Global Research

Ongoing Crisis of the US Dollar: Text of William Engdahl‘s incisive presentation at an international conference held in Feldkirch, Austria in September 2003. Tremendous foresight and analysis.
It’s accepted wisdom that the United States, despite recent problems, is still the strongest growth locomotive for the world economy, the pillar of the global system. What if we were to discover that, instead of being the pillar, that the United States was, in fact, the heart of a dysfunctional economic system, which is spreading instability, unemployment, and depression globally?

No other nation on earth comes near to the commanding US military superiority in smart bombs, military IT, or in sheer force capabilities. The US position in the world since 1945, and especially since 1971, has rested on two pillars, however: The superiority of the US military over all, and, the role of the dollar as world reserve currency. That dollar is the Achilles heel of American hegemony today.

In my view, the world has entered a new, highly dangerous phase since the collapse of the US stock market bubble in 2001. I am speaking about the unsustainable basis of the very Dollar System itself. What is that Dollar System?

How the Dollar System works

After 1945, the US emerged from war with the world’s gold reserves, the largest industrial base, and a surplus of dollars backed by gold. In the 1950’s into the 1960’s Cold War, the US could afford to be generous to key allies such as Germany and Japan, to allow the economies of Asia and Western Europe to flourish as a counter to communism. By opening the US to imports from Japan and West Germany, a stability was reached. More importantly, from pure US self-interest, a tight trade area was built which worked also to the advantage of the US.

That held until the late 1960’s, when the costly Vietnam war led to a drain of US gold reserves. By 1968 the drain had reached crisis levels, as foreign central banks holding dollars feared the US deficits would make their dollars worthless, and preferred real gold instead.

In August 1971, Nixon finally broke the Bretton Woods agreement, and refused to redeem dollars for gold. He had not enough gold to give. That turn opened a most remarkable phase of world economic history. After 1971 the dollar was fixed not to an ounce of gold, something measurable. It was fixed only to the printing press of the Treasury and Federal Reserve.

The dollar became a political currency—do you have “confidence” in the US as the defender of the Free World? At first Washington did not appreciate what a weapon it had created after it broke from gold. It acted out of necessity, as its gold reserves had got dangerously low. It used its role as the pillar of NATO and free world security to demand allies continue to accept its dollars as before.

Currencies floated up and down against the dollar. Financial markets were slowly deregulated. Controls were lifted. Offshore banking was allowed, with unregulated hedge funds and financial derivatives. All these changes originated from Washington, in coordination with New York banks.

The dollar debt paradox

What soon became clear to US Treasury and Federal Reserve circles after 1971, was that they could exert more global influence via debt, US Treasury debt, than they ever did by running trade surpluses. One man’s debt is the other’s credit. Because all key commodities, above all, oil, were traded globally in dollars, demand for dollars would continue, even if the US created more dollars than its own economy justified.

Soon, its trade partners held so many dollars that they feared to create a dollar crisis. Instead, they systematically inflated, and actually weakened their own economies to support the Dollar System, fearing a global collapse. The first shock came with the 1973 increase in oil by 400%. Germany, Japan and the world was devastated, unemployment soared. The dollar gained.

This Dollar System is the real source of a global inflation which we have witnessed in Europe and worldwide since 1971. In the years between 1945 and 1965, total supply of dollars grew a total of only some 55%. Those were the golden years of low inflation and stable growth. After Nixon’s break with gold, dollars expanded by more than 2,000% between 1970 and 2001!

The dollar is still the only global reserve currency. This means other central banks must hold dollars as reserve to guarantee against currency crises, to back their export trade, to finance oil imports and such. Today, some 67% of all central bank reserves are dollars. Gold is but a tiny share now, and Euros only about 15%. Until creation of the Euro, there was not even a theoretical rival to the dollar reserve currency role.

What is little understood, is how the role of US trade deficits and the Dollar System are connected. The United States has followed a deliberate policy of trade deficits and budget deficits for most of the past two decades, so-called benign neglect, in effect, to lock the rest of the world into dependence on a US money system. So long as the world accepts US dollars as money value, the US enjoys unique advantage as the sole printer of those dollars. The trick is to get the world to accept. The history of the past 30 years is about how this was done, using WTO, IMF, World Bank and George Soros to name a few.

What has evolved is a mechanism more effective than any the British Empire had with India and its colonies under the Gold Standard. So long as the US is the sole military superpower, the world will continue to accept inflated US dollars as payment for its goods. Developing countries like Argentina or Congo or Zambia are forced to get dollars to get the IMF seal of approval. Industrial trading nations are forced to earn dollars to defend their own currencies. The total effect of US financial and political and trade policy has been to maintain the unique role of the dollar in the world economy. It is no accident that the greatest financial center in the world is New York. It’s the core of the global Dollar System.

It works so: A German company, say BMW, gets dollars for its car sales in the USA. It turns the dollars over to the Bundesbank or ECB in exchange for Marks or Euros it can use.

The German central bank thus builds up its dollar currency reserves. Since the oil shocks of the 1970’s, the need to have dollars to import oil became national security policy for most countries, Germany included. Boosting dollar exports was a national goal. But since the Bundesbank no longer could get gold for their dollars, the issue became what to do with the mountain of dollars their trade earned. They decided to at least earn an interest rate by buying safe, secure US Treasury bonds. So long as the US had a large Budget deficit, there were plenty of bonds to buy.

Today, most foreign central banks hold US Treasury bonds or similar US government assets as their “currency reserves.” They in fact hold an estimated $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion of US Government debt. Here is the devil of the system. In effect, the US economy is addicted to foreign borrowing, like a drug addict. It is able to enjoy a far higher living standard than were it to have to use its own savings to finance its consumption. America lives off the borrowed money of the rest of the world in the Dollar System. In effect, the German workers at BMW build the cars and give it away to Americans for free, when the central bank uses the dollars to buy US bonds.

Today, the US trade deficit runs at an unbelievable $500 billion, and the dollar does not collapse. Why? In May and June alone, the Bank of China and Bank of Japan bought $100 billion of US Treasury and other government debt! Even when the value of those bonds was falling. They did it to save their exports by manipulating the Yen to dollar to prevent a rising yen.

Because the world payments system, and most importantly, the world capital markets—stocks, bonds, derivatives—are dollar markets, the dollar overwhelms all others. The European Central Bank could offer an alternative. So far it does not. It only reacts to a dollar world. German banks destroy the German economy as they rush to imitate US banks. The Dollar System is destroying the German industrial base. German national economic policy as well as Bundesbank and now ECB policy is oriented on the far smaller export sector, to maximize trade surplus dollars, or to the big banks, to attract as many dollars as possible.

China plays a key role today

The biggest dollar surplus country today is China. Globalization is in fact just a code word for dollarization. The Chinese Yuan is fixed to the dollar. The US is being flooded with cheap Chinese goods, often outsourced by US multinationals. China today has the largest trade surplus with the US, more than $100 billion a year. Japan is second with $70 billion. Canada with $48 bn, Mexico with $37 bn and Germany with $36 bn make the top 5 trade deficit countries, a total deficit of almost $300 billion of the colossal $480 deficit in 2002. This gives a clue to US foreign policy priorities.

What is perverse about this system is the fact that Washington has succeeded in getting foreign surplus countries to invest their own savings, to be a creditor to the US, buying Treasury bonds. Asian countries like Indonesia export capital to the US instead of the reverse!

The US Treasury and Greenspan are certain that its trade partners will be forced to always buy more US debt to prevent the global monetary system from collapsing, as nearly happened in 1998 with the Russia default and the LTCM hedge fund crisis.

Washington Treasury officials have learned to be masters at the psychology of “monetary chicken.” Treasury Secretary Snow used an implied threat of letting the dollar collapse, after the Iraq war, to warn Germany about the risk of trying to be too close to France with the Euro. Some weeks after the dollar had fallen sharply, and German export industry was screaming pain, Snow reversed his stand and the dollar stabilized. Now the dollar again rises as foreign money flows back in.

But debt must be repaid you say? Does it ever? The central banks just keep buying new debt, rolling the old debts over. The debts of the USA are the assets of the rest of the world, the basis of their credit systems!

The second key to the Dollar System deals with poorer debtor countries. Here the US influence is strategic in the key multilateral institutions of finance—World Bank and IMF, WTO. Entire countries like Argentina or Brazil or Indonesia are forced to devalue currencies relative to the dollar, privatize key state industries, cut subsidies, all to repay dollar debt, most often to private US banks. When they resist selling off their best assets, tehy are charged with being corrupt. The growth of offshore money centers in the Caribbean, a key part of the drug money cycle, is also a direct consequence of the decisions in Washington in the 1970’s and after, to deregulate financial markets and banks. As long as the dollar is the global currency, the US gains, or at least its big banks.

This is a kind of Dollar Imperialism more slick than anything the British Empire even dreamed of. It is a part of the current America “Empire” debate no one mentions. Instead of the US investing in colonies like England to earn profits on the trade, the money comes from the client states into the US economy. The problem is that Washington has allowed this perverse system to get out of all control to the point today it threatens to bring the entire world to the point of collapse. Had the US instead promoted long-term policy of investing in the economic growth and self-sufficiency of countries like Argentina or Congo, rather than bleeding them in repayment of unpayable dollar debts, the world would look far less unstable today.

The internal debt bomb in the USA

The question is if the Dollar System is reaching its real limits? The Dollar System for the past 30 years has been built on growing dollar debt. What if the rest of the world decides it no longer wants to give its savings to the US Treasury to finance its deficits or its wars? What if China decides that it should diversify its risk by buying Euro debt? Or Japan or Russia? That day may come sooner than we think.

In addition to colossal debts to the rest of the world, the US internal debt burdens have reached alarming levels in the past three decades, especially the past decade.

The total US debt—public and private—has more than doubled since 1995. It is now officially over $34 trillion. It was just over $16 trillion in 1995, and “only” $7 trillion in 1985. Most alarming it has grown faster than income to service it, or GDP.

Since the Asia crisis in 1998, the US debt situation has exploded. The heart of the debt explosion is in US private consumer debt. And the heart of consumer debt is the home mortgage debt growth, helped by two semi-government agencies—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Since 2001 and the collapse of the stock market wealth, the Federal Reserve has cut interest rates 13 times to a 45 year low.

US Households took on new home mortgage debt in the first six months this year at an annual rate of $700 billion, double the debt growth in 2000. Total mortgage debt in the US totals just under $5 trillion, double the debt in 1996. It has grown far faster than personal income per capita. That is larger than the GDP of most nations.

The aim has been to inflate a housing speculation market in order to keep the economy rolling. The cost has been staggering new debt levels. Because it was created with record low interest rates, when rates again rise, millions of Americans will suddenly find the burden impossible, especially as unemployment rises. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac combined guarantee $3 trillion in US home mortgages. The US banking system holds much of their bonds. When the housing bubble collapses, a new banking crisis is pre-programmed as well, with JP Morgan/Chase, Wells Fargo and BankAmerica the worst.

The US economy has only managed to avoid a severe recession since the collapse of the stock market three years ago, by a record amount of consumer borrowing. “Shop until you drop” is a popular American expression. The Federal Reserve has pushed interest rates down to 1%, the lowest in 45 years. The aim is to keep the cost of the debt low such that families continue to borrow, in order to spend! Some 76% of the US economy GDP today is consumer spending. And most of that is tied to a record boom in home buying.

But the rate of new debt growth among families is rapidly reaching alarm levels, while the overall manufacturing economy continues to stagnate or decline. Today US factories only operate at 74% of capacity, near historic lows. With so much unused capacity, there is little chance companies will soon invest in new factories or jobs. They are going to China.

So Greenspan continues to rely on foreign money to prop up his consumer debt bubble, at low interest rates. Were foreign money to stop propping the US economy, now at some $2.5 billion daily, the Federal Reserve would be forced to raise its interest rates to make dollar investments more attractive. Higher rates would trigger a crisis in consumer debt, mortgage defaults, credit card and car loan failures. Higher rates would plunge the US economy into a depression. This may be about to happen, despite poor George Bush’s desires to get reelected.

There is a limit how much debt US families can pay to keep the economy afloat.

There is no US recovery, merely a debt spending boom based on this home buying explosion.

Total US household debt reached a high in June of $8.7 trillion, double that of 1994. Families are agreeing to longer debt payments for basics like homes or cars. The length of new car loans now averages 60.7 months, and the amount of car debt financed increased to $27,920, and the average new home costs $243,000.

With rapidly rising unemployment and a real economy that is not growing, at some point there will come a violent reality clash, as the market for home lending reaches its limit. At that point the danger is the consumer will stop buying, and the manufacturing economy will not be able to create new jobs and a real recovery. The jobs have gone to China!

We might already be at or very close to that point. In the past six weeks, US interest rates have risen sharply, as owners of US bonds have started to sell in panic levels, fearing the bonanza in real estate may be over, and trying to get out with some profit before bond prices collapse. The European Central Bank is advising member banks to not buy any more US Freddie Mac or government agency debts.

The problem is this process of creating debt, domestic and foreign, to keep the US economy going, has gathered so much momentum it risks destroying what remains of the US manufacturing and technology base. Henry Kissinger warned in a conference of Computer Associates in June, that the US risked destroying its own middle class, and its key strategic industries via outsourcing to China, India and other cheap areas. Today only 11% of the total workforce is in manufacturing. In 1970, it was 30%. Post-industrial America is a bubble economy about to pop.

Fed chief Greenspan even warned China about the rate of its trade increase with the US, pressuring China to upvalue the Renminbi to make its goods less competitive in dollar markets, and slow the job loss. But this is dangerous. China holds $340 billion in US Treasury bonds and other reserve assets. The US needs the Chinese dollar savings to finance its soaring deficits.

It is caught in its own web: American jobs, hi-tech jobs as well as factory jobs, are vanishing permanently as US factories source to China, India or other cheap areas. If Washington pressures China and others to cut back exports they risk to kill the goose that lays golden dollar eggs. Who will buy that growing Government dollar debt? Private bond traders are desperately trying to sell their US bonds. Germany can only buy so much dollar debt, also Japan.

The US waged war in Iraq not out of fundamental strength but fundamental weakness. It is economic weakness however, not military.

Oil and food, and money as strategic weapon

The fundamental reason for the Iraq war, beyond agendas of Richard Perle or other hawks, is hence, strategic in my view. US economic hegemony in this distorted Dollar System increasingly depends on a rising rate of support from the rest of the world to sustain US debt levels. Like the old Sorcerers’ Apprentice. But the point is past where this can be gotten easily. That is the real significance of the US shift to unilateralism and military threats as foreign policy. Europe can no longer be given a piece of the Third World debt pie as in the 1980’s. Japan has to cough up even more, as does China now.

Even ordinary Americans have to give up their pension promises. If the Dollar System is to remain hegemonic, it must find major new sources of support. That spells likely destabilization and wars for the rest of the world.

Could it be that in this context, some long-term thinkers in Washington and elsewhere have devised a strategy of establishing US military control of all strategic sources of oil for the one potential power rival, Eurasia, from Brussels to Berlin to Moscow and Beijing? The dollar vulnerability and debt problems are well known in leading policy circles.

As Henry Kissinger once noted, “Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”

F. William Engdahl is a Global Research Contributing Editor and author of the book, ‘A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order,’ Pluto Press Ltd. He is the the author of  ‘Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Political Agenda Behind GMO’ (published by Global Research). He may be contacted through his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

Of relevance to the current debate on the rights of children, Bie Kentane‘s presentation to a meeting at the United Nations, Palais des Nations, Geneva, March 15, 2013

For two decades, Iraqi children have been subjected to grave violations of human rights.Due to decades of war, foreign occupation and international sanctions, Iraq has turned into one of the worst places for children in the Middle East and North Africa with around 3.5 million living in poverty, 1.5 million under the age of five undernourished and 100 infants dying every day, (The UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF)(IRIN News, 2007).

This report will focus on the violations by the occupying forces and the Iraqi government of the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, (ICRC) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Before 1990s, Iraq’s education system statistically surpassed its neighbours in terms of access, literacy and gender equality. However, almost three decades of wars, cruel sanctions and humiliated blockade have pushed back those advances(Jinan Hatem Issa, 2010).

The youth component of the Iraqi population is the fastest growing in the nation. Iraq had an estimated 30,399,572 people in 2011 according to the CIA World Factbook. The median age was 20.9, and 38% of the country was 14 or younger. Both of those statistics made Iraq the second youngest country in the Middle East and North Africa. This important element is obviously not being invested in, which could have detrimental affects upon Iraq’s future. One of the major problems with the Iraqi bureaucracy for example is a lack of trained staff. If many Iraqis are failing to gain even a basic education, this issue will likely not be solved any time soon (Wing, 2012).

The destruction or closing of schools and universities, the displacement of the population and the fact that teachers are members of the professional class who were killed or forced to leave Iraq, resulted in loss of schooling for children and young people, and therefore loss of life opportunities. Many children were displaced during the occupation due to sectarian policies imposed by the occupiers, with no adequate facilities for their schooling. Loss of schooling is very hard to make up. Not only did the children and young people have their opportunities in later life reduced, but the community and ultimately the state also loses from inadequate education.

In the last several decades, Iraq went from one of the best education systems in the region to a mediocre one. Wars and sanctions devastated the government’s ability to take care of its children. Today the school system is failing to educate a large number of kids, because of a mix of untrained teachers, lack of schools, and out of date methods.

A poll done in September 2011 found that only 34% of Iraqis were satisfied with their local schools, down from 66% in February 2009 (Wing, 2012).

Early Childhood Development

Analysis of four domains (Learning, Social-Emotional, Physical, Literacy numeracy )  shows that 95 percent of children are on track in the physical domain , but less on track in learning (89 percent), socio-emotional (78 percent) domains and strikingly less in literacy-numeracy (18 percent) domain.

In the domain of literacy-numeracy and learning the higher score is associated with children living in richest households and with older children; social-emotional skills are higher among girls(UNICEF, MICS, 2011).

Enrollment

Only four percent of children aged 36-59 months are attending pre-school. Figures give five percent in urban areas, compared to one percent in rural areas and in poor households.

Children living in the poorest households have lower ECDI (66 percent compared with 81 percent of the richest households) (UNICEF, MICS, 2011).

Socio-economic status appears to have a positive correlation with school readiness – while the indicator is only tree percent among the poorest households, it increases to 11 percent among those children living in the richest households.(UNICEF, MICS, 2011).

Net primary school enrolment rate is estimated at 87 percent overall, 91 percent for boys and 82 percent for girls (UCPD, 2011-2014). This is far below Iraq’s 2015 national Millennium Development Goal target of 98 per cent.

Of children who are of primary school entry age 6 in Iraq, 84 percent are attending the first grade of primary school. Children’s participation in primary school is higher in urban areas than in rural areas. A positive correlation with mother’s education and socio-economic status is observed. The majority of the children are attending school (90%). However, 10 percent of the children are out of school when they are expected to be participating in school (UNICEF, MICS, 2011).

The net primary completion rate ^[1] is 44 percent. There is a higher net completion rate among children in urban areas (50%) than in rural areas (33 %). As mother’s education and wealth increases, the net completion also increases markedly.

Only about half of the children of secondary school age  are attending secondary school (49 percent).Of the remaining half some of them are either out of school or attending primary school.One in seven of the children of secondary school age are attending primary school when they should be attending secondary school while the remaining 38 percent are not attending school at all.

The results show clear association between mother’s education and household wealth on secondary school net attendance ratio.The ratio is 38 percent for children with uneducated mothers and increases to 73 percent for children whose mother’s education is secondary or higher.

Moreover, secondary school net attendance ratio increased from 25 percent at the poorest households to 75 percent at the richest household(UNICEF, MICS, 2011).

(UNICEF, MICS, 2011)

The net enrolment ratio in intermediate schools is significantly lower than that for primary education, estimated at 40.5 percent and with an even wider gender gap, as girls continue to face the above mentioned obstacles to continuing their education, and are more likely to pursue culturally encouraged and perceived alternatives such as marriage. The estimated net enrolment ratio for preparatory/upper secondary schools is 27 percent(UCPD, 2011-2014).

A survey by the Tamuz Organization for Social Development done in the first half of 2011 found that many schools were broke down, more than 20% of primary students, around four million children, drop out each year, and that up to 65% of children in southern Iraq don’t go to school.

The main causes of the drop in numbers were the wars and sanctions that beset Iraq from 1990 to the present (Wing, 2012).

 Among the 75 percent of the children 5-14 years  of age, attending school, 6 percent are also involved in child labour activities. On the other hand, out of the six percent of the children who are involved in child labour, the majority of them are also attending school (65 percent)(UNICEF, MICS, 2011).

 Girls’ Education

In Iraq, the impression was how proud people were of the fact that Iraq once had the best educational system in the Middle East, including for women(UNESCO, 2012).

In primary education girls account for 44.74% of the pupils. Some 75% of girls who start school have dropped out during, or at the end of, primary school and so do not go on to intermediate education. Many of them will have dropped out after grade 1(UNICEF, 2010).

Gender parity for primary school is 0.94, indicating that less girls attend primary school than boys. The indicator is even lower for secondary education which is 0.85.  The disadvantage of girls is clearly pronounced for background characteristics , like governorates, mother’s education and wealth index.

The highest differences in school attendance between boys and girls occur in rural areas.

It’s worth noticing that the secondary net attendance ratio for females (45 percent) is lower than for males (52 percent) (UNICEF, MICS, 2011).

In 2010, a UNICEF report described the learning environment in Iraq as influenced by poor safety, family poverty and a reluctance to allow adolescent girls to attend school. The report quoted female students referring to their schools as ‘unwelcoming, unpleasant, dirty, poorly maintained with filthy lavatories and no drinking water(Sponeck, 2011).

 The Quality of Educational Facilities

Poor school stock is having an increasingly negative impact on the quality of education and attendance rates. A 2004 Ministry of Health (MoH) report concluded that 80% of school buildings required significant reconstruction, over 1,000 required a total rebuild and a further 4,600 major repair (MoH 2004 ‘Health in Iraq’).

These figures were confirmed in 2007 by UNESCO and UNICEF who found that 70% of school buildings were suffering from war damage or neglect (cf. Relief-Web/UCHO 2008)(CARA, 2010).

According to UNICEF (2011), more than one in six schools have been vandalized, damaged or destroyed during the past years of violence, and there are severe shortfalls in facilities.

Today, there are not enough facilities to meet the population’s needs. There is a huge shortage of schools at the primary and high school levels, and overcrowding in the ones that do exist. In March 2012, the Education Minister Mohammed Tamim said that Iraq needed 12,000 new schools, and 600 added each year. Since 2003, only 2,600 new ones have been built however, and last year, the Ministry said it could only build 200 that year (Wing, 2012).

Iraqi schools were desperately overcrowded last year (2012). This autumn, the failure of a government reconstruction program has made matters worse.

In May 2012, construction firms paid by Iraq’s Education Ministry began tearing down hundreds of old school buildings across the country under contracts requiring the companies to build bigger schools. But the new schools have not been built , the ministry says it doesn’t have funds for new buildings. E.g. most Baghdad classrooms were designed for 25 to 30 students but now have more than 80,   some classrooms have up to 120 students.  Baghdad needs 3,000 new school buildings to accommodate the overflow(Synovitz, 2012).

Some schools in Iraq now are either built from mud[2], or the worst type of cement that might collapse at any time, or even tents. This type of schools can never produce a new educated generation, that’s why this is a serious issue and the government should take a fast, serious action about that(Waseem, 2012).

There’s no electricity  and no drinking water, there is the shortage of heaters and air-conditioners.It’s so hot in summer and so cold in winter, there are rodents and insects that handle the lessons, and are considered as a risk to the students, there’s no health services in those schools of any kind.

One of the worst results of those mud schools is that there are no paved streets, so, when it’s raining, the streets are all blocked.

Most schools lack drinking water, toilets or refuse bins – the lack of access to sanitary facilities places particular burdens on girls  (UNAMI HR, 2011).

Even the schools which were maintained after 2003 don’t have the safety conditions and specifications because of the corruption in the projects, many ceilings of those newly maintained schools fell down because of that problem. There are huge amounts of money spent on improving schools in Iraq, but corruption deals are always handling the implementation of those projects(Waseem, 2012).

Shortages of school buildings and classrooms have led to the running of two or three shifts in schools, allowing some pupils only a couple of hours’ daily contact with teachers, and negatively affecting their access to education.(UCPD, 2011-2014).

Moreover, repetition rates have been forcing students with as much as 6 years of age difference to remain in the same classroom and  in some areas there are not enough schools that can provide adequate instruction in the language required by displaced children from other areas, (for instance: Arabic-speaking children in Northern Iraq)(NGO coordination Iraq, 2010).

Thousands of children with disabilities remain without access to schools, and the children of internally displaced families face a lack of educational facilities (UNAMI HR, 2011).

In addition school buildings are often used for military purposes, in violation of The Hague IV Conventions on Laws and Customs of War on Land(Yale law school). “MNF-I, the Iraqi Army and Iraqi police units occupied more than 70 school buildings for military purposes in the Diyala governorate alone”, according to a UNESCO report in 2010(UNESCO , 2010).

The MRM recorded a number of incidents against education establishments and staff(UNAMI Human Rights Office/OHCHR, 2012).

The Iraqi education system has been struggling to overcome significant challenges fordecades. To ensure access to and quality of education, the education system requires thestrengthening of physical infrastructure, materials and professional educators at national,governorate and local levels(UCPD, 2011-2014).

 Security and Sectarianism

The UNESCO National Education Support Strategy released in 2008 estimated that 2 million children of primary school age did not attend school largely due to the security situation. While the situation has improved, children’s access to education remains compromised by the security situation. “Many threats against schools continue to come from(the so called) “ insurgent groups”  demanding a change in the curriculum or attempting to deny students from certain targeted groups access to education.The punishment for failing to comply with these demands is often violence”,(UNAMI HR, 2011).

Who are these “certain targeted groups”, and what does the report exactly mean by “insurgent groups”?

Sectarian policies of the Maliki government hamper the right to education of Iraqi children in predominantlysunni areas. Attacks on educational institutions by the Iraqi Army and government militias, to intimidate, frighten, kidnap, arrest and kill students occur on a regular basis. As a consequence school attendance has decreased dramatically.

