, unquestionably, at the frontline of the struggle.

Against all odds, bleeding but heroically erect, they stand against the overwhelmingly mightier force, and refuse to give up.

“Here no one surrenders!” shouted Hugo Chavez, already balding from chemotherapy, dying of cancer which many in Latin America believe, was administered to him from the United States. His fist was clenched and heavy rain was falling on his face. Like this, died one of the greatest revolutionaries of our time. But his revolution survived, and is marching on!

*

I am well aware of the fact that many of my readers are from the West. Somehow, particularly in Europe, I cannot explain, anymore, what it really is to be a revolutionary. Recently I spoke at a big gathering of ‘progressive’ teachers, which took place in Scandinavia. I tried to fire them up, to explain to them what monstrous crimes the West has been committing all over the world, for centuries.

I tried and I failed. When the lights went on, I was drilled by hundreds of eyes. Yes, there was an applause, and many stood up in that fake cliché – a standing ovation. But I knew that our worlds were far apart. 

What followed were pre-fabricated and shallow questions about human rights in China, about “Assad’s regime”, but nothing about the collective responsibility of people of the West.

To understand what goes on in Syria and in Venezuela, requires stepping out of the Western mindset. It cannot be understood by selfish minds that are only obsessed with sexuality and sexual orientation, and with self-interest.

There is something essential, something very basic and human that is taking place in both Syria and Venezuela. It is about human pride, about motherland, about love for justice and dreams, about a much better arrangement for the world. It is not petty, in fact it is huge, and even worth fighting and dying for.

In both places, the West miscalculated, as it clearly miscalculated in such ‘cases’ as Cuba, Russia, China, Iran, DPRK.

“Patria no se vende!”, they have been saying in Cuba, for decades – “Fatherland is not for sale!”

Profit is not everything. Personal gain is not everything. Selfishness and tiny but inflated egos are not everything. Justice and dignity are much more. Human ideals are much more. To some people they are. Really, they are, trust me – no matter how unreal it may appear in the West.

Syria is bleeding, but it refused to surrender to the terrorism injected by the West and its allies. Aleppo was turned into a modern-day Stalingrad. At a tremendous cost, the city withstood all vicious assaults, it managed to reverse the course of the war, and as a result, it saved the country.

Venezuela, like Cuba in the early 90’s, found itself alone, abandoned, spat at and demonized. But it did not fall on its knees.

In Europe and North America, analyses of what is happening there have been made “logically” and “rationally”. Or have they, really?

Do people in the West really know what is like to be colonized? Do they know what the “Venezuelan opposition is”?

Do they know about the consistency of the terror being spread by the West, for centuries and all over Latin America, from such places like the Dominican Republic and Honduras, all the way down to Chile and Argentina?

No, they know nothing, or they know very little, like those Germans who were living right next to the extermination camps and after the war they claimed that they had no idea what that smoke coming up from the chimneys was all about.

There is hardly any country in Central or South America, whose government has not at least been overthrown once by the North, whenever it decided to work on behalf of its people. 

And Brazil, last year, became the ‘latest edition’ of the nightmares, disinformation campaigns, ‘fake news’ and coups – being spread with ‘compliments’ from the North, through local ‘elites’.

*

You see, there is really no point of discussing too many issues with the ‘opposition’ in countries such as Venezuela, Cuba or Bolivia. What has to be said was already pronounced.

What goes on is not some academic discussion club, but a war; a real and brutal civil war.

I know the ‘opposition’ in South American countries, and I know the ‘elites’ there. Yes, of course I know many of my comrades, the revolutionaries, but I am also familiar with the ‘elites’.

Just to illustrate, let me recall a conversation I once had in Bolivia, with the son of a powerful right-wing senator, who doubled as a media magnate. In a slightly drunken state he kept repeating to me:

“We will soon kick the ass of that Indian shit [president of Bolivia, Evo Morales] … You think we care about money? We have plenty of money! We don’t care if we lose millions of dollars, even tens of millions! We will spread insecurity, uncertainty, fear, deficits and if we have to, even hunger… We’ll bleed those Indians to death!”

All this may sound ‘irrational’, even directly against their own capitalist gospel. But they don’t care about rationality, only about power. And their handlers from the North will compensate their losses, anyway.

There is no way to negotiate, to debate with these kinds of people. They are traitors, thieves and murderers.

For years and decades, they used the same strategy, betting on the soft-heartedness and humanism of their socialist opponents. They dragged progressive governments into endless and futile debates, then used their own as well as Western media to smear them. If it did not work, they choked their own economies, creating deficits, like in Chile before the 1973 Pinochet’s coup. If that did not work, they’d used terror – naked and merciless. And finally, as the last resort – direct Western interventions.

They are not in it for ‘democracy’ or even for some ‘free market’. They are serving their Western masters and their own feudalist interests.

To negotiate with them is to lose. It is identical with playing the game by their own rules. Because behind them is the entire Western propaganda, as well as financial and military machinery.

The only way to survive is to toughen up, to clench teeth, and to fight. As Cuba has been doing for decades, and yes, as Venezuela is doing now.

This approach does not look ‘lovely’; it is not always ‘neat’, but it is the only way forward, the only way for progress and revolution to survive.

Before Dilma got ‘impeached’ by the pro-Western bunch of corrupt freaks, I suggested in my essay that was censored by Counterpunch but published by dozens of other outlets world-wide, in many languages, that she should send tanks into the streets of Brasilia. I suggested that it was her duty, in the name of the people of Brazil, who voted for her, and who benefited greatly from the rule of her PT.

She did not do it, and I am almost certain that now she is regretting so. Her people are once again getting robbed; they are suffering. And the entire South America is, as a result, in disarray!

*

Corruption? Mismanagement? For decades and centuries, the people of Latin America were ruled and robbed by the corrupt bandits, who were using their continent as a milking cow, while living in the repulsive opulence of the Western aristocracy. All that was done, naturally, in the name of ‘democracy’, a total charade.

Venezuela is still there – people are rallying behind the government – in terrible pain and half-starving but rallying nevertheless. It is because for many people there, personal interests are secondary. What matters is their country, socialist ideology and the great South American fatherland. Patria grande.

It is impossible to explain. It is not rational, it is intuitive, deep, essential and human.

Those who have no ideology and ability to commit, will not understand. And, frankly, who cares if they will or not.

Hopefully, soon, both Brazil and Mexico – the two most populous nations in Latin America – will vote in new left-wing governments. Things will then change, will become much better, for Venezuela.

Until then, Caracas has to rely on its far-away but close comrades and friends, China, Iran and Russia, but also on its beautiful and brave sister – Cuba.

Evo Morales recently warned that the West is plotting a coup in Venezuela.

Maduro’s government has to survive another few months. Before Brazil is back, before Mexico joins.

It will be a tough, perhaps even bloody fight. But history is not made by weak compromises and capitulations. One cannot negotiate with Fascism. France tried, before WWII, and we all know the results.

The West and its fascism can only be fought, never appeased

When one defends his country, things can never be tidy and neat. There are no saints. Sainthood leads to defeat. Saints are born later, when victory is won and the nation can afford it.

Venezuela and Syria have to be supported and defended, by all means.

These wonderful people, Venezuelans and Syrians, are now bleeding, fighting for the entire non-Western and oppressed world. In Caracas and Damascus, people are struggling, battling and dying for Honduras and Iran, for Afghanistan and West Africa.

Their enemies can only be stopped by force.

*

In Scandinavia, a Syrian gusano, who lives in the West, who smears president Assad and gets fully compensated for it, challenged me, as well as the Syrian ‘regime’ and Iran, during the Q/A session. I said I refuse to discuss this with him, as even if we were to spend two hours shouting at each other, in public, we would never find any common ground. People like him began the war, and war they should get. I told him that he is definitely paid for his efforts and that the only way for us to settle this is ‘outside’, on the street.

Venezuela and Syria cannot fall. Too much is now at stake. Both countries are presently fighting something enormous and sinister – they are fighting against the entire Western imperialism. It is not just about some ‘opposition’, or even the treasonous elements in their societies. 

This is much bigger. This is about the future, about the survival of humanity.

Billions of people in all parts of the world have been closely following the elections in the Bolivarian Republic. There, the people have voted. President Maduro won. He won again. Scarred, bruised, but he won. Once again, socialism defeated fascism. And long live Venezuela, damn it!

*

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

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

All images in this article are from the author.

If more proof was needed to persuade anyone that the Democrats are indeed a war party, it was provided when Senator Chuck Schumer and other Democrat leaders in the Senate engaged in a cynical stunt to stake out a position to the right of John Bolton on the summit between Trump and Kim Jong Un.

The Democrats asserted that the planned summit could only be judged successful if the North Koreans agreed to dismantle and remove all their nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, end all production and enrichment of uranium, dismantle its nuclear weapons infrastructure, and suspend ballistic missile tests.

Those demands would constitute an unconditional surrender on the part of the North Korean leadership and will not happen, and the Democrats know it.

But as problematic as those demands are, here is the real problem that again demonstrates the bi-partisan commitment to war that has been at the center of U.S. imperial policies: If these are the outcomes that must be achieved for the meeting to be judged a success, not only does it raise the bar beyond the level any serious person believes possible, it gives the Trump administration the ideological cover to move toward war. The inevitable failure to force the North Koreans to surrender essentially forecloses all other options other than military conflict.

This is a reckless and cynical game that provides more proof that neither party has the maturity and foresight to lead.

Both capitalist parties support the use and deployment of militarism, repression and war, but somehow – even though the historic record reveals the opposite – the Democratic party has managed to be perceived as less likely to support the war agenda than Republicans. That perception must be challenged directly.

The Democrats have had a long and sordid history connected to North Korea, and every other imperialist war that the U.S. has waged since the end of the Second World War. It was the policies of Democrat president Truman that divided the Korean peninsula and led to the brutal colonial war waged by U.S. forces. Conflict with Korea was valuable for Truman and his party advisors who were committed to re-militarizing the U.S. economy, and they needed the justification that the Korean war gave them. Truman tripled the military budget and established the framework for the network of U.S foreign bases that would eventually cover the world over the next few decades.

The bipartisan commitment to full spectrum dominance continues with no real opposition from the Democratic party-connected “resistance.” Even the Poor Peoples’ Campaign (PPC) that was launched in May and purports to be an independent moral movement still dances around the issue of naming the parties and interests responsible for the “moral failures” of the U.S.

On the other hand, the Revolutionary Action Committee, the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, the student- and youth-led anti-war movement and eventually Dr. King clearly identified the bi-partisan commitment to the Vietnam war. What Dr. King and the activists in the 1960s understood was that in order to be politically and morally consistent, it was necessary to name the culprits and identify the concrete geopolitical and economic interests driving the issue of war and militarism.

Appeals to morality as an element for popular mobilization against war can be useful. But such appeals have little more impact than an online petition if they substitute vague platitudes for substance and specificity.

So it was with the PPC’s week of actions against war. Just a few days before the week began, a vote took place in the House of Representatives to support yet another increase to the military budget. In a vote of 351 to 66, the House of Representatives authorized a significant hike to an incredible $717 billion a year.

And then just a few days after the PPC’s week of action on militarism and war, the Democrats delivered their reckless and opportunistic ultimatum to the Trump administration on North Korea that could very conceivably lead to another illegal and immoral U.S. war.

Not calling the Democrats out on their warmongering is itself immoral.

It is also quite clear that vague moral appeals are not enough to delineate the interests of the capitalist elites and their commitment to war as oppositional to those of working people and the poor, who in the U.S. serve the moneyed interests as enlisted cannon fodder.

The positions staked out by the leadership of the Democratic party just confirmed what was already commonly understood as the hegemonic positions among the majority in the foreign policy establishment.

Objectively, there was never much ideological space between the right-wing policies of Dick Cheney or John Bolton and the neoliberal right-wing policies of Democratic party policy-makers. The differences were always merely tactical and not strategic in the sense that they all want the North Koreans to be supplicants.

Unfortunately, the general public is the only sector confused about the intentions and interests of elitist policy-makers, especially those elements of the public conditioned to believe that the Democratic party is less belligerent and less committed to militarism than the Republicans.

The fact is that the Democratic party establishment is also firmly entrenched on the right. Defeating the bi-partisan right must be the task for ourselves and for the world.

That is why the peace, anti-war and anti-imperialist forces must do the work to clear up that confusion. The movement must declare without equivocation the position of the Black Alliance for Peace: Not one drop of blood from the working class and poor to defend the capitalist oligarchy.

*

This article was originally published on Dissident Voice.

Ajamu Baraka is a board member with Cooperation Jackson, the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch. He can be reached at www.AjamuBaraka.com Read other articles by Ajamu, or visit Ajamu’s website.

For weeks, the corporate media have been saying that the Trump-Kim summit could have only two possible results: Either Trump will walk away angrily or Kim Jong Un will trick him into a deal in which he extracts concessions from Trump but never commits to complete denuclearization.

The idea that North Korea could not possibly agree to give up its nuclear weapons or its intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) has become an article of faith among the journalists covering the issue for big media. Two themes that have appeared again and again in their coverage are that the wily North Koreans are “playing” Trump and that previous administrations had also been taken by North Korea after signing agreements in good faith.

But the media have gotten it all wrong. They have assumed that North Korea cannot live without nuclear weapons—without making any effort to understand North Korea’s strategy in regard to nuclear weapons. They have invariably quoted “experts” who haven’t followed North Korean thinking closely but who express the requisite hostility toward the summit and negotiating an agreement with the Kim regime.

One of the few Americans who can speak with authority on North Korea’s calculus regarding nuclear weapons is Joel S. Wit, who was senior adviser to the U.S. negotiator with North Korea, Ambassador Robert L. Gallucci, from 1993 to 1995, and who from 1995 to 1999 was coordinator for the 1994 “Agreed Framework” with North Korea. More importantly, Wit also participated in a series of informal meetings with North Korean officials in 2013 about North Korea’s thinking on its nuclear weapons.