Sectarianism also comes “through the back door”.It seems that the students in dominantly “Shia” provinces obtained much better results than those in provinces with a predominantly Sunni population.In 2009 protests broke out in three Sunni Muslim cities in which conspicuously low numbers of students passed their national exams, fuelling suspicions that Iraq’s Shiite Muslim-led government is discriminating against Sunnis and others(Issa, 2009).

The Educational Curriculum

The occupying forces changed the existing curricula , now the The Ministry of education is incapable of reforming the educational curriculum in an appropriate way due to the sectarianism of the Iraqi government, lack of capacity and experience. The whole national education system needs to be considerably strengthened at national, governorate and district levels to ensure access to quality education(NGO coordination Iraq, 2010).

An outdated curriculum is not  meeting current learning needs of students. The serious shortage of skilled educators and administrators as well as inefficiencies in the field of management and strategic planning further undermine the system’s capacity to produce educated Iraqis able to compete in the

labour market. Iraq is still far from achieving many of the international objectives in education(UCPD, 2011-2014).

The Education Minister said that the curriculum hasn’t changed much since the 1980s, 70% of teachers are not properly trained, the staff is underpaid, and there is low achievement amongst students and high illiteracy (Wing, 2012)

 Skills: Learning Difficulties

Evidence is increasing that it is likely that a large number of children in Iraq suffer from preventable learning difficulties related to lack of early stimulation and learning. This degree of language delay may result from widespread psychosocial consequences of war, including increased poverty and fearfulness. However, psychosocial difficulties and poverty, including, preoccupation with day-to- day survival, amongst adults prevent them from being able to talk to or stimulate their children in the normal way.

In addition to the difficulties caused by lack of stimulation, children’s cognitive development is also affected by poor nutrition (UNICEF, 2010).

According to a 2007 Oxfam report, some 92 per cent of Iraq’s children suffer from learning impediments (Sponeck, 2011).

The Iraqi school system is currently lacking a mental health philosophy, and Iraq teachers are not trained to identify children with learning and emotional problems.(Abdul Kareem Al-Obaidi, 2010)

Al- Azzawi indicated that almost 65% of teachers often use the physical punishment against students when they teach because of the aggressive nature of the children, since there is no other way to deal with such aggressiveness (so they claim)(Al-Sayer, 2012).

 Assassinations and Brain Drain

After 2003 another massive brain drain began when the lives of Iraqi academics were pervaded by a constant fear of being murdered.Assassinationsand death threats against educators drove many out of the country. According to the UN office for humanitarian affairs 180 teachers have been killed since 2006, up to 100 have been kidnapped and over 3,250 have fled the country(ICRC, 2007).

The International Medical Corps reported that populations of teachers in Baghdad have fallen by 80% and medical personnel seem to have left in disproportionate numbers(Azzaman, 2007). Roughly 40 per cent of Iraq’s middle class is believed to have fled by the end of 2006(Senanayake, 2006).This brain drain and the destruction of schools and educational system is part of the cultural cleansing of the Iraqi society and identity (AL-Azzawi, 2010). Iraq’s educated and professional class, including teachers, academics and health professionals in particular, fled in their thousands following the assassination of colleagues as part of a targeted campaign, with devastating effect.

473 university academics(Brussells Tribunal, 2013) have been killed and more than 2000 doctors, hundreds of lawyers and judges, 382 journalists/media workers(Brussells Tribunal, 2013) and thousands of professionals(Adriaensens, 2008). This, in addition to the outflow of professionals during the UN sanctions years has left Iraq with an enormous task to rebuild not just its educational and health infrastructure but its specialist human capital (CARA, 2010).

Article 39. Measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim.

Psychological problems

A report (1991)produced by a group of Harvard medical researchers concluded that the children of Iraq “were the most traumatized children of war ever described” and that “a majority of the children would suffer from severe psychological problems throughout their lives”. Children were the biggest sufferers during the long years of punitive economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf War (1990),(Cherian, 2012), (Lando, 2007).

Half of the, approximately 30 million, population of Iraq are children and adolescents . In recent decades, wars, international sanctions, internal unrest, and massive civilian displacements within and beyond  its borders have dominated the history of Iraq. Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens, including many children and youths, have died and thousands have suffered serious injuries. Kidnapping for ransom, loss of parents, and displacement have undermined the fundamental security of Iraqi children; impacting an estimated two million Iraqi child refugees. Malnutrition, deterioration of education, a high and increased rate of truancy, child labor, trafficking of children and involvement of children with militia and insurgency groups threatens the wellbeing of Iraqi children. Furthermore, religious and political persecutions accompany continuing civil disorder in Iraq (UNICEF, 2008),(Abdul Kareem Al-Obaidi, 2010).

 Children had been exposed to fighting in the streets, passing dead bodies on the way to school, seeing relatives and friends killed or severely injured, and other actions of war and occupation. They didn’t just see them once in a while – they saw these things a lot, for years and years.

Almost every child is growing up as a son or daughter to victims of severe human rights violations such as torture, rape or chemical attacks. Most of today’s parents have not had the possibility to mourn their losses and recover from their traumatic experiences due to a lack of rehabilitation services and social recognition. Children living in survivor families therefore frequently become victims of aggression, physical and emotional abuse and neglect-effects of intergenerational conflict and dysfunctional family structures produced by collective trauma. They are exposed to violence outside and inside their house.

As a consequence, they suffer from a wide range of behavioral disturbances and trauma-related stress reactions such as sleep disorders, agitated and hyperactive behavior, social withdrawal, depression, anxiety, as well as developmental and eating disorders. As children often have to support their traumatized parents in various ways, their own development in becoming productive members of society is inhibited. Horrible images of torn dead bodies scattered in streets and the scenes of their fathers or relatives being killed in front of their eyes will remain firm in the children’s minds for many years and will leave negative psychological stamps in their future behaviors(Dancewater, 2009).

Health Issues

Exposure to violence on a daily basis has affected their psychological development and behavior. 46.8% of the studied population of children face serious health issues such as psychological and mental disorders (Al-Azzawi, 2010).

Although the violence that followed the invasion of Iraq by multi-national forces in 2003 has ebbed and flowed, Iraq remains within the top five humanitarian emergencies in the world. Children continue to suffer from the psychological trauma of war and conflict, and access to education and development opportunities has been severely constrained(Save the children, 2012).

According to the UN World Health Organization (WHO), the fourth leading cause of morbidity among Iraqis older than five years is “mental disorders,” which ranked higher than infectious disease (WHO, 2005).

A study by the Iraqi Society of Psychiatrists in collaboration with the World Health Organization found that 70% of children (sample 10,000) in the Sha’ab section of North Baghdad is  suffering from trauma-related symptoms(Al-Daini, 2012).

In 2006 some studies on the prevalence of mental disorders of children were completed in Baghdad, Mosul, and Dohuk. In the first study it is found that, 47% of  primary school children  reported exposure to a major traumatic event during the previous 2 years, 14% had post-traumatic stress disorder( PTSD): boys 9%, girls 17% (Ali H Razokhi a, 2006).

In the second study in Mosul, adolescents were screened for mental disorders. 30% had symptoms of PTSD: boys 26%, girls 32%. There was a higher rate of PTSD in the older adolescents.  (92%) of the ill adolescents had not received any treatment(Ali H Razokhi a, 2006)^.

A study conducted at the child psychiatric department of the general pediatric hospital in Baghdad in 2005 found :  anxiety disorders (22%), behavioral problems (hyperkinetic and conduct disorders) (18%), non-organic enuresis (15%), stuttering (14%), epilepsy (10%) and depression (1.3%) (Al-Obaidi et al.).

Jones (2003) provided an account of children’s worries and fears facing daily hazards and discomforts in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps in the north of Iraq. Data from a cross-sectional study in the city of Mosul, in the northern part of Iraq, revealed that mental disorders were found among 37.4% of children and adolescent patients attending primary health care (PHC) facilities. The most common disorders included PTSD (10.5%), non-organic enuresis (6%), and separation anxiety disorder (4.3%). Depression was reported in only 1.5% cases. Additionally, there were 9.4% cases of comorbidity  (PTSD and depression).

In 2006 at Nassiriya, a city in southern Iraq, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was found among 15% of school children .This result was above the global prevalence rate for ADHD, which is 8-12% (Abdul Kareem Al-Obaidi, 2010).

Dr Maliki quotes Dr. Haithi Al Sady, the dean of the Psychological Research Center at Baghdad University, who has been studying the effects of PTSD in Iraqi children, that as many as 28% of Iraqi children could be affected.  If these calculations are correct it means that the number of Iraqi children suffering from PTSD could be as high as 3 million(Darylilbury, 2012).

Babylon Centre for Human Rights and Civil Development, which is one of the civil society organizations in Babylon Governorate revealed that the percentage of the violence against children in Iraq increased up to 60% after the 2003 war. Al-Azzawi said that after the questionnaire he had with some parents, 55% of them assured that they used violent ways with their children after 2003 because of the hard security situation, pressure and economic problems(Al-Sayer, 2012).

Facilities

Whereas such high figures of reported PTSD is concerning for the US military and the families of those serving, the fact remains that the military is aware of it and has a treatment and rehabilitation program in place for veterans of warfare.  Furthermore, these veterans of war are highly-trained, adult combat soldiers, who have elected to go to war and have been immersed in the conditioning necessary to prepare a combatant to kill other people.

But what about those who have also witnessed the horrors, but lack the ‘luxury’ of military training and trauma counseling? What about Iraqi and Afghanistan children, too young to process the moral complexities of modern warfare, and who have witnessed the killing, brutality and violence of armed conflict? Children of war left behind in Iraq have no support; plus they have added challenges. Many of them have lost their parents to war, and remain mired in poverty. Without any support or help, they often turn to drugs or alcohol, and develop violent behavior.

Dr Haider Maliki of the Central Pediatric Teaching Hospital in Baghdad  points out that culture also dictates that many families do not seek help fearing that to do so would bring humiliation or dishonor, “Especially in children, especially in the female, any psychological problem is a stigma.”(Darylilbury, 2012).

Currently, there are only two state psychiatric hospitals located in Baghdad, and 22 psychiatric units attached to general hospitals in governorates across Iraq. There are no separate inpatient mental health services for children and adolescents, and CAMH^[3] services are usually provided in outpatient mental clinics for the general population.

Psychiatric drugs  are almost exclusively the mode of therapeutic intervention. One small CAMH clinic was established in the Central Child Hospital in Baghdad after 2003, but with very limited resources. There are a number of institutes for children with special needs and residential houses for orphans. However, the lack of resources and staff training may undermine the provision of services in these institutions. Behavioural, play and other forms of psychotherapy are not routinely practised.

General psychiatrists and a small team of psychologists and social workers assist the Iraqi juvenile justice system. However, they have no specialised training in the treatment and rehabilitation of youthful offenders. There are no CAMH services in Iraqi schools (Abdul Kareem Al-Obaidi, 2010, pp. 40-51).

Human resources are another challenge facing the delivery of CAMH services in Iraq. Among the approximately 100 psychiatrists in Iraq, none of them are formally trained in CAMH. Other mental health, human resources include: only seven general practitioners practicing mental health; 145 psychiatric nurses; 16 psychologists; and 25 social workers (WHO, 2009), (Abdul Kareem Al-Obaidi, 2010).

For Iraq’s population of 30 million, there is a ratio of 1/150,000 compared to the desired 1/10,000 ratio in the US  (EPIC).

There are only three child psychiatrists in the whole country. The conflict has blighted a generation of Iraqi children(BBC News Middle east, 2012) .

The “relentless bloodshed and the lack of professional help will see Iraq’s children growing up either deeply scarred or so habituated to violence that they keep the pattern going as they enter adulthood”.

That is the human reality of what the Anglo-American invasion has done and continues to do(Dancewater, 2009).

Of all the statistics that describe the devastation wreaked upon Iraq by the illegal war, the figures describing the plight of Iraqi children are the most troubling and heart-wrenching.  These children will determine the future Iraq.  Their wellbeing, or lack of it, will  have impact on the lives of all Iraqis regardless their sect, religion, or ethnicity(Al-Daini, 2012).

Children with Disabilities^[4]

Iraq has a higher percentage of persons with disabilities than other countries – not only persons born with disabilities, but also those who suffered disabilities later on. Three wars in as many decades and terrorist attacks have cost a large number of people their limbs, eyesight, and various physical, intellectual and mental abilities that other people take for granted(Kobler, 2012).

Landmines and explosive remnants of war have a devastating impact on Iraq’s children with around 25 per cent of all victims being children under the age of 14 years (War victims monitor, 2011).

Causalities from failed cluster sub munitions rose between 1991 and 2007 from 5,500 to 80,000, 45.7% between the age of 15 and 29 years of age, and 23.9% were children under the age of 14. Both UNICEF and UNDP believe these figures are an underestimation (War victims monitor, 2011).

This last decade the Al Munthanna and Basra provinces of Iraq have challenged Angola for the highest proportion to total population of children amputees (Indymedia Australia, 2011).

Children are often more vulnerable to the dangers associated with approaching or disturbing landmines and UXOs.  24% of victims in the Kurdistan Region were under 14 years old.

Many children lose their limbs, sight, or hearing resulting in lifelong disability. Child victims are then often perceived as a burden to their families and are discriminated against by society, with limited or no future prospects for education. The country will not meet the 2018 deadline to clear all landmines and UXO (IRIN, 2012).

The Absence of Facilities for Children with Disabilities

The distance to school, the poor state of the buildings, the absence of basic facilities, unsympathetic teachers, and lack help in understanding lessons, family protectiveness and the attitudes of society are likely to be insurmountable blocks for girls with disabilities (UN Children’s fund, 2010).

Reliable data on services for children with disabilities in Iraqi is extremely limited. The UN sanction years led to a chronic lack of investment and by late 1991 all four specialised training institutions and national coordinating institutions^[5] were closed.

The chronic lack of educational and training materials and reduced educational capacity resulted in increased economic vulnerability of families with disabled children who presented an additional financial burden.

Many children living with disabilities live in rural or remote areas that seriously impact on their ability to access available services due to cost, lack of public transportation and lack of knowledge about available services. Families from remote and rural areas may never see healthcare professionals. Even if the services are available, the cost of medical care will be prohibitive to most families(CARA, 2010).

The ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (MoLSA) is responsible for institutional care and the provision of benefits. Although there is a Central Government allocated budget to cover food, transport and other Social Care Establishment facilities, staff lack training and the units require modern educational facilities. Over 200 social workers are available but their lack of experience makes them largely ineffective (CARA, 2010).

A degradation in essential services and poor medical treatment have further exacerbated the issue.

The plight of Iraqis with intellectual disabilities or mental illness is particularly acute. Their voices are seldom heard in Iraq, and there are very few services which cater to their particular needs. Their access to public services is at times severely restricted.

Iraq’s ratification on 23 January 2012 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reflected a recognition of the importance of protecting and promoting the rights of these Iraqi citizens.

However, legislation meant to ensure the implementation of the Convention is still pending, and further revisions must be made to bring it fully into line with the Convention(Kobler, 2012).

The wars Iraq has gone through in the last three decades have produced a nation of disabled people – six million out of a population of 30 million.

“People with disabilities caused by the three wars Iraq has suffered are estimated at more than 6 million,” according to RaadAbdulhusain who heads the rehabilitation of disabled people in the religious province of Najaf.

But the U.S. invasion led to horrendous suffering and casualties as it sparked a ruinous insurrection in which the mighty U.S. marines used disproportionate power to subdue major towns and cities, particularly in the central parts of the country.

The invasion fuelled a civil war in which different religious sects, particularly Muslim Shiites and Sunnis, raised their own militias to fight each other. Abdulhusain said there were 120,000 registered people with different disabilities only in the Province of Najaf. However, he said, the figure could be higher because there were no surveys and inventories of handicapped and disabled people in the country.

There are no government or private organizations or funds looking after the army of disabled Iraqis. (Al-Jaberi, 2012)

Persons with disabilities continue to suffer from discrimination in relation to healthcare, education, employment and economic opportunity. Iraq has a high proportion of persons disabled in the wars and violence that have characterized the country since the 1980s.

UNAMI is concerned about the absence of specialized educational and health institutions for persons with mental illness.(UNICEF, MICS, 2011)

Doctors insist that it’s the responsibility of the US to try undoing part of the damage it has caused. “The US government has spent billions on this war but none to revert the problems caused by its dangerous weapons,” fumes another doctor in Baghdad University. “I can say that those new-born are the result of the American disaster that befell our land.” (Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, 2009).

The figures on Iraqi orphans vary considerably but beyond any doubt the occupation of Iraq has created a generation of children who have to survive without father and/or mother.

The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs estimates that around 4,5 million children are orphans. Nearly 70 percent of them lost their parents since the invasion and the ensuing violence. From the total number, around 600,000 children are living in the streets without a house or food to survive. Only 700 children are living in the 18 orphanages existing in the country, lacking their most essential needs(Global resaerch TV, 2011).

According to the NGO ‘Sponsor Iraqi Children Foundation’, approximately 1 in 6 Iraqi children under the age of 18 is an orphan. Many orphans beg on the streets or sell water to help poor widowed mothers or siblings. They are very vulnerable to arrest for begging as well as to recruitment or abuse by criminals, extremists and human traffickers (SICF, 2011).

According to the 2011 UNICEF survey, about five percent of children aged 0-17 years are orphans who have lost one or both parents, and about 2 percent are not living with a biological parent. Older age group has a higher percentage of orphans (in some governates 7 percent). Eight percent of children aged 10-14 have lost at least one parent, among those, 79 percent are currently attending school. Among the children age 10-14 who have lost no parent 83 percent are attending school(UNICEF, MICS, 2011).

“Unfortunately the budget allocated to projects that help street children and orphans is decreasing day in and day out,” notes an Iraqi Red Crescent employee. “Worse still, almost no NGO is dedicating itself to this group of kids who are subject to trafficking and sexual abuses in the streets.”(Reuters, 2011).

Beyond the individual tragedies, the sheer number of Iraqi orphans has created a social crisis in a country that has less than 200 social workers and psychiatrists put together, for a population of 30 million people. It has no child protection laws. Officials say that desperately needed welfare legislation has been held hostage to sectarian squabbling in parliament(Caroline Hawley, 2012).

MayadaHasan highlights the importance of providing orphans with safe places that offer them a sense of normalcy and protection against harm: “I visited a homeless shelter where I saw children being evicted to the street.” Iraqi law stipulates that orphanages and shelters must evict their residents once they turn 18. “These children have nowhere to go in one of the most dangerous cities in the world. Many of them do not have any skills. Some are forced to join organised crime or gangs. Some are killed, and some disappear without a trace.” According to Save the Children, children in Iraq suffer from psychological trauma of war and conflict, and have little access to education or other development opportunities(Reventlow, 2013).

Refugee Children

Article 22. Children have the right to special protection and help if they are refugees.

An estimated four million Iraqis, nearly 15% of the total population, have fled their homes; 50% of these refugees are children(Obaidi, 2010).

On average, 75 to 80 per cent of the displaced ^[6](UNAMI, 2010) persons in any crisis are women and children. The Iraqi Red Crescent Society estimates that more than 83 per cent of these in Iraq are women and children, and the majority of the children are under the age of 12.^[7]

UNHCR surveys in 2009 stated that 20% of Internally displaces persons (IDP) and 5% of returned refugees  reported children to be missing.  The total internally displaced population as of November 2009 was estimated up to  2.76 million  persons or 467.517 families. A simple calculation shows that more than 93,500 children of internally displaced families are missing(Adriaensens, Always someone’s mother or father, always someone’s child. The missing persons of Iraq.Retrieved from http://www.brussellstribunal.org/pdf/Disappearances_missing_persons_in_Iraq.pdf, 2011).

A study of Dr Souad Al Azzawi shows that in her study group 43.6% of the children’s families left Iraq, 12.8% were forced to leave their residential areas, 11.7% of the children in the studied group left the country. All this due to a lack of services, security, and law enforcement and because of the fear for their lives. So 75.5% of the children in the studied group were forced to migrate from their living areas in Iraq(Al-Azzawi, 2010).

The problems of children who were forced to migrate represent a real humanitarian issue because a large number of families had no shelter, no finances, no health care, no education, and no security of any kind (Al-Azzawi, 2010).

According to government figures, in 2011, 67,000 Iraqis in Syria returned to an Iraq which, while significantly safer than in 2006-7, is still one of the most dangerous places in the world.

Brookings Institution, calls their return “premature” and a survey by UNHCR just before the unrest in Syria started found that most refugees in Syria were still unwilling to return home permanently.

More than direct violence, refugees in Syria are at risk of re-traumatization, with 78 percent of refugees surveyed by UNHCR saying the current situation had had a negative impact on their mental and physical well-being, including nightmares and recollections of the past. The anxiety has led to an increase in domestic violence, Daubelcour said (IRIN, 23 April 2012 ).

The Iraqi mental health treatment has been disrupted and many Iraqi health and mental health professionals have been displaced mainly to countries nearby Iraq. The systems of care available to Iraqi refugees in host countries have been ill-prepared to provide even the basic level of coverage(Obaidi, 2010).

Looking to the future, there is considerable cause for concern in relation to the education of these Iraqi children. Many of the refugee parents, both fathers and mothers, have completed secondary and tertiary education themselves and have high ambitions for their offspring. But the destruction of the Iraqi education system prior to their flight from the country, coupled with the difficulties they now encounter in keeping their children in school, has created a risk that those young people will grow up without an education. In focus group discussions, many refugees referred to the fact that the future of an entire generation had been squandered, and that their children would struggle to cope, whether they were to go back to Iraq, to be resettled elsewhere or to remain in their country of asylum(UNCHR, 2009).

Despite the urgent needs for Iraq’s younger generation, UNHCR’s budget for Iraq will be reduced in 2013 (UNCHR Global Appeal, Jan 2013).

Since the 1990s, because of UN sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people, scores of young children walk between cars as traffic slows to sell simple items, or work in industrial jobs that require strong physical effort, like car maintenance or blacksmiths shops. The ages of most these children range between six to 15 years, and can be found in most parts of the country either working or, to a lesser extent, begging.

An official from the Social Welfare Commission and member of Salahaddin Provincial Council says there are many reasons behind the spread of child employment. Financial impoverishment that pushes parents to put their children to work, the loss of one of the parents, especially the father, failure of the children at school, especially in the primary stages, who then leave education, dropping out of schools because many people believe that those who own certificates of education have not found work. Hence they prefer that their children work and learn a profession early to guarantee their living in the future.”

This phenomenon is not new but it is increasing day after day because of the tragedies of war and the ravages of the country’s economic and security tensions. Despite the country’s abundant oil revenues and the lift of the economic embargo after the fall of the regime, child labour not only remains in Iraq but it continues to increase, some of the billions of the oil revenues should be invested in helping the children in the country(Al-Shalash, 2012) .

More than one third of the children at the age of 0-14 are working in order to make a living. Since there are lots of war orphans, many children have to earn money on their own and are as a result not able to attend school(The Republic of Iraq, 2012).

The UNICEF Iraq MICS4 survey estimates that about six percent of children aged 5-14 years are involved in child labour. Results show that child labour among children born to uneducated mothers is 9 percent , decreasing to five percent for children whose mothers have completed secondary education.

Two percent of these children age 12-14 participate in unpaid work for someone other than a household member, an equal percentage of children do household chores for 28 hours or more per week, while a higher percentage of children work for family business (12 percent).

A higher percentage of children work in rural areas (10 percent) compared to urban areas (5 percent).

Among the 75 percent of the children 5-14 years  of age, attending school, 6 percent are also involved in child labour activities. On the other hand, out of the six percent of the children who are involved in child labour, the majority of them are also attending school (65 percent)(UNICEF, MICS, 2011).

Child labour has increased with 15% of children under the age of 14 now working.  There are now between 1 and 3 million widows in Iraq, many struggling as heads of households and living in extreme poverty(Child victims of war, 2012).

Children are engaged in the worst forms of child labour in Iraq, many in street work and some in armed conflict. Children working on the streets may be exposed to multiple risks, including severe weather, vehicle accidents and criminal elements. Some children reportedly encounter these dangers while engaged in street commerce, shining shoes, washing cars and begging. In some regions of Iraq, children reportedly work in hot and polluted brickyards, making clay bricks. Children working in brickyards often lack protective gear and are exposed to contaminated gases released during production. Children reportedly work in dangerous conditions in automobile shops and on construction sites.

Although evidence is limited, there is information indicating that children in urban areas scavenge in dump yards to collect items that may later be sold. In addition to illness from exposure to toxic substances, children may experience physical hazards and psychological damage. Labourers in this sector also experience stigmatization, exploitation and harassment. It is also reported that children in Iraq work in dangerous activities in agriculture. Work in agriculture can involve using dangerous machinery and tools, carrying heavy loads and applying harmful pesticides. Research found no evidence of programs to eliminate the worst forms of child labour during the reporting period. (U.S. Department of Labor, 2011)

 According to recent studies on working children by civil society organizations, young children are at risk of not growing normally because their work is not suitable to their ages.

Faten al-Smurrai, a humanitarian activist and member of the Iraqi Family Organization, which specializes in women and children affairs, told AKnews:

“According to a study conducted by the organization and in collaboration with medical staff, most of the children who work in occupations that don’t fit their ages are at risk of facing atrophied growth at puberty, as well as physical illnesses and disabilities that increase with the passage of time.”

But the risks to children are not just limited to the physical, as Smurrai explains:

“The defect will not only be in the growth and exposition to diseases and disabilities, but the child will be raised in a state of violence and cruelty that creates abnormal people.” (Al-Shalash, 2012).

Many children are obliged to work to support their families. In Baghdad, community action groups are working with citizens to create awareness of and begin addressing the problem(IRD, 2012).

Drug Abuse

Article 33. Governments should use all means possible to protect children from the use of harmful drugs and from being used in the drug trade.

Many reports have indicated problems of drug and sexual abuse amongst children and adolescents in Iraq . However, it is difficult to know the real scope of this problem(Abdul Kareem Al-Obaidi, Child and adolescent mental health in Iraq: current situation and scope for promotion [of mental health policy?], 2010).

Nowadays in Iraq, many children do not go to school and don’t play in the streets but hide in corners to take drugs or to sell them. Experts say that many children, especially orphans, have fallen prey to drug abuse over the past few years. Prior to the 2003 US-led invasion, drug addiction among children was practically non-existent , according to Ameer Mohammad Bayat, a psychologist working with child addicts. In many cases children turn to drugs to ease the pain and sufferings inflicted by the war(Understanding Islam, 2008).

UNICEF reports have warned that drug addiction is becoming more than a phenomenon amongst Iraqi children. There has been a 30 per cent addiction increase among children since 2005 and a nearly 10% increase during the last year . But the problem goes far beyond addiction. Many children are trapped in a thriving drugs trade in “new Iraq”, (a local NGO tackling the issue in Baghdad).  Gangs usually target children who lost a beloved one or who are working in the streets. “The dealers offer job and relief, easily bringing drug dependence among those innocent kids^{(Understanding Islam, 2008)}.

Experts complain that the children drug plight is ignored by the government. “The problem is worsened as the government neglects the chaotic situation children are living in,” said Bayat, psychologist. He notes that the only help children get comes from independent aid agencies and volunteers, who usually face a tough, sometimes dangerous, mission. “Security issues make it harder for volunteers to reach dependent children and offer help, as armed drug dealers can anytime take revenge against aid agents who try take children off the streets.”(Understanding Islam, 2008)

Sexual Exploitation

Article 34. Governments should protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse.

The years of war and instability after the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 have provided abundant opportunities for criminal elements to prosper, including human traffickers. The country experienced a breakdown of law and order resulting in a rise in kidnapping and trafficking . War widows are rendered economically marginalized and vulnerable to exploitation (Abouzeid, 2009 (b)).

While sexual violence has accompanied warfare for millenniums and insecurity always provides opportunities for criminal elements to profit, what is happening in Iraq today reveals how far a once progressive country (relative to its neighbours) has regressed on the issue of women’s rights and how ferociously the seams of a traditional Arab society that values female virginity have been ripped apart. (Abouzeid, 2009).

A survey conducted by Women for Women International, an NGO, showed over 90% of Iraqi women were hopeful for their future in 2004 but by 2008 that number had decreased to 27% (Abouzeid, 2009 (b)).

Iraq at the moment  is a source and destination country for human-trafficking of men, women and children. Iraq has been host to an international presence from early 2003 to late 2011.

An overwhelming amount of evidence suggests that a link exists between trafficking and post-conflict regions according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Human rights groups, the International Organization of Migration (IOM), and agencies within the United Nations have reported that in and around these post-conflict regions, where there are typically long-term, international deployments there is also a documented rise in the number of trafficked women and girls. Trafficking, especially the enslavement of women and girls for forced prostitution follows market demand and, in post-conflict situations, that demand is often created by international peacekeepers(Lavender, 2012).

Almost one year after the so-called withdrawal of American military troops, the security situation in Baghdad has not improved. Families are living in fear because of a dramatic increase in the number of cases of child abduction.

These kidnappings have different aims. Some are meant to finance terrorist groups. But Iraqi children are also abducted for the very lucrative trafficking of human organs (Adriaensens, 2012).

Gruesome Facts regarding  Teenage Daughters

That underworld is ‘ a place where nefarious female pimps hold sway and where impoverished mothers sell their teenage daughters into a sex market that believes females who reach the age of 20 are too old to fetch a good price’ (Abouzeid, 2009).

One NGO reports that recruiters rape women and girls on film and blackmail them into prostitution or recruit them in prisons by posting bail and then forcing them into prostitution via debt bondage. Some women and children are pressured into prostitution by family members to escape desperate economic circumstances, to pay debts, or to resolve disputes between families.

NGOs report that these women are often prostituted in private residences, brothels, restaurants, and places of entertainment. Some Iraqi parents have reportedly collaborated with traffickers to leave children at the Iraqi side of the border with Syria with the expectation that traffickers will arrange forged documents for them to enter Syria and find employment in a nightclub. An Iraqi official revealed networks of women have been involved in the trafficking and sale of male and female children for the purposes of sexual exploitation(United States Department of State, 2012).

Violence used against prostituted women and girls is mainly targeted to the pregnant. Many reports state that they were aborted by kicks and beating. Women and girls who had an abortion were forced to work immediately. Some of the girls are victims of torture in case of gang- rape. Children of prostituted women are sold or raped by pedophile customers and are condemned to a vicious cycle of imprisonment because of  forced prostitution and thereafter driven back to prostitution. In a few cases some girls are even selling organs (Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, 2010).

Crimes against Humanity: “How Much is a Child Worth ?”

In 2009, gangs operating within Iraq were offering between GBP 200 to 4,000 per child that were then sold internationally (Lavender, 2012).

Women between the ages of 15 to 22 years from Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Syria are sold to traffickers in Tikrit for the equivalent of $1,000-5,000 and then replaced or sold again every two or three months(United States Department of State, 2012).

The younger the girl, the more lucrative the profits—the highest demand is for girls under the age of 16. Traffickers reportedly sell girls as young as 11 and 12, for as much as $30,000, while older “used” girls and women can be bought for as little as $2,000. The traffickers are aided by sophisticated criminal networks that are able to forge documents and pay corrupt officials to remove impediments. In some cases, women and girls request to remain in detention centers even after a sentence is complete, fearful that their families will kill them (Human Rights Watch, 2010).

 Forced Marriage

Traffickers ferry their victims overseas illegally on forged passports or “legally” through forced marriages, sometimes abusing the Islamic tradition that allows a man to have four wives. A trafficker “will marry four, he will take them to Syria, it’s legal, and divorce them there, and he comes back and does it again. Similarly, the principle of temporary marriages, known as al-Mut’a in Shi’ite Islam and al-Misyar in Sunni Islam, has also been exploited to trade in women. The draft law does not address how victims are trafficked, avoiding the sensitive subject of the abuse of religious principles, but says it is an offense to transport people with the purpose of trading in them (Abouzeid, 2009 (b)).

Forced marriage of minors is a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and forced marriage of minors constitutes a form of child abuse. Iraqi marriage law states that both parties must be over 18. However religious marriages are frequently granted to children. UNAMI has been asked to intervene in a number of cases of girls as young as 15 who have been taken, allegedly against their will, and subjected to forced marriages (UNAMI, 2012).

No Legal Recourse

Activists complain that corruption within the security forces is enabling traffickers to operate with impunity. Many traffickers have “very good ties with the police,” says Yanar Mohammed, who heads the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq. Young women who have attempted to escape from brothels have sometimes been returned by police officers, she says. “It turns out the cops were loyal customers.” SaadFath Allah, director of the National Institute of Human Rights and the head of an inter-ministerial anti-trafficking committee, acknowledges that a law is only the first step. “We need to enhance the independence of the judiciary,” he says. “There are many criminals who have been released” (Abouzeid, 2009 (b)).

Numbers

Innocent girls who should still be enjoying childhood under the protection of their mothers were being incarcerated for the crime of prostitution, an ordeal in which they were modern-day slaves. The OWW reports  that minors girls among the prostituted females are up to 65%   (Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, 2010).

Some Baghdad-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs) place the figure of human trafficking in the tens of thousands. According to the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, “an estimated 4,000 Iraqi women, one-fifth of whom are under 18, have disappeared in broad daylight since the 2003 invasion; many are believed to have been trafficked.”

An Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) article reported Iraqi officials and aid worker concerns over the alarming rate at which children were disappearing during the post-war chaos. Vice President of Iraqi Families Association (IFA), an NGO that registers cases of missing children, Omar Khalif, told IRIN that “as least five children are disappearing every week”. Further, the IFA has unconfirmed reports that suggest Iraqi children are being sold into European countries. Little was known of the buyers or of the ultimate purpose of the sale. One senior Iraqi police officer told the Guardian in 2009 that at least 15 Iraqi children were sold every month(Lavender, 2012).

Child Prostitution: Destination Countries

Destination countries were Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and European countries such as Switzerland, Ireland, UK, Portugal and Sweden (Lavender, 2012).

According to the Guardian, during negotiations with family members, the gang members prepared the paperwork, which included forging birth certificates, changing names and adding the child to the passport of the intermediary who is paid to take the child out of Iraq. Colonel FirazAbdallah, a member of the Iraqi police, indicated that gangs use intermediaries who pretend to work for non-governmental organisations. One trafficker told the Guardian that trafficking in Iraq was cheaper and easier than other countries given the willingness of underpaid government workers to help falsify documents for money. Abdallah stated that, “corruption in many departments of the government makes our job complicated because when those children come to the airport or the border, everything looks correct and it is hard for us to keep them inside the country without significant evidence that the child is being trafficked”  (Lavender, 2012).

The US State Department 2011 TIP report designates Iraq as a Tier 2 Watch List country. Iraq’s rating is due to the fact that the government did not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. The government demonstrated poor law enforcement efforts addressing TIP. According to the “IOM 2011 Case Data on Human Trafficking: Global Figures and Trends”, the organisation assisted in 36 cases of human trafficking in Iraq and the IOM provided assistance to 65 cases in which Iraq was the destination country(Lavender, 2012).

When raising this issue with the British and U.S. authorities ,whose forces’ presence in Iraq were a contributing factor to the problem , ImanAbou-Atta, a clinical researcher also encountered resistance (Smith-Spark, 2011).

The government has done little to combat trafficking in girls and women: there have been no

successful prosecutions of criminals engaged in human trafficking, no comprehensive

program to tackle the problem, and negligible support for victims, as noted above(Human Rights Watch, 2010).

Women’s rights groups told Human Rights Watch that trafficked women (and victims of sexual violence) often find themselves in jail. The government provides no assistance to victims repatriated from abroad. Iraqi authorities prosecute and convict trafficking victims for unlawful acts committed as a result of being trafficked. Victims are also jailed for prostitution, while authorities ignore their abusers (Human Rights Watch, 2010).

Many children have been arrested by the Iraqi authorities on terrorism charges. More than 1,000 children were being held in Iraqi detention and reformatories at the end of 2008 and many of them may have been abused by security forces. Children are often held without proper care or legal representation. Because of the emphasis on confession in the Iraqi justice system, human rights groups are concerned about the level of intimidation or torture children are subjected to (Child victims of war, 2012) .

UNAMI has observed that children were frequently held in the same cells as adults, and where juvenile detention centres do exist, conditions were poor. During a visit to a juvenile detention facility in Kirkuk on 29 June, UNAMI noted that 22 children were crowded into two rooms, each with eight beds, without ventilation. None of the juvenile detainees had access to education. None of the prison staff had received training in dealing with juvenile offenders. On a subsequent visit in July, the management of the detention facility told UNAMI that they had repeatedly requested extra resources to improve conditions, but that these had not been forthcoming(UNAMI, 2011).

According to figures provided by the Ministry of Interior (MoI), Ministry of Defence (MoD), Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MoLSA), and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), the total number of detainees, security internees and sentenced prisoners held by the Iraqi authorities -except for the KRG- remained steady: from 35,653 at the end of 2010 to 35,205 as of 31 December 2011. Of these 961 were women, and 1,345 were juveniles(UNAMI, 2011).

According to the MRM (The Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism) , the number of children detained under anti terrorism law is 322 (18 percent of the total number of children detained). However, this figure may not be comprehensive as it only reflects the numbers of children held in MoLSA run facilities, not those who may be detained in facilities run by the MoI and MoJ.

Children have also been victims of human rights abuses at the hands of the Iraqi justice system(UNAMI, 2012).

A number of accused or sentenced women with infant children suffer from having their children carry the burden of their punishment, watching their mothers and hearing stories that could make them ticking time bombs for unpromising future , as they are forced to live a life that can lead them to form  a wrong vision about life based on the reality of prison since they were born inside it, lacking any taste of freedom, as they were robbed of their freedom and humanity from an early age

(Hammurabi Human Rights Organization, 2012).

Since the invasion in 2003, the Anglo-American occupation forces and the Iraqi government grossly failed to fulfil their most basic duties towards the children of Iraq in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Resolution 25/ Session 44, November 1989.

Principles of the CRC emphasized the need to protect children’s rights’ to life and physical, mental, moral, and spiritual development in a safe environment.

Concluding Remarks

The Occupying powers bear full responsibility for the violations of these provisions and Conventions related to children. They should be held fully accountable for the harm they have inflicted upon the Iraqi children. They have deliberately changed the social fabric of the country, used ethnic cleansing to break up the unity of the country, destroyed water purification systems, health and educational facilities and indiscriminately bombed dense populated areas, leaving the children extremely vulnerable on all levels. Living in a country at war also causes mental disturbance to virtually all children, and acute anxiety and depression if not psychosis in a considerable number.

The Iraqi institutions and mechanisms that should ensure physical, social and legal protection for women, children and youth are dysfunctional and unreliable. As a result, the most vulnerable are exposed to exploitation and abuse, such as killing and maiming, kidnapping, gender based violence, human trafficking, recruitment and use by armed groups, child labour and deprivation of liberty (NGO coordination Iraq, 2010).

The international community and international Human Rights bodies also bear considerable responsibility for this alarming situation because they failed to adequately address the grave violations inflicted upon the young and vulnerable in the Iraqi society and failed to identify the real culprits.

References

Abdul Kareem Al-Obaidi, B. B. (2010). Child and adolescent mental health in Iraq: current situation and scope for promotion of mental health policy? Intervention, Volume 8, Number 1, Page 40 – 51.

Abouzeid, R. (2009 (b), April 13). Will Iraq Crack Down on Sex Trafficking? Time world. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1890728,00.html.

Abouzeid, R. (2009, March 7). Iraq’s Unspeakable Crime: Mothers Pimping Daughters. Time world. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883696,00.html.

Adriaensens, D. (2008). The destruction of Iraq’s education. Retrieved from http://www.brusselstribunal.org/IraqEducation0608.htm . Brussells Tribunal.

Adriaensens, D. (2011). Always someone’s mother or father, always someone’s child. The missing persons of Iraq.Retrieved from http://www.brussellstribunal.org/pdf/Disappearances_missing_persons_in_Iraq.pdf. BRussells Tribunal.

Al-Azzawi, D. S. (2010). Violations of Iraqi children rights under the Amercian occupation. BRussells Tribunal. Retrieved from http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/IraqiChildrenSuffering2010.pdf.

Al-Daini, A. (2012). The Plight of Iraqi Children. Retrieved from http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/01/the-plight-of-iraqi-children/.

Ali H Razokhi a, I. K. (2006). Mental health of Iraqi children http://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)69320-3/fulltext. The Lancet.

Al-Jaberi, S. (2012, November 19). Wars have disabled six million Iraqis. BRussells Tribunal. Retrieved from http://www.brussellstribunal.org/article_view.asp?id=584.

Al-Sayer, T. (2012, October 14). Violence Against Children in Iraq Increased up to 60% after 2003. BRussells Tribunal. Retrieved from http://www.brussellstribunal.org/article_view.asp?id=350.

Al-Shalash, O (2012, March 19). Child labor is increasing in spite of Iraq’s large oil revenues. Retrieved from http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/8/296935/. AK News.

Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (2009, March 2). Iraq’s War Disfigured Babies. Retrieved from http://www.heyetnet.org/eng/reports/3964-iraqs-war-disfigured-babies-.html.

Azzaman (2007). 196 professors killed, more than 100 kidnapped since U.S. invasion. Retrieved from http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news\2007-03-15\kurd1.htm.

Azzaman (2007). IRAQ: A bad place for children. Retrieved from http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=93133. IRIN News.

BBC News Middle east (2012). Iraq: No escape from danger for returning refugees.

Brussells Tribunal (2013). Assassinated Iraqi media professionals. Retrieved from http://www.brusselstribunal.org/JournalistKilled.htm.

Brussells Tribunal (2013). List of killed, threatened or kidnapped Iraqi Academics.Retrieved from http://www.brusselstribunal.org/academicsList.htm

CARA(2010). A Study of Education Opportunities for Disabled Children and Youth and Early Childhood Development (ECD) in Iraq. Retrieved https://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/api/datastream?publicationPid=uk-ac-man-scw:131680&datastreamId=SUPPLEMENTARY-2.PDF.

Caroline Hawley (2012, November 28). Iraq conflict: Crisis of an orphaned generation. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20461110. BBC News Middle East.

Cherian, J. (2012). Sectarian violence breaks out after the U.S. troops leave, and the government sees a plot to balkanise the country. Frontline. Retrieved from http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2902/stories/20120210290205300.htm, Volume 29 – Issue 02, Jan. 28-Feb. 10.

Child victims of war. (2012, July 25).Iraq. Retrieved from http://childvictimsofwar.org.uk/get-informed/iraq/.

Dancewater (2009, September 16). WWB: severe trauma to children.Retrieved from Dancewater: http://dancewater.blogspot.be/2009/09/wwb-severe-trauma-to-children.html

Darylilbury (2012, March 22). Whatabout the children ? Retrieved from http://edgeofthemind.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/ptsd-what-about-the-children-2/PTSD . Edgeofthemind.

EPIC. (sd). Helping War-Affected Children in Iraq. Retrieved from http://www.epic-usa.org/helping-war-affected-children-in-iraq/.

Global resaerch TV (2011). 4.5 Million Orphans in Iraq: Protests Over Food and Shelter. Retrieved from http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2011/02/45-million-orphans-iraq-protests-over-food-and-shelter.

Hammurabi Human Rights Organization (2012, September). Report (HHRO) of a Visit to Women\’s Prison in Baghdad. Retrieved from http://www.hhro.org/hhro/reports_en.php?lang=en&art_id=592. HHRO.

Human Rights Watch (2010). At a Crossroads – Human Rights in Iraq Eight Years after the US-Led Invasion. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/reports/2011/02/21/crossroads.

ICRC (2007). Humanitarian implications of the wars in Iraq. Retrieved from http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/review/review-868-p929.htm.

ICRC. (sd). Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Retrieved from http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/380. Geneva.

Indymedia Australia. (2011, December 4). IRAQ – landmines, bombs, depleted uranium – devastation – children amputees. Retrieved from http://www.indymedia.org.au/2011/12/04/iraq-%E2%80%93-landmines-bombs-depleted-uranium-%E2%80%93-devastation-%E2%80%93-children-amputees-how-you-can-hel.

IRD (2012, June 29). Civil Society Coalition Calls Attention to Child Labor in Iraq.Retrieved from IRD International relief and development: http://www.ird.org/en/our-work/success-stories/civil-society-coalition-calls-attention-to-child-labor-in-iraq

IRIN (2012, May 22). IRAQ: Mine-free 2018 target will be missed. Retrieved from http://www.irinnews.org/Report/95500/IRAQ-Mine-free-2018-target-will-be-missed.

IRIN. (23 April 2012 , April 23). Analysis: Syria’s forgotten refugees. Retrieved from http://www.irinnews.org/report/95336/Analysis-Syria-s-forgotten-refugees.

IRIN News (2007). IRAQ: A bad place for children. Retrieved from http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=93133. Azzaman.

Issa, S. (2009). Another legacy of war: Iraqis losing faith in public schools.Retrieved from http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/75196.html.

Jinan Hatem Issa, H. J. (2010). Overview of the Education System in Contemporary Iraq. Retrieved from http://www.eurojournals.com/ejss_14_3_02.pdf. Volume 14, Number 3 .

Kobler, M. (2012). People with Different Abilities. Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/people-different-abilities. UN Assistance Mission for Iraq.

Lando, B. (2007, March 18). 4 Years Later: Dump Those Ungrateful, Vicious Iraqis. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-lando/4-years-later-dump-those-_b_43718.html.

Lavender, L. (2012). Human Trafficking in Iraq- 2003 and beyond. Retrieved from.Civil-Military Fusion Centre (CFC).

NGO coordination Iraq (2010). Fallen from the agenda ? More and better aid needed for Iraq recovery. Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/fallen-agenda-more-and-better-aid-needed-iraq-recovery.UN Relief web.

Obaidi, A. K. (2010). Iraqi Psychiatrist in Exile Helping Distressed Iraqi Refugee Children in Egypt in Non-Clinical Settings. Journal of Canadian Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2868550/.

Orphans join Iraq protests over food, shelter (2011). [Film].

Reventlow, A. (2013, January 5). Investigative journalism gains ground in Iraq. International Media Support. Retrieved from http://www.i-m-s.dk/investigative-journalism-gains-ground-in-iraq/.

Save the children (2012). Iraq.Retrieved on January 27, 2013, from http://www.savethechildren.org/site/c.8rKLIXMGIpI4E/b.6153129/k.C257/Iraq.htm

Senanayake, S. (2006, November 16). Iraq: Brain Drain Poses Threat To Future. Retrieved from http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1072793.html. Radio free Europe.

SICF. (2011). DC Area Foundation Reopens Baghdad Center for Street Children.Retrieved from http://www.sicfiraq.org/wp/news/.

Smith-Spark, L. (2011, November 10). Silent victims: Iraqi women trafficked for sex, Updated 1224 GMT (2024 HKT) http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/10/silent-victims-iraqi-women-trafficked-for-sex-report-says/. CNN.

Sponeck, H. v. (2011). IRAQ:A CASE OF EDUCIDE.Retrieved from http://www.brussellstribunal.org/Seminar/texts/en/2.pdf : Academia Press.Ghent.

Synovitz, R. (2012, October). Iraqi Schools More Crowded Than Ever After Reconstruction Blunder. Brussells Tribunal. Retrieved from http://www.brussellstribunal.org/article_view.asp?id=489#.

The Republic of Iraq. (2012). Position Paper for the Committee on the Rights of the Child of the General Assembly Plenary. Geneva.

U.S. Department of Labor’s. (2011). Findings on the Worst Forms of Child Labor. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/ilab/programs/ocft/2011TDA.pdf.

UCPD. (2011-2014). UNESCO COUNTRY PROGRAMMING DOCUMENT FOR THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002136/213680E.pdf.UNESCO

UN Children’s fund. (2010). Girls education in Iraq.Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/girls-education-iraq-2010.Relief Web.

UNAMI. (2010). Report on Human Rights in Iraq: 2011. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/MENARegion/Pages/UNAMIHRReports.aspx.

UNAMI. (2011). Report on Human Rights in Iraq. Retrieved from unami.unmissions.org/. Baghdad.

UNAMI. (2012). Report on Human Rights in Iraq: January to June 2012. Retrieved from http://unami.unmissions.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=vzOhTQpHHF4%3d&tabid=3174&language=en-US. Baghdad: UNAMI Human Rights Office/OHCHR.

UNAMI HR. (2011). UNAMI HR 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/MENARegion/Pages/UNAMIHRReports.aspx.

UNAMI Human Rights Office/OHCHR. (2012). Report on Human Rights,January to June 2012.Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/report-human-rights-iraq-january-june-2012-enar. Baghdad.

UNCHR. (2009). Surviving in the city.A review of UNHCR’s operation for Iraqi refugees in urban areas of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

UNCHR Global Appeal (Jan 2013). Global Appeal 2013 Update – Iraq. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/page?page=49e486426&submit=GO.

Understanding Islam (2008, december 25). Iraq’s Children Drug Addicts, Dealers.

UNESCO  (2010). Education under attack-Iraq. Retrieved from UNESCO. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4b7aa9df5.html.

UNESCO (2012). Literacy at the grassroots : Interview with Jessica Hjarrand . Unesco-education sector. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/resources/online-materials/single-view/news/eduinfo_interview_jessica_hjarrand/.

UNICEF (2010). Girls Education in Iraq.Retrieved from http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/A3F345FEB60FD713C12577AD00341F90-Full_report.pdf.

UNICEF, MICS. (2011). Iraq Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey Final Report. Retrieved from https://www.yousendit.com/download/WUJaMFhvYXlsMHlVQU1UQw (Vol.1).

United States Department of State (2012). Trafficking in Persons Report – Iraq. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USDOS,,IRQ,,4fe30cbf32,0.html. United States Department of State.

War victims monitor (2011, April 11). Moving ahead to improve lives of Iraqis affected by landmines. Retrieved from http://warvictims.wordpress.com/2011/04/11/iraq-moving-ahead-to-improve-lives-of-iraqis-affected-by-landmines/.

Waseem, B. (2012). Iraq is in need of 8000 schools, the Government ignores the situation, corruption handles any kind of change. Brussells Tribunal . Retrieved from http://www.brussellstribunal.org/article_view.asp?id=363.

WHO(2005). Health Systems Profile: Iraq.Retrieved from : WHO Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office, Division of Health System and Services Development Health Policy and Planning Unit.

Wing, J. (2012, april 4). Iraq’s Struggling Education System. Retrieved from http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/8/299972/. Aknews.

Yale law school. (sd). Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907. Retrieved from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp. The Avalon Project.

Notes

By a narrow 213 – 211 margin, including all undemocratic Dems and 20 Republicans, House members passed a deplorable $867 billion farm bill – a measure only agribusiness, opponents of ecosanity, and anti-social justice advocates could love.

According to House Agriculture Committee chairman Rep. Mike Conway, a “razor-thin” margin was expected.

Senate members are expected to take up their version of the bill next week, a gentler measure, leaving food stamp benefits largely intact, compromise between the two bills likely coming. The current farm law expires on September 30.

House legislation flagrantly violates 8th Amendment protection against “cruel and unusual punishments,” depriving about two million needy Americans of food stamp eligibility by cutting over $20 billion from the program over the next decade.

Critics believe nearly 265,000 needly children could lose access to free school lunches under the House measure – for too many, their only daily hot meal.

More cuts are sure to come over the next 10 years, given a nation dedicated to force-fed neoliberal harshness, an agenda with bipartisan support.

Despite the close vote, the measure passed with no floor debate. It requires able-bodied adults aged 18-59 to work or participate in job training for 20 hours a week to qualify for food stamps, averaging around $450 a month for a family of four.

According to ranking Dem House Agriculture Committee member Rep. Collin Peterson, the bill fails to “do enough for the people it’s supposed to serve.”

“It still leaves farmers and ranchers vulnerable. It worsens hunger, and it fails rural communities.”