At a briefing on the Trump-Kim summit last week sponsored by the website 38 North, which he started and still manages, Wit made it clear that this dismissal of North Korea’s willingness to agree to denuclearization is misguided.

“Everyone underestimates the momentum behind what North Korea is doing,” he said. “It’s not a charm offensive or a tactical trick.”

Wit revealed in an article last month that the North Koreans had informed the American participants in those 2013 meetings that Kim was already anticipating negotiations with the United States in which North Korea would agree to give up nuclear weapons in return for steps by the United States that removed its threatening posture toward North Korea. Wit said his North Korean interlocutors had pointed to a June 2013 statement by the National Defense Commission of North Korea—the nation’s highest policymaking body—which they stated emphatically had been ordered by Kim himself to indicate a readiness to negotiate with the United States on denuclearization. The statement declared,

“The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is the behest of our leader” and “must be carried out . . . without fail.” And it went on to urge “high-level talks between the DPRK [North Korea] and the U.S. authorities to . . . establish peace and security in the region.”

The statement came a few months after Kim had resumed nuclear testing in an intensive effort to establish a credible nuclear deterrent. In part that was because of the young Kim’s conviction that the United States believed it could “bully” his regime in the transition after Kim father, Kim Jong Il, died in December 2011, according to Wit’s North Korean interlocutors.

But those same North Korean officials also told Wit that the new buildup would be of limited duration—only until it became possible to improve relations with the United States. That explanation suggested that Kim was pursuing a military capability primarily to serve as an incentive for Washington to come to the negotiating table and as a set of bargaining chips to obtain what it really wanted—an end to the hostile policy toward the regime by the United States.

Wit revealed that in the private meetings with Americans, North Korean officials presented a concrete plan for a three-phase agreement with the United States on denuclearization in which each side would undertake a set of related steps simultaneously. The American participants were told that the first stage of North Korea’s implementation would be a freeze on its nuclear weapons development, followed by disabling key facilities and finally dismantling the facilities as well the nuclear weapons. The U.S. steps would include diplomatic recognition, ending economic sanctions and removing the U.S. military threat to North Korea, in part by finally bringing the Korean War to a formal conclusion.

It was the same approach to a denuclearization agreement to which North Korea had agreed in 1994 and again in 2005 and 2007, but which had failed primarily because of the reluctance of the Clinton and Bush administrations to commit to entering into a normal political and economic relationship with North Korea.

The political context for U.S.-North Korean negotiations has changed dramatically since 2013. The most obvious change is that North Korea has an ICBM capable of reaching the United States for the first time. Although it provoked threats by the Trump administration in 2017 to attack North Korea if it completed work on the ICBM, it also has prompted the White House to consider going further than previous administrations in meeting North Korean diplomatic demands.

Furthermore, in 2013, the South Korean government was hostile to diplomacy with the North, and the Obama administration was unwilling to consider any major political or security concessions to North Korea until after it had given up its nuclear weapons. Now South Korean President Moon Jae-in has gone further than any previous government in pushing to end the 70-year military tension and formal state of war between North and South. Moon’s commitment to a Korean peace agreement appears to be the single biggest reason that Kim switched gears so dramatically in a New Year’s Day speech that presaged dramatic diplomatic moves in 2018.

Reflecting the new political-diplomatic situation, in April Kim put forward a new strategic line calling for the bulk of the state’s resources to go to economic development. That replaced the bjungjin line that Kim had introduced in March 2013 putting economic rebuilding and military needs on an equal footing.

Kim has made major adjustments in the North Korean negotiating posture that prevailed when the 2013 meetings were held with nonofficial Americans. The North Koreans had insisted then that the United States would have to remove their troops from South Korea as part of any agreement, according to Wit. But that demand has now been dropped, as Moon told Trump in mid-April.

Kim also has frozen his entire nuclear weapons and ICBM programs by suspending testing and blowing up facilities and tunnels at its nuclear test facility in front of foreign journalists in advance of negotiations with the United States. What gives the freeze far-reaching significance is the fact that North Korea still has not shown that it has mastered the reentry technology or the guidance system necessary to have a convincing deterrent capability, as Defense Secretary James Mattis observed last December. And then CIA Director Mike Pompeo agreed in January that it would take a “handful of months” for North Korea to be able to master the remaining technological challenges—but that would require additional testing. The willingness to freeze the program before it had reached its goal indicates the predominance of Kim’s diplomatic aim over North Korea’s military ambitions.

Contrary to the idea relentlessly repeated in media coverage that there is no objective basis for a denuclearization agreement, it has become clear to Pompeo that Kim is serious about reaching such an agreement. Pompeo noted in his press conference that he had spent “a great deal of time” discussing the prospective deal in two meetings with Kim himself and three meetings with Kim’s special envoy, Kim Yong-chol. And based on the many hours of discussion with them, Pompeo said he believes

“they are contemplating a path forward where they can make a strategic shift, one that their country has not been prepared to make before.”

Trump and Kim will be able to agree only on a broad statement of principles that reflect Pompeo’s meetings with the North Koreans, leaving significant differences remaining to be resolved in negotiations over the coming weeks. But this summit between what is surely the oddest couple in modern diplomatic history may well launch the most serious effort yet to end the U.S.-North Korean  conflict.

*

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist, historian and author who has covered U.S. wars and interventions in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen and Syria since 2004 and was the 2012 winner of the Gellhorn Prize for Journalism. His most recent book is “Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare” (Just World Books, 2014).

Featured image is from immitate.com.

The historical changes we are witnessing have never been so evident as in the last few days. The G7 summit highlighted the limits of the Atlantic alliance, while the SCO meeting opens up unprecedented possibilities for Eurasian integration.

At the G7 meeting in Canada in recent days, we witnessed unprecedented clashes between Trump and G7 leaders over the imposition of tariffs on trade. We must now conclude that the event has been relegated to irrelevance, as the G7 has heretofore derived its clout from speaking as one voice. Trump even went further, refusing to sign the final draft of the organization’s joint statement after Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau lashed out at Trump’s trade decisions. Trump showed how little he cares for his allies, leaving the summit a day early to arrive early for the meeting with Kim Jong-un in Singapore to make preparations for the long-awaited encounter between the two leaders.

In terms of geopolitical contrasts, it is easy to highlight the differences that have been seen between the G7 meeting and the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), held in China and, for the first time, including India and Pakistan as new members. While Putin and Xi met and exchanged praises and medals to celebrate the Sino-Russian strategic relationship as well as their personal friendship, Merkel and the various leaders of the G7 were in animated discussion with Trump over his “America first” policies hurting EU member states economically.

Returning for a moment to Trump’s escape from the G7 (also to avoid further clashes with his “allies”), it should be remembered that in this shifting puzzle of international relations, Assad was poised to meet with Kim Jong-un right on the eve of the US-DPRK summit. Whether or not the meeting between the leaders of Syria and the DPRK will go ahead, it nevertheless confirms the alliance between Pyongyang and Damascus, underlining how adversaries of the US still try to coordinate and manage between themselves their approaches to Washington’s policies of chaos.

Clearly both Putin and Xi have every interest in seeing Trump and Kim Jong-un reach an agreement. But at the same time, they are well aware of the situation in the Middle East and Iran that risks plunging the whole region into unprecedented chaos. Putin and Xi are clearly trying to manage the chaos emerging from Washington, as are Assad and Kim in their own own way. In this sense, the repeated aid of Russia and Iran to Qatar is part of a Sino-Russo-Iranian strategy to contain the chaos created by Washington, which has even extended to the Gulf states with the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar. In this regard, even Berlin is beginning to be enticed by the opportunities for the European Union beckoning from the east, this temptation made stronger by the reality that the Atlanticist relationship is hurting Europe through the tariffs and penalties imposed on American geopolitical opponents like Iran.

European companies have suffered major economic losses as a result of Trump’s suspension of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), with European companies facing US sanctions should they continue to do business with Iran. This is only the latest example of undue pressure being placed on the energy strategy of sovereign countries that are theoretically allied to the US. In the same way, the sanctions placed on the Nord Stream 2 project are further widening the cracks in the Atlantic alliance.

To understand the level of disorder within Europe, the North Atlantic and the Middle East, it is enough to consider the attack on Mohammed bin Salman almost two months ago, with Israel on the one hand boasting about agreements with Iran for a mutual abstention in the Daraa affaire and Trump finding nothing better to do than to break every alliance in sight through his commencement of a trade war.

It is clear that the old unipolar order no longer exists and that we now find ourselves in a multipolar situation, courtesy of the isolationist direction of the United States. This enables the further smoothening of existing divergence between nations in Asia, the Middle East and part of Europe.

Europe has the opportunity to use Trump’s “America First” policy as a pivot to expand its network of relationships and convergence of interests with more countries outside of the EU or NATO. For once, the EU could use the weapon of its union of many moderately powerful countries to increase its negotiating power with the United States.

But the reality is very different at the moment, with Europe being in the middle of an internal struggle that has been ongoing for some time now. The wave of new “populist” parties, both of the right and left, has served as a repository for an inevitable transfer of votes following the disasters of the unipolar period (1989-2014). This has also upset the previous balance of power within the European elites.

The root causes of this “populist” political change lie in the new multipolar world order that has had a ripple effect on the policies of individual European countries.

The neoliberal ideology, broadly acquiesced to by the “left”, has remained anchored to the diktat of the “old” unipolar world order, which saw Washington as the only hegemonic force.

What remains in the European political landscape seems to be divided into two streams. On the one side, there is a minority clearly eyeing a sort of neoconservatism 2.0, a sort of rehash of Reaganism. On the other side, there is a complete rejection of any of the faces currently participating in the political system.

For Europe it is a question of seeing what this new political phase will produce with regard to international issues like the sanctions against Russia and Iran. The behavior of European governments will give an idea of the extent to which they intend to obtain some sort of independence in conducting multipolar relations that are not necessarily linked to Washington.

In a sense, Berlin, London, Paris and Rome are now at the center of the concept of multipolar relationships. It is interesting to look at how strategists and newspaper editorialists in China and Russia look at what is going on in Europe, particular in Italy. While there is trust, there is also the awareness that there is still a European reluctance to favor development towards the East at the expense of relations with the US.

The take-home message that Trump seems to be giving Europeans is that it is pointless for them to remain as butlers who wait on Washington. We are living in a defining moment that will shape the the near-term future of vast areas of the world. There are many situations that are moving forward, bringing us closer to the moment where the West will either find common ground or splinter. Factors hitherto appearing unrelated are now serving to have different countries coalesce into a common destiny.

The summit between Trump and Kim Jong-un will lay the groundwork that will reveal whether Washington really wants to start talking or is only buying for time. Given the recent behavior and attitude of Trump and the political figures around him, the summit, like the foreign policy of Trump’s administration in general, becomes unpredictable and difficult to decipher. If there is one thing that unites the leaders of the G7, the SCO and Kim Jong-un, it is precisely the difficulty of relating to a declining world power and a leader who has no strategic vision; the common suffering stemming from an internal struggle within the United States to impose upon the world its antiquated and declining strategic vision.

*

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The battle for digital democracy, the last frontier of press freedom crucial to preserve, continues on a day that will live infamy.

On June 11, the FCC’s Orwellian-named Restoring Internet Freedom Order took effect, giving predatory telecom and cable giants control over a vital public resource.

The 1996 Congressional Review Act (CRA) empowers Congress to review new regulations issued by federal agencies – enabling a House and Senate majority to rescind them.

If repealed, regulations can’t be reinstated in substantially the same form “unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule” – 5 US Code § 801(b)(2).

In mid-May, Senate members voted to overturn the FCC’s ruling by a narrow 52 – 47 majority. The battle of the House remains waged.

Achieving it requires unanimous Dem support along with 22 Republicans. The final hurdle is avoiding a likely Trump veto if things go this far.

June 11 online actions are planned by Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, and the Free Press Action Fund to overturn the FCC ruling.

House members were warned. Support the reversal or face an activist summer campaign to vote refusniks out of office in November.

Polls show overwhelming public support for Net Neutrality, opposing the FCC repeal. On June 11, intense campaigning to win majority House support begins.

According to Demand Progress communications director Mark Stanley:

“Few policies coming out of Washington in recent years have been as universally opposed as the FCC’s repeal of Net Neutrality.”

Overwhelming public sentiment is clear. Fight for the Future’s director Evan Greer stressed “(p)eople (are) pissed off. Really pissed off. And rightly so,” adding:

“It’s hard to imagine a more clear example of how our democracy is broken. We’re going to harness the power of the internet to ensure that people have a way to channel that anger productively.”

“Any lawmaker of any party who fails to sign the discharge petition in support of the CRA will regret it come election time.” Separately he said: “Hold the obituaries. Net neutrality is not dead.”

A web controlled by predatory telecom and cable giants will transform digital freedom into online tyranny – an objective crucial to prevent.

Battle for the Net said:

“Net neutrality ends June 11th, but the fight has just begun” to save it.

Starting Monday,

“Internet providers…will legally be allowed to censor websites, block apps and services, and charge us extra fees to access online content.”

“The Internet as we know it won’t suddenly end. But with each second that passes until net neutrality is restored, it will be slowly dying.”

The spirit of fictional news anchor Howard Beale is needed. In the 1976 Hollywood film Network, he expressed outrage about Washington’s bipartisan criminal class, yelling:

“I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore.”

Decades later, millions nationwide like him are needed in real life – giving vent, demanding long denied fundamental democratic rights, accepting nothing less.

Restoring Net Neutrality, opposing endless wars, and demanding governance serving everyone equitably are key objectives for starters.

*

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

The so-called “Manbij Model” that the US and Turkey agreed to in jointly administering the strategic city following the YPG’s withdrawal is promising but nevertheless imperfect because it fails to address the Kurdish-led “deep state” that controls the SDF’s political and military activities in northeastern Syria.