United Way Worldwide senior vice president Steve Taylor said

“(t)hey’re trying to find ways to cut back on people who have access to SNAP, and frankly they’re trying to do it by putting in new work requirements” – legislating harshness on needy people.

Environmentalists complained about new rules, undermining clean water standards.

A Sierra Club press release slammed what it called “a package that weakens the SNAP anti-hunger program and includes provisions undermining bedrock environmental safeguards for clean water, wildfire and forests.”

It rolls back Clean Water Act requirements, easing rules on pesticide use, along with provisions to enhance logging and mining in forests.

Lisa Arthur heads various Friends of the Earth initiatives, including its Health and Environment Program. She called the House bill “a massive handout to corporate agriculture…a disaster for people and the planet” – at the expense of ecosanity.

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities president Robert Greenstein blasted the House measure, saying it

“includes a sweeping proposal to impose harsh penalties on those who don’t prove within a limited time frame that they have worked or participated in work programs for enough hours each month or that they qualify for an exemption from the bill’s aggressive work requirements,” adding:

“Among those likely to lose food assistance are a considerable number of working people -including parents and older workers – who have low-wage jobs such as home health aides or cashiers and often face fluctuating hours and bouts of temporary unemployment that could put their SNAP benefits at risk.”

“In addition, substantial numbers of people with serious physical or mental health conditions, as well as many caregivers, may struggle either to meet the monthly work-hours requirement or to provide sufficient documentation to prove they qualify for an exemption -and, consequently, may be at risk of losing nutrition assistance.”

“While the requirements focus on adults, children, too, will be harmed, because when parents lose SNAP, there are fewer resources available for food for the family.”

“Going forward with policies that reduce food assistance to poor children flies in the face of research showing that SNAP not only reduces short-term hardship but has a positive effect on children’s long-term health and educational outcomes.”

U.S. policies are transforming America into a sinkhole of dystopian harshness, inequality and deprivation – serving privileged interests, egregiously harming the nation’s most vulnerable.

*

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

A great Israeli-German Jew passed away. Her death represents a significant loss to the Palestinian people’s struggle for justice, human rights, and self-determination. She and her late husband Mieciu, who died in 2015, stood for the other, the better Israel after they emigrated to Germany. They rejected colonialism, Israeli wars, Land theft, torture, apartheid, ethnocentric nationalism, chauvinism and countless violations of human rights and international law.

Felicia’s life and work were massively attacked both in Israel and in Germany because she campaigned for justice and equal rights and treatment for the Palestinian People. She was the first of her kind who defended so-called Palestinian “terrorists” in Israeli courts. She has had some successes, but before Israeli military courts, which are kangaroo courts in principle, she was unsuccessful. Such “defeats” can be considered successes for every honorable lawyer. Nor was she ever able to accept the racist-Zionist ideology that is so revered and defended in Israel and by Zionists in Germany.

Felicia’s commitment to justice and human rights has granted her several awards. In addition to the Alternative Nobel Prize, she was awarded the Federal Cross of Merit 1st class by the then German Federal President Horst Köhler. The ensuing smear and defamation campaign of the Zionist and pseudo-Jewish Israeli lobby is one of the worst ever initiated by the Zionist Lobby in Germany against a German-Jewish human rights lawyer. Some of these German and Israeli “men of honor” tried to force President Horst Köhler to revise his decision while threatening to return their Federal Cross of Merit. These extortion methods are today part of the standard repertoire of the Zionist Israeli lobby in the political opinion struggle in Germany.

Felicia Langer is highly respected and revered by the Palestinians like no other Israeli-German citizen. Only Yasser Arafat is more adored. Both the Palestinian Authority and the city of Tübingen, where she lived in exile,  should set up a memorial place for this great German-Israeli woman. Germany is rightly proud of its culture of remembrance, and Felicia Langer is an important one of them.

Until shortly before her death, we were in close telephone contact. The title of her last book came up during a telephone conversation. Felicia was also an excellent advisor before the publication of my book on the Human Rights of Palestinians when the international public was tranked of the so-called peace process, elaborated in 1993 by Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli diplomats in Oslo, and signed in the garden of the White House. The resulting reality could not have been crueler and more disastrous for the Palestinians. Felicia foresaw this.

Felicia Langer is one of the few outstanding Israeli-German personalities who have sacrificed themselves to the legitimate concerns of the Palestinian people to the last breath, and whose memory should remember by all three peoples. Their tireless commitment to Palestinian justice and human rights should always be considered an inspiration and a societal obligation to their political actions.

Felicia, Rest in Peace (R.I.P.)

*

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

An implicit coalition of corporate media, Democratic partisans and others loyal to the national security state are actively hostile to any agreement that would endanger the continuation of the 70-year-old Cold War between the United States and North Korea.

The hostility toward Donald Trump on the part of both corporate media (except for Fox News) and the Democratic Party establishment is obviously a factor in the negative response to the summit. Trump’s dysfunctional persona, extremist domestic strategy and attacks on the press had already created a hyper-adversarial political atmosphere that surrounds everything Trump says or does.

But media coverage of the Singapore summit shows that something much bigger and more sinister is now in play: a consensus among foreign policy and national security elites and their media allies that Trump’s pursuit of an agreement with Kim on denuclearization threatens to undo seventy years of U.S. military dominance in Northeast Asia.

Those elites are determined to resist the political-diplomatic thrust of the Trump administration in negotiating with Kim and have already begun to sound the alarm about the danger Trump poses to the U.S. power position. Not surprisingly Democrats in Congress are already aligning themselves with the national security elite on the issue.

The real concern of the opposition to Trump’s diplomacy, therefore, is no longer that he cannot succeed in getting an agreement with Kim on denuclearization but that he will succeed.

The elite media-security framing of the Trump-Kim summit in the initial week was to cast it as having failed to obtain anything concrete from Kim Jong-un, while giving up immensely valuable concessions to Kim. Almost without exception the line from journalists, pundits and national security elite alike compared the joint statement to the texts of previous agreements with North Korea and found that it was completely lacking in detail.

Ignoring Kim’s Concessions

Thus The Washington Post quoted a tweet by Richard Haas, chairman of the über-establishment Council on Foreign Relations, that the summit “changed nothing” but “makes it harder to keep sanctions in place, further reducing pressure on North Korea to reduce (much less give up) its nuclear weapons and missiles.”

The New York Times cited the criticism of former CIA official Bruce Klingner, now at the Heritage Foundation, that the joint statement failed to commit North Korea to do as much as promised in agreements negotiated in 1994 and 2005. And CNN reported that the Joint Declaration “did not appear to make any significant progress” in committing the North Koreans to complete denuclearization, citing the use of the word “reaffirmed” in the document, which it opined “highlighted the lack of fresh commitments.”

Those criticisms of the joint statement conveniently ignored the fact that Kim had already made the most significant concession he could have made in advance of detailed negotiations between the two states when he committed North Korea to ending the testing of both nuclear weapons and long-range missiles in April following meetings with then CIA Director Mike Pompeo earlier in the month. That commitment by Kim meant that North Korea was entering negotiations with the United States before it had achieved a credible threat to hit the United States with an ICBM armed with a nuclear weapon.

The fact that no mention of Kim’s centrally important concession can be found in any of the reports or commentaries on the summit underlines the scarcely hidden agenda at play. Mentioning that fact would have pointed to understandings that Pompeo had already reached with Kim and his envoy to Washington before the summit and were not reflected in the brief text. Pompeo actually confirmed this in remarks made in Detroit on June 18, which only Bloomberg news reported.

Furthermore, the trashing of the summit also employed the politically motivated trick of deliberately ignoring the vast difference between a joint statement of the first ever meeting between the two heads of state and past agreements on denuclearization reached after weeks or months of intensive negotiations.

What really alarmed and even outraged the media and their elite national security allies, however, was that Trump not only announced that he would suspend U.S.-South Korean joint exercises or “war games” as long as the North Koreans were negotiating in good faith on denuclearization, but even called the exercises “very provocative.”

One journalist and commentator after another, including CNN and the Times’ Nicholas Kristof, denounced that description as “adopting” his adversary’s “rhetoric” about the exercises. In a podcast with former National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor, former NSC official Kelley Magsamen, now at the Democratic Party’s Center for American Progress, rather than acknowledging that a vital principle of diplomacy is to put oneself in the position of one’s opponent, charged that Trump had “internalized the language of our adversaries.”

The media and critics deploring Trump’s willingness to suspend the joint U.S.-South Korean war games have portrayed it as a betrayal of the security alliance with South Korea. But that claim merely dismisses the desires of South Korean President Moon and betrays ignorance of the history of U.S.-South Korean war games.

Been Called ‘Provocative’ Before

When Trump called the drills “provocative,” he was merely expressing the same view that some U.S. officials adopted as long ago as the mid-1980s. These officials also called the exercises “provocative,” according to a State Department official interviewed by historian Leon Sigal for his authoritative account of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with North Korea.

Donald Gregg, the U.S. Ambassador to South Korea from 1989 to 1993, observed in an interview with Sigal that the North Koreans mobilized their forces at great expense every time the drills, called “Team Spirit,” were held in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was an Army general and chief of U.S. military intelligence in Korea in the early 1990s, later confirmed to Sigal that the North Koreans would “go nuts” during the annual Team Spirit exercises. Part of the reason for that extreme North Korean anxiety about the drills was that the United States routinely flew nuclear capable B-52s over South Korea as part of the exercises – a practice resumed in recent years after a long hiatus and no doubt reviving the trauma of the U.S. devastation of North Korea from 1950-53.

Ambassador Gregg had supported the idea of suspending the annual Team Spirit exercise in 1992 as part of a proposed effort to get North Korea to change its mind about wanting nuclear weapons. Furthermore the South Korean government itself formally announced in January 1992 that the Team Spirit exercises were being suspended in light of “progress” on North-South nuclear issues. Furthermore, the Clinton administration cancelled Team Spirit drills each year from 1994 to 1996 in an effort to demonstrate the U.S. seriousness in pursuing an agreement with North Korea for an end to its production of plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Trump leaving Singapore. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)

The provocative character of the joint U.S.-South Korean military drills became even more pronounced after North Korea began testing nuclear weapons and then intercontinental ballistic missiles. In 2015, the U.S. and South Korea adopted a new war plan codenamed OPLAN 5015, which calls for surgical strikes on North Korea’s nuclear and missiles sites and command-and-control facilities, as well as “decapitation” raids targeting senior North Korean leaders, according to the South Korean Yonhap News Agency.

Although the U.S. Command in South Korea has always insisted that all joint exercises are defensive in nature, press reports said that the war plan, which could only be based on a first strike strategy, would be the basis of the publicly announced Ulchi Freedom Guardian war games scheduled for August 2017.

What the national security elite and their media allies are really upset about is the real possibility that Trump will succeed in negotiating a denuclearization deal with North Korea that includes a formal end to the Korean War.  That could complicate the Pentagon’s continuing strengthening of the U.S. military posture vis a vis China.

Fareed Zakaria, CNN’s establishment foreign policy pundit, recalled the Pentagon’s aim during the Clinton administration to maintain at least 100,000 U.S. troops in Northeast Asia, and worried that, if the U.S. military alliance with South Korea is deemphasized, the U.S. would “fall below that threshold.”

Ian Bremmer, the CBS News national security pundit, explained that Trump’s willingness to suspend military exercises means that “the United States is probably going to be a much more marginal player at the end of the day in this region.”

Magsamen suggested a similar concern about Trump weakening the alliance with South Korea in an interview with Vietor, commenting that

“a lot of us…see the North Korean challenge in a broader context vis a vis our adversaries, like China and Russia.”

These are early indications of a showdown between Trump and the elite alliance arrayed against him. Senate Democrats can be expected to push back against any agreement that portends possible withdrawal from South Korea, as indicated by the bill proposed by Senators Chris Murphy and Tammy Duckworth to forbid troops withdrawal without Pentagon approval.

If his opponents are dissatisfied with the agreement Trump negotiates, the Senate probably wouldn’t ratify a treaty to end the Korean War that Pyongyang would certainly demand. The most promising diplomatic development in East Asia in seven decades could thus be nullified by the shared interests of the loose coalition in preserving a status quo of tension and possible war.

*

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

Featured image is from the White House.

Featured image: Poor People’s Campaign of Michigan rally outside the Department of Treasury on June 11, 2018

Six weeks of rallies, mass demonstrations and civil disobedience concluded in Michigan on Monday June 18 when hundreds of participants in the Poor People’s Campaign (PPC) moved their events to the city of Detroit, the most populated municipality in the state.

This effort is part of a national mobilization to place emphasis on the plight of the growing numbers of impoverished people in the United States. 

Issues related to income inequality, environmental racism, state repression, union organizing among service employees, massive water shutoffs and contamination, the need for a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, the struggle against imperialist war and militarism, among others, were the focus of discussions and protests. 

The first five weeks of the PPC of Michigan took place around the state capitol building in Lansing where a Republican right-wing dominated legislature and governor has enacted a myriad of reactionary laws which have overturned decades of guarantees for job security, pensions, organizing rights for unions, civil rights and local control of governments. Over the last decade, over 50 percent of the African American residents of the state have at some point lived under emergency management.

This emergency management system is designed to systematically disenfranchise municipalities with majority African American inhabitants. A bank-led executive is appointed with authority to essentially break contracts and overrule regulations adopted by the elected officials of the area.

Image on the right: Abayomi Azikiwe co-chairing a rally at the Poor People’s Campaign in Lansing, Michigan on June 11, 2018

Only the coercive payments on debt service, avaricious loans and bonds, which reinforce the capacity of finance capital to dictate the terms of urban life in the modern period, are the principal tasks of the emergency managers. These individuals had no experience whatsoever in administering public services and were beholden to no one except the multi-national corporations and banks.

Taking it to the Streets    

Perhaps the highlight of the PPC in Lansing was the character of the June 11 actions where members of D15, demanding a sharp hike in the minimum wage to $15 per hour, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local One, Communications Workers of America (CWA), United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Lecturer’s Employee Organization (LEO), members of the UAW, joined with community activists from across Michigan for a rousing march and rally.

The June 11 action began with a lunch and pre-rally at a local area church. Participants then marched to the Department of Treasury building where another speak out was held. 

One of the speakers was Yvonne Jones of the Detroit Active and Retired Employees Association (DAREA), who represented the Moratorium NOW! Coalition in their effort to redirect hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal Hardest Hit Funds for the originally intended purpose of keeping working and poor people in homes. Lisa Franklin of Warrior on Wheels, a People Living with Disabilities advocacy group, drew attention to the failure of the state of Michigan and the U.S. to provide accessibility to all of its residents.

Other speaks were Aurora Harris of the LEO which has been in a protracted struggle for a contract providing a living wage and affordable healthcare benefits for University of Michigan at Dearborn instructors. Jennine Spencer, a homeowner and community organizer from the eastside of Detroit, briefly chronicled her ongoing efforts to maintain a home in light of exorbitant property tax rates and encroaching gentrification. 

The day of action ended after a one mile march to the headquarters of the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA). Several demonstrators sat in outside the building while four members of the Moratorium NOW! Coalition went in to put forward the demand for the utilization of federal funds given to the state to save people’s homes. Several people were arrested and charged with blocking the entrance to the building. 

Over $300 million has been turned over to the Detroit Land Bank Authority (DLBA) which has used the funds to seize properties through the courts. Many of these homes have been razed as opposed to being rehabilitated for human habitation. 

The DLBA is the focus of an ongoing federal grand jury investigation for bid rigging involving demolition contracts. All the while the DLBA is continuing to operate in the same fashion totally disregarding the essential needs of the people of the city.

Officials from MSHDA maintained that they were legally unable to use the federal funds to save all homes that are facing the auction block. However, during the period of emergency management and bankruptcy in Detroit, the design for the funds was shifted dramatically towards what is called “blight removal.” Many in Detroit feel that this is just another manifestation of the forced ethnic cleansing of the more than 80 percent African American population. 

The last Michigan day of action was held in Detroit where hundreds took to the streets during business hours marching on the Detroit Water & Sewerage Department demanding an end to service terminations. Earlier in the year, the DWSD announced that 17,000 households and small businesses were in arrears and subject to shutoffs. 

After leaving the DWSD building, demonstrators walked to Campus Martius, the center of corporate control, and later occupied the area taking water out of the year-round running fountain (with 100 jets) in order to illustrate the waste of resources by the billionaires at the expense of the working class and poor. Later 23 people were arrested for blocking the entrance of Quicken and Loans headquarters owned by billionaire ruling class magnate of Detroit Dan Gilbert.  Later the Q-Line hybrid coaches were deliberately stalled by dozens of people going both north and south. 

Where Do We Go From Here?: Chaos or Community

This question was posed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his final book published in 1967. It was Dr. King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) which proposed the PPC of 1968. 

Tragically Dr. King was struck down by an assassin’s bullet in Memphis on April 4, 1968 while he was in the city to support a sanitation workers’ strike which had paralyzed the municipality. Many believe that the highest echelons of the ruling class and the capitalist state were responsible for his death. 

Some five decades later the number of people living in poverty in the U.S. has actually increased although statistics indicate that the proportion of people living in immiserating circumstances has ostensibly been reduced. Nonetheless, the criteria for determining poverty require re-examination.  

Official figures indicate that the unemployment rate is at 3.8 percent. Yet the Labor Participate Rate (LPR) remains at only 62.7 percent of the eligible workforce. (Source)

According to an article published earlier this year in New York Magazine these statistics projecting the lowest official unemployment rate in more than a decade does not reflect the actual conditions facing working families. The writer Eric Levitz notes that households are swamped in debt with marginal prospects for significant income increases.

The reports emphasize that:

“Now, Deutsche Bank economist Torsten Slok has added two new, (profoundly) disconcerting data points to the pile: The percentage of families with more debt than savings is higher now than at any point since 1962, while the median American family’s net worth is lower than it’s been in nearly a quarter-century…. So, this is what a ‘good’ economy now looks like in the United States: shrinking household wealth; soaring middle-class debt; wage growth that can’t keep pace with the rising costs of housing, health care, and higher education; job growth concentrated in part-time positions; widespread retirement insecurity; and more wealth-less households than America has seen for 56 years.”

A panel discussion was held on June 21 during the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights (MCHR) Annual Meeting held in Oak Park, a suburb right outside Detroit. The three featured speakers were leaders within the PPC: Crystal Bernard, a youth organizer; Yexenia Vanegas, a Detroit school teacher; and Rev. Ed Rowe, Pastor Emeritus of Central United Methodist Church downtown. 

Rev. Edward Pinkney of Berrien County Michigan demonstrates alongside the Poor People’s Campaign in Detroit on June 18, 2018

The discussion centered on evaluating the success and weaknesses of the PPC in Michigan as well as nationally. All three panelists recognized the need to continue organizing around the major areas of concern within the PPC: environmental justice, racist repression, the elimination of poverty and gender oppression–demands which are often conveyed as requiring a “moral revival” in the U.S. 

Through interactions between the panelists and the audience it was suggested that the coalition built by the PPC in Michigan over the last few months consisting of fighting labor unions, housing activists, environmental justice organizations, those groups opposing imperialist war and militarism, cultural workers and progressive youth be strengthened and expanded. In addition, the civil disobedience activity which resulted in the arrests of approximately 100 people over a period of six weeks pre-figured the potential for larger efforts involving thousands and tens of thousands which could shutdown central cities at critical points of production, services and commerce.

Also the role of the corporate and government-controlled media outlets in their lack of coverage of the PPC reinforced existing notions of censorship and bias against those concerns impacting the working class and nationally oppressed. With specific reference to Detroit, Flint, Benton Harbor, Detroit, Highland Park and other cities, the existence of a movement aimed at addressing the plight of the poor contradicts the contrived narrative of the for-profit and purported publically-funded press agencies. 

This, of course, requires the development of deeper ties within distressed communities and population groups. Such an approach will ultimately lead to long-term solutions in the overall movements to transform the existing capitalist order towards full social equality, self-determination and economic justice.   

*

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author. 

This past weekend, a taconite ship ran aground in Duluth Harbor, nearly crashing right into the Canal Park seawall. The name of this ill-fated ship? American Spirit.

The symbolism was hard to miss, for, the same week, the Lake Superior port city was to receive another patriotic vessel on an ill-plotted course through ever-shallower waters. Ostensibly in support of GOP congressional candidate Pete Stauber, Donald Trump will hold a campaign event in Duluth tonight. It is, in fact, an event in support of Donald Trump, who will happily tell everyone how great things are (very great!) and who they should thank (you get one guess).

Buffer the bluster. Here are a half-dozen reasons why Trump is more foe than friend to that region and its people.

Labor: Mines gave northern Minnesotans jobs, but it was unions that won wages to lift them out of poverty. The Trump administration is decidedly pro-CEO (see: his tax bill slashing the corporate income tax by 40 percent) and openly hostile to workers. In February 2017, Vice President Mike Pence met with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to plot taking union-killing “right-to-work” laws national. Last fall, Trump’s Department of Labor snuffed out a union-led board to advise the feds on necessary safety measures for workers in the field. Because in Trump’s America, the only thing that deserves safety is profit margins.

Environment: These days, the North Country’s outdoors employs far more people than its mines. Trump, the ultimate indoorsman, trusts scientific “input” from Fox News, the businessmen who golf his courses, and, as it turns out, from anyone who gives his daughter a house. After the election, the Chilean billionaire owner of Antofagasta mining group bought a $5.5 million house in Washington, D.C. and leased it to Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. This spring, Trump’s Interior Department reinstated canceled leases for Twin Metals, Antofagasta’s proposed Minnesota copper-nickel mine. If acid backwash ruins the Boundary Waters, maybe Ivanka and Jared will show up with mops and sponges.

Canada: Our neighbors to the north stubbornly refuse to admit to a “trade deficit”… which Trump, in a private meeting with Republican donors, admitted he simply made up. (There’s actually a $2 billion surplus running the other way.) No matter; Trump wants to tax Canadian steel and aluminum and set off a tariff slap-fight. That’s especially bad news for Duluth, where about a third of port traffic is bound for Canada. Minnesota sends grain and taconite north, and in return, gets products Canada’s now threatening to tax right back. Among them: Canadian whiskey, including Fireball, Minnesota’s most-consumed hard liquor.

Steel: Trump’s trade war certainly looks like old-fashioned patriotic protectionism. (Though some of the steel we import from Canada comes from hundreds of millions’ worth of Minnesota iron exported to Canada; see how that works?) But be warned: The Trump Organization might not be first in line to buy American. Just a decade ago, Trump built a hotel in Las Vegas with Chinese steel, and outfitted another in Chicago with Chinese aluminum. The president’s cynical attempt to “save” American manufacturing is only necessary because financiers like him turned their backs on it to save money.

Opioid inaction: In St. Louis County, where the president’s visiting today, heroin and opioid overdose deaths more than doubled from 2011 to 2015, and most of the county’s 144 overdoses last year occurred in Duluth. Trump knows just what this crisis needs: a border wall, deportations, kicking people off Medicaid, and the death penalty for drug dealers, just a few of the ideas he floated in a rambling speech in March. Those, and “really great advertising,” which he swears would convince people never to try drugs in the first place. To Trump, addiction isn’t a public health crisis. It’s a marketing opportunity to prove “Just Say No” needed better posters.

The elite’s elite: Northern Minnesotans were supposed to like Trump because he shot them straight and wasn’t a “D.C. insider,” like Hillary Clinton. They got something different all right. Gone is the petty corruption inherent in bureaucracy. In its place is something humble, hard-working northern Minnesotans probably hate even more: Wall Street fat cats. His cabinet secretaries criss-cross the country in private jets and spend seven figures redecorating their offices. EPA Director Scott Pruitt hired his disgraced banker friend to turn “Superfund” environmental clean-up sites into a developers’ sweepstakes. Jared Kushner takes lunches with hedge fund billionaires, while Don Jr. and Ivanka strike business deals with China. Trump’s consumer “protection” board is standing up for payday lenders and Wall Street speculators. Meanwhile, the guy in charge keeps taking golf trips on the company credit card, only the “business” is the United States’ budget, and the golf course is usually one he owns.

Expect Trump to bring up any or all of the above topics in his speech in Duluth. And to lie about them, to brag about all he’s done, to tell these downtrodden people how lucky they are to have him. They need him as much as they need a ship stuck in the harbor.

The undersigned are appalled by the recent deaths in Gaza. At least 110 Palestinians have been killed and thousands injured by sniper fire and noxious gas used by the Israeli military. The recent violence takes place alongside ongoing land theft, destruction of olive groves, construction of Jewish-only roads, imprisonment without due process and a blockade of Gaza. During its 70-year history Israel has been as unjust towards Palestinians as the white-ruled apartheid state was to Black South Africans.

We are concerned that members of parliament would seek to strengthen relations with a country systematically violating Palestinian rights.

In particular, we are dismayed that NDP justice critic Murray Rankin and NDP defence critic Randall Garrison serve as executive members of the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group. NDP MPs Peter Julian and Gord Johns are also members of that organization. The Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group promotes “greater friendship” between Canadian MPs and members of the Israeli Knesset and has organized events with other pro-Israel lobby organizations. 

It is wholly inconsistent with the avowed principles of the NDP for the party to be working for “greater friendship” with a country that is killing and maiming thousands of overwhelmingly non-violent protestors, many of them children, as well as journalists and doctors, while systematically violating international law and human rights standards with regard to all Palestinians. 

Accordingly, we call on NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, MPs Garrison, Rankin, Julian, and Johns, and the parliamentary caucus to immediately disassociate themselves from the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group. 