The US and Turkey finally reached a deal to jointly administer the strategic city of Manbij following the YPG’s withdrawal from it, and this promising agreement is being touted as a model for Ayn al-Arab (more popularly known in the Mainstream Media by its Kurdish name “Kobani”), Raqqa, and other population centers in the northeastern agriculturally and energy-rich one-third of Syria under American-Kurdish SDF occupation. The working concept as articulated by Turkey at the moment but importantly unconfirmed by the US is to gradually return to the pre-war ethnic status quo in the region either by physically reversing the effects of anti-Arab and –“Turkmen” ethnic cleansing (which is unlikely) or at the very least not recognizing its political consequences in the sense of refusing to allow the minority Kurds to be the majority stakeholders in each city that they’ve conquered.

The “Manbij Model” is therefore very promising, but it’s still far from being perfect because of the many obstacles inherent to its full implementation.

On the surface, it’s sensible for Turkey to be in favor of allowing so-called “layered decentralization” in the self-declared “federal” region of what the Kurds call “Rojava” by turning it into a “federalized” collection of different “decentralized” entities that divides and ultimately dilutes this region’s post-war political power vis-à-vis Damascus, thus weakening Kurdish proxy control over this structure. Empowering the native Arabs that form the majority of northeastern Syria’s population as well as the scattered settlements of “Turkmen” in the region could allow both ethnicities to effectively counteract the Kurds’ disproportionate influence and restore balance to the presently lopsided relationship that this American-backed non-state minority has with its in-country neighbors in the region. “Layered decentralization” would also align with the “democratic confederalism” theories of the late Marxist theoretician Murray Bookchin, whom the Kurds have elevated to the level of a “secular god” and are obsessed with emulating.

So far, so good, but the problem is that the SDF militia that would prospectively continue to administer “Rojava’s” “layered decentralization” is nothing more than a thinly “diverse” front of Arab collaborators barely concealing the reality of a Kurdish-run “deep state” (or permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracy) protected by over 20 American bases and an undisclosed number of French ones. Ironically, the Kurds took up arms against the democratically elected and legitimate Syrian government on the supposed basis that the minority Alawites had hijacked the country’s “deep state” and were exploiting it for their own self-interested ends at everyone else’s expense, though the fact of the matter is that it’s now the Kurds – and never was the Alawites – who are actually doing this via the “federalization” of “Rojava” as enforced by the US-created SDF.

The non-Kurdish locals are well aware of this and that’s why almost 100 tribes have banded together to oppose the US occupation of their land, fighting to free it from the control of the Pentagon’s Kurdish kapos through a conflict that the author earlier christened as the “Rojava Civil War”. To be clear, though, this is not a policy of “reverse-ethnic cleansing” in killing Kurds just because of who they are, but in liberating one of the last remaining parts of Syria from foreign control by striking at the US’ local militant collaborators and then subsequently restoring a fair ethno-political balance in the region’s post-war affairs by implementing the “Manbij Model” and its related “layered decentralization” corollary. In view of this, the question naturally becomes one of how this vision can be executed in practice, and therein lays the opportunity for Turkey, Syria, and Iran.

Neither of these three states wants to see the perpetuation of a US-backed de-facto independent Kurdish client entity in northeastern Syria, while Russia – given its envisioned “balancing” role – is comparatively more accepting of this for its own reasons , so they can either coordinate their actions or advance them independently in pursuit of this shared objective. The tactics will differ but the strategy will remain the same, and that’s to break the back of the Kurdish-controlled SDF “deep state” that the US has tasked with carrying out the day-to-day occupational activities in “Rojava” through arms shipments, training, and political support in order to liberate the local Arabs and “Turkmen” from the dictatorial control of their foreign-backed Kurdish militant neighbors. The end result of this latest intra-Syrian struggle could also prospectively see the region being offered a better “autonomy” deal under President Putin’s peace plan than the dystopian one that the US is presently imposing upon its inhabitants.

*

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.

Introduction by Richard Fidler

On June 1, less than three weeks after a new government was finally allowed to take office in Catalonia,¹ the Spanish government of Mariano Rajoy‘s People’s Party (PP) – which had headed the central state’s harsh repression of Catalan self-determination – was defeated in a parliamentary no-confidence vote prompted by a High Court conviction of leading PP officials in a public contracts corruption case.

The vote, initiated by the Spanish social-democratic PSOE, was supported by the left party Unidos Podemos and Catalan and Basque nationalist parties in the Spanish parliament. PSOE federal secretary Pedro Sánchez became Spain’s new prime minister.²

These events open a new phase in the Spanish state’s ongoing institutional, social-economic and national-territorial crises, and present the left forces in both Catalonia and Spain with some major challenges.

New Relations?

It remains to be seen whether relations with Catalonia will improve under the new government in Madrid. Sánchez had aligned his party firmly behind Rajoy’s opposition to the October 1 independence referendum and in support of the trusteeship imposed on Catalonia under Article 155 of the 1978 Spanish constitution. However, to win Catalan nationalist parties’ support for its no-confidence motion, the PSOE promised to establish normal relations with the new Catalan government and undertook to revisit Catalan laws blocked by the Constitutional Court on appeal from the Rajoy government.³

Image on the right: Mariano Rajoy

At minimum, these promises, if effected, would require the withdrawal of charges against the jailed and exiled Catalan leaders and an end to the Madrid government’s control over the Catalan government’s economic policy although the PSOE has not indicated any such intention. The PSOE has now promised to implement Rajoy’s austerity budget, which it had voted against just days before its no-confidence motion. And although the Article 155 trusteeship formally ended with the investiture of the new Catalan government, more than 100 political activists, most of them associated with the grassroots Committees to Defend the Republic (CDRs), were arrested during the last two weeks of May. Some face charges of “terrorism” because of their role in organizing peaceful protests against the repression.⁴

Spain’s left party Unidos Podemos (UP) can play an important role in the period ahead, both within the parliament (71 seats vs. the PSOE’s 85) and “in the streets.” However, it will have to resist UP leader Pablo Iglesias’ offer to join the government. “This orientation,” writes Dick Nichols, the Barcelona-based correspondent of Green Left Weekly, “runs the risk of making Unidos Podemos co-responsible for retrograde policies that the PSOE won’t abandon, especially in regards to not taxing the rich and big business and abiding by obligations to meet European Commission spending limits.

“A more fruitful approach, as already flagged by the Podemos tendency Anticapitalists, would be to adopt the ‘Portuguese approach’ of that country’s Left Bloc and Communist Party: to support all progressive initiatives of the ruling Socialists while fighting for other progressive measures that they are avoiding and mobilizing the people in support of them – all the while defending the government from the attacks of the right.”⁵

In the following article, a leader of the Catalan independence movement outlines a strategy for carrying forward the struggle in the months ahead around actions aimed at building popular support for a project of “radical transformation, emancipation and popular empowerment.”

Fresnillo is convinced that many of these people can be won to support a progressive and inclusive Republican project in the course of a democratic debate open to the widest number. What is key to this process is that the population continues to mobilize en masse for the release of the prisoners and an end to the repression, and finds new ways to build “strategies of social transformation” starting, perhaps, at the local or municipal level. And as the recent arrests of CDR activists indicate, the central state’s opposition to these mass democratic manifestations – if countered with effective defensive struggles – can convince many more in the course of these experiences to support an emancipatory democratic Republic as an alternative social and political project.

.

***

Five Challenges the pro-independence Left will have to confront, now that we have a Government

by Iolanda Fresnillo

Image below: Carles Puigdemont

With the investiture of Quim Torra as the 131^st president of the Generalitat, Catalonia’s government, a new phase of the process has begun. Not the final or definitive one, simply a new phase. A phase full of uncertainties and glitches that are impossible to foresee – not just how the legislature will act and for how long, but also what will happen next week. The legal prosecutions still under way (and those that will probably ensue) and the likely sentencing of the political prisoners to jail terms; the constant threat of a new 155 and the expected prohibition by the Constitutional Court of such proposals as the initiation of the Constituent Process or the recovery of suspended laws; the foreseeable tension between the CUP and the Government within the pro-independence bloc, given the evident ideological distance between the president and the CUPistas; the influence, or the interference, that the Council of the Republic or President Puigdemont may exercise over Torra and the Generalitat government… these are some of the obstacles that will have to be overcome if the new president is not to be derailed.

Some of the challenges we confront in this new phase are of special relevance for the left activists we have opted for the sovereigntist process as offering the possibility of radical transformation, emancipation and popular empowerment. The first of those challenges will no doubt be to provide ourselves with spaces in which to construct future strategies that allow us to make reality what now appears as simply a “mantra”: to make a Republic. Right now, thinking of challenges, I will identify five that are, in my opinion, central.

1. Tackle the Exceptional Nature of the Repression

Without a doubt, one of the central issues is how we tackle the climate of repression and deprivation of rights and freedoms that the Spanish state has imposed. The strategy of threats and fears deployed by the Spanish government means it has to make those threats effective and – independently of what the Criminal Code says – keep the political prisoners in prison. We will have to develop strategies gauged to the needs of the prisoners, those in exile and those under siege from the Spanish judicial authorities for having defended the Republic in the streets. The message in the hundreds of thousands of letters and visits and other demonstrations of support must be loud and clear: We have not forgotten you.

Jesús Rodríguez said a few days ago in Crític that October 1 has meant a transformation in the values and mentality of many Catalans, in that the experience of recent months has already helped to build “a society that is more critical, more willing to take risks, more open to new forms of understanding the economy and social relations.” This increased predisposition to risk will encounter a foreseeable rise in the incessant repression deployed by the Spanish state and accordingly a growing number of reprisals. Being attentive to this means building spaces and collective strategies to confront that repression, but also spaces that will help us maintain the predisposition to risk, and not to become entangled in the web of fear. It is only through collective action that we can avert the Spanish state’s attempt to paralyze this process of social empowerment. Thus it will be essential to protect spaces like the CDRs that cultivate this collectivity.

And finally, to confront the repression not only through the necessary solidarity actions but also through the construction of strategies of social disapproval. In this respect, to find a way around the lack of demonstrations of solidarity and indignation by a part of the Spanish, European and international left. The left, traditionally internationalist, will have to redouble efforts to explain to the outside world what is happening in Catalonia.

2. Build an Inclusive Republic

Half a year ago we met with a group of left-wing activists from various political spaces and social movements with a proposal to promote the Republic from below and in a form that was not subordinate to the institutional agendas. We issued an appeal to meet, think about and organize ourselves around the theme “Contra la foscor, la llum: el millor del nou i el poder popular. Aixequem la República!” [“Against the darkness, light: the best of the new and the popular power. Stand up for the Republic!”] In this initial meeting, which took place on December 1, 2017, we stated: “The Republic we want is inclusive, democratic, egalitarian, feminist, antiracist and puts a dignified life for all at the center of any politics.”

The proposal of inclusive sovereigntism necessarily clashes frontally with identitarian nationalisms. Against the controversial tweets and articles of President Quim Torra, far from downplaying his words (which we view very seriously) we must reaffirm ourselves in the words that would have to accompany this construction of an inclusive Republic. Not to convince (being inclusive in order to broaden the bases of sovereignty), but because it is correct. Because, if it is not with everyone and for everyone – weaving, not unravelling – it is not our Republic.

An inclusive Republic is at the antipodes of a racist society that undervalues the 15% of the population composed of migrant individuals who, in today’s Catalonia (in the Spanish state and in the European Union) find their rights as citizens denied. An inclusive Republic cannot be built around an essentialist proposal of Catalan identity; instead, it must celebrate our diversity. Nor can it be a

“neoliberal Republic at the service of the new and old elites, or a new country with the old classes, injustices and privileges as usual. It cannot continue to be subordinate to the interests of capital, super-state structures and actors not chosen democratically and holding decisive powers over our lives. Nor can we allow ourselves to perpetuate a society in connivance with predatory exploitation of the territory, racism and male chauvinism,”

as we stated in the opening ceremony of Aixequem la República.

In this sense, as the independentist lefts, both within and without the Parliament, we have to develop a frontal opposition to the neoliberal policies that the new Catalan government may be tempted to implement, and to any attempt to impose an identitarian Catalanism. And we will have to build strategies that make no concession to the blackmail of those who will doubtless, faced with this opposition, put in question our commitment to the republican project.

3. The Temptation of the Municipal Elections

No one can tell whether the new Government will still be intact by May of next year. But in any case the election date of May 2019, which applies to the municipal and European elections (and to the Balearic Islands, Valencia and other autonomous communities throughout the state), can become an important turning point.

The new municipalism that exploded with the May 2015 elections has highlighted the potential to build emancipatory realities and transformative processes from the local level. The experiences in the city councils led by new forces and left political coalitions in cities like Barcelona, Badalona or Sabadell, but also in smaller cities and towns, are showing us that at the local level it is possible to deploy quite strong strategies of social transformation. And even in some municipalities where the right governs, civil society and the leftist opposition find it easier to initiate transformative initiatives like municipal ownership of services, experiences of direct democracy, or policies of transparency (public hearings). These are processes of transformation and construction of spaces of popular sovereignty that follow rhythms and routes that differ from those in the country’s sovereigntist process. I think we have to maintain those different rhythms and routes.

For some time now we have seen how there is a desire among various pro-sovereignty political forces to put the independentist process at the center of the pre-campaigning for the next municipal elections. Proposals like those of Jordi Graupera to present an independentist candidacy for the Barcelona city council have and no doubt will continue to have their reflection in other municipalities. Personally, I think it is a strategic error to try to confine the transformative potential of municipalism within the independentist proposal.

The left must be conscious that the process of building a new country, an inclusive Republic, is a long process that involves a change in hegemonies, as well as transformations in the “macro” but also in the “micro.” Municipalism is a fertile terrain for those transformations, for the construction of sovereignties, that can be the basis for the construction of Sovereignty as a country. Food sovereignties, energy sovereignties, residential sovereignties, health sovereignties, cultural sovereignties, productive sovereignties, reproductive sovereignties, etc. that can develop in the municipal environment without awaiting the winning of full Sovereignty nationally. So I do not share the hypothesis of some that without an effective Catalan Republic there can be no advance in transformation at the level of municipal government. There is some latitude, and I think that making the exploitation of that latitude await the unlikely achievement of the Republic in the short term is a strategic error.

We have to promote the idea that municipal action is the basis on which to build a new model relationship with the territory and between the territories. And for that we must leave some room for this construction of sovereignties to break independently from the path, rhythm and road map taken by the national process. A strategy that is favourable to the view that sovereignties can emerge as well in municipal governments that are not pro-independence. It seems obvious to me that the coalition between the Commons, ERC and the CUP in cities like Barcelona can generate spaces of transformation that are much stronger than an independentist coalition with the PdeCat. Putting independentism at the center of the next municipal elections would radically break with this transformative potential.

4. Guarantee the Constituent Process

Quim Torra emphasized in his investiture speeches the proposal to move ahead with a Constituent Process that culminates in the drafting of a new Catalan constitution. In this respect, Carles Riera has warned that “a Constituent Process cannot be a workshop for bumper stickers.” How the Constituent Process develops and what it will end up being will have to be one of the lefts’ concerns, not only in the institutions (and this is not simply a concern of the CUP) but also in the social movements, including those that do not share the preference for independence. The potential for a change of hegemonies through a Constituent Process should not be disdained by anyone who is fighting for a transformation and for social, political and economic justice.

“The new republican, self-organized reality that has appeared since October 1 around the CDRs and other spaces with a local base, should form part of the matrix of the Constituent Process.”

From the standpoint of the social movements and left political forces we cannot spoil the possibility of carrying out a Constituent Process that actually allows us to debate everything, to change everything. In this sense, the new republican, self-organized reality that has appeared since October 1 around the CDRs and other spaces with a local base, should form part of the matrix of the Constituent Process. A process that we want to be led from below by the people, distributed throughout the territory, in a non-exclusive way with the democratic guarantee of equality for everyone. This means that the “lobbies” represented by academic experts cannot take precedence over citizenship. And that no one can be excluded from citizenship. Immigrants (with or without papers) have to able to be part of the process, with voice and vote. Adults but also young people and children. No one can be excluded because of his or her origin, culture, religion, age, gender or political alignment. If we want to make a country for everyone, we have to look to everyone to make it.

The Constituent Process will no doubt also be the focus of the state’s repressive violence. Faced with this obvious risk, the self-organized people will be predisposed to defend the process, as we defended the ballot boxes on October 1. It is more than a defense of the institutional process as proposed by the Government or Parliament. We will have to be prepared to defend the underlying process, which enables us to advance in the construction of new material aspects, those that make the Republic possible. And we have to be conscious that for a process with these characteristics the worst partners are the over-hasty. We are looking to the future with broadmindedness and we are dealing with a Constituent Process with guarantees, which is another way of saying that we must take the necessary time.

5. Making the Republic Without Undue Haste

For many of us, the Republic is not simply a legal form, the constitution of new borders. The Republic is not built law by law, but by making a reality of republican spaces and materialities. The Republic is not a state but a process of transformation that results in a new, and better, country. A long process that, once again, needs time in which to build the Republic carefully, for ourselves and for the territory. To form a WE that includes the convinced, but also those who are not, takes time. To deploy and reaffirm sovereignties takes time. To construct not only a new country but a better country in which full sovereignty is exercised, from below, takes a lot of time.

Let us give ourselves that time, with strategies that are far-sighted and with infinite patience, so that the process of building the Republic can effectively put life, care and social justice at the center. This is the biggest challenge we confront on the left if we do not want to deny the fact that making the Republic means generating a genuinely emancipative process and that the results will be a country of social justice. The overhasty may be able to ensure that the new country arrives earlier (although there is no guarantee of that), but it will not be the country that we want. Let us give ourselves not only enough space but also time to meet, think, organize and build – together – the Republic.

*

Global Research is a small team that believes in the power of information and analysis to bring about far-reaching societal change including a world without war.

Truth in media is a powerful instrument. As long as we keep probing, asking questions, challenging media disinformation to find real understanding, then we are in a better position to participate in creating a better world in which truth and accountability trump greed and corruption.

*     *    *

Bartlett Pierces the Fog of War Lies and Omissions at Toronto’s Al-Qud’s Day Rally

By Mark Taliano, June 11, 2018

Investigative reporter Eva Bartlett – one of many outstanding speakers at the event — lived in Palestine for about three years, where she was active in peaceful resistance movements against Israel’s criminal oppression of native Palestinians. Her testimony resonates with evidence-based truth, in stark contrast to monochromatic mainstream media messaging, which is wrapped around permanent state, largely unspoken, imperial policies.

“American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family” by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

By Edward Curtin, June 11, 2018

The Kennedy name attracts the mainstream media only when they can sensationalize something “scandalous” – preferably sexual or drug related – whether false or true, or something innocuous that can lend credence to the myth that the Kennedys are lightweight, wealthy celebrities descended from Irish mobsters.  This has been going on since the 1960s with the lies and cover-ups about the assassinations of President Kennedy and his brother Robert, propaganda that continues to the present day, always under the aegis of the CIA-created phrase “conspiracy theory.”  A thinking person might just get the idea that the media are in league with the CIA to bury the Kennedys.

Crimes Against the Earth

By Dr. Andrew Glikson, June 11, 2018

This scientific projection is holding true: it is estimated that, to date, some 150,000 to 400,000 people world-wide have perished each year due to direct and indirect effects of global warming¹. This includes, for example, 1833 people in New Orleans, possibly up to 5000 in Puerto Rico, 6329 by typhoon Haiyan in the Philippine―the list goes on. Although these events have been documented in detail, the silence in most of the mainstream media regarding the connection between global warming on the one hand and the rising spate of hurricanes, storms and fires on the other, is deafening. 

The Geostrategy that Guides Trump’s Foreign Policies

By Eric Zuesse, June 11, 2018

This is today’s financial world — a world in which billionaires control the future directions of commodities-prices, and thus manipulate markets, and even determine the economic fates of nations. It’s not the myth of capitalism; it is the reality of capitalism. It functions by means of corruption, as it always has, but the corrupt methods constantly evolve.

Torture, Starvation, Executions: Eastern Ghouta Civilians Talk of Life Under Terrorist Rule

By Eva Bartlett, June 11, 2018

When I visited eastern Ghouta and the Horjilleh center for displaced people just south of Damascus—people mostly from Ghouta now—I asked about their lives under the rule of Jaysh al-Islam and others, including why they had been starving in the first place. The reply was, as I and others  heard in eastern Aleppo, Madaya, and al-Waer, the terrorists stole aid and controlled all food, only selling food at extortionist prices which ordinary people could not afford.

G7 vs. G6+1 – The War of Words

By Peter Koenig and Press TV, June 11, 2018

Trump pulling out from the final G7 statement is just show; the usual Trump show. He signed it, then he pulled out. We have seen it with the Iran Nuclear Deal, with the North Korea meeting, on and off, with the tariffs – first – about two months ago – the tariffs were on for Europe, Mexico and Canada, as well as China – then they were off for all of them – and now they are on again…

Chris Hayes’ incredulous tweet on the killing of Palestinian paramedic Razan al-Najjar in Gaza is being echoed everywhere it seems on social media.  Hayes hosts All In with Chris Hayes, a weekday news and opinion television show on MSNBC. 

On June 7, 2018 he tweeted:

“The wording of that [Israel Defense Forces] IDF video is so bizarre. Hamas “incited” a woman to…provide medical care to the wounded? That’s incitement?”

I wish to God it were only the wording that is bizarre in this latest chapter of the Palestinians’ long-running tragedy since the ungodly arrival of the Zionist Jewish state of Israel among them.

To decry the killing of Razan al-Najjar on the basis that she was unarmed and did not pose a threat, as some are provoked to do by the IDF tripe at which Hayes marvels, plays right into Israel’s “narrative” of defense rather than the reality of the aggression it needs to continue to exist as the exclusionist colonial-apartheid polity it is.

It means you cannot state that an armed Palestinian resisting the IDF who is then killed by them is also an unjustified killing.

Apologists and propagandists who try to justify Razan al-Najjar’s killing are the same as those who justify Israel’s violent existence as a Jewish state in Palestine against the will of its indigenous people.

Israel’s repression of Palestinians is never justified. To Israel, such repression is standard operating procedure — because we exist and because we are not Jews. The exact circumstances are irrelevant hogwash.

The fact is that the mere existence of Palestinians is a threat to Israel — a so-called demographic threat. By and large, Israel justifies any and all resistance to its settler-colonial presence in the Arab world by pointing to its security and the sanctity of its non-existent borders.

Our existential threat to them is their justification for killing us — i.e., we don’t need to be armed to be killed or shoved into prison or ethnically cleansed. All we have to do is exist and procreate in a spot needed to build housing for Israel’s Jewish population.

They can and have been justifying their unconscionable actions against us through denial and deflection, turning the tables on us and feigning empathy where necessary, as described in the Al-Jazeera video clip [2:33 minutes]: How Israeli Propaganda Works: The Luntz Document/ Al-Jazeera.

‘If you want to understand how the propaganda works you need to read the Luntz document — “The key, [Frank] Luntz says, is the claim that the fight is over ideology, not land. About terror [Islamist terror in the form of Hamas, Iran or Hezbollah], and not territory.”’

Israel never fails to crank up its PR Machine whenever it fails to work as it is meant to do:

Groping for a convenient solution to its public relations problems, the Israeli government has turned to hasbara. The literal meaning of this Hebrew word is “explanation,” but when put into practice, most informed observers recognize it as propaganda. The more the State of Israel relies on force to manage the occupation, the more it feels compelled to deploy hasbara. And the more Western media consumers encounter hasbara, the more likely they are to measure Israel’s grandiose talking points against the routine and petty violence, shocking acts of humiliation and repression that define its treatment of the Palestinians.

And it isn’t just the 1967 occupation that is the problem with Israel for Palestinians; it is the whole racist and cruel Zionist idea of a settler-colonial Jewish state in Palestine dominating the Arab world in general.

As Steven Salaita writes:

Many of the people who defend Israel are consciously racist (clearly), but others dehumanize Arabs and Muslims by reproducing unexamined assumptions about Israel’s moral or civilizational superiority.

Beyond racism (Arabophobia), lies and deflection, there is Israel’s classic justification for its very existence as a settler-colonial Zionist Jewish state in Palestine, namely the “liberation” of the Jewish people. This central Zionist fabrication has long gained Israel impunity on the Western international front:

Writing in The Electronic Intifada, Ilan Pappe says, in ‘Finding the truth amid Israel’s lies’:

… [Palestinian] children were considered as part of the enemy, who had to be cleansed for the sake of a Jewish state or as Carmel put it — a day after he finished his Galilee tour — for the sake of liberation.

[ Moshe Carmel is the author of Northern Campaigns — first published in 1949, in which he describes the events of the Nakba thus: “Great sadness and suffering flooded the roads — convoy upon convoy of refugees making their way [to the Lebanese border’]]

,… Revisiting them [such books as Carmel’s], 70 years on, reveals an elementary truth: it would have been possible to write the “new history” of 1948 [i.e., a history of ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, colonization and Jewish Zionist usurpation by European Jews] without a single new declassified document, but only if these open sources, as I call them, had been read with non-Zionist lenses.

The crimes perpetrated during the Nakba and Israel’s ongoing crimes today are callous and unconscionable and equally unbearable for us Palestinians. They are connected by a thread no hasbara in the world can break.

In the first instance (the Nakba), we have a violent ethnic cleansing perpetrated against a mostly agrarian population in Palestine, whose aftermath is still with us today in the shape of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, six million Palestinian exiles and refugees and, of course an Apartheid, Zionist, Jewish state, armed to the teeth, including with nuclear weapons.

In the second instance (Israel’s ongoing crimes today), we have a beautiful young woman (21), a paramedic wearing a uniform that identified her as such, fatally shot while evacuating and tending to the wounded east of Khan Younes.

In describing her funeral, Haaretz refers to Razan’s “hometown of Khuza’a” in the Gaza Strip, rather than her true hometown of Salama, five km east of Jaffa, now documented by Visualizing Palestine in their updated infographic “Short Walk Home, Long Walk to Freedom”.

If you deny Razan’s fundamental human right to return to her hometown and call her protest a “riot”, if you believe that the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine trumps all else, no matter the price Palestinians must pay in dispossession and exile, then, like US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, you can justify all violence against Palestinians by pointing to Israel’s security and simply debating how much violence is “justified” when pushing protesting Palestinians back into their camps (over 70% of the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip are refugees). If a little violence doesn’t work, then by all means, use deadly violence:

Friedman said experts had told him tear gas, water cannons and other nonlethal means of crowd dispersal would not have been effective during the weeks of riots… “If what happens isn’t right, what is right? What do you use instead of bullets?” he asked rhetorically.’

Standard practice is to lie glibly about the Great March of Return, as this Fox news outlet does:

The Gaza protests are being organized by the territory’s militant Hamas leadership and are aimed at drawing attention to the decade-long Israeli-Egyptian blockade on the territory. The protesters are also demanding the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees from the 1948 war and their descendants.

Note how the Palestinian inalienable and internationally recognized right of return is in quotation marks. Note that the blockade is mentioned with no reference to the horrible conditions it has engendered in the Gaza Strip. But most of all, note how “militant Hamas leadership” are said to have organized the protests, when it is, in fact,

a grassroots movement calling for the right of return of Palestinian refugees to their homes, as per UN Resolution 194, from which they were expelled in 1948 when the state of Israel was created.

As Toufic Haddad, activist, academic and author of Palestine Ltd: Neoliberalism and Nationalism in the Occupied Territory, says in an interview, Hamas’ decision to abstain from governance opened the path

for popular forces, and particularly a younger generation of activists, to take the initiative and see what could be done to change the situation.