List of individuals and groups endorsing statement:

Roger Waters, co-founder Pink Floyd

Noam Chomsky, professor

Linda McQuaig, author, NDP candidate

Maher Arar, 2007 Time Magazine 100 most influential people in the world

Amir Khadir, Québec Solidaire, member National Assembly of Quebec

Sid Ryan, former president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, NDP member since 1981

Mike Palecek, President Canadian Union of Postal Workers

Chris Hedges, author

Steve Ashton, long-serving NDP member of the Manitoba legislature and cabinet minister

Monia Mazigh, academic, author and former NDP candidate

Jim Manly, former NDP MP 1980-88

Richard Falk, Professor of International Law, Emeritus, Princeton University

Norman Finkelstein, author

Antonia Zerbisias, CBC-TV and Toronto Star veteran journalist, NDP member

Medea Benjamin, co-founder CodePink

El Jones, activist, educator, journalist and poet

Gordon Laxer, Professor Emeritus University of Alberta, NDP member since 1963

Jean Swanson, author, Vancouver housing and poverty activist, NDP member

Murray Dobbin, journalist, broadcaster and author

Azeezah Kanji, (JD, LLM) legal analyst and writer

Stephen von Sychowski, President, Vancouver & District Labour Council

Mike Bocking, former Unifor Local 2000 president and federal NDP candidate in 2004, 2006 and 2008

Sheelah McLean, Co-founder of Idle No More, NDP member

Alain Deneault, author, Directeur de programme, Collège international de philosophie

Ramzy Baroud, editor Palestine Chronicle, author My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story

Sana Hassainia, former NDP MP

Will Prosper, filmmaker and civil rights activist

Charles Demers, writer/comedian, NDP member

Rob Lyons, Former NDP Member of Saskatchewan Legislature (Regina Rosemont)

Saron Gebresellassi, Human Rights Lawyer and Activist

Clayton Thomas-Müller Stop-it-at-the-Source Campaigner – 350.org, NDP member Manitoba

Leon Rosselson, Songwriter & children’s author

Cy Gonick, former Manitoba NDP MLA and founding editor of Canadian Dimension

Propagandhi: Jord Samolesky, Chris Hannah, Todd Kowalski and Sulynn Hago

Andrea Harden, climate justice organizer and NDP member

Sam Gindin, Retired, Unifor Research Director and Retired, Packer Chair in Social Justice, York

Trevor Herriot, author and naturalist

Harsha Walia, activist and writer

Sandy Hudson, activist and writer

Ellen Woodsworth, writer, organizer and former Vancouver City councillor

Judi Rever, author

Candace Savage, author of two-dozen books, NDP member

Aziz Fall, president Centre Internationaliste Ryerson Fondation Aubin

Corey Balsam, National Coordinator, Independent Jewish Voices Canada

Gary Porter, FCPA, FCGA, CA, executive member Saanich Gulf Islands, NDP EDA

Sibel Epi Ataoğul, Labour and human rights lawyer and lecturer at the University of Montreal, founding member of the Association des juristes progressistes, former NDP member

Terry Engler, President I.L.W.U. Local 400

Hossein Fazeli, writter and film director, winner of 37 awards

Martin Duckworth, documentary film-maker, winner of le Prix du Québec 2015

Dara Culhane, Professor of Anthropology at Simon Fraser University, winner 2018 Weaver Tremblay award of the Canadian Association of Anthropology

Gary Kinsman, gay liberation and social justice activist, co-author of The Canadian War on Queers

Ernest Tate, former vice-president of CUPE, Local One

Jess MacKenzie, long time NDP activist

Herman Rosenfeld, retired Canadian Auto Workers national staff person, former NDP member

Mohammad Fadel, Associate Professor of Law University of Toronto Faculty of Law

Chris Huxley, Professor Emeritus, Trent University, long-time NDP member

Charlene Gannage, Associate Professor Emerita, University of Windsor, long-time NDP member

Samir Gandesha, Associate Prof and Director of the Institute for the Humanities, SFU

Reem Bahdi, Associate Professor of Law

Faisal Kutty, Lawyer and Professor of Law

Natalie Zemon Davis, Professor of History

Tyler Shipley, Professor of Culture, Society and Commerce, Humber College

Joseph G. Debanné, former Chair of the Middle East Discussion Group

Yavar Hameed, Human Rights Lawyer, Former NDP Member

Robert Massoud, Beit Zatoun

Faisal Bhabha, Associate Professor Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, NDP Member

Emily Carasco, Professor Emeritus

Martin Lukacs, writer

Jason Woods, Vice-President I.L.W.U. Local 400

Leslie Miller, retired Sociology professor  at the University of Calgary, NDP supporter

Suzanne Weiss, Palestinian rights activist and Holocaust survivor

John Riddell, author and editor, NDP member

John Orrett, President Thornhill NDP Federal Riding Association

Richard Fidler, writer, translator, Ontario Bar

Maria Páez Victor Chair, Canadian, Latin American and Caribbean Policy Centre

Marion Pollack, retired Canadian Union of Postal Workers representative, NDP donor

Marv Gandall, former journalist and trade unionist

Yves Engler, author, NDP member

Art Young, Palestine solidarity activist, Canadian political prisoner, Quebec 1970

Andrea Glickman, NDP member, Vancouver

Nick Fillmore, news editor and producer with the CBC for more than 20 years

Conrad Alexandrowicz, theatre artist, scholar, instructor at University of Victoria, NDP member

Nadia Abu-Zahra, Associate Professor, University of Ottawa, NDP donor and long-time member

David Rifat, Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto

Tim McCaskell, author, Queer Progress

Larry Hannant, writer, historian and NDP donor

Richard Sanders, researcher, writer, antiwar activist

Cara-Lee Malange, peace activist

Larry Wartels, born Jewish, NDP Member Victoria BC

Randy Janzen, College Instructor:  Peace and Justice Studies

Fred Jones, former president Dawson Teachers’ Union, NDP member

Ali Mallah, Federal NDP Candidate Election 2000, Former Vice President Ontario NDP

Grahame Russell, director Rights Action

Peter Eglin, Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University, long-time NDP member

Michael A. Lebowitz, Professor Emeritus of Economics, Simon Fraser University

Hassan Husseini, labour negotiator and activist, Member of Unifor and Labour for Palestine

John Price, Professor of History, University of Victoria, longtime NDP supporter

Greg AlboDepartment of Politics, York University, Centre for Social Justice

William S. Geimer, Professor of Law Emeritus, member of Vancouver Island Peace and Disarmament Network

Anthony Fenton, researcher PhD Candidate at York U

Arnold August, author

Steve Heeren, Professor, Convener, Palestine Study Group

Katherine Nastovski, Associate – Institute on Globalization and the Human Condition, McMaster University and Labour for Palestine

Evert Hoogers, Labour researcher, retired CUPW National Union Representative

David Bernans, union leader, NDP candidate and current NDP member

Eva Manly, retired filmmaker, activist, lifelong NDP, now Green

Robert Mahood, Family Physician, member of NDP Socialist Caucus

Kevin Neish, Mavi Marmara massacre survivor

Sid Shniad, Research Director, Telecommunications Workers Union (retired), Member, national steering committee, Independent Jewish Voices Canada

Ken Hiebert, Palestine solidarity activist and retired trade unionist

Chris Cook, Managing Editor and Broadcaster Pacific Free Press/Gorilla Radio

Howard Breen, Executive Director Urgent Climate and Ocean Rapid Response, Unifor 433

Tareq Ismael, professor

Kimball Cariou, editor of People’s Voice newspaper

Debbie Hubbard, Member of Amnesty International Kelowna, Palestine Study Group Vernon, NDP member

Mark Golden, professor emeritus of Classics, University of Winnipeg, longtime NDP donor and campaign worker

Kevin Skerrett, trade union researcher

Randy Caravaggio, Sculptor

Al Engler, retired trade unionist and long-time NDP member

Tsiporah Grignon, awakened citizen, Gabriola Island, BC

Mazin Qumsiyeh, director of the Palestine Museum of Natural History at the Palestine Institute of Biodiversity and Sustainability at Bethlehem University

Lia Tarachansky, Israeli-Canadian journalist and documentary filmmaker

Charlotte Kates, International Coordinator, Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network

Walid Chahal, Continuing Lecturer, Lakehead University; co-chair Diversity Thunder Bay, former NDP member

Phil Little, retired teacher from Ontario Ladysmith, B.C.

Taina Maki Chahal, Contract Lecturer, Lakehead University, former NDP member

Karen Rodman, Reverend, NDP member

Morgan McGuigan, ESL Teacher

Jean Rands, retired trade unionist and long-time NDP member
Joan Russow, Global Compliance Research Project

Laura Westra, Professor Emerita (Philosophy)

Jason Kunin, Toronto teacher and writer

Henry Evans-Tenbrinke, Human Rights, Labour and Pro Palestine activist

Julius Arscott Executive Board Member of OPSEU and member of NDP Socialist Caucus

Ken Stone, Hamilton Mountain NDP member for 35 years

Ian Angus, editor Climate & Capitalism

Erika Shaker, editor and researcher

Amy Miller, documentary filmmaker, NDP member

Alroy Fonseca, Federal NDP member

Bob Chandler, COPE 343 member, Toronto Danforth NDP member

Paul Tetrault, Cupe Staff Lawyer (retired), longtime NDP member

Eva Bartlett, activist and independent journalist who lived three years in Gaza

DimitriLascaris,lawyer, journalist and activist, NDP member

Kevin MacKay, author, professor at Mohawk College of Applied Arts and Technology, labour and co-op activist

Reuben Roth, Associate Professor, Labour Studies Program Laurentian University, NDP activist in Oshawa riding since 1984

Aminah Sheikh, union organizer, worked on numerous NDP campaigns

Eric Martin, professor of philosophy, Edouard-Montpetit CEGEP

Byron Rempel-Burkholder, member of Mennonite Church Manitoba working group on Palestine and Israel

Krishna Lalbiharie, Member Canada-Palestine Support Network, President St. Johns NDP Constituency (Manitoba)

Michael J. Carpenter, Postdoctoral fellow, University of Victoria

Mark Etkin, MD FRCPC

Ed Lehman, NDP member, Cupar, Saskatchewan

Bianca Mugyenyi, activist and author

Rana Bose, Engineer, author and playwright, NDP member NDG borough

Norman Nawrocki, Author, musician, actor, part-time faculty Concordia

Rachel Engler-Stringer, Associate Professor, Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, NDP member

Joe Emersberger, Unifor member, writer

David Weller, retired teacher and IJV member

Eric Shragge, retired professor

Gary Engler retired union officer with Unifor Local 2000 in Vancouver, NDP member

Monira kitmitto, Canadian Palestinian activist and NDP member

David Kattenburg, science educator, web publisher and social activist

Stephen Ellis, lawyer and activist

Barry Weisleder, Chairperson NDP Socialist Caucus, delegate to most NDP federal and provincial conventions since 1971

David Heap,Associate Professor, UWO, human rights & peace advocate, NDP member

Avrum Rosner, Retired union president, son of Holocaust survivors, joined Manitoba NDP in 1969

Diane Field, PhD Candidate at University of Calgary

David Lethbridge, professor of psychology, retired

Ray Zimmermann mariner captain

Sharon Hazelwood: political musician, long-time NDP activist

Chris Black, lawyer, former NDP member

Hani A. Faris, Ph.D. Professor of Political science

Freda Knott, Raging Granny, NDP member, Independent Jewish Voices Victoria

Cory Greenlees, Victoria Peace Coalition

SL Rifat, Neuroepidemiologist

Geneviève Nevin, organizer Independent Jewish Voices Canada-Victoria, NDP activist and member

Gavin Fridell, Canada Research Chair in International Development, NDP member

Justin Podur, Associate Professor, York University

Rana Abdulla, CPA Palestinian Activist and fights for what’s right Human Rights Award Recipient 2014

Georgina Kirkman, member of Independent Jewish Voicesand Amnesty International, Victoria

Mostafa Henaway,organizer at Immigrant Workers Centre

Bruce Katz, organizer Palestinian and Jewish Unity, former NDP member

Malcolm Guy, filmmaker, Montréal

Jooneed Khan, writer, journalist, Human rights activist, former NDP member

Annette Lengyel, Human rights and social justice advocate, NDP member Calgary Nose Hill

Theresa Wolfwood, Barnard-Boecker Centre Foundation

Dan Freeman-Maloy, postdoctoral fellow, Université du Québec à Montréal

Sheryl Nestel, PhD, NDP member

Alan Sears, Professor, Ryerson University

David Camfield, labour activist and educator

Freda Guttman, Artist/Activist, member of Tadamon

Virginia Daniel, Victoria Raging Granny, CAIA member, NDP member

Judith Deutsch, psychoanalyst

Ron Dart, Department of Political Science/Philosophy/Religious Studies University of the Fraser Valley

Susan Clarke, non-partisan peace activist, Sooke BC

Kevin MacKay, former Campaigns Officer at Ontario Public Service Employees Union

Dru Oja Jay, co-founder of the Media Co-op, Friends of Public Services and Courage

Edwin E. Daniel, WWII veteran, scientist and peace activist

Antonio Artuso, activist, translator and interpreter – Communist Reconstruction Canada

Derrick O’Keefe, Vancouver-based organizer and editor with Ricochet Media

Henry Veltmeyer, professor Emeritus of Development Studies at Saint Mary’s University

Jerome Klassen, UMASS Boston, author of several books on Canadian foreign policy

Suha Jarrar, Policy Researcher at Al-Haq human rights organization in Ramallah, Palestine

Ismail Zayid M.D. President, Canada Palestine Association

William K. Carroll, Professor and Co-director of the Corporate Mapping Project Sociology Department University of Victoria

Mohammad Ali, the Socialist Vocalist, Artist

Yazan Khader, former member of Nova Scotia NDP Provincial Council

Andrew Mitrovica, writer and former executive assistant to NDP MPs Pauline Jewett and Simon de Jong

Groups:

Independent Jewish Voices Canada

Canada Palestine Support Network (CanPalNet)

Victoria Peace Coalition

NDP Socialist Caucus

Canadian BDS Coalition

Palestinian and Jewish Unity

Toronto BDS Action

United for Palestine Toronto/GTA

People For Peace London, Ontario

Socialist Action / Ligue pour l’Action socialiste

Palestine Solidarity Network – Edmonton

Coalition Against Israeli Apartheid Victoria

Mid-Islanders for Justice and Peace in the Middle East

Barnard-Boecker Centre Foundation

Canada Palestine Association

Canadian Peace Congress

Hundreds of thousands of unwanted immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers are arrested and detained under horrific conditions in America annually.

Trump escalated what he predecessors began. 

Mistreatment of unwanted aliens intensified after the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm (ICE) was established in 2003.

It conducts warrantless raids, targeting unwanted aliens for their nationality, ethnicity, race and/or religion – operating along America’s southern border, along with raiding neighborhoods, workplaces and other locations.

Operations are largely extrajudicial, targeted subjects confronted with shotguns and automatic weapons – terrorizing families, traumatizing children, pulling aliens from bed, rousting them from workplaces without explanation, horrifically treating them like criminals.

Unlawful warrantless searches and seizures are standard practice, homes stormed violently, many innocent victims harmed, constitutional protections violated.

US immigration courts hear dozens of cases simultaneously, ruling on them collectively, due process and judicial fairness denied.

Under Bush/Cheney and Obama, unwanted aliens were held under horrific conditions, with little access to legal council and no concern for their rights – in ICE processing centers, privately run facilities, and Intergovernmental Service Agreement Facilities – mostly state or county jails plus a small number in US Bureau of Prisons or other facilities.

According to the National Immigration Law Center (NILC)

“the nation’s immigrant detention system is broken to its core (and) reveals pervasive and extreme violations of the government’s own detention standards as well as fundamental violations of basic human rights and notions of dignity.”

Trump regime immigration policies exceed the harshness  of his predecessors.

On June 22, Time magazine reported a new horror story, saying

“(t)he US Navy is preparing plans to construct sprawling detention centers for tens of thousands of immigrants on remote bases in California, Alabama and Arizona, escalating the military’s task in implementing President Donald Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy for people caught crossing the Southern border, according to a copy of a draft memo obtained by TIME.”

So-called detention centers for unwanted immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers are concentration camps by another name, detainees horrifically mistreated, children as brutally as adults.

America’s military is increasingly being used as an instrument of unwanted alien oppression – desperate people fleeing war zones or homeland repression treated like criminals.

The US navy intends building “temporary and austere” tent cities for around 120,000 unwanted aliens – in Alabama, California, Arizona, and elsewhere.

Trump’s new executive order calls for America’s war secretary to “take all legally available measures to provide (the Homeland Security secretary), upon request, any existing facilities available for the housing and care of alien families, and shall construct such facilities if necessary and consistent with law.”

“The Secretary, to the extent permitted by law, shall be responsible for reimbursement for the use of these facilities.”

The Pentagon is jointly involved with the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement.

The Obama regime interned thousands of unwanted aliens under horrific conditions at military bases in California, Oklahoma and Texas.

Hardliners infesting the Trump regime apparently intend escalating what began years earlier.

ACLU attorney Carl Takei compared Trump’s internment camp policy to how Japanese American citizens were mistreated during WW II, calling the practice a “moral horror.”

He’s a Japanese American. His family members were incarcerated oppressively in a federal “internment camp” while his grandfather fought against Nazism in a US artillery unit in Europe, saying:

“(W)hile Kuichi (his grandfather) fought for the allies in Europe, my grandmother Bette waited for him in an American version of a concentration camp.”

Oppressive US history is again repeating!

*

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

Featured image is CC BY 2.0 / Kārlis Dambrāns / BMW i3 electric car.

In my recent report on the death toll in America’s post-9/11 wars, I estimated that about 2.4 million Iraqis have been killed as a result of the U.S. invasion and hostile military occupation of their country. But opinion polls in the United States and the United Kingdom have found that a majority of the public in both countries believe that no more than 10,000 Iraqis have been killed.

An important factor in the public’s failure to grasp the scale of the death toll in America’s post-9/11 wars is that the U.S. military has worked hard to convince the public that its weapons are now so “precise” that they can kill terrorists and other enemies without harming innocent civilians. A U.S. military spokesperson recently described the bombing of Raqqa in Syria as “one of the most precise air campaigns in military history,” even as journalists and human rights groups documented the total destruction of the city.

The dreadful paradox of “precision weapons” is that the more the media and the public are wrongly persuaded of the near-magical qualities of these weapons, the easier it is for U.S. military and civilian leaders to justify using them to destroy entire villages, towns and cities in country after country: Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul in Iraq; Sangin and Musa Qala in Afghanistan; Sirte in Libya; Kobane, and Raqqa in Syria.

An Imprecise History

The skillful use of disinformation about “precision” bombing has been essential to the development of aerial bombardment as a strategic weapon. In a World War II propaganda pamphlet titled the “Ultimate Weapon of Victory”, the US government hailed the B-17 bomber as “… the mightiest bomber ever built… equipped with the incredibly accurate Norden bomb sight, which hits a 25-foot circle from 20,000 feet.“

In reality, the U.K.’s 1941 Butt Report found that only five percent of British bombers were dropping their bombs within five miles of their targets, and that 49 percent of their bombs were falling in “open country.”

In the “Dehousing Paper,” the UK government’s chief scientific adviser argued that mass aerial bombardment of German cities to “dehouse” and break the morale of the civilian population would be more effective than “precision” bombing aimed at military targets. British leaders agreed, and adopted this new approach: “area” or “carpet” bombing, with the explicit strategic purpose of “dehousing” Germany’s civilian population.

The US soon adopted the same strategy against both Germany and Japan, and a US airman quoted in the postwar US Strategic Bombing Survey lampooned efforts at “precision” bombing as a “major assault on German agriculture.”

The destruction of North Korea by U.S.-led bombing and shelling in the Korean War was so total that US military leaders estimated that they’d killed20 percent of its population.

In the American bombing of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the US dropped more bombs than all sides combined in the Second World War, with full scale use of horrific napalm and cluster bombs. The whole world recoiled from this mass slaughter, and even the US was chastened into scaling back its military ambitions for at least a decade.

The American War in Vietnam saw the introduction of the “laser-guided smart bomb,” but the Vietnamese soon learned that the smoke from a small fire or a burning tire was enough to confuse its guidance system.

“They’d go up, down, sideways, all over the place,” a GI told Douglas Valentine, the author of The Phoenix Program. “And people would smile and say, ‘There goes another smart bomb!’ So smart a gook with a match and an old tire can fuck it up.”

Kicking the Vietnam Syndrome

President Bush Senior hailed the First Gulf War as the moment that America “kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.” Deceptive information about “precision” bombing played a critical role in revitalizing US militarism after defeat in Vietnam.

The US and its allies ruthlessly carpet-bombed Iraq, reducing it from what a UN report later called “a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society” to “a pre-industrial age nation.” But the Western media enthusiastically swallowed Pentagon briefings and broadcast round-the-clock bombsight footage of a handful of successful “precision” strikes as if they were representative of the entire campaign. Later reports revealed that only seven percent of the 88,500 tons of bombs and missiles devastating Iraq were “precision” weapons.

The US turned the bombing of Iraq into a marketing exercise for the US war industry, dispatching pilots and planes straight from Kuwait to the Paris Air Show. The next three years saw record US weapons exports, offsetting small reductions in US arms procurement after the end of the Cold War.

The myth of “precision” bombing that helped Bush and the Pentagon “kick the Vietnam syndrome” was so successful that it has become a template for the Pentagon’s management of news in subsequent US bombing campaigns. It also gave us the disturbing euphemism “collateral damage” to indicate civilians killed by errant bombs.

The grotesque idea that dropping tens of thousands of bombs and missiles on another country can fulfill the “responsibility to protect” its people, or serve as a “humanitarian intervention” to save people from a dictator, has become an unquestioned premise of America’s illegal and interventionist foreign policy. In reality, the intractable violence and chaos unleashed by U.S.-backed wars nearly always dwarfs the smaller-scale violence used to justify them.

‘Shock and Awe’

Image on the right: At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as “shock and awe.” (Source: Consortiumnews)

As the US and UK launched their “Shock and Awe” attack on Iraq in 2003, Rob Hewson, the editor of Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, estimated about 20-25 percent of the US and UK’s “precision” weapons were missing their targets in Iraq, noting that this was a significant improvement over the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, when 30-40 percent were off-target. “There’s a significant gap between 100 percent and reality,” Hewson said. “And the more you drop, the greater your chances of a catastrophic failure.”

Since World War II, the US Air Force has loosened its definition of “accuracy” from 25 feet to 10 meters (39 feet), but that is still less than the blast radius of even its smallest 500 lb. bombs. So the impression that these weapons can be used to surgically “zap” a single house or small building in an urban area without inflicting casualties and deaths throughout the surrounding area is certainly contrived.

“Precision” weapons comprised about two thirds of the 29,200 weapons aimed at the armed forces, people and infrastructure of Iraq in 2003. But the combination of 10,000 “dumb” bombs and 4,000 to 5,000 “smart” bombs and missiles missing their targets meant that about half of “Shock and Awe’s” weapons were as indiscriminate as the carpet bombing of previous wars. Saudi Arabia and Turkey asked the US to stop firing cruise missiles through their territory after some went so far off-target that they struck their territory. Three also hit Iran.

“In a war that’s being fought for the benefit of the Iraqi people, you can’t afford to kill any of them,” a puzzled Hewson said. “But you can’t drop bombs and not kill people. There’s a real dichotomy in all of this.”

‘Precision’ Bombing Today

Since Barack Obama started the bombing of Iraq and Syria in 2014 more than 107,000 bombs and missiles have been launched. US officials claim only a few hundred civilians have been killed. The British government persists in the utterly fantastic claim that none of its 3,700 bombs have killed any civilians at all.

Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd from Mosul, told Patrick Cockburn of Britain’s Independent newspaper that he’d seen Kurdish military intelligence reports that US airstrikes and US, French and Iraqi artillery had killed at least 40,000 civilians in his hometown, with many more bodies still buried in the rubble. Almost a year later, this remains the only remotely realistic official estimate of the civilian death toll in Mosul. But no other mainstream Western media have followed up on it.

The reality of our wars is hidden in plain sight, in endless photos and videos of what the weapons our tax dollars pay for really do to people and their homes in America’s war zones. The Pentagon and the corporate media may suppress the evidence, but the mass death and destruction of aerial bombardment are real, as the millions of people living through it or reliving it in their nightmares know only too well.

*

Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. He also wrote the chapter on “Obama at War” in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card on Barack Obama’s First Term as a Progressive Leader. An edited version of this originally appeared on Consortium News.

The world transformed and nobody in the West noticed. India and Pakistan have joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The 17 year-old body since its founding on June 15, 2001 has quietly established itself as the main alliance and grouping of nations across Eurasia. Now it has expanded from six nations to eight, and the two new members are the giant nuclear-armed regional powers of South Asia, India, with a population of 1.324 billion and Pakistan, with 193.2 million people (both in 2016).

In other words, the combined population of the SCO powers or already well over 1.5 billion has virtually doubled at a single stroke.

The long-term global consequences of this development are enormous. It is likely to prove the single most important factor insuring peace and removing the threat of nuclear war over South Asia and from 20 percent of the human race. It now raises the total population of the world in the eight SCO nations to 40 percent, including one of the two most powerful thermonuclear armed nations (Russia) and three other nuclear powers (China, India and Pakistan).

This development is a diplomatic triumph especially for Moscow. Russia has been seeking for decades to ease its longtime close strategic ally India into the SCO umbrella. This vision was clearly articulated by one of Russia’s greatest strategic minds of the 20th century, former Premier and Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov, who died in 2015. In the past China quietly but steadfastly blocked the India’s accession, but with Pakistan, China’s ally joining at the same time, the influence of Beijing and Moscow is harmonized.

The move can only boost Russia’s already leading role in the diplomacy and national security of the Asian continent. For both Beijing and Delhi, the road for good relations with each other and the resolution of issues such as sharing the water resources of the Himalayas and investing in the economic development of Africa now runs through Moscow. President Vladimir Putin is ideally placed to be the regular interlocutor between the two giant nations of Asia.

The move also must be seen as a most significant reaction by India to the increasing volatility and unpredictability of the United States in the global arena. In Washington and Western Europe, it is fashionable and indeed reflexively inevitable that this is entirely blamed on President Donald Trump.

But in reality this alarming trend goes back at least to the bombing of Kosovo by the United States and its NATO allies in 1998, defying the lack of sanction in international law for any such action at the time because other key members of the United Nations Security Council opposed it.

Since then, under four successive presidents, the US appetite for unpredictable military interventions around the world – usually bungled and open-ended – has inflicted suffering and instability on a wide range of nations, primarily in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen) but also in Eurasia (Ukraine) and South Asia (Afghanistan).