The tragedy, as Shane Wesbrock comments on a post by Steve Salaita on Facebook, is that subliminal hasbara “justification” of Razan’s and all IDF killing is pervasive even on entertainment media outlets in the U.S.:

I just finished reading about Razan al-Najjar last evening and decided to watch some Netflix to redirect. I open up the page and there is a big advertisement for a “Netflix Original” where the Israeli hero is hunting the evil Palestinian “terrorist.” Talk about superior narratives! Its bloody invasive, not to mention aptly timed.

Israel and its Western allies want the whole world to celebrate Israel’s achievements as they define them and to hide its devastating failures and its crimes against humanity [yes, Palestinians are human]. Their advocates get angry when they realize that Palestinians will not lie still under the Zionist yoke — not 70 years hence, not a million years hence.

Because the Zionist cause is unjust and racist, Israel and its spokespeople can “justify” only through lies and deflections.

*

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Controlled media frames what Canadians think, hear, say, and do.  An important component of controlling the message is omission.  Major media outlets, for example, were conspicuously absent from yesterday’s (June 9, 2018) Al-Quds rally in Toronto, ON.

Consequently, the evidence-based truth was largely buried as soon as it emerged. 

Investigative reporter Eva Bartlett – one of many outstanding speakers at the event — lived in Palestine for about three years, where she was active in peaceful resistance movements against Israel’s criminal oppression of native Palestinians. Her testimony resonates with evidence-based truth, in stark contrast to monochromatic mainstream media messaging, which is wrapped around permanent state, largely unspoken, imperial policies.

She connects the dots between malevolent Zionist oppression of Palestinians and imperialist projects connected to Israel. Israel and its allies’ (including Canada), for example, support al Qaeda (and ISIS) in Syria.  This largely unspoken, very uncomfortable, fundamental truth, needs to echo widely, for the sake of Peace and Justice.

Voices of Peace, Truth, and Justice were piercing the fog of War Lies yesterday. 

Eva Bartlett speaking at Toronto’s Al-Quds Day Rally, June 9, 2018

*

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.

---

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

When a book as fascinating, truthful, beautifully written, and politically significant as American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, written by a very well-known author by the name of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and published by a prominent publisher (HarperCollins), is boycotted by mainstream book reviewers, you know it is an important book and has touched a nerve that the corporate mainstream media wish to anesthetize by eschewal.  

The Kennedy name attracts the mainstream media only when they can sensationalize something “scandalous” – preferably sexual or drug related – whether false or true, or something innocuous that can lend credence to the myth that the Kennedys are lightweight, wealthy celebrities descended from Irish mobsters.  This has been going on since the 1960s with the lies and cover-ups about the assassinations of President Kennedy and his brother Robert, propaganda that continues to the present day, always under the aegis of the CIA-created phrase “conspiracy theory.”  A thinking person might just get the idea that the media are in league with the CIA to bury the Kennedys.

Such disinformation has been promulgated by many sources, prominent among them from the start in the 1960s was the CIA’s Sam Halpern, a former Havana bureau chief for the New York Times, who was CIA Director Richard Helms’s deputy (the key source for Seymour Hersh’s Kennedy hatchet job, The Dark Side of Camelot), who began spreading lies about the Kennedys that have become ingrained in the minds of leftists, liberals, centrists, and conservatives to this very day.  Fifty years later, after decades of reiteration by the CIA’s Wurlitzer machine (the name given by the CIA’s Frank Wisner to the CIA’s penetration and control of the mass media, Operation Mockingbird), Halpern’s lies have taken on mythic proportions.  Among them: that Joseph. P. Kennedy, the patriarch, was a bootlegger and Nazi lover; that he was Mafia connected and fixed the 1960 election with Chicago mobster Sam Giancana; and that JFK and RFK knew of and approved the CIA plots to assassinate Fidel Castro. 

Of course whenever a writer extolls the Kennedy name and legacy, he is expected to add the caveat that the Kennedys, especially JFK and RFK, were no saints.  Lacking this special talent to determine sainthood or its lack, I will defer to those who feel compelled to temper their praise with a guilty commonplace.  Let me say at the outset that I greatly admire President John Kennedy and his brother, Robert, very courageous men who died in a war to steer this country away from the nefarious path of war-making and deep-state control that it has followed with a vengeance since their murders.

And I admire Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. for writing this compelling book that is a tour de force on many levels.

Part memoir, part family history, part astute political analysis, and part-confessional, it is in turns delightful, sad, funny, fierce, and frightening in its implications.  From its opening sentence – “From my youngest days I always had the feeling that we were all involved in some great crusade, that the world was a battleground for good and evil, and that our lives would be consumed in the conflict.” – to its last – “‘Kennedys never give up, ’ she [Ethel Kennedy] chided us.  ‘We have to die with our boots on!’” – the book is imbued with the spirit of the eloquent, romantic Irish-Catholic rebels whose fighting spirit and jaunty demeanor the Kennedy family has exemplified.  RFK, Jr. tells his tales in words that honor that literary and spiritual tradition.

So what is it about this book that has caused the mainstream press to avoid reviewing it?

Might it be the opening chapter devoted to his portrait of his grandfather, Joseph P. Kennedy, who comes across as a tender and doting grandpa, who created an idyllic world for his children and grandchildren at “The Big House” on Cape Cod?   We see Grandpa Joe taking the whole brood of Kennedys, including his three famous political sons, for a ride on his cabin cruiser, the Marlin, and JFK (Uncle Jack) singing “The Wearing of the Green” and, together with his good friend, Dave Powers, teaching the kids to whistle “The Boys of Wexford” (Wexford being the Kennedy’s ancestral home), an Irish rebel tune all of whose words John Kennedy knew by heart:

We are the boys of Wexford

Who fought with heart and hand

To burst in twain

The galling chain

And free our native land.

We see Joseph P. Kennedy sitting on the great white porch, holding hands with his wife Rose Kennedy, as the kids played touch football on the grass beyond.  We read that “Grandpa wanted his children’s minds unshackled by ideology” and that his “overarching purpose was to engender in his children a social conscience” and use their money and advantages to make America and the world a better place.  We learn, according to Joe’s son, Senator Robert Kennedy, that he loved all of them deeply, “not love as it is described with such facility in popular magazines, but the kind of love that is affection and respect, order, encouragement and support.”  We hear him staunchly defended from the political criticisms that he was a ruthless, uncaring, and political nut-case who would do anything to advance his political and business careers.  In short, he is presented very differently from the popular understanding of him as a malign force and a ruthless bastard.

Portraying his grandfather as a good and loving man may be one minor reason that Robert Jr.’s book is being ignored.

No doubt it is not because of the picture he paints of his paternal grandmother, Rose Kennedy, who comes across similarly to her husband as a powerful presence and as a devoted mother and grandmother who expected much from her children and grandchildren but gave much in return.  Robert Jr. writes that “Grandpa and Grandma were products of an alienated Irish generation that kept itself intact through rigid tribalism embodied in the rituals and mystical cosmologies of medieval Catholicism,” but that both believed the Church should be a champion of the poor as Christ taught. The glowing portrait of Grandmother Rose could not be the reason the book has not been reviewed.

Nor can the chapter on Ethel Kennedy’s family, the Skakels, be the reason.  It is a fascinating peek into certain aspects of Ethel’s character – the daring, outrageous, fun-loving, and wild side – from her upbringing in a wild and crazy family, together with the Kennedys one of the richest Catholic families in the U.S. in days past.  But there their similarities end.  The Skakels were conservative Republicans in the oil, coal, and extraction business, who “reveled in immodest consumption,” were huge into guns and “more primitive weaponry like bows, knives, throwing spears and harpoons,” and “pretty much captured shot, stabbed, hooked, or speared anything that moved, including each other.”  The Skakel men worked as informers for the CIA wherever their businesses took them around the world and they worked very hard to sabotage JFK’s run for the presidency. Ethel’s brother George was a creepy and crazy wild man. Once Ethel met RFK, she switched political sides for good, embracing the Kennedy’s liberal Democratic ethos.

A vignette of Lemoyne Billings, JFK’s dear friend, who after RFK’s assassination took Robert Jr. under his wing, can’t be the reason.  It too is a loving portrait of the man RFK Jr. says was “perhaps the most important influence in my life” and also the most fun.  In his turn Billings said that JFK was the most fun person he had ever met.  They referred to each other as Johnny and Billy and both were expelled from Choate for hijinks.  But stories about Lem, JFK, and RFK Jr. would attract, not repel, the mainstream press’s book reviewers.

Clearly the chapter about Robert Jr.’s early bad behavior, his drug use, and his conflicted relationship with his mother would be fuel for the Kennedy haters.  “I seem to have been at odds with my mother since birth,” he writes.  “My mere presence seemed to agitate her.”  Mother and son were at war for 

decades, and his father’s murder sent him on a long downward spiral into self-medicating that inflamed their relationship.  Moving from school to school and keeping away from home as much as possible, his “homecomings were like the arrival of a squall.  With me around to provoke her, my mother didn’t stay angry very long – she went straight to rage.”  His victory over drugs through Twelve Step meetings and his reconciliation with his mother are also the stuff that the mainstream press revels in, yet they ignore the book.

The parts about his relationship with his father, his father’s short but electrifying presidential campaign in 1968, his death, and funeral are deeply moving and evocative.  Deep sadness and lost hope accompanies the reader as one revisits RFK’s funeral and the tear-filled eulogy given by his brother Ted, then the long slow train ride bearing the body from New York to Washington, D.C. as massive crowds,  lined the tracks, weeping and waving farewell.  And the writer, now a 64-year-old-man, but then a 14- year-old-boy, named after his look-alike father, the father who supported and encouraged him despite his difficulties in school, the father who took the son on all kinds of outdoor adventures – sailing, white water canoeing, mountain climbing – always reminding him to “always do what you are afraid to do” and which the son understood to be “boot camp for the ultimate virtue – moral courage.  Despite his high regard for physical bravery, my father told us that moral courage is the rarer and more valuable commodity.”  Such compelling, heartfelt writing, with not a word about who might have killed his father, would be another reason why the mainstream press would review this book.

It is the heart of this book that has the reviewers avoiding it like the plague, perhaps a plague introduced by a little mockingbird.

American Values revolves around the long war between the Kennedys and the CIA that resulted in the deaths of JFK and RFK.  All the other chapters, while very interesting personal and family history, pale in importance.  

No member of the Kennedy family since JFK or RFK has dared to say what RFK, Jr. does in this book.  He indicts the CIA.

While some news outlets have mentioned the book in passing because of its assertion that what has been known for a long time to historically aware people – that RFK immediately suspected that the CIA was involved in the assassination of JFK – Robert Jr.’s writing on the war between the CIA and his Uncle Jack and father is so true and so carefully based on the best scholarship and family records that the picture he paints fiercely indicts the CIA in multiple ways while also indicting the mass media that have been its mouthpieces.   These sections of the book are masterful lessons in understanding the history and machinations of “The Agency” that the superb writer and researcher, Douglass Valentine, calls “organized crime” – the CIA.  A careful reading of RFK Jr.’s critical history leads to the conclusion that the CIA and the Mafia are not two separate murderer’s rows, but one organization that has corrupted the country at the deepest levels and is, as Kennedy quotes his father Robert – “a dark force infiltrating American politics and business, unseen by the public, and out of reach of democracy and the justice system” – posing “a greater threat to our country than any foreign enemy.”  The CIA’s covert operations branch has grown so powerful that it feels free to murder its opponents at home and abroad and make sure “splendid little wars” are continually waged around the globe for the interests of its patrons.  Robert Jr. says, “A permanent state of war abroad and a national security surveillance state at home are in the institutional self-interest of the CIA’s clandestine services.”

No Kennedy has dared speak like this since Senator Robert Kennedy last did so – but privately – and paid the price. His son tells us:

Days before his murder, as my father pulled ahead in the California polls, he began considering how he would govern the country.  According to his aide Fred Dutton, his concerns often revolved around the very question that his brother asked at the outset of his presidency, ‘What are we going to do about the CIA?’  Days before the California primary, seated next to journalist Pete Hamill on his campaign plane, my father mused aloud about his options. ‘I have to decide whether to eliminate the operations arm of the Agency or what the hell to do with it,’ he told Hamill.  ‘We can’t have those cowboys wandering around and shooting people and doing all those unauthorized things.’

Then he was shot dead.

For whatever their reasons, for fifty plus years the Kennedy family has kept silent on these matters.  Now Senator Robert Kennedy’s namesake has picked up his father’s mantle and dared to tell truths that take courage to utter.  By excoriating the secret forces that seized power, first with the murder of his Uncle Jack when he was a child, and then his father, he has exhibited great moral courage and made great enemies who wish to ignore his words as if they were never uttered.  But they have.  They sit between the covers of this outstanding and important book, a book written with wit and eloquence, a book that should be read by any American who wants to know what has happened to their country.

There is a telling anecdote that took place in the years following JFK’s assassination when RFK was haunted by his death.  It says so much about Senator Kennedy and now his son, a son who in many ways for many wandering years became a prodigal son lost in grief and drugs only to return home to find his voice and tell the truth for his father and his family.  He writes,

One day he [RFK] came into my bedroom and handed me a hardcover copy of Camus’s The Plague. ‘I want you to read this,’ he said with particular urgency. It was the story of a doctor trapped in a quarantined North African city while a raging epidemic devastates its citizenry; the physician’s small acts of service, while ineffective against the larger tragedy, give meaning to his own life, and, somehow, to the larger universe.  I spent a lot of time thinking about that book over the years, and why my father gave it to me.  I believe it was the key to a door that he himself was then unlocking….It is neither our position nor our circumstances that define us… but our response to those circumstances; when destiny crushes us, small heroic gestures of courage and service can bring peace and fulfillment.  In applying our shoulder to the stone, we give order to a chaotic universe.  Of the many wonderful things my father left me, this philosophical truth was perhaps the most useful.  In many ways, it has defined my life.

By writing American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has named the plague and entered the fight.  His father would be very proud of him.  He has defined himself.

*

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely; he is a frequent contributor to Global Research. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/.

Last weekend, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies repelled another series of ISIS attacks on the town of al-Bukamal at the Syrian-Iraqi border. ISIS used several suicide bombers and car bombs to break the SAA defense but failed to capture any key positions.

In clashes that took place from June 8 to and June 10, about 35 pro-government fighters were killed, according to pro-opposition sources. In turn, the SAA reportedly killed up to 20 ISIS members and destroyed at least two car bombs.

The SAA also deployed reinforcements, a few fresh units, to stabilize the situation in the area.

According to local sources, all the recent ISIS attempts to capture al-Bukamal involved attacks from the eastern bank of the Euphrates, where the US-led coalition and its proxies from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) should combat the terrorist group.

On June 9, Russian military spokesman Maj. Gen. Konashenkov stated that all the remaining ISIS strongholds in Syria remain in areas controlled by the US-led coalition. Konashenkov’s statement were likely referring to the area of At Tanf and the eastern bank of the Euphrates, where ISIS cells are still pretty active.

Meanwhile, the SDF continued its advance on the town of Dashisha capturing the villages of Abu Hamdah, Shamas and Al-Hulwa. The advance was backed not only by the US-led coalition but also by limited strikes by Iraqi warplanes and artillery, which hit some key ISIS facilities in the border area and the Euphrates Valley.

It is unclear why the SDF and the coalition continue ignoring a group of ISIS-held villages in their area of responsibility of the Euphrates Valley. This ignorance allows some pro-Damascus and pro-Russian sources to speculate that the US-led forces are indirectly encouraging ISIS attacks on government forces.

The SAA also developed its operation against ISIS cells in eastern al-Suwayda liberating the valley of Ar’ar and the village of Rasm Hatite. The ISIS-linked news agency Amaq claimed that 12 SAA soldiers had been killed in the clashes. However, ISIS cells in the area have little chances to resist to government forces for a long time.

*

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

According to Alastair Crooke, writing at Strategic Culture, on June 5^th: 

“Trump’s US aims for ‘domination’, not through the globalists’ permanent infrastructure of the US defence umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial clearing monopoly, by ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the energy market, which in turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals. In this way, Trump can ‘bring the troops home’, and yet America keeps its hegemony [America’s control of the world, global empire]. Military conflict becomes a last resort.”

He bases that crucially upon a landmark 6 November 2017 article by Chris Cook, at Seeking Alpha, which laid out, and to a significant extent documented, a formidable and complex geostrategy driving U.S. President Donald Trump’s foreign policies. Cook headlined there “Energy Dominance And America First”, and noted that,

“Towards the tail end of the Clinton administration and the Dot Com boom in 2000, [Trump’s U.S. Treasury Secretary until April 2018] Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs had dinner with his counterpart at Morgan Stanley, John Shapiro. From this dinner was hatched an audacious plan to take control of the global oil market through a new electronic global market platform.”

This “global market platform,” which had been started months earlier in 2000 by Jeffrey Sprecher, is “ICE,” or InterContinental Exchange, and it uses financial derivatives in order to provide to Wall Street banks control over the future direction of commodites prices (so that the insiders can game the markets), by means of the financial-futures markets, locking in future purchase-and-sale agreements. It also entails Wall Street’s buying enormous commodities-storage warehouses and stashing them with such commodities – such as, in that case, aluminum), and so it influences also the real estate markets, and doesn’t only manipulate the commodities markets. Those vast storehouses (and the operation of the U.S. Government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to carry out a similar price-manipulation function in the oil business) are crucial in order for the entire scheme to be able to function, because without control over the storehousing of physical commodities, such futures-price manipulations aren’t possible. Consequently, ICE couldn’t get off the ground without major Wall Street partners, which are willing to do that. Cohn and Shapiro (Goldman, and Morgan Stanley) backed Sprecher’s operation; and Wikipedia states that,

“Wall Street bankers, particularly Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, backed him and he launched ICE in 2000 (giving 80 percent control to the two banks who, in turn, spread out the control among Shell, Total, and British Petroleum).”

This is today’s financial world — a world in which billionaires control the future directions of commodities-prices, and thus manipulate markets, and even determine the economic fates of nations. It’s not the myth of capitalism; it is the reality of capitalism. It functions by means of corruption, as it always has, but the corrupt methods constantly evolve.

However, Trump’s geostrategy goes beyond merely this, especially by bringing into the entire operation the world’s wealthiest person, the trillionaire King Saud, who, as the sole owner of the Saudi Government, which in turns owns the world’s largest corporation Aramco, which in turn dominates the oil market and which is also #6 in the natural-gas market (far behind the three giants, which King Saud is trying to destroy — Russia, Iran, and Qatar — so that the Sauds will become able to dominate even there). Trump’s geostrategy ties King Saud even more tightly than before, into America’s aristocracy.

King Saud, as Cook noted, is trying to disinvest in petroleum and reposition increasingly into natural gas, because outside the United States and around the world, people are seriously concerned to minimize global warming so as to postpone global burnout from uncontrollably soaring atmospheric carbon. Petroleum has an even worse carbon footprint than does natural gas; and therefore natural gas is the world’s “transition fuel” to a ‘survivable’ future, while solar and other alternatives take hold (even if too late). Despite all of the carbon-fuels industries’ propaganda, people outside the United States are determined to delay global burnout, and the insiders know this. King Saud knows that his petroleum-laden portfolio will have to diversify fast, because the long-term future for petroleum-prices is decline. And he won’t be able to control prices at all in the natural-gas business unless he’s got America’s aristocracy on his side, in the effort to keep those prices up (at least while the Sauds will be increasing their profits from natural gas). Unlike his dominance over OPEC, Saudi Arabia has no such position to control natural gas-prices. He thus needs Wall Street’s cooperation.

Cook said:

“The second objective was a switch from oil to natural gas, and when the U.S. [military] was obliged to leave Saudi Arabia, they [the U.S.] thereupon established their biggest regional base in Qatar, who co-own with Iran the greatest single natural gas reserve on the planet – South Pars.

Energy Dominance

In the four months since President Trump’s announcement, the market strategy developed by Gary Cohn is now being implemented and its elements are emerging into view.

Firstly, there has been a massive inflow of Managed Money into the oil market, particularly the Brent contract, which has seen the Brent oil price increase by 35% since the starting point, which I believe can be dated to the August Brent/BFOE Crude Oil option expiry on June 27^th 2017. …

The dominant market narrative is that the backwardation in Brent is evidence of surging global oil demand which has emptied inventories and is leading the price to new sunlit uplands. However, I see the market rather differently.

Firstly, whether the Brent spot month is supported by financial, rather than physical demand, the result will still be a backwardation, and because few oil producers expect a price over $60 to be sustainable they therefore hedge and depress the forward price. In support of this view, I am far from the only market observer who believes that Aramco, and Rosneft would not be selling equity if either Saudi Arabia or Russia believed the oil price trajectory will be positive even in the medium term. …

This still leaves open the $64 billion question of which market participant is motivated and able to support the ICE Brent term structure for years into the future by swapping dollar risk (T-Bills) for long term oil risk (oil reserves leased via prepay purchase/resale contracts).

My conclusion by a process of elimination is that this Big Long can only be Saudi Arabia and regional allies, with Saudi Arabia now under the management of the thrusting young Mohammad bin Salman.”

However, I do not agree with Alastair Crooke’s “In this way, Trump can ‘bring the troops home’, and yet America keeps its hegemony [America’s control of the world, global empire]. Military conflict becomes a last resort.” I explained at Strategic Culture on March 25th “How the Military Controls America” and noted there that “on 21 May 2017, US President Donald Trump sold to the Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia, an all-time-record $350 billion of US arms-makers’ products.” This means that not only Wall Street — the main institutional agency for America’s aristocracy — and not only American Big Oil likewise, are committed to the royal Saud family, but U.S. corporations such as Lockheed Martin also are. Vast profits are to be made, by insiders, in invasions and occupations, just as in gas and oil, and in brokerage.

Although Trump routinely talks about withdrawing U.S. troops, he does the exact opposite. And even if this trend reverses and America’s troop-numbers head down, while the U.S. economy becomes increasingly dependent upon Big Oil and Big Minerals and Big Money and Big Military, America’s military budget is, under Trump, the only portion of the entire U.S. federal Government that’s increasing; so, “Military conflict becomes a last resort” does not seem likely, in such a context. Rather, the reverse would seem to be the far likelier case.

War against King Saud’s chosen enemies (Iran, Qatar, Syria) and possibly even against the U.S. aristocracy’s chosen enemy, Russia (and against Russia’s allies: China, Iran, and Syria) — seems more likely, not less likely, with Trump’s geostrategy.

In fact, on 29 June 2017, when President Trump first announced his “Unleashing American Energy Event,” the President spoke his usual platitudes about the supposed necessity to increase coal-production, and what he said was telecast and publicized; but his U.S. Energy Secretary, the barely literate former Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, also delivered a speech, which was never telecast nor published, except that a few days later, on July 3rd, an excerpt from it was somehow published on the website of Liquified Natural Gas Global, and it was this:

“I want to address what Mr. Cohn was talking about from a standpoint of how important American energy is as an option, not as the only option, but as an option to our allies and to count[r]ies around the world. 

At the G7 it was really kind of interesting. The first thing they beat on the table talking about the Paris accord, you can’t get out of it, and I was kind of like OK. Then we would go into our bilats and they’d go, how about some of that LNG you’ve got? How do we buy your LNG, how do we buy your coal? And it was really interesting, it was a political issue for them. This whole Paris thing is a public relation[s], political issue for them. We made the right decision, the President made the right decision on this. I think it was one of the most powerful messages that early on in this administration that was sent. 

We are in a position to be able to clearly create a hell of a lot more friends by being able to deliver to them energy and not being held hostage by some countries, Russia in particular. Whether it is Poland, Ukraine, the entirety of the EU. Totally get it, if we can lay in American LNG, if we can be able to have an alternative to Russian anthracite coal that they control in the Ukraine. That singularly will have more to do with keeping our allies free and building their confidence in us than practically anything else that I have seen out there. It is a positive message around the world right now.”

If that was more the reality of Trump’s “Unleashing American Energy” policy than just the pro-global-burnout cheerleading of Trump’s mere words, then it seems to be — in the policy’s actual intent and implementation — more like “send more troops in” than “bring the troops home,” to and from anywhere. It is more like energy policy in support of the military policy, than military policy in support of the energy policy.

This sounds even better for the stockholders of Lockheed Martin and other weapons-firms than for the stockholders of ExxonMobil and other extractive firms. On 6 March 2018, Xinhua News Agency reported that,

“U.S. President Donald Trump’s chief economic adviser Gary Cohn has summoned executives from U.S. companies that depend on aluminum and steel to meet with Trump this Thursday, in a bid to persuade the president to drop his tariff plan, media reported Tuesday.”

After all: Goldman has warehouses full of aluminum, and has the futures-contracts which already commit the Wall Street firm to particular manipulations in the aluminum (and other) markets. Controlling the Government so that it does only what you want it to do, and only when you want the Government to do it, is difficult. In any aristocracy, some members need to make compromises with other members, no matter how united they all are against the publics’ interests. This is the way it’s done — by compromises with each other.

*

What a glorious idea. The Trumpophobic NYT ignored reality claiming it, referring to the Quebec, Canada G7 summit ending acrimoniously, the US president refusing to sign a concluding statement over trade issues.

Post-WW II, Washington constructed a Western alliance, NATO and the CIA-created EU its core elements, the US wanting dominance over their member states, along with all others.

Trump’s policy with Europe and other allies differs from his predecessors in degree, not kind – more aggressively wanting US allies bending to its will, what his so-called “America First” agenda is all about, serving US privileged interests more one-sidedly than earlier, assuring friction with allies.

It showed in Quebec. Summit talks became a G6+1, America the outlier, his counterparts accusing him of protectionism. He roared turning truth on its head, saying

“(w)e’re the piggy bank that everybody’s robbing.”

Reality is polar opposite. Washington demands other nations play by its rules, US policy throughout the post-WW II era, Trump’s agenda more extreme than his predecessors.

According to the Times, America’s alliance with Western Europe “accomplished great things. It won two world wars in the first half of the 20th century.”

“Then it expanded to include its former enemies and went on to win the Cold War, help spread democracy and build the highest living standards the world has ever known. President Trump is trying to destroy that alliance.”

Fact: Responsible Western policy could have avoided both global wars. Militarists and war-profiteers wanted them waged.

Fact: The Cold War never ended. Anti-Russia hostility is at a fever pitch in America, Britain, and elsewhere in the Western alliance.

Fact: Democracy is an anathema notion in the West. The highest ever standard of living is enjoyed by privileged interests exclusively at the expense of most others – poverty, unemployment, underemployment growth industries in America, Britain and other Western countries.

The Times:

“If a president of the United States were to sketch out a secret, detailed plan to break up the Atlantic alliance, that plan would bear a striking resemblance to Trump’s behavior.”

Fact: Trump doesn’t want the alliance dissolved. He and hardliners infesting his regime want greater than ever control over it. That’s part of what his “America First” agenda is all about.

He hasn’t tried “to create conflict for the sake of it,” as the Times claimed. There’s a method to his madness. He has firm aims in mind. He has no “secret plan to break up the West” – an absurd claim.

True enough his behavior in Quebec was unacceptable. Slamming Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly as “very dishonest” and “indignant” was out of line.

So was leaving the summit in mid-session on Saturday, well in advance of Tuesday talks with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

He engaged in a Twitter spat with French President Macron over trade issues. No bilateral meeting on the sidelines was held with UK PM Theresa May.

Possible trade war with Europe, Canada, China and other nations would be hugely disruptive if disputes aren’t responsibly settled.