The accession of both India and Pakistan to the SCO is also a stunning repudiation of the United States.

The US has been Pakistan’s main strategic ally and protector over the past more than 70 years since it achieved independence (Dean Acheson, secretary of state through the 1949-53 Truman administration was notorious for his racist contempt for all Indians, as well as for his anti-Semitism and hatred of the Irish).

US-Pakistan relations have steadily deteriorated even since the United States charged into Afghanistan in November 2001, but through it all, US policymakers have always taken for granted that Islamabad at the end of the day would “stay on the reservation” and ultimately dance to their tune.

The United States has courted India for 17 years since President Bill Clinton’s state visit in 2000, which I covered in his press party. Current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed a Joint Session of Congress in 2016, the ultimate accolade of approval by the US political establishment for any foreign leader.

US policymakers and pundits have endlessly pontificated that India, as an English speaking democracy would become America‘s ideological and strategic partner in opposing the inevitable rise of China on the world stage. It turned out to be a fantasy.

During the era of the Cold War, the “loss” of any nation of the size and standing of India or Pakistan to a rival or just independent ideological camp and security grouping would have provoked waves of shock, hurt, rage and even openly expressed fear in the US media.

However, what we have seen following this latest epochal development is far more extraordinary. The decisions by Delhi and Islamabad have not been praised, condemned or even acknowledged in the mainstream of US political and strategic debate. They have just been entirely ignored. To see the leaders and opinion-shapers of a major superpower that still imagines it is the dominant hyper-power conduct its affairs in this way is potentially worrying and alarming.

The reality is that we live in a multipolar world – and that we have clearly done so at least since 2001. However, this obvious truth will continue to be denied in Washington, London and Paris in flat defiance of the abundantly clear facts.

*

During his 24 years as a senior foreign correspondent for The Washington Times and United Press International, Martin Sieff reported from more than 70 nations and covered 12 wars. He has specialized in US and global economic issues.

Featured image is from the author.

Early in the morning of June 12, 2018, the world watched Kim Jong-un, supreme leader of North Korea and Donald Trump, president of the United States shaking hands in front of the main entrance of Hotel Capella in Singapore.

It was a hand-shake of the century. 

And the world was puzzled. 

After all, only a few months ago, they were exchanging not-so- friendly remarks on each other and, now, they shook hands as if they were friends who met again after long separation.

How is this possible? 

We must remember that the global cold war between the U.S.-led world and the Soviet-led part of the world lasted for forty years from 1950 to 1990, while the bilateral cold war between North Korea and the U.S.- South Korea alliance lasted already 28 years and may last longer. Why?

This paper argues that the duration of the cold war on the Korean peninsula could depend on two factors: the logical behaviour of the players and unexpected historical opportunities. 

Logical Behaviour of Pyongyang, Seoul and Washington

There are three players directly involved in the dynamics of the Korean nuclear crisis, namely North Korea, the U.S. and South Korea. 

The duration of the cold war depends on each player’s evaluation of the net benefits (benefit over cost) of the cold war. 

If the given player thinks that the cold war brings net benefit, it would want to prolong the cold war. On the other hand, if the cold war brings net loss, the player would try to end it. 

However, the actual duration of the cold war depends essentially on the net benefit of the dominating player. And the dominating player is obviously Washington, although the conservative government of South Korea has played the role of supporting Washington’s game.

So, I am saying that the cold war in the Korean peninsula which lasted 28 years is due to the fact it had been beneficial to Washington and the conservatives in South Korea.

This paper makes two arguments. 

First, the cold war lasted so long, because it has been beneficial to Washington and South Korean conservatives.  

Second, the success of the Singapore Agreement depends on how Washington and the South Korean conservatives evaluate the peace in the Korean peninsula in terms of cost-benefit deriving from the Agreement.

North Korea

As far as North Korea is concerned, the cold war has been a nightmare. More than 20 % of its population, all its factories, dwellings, roads, bridges and all other infrastructure facilities were destroyed by American B-29 bombers during the Korean war.(Professor Michel Chossudovsky: North Korea and Danger of Nuclear War. The Demilitarization of the Korean Peninsula, Toward Peace Agenda, Global Research, April 17, 2018)

During the global cold war period, 1950-1990, North Korea was under constant American nuclear threat, but during this period, it could rely on the Soviet Union for its security.

But, after the collapse of the Soviet Union in1989, Pyongyang stood alone to face the American nuclear attack threats supported by the South Korean army. This has forced North Korea to try to develop nuclear weapons to defend itself from the attack.

In the mean time, from 1990 to 2018, Pyongyang had to live under fear, insecurity and poverty because of annual U.S.-South Korean military exercises and, in particular, economic, financial and personal sanctions.

In short, the cold war, whether it was the global or bilateral, has been and is unbearable cost imposed on Pyongyang

If there were any benefits at all of the cold war for North Korea, they could be the strong social solidarity and lasting bond between the leader and the people, which resulted from the natural instinct of uniting to cope with the major common danger.

Thus, the cold war has been nothing but pure suffering and cost as far as North Korea is concerned.

In one word, because of this high cost, North Korea has been longing for dialogues and peace with Seoul-Washington; it has been dreaming for becoming a “normal nation” where the ordinary people can lead “normal life”..

North Korean efforts to find peace with Washington and Seoul produced the Frame Agreement in 1994 and the September 19 Agreement of 2005, but both ended up as being an illusion; Washington did not fully cooperate.

Having lost the chances of dialogue with Washington, Pyongyang has found it necessary to go for nuclear deterrent. 

North Korea has made clear that the development of nuclear program was for purely defensive purpose and not for offensive intention.

The dying message of Kim Il-sung, founder of North Korea, to his son, Kim Jong-il was to avoid nuclear program.

Kim Jong-il told Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi during a meeting in Pyongyang on May 22, 2004 that North Korea was forced to have nuclear weapons to defend against American threat.

“Nobody can keep silent, if threatened by someone with a stick. We come to have nuclear weapons for the sake of the right of existence. If our existence is secured, nuclear weapons will not be necessary any more”.

The North Korean foreign minister made the same statement on October 11, 2006, two days after Pyongyang’s first nuclear test.

“The nuclear test was entirely attributable to U.S. nuclear threat, sanctions and pressure. North Korea was compelled to substantially improve its possession of nuclear arms to protect its sovereignty”.

Kim Jong-un has been repeating the same appeal in his recent new-year speeches.

The Conservatives of South Korea

The bilateral cold war was very beneficial to the conservatives of South Korea

The conservatives ruled South Korea for 60years (1947-1987 and 2008-2017) out of its 70-year post-Pacific War era. (Professor Joseph H. Chung: Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula: A Blessing for South Korean People, Global Research June 5, 2018)

The conservatives in South Korea benefited from the cold war in two main ways. 

First, they won major elections including presidential elections owing to the environment of fear of North Korean attacks often artificially fabricated for election purposes. In South Korea, this phenomenon is known as “the power of Northern Wind”. 

Second, the North-South friction created by the cold war has meant huge amounts of imports of American military equipment; Seoul spends lately almost US $10 billion a year. It is a well know fact that the transaction of military equipment can easily generate bribes, illegal kickbacks and other means of corruption because of the legal secrecy of military spending. 

The liberal progressive government of Moon Jae-in is now investigating so called the “Corruption of National Defence Industry” (bang-san-bi-ri)

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)

As far as the conservatives of South Korea are concerned, the cold war has been very beneficial. Hence, they would not welcome the current peace process; it is possible that they would not welcome the Singapore Statement signed by Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump.

The U.S.

The bilateral cold war in the Korean peninsula has been even more beneficial to the U.S. than what it has been for the South Korean conservatives. 

The U.S. has been enjoying the following types of benefits: provision of means of China surveillance and containment strategy, sale of expensive American military equipment and even possible benefits coming from corruption related to the export of American weapons to South Korea. 

Washington keeps no less than 27,500 GIs in South Korea. Washington argues that it is necessary to deploy them in South Korea in order to protect South Korea from attacks from the North. 

True, this argument could have some sense during the global cold war, but since the 1990s, North Korea had neither the intention of making total war with the South nor the capacity to do so.

Besides, South Korea can protect itself from the North Korean aggression as long as Pyongyang does not use nuclear weapons. And Pyongyang would never use such dirty bombs, because if it does so, it will be its funeral.

Furthermore, we should remember one thing; South Korea spends each year no less than US $40 billion for national defence as against US $ 4 billion by North Korea. And, this gap has been cumulating for decades.

The more important reason for deploying the impressive number of American soldiers with awesome fire power in South Korea is the surveillance and the containment of China. 

One of the most persistent elements of Washington’s foreign policy has been the prevention of the emergence of countries capable of challenging the absolute supremacy of the U.S. 

Washington’s vision of world order has been always the uni-polar order; it has never accepted a multi-polar order. 

One thing certain is that the cold war in the Korean peninsula has provided important benefit of strengthening Washington’s capacity to prevent China from becoming equal to the U.S. This is, perhaps, the most important benefit as far as Uncle Sam is concerned.

The cold war in the Korean peninsula has surely provided good reasons to inflate the national defence budget of the U.S.

It is not easy to know how bad the corruption related to the transactions of weapons is in Washington, but, in the case of South Korea, it could generate billions of dollars through corrupted weapon transactions.

The corrupted money is shared by members of the oligarchy composed of politicians, financiers, military leaders, weapon producers and even research institutes

It is quite possible that a similar situation is found in the United States.

In short, the Korean cold war could has given triple benefits to Washington including the strategic means of anti-China policy, the expansion of the national defence budget and enrichment of the oligarchy.

On the other hand, the cold war involves some cost which Washington must pay; the cost includes the cost of keeping GIs in South Korea and that of annual joint military drills.

However, one thing certain is that the benefit which the U.S. gets from the Korean cold war must be greater than the cost, much greater, perhaps.

The implication is obvious; hardliners in Washington have no interest to end the cold war.

In fact, Washington’s North Korean policy has been one of maintaining the cold war. In other words, the logical North Korean policy of Washington would be one of intensifying the North-South tension.

Now, the North-South tension has been kept and intensified through the following means.

First, North Korea is demonized through various means including the accusation for the violation of human right, government’s failure of feeding its people, lack of freedom of speech and much publicized open execution of political dissidents. 

Second, annual Washington-Seoul joint military drills forced Pyongyang to arms itself; it is a sure way of aggravating the North-South friction and animosity

Third, the U.S. often cancelled agreements already signed with North Korea. 

This happened in 1994 and 2005. 

In 1994, the U.S. led-KEDO (Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization) failed to provide aid for the construction of Light Water reactors; the U.S. failed to supply promised oil in return of Pyongyang’s abandoning its nuclear programs. 

In 2005, alleged money laundry of US$25 million deposited by Pyongyang at the Banco Delta Asia in Macao was one of the excuses to kill the agreement of September 19 of 2005.

This tactic has gravely reduced Pyongyang’s trust in Washington’s integrity and North Korea felt the need to develop effective means to defend itself. 

Fourth, the series of UN sanctions, in addition to Washington’s own, against North Korea have been the most severe punishment of a sovereign people. 

In fact, it is hard to understand how North Korean people have survived under such suffering; it is a mystery.

These sanctions have dangerously intensified the cold war in the Korean peninsula.

Fifth, another regular menu of Washington’s anti-North Korea propaganda is the theory that North Korea is a threat to the U.S. and the East Asian region.

There is something wrong in this doctrine.

No country in the East Asia region has reported being threatened by North Korea. 

What is more important is that North Korea never says that it would attack the U.S. territory; it says that it would attack the U.S., if, only if the U.S. attacks North Korea first. 

In other words, it would be the American attack against North Korea that would make Pyongyang to attack the American territory. 

Thus, the real threat against the American territory comes from Washington not from Pyongyang.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that North Korea attacks the U.S. territory. 

But, let us be honest about it. The U.S. surely has the capacity to destroy Kim Jong-un’s ICBMs carrying nuclear warhead, before they hit the U.S. territory. 

If not, we have to ask what happened to US$700 billion allocated each tear to national defence. 

All these tactics and strategies have one objective; it is to perpetuate the cold war in the Korean peninsula so that the presence of U.S troops in South Korea can be justified and the oligarchy can continue to have their benefits.

The Kim-Trump Summit: Unexpected Historical Opportunities

The ultimate objective of this summit is to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and install lasting peace in the Korean peninsula.

But, this is against the traditional Washington’s North Korean policy!

If it is so, how does the Singapore summit become possible?

I think that the following factors are responsible for it.

First, for Washington, the value of U.S. friendly North Korea could be greater than hostile North Korea. Here, Trump might have thought that, as the Beijing-Washington rivalry is getting worse, Washington-friendly North Korea can be used as an element of the anti-China policy.

Second, Washington had been telling American people for so long about the danger of North Korea; the launching of Hwasung-15 on November 29, 2018 might have really scared them so much so that Trump had to do something; he had to choose between war and peace. Trump has wisely chosen peace, so it seems.

Third, the impeachment of Park Geun-hye and the birth of the liberal progressive government of Moon Jae-in in South Korea made it more difficult for the hawks in Washington to think of attacking Pyongyang. 

Moon said unequivocally that he would never tolerate another war in the Korean peninsula. U.S. attack of North Korea could mean the end of Seoul-Washington alliance and this would weaken the efficiency of Uncle Sam’s anti-China policy.

If Park Geun-hye were sitting in the Blue House at the time of the launching of Hwasung-15, Washington – Seoul could have made the Pyongyang’s nose bleed.

Fourth, three strong global leaders made simultaneous historic appearance. They are Kim Jong-un, Moon Jae-in and Donald Trump. These leaders have shared the same vision of peace for the Korean peninsula, may be, for different reasons

Fifth, the PyungChang Olympics and other events have provided a extraordinary diplomatic stages where the three leaders could play their given role.  

Let me say something about the character of the three leaders and their performance on the timely political and diplomatic stages.

Kim Jong-un was born into the royal family of Kim dynasty, but owing to his mother’s wisdom, he was educated as an ordinary child. During his stay in Swiss, he was presented as the son of a diplomat and treated as such. 

This has led him to see the world through the eyes of ordinary people and identify himself to the values cherished by the ordinary people including freedom, justice and equality. This might have led him to undertake the transformation of the North Korean society into a “normal society”. 

This is why he wanted to go from “Byungjin” (simultaneous development of nuclear defence and economic development) to the priority given to economic development.

It goes without saying that, to do so, North Korea must be open to the outside world and try dialogues with Washington.

Coming to Trump, he is very different from other American presidents. 

First, he is not a trained politician; he may have different perception of the success or the failure of government policies. He may value more visible and tangible benefits of American foreign policies rather than Washington’s international influence or prestige

It is possible that he has little political debt; he is relatively free to conceive and apply policies without being constrained by established vested interest groups.

This may have allowed him to envisage even foreign policy which is very different from previous ones.

Second, the success of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula may allow him to improve his image as bold American president.

Third, if the peace process is successful, he can be proud himself as being someone who has written the last pages of the cold war

Finally, he is a very autonomous man; he decides and he goes “My Way”. This might have allowed him to go against Bolton-Pence doctrine of Libya solution of Korean nuclear crisis.

Moon Jae-in is one of the rare breeds of South Korean politicians. 

He has been always a fighter for social justice; he has a very strong root in North Korea; he is one of the most convincing nationalist.

He believes that the reunification of the two Koreas is the unique way of ensuring the survival and sustained development of the Korean peninsula in the Sino-U.S. Thucydides trap. 

Above all, Kim Jong-un trusts Moon, who was the chief of cabinet for President Rho Moo-hyun‘s government during the period, 2003-2008. 

President Rho is the most popular South Korean political leader in North Korea.

It just happened that these three stars emerged almost simultaneously as key leaders who could play decisive role for the solution of the 28-year-old Korean cold war.

The PyungChang Olympics came and provided a political and diplomatic stage on which the three stars could play their respective role.

The performance of the three stars on the stage has produced the following results. 

First, Trump made it clear, through his vice-president, that a complete denuclearization is the ultimate bottom line of peace talk. 

This might have calmed the hardliners in the U.S. and American people.

Second, Kim Jong-un was successful in showing- through the remarkable performance of his singers and dancers- that North Koreans were not all demons; they were humans like all of us. 

This might have given the world the impression that one can have logical and sensible conversation with North Koreans.

Third, Moon Jae-in worked very hard to prove that he could speak both Pyongyang language and Washington language. 

This might have facilitated the Washington-Pyongyang dialogue.

Another event came along. 

On the 27th of April 2018, Kim and Moon shook hands; this handshake shook the world.

Kim’s trust in Moon would have made Kim to promise complete denuclearization of North Korea, of course, under some conditions.

One more event came along. On May 26, 2018, Moon Jae-in met with Kim Jong-un in Panmunjom to confirm once again Pyongyang’s commitment to complete denuclearization.

Moon might have told Trump, before the Singapore summit, about Kim’s firm commitment to complete denuclearization.

This could have led Trump to change his mind and go to Singapore. 

Remember that Trump cancelled the Singapore summit on June 24. 

Thus, the way to the Singapore summit was open.

So, Kim and Trump shook hands early in the morning of June 12, 2018 and, in the afternoon, the two signed a joint statement; Trump said the meeting was big success.  

And each of the three stars did get rewards.

Trump might have done something nobody has ever done. He may have closed the last pages of the cold war history. The world hopes so

He may get the Peace Nobel along with Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in; he may get even some good results at the mid-term election in coming November.

Kim Jong-un, became a respectable global leader; he made it sure that North Korea could become a peaceful country; the summit might have tightened his position as absolute leader in Pyongyang.

Above all, he has become a respectable and reliable global leader and diplomat partly owing to Trump’s very positive remarks about him.

As for Moon Jae-in, the Singapore drama made him a very tall man; he got precious praise from Bill Clinton, former president of the U.S., as respectable world leader (Yonhap News, June 8). 

He made both Kim and Trump to rely on him for honest and trustworthy communication between Pyongyang and Washington; this is vital for the successful denuclearization and the assurance of a bright future for the people living in north of the DMZ. 

He surely increased the probability of the reunification of Koreas.

Here we are. We are all excited about the outcome of the Singapore handshake. 

But will the peace process be successful?

Already, experts not only in the U.S. but also, especially, the conservative experts in South Korea are critical of the Kim-Trump summit in general and their joint statement, in particular. 

The most widespread beef is about the absence of CVID (complete verifiable irreversible denuclearization) in the joint statement. But this criticism is irresponsible. 

To begin with, this is a concept invented in the 1990s by a hardliner in Washington and has not been internationally accepted; it is just too abstract to apply. 

Now, the part “I” standing for “irreversible” could mean anything. The most troubling implication is the period of irreversibility. Is it for the life of the country? Would there be any sensible country which accepts such impossible condition?

Those who sell this idea of CVID could be those who are against denuclearization and peace in the Korean peninsula.

In other words, this is the argument of warmongering hardliners in Washington and some conservatives in Seoul; they seem to prefer the continuation of the cold war.

If “I” means that Kim Jing-un cannot come back to nuclear business which has been once abandoned, it could happen when the basic infrastructure of the whole nuclear program will be dismantled; at this point, it will be too costly to come back. 

This may be what Trump had in mind when he mentioned 20%; it may mean that when the 20% of the denuclearization process is attained, the “irreversibility” applies.

The third item of the Joint Statement says this.

“Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula”. 

Here, “Complete” can include both “V” and “I”. To complete denuclearization, one must go through verification (V) and once the process of denuclearization hits a certain level, it becomes just too costly to resume (I) the nuclear program.

So, what is relevant is CD (complete denuclearization) as mentioned in the Kim-Moon Joint Declaration-4.27.

In short, the Singapore Joint Statement has provided the workable general framework of the peace process.

It is possible that the joint statement is not perfect. But it has provided a framework wide enough to allow flexible and effective negotiations.

But, let us not forget one thing; it is the first get-together of two individuals representing two nations that have been enemies for seventy years.

The final success of the peace process depends essentially on the width and the depth of the coming negotiations and the timing of execution of the agreements.

Above all, the mutual trust is a must; both Pyongyang and Washington should believe what the other side says as facts, otherwise, agreements would become near impossible.

North Korea has already shown its commitment and sincere desire to realize denuclearization. 

Kim Jong-un has already dismantled the five nuclear test sites; he will soon dismantle some of missile launch site.

Washington has shown the first sign of its good will; it announced the suspension of the Unlchi-Freedom Guardian Joint military drill which had originally been scheduled for coming August.

All these happenings seem to suggest then that the peace process might go well, but there could be many hurdles to go over before peace smiles in the Korea peninsula and North Korea becomes a “normal country”.

To conclude, I may say this.

The Washington-Pyongyang Summit could have happened before, if the U.S wanted to do so. 

Now, the Singapore Summit could fail because of the deliberate and effective objections, intrigues and lies by the hardliners in Washington and elsewhere; in this case, we may need another Singapore Summit later

Professor Michel Chossudovsky warns about the possibility of failure of the peace process based on the Singapore summit agreements. (Aftermath of the Trump-Kim Summit, Unilateral, Denuclearization, Continued Military Threat, Economic Sanctions, Global Research, June 17, 2018)

What the world needs is to be vigilant and be united in its concerted efforts to end, once for all, the ugly cold war. 

*

Professor Joseph H. Chung is currently associated professor of economics and co-director of the Observatory of East Asia (OAE) of the Study Center for Integration and Globalization (CEIM), Quebec University-Montreal Campus (UQAM). He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Political analyst Mark Taliano says that there is no evidence of a chemical attack in Douma and the alleged gas attack was only a false flag operation by the White Helmets.

On June 21, the Iranian Navy dispatched two warships to the Gulf of Aden, where a fierce battle is ongoing between the Ansar Allah movement (also known as the Houthis) and the Saudi-led coalition for the port city of al-Hudaydah.

According to Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, Iran sent a helicopter-carrier and a naval destroyer. The deployment of Iranian warships in the area will likely further complicate relations between Riyadh and Teheran. However, two warships will not be enough to lift a naval blockade from al-Hudaydah.

Meanwhile, the Houthis repelled another attempt by the Saudi-led coalition and its proxies to capture the al-Hudaydah airport in western Yemen recapturing most of the positions, which they had lost previously.

A few dozens of Houthi fighters were killed or injured as result of attacks by the coalition and strikes by its air power. The coalition and its proxies lost at least 6 vehicles.

The Houthis are currently building fortifications south and east of al-Hudaydah. In turn, pro-Saudi and pro-UAE sources claim that the coalition is posed to capture the port city by any means. Massive strikes of the Saudi Air Force on targets inside the city signs that these claims are true.

Clashes also continued far south of al-Hudaydah, along supply lines of the coalition heading from southern Yemen. The Houthis carried out at least 5 hit and run attacks on the coalition’s supply lines over the past two days.

So far, the Houthis have been able to counter the coalition’s efforts to capture the al-Hudaydah airport and to isolate the city. However, they suffer from a lack military equipment and supplies. The situation remains tense.

*

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,

In early June, Google Cloud CEO Diane Greene announced at a meeting with employees that the company will not renew its contract with the Pentagon for Project Maven following its expiry in 2019. Under the program, which Google entered in September last year, the company has provided the military with artificial intelligence software to perform real-time analysis of drone surveillance footage. The technology allows the Pentagon to develop its illegal drone assassination program that has killed thousands across the Middle East and North Africa.

Yesterday’s announcement is a response to widespread and mounting opposition from Google employees and the public to its collaboration with the military. The program only came to light as a result of opposition by employees, of whom approximately 4,000 have signed an internal petition demanding that Google cancel the project contract and institute a formal policy against taking on future military work.

Around a dozen employees have also resigned in protest. A report published on Tuesday by the New York Times, based on interviews with current and former employees, claimed the program has “fractured Google’s workforce, fueled heated staff meetings and internal exchanges,” and “touched off an existential crisis.” Among the employees who have resigned, one engineer “petitioned to rename a conference room after Clara Immerwahr, a German chemist who killed herself in 1915 after protesting the use of science in warfare.”

The Huffington Post reported yesterday that there were discussions among employees this week for a physical demonstration. An engineer who was due to leave the company on Friday posted on its internal online forum—in a thread titled “Maven conscientious objectors” that includes hundreds of employees—describing Maven as “the greatest ethical crisis in technology of our generation,” and suggesting that employees go to an upcoming Google conference in July with the aim of “making some noise.”

In comments to the World Socialist Web Site, academics Lucy Suchman and Peter Asaro, two of the authors of a recent open letter signed by more than 1,000 academics demanding that Google end its participation in the illegal drone murder program, said they were “gratified to see Google take the decision not to renew its contract for Project Maven, and to make the decision public.” They demanded that Google take “a clear and consistent stand against the weaponization of its technologies.”

“I do think it’s significant, in other words, that there was sufficient resistance inside the company that Google has had to respond, and it’s posed a tangible obstacle to growing relations with the DoD,” said Dr. Suchman. “The fact that those who entered into this contract attempted to do so quietly, if not actually in secret, shows that they anticipated how contested it would be (and then of course went ahead with it anyway).”

While Google claims it will not renew the contract, it will be involved with the project for the rest of the year, and will continue to deepen its intimate collaboration with the Pentagon. The company will also keep bidding for other contracts with the military not directly involving the use of artificial intelligence. Dr. Suchman added,

“I suspect they’ll continue to look for ways of sustaining their Pentagon relations and spinning them as benign.”

It should be noted that Google’s previous statements in response to the revelations about Project Maven have been exposed as lies.

Internal emails between Google staff, portions of which were published by the New York Times, Gizmodo and the Intercept over the past three days, show that Google conspired to conceal its role in Project Maven from the beginning.

An email chain including Scott Frohman and Aileen Black—both defense and intelligence sales leads—as well as Dr Fei-Fei Li, the chief scientist for artificial intelligence at Google Cloud, discussed how the company should present the project publicly. Writing under the subject line “Communications/PR Request—Urgent,” Frohman asked for direction on the “burning question” of how the collaboration should be reported.

Li replied on September 24 that Google was “already battling privacy issues when it comes to AI [artificial intelligence] and data; I don’t know what would happen if the media starts picking up a theme that Google is secretly building AI weapons or AI technologies to enable weapons for the Defense industry”—i.e., precisely what Google is doing. Li said the issues would be “red meat” to the media.