Trump’s bluster, bravado and “America First” agenda define his relations with other world leaders.

The Western alliance is far from fractured. Trump wants it reshaped to serve US interests more than ever. What he can achieve remains very much uncertain.

*

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

The US, Iran and Saudi Arabia have each sent their respective representatives to Iraq to support the re-election of Haidar al-Abadi. This aim, far from achieving a stable Iraq,  will rather keep the country weak and politically divided between the biggest dominating groups.

Moreover, the parliament’s decision to annul the votes overseas from displaced Iraqis, to cancel over 954 ballots covering 10 provinces, and to manually recount the 12 May elections will create a backfire, particularly by the movement led by Moqtada al-Sadr. Al-Sadr, apparently holding the largest number of MPs (54 seats although unofficial), will consider this to be a move directed mainly against him particularly when this same group is accused, among other things, of being responsible for major fraud in Baghdad and in the south of Iraq.

The US representative in Iraq, Ambassador Bret McGurk, the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and the Saudi unofficial envoy known as Yahya are visiting all parties and groups to promote Haidar Abadi as the future Prime Minister. Although each one has a fundamentally different agenda, they will all achieve one aim: Iraq will remain weak and politically divided, and this under a non-harmonious government and a Prime Minister who will certainly be unable to use force to take the country out of its present pitiful state.

Iraq has fought against and defeated one of the most challenging and dangerous terrorist groups of all time, Islamic State, known as ISIS. It continues to oppose them. ISIS’s main presence was almost entirely in Sunni-dominated provinces in the north. These provinces suffered tremendous destruction which forced tens of thousands of Iraqis to be internally displaced. Moreover, the war against ISIS caused serious damage to the infrastructure, already suffering since the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 and up till now due to the corruption which is rife among the political leadership of the country. The war also emptied the Iraqi central bank’s coffers and increased the foreign loan deficit.

Prime Minister Haidar Abadi – by his nature and personality – seems unable to hold the country with the fist of iron required. He bows to the will of many different political groups, mainly Shia, who have substantial political weight, even bigger than the Da’wa party that Abadi is part of.

Even the Marjaiya in Najaf believes Abadi “should be a prime Minister in a European country but not Iraq, a state in need of determination and the will to stand against corruption and outside interference”. Najaf played an important role in whispering to the population that there is no incentive to vote because “these are the same people returning to power again and again and again”. Actually, even within the same Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s entourage, many said “voting in this election with these candidates is dubious, even from a religious point of view.”.

Despite Parliament’s decision to revoke electronic counting due to fraud in many provinces and abroad, Moqtada al-Sadr signed an agreement of partnership with Sayyed Ammar al-hakim and Ayad Allawi. All of these three groups together do not even form half of the required number of votes (165) even if we consider the seats these groups managed to gather as not void. Therefore, it is going to be very difficult to form a large coalition with the required number within the legal time limit.

In fact, Iraqis disagree on the election results and, by manually counting the votes, Iraq is heading towards the unknown. By the end of this current month of June, the Parliament will be considered dissolved. The constitution doesn’t allow for the parliament to self-renew its mandate. Unless it issues a decree asking the Premier to run new elections within six months or so (my own speculation), the actual government will remain for very long with reduced power and without accountability- and without a legislation entity to control its action. Therefore, in this case, Abadi will remain as a (weak) Prime Minister at the top of a handicapped government.

Moqtada al-Sadr may refuse a new election, he who considers himself to be sitting on the top of the largest group with the biggest number of seats in parliament. Moreover, it seems almost impossible for any coalition to come together and collect more than 165 seats in parliament so as to be able to nominate a prime minister within the time limit. The larger groups are Shia and these are divided among themselves.

It looks like the Iraqi politicians and the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia have agreed to keep Iraq weak, each for various reasons:

• Few Iraqi leaders want power for themselves. Haidar Asbadi won’t join Moqtada al-Sadr because he fears the Sadrist leader. Moqtada has put in prison in al-Hannana (Moqtada’s house in Najaf) the vice Prime Minister, a Sadrist, and there is no guarantee that he would not do the same with Abadi if they joined together in one coalition. Moqtada also asked his group to attack the most guarded “green zone” only to “pull Abadi’s ears” and “teach him a lesson”.  On the other hand, Nouri al-Maliki refused to give up the prime ministership to Abadi who “robbed him of this position with the support of the Grand Ayatollah Sistani and other Shia who conspired against him”, as he himself said.

Also, Hadi al-Ameri is convinced enough today to renounce the prime ministership as long as Nouri al Maliki is content. But that doesn’t fit with promoting Abadi as a Prime Minister.

• The US doesn’t want Iraq to be strong so it can’t support the “Axis of the resistance”. A strong Iraq, in the US view, is under Iran’s control (which is totally wrong).
• A strong Iraq can also represent a menace to Israel and to neighbouring Middle Eastern countries, mainly Saudi Arabia. Iraq should not remain healthy and strong under Shia domination and Iran’s influence (in Saudi’s eyes): it may be more suitable to have a divided Iraq to prevent it from joining Iran and Syria in one axis against the Saudis.
• Iran also fears the Iraqi politicians who are very prone to jump into US arms, considering specially the presence of a strong current of animosity against Tehran among the Marjaiya, among many politicians and ordinary people. There is already a strong Hashd al-Shabi, capable of defending Iraq against any US hegemony.

Thus, given all these elements, it is appears logical to many that Iraq will remain very weak indeed. It seems headed towards a weak government or no election at all. It is already under the control of the militias in parliament and in most key positions, a very suitable scenario that fits most involved foreign players (US, Iran, Saudi Arabia), and is supported by the collaboration of many Iraqis.

*

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road fracking site near Blackpool, 1 May 2018. Photo: Ros Wills

The scale of harm from shale gas to health is uncertain, but the danger of exacerbating climate change is not, two professors of public health have warned.

In an editorial for this week’s British Medical Journal, David McCoy and Patrick Saunders said:

“Although we can’t be certain about the scale of harm that shale gas production will bring to local communities and the immediate environment, it will exacerbate climate change. And on these grounds alone, the risks clearly and considerably outweigh any possible benefits.”

Dr McCoy, professor of global public health at Barts and London School of Medicine, and Dr Saunders, visiting professor of public health at University of Staffordshire, dismissed industry arguments about the environmental benefits of shale gas in the UK.

They said:

“Although it may offer some environmental benefit if produced and used efficiently, and if it displaces “dirtier” sources of energy like coal from the energy mix, this does not hold true for countries like the UK that have already phased out coal.

“The argument that shale gas is relatively clean and can assist with our transition to a sustainable energy system is thin, if not hollow. It also implies an unacceptable indifference from proponents of the industry to the global threat posed by climate change.”

They added:

“Methane, the main component of shale gas, is a potent greenhouse gas that leaks directly into the atmosphere at different points in the production and supply line, producing an additional global warming effect.”

The academics have previously co-authored two health impact assessments on shale gas for the health charity, Medact.

In this week’s editorial, they said the hazards and effects on health of shale gas developments depended on many factors. These included, they said, how many shale gas wells were drilled and over what land area, the size and proximity of local populations; how the industry behaved and was regulated, as well as local factors.

They conceded that shale gas production may not be a population level health threat on the scale of tobacco, sugar, alcohol, or motor vehicle pollution. But they added:

“Some evidence shows that it increases the risk of negative health and environmental outcomes, including increased risk of cancer, adverse birth outcomes, respiratory disease, and mental wellbeing.”

Public health review

Public Health England (PHE) published a review in 2014 of the potential public health impacts of pollution resulting from shale gas extraction. This concluded:

“The potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction will be low if the operations are properly run and regulated.”

This report has been criticised for looking only at emissions from shale gas sites and for failing to take account of the most recent research.

Dr Frank Rugman and Claire Stephenson delivering a petition to Public Health England in August 2017

There have been calls for an updated report, including a petition with nearly 6,000 signatures delivered to PHE in August 2017.

In May this year, the Energy Minister, Lord Henley, said

PHE “continue to review evidence on the potential public health impacts of emissions associated with shale gas extraction and have not currently identified any significant evidence that would make it change its views”.

PHE told DrillOrDrop a team of three-to-four staff focus “part of their time on onshore oil and gas”. They also have responsibility for assessing impacts from chemical incidents, air quality and industrial emissions.

The organisation said there was “an on-going process to identify new peer-reviewed papers” on shale gas health impacts. These were “assessed, summarised and reviewed to identify any new areas of public health concern”.

PHE confirmed that it had not published any further papers but “continues to review the evidence on emissions associated with shale gas extraction.”

The United States has had a policy of imperialism beginning after the Civil War. The US way of war, developed against Indigenous peoples, spread worldwide as the US sought to extend its power through military force, economic dominance and diplomatic hegemony.

Imperialism is driven by what Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. identified at the end of his life, the triple evils of racism, capitalism, and militarism. Lenin described imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. Imperialism has justified mass slaughter, resulting in the US killing 20 million people since WW II. The People of the United States must say ‘no’ to imperialism.

Advocacy against imperialism is needed to prevent confusion around US militarism. The US disguises imperialism by attacking so-called “dictatorial” leaders who “use violence against their own people.” This results in Orwellian-phrased “humanitarian” wars – violence by US surrogates inside a country, massive funding to create opposition against a government or economic sanctions that cause widespread suffering.

The propaganda justifying these abuses hides the real intent — expansion of US domination so US corporations can profit from resources and cheap labor under a US-friendly government. People confused by this rhetoric sometimes repeat the propagandistic claims of US imperialists and help justify US intervention.

End US Imperialism from PopularResistance.org

Why US Imperialism Must Be Opposed Today

US imperialism is aggressively working on almost every continent through militarism, regime change, corporate trade agreements, economic blockades and creating indebtedness. The destruction of Libya, in an illegal “humanitarian” war, and the destruction of Iraq, in a falsely justified war, where both leaders were brutally assassinated, highlight the necessity of being clearly anti-imperialist.

There are many countries suffering from US imperialism today. Here are just a few:

Syria: Every president since the 1940s has sought to dominate Syria and has had specific plans for regime change. The Syrian conflict, often misdescribed as a civil war, is a war of aggression by the US, Saudi Araba, and Israel. During the George W. Bush administration, documents show plans to undermine the Assad government through terrorism, chaos and other attacks. In 2006, the United States started to finance an external opposition to Assad. In 2007, a plan for regime change in Syria was agreed upon between the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The US began to use “color revolution” tools, organizing opposition in Syria, training citizen journalists and urging an “insurgency.”

During the Arab Spring-era in 2011, arrests of anti-Assad youth in Deraa resulted in protests. The police used water cannons and tear gas to disperse the crowd, but on the third-day protests turned violent, even though Assad announced the release of the detained youths. The police fought armed protesters, resulting in the deaths of seven police. Protesters torched the courthouse and Baath Party Headquarters. Violent protests continued and escalated and the Syrian government responded with violence.

Robert, the first US ambassador to Syria in five years, marched with the regime change protesters. He traveled through Syria inciting rebellion against Assad, according to this . He had to flee the country out of fear.

The situation escalated into a seven-year war, which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, mass displacement, war crimes on all sides and unproven accusations against Syria of using chemical weapons. This week, seventy Syrian tribes declared war on the US at a time when Israel and the US are increasing their military campaigns in Syria.

The US has multiple imperialist interests in Syria. The US would like to close Russia’s Navy base in Tartus, Syria on the Mediterranean. A gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey is competing with one from Iran to Syria. With large finds of methane gas in the coastal waters of Israel and Lebanon, it is likely they also exist in Syrian waters.

Iran: US imperialism in Syria is tied to in Iran. As with Syria, domination has been the goal of the US since the 1950s when the CIA engineered a coup that put in place the Shah, a dictator who ruled until the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The US has long sought to control Iran‘s vast oil resources.

The US used the same tools of regime change as in Syria and other countries, e.g. massive funding to build opposition to the government, supporting, building and manipulating protests, economic sanctions, and threats of militarism. These strategies have caused disruption but have failed to undermine the government.

Sanctions and the US violation of the nuclear agreement may backfire against the US as countries are fighting back against them and the US is being isolated in the UN. The US also conducts a false propaganda campaign, with the media playing along, about a nuclear weapons program that never existed and makes false claims of Iran sponsoring terrorism. And, as it did in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, Israel is urging war on Iran. This may lead to the US creating a Syrian-like war in Iran, threatening world security.

Venezuela: Another country with vast oil resources, Venezuela has been threatened with regime change, coups and war due to US imperialism that is supported by the elites in the US. The US uses the same regime change tools, e.g. a propagandistic barrage of lies about a “dictatorship”, economic sanctions, high-levels of funding to build opposition, violent protests, terrorism and attempts to foment a civil war.

Venezuela has faced a continuous coup since the election of Hugo Chavez. In 2002, a coup against Chavez was reversed by people’s protests. There has been an economic war since then. Wikileaks’ documents show Hillary Clinton sought to undermine and replace the Chavez-Maduro government. A coup in 2016 was foiled. In 2017, there was an embarrassing failed coup supported by the US. Trump is continuing long-term US policies seeking to dominate Venezuela.

The economic war creates challenges for the Venezuelan government. The US economic war blocks food, medicine, and essentials, while traitors inside Venezuela, from the wealthy class, do the same. These internal traitors even call for sanctions and war. The US falsely claims a humanitarian crisis exists in order to justify intervention to steal the nation’s oil and natural resources.

Sadly, this fools too many people who are not clear on opposing US imperialism, while it also unites many in Venezuela against US imperialism. The US-allied internal traitors admitted to 17 years of crimes in a proposed amnesty law in 2016, when they controlled the National Assembly.

In Latin America, particularly in Venezuela, Colombia plays the role of Israel for the US as the point of the US spear threatening war. Colombia has long-worked with the CIA for regime change in Venezuela. Indeed, Colombia just brought the imperialism military tool, NATO, to Latin America. The US and its allies are looking toward war,  making war preparations, conducting military exercises and are calling for a military coup. The world is saying ‘no’ to war against Venezuela as is much of Latin America.