Google eventually decided to silence reporting on the collaboration altogether. It also reached a non-disclosure agreement with the Pentagon, requiring that public communications first be approved by Google. Black also noted that the contract was “not direct with Google but through a partner,” ECS Federal, in order to conceal Google’s role.

Greene, who pledged yesterday not to renew the project, has also absurdly claimed that the program cannot be used for “lethal purposes.” This is directly contradicted by an email published yesterday by Gizmodo from Frohman, in which he calls Maven a “large government program that will result in improved safety for citizens and nations through faster identification of evils such as violent extreme activities and human rights abuses”—code words used by the Pentagon for activities justifying drone strikes.

Greene also previously claimed that the project was “small” and only worth $9 million. Another internal email from Aileen Black and published by the Intercept, however, shows the project was expected to grow rapidly, and “as the program grows expect spend is budgeted at 250 M per year.”

The real significance of Project Maven for Google is to secure a foothold into the tens of billions of dollars available in the arms race between the world’s major powers to incorporate Silicon Valley’s technology to develop next-generation weaponry, and to gain a competitive advantage against the other technology giants. The other bidders for the contract included Amazon and IBM.

All three companies, along with Microsoft, are competing to secure a $10 billion contract to build and administer Pentagon Cloud’s computing network. The network has been described by military officials as a “global fabric” for its warfighters. Every submarine, jetfighter, missile launch station and special operations soldier will be connected via computer systems that will be directly administered by one of the giant technology corporations.

The website Defense One reported that unlike Amazon and Microsoft, Google has “kept its own interest” in the contract “out of the press,” and the company has “even hidden the pursuit from its own workers.” Participating in Project Maven allowed Google to receive government clearance to host secure government data on its servers, and to compete for further cloud military projects in the future. Another internal email from Aileen Black called the clearance “priceless” for the company.

Google, along with the other technology giants, is intimately integrated into the US military and intelligence apparatus. Google representatives such as vice president Mike Medin and former Alphabet CEO Eric Schmidt sit on US military advisory boards and discuss the use of their technology for major wars and suppression of domestic political opposition. Google changed its search ranking algorithms in April last year to reduce traffic to and censor left-wing and anti-war websites, including the World Socialist Web Site.

Right outside of Agadez, Niger, in the scrublands of the Sahara, the U.S. airforce is building a massive 2,200-acre drone base, costing $110 million according to the Associated Press. The base should be completed in the next couple of month but as you can imagine, building an airfield in the desert tends to be very complicated. The project already is over $22 million budget and delayed by one year. The new drone base will [allegedly] be used to target extremists deep into West and North Africa, regions that are currently hard to reach with drones.

The Drone Base Will Provide a Stronger US Presence in a Region  

[Combating Extremism is the stated objective. Terrorism is the Justification  for the Militarization of Africa, GR Editor] 

Back in 2013, President Obama had ordered a drone base to be built in the capital of Niger, Niamey, but even than military officials already indicated that ideally, they wanted the drone operation to be based outside of Agadez. The NY Times reported moving the drone base to Agadez had two main advantages. First, it is better positioned to launch drone operation throughout the southern regions of the Sahara that are turning into an alleged “terrorist hotbed”. Second, the drone operations are better shielded from prying eyes in isolated Agadez than in Niamey. A third reason, not mentioned by the NYT might well be that with the fall of Libyan leader Gaddafi, Agadez has turned into the smuggling capital of Africa, according to Politico Europe.

In the NYT, P.W. Singer, a strategist, and drone specialist at New America in Washington said that:

“The base, and the more frequent flights that its opening will allow, will give us far more situational awareness and intelligence on a region that has been a hub of illicit and extremist activity, but it will also further involve us in yet more operations and fights that few Americans are even aware our military is in.”

The quote highlights the shadowy character of the American drone operations. Many of the drone bases are situated in remote areas with questionable authorities and very little oversight, such as Yemen, Somalia and now Niger.

Building the drone base has proven to be quite the challenge. Dust storms hamper the work as well as temperatures that frequently sore to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, resulting in a lot of the work being done at night.

The drone base, costing $110 million, features a runway that is 6,800 feet long and 150 feet wide as it not only needs to accommodate drones such as the MQ-9 Reaper, but also the much heavier C-17 cargo planes.

The MQ-9 Reaper is one of the most advanced drones available to the U.S. Airforce. The unmanned aerial device is built by General Atomics and has a range of 1,150 miles. It is able to gather intelligence and provide strike support with an impressive array of weapons, such as the laser-guided GBU-12 Paveway II bomb, up to four Hellfire air-to-ground missiles, the AIM-9 Sidewinder and more.

In this video you can see three hangars being built, each of which can house one or more drones. Citing security reasons, military officials have declined to say how many drones will be stationed at the drone base, as reported by Military.com.

Some people question the effectiveness of drone airstrikes across the African continent. For instance, E.J. Hogendoorn, the International Crisis Group’s deputy Africa program director in Washington reportedly said:

“The deployment of armed drones is not going to make a strategic difference and may even increase local hostility to the U.S. and the central government in distant Niamey.”

*

Haye Kesteloo is the Editor in Chief and Main Writer at DroneDJ, where he covers all drone related news and writes product reviews. He also contributes to the other sites in the 9to5Mac group such as; 9to5Mac, 9to5Google, 9to5Toys and Electrek. Haye can be reached at [email protected] or @hayekesteloo 

Featured image is a screenshot from a video from NYC via DroneDJ.

Both President Trump and former President Obama are commonly said in America’s ‘news’ media to be or to have been “ceding Syria to Russia” or “ceding Syria to Russia and Iran,” or similar allegations. They imply that ‘we’ own (or have some right to control) Syria.

That’s not only a lie; it is a very evil and harmful one, dangerously goading the US President to go even more against Russia (and Iran) (and, of course, against Syria) than has yet been done — but the ‘news’media don’t care about that evil, and that falsehood, and that dangerousness — they do it anyway, and none of them attacks the others for perpetrating this vicious war-mongering lie, that lying provocation to yet more and worse war than already exists there. And the fact that none is exposing the fraudulence of the others on this important matter, is a yet-bigger additional scandal, beyond and amplifying the media’s common lying itself. Because they all function here like a mob, goading to more and worse invasions, and doing it on the the basis of dangerous lies — that America, and not the Syrians themselves, own Syria.

These lies simply assume that America (probably referring to the US Government, but whatever) somehow “has” or else “had” Syria (so that America can now ‘cede’ it, to anyone); and this assumption (that the US somehow owns Syria) is not only an imperialistic one (which is bad, and wrong, in itself), but it reduces to nothingness the rights (in the minds of the American public) of the Syrian people, to control their own land. That lie is what America’s ‘news’ media won’t expose, but instead they all cooperate with it, when they’re not actually participating, themselves, in spreading these lies.

What they are doing is also to slur Russia, and to slur Iran, for having accepted the request from Syria’s Government, for assistance in protecting Syria’s Government, against the tens of thousands of jihadists who had been recruited throughout the world by the Saudi-American alliance, to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government, to replace it with one that would be appointed by the Saud family (’America’s ally’), the fundamentalist-Sunni royal family who (as the absolute monarchy there) do actually own Saudi Arabia — a monarchical dictatorship, which the US Government calls an ‘ally’.

The evilness of this imperialistic assumption, which is being constantly spread by the US-and-allied ‘news’media, is as bad as is its falseness, because “America” (however one wishes to use that term) never had, never possessed, any right whatsoever to control Syria. Of course, neither does Russia possess such a right, nor does Iran, but neither Russia nor Iran is asserting any such right; both instead are there to protect Syria’s national sovereignty, against the invaders (including the US, and the Sauds’ regime). But the US-and-allied ‘news’media don’t present it that way — the honest way — not at all. Such truths are instead suppressed.

I was immediately struck by this false and evil assumption that the US owns Syria, when reading the June 15th issue of The Week magazine. It contained, under its “Best Columns” section, a piece by Matthew Continetti (“Obama Too Good for America”), which says, among other falsehoods, “Obama was wrong about a lot of other things, too, like… ceding Syria to Russia.” That phrase, “ceding Syria to Russia” rose straight out from the page to me as being remarkable, stunning, and not only because it suggests that America owns that sovereign nation, Syria. I was especially struck by it because the CIA has several times attempted Syrian coups and once did briefly, in 1949, overthrow and replace Syria’s democratically elected President. But is that really something which today’s America’s ‘news’media should encourage the American public to be demanding today’s American politicians to be demanding from today’s American President? How bizarre, even evil, an idea is that? But it is so normal that it’s a fair indication of how evil and untrustworthy today’s American ‘news’media actually are. I just hadn’t noticed it before.

Publishing such a false and evil idea, without any accompanying commentary that truthfully presents its context and that doesn’t simply let the false and evil allegation stand unchallenged — that instead lets it be unchallenged both factually and morally — is not acceptable either factually or morally, but then I checked and found that it’s the almost universal norm, in today’s US ‘news’media. For examples:

On 17 April 2018, CBS News headlined “Lindsey Graham ‘unnerved’ after Syria briefing: ‘Everything in that briefing made me more worried’” and presented that US Senator saying, “It seems to me we are willing to give Syria to Assad, Russia, and Iran.” He was criticizing President Trump as being “all tweet and no action.” He wanted more war, and more threat of war. But when President Obama had repeatedly denied in public that only the Syrian people should have any say-so over whom Syria’s leaders ought to be, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon repeatedly contradicted the US President’s viewpoint on this, and he said, “The future of Assad must be determined by the Syrian people.” If the American people have become so dismissive of international law as this, then is it because the US ‘news’media start with the ridiculously false presumption that “America” (whatever that refers to) is the arbiter of international law, and therefore has the right to dictate to the entire world what that law is, and what it means? Is America, as being the dictator over the whole planet, supposed to be something that Americans’ tax-dollars ought to be funding — that objective: global dictatorship? How does that viewpoint differ, then, from perpetual war for perpetual ‘peace’ — a dictum that’s enormously profitable for America’s big ‘Defense’ contractors, such as Lockheed Martin, but that impoverishes the general public, both in America, and especially in the countries (such as Syria) where ‘our’ Government drops bombs in order to enforce its own will and demand, that: “Assad must go!”

In fact, as any journalist who writes or speaks about the Syrian situation and who isn’t a complete ignoramus knows, Bashar al-Assad would easily win any free and fair Presidential election in Syria, against any contender. His public support, as shown not only in the 2014 Syrian Presidential election, but also in the many Western-sponsored opinion-polls in Syria (since the CIA is always eager to find potential candidates to support against him), show this.

On 17 December 2016, Eric Chenoweth, a typical neocon Democratic Party hack, headlined “Let Hamilton Speak: Recapturing American Democracy”, and he wrote:

“Trump’s statements and appointments make clear he intends to tilt American policy to serve Russian interests: ceding Syria to Russia by ending support to pro-Western rebels; possibly lifting economic sanctions and recognizing the annexation of Crimea; proposing an alliance with Russia in the war on terror while remaining uncommitted to the defense of NATO allies, in particular the Baltic countries vulnerable to Russian aggression. Restoring American Democracy When they meet on December 19, Republican Electors who reflect on their constitutional duty should not then affirm Trump’s election.”

Those “pro-Western rebels” in Syria were actually led by Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch. Without them, the US regime wouldn’t have had any “boots on the ground” forces to speak of there. In fact, the US regime has actually been fronting for the Saud family to take over control of Syria if and when Syria’s Government falls. The Saud family even selected the people who in the U.N. peace talks on Syria represent ‘the rebels’ — the Sauds, who have been Syria’s enemy ever since 1950, selected ‘Syria’s opposition’, who were now seeking to take over Syria if and when ‘America’s moderate rebels’ succeed. Both Al Qaeda and ISIS are actually fundamentalist-Sunnis, like the Saud family are, and Assad’s Government is resolutely non-sectarian. Assad himself is a non-Islamist Alawite Shiite secularist, which virtually all fundamentalist Sunnis (such as the Sauds are) are taught to despise and to hate — especially because he’s Shiite. The US regime knows that neither it, which is considered Christian, nor Israel, which is theocratically Jewish, could practically succeed at imposing rule in Syria, but that maybe the Sauds could — so, they are the actual leaders of the ‘pro-Western’ forces, seeking to replace Syria’s secularist Government. Overthrowing Syria’s Government would be their victory. It would be the Saud family’s victory. But this fact is kept a secret from the American public, by the US ‘news’media.

Back on 17 September 2016, shortly before the change in US Administrations, Obama bombed the Syrian Government’s garrison in Der Zor, or Deir Ezzor, which is the capital of Syria’s oil-producing region. He did it in order to enable ISIS forces, which surrounded the city, to rush in and conquer it. Obama did this only eight days after his Secretary of State, John Kerry, had conceded to the demand by Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, Russia’s demand that in a cease fire, Russia be allowed to continue bombing not only ISIS there, which Kerry agreed should continue to be bombed by both the US and Russia, but also Al Qaeda’s forces — which until 9 September 2016, Obama refused to allow to be bombed during a cease-fire. But, finally, after a year of deadlock between Russia and the United States on that crucial issue, Kerry and Lavrov both signed a cease-fire agreement, and it allowed both ISIS and Al Qaeda-led forces to continue being bombed. (Russia had been bombing both, ever since 30 September 2015, when Russia began its bombing campaign in Syria.) That cease-fire went into effect on September 12th. Then Obama, unannounced — and a great disappointment to his Secretary of State, who wasn’t informed of this in advance — broke the agreement, by bombing the Syrian outpost in Deir Ezzor — and that’s the moment when Vladimir Putin quit his efforts to get agreements from Obama, because Putin now recognized that Obama was totally untrustworthy.

Already by late September of 2015, even prior to Russia’s having been requested by President Assad to enter the war in order to speed up the defeat of what Washington still calls ‘the rebels’, it was clear that Washington (actually Riyadh) wasn’t going to take over Syria; and Americans were — and are — being taught by the ‘news’media, that this was because Obama was ‘weak’ and didn’t care enough about ‘human rights’ in Syria, and about ‘democracy’ in Syria. So, on 28 September 2015, Matt Purple at the libertarian “Rare Politics” site, headlined “Pentagon admits that the Syrian rebels it trained handed over weapons to al Qaeda”, and he wrote “Neoconservatives wail that President Obama is ceding Syria to Russia — but the reason the Russians are taking the lead is precisely because America has sidelined itself.” But the US regime hadn’t at all “sidelined itself”; it continued — and it continues to this day — its invasion and occupation of that land. Trump’s policy on Syria is basically a continuation of Obama’s — and it’s not at all “ceding Syria to Russia,” or “ceding Syria to Russia and Iran.”

Because of America’s ‘news’media, it still isn’t “ceding Syria to the Syrians” — as Ban ki-Moon and international law would. That wouldn’t be profitable for Lockheed Martin etc. (whose biggest customers other than the US Government are the Sauds, and Trump alone sold $400 billion of US weapons to them); so, it’s not done.

Syria’s sovereignty is utterly denied by the US regime, but if the US regime were to succeed, the big winners would actually be the Saud family.

Do the American people have sovereignty, over ‘their’ (our) Government? US ‘news’media effectively ban that question. Perhaps what controls the US Government is the Saudi-Israeli alliance: the Sauds have the money, and the Israelis have the lobbyists. Of course, the US ‘news’media are obsessed whether Russia controls the US Government. That diversionary tactic is extremely profitable to companies such as General Dynamics, and America’s other weapons-manufacturers, which thrive on wars — especially by selling to the Sauds, and to their allies (and, obviously, not at all to Russia).

*

It doesn’t matter who works in the Oval Office, the U.S. Middle East policy hasn’t been changing for decades. Whether it is George Bush, Barak Obama or Donald Trump the key idea is the same – Iraq\Syria\Libya constitutes an imminent threat to the national interests of the USA.

This statement hasn’t appeared recently. In 2002, the Joint Resolution to authorize U.S. military actions against Iraq cited:

“Iraq continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability posed a threat to the national security of the United States.”

Before carrying out air strikes on Syria, 14 April, 2018, the White House used the same justifications. The American president acted within his legal authority as commander-in-chief “to protect vital national interests – stopping the spread of chemical weapons and preventing a humanitarian catastrophe.” However, if in 2002, the Iraq Resolution was passed by the U.S. Congress as public law No: 107-243, this time President Trump didn’t seek any authorization from other government institutions.

It is also worth noting that a month after the aggression against Syria the U.S. Justice Department said that President Trump’s missile strikes on Syria in April hadn’t required congressional approval in part because the hostilities had “not risen to the level of a war in the constitutional sense.”

It is quite evident that such a formulation sounds absolutely unacceptable.

“That’s nonsense,” the American senator Tim Kaine said. “Is there any doubt that America would view a foreign nation firing missiles at targets on American soil as an act of war?”

So what do we have in a result? The USA carried out missile strikes on Syria. Neither the International coalition nor the OPCW have provided any real evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria so far. Nothing can be said about “preventing a humanitarian catastrophe” either. Different terrorist organizations including ISIS commit crimes against civilians in Syria with a help of American weapon. That was revealed by a new report of Conflict Armament Research. The International coalition in its turn continues to bomb civilian areas in Syria making the humanitarian situation in the country even worse.

Donald Trump who repeatedly expresses sympathy for Syrian civilians in the lead-up to the military action looks very insincere considering the fact that Syrians are not allowed to enter the territory of the USA according the Executive Order 13769 often referred to as Muslim ban.

“If President Trump really cared about the Syrian people, America wouldn’t bomb them. We would rescue them,” Democratic senator Chris Murphy said in this regard.

All U.S. actions that aimed to settle down the Syrian crisis are absolutely irrelevant and not effective. Instead of supporting the legitimate government Washington backs terrorists and extremists. Instead of providing humanitarian help Americans carry out air strikes on civilians. Unfortunately, all promises to help and rescue Syria are far from real steps implemented by the USA.

*

Featured image is from the author.

Russia is adroitly using the prospect of large-scale transnational energy investments in South Asia in order to acquire leverage for “balancing” the region and counteracting American influence there.

It was recently announced that Russia and Pakistan agreed to conduct a feasibility study for building a pipeline from Iran into the South Asian state, a proposal that was first officially brought up in connection with President Putin’s visit to Iran last November when Energy Minister Alexander Novak spoke about the possibility of his country constructing an Iran-Pakistan-India gas corridor. While details remain scant about the route that this envisioned project could take and whether it would be overland like the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline or underwater, the fact of the matter is that Russia is slowly but steadily making progress on advancing this idea through its recently agreed feasibility study with Pakistan.

This initiative is about more than just about raking in potential profits and deepening Russia’s non-Western economic partnerships, but is part and parcel of its larger policy of becoming the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia, to which end Moscow has sought to enter into unprecedented rapprochements with non-traditional partners such as Pakistan. The importance of any transnational pipeline project between Russia and Pakistan is that it would give Moscow a significant physical stake in the South Asian region, which could then enable it to leverage this investment for “energy diplomacy” purposes in then assuming a larger role in maintaining the strategic “balance” between its traditional partners in India and its newfound ones in Pakistan.

The South Asian space has become unprecedentedly important over the past couple of years since China announced the creation of its game-changing China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) Silk Road centerpiece which aims to become Beijing’s first non-Malacca access route to the Indian Ocean. In response to what it considers to be an infringement of its territorial integrity via its maximalist approach to the Kashmir Conflict, India has decisively pivoted towards the US in order to “contain” China and – as it sees it – “restore the regional balance”. This has contributed to an uncomfortable state of affairs whereby Russia and India, long-standing historical partners, find themselves proceeding along opposite strategic trajectories vis-à-vis China and the US.

Taking matters even further, there have been serious concerns over the past few years that India and the US are coordinating a Hybrid War on CPEC via a multifaceted campaign of asymmetrical destabilization using a combination of militant proxies, information warfare, and border provocations in order to undermine China’s game-changing project for breaking out of the Malacca chokepoint and obtaining unrestricted access to the Indian Ocean. This has raised worries that South Asia is rapidly becoming a focal point in the New Cold War, made all the more dangerous by the fear that the US and China’s nuclear-equipped partners in India and Pakistan respectively could enter into a war by miscalculation.

What’s clearly needed in order to stabilize regional affairs is a neutral third-party “balancing” force capable of bringing all stakeholders together and reinforcing trust between them, ergo the role that Russia is poised to play through its prospective pipeline project with Pakistan. Although it’s still too early to attach any timeline to it, these plans call for Moscow to function as the irreplaceable entity connecting Iran, Pakistan, and India’s energy infrastructure, with the scenario conceivably existing for the Pakistani portion to be linked to the separate but related North-South gas pipeline that Russia also wants to build in Karachi in order to one day form the basis for an energy version of CPEC.

The prevailing idea at play here is that Russia’s “energy diplomacy” as practiced through the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) pipeline will enable Moscow to exert a restraining role over New Delhi in getting its decision makers to think twice about giving in to Washington’s suggestions that it intensify the Hybrid War on CPEC, seeing as how India’s own direct interests could be harmed by any resultant damage to the IPI pipeline that it would have a stake in keeping secure. The Russian-facilitated tightening of the complex interdependency between India and Pakistan would therefore have a positive peacemaking effect on the region and counteract the US’ divisive influence there.

It would be an exaggeration to say that this pipeline is a panacea for the many ailments plaguing the Indian-Pakistani relationship, and there’s still no deal to even build it in the first place since all that was agreed to was a feasibility study, but even this moderate development signifies Russia’s interest in maintaining a strategic balance between these two South Asian rivals so as to strengthen their intra-bloc collaboration via the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The end result that Russia is endeavoring to achieve is to leverage its “energy diplomacy” in such a way that it ensures the long-term stability of South Asia as the region progressively integrates into the emerging Multipolar World Order.

*

This article was originally published on InfoRos.

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

“I have friends who can’t leave their homes because they don’t have the means to travel. They are scared for their safety. They might be left in the crossfire without any water, food or way to escape.”

Quote from NRC’s Hodeidah Office Coordinator, Saleem Al-Shamiri, in Sana’a:

“Many people fled their homes in Hodeidah already. Sana’a and other cities are receiving many displaced. Water supplies have been cut off in some areas. Even families who refused to leave their house behind, have now been forced to flee because the fighting is closing in. Some of my friends arrived yesterday and today early morning. They are concerned for their future and worried they have lost their homes and income. How will they manage to rebuild their lives again?”

“I have friends who can’t leave their homes because they don’t have the means to travel. They are scared for their safety. They might be left in the crossfire without any water, food or way to escape. I am hoping the warring parties will allow safe routes out of the city as the fighting gets closer. People must be given a chance to save their own lives.”

Latest updates:

• As of Tuesday, fighting began to escalate again. Heavy fighting and airstrikes continue in southern districts of Hodeidah city, and there is a risk that some aid warehouse may become inaccessible, according to the UN.
• Two villages close to Hodeida Airport have been severely affected, and an estimated 1,000 people fleeing into Hodeidah city, and more expected. They are arriving to districts prone to cholera, raising concerns about their ability to access safe water as well as other assistance.
• A major concern is access both for civilians to flee fighting, and for humanitarians to reach Hodeidah with aid. The road from Sana’a is reportedly closed, leaving the only available route through Hajjah; this is currently open, but it is unclear how much longer it will remain so.
• As of 19 June, the water supply has been disrupted in several areas and people are reportedly relying on water from mosque wells. The sheer numbers mean that per capita water consumption is likely to be lower than the minimum necessary; and the risk of contamination remains high. Access to adequate and safe water is now a major concern, particularly in light of the ongoing cholera emergency.
• While vessels continue to berth and discharge at Hodeidah, overall numbers of vessels arriving at the port remain well below those during the same period in the previous two months. In particular, only four to five vessels have been at anchorage awaiting a berth compared to roughly four times as many in the same period in April or May.

Facts:

• Some 29.3 million people live in Yemen, and 3.3 million people live in Hodeidah governorate.
• About 2.7 million people need humanitarian assistance.
• Since 1 June, over 30,000 people have fled their homes in due to the current offensive, according to OCHA.
• Some 162,000 suspected cases of cholera have been identified in Hodeidah since April 2017, equating to 15 per cent of Yemen’s total cholera caseload.

America’s rage for global dominance is longstanding, aggressive wars and color revolutions its favored strategies.

Hawkish neocon surrounding Trump pose a greater threat to world peace and stability than their earlier counterparts, Iran a prime target for regime change, global war an ominous possibility.

Weeks earlier, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo threatened Iran with “the strongest sanctions in history” if it fails to comply with outrageous US demands – things Tehran won’t ever agree to, its sovereignty not for sale to Washington or anyone else.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani blasted his ultimatums, telling Pompeo:

“Who are you to decide for Iran and the world?”

Iran’s Foreign Ministry called his demands “cheap, baseless, insulting and interventionist, a cowardly attempt to turn world public opinion against the Islamic Republic, adding:

His remarks “showed radical and hawkish currents in the US, neither know(ing) history, nor…learn(ing) lessons from it.”

The Trump regime “reneged on all its political, legal and international obligations, is not in a position to set conditions for a major country like Iran, which has made good on its commitments.”

The US “colonialist regime supports terrorism, especially state terrorism. Terror groups such Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the MKO, Jundallah and other Takfiriterrorist groups…survive with American taxpayers’ money and with the support of incompetent systems in the Middle East…”

On Thursday, Mehr News published a commentary by Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, blasting the Trump regime, saying regional security can’t be entrusted to its “dangerous” and “erratic behavior.”

He urged establishment of a regional “non-aggression” pact, Middle East nations dealing with their issues, solving their problems “without outside interference and patronage.”

He responded to Pompeo’s outrageous demands no sovereign independent state would accept, saying:

“Impulsive and illogical decisions and behavior of the US president…have already surfaced as the main feature of the decision-making process in Washington over the past 17 months” – endangering everyone everywhere.

The Trump regime “inflict(ed) considerable damage to multilateralism, and the prospects for resolving disputes through diplomacy.”

US withdrawal from the JCPOA flagrantly breached the letter and spirit of a binding international agreement, unanimously adopted by the Security Council – an unacceptable and unlawful action.

What took years to consummate, Trump may have destroyed with a stoke of his pen and outrageous malice against Islamic Republic sovereignty.

Zarif called Pompeo’s outlandish demands “insulting…threats against Iran in brazen contravention of international law, well-established international norms, and civilized behavior…(a) desperate” act by a hostile regime.

The international community rejects them, other than Israel, the Saudis, and a few other US client states.

Pompeo’s outlandish demands were made to be rejected, not accepted, things beyond the scope of the JCPOA.

Threatening the “strongest sanctions in history” if US demands aren’t met barely stopped short of declaring war – showing what Iran is up against in dealing with an extremist regime in Washington wanting its government toppled.

In response to outrageous Pompeo demands, Zarif listed his own, saying:

Washington must cease “inter(fering) in Iran’s domestic affairs” and respect its sovereign independence, in accordance with international law.

It “must abandon its policy of resorting to the threat or use of force,” flagrantly breaching the UN Charter and other international law.

It should “acknowledge its unwarranted and unlawful actions against the people of Iran over the past decades (and) take remedial measures to compensate the people of Iran for the damages incurred” – never again acting unlawfully against the Islamic Republic or any other nation.

It should release billions of dollars of unlawfully blocked Iranian assets.

It must halt its “persistent economic aggression” against the Islamic Republic, lift unjustifiable sanctions, and respect JCPOA provisions.

It must release Iranian and other political prisoners, detained under cruel and inhuman conditions, unjustifiably held on fabricated charges.

It should publicly admit wrongdoing for raping and destroying one nation after another, notably in the Middle East, Central, Northeast and Southeast Asia, as well as North Africa.

It should cease supporting ISIS and other terrorist groups, using them as imperial proxies.

It should stop arming and supporting aggressors like Israel, the Saudis and UAE.

It should direct its policies toward benefitting humanity instead of risking its destruction.

It should support efforts to make the Middle East nuclear free, compelling Israel to denuclearize – one of “the most warmongering regimes in our time.”

It should “compel” Israel to stop “gross violations of human rights” against Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

It should abandon its policy of using nuclear weapons preemptively on the phony pretext of protecting national security.

It should “once and for all commit” to fully observe and respect all international agreements.

Its foreign policy is contemptuous of international law, norms and standards, said Zarif. It opposes “the rules-based international order.”

It flagrantly violates pacta sunt servanda – the most basic principle of international, affirming that agreements must be kept.

It weakens international organizations by wanting dominance over them. Its destructive agenda “darken(s) the outlook for the international order,” Zarif stressed – calling America “a rogue state and an international outlaw,” adding:

Its unlawful actions prove it can never “be viewed or treated as a reliable party to…serious negotiations” on any issues.

*

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

When Harold Pinter got the Nobel Prize (2005), he described “a vast tapestry of lies upon which we feed”. He asked why “systematic brutality, widespread atrocities, ruthless suppression of independent thought” were well-known when they occurred in the Soviet Union. But the same events in the US, despite copious evidence, “never happened”.

It shouldn’t be a rhetorical question. The answer to Pinter’s question is known in countless cultures. It is not obscure. But it is not discussed much in the North.

John Pilger notes an “eerie silence” about Julian Assange. More than any investigative journalist of our time, Assange has exposed “the imperialism of liberal democracies: the commitment to endless warfare and the division and degradation of ‘unworthy’ lives: from Grenfell Tower to Gaza.”

And yet he’s been imprisoned for six years with no charges against him. There is no outcry.

The silence is eerie, but not surprising. Assange allows us to see with our own eyes the actions of US military in Iraq. We hear them laugh about the “dead bastards” on the ground, who were carrying cameras, not guns.

There are truths, which Wikileaks reveals, but there is also truth about truths. One truth is that empirical evidence, seen and believed, does not shake deep-seated expectations. When beliefs are well-established, presupposed in daily life, indeed, part of identity, evidence is explained away.

It’s how we reason. If I release an object that doesn’t fall, you don’t give up belief in gravity. If I show you a thousand times, you don’t waiver. You expect gravity. It is a presupposition of life and thought. If you questioned that belief, you’d have to rethink your relationship to the world. It’s a reason not to question it.

You see with your own eyes. You dismiss what you see. Or, you explain it away, rationally.

Marx studied how we reason. He knew it depends on expectations, which are ways of life, patterns of behaviour. His dialectical materialism is, among other things, a view about knowledge. Lenin emphasized it. José Martí thought the question so central that the manifesto of the Cuban Revolutionary Party, at the 1895 war of independence, says a goal of the revolution is the nature of ideas.[i]

The “nature of ideas” has consequences. One is that if you want to know the truth about imperialism, in a “vast tapestry of lies”, which we feed upon, as Pinter says, you give up expectations: about your country, your lifestyle, yourself.

They knew this in the US anti-war movement. There was a slogan: “There are no innocents”. It meant that if you were not actively opposing US power, you were supporting it: with your expectations, arising from behaviours, intellectual and social, day by day.

The documentaries are powerful. [ii]Students understood that when a society is built on lies, and those lies are expectations, from which you benefit, and in terms of which you understand yourself, you question your own thinking, necessarily and beneficially.

Mark Rudd says about the radical wing of the movement, “We understood the wrongness of our country’s direction. We understood correctly. But we had no way to act upon that understanding”.

It required profound transformation, not just of social structures but of ways of thinking. It meant transforming expectations, which is transforming people. It is why Martí called for a “revolution in thinking”, and why Raúl Roa, brilliant Cuban philosopher and diplomat, like Martí an anti-imperialist, said in 1953 that the world was passing through a crisis more serious than any in history.[iii]

He was referring to the consolidation of US power but in particular to the image it was based upon: of thinking. Roa traced the crisis to the so-called Renascence. It wasn’t a renascence, he argues. There was no rebirth of ancient humanism, with its emphasis on contemplation. It was a new view, ground work for capitalism.

Liberalism, libertarianism, anarchism found roots there: in the primacy of the individual, taking for granted expectations, rooted in practises, defining identity.  There were few dissenters then, Roa points out. And few in his time.

Isaac Deutscher tells of the peasant who by chance acquires a motor car and insists on harnessing his horse to it. [iv] Deutscher’s story aims, in part, to illustrate the challenge of Marx, philosophically. It is easy to talk about class struggle. And to some extent, it’s easy to talk about imperialism. But attached to easy individualism, in one mode or another, it is eventually useless.

Marx’s view was about the human condition. It wasn’t just his view. Ancient thinkers knew about expectations. They knew about mind/body connection. It was central to the Buddha’s teaching (although not necessarily to popular Buddhism) that unless you control your mind, you are controlled by it. You’re controlled by convention. You won’t be free. Worse, still, you won’t know it

According to Roa, the misnamed Renaissance gave rise to a plethora of ideologies advocating imprisonment. That’s at the personal level. But the primacy of individuals is the primacy of expectations, of social behaviors, that make certain truths irrelevant – the most urgent ones.

Wikileaks’ truths about 21^stcentury imperialism may be among them.

Roa’s Viento sur (Wind from the South) opens with an echo of Marx’s “A specter is haunting Europe”: “A wind blows in the south”, Roa writes. It is not the renaissance view, rejected hundreds of years ago by thoughtful anti-imperialists who wanted to know humanness. They rejected imperialism, including its lies about how to know it. The “wind” is all about that, as Martí called for it to be in 1895.

*

This article was also published on CounterPunch.

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014).

Notes.

[i] “The Montecristi manifesto” In Esther Allen (Ed. and Trans.), José Martí: Selected writings (pp. 337– 45). New York, NY: Penguin Books. (Originally published 1895)

[ii] E.g Kitchel, Mark (Director) (1990), Berkeley in the Sixties;Sam Green and Bill Siegel, The Weather Underground(2002)

[iii] “Grandeza y servidumbre del humanismo”, Havana, 1953

[iv] Deutscher, Isaac, “On Socialist Man”  Marxism, Wars and Revolutions: Essays from Four Decades (London: Verso Press, 1984) 263 – 76.

Featured image is from thierry ehrmann | CC BY 2.0.

Canada’s “Safe Third Country” agreement regulates Canada’s treatment of refugees entering Canada from the States. It’s currently under review. There’s not much need to ask why.

Initial reports that nearly 1500 among the unaccompanied migrant children detained after entering the U.S. from Mexico, were unaccounted for, referred only to three months of tracking. 6000 presents a realistic number for the year. The losses are explained by the Office of Refugee Resettlement which claims it’s no longer legally responsible for the children once a sponsor is found for them, and that the kids aren’t really missing. Simply their sponsors don’t answer the phone when the ORR calls. An immigration advocacy worker explains that families often include those without proper paperwork so people are afraid to answer the phone because ICE terrorizes them (“Exclusive: US officials likely lost track of nearly 6,000 unaccompanied migrant kids,” Franco Ordoñez & Anita Kumar, June 19, 2018, McClatchy).

Faults of the old system are extended to the new where under President Trump’s “zero tolerance policy,” very young children have been stripped from their parents’ care. On June 18 the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein condemned the Trump administration’s policy of separating young children from their parents. If they are thought to have entered the country illegally the children and parents are incarcerated in separate detention centers, the names of which Wikipedia recently added to its list of concentration camps. In response to international and domestic outrage (both Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau and Britain’s PM Theresa May acknowledged Trump’s policy is “wrong”) against this cruelty, the U.S. President rescinded by executive order June 20th the policy of separating children from their parents for detention. But there are now nearly three thousand children in custody without their families or the paperwork to return and no one seems sure yet that they will be reunited.

The “Safe Third Country” agreement with the U.S. allows Canada to reject asylum seekers entering from the States on the grounds that they should have applied for asylum in the States. Since the U.S. is considered a “safe country” it’s almost impossible for Americans to make successful refugee claims in Canada. The agreement also allows Canada to return refugees to the States, even when the U.S. then returns them to the dangers of countries they left.

The agreement has become a clear hazard to refugees running for their lives. And it’s in opposition to the United Nations treaties, Protocol relating to the status of Refugees and Convention relating to the status of Refugees which were clearly intended to save their lives. The U.S. has refused to place into law or policy principles it subscribed to in signing the Protocol (which substantiates the Convention). Under these treaties the U.S. can’t arrest or detain an asylum seeker if the seeker is in danger back in his home country, and this is regardless of how he or she entered the U.S. if they present themselves immediately to authorities (Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, Article 31).

Since the U.S. has subscribed to this principle it prevents its application through the use of force, ie. enforcing U.S. Code § 1325 – Improper entry by alien, illegal government policies such as “zero tolerance”, or immoral lawyers. The enforcing of Code § 1325 with arrest and detention for this misdemeanor, falsely criminalizes refugees.

The U.S. isn’t a “Safe Third Country” with respect to any refugees or migrants who have escaped to Canada. The Canadian government’s attempt to maintain the agreement has suffered historical pressure before when there have been obvious threats to the safety of immigrants, such as the mass arrest of Muslims after Sept. 11, 2001. The U.S., which has withdrawn from the International Criminal Court in an attempt to save its leaders from charges related to contemporary wars, has presented the world a warning by its June 19th announcement of withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council.

At departure both ambassador to the UN Nikki “We’re-taking-names” Haley and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, offered insulting appraisals of the organization. The U.S. ambassador referred to the Council as “a political cesspool of bias”. In October 2017 the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) where it was 550 million dollars in arrears of payments due. UNESCO is one of the principle funders of education related to genocide studies. In both withdrawals the U.S. cited the organization’s “bias” against Israel.

The Human Rights Council’s precepts of Human Rights and treaties are written into Canadian law and govern Canadian lives. They are often not effected in American law and not available to even Americans in need. In leaving the Human Rights Council the Trump administration is making some show of rejecting the principles of law and ethics which form the Human Rights Council’s agenda, reports, information gathering and counsel.

Canadian officials who insist on the “Safe Third Country” agreement would be supporting crimes against children, refugees and migrants. The agreement should be ended.

*

This article was originally published on Night’s Lantern.

Featured image is from Julie Maas, from folio 13, Ottawa: Editions Gerald and Maas, 2010.

Featured image: Kings Bay Plowshares before their action April 4. (photo: Kings Bay Plowshares)

The Nuremberg Principles not only prohibit such crimes but oblige those of us aware of the crime to act against it. “Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity … is a crime under International Law.” […]

The ongoing building and maintenance of Trident submarines and ballistic missile systems constitute war crimes that can and should be investigated and prosecuted by judicial authorities at all levels. As citizens, we are required by International Law to denounce and resist known crimes.

– Kings Bay Plowshares Indictment of US for war crimes, April 4, 2018

On April 4, 2018, the Kings Bay Plowshares Seven, three women and four men, all Catholics, carried out their faith-based, nonviolent, symbolic action, pouring blood on the world’s largest nuclear submarine base and indicting the US for its perpetual crime of holding the world hostage to the terrorist threat of using nuclear weapons. The US crime that began in 1945 has reached new intensity with Donald Trump’s years of casual rhetoric threatening nuclear holocaust on targets from ISIS to North Korea. Every other nuclear-armed state engages in the same criminal threatening every day, but the US has been at it longer and is still the only state to have perpetrated the actual war crimes of not one but two nuclear terror attacks against mostly civilian targets in Japan in 1945.

The target of the Plowshares Seven’s radical direct action was the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, home to eight Trident nuclear submarines, each capable of launching nuclear missile strikes anywhere in the world. Each 560-foot-long Trident ballistic missile submarine carries sufficient firepower to attack some 600 cities with more destructive force than destroyed Hiroshima. The “small” warheads on Trident missiles have a 100-kiloton payload, roughly seven times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. The Kings Bay base covers some 17,000 acres, making it roughly 30 times larger than the principality of Monaco. The base was developed in 1978-79 under President Jimmy Carter, a former nuclear submarine engineer. A prominent Christian protestant all his career, Carter has long made peace with war-making, unlike the radical Catholics in the Plowshares movement since they hammered and poured blood on nuclear nosecones in 1980 (the first of more than 100 Plowshares actions since then).

On April 4, 2018, the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Liz McAlister, 78, Stephen Kelly S.J., 70, Martha Hennessy, 62, Clare Grady, 58, Patrick O’Neill, 62, Mark Colville, 55, and Carmen Trotta, 55, entered the Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base.

Carrying hammers and bottles of their own blood, the seven sought to enact and embody the prophet Isaiah’s command to: “Beat swords into plowshares.” In so doing, they were upholding the US Constitution through its requirement to respect treaties, international law through the UN Charter and Nuremberg principles, and higher moral law regarding the sacredness of all creation. They hoped to draw attention to and begin to dismantle what Dr. King called “the triple evils” of racism, militarism, and extreme materialism.

– Kings Bay Plowshares press release, May 4, 2018

As darkness fell on April 4, the Plowshares Seven were setting out to commit a classic act of civil disobedience, breaking laws that they saw as unjust in light of a higher law. The description of events that follows here is based on the government indictment (signed by five lawyers), the Kings Bay Plowshares account, and a conversation with one of the Plowshares Seven, Martha Hennessy, a retired occupational therapist, at her home in Vermont, where she is confined with an ankle bracelet while awaiting trial.

After penetrating the perimeter fence as a group, the seven split up into three groups, headed for three different destinations on the base, and arrived unchallenged.

The nuclear weapons storage bunkers are in a shoot-to-kill zone. McAlister, Kelly, and Trotta managed to unfurl a banner without getting shot, but were quickly arrested. The banner read: “Nuclear weapons: illegal/immoral.”

The second group, Grady and Hennessy, went to the Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic Administration, two large, one-story office buildings out of sight and hearing range from the weapons storage bunkers. Here the scene was more surreal: lights were on in the building, people were working inside, but it was very quiet. Grady and Hennessy were alone in the dark outside for almost an hour. That gave them time to post the Plowshares indictment on the door and rope off the area with yellow crime scene tape. They poured blood on the door and the sidewalk. They spray-painted the sidewalk with “Love One Another” and “Repent” and “May Love Disarm Us All.”

When they were done, they joined the third group, Colville and O’Neill, at the Trident D5 Monuments, a sculptural, phallic celebration of nuclear weapons delivery systems. There the Plowshares splashed blood on the base logo and the Navy seal. They draped the monument in yellow crime scene tape. They pried back-lit blue letters off the monument. They hung a banner paraphrasing Martin Luther King’s admonition that “the ultimate logic of racism is genocide.” The banner read: “The Ultimate Logic of Trident is Omnicide.” People drove by as they worked, but no one stopped. After about an hour, security officers arrived and very politely, full of Southern good manners, handcuffed the four and took them into custody at a base facility sometime after midnight.

In days to come, the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established as the highest mountain and raised about the hills. All nations shall stream toward it…. He shall judge between the nations, and impose terms on many peoples. They shall beat their swords into plowshares; and their spears into pruning hooks; One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war again.” – Book of Isaiah, 2:2-4

According to Kings Bay Base spokesman Scott Bassett, the Plowshares Seven were quickly transferred to the civilian county jail. Bassett said there were no injuries and that no military personnel or “assets” were in danger. He said the incident was still under investigation, but “At no time was anybody threatened.”

Mainstream media seem to have treated the blooding of the submarine missiles as a one-day story of little import, or ignored it entirely. The Navy was treating it as a trivial case of trespass and vandalism. Georgia officials filed charges along the same lines. But by the time the Plowshares Seven had been in county jail for a month, someone had decided to make a federal case of it.

The federal indictment of May 2 is a squalid bit of legalism at its most dishonest. The seven-page charge tries to have it both ways, making out a trespass/vandalism case while suppressing what makes it actually worthy of federal prosecution (albeit not of these defendants). No wonder it took five lawyers to conjure up a redundantly iterated charge of conspiracy to trespass and “willfully and maliciously destroy and injure real and personal property” of the US Navy. The charge is naked of any hint of a motive, and for good, sordid, corrupt prosecutorial reason. The motive calls into question the legality of the base, the submarines, the nuclear weapons, and the right of the US to keep the rest of the world under perpetual threat of annihilation. The feds have a long history of keeping that argument out of court by any means necessary.

Prosecutorial deceit is further illustrated by the indictment’s corrupt selection of the alleged overt acts by the defendants. The indictment charges all seven with acts some of them could not possibly have committed. And for all their wordy whining about property being damaged or defaced, the lawyers conspire not to mention any yellow crime tape, or banners, or – most importantly – the defendants’ blood. “A True Bill” the document is called on the page where five federal lawyers signed, if not in contempt of court, surely in contempt of truth and justice.

But that’s where this case is headed, down the rabbit hole of police state justice, if the government has its way. The Plowshares Seven, all presently proceeding without attorneys of their own, will attempt to argue a necessity defense – that whatever illegal actions they have taken were necessary to prevent a greater harm, in this case nuclear destruction. That case is so patently obvious, the government has never dared to let it be argued (in other countries it has led to some acquittals). Mostly miscarriages of justice like this go on in the shadows, without media attention, without regard to who is president or which party is in power. Anyone who looks carefully soon realizes this is true. In late 2008, Martha Hennessy wrote from England:

I can’t write about my journey coming here to participate in the Catholic Worker Farm community without considering the context of our current world situation. The global financial markets teeter on the brink of chaos, and the US presidential race nears Election Day. It feels as though those who are aware of what is happening are holding their collective breath while others toil on in pain and oblivion. I completed early voting before leaving the States but I am always left with a feeling of having blood on my hands, trying to be a “responsible” citizen in a so-called democracy. The recent American bailout of the corporate criminals is a theft from the people who need housing, healthcare, and education. The horrific war that has been visited on the Iraqi people has turned on its perpetrators. And now people of faith who mount nonviolent protest to these atrocities are being branded as “terrorists” by the domestic security apparatus. How to maintain faith, hope and love with such dark times ahead?

Hennessy and two others are out on bail, but electronically shackled. The other four remain in federal prison in the usually appalling conditions the US justice system deems appropriate, or at least profitable. The prosecutors opposed any bail for any of them. A motions hearing is scheduled for early August, when all seven will seek release to allow them to prepare for trial, representing themselves. No trial date has yet been set. The defendants face potential sentences of 5 to 20 years each. They used their own blood to symbolize redemption and repentance in the shadow of nuclear holocaust. For that, these seven nonviolent Catholics have put themselves at the mercy of a “Christian” nation whose deepest belief is in its own exceptionalism, immersed in a permanent war economy heading toward omnicide, which can’t come soon enough for apocalyptic dominionoids who figure their souls are saved so let’s get it on. In a sane world, wouldn’t that be enough for jury exclusion?

*

This article was originally published on Reader Supported News.

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

Introduction by Defend Democracy Press

A retired Brigadier-General Pierre Marie Gallois of French army testifies in the front of a camera of his involvment in a secret meetings held in Germany. He explains the long existed plan for destruction of Yugoslavia and punishment of Serbs by Germany for their anti-German role in WW2. Very interesting testimony. General died last year.

.

.

Prince William has angered Israel’s Jerusalem Affairs Minister Zeev Elkin (image below) by referring to East Jerusalem as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), in a statement detailing his upcoming trip to the Middle East.

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

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

*     *     *

US Dollar Sell-Off Continues as Trade Wars Intensify

By True Publica, June 22, 2018

At the beginning of this year, The DXY U.S. dollar index ended January with losses of 3 percent, its worst drop in nearly 2 years, and its third straight month in negative territory. And for all the stimulus from tax cuts, growth in the U.S. economy is still anaemic, no matter what they say. The real numbers don’t lie. The stakes are high as the coming trade wars start to take shape.

Look Deeper: Child Detention and the US’s Paramilitary Politics Abroad

By Dr. John Buell, June 22, 2018

Attorney General Jeff Sessions didn’t lose any sleep over those children forcibly separated from their parents. He maintained most of the asylum seekers will be denied because “many of them . . . like to make more money . . .” Unfortunately, however, when children are used as bargaining chips we may never know the conditions these families have experienced. As Daily Kos argues, “sign here and get your baby back” is hardly a way to elicit accurate information.

 

Trump’s Military Drops a Bomb Every 12 Minutes, and No One Is Talking About It

By Lee Camp, June 21, 2018

We now know that Donald Trump’s administration puts all previous presidents to shame. The Pentagon’s numbers show that during George W. Bush’s eight years he averaged 24 bombs dropped per day, which is 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama’s time in office, his military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. And in Trump’s first year in office, he averaged 121 bombs dropped per day, for an annual total of 44,096.

“Where Are the Girls?” Child Trafficking Feared as DHS Can’t Say Where Immigrant Girls Are Being Held

By Matt Agorist, June 21, 2018

Fears of child trafficking are rising as independent media and citizens realize that the only footage of children refugees is boys. DHS was asked where the girls are, and they could not answer.

Video: The Circuit of Death in the “Enlarged Mediterranean”

By Manlio Dinucci, June 21, 2018

During his meeting with NATO Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, in Rome, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte pointed out the “centrality of the Enlarged Mediterranean for European security”, now threatened by the “arc of instability stretching from the Mediterranean to the Middle East”. Which is why it is important for NATO, an alliance under US command, which Conte describes as the “pillar of interior and international security”. This is a complete inversion of reality.

Featured image: Ontario’s conservative Premier-designate Doug Ford speaks to a crowd of supporters in Sudbury

Canadians are dealing with their own election aftermath after Doug Ford, a leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and a figure some compare to Donald Trump, was elected premier of the province earlier this month. Canadian socialist Todd Gordon is author of Imperialist Canada and a writer for the New Socialist website based in Toronto. He answered questions from Ashley Smith about what led to Ford’s election and what this means for Canadian politics.

***

Ashley Smith (AS): The election results in Ontario are very disturbing. Who is Doug Ford and how did he win?

Todd Gordon (TG): The Conservative Party (known in Ontario as the Progressive Conservatives, or PC) won the Ontario election with 40 per cent of the popular vote. However, due to our backwards, single-member-plurality electoral system, that 40 per cent translated into a majority government with 61 per cent of the seats in the provincial legislature. This will allow the PCs a free hand within the legislature to do as they like.

Our new provincial premier is the right-wing populist Doug Ford, brother of now-deceased Rob Ford, the controversial and scandal-plagued former Toronto mayor. Doug Ford himself served as a city councilor during his brother’s tumultuous reign as mayor.

He narrowly won the PC leadership race with the backing of the party’s most right-wing (and socially conservative) elements and against the wishes of the party establishment. In the run-up to the election, there was a lot of comparison made between Doug Ford and Donald Trump. And indeed, there are similarities, but they should not be overdrawn.

Like Trump, Ford is a bombastic, mainstream media-hating, sexist, wealthy white man who inherited his fortune (and the company he runs with his other brother) from his father. He attacks the “elites” – by which he does not mean the rich and powerful, but career politicians, the media and urban Toronto “liberals” who do not share his worldview.

He is unpolished and prides himself on his “outsider” status in the political realm. And clearly, like Trump, does not have a good handle on how government works – during the campaign, for example, he said that he would cut the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation budget (a federal, not provincial, government responsibility). When asked during a leaders’ debate how a bill becomes law, he was unable to do so. He angrily called it a “gotcha question.”

Ford was also supported by racist alt-right figures in Ontario and had at least one candidate with a history of openly racist and homophobic comments from his days as a Rebel Media journalist. A conservative front group, Ontario Proud, engaged in a racist, anti-immigrant campaign against the social democratic New Democratic Party’s (NDP) support for a sanctuary province policy, claiming it would destroy public services and waste the tax dollars of voters.

The campaign was also plagued by scandal, with one-quarter of PC candidates facing lawsuits or under investigation for various forms of malfeasance at the time of the election.

Rally outside the Ministry of Labour in Toronto to defend the gains made by low-wage and precarious workers in the last few years from the pending Doug Ford onslaught (June 16, Toronto). [Photo: @canadianlefty]

On the other hand, Ford himself generally didn’t make systematic recourse to open racism and virulent anti-immigrant hostility the way that Trump did during his campaign (Ford did suggest that the province should take care of Northern Ontarians first before permitting an increase of immigration to the region).

He also has had more than a dozen candidates of color running under the PC banner, and while it’s too early to say exactly who voted PC in detail, it seems clear that he did win some working-class support, including in parts of the Greater Toronto Area, and including among people of color.

The depth