In Venezuela, democratic elections resulted in a landslide victory for President Maduro, which was really a defeat of US imperialism. The election was important as the US, Canada, and the European Union were threatening Venezuela. It was a decisive election for the Bolivarian Revolution, which will continue for now.

And, There Are More: These are three examples of many. In Latin America through non-governmental organizations and US agencies, the US funds oligarchy, opposition to democracy and support for neoliberal policies and has a long history of US coups. In Nicaragua, the same tools of regime change are being used. There has been a US-supported soft coup in Brazil and Honduras.

Coups and militarism are not limited to Latin America. During the Obama era, US coups in Ukraine and attempts in the Middle East occurred. Ukraine deserves special mention as this country, which borders Russia, was a long-term imperial aim of the United States. State Department official Victoria Nuland said the US spent $5 billion to build an opposition to the government and manage a coup. There are now proposals to arm Ukraine against Russia, so the danger is growing.

The dramatic protest against democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 was a US coup spearheaded by violent neo-Nazis. This Obama-era coup was “the most blatant coup in history,” according to the corporate CIA-firm, Stratfor.  The US has taken over their gas industry, putting Joe Biden’s son and a longtime friend of John Kerry on their board, has taken over agriculture, has a former State Department official serving as finance minister, picked their Prime Minister and put in place the US’s “Our Ukraine Insider” president. In the US, media propaganda is constant, focusing on Crimea returning to Russia and demonizing Putin.

While there are more current examples of US imperialism, we will finish with a brief discussion of Africa, where the US seeks to dominate the land, resources, and labor of a continent which holds natural resources critical to 21st Century technology and oil and where $100 billion in US corporate theft occurs annually. Under Obama, AfriCom greatly expanded and the US now has bi-lateral military agreements across the continent, military bases, drone bases, Special Operations Forces and a military presence in 53 of 54 countries creating an imperial-scale military presence.

The Congo, which has suffered 500 years of European and US imperialism and where four million people have been recently displaced, deserves special focus. The Congo has natural resources more valuable than the entire EU’s GDP. Tech companies violate human rights, such as children as young as seven mining cobalt for lithium batteries.  Africa is shaping up to be the center of 21st Century imperial US wars.

Anti-Imperialism: The Foundation For A Just Foreign Policy

These conflicts are all rooted in resource sovereignty in Latin Ameria, the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Do these countries control their natural wealth or will US imperialism steal it from them? Peace and justice movements must build on a foundation of anti-imperialism and not be fooled by the lies of elected officials, militarists, and the corporate media.

Some will attack those clearest on opposing imperialism. At the Left Forum, a small group criticized long-time US human rights and peace advocate, Ajamu Baraka, for his stance opposing US imperialism in Syria.  The previously unknown group, the “League for the Revolutionary Party”,  was made up of a small number of members of the International Socialist Organization and Democratic Socialists of America. They showed how those who do not make opposition to imperialism a foundation of their advocacy are easily confused.

They had to misquote Baraka and take his views out of context to justify their attack. By protesting Baraka, they attacked the leader of the Black Alliance for Peace, making their protest racist. They also protested someone who challenged the war party duopoly, as he was the vice presidential nominee of the Green Party. Their protest not only supported US militarism in Syria but sought to weaken the rebuilding of the black peace movement and challenges to the war parties.

If we ground ourselves in anti-imperialism, we will not be as easily misled. We must respect the sovereignty of other nations and support popular struggles without promoting US intervention.

The people of many countries unite in opposition to US imperialism, economic warfare and threats of militarism. It is our job in the United States to act in solidarity with them and say ‘no’ to US imperialism.

*

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

What is the significance of G7 summit for hard working families in the U.S. and around the world? The conclusive answer is absolutely nothing!

Would a successful G8 (with Russia) or G6 (without Russia and the U.S.) summit make the lives of ordinary people better? Again the answer is NO.

The G7 is a gathering of the representatives of the world’s richest 1%. This year the G7 summit agenda emphasizes on “economic growth that works for everyone”! Of course that means an economy that is acceptable to the 1% in the U.S., U.K., Germany, France, Canada, Japan and Italy. However this notion was rejected by President Trump. The U.S. break from the group of 7 was not surprising to the other members since tension already existed before the start of the G7 summit. Mr. Trump (by announcing his intention to impose tariffs of up to 25 percent on steel and aluminum imports) already dismissed the European leaders concerns. He even warned the American allies that “if they retaliate, they’re making a mistake”.  President of European Council Donald Tusk complained that

“the rules-based international order is being challenged, not by the usual suspects but by its main architect and guarantor: the United States”.

President Macron (against the “isolationist” American President) said

“we don’t mind signing a 6 country agreement if need be. Because these 6 countries … represent an economic market … which is now a true international force.”

The divorce drama was completed by Mr. Trump tweeting

“After many decades, fair and reciprocal Trade will happen!”

President Trump who ignited a Trade War with his allies left the G7 summit early since he claimed that he was on a “Mission of Peace” with the U.S. long time enemy, North Korea.

Source: author

The 24/7 gossip news networks and their clueless pundits find Mr. Trump’s unorthodox approach toward the G7 summit and American allies, a fascinating TV show. To these “political analysts”, President Trump is either a “Masterful Negotiator” or a “Complete Moron”. The fact is Mr. Trump represents the United States of America who has the support of the 1% and the financial elite; his personality is irrelevant. He is delivering American new policies on Trade and International relationship which are risky and dangerous. These policies are designed to establish an American global hegemony. Today the U.S. is simply asking the sovereign countries to either become subordinate to its rules or face a harsh military retaliation. After World War II, the U.S. as a victor spent some money in Europe and elsewhere to make more money from the global market. Today the U.S. economy is declining; American manufacturers are losing to their foreign competitors. In comparison to other advanced countries, the U.S. looks more like a “third world” country. The ideal of robust production has been diminished by the fictitious financial sectors and Wall Street scam players. Mr. Trump (a con man himself) represents the most corrupt wealthy people in America who want to privatize everything that the public expects from the government. In another words, Mr. Trump wants to feed the hungry billionaires in the very swamp that he promised to drain.

In actuality, the Trump administration is looking backward to govern the nation; all the way back to the Feudalism. A time when Aristocrats demanded of their subjects (the peasants) to simply live and die in debt to their Lords, when peasants had no rights or concept of what it was to be free as a human. After 500 days of the new administration we are already witnessing how the Financial Aristocrats have became a major power in Washington and how the Congress is being pushed back, on the verge of becoming obsolete. While the Republican and Democratic parties are chasing each other in circle, a fascistic minded President has been gathering the reactionary billionaires and hawkish military personalities and warmongers to “Make America Great Again” for the 1% in the U.S. Today average Americans are in financial debt that ties their hands to strike and fight back the social and financial injustice. The majority,  who are considered as the lucky ones, work hard day in and day out for long hours to pay off the heavy burden of a house mortgage or auto loans throughout their lives. The young people who were able to graduate have to pay their heavy student debt on entry level employment pay (if they are lucky enough to find a job at all). However the daylight robbery of Billionaires who are support and make up the Trump administration has brought out working people and youth in large numbers onto the streets and already has caused a new challenge to the 1% and their politicians. President Trump has unleashed the awesome power of American working people internally and on the global scale he has pushed the friends and foes to form new alliances.

Now all eyes are on the U.S./North Korea summit which will be held in 2 days (on June 12th) in Singapore. Mr. Trump in his Press Conference in Canada (before his departure) in response to a question “How long do you think that it will take you to figure out” Kim Jong Un? He arrogantly answered:

“I think within the first minute I’ll know”.

Mr. Trump in advance gave Kim Jong Un a “one time shot” chance! The truth is the question of reunification of South and North Korea and the end of hostilities is supported by the people of both countries and already has progressed. It is not up to President Trump to decide the future of the Korean Peninsula. There are many other factors involved that indirectly shapes the U.S./N.K. summit. China naturally is very concerned about the outcome of summits in Canada and Singapore. In parallel and contrast to the G7 summit, China hosted the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) annual summit to show ‘unity’ among its members (China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan with Iran as an observer and was represented by the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani).

Regardless of the drama that President Trump plays every few minutes, he is not the sole decider and does not have the last word on any national or international issues. In fact the backlash to the U.S. new policies will be severe and unprecedented. For his credulous base, Mr. Trump has created an imaginary world that turns only by his command. The U.S. government through Mr. Trump presidency dangerously has moved the world closer toward a fatal nuclear war. Peace activists and democratic minded people around the world must rise and stand up against Tyranny and War before the first nuclear missile is launched.

*

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

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office website page makes clear what the objectives of the ‘Conflict, Stability and Security Fund’ are. It states that it: “provides development and security support to countries which are at risk of conflict or instability. It’s the only government fund which uses both Official Development Assistance (ODA) spend and non–ODA spend to deliver and support security, defence, peacekeeping, peace-building and stability activity.” In other words, alleviating the pain and suffering of those in countries experiencing a lack of security as a result of conflict. However, taxpayers are becoming increasingly more annoyed that much of the £1billion a year spent ends up supporting terrorism and human rights abuses.

BBC’s “Jihadis’ You Pay For”

Last December, the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund came into sharp focus after the suspension of £12 million to the Access to Justice and Community Security” (AJACS) program in Syria when questions were raised in the British aid community about the opacity of cross-government funds.

It was a community-based programme, an unarmed policing effort in war-torn northern Syria that was suspended after a  BBC Panorama episode aired claims about corruption and aid funds reaching the hands of terrorist groups.

The allegations relate to part of the program managed by the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office; and implemented by British contractor Adam Smith International.

The BBC investigation, “Jihadis You Pay For,” alleged that ASI — backed by U.K. taxpayer funds — knowingly funded terrorist activities. It concluded that U.K.-funded “development efforts have been undermined by mismanagement, waste and corruption,” leading to concern among many in the aid community that the allegations could provoke anti-aid sentiment among the public.

‘White Helmets’ Controversy

Since 2011, the UK has provided £2.71bn in aid to the Syrian humanitarian effort. Of this, £38.4m went through the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund to the White Helmets, a freedom of information request revealed in March this year.

This organisation is mired in controversy.

“The White Helmets brand was conceived and directed by a marketing company named “The Syria Campaign” based in New York. They have managed to fool millions of people. Walt Disney might have made a great movie about this: unarmed volunteers fearlessly rescuing survivors in the midst of war without regard to religion or politics. Like most other “true life” Disney movies, it is 10% reality, 90% fiction.”

Whatever you believe when it comes to the ‘White Helmets’ – if there is any doubt whatsoever as to their activities in the theatre of war, a war Britain is illegally involved in – they should not be funded by taxpayers.

“Funding Torture and Repression“

Mark Curtis, along with Nick Dearden researched and wrote for Global Justice Now a devastating report (HERE) that included case studies of ‘questionable aid projects’ from Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Iraq, East Africa and others. It also highlighted human rights abuses in one section entitled “Funding for torture and repression“- and provided examples in Burma, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Sudan and other countries.

The report starts with accusations of deliberate dubious involvement clearly stating that the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund:

“is increasingly using aid money to fund military and counter-terrorism projects which do not appear focused on what aid should be about: eradicating poverty and promoting inclusive development. It is funding ‘security’ forces in several states involved in appalling human rights abuses, thus the UK risks complicity in these violations. It is not transparent. Despite some improvements made to the Fund this year, programme details are scant and some appear to be misleading.”

Campaign to close the fund

Global Justice Now has gone one step further in an article last week entitled: “Standing against the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund” – which is now pushing for the fund to be closed:

“On 4 June we handed in a petition from 4,672 UK citizens standing up and calling on Theresa May to close the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF).

The fact that thousands of people felt motivated to call for the fund to close, shows that many are fed up with publically funded aid money being diverted from alleviating poverty. Under the CSSF, which is half funded from the aid budget, money is going towards funding security forces across the world, and what’s worse in some cases the fund supports security forces accused of human rights abuses.  

UK aid has been in the news over and over again in the last few years. Each and every time, the headlines it garners are for the wrong reasons. All over the world, aid is being misused.

The CSSF is supposed to provide “development and security support to countries which are at risk of conflict or instability”. But given the string of scandals, from funding human rights abuses in Bahrain, to funding extremists in Syria, it’s clear that this core objective is often not being met.

Just today, aid made headlines as it was revealed that 20% of projects in China are “explicitly promoting the capabilities of UK entities alone”. Rather than actually reaching and benefiting those most in need of aid, UK companies have funnelled money into, among other things, developing the Chinese film industry, improving the Chinese museum infrastructure and improving the credit bond rating system in China. While this isn’t to say that arts and culture aren’t important, aid money is legally bound to reducing poverty overseas and helping the world’s most vulnerable people. It’s hard to understand how spending in such a manner helps fulfil this aim.

Global Justice Now has a long history of holding the government to account on how aid money is spent. And we will continue to do so until we ensure that it is reaching those that really need it and it makes a long term difference to building a more just, equal and sustainable world.”

The fund itself has an annual value of £1 billion. When taxpayers learn of the malfeasance of government who abuse their position for their own power-play gaming on the world stage, they create an environment where the loss of trust manifests itself as anti-aid sentiment.

This £1bn is enough to pay the salaries of 35,000 fully trained nurses or teachers with 10 years experience or 42,000 police officers every year. Given the scale of austerity cutbacks in health, education and policing, many citizens would probably rather see taxpayers money repatriated to alleviate the pressures on those institutions who support the most vulnerable in society. This is especially so given recent shocking numbers of rising poverty in the UK, threats of tax rises to support the NHS and a general crisis lurking in just about every corner of society in Britain today. Think Housing crisis, health crisis, social care crisis and so on.

One only has to read Britain’s relentless war on the poor and vulnerable to see where £1billion could make a dramatic difference on home territory.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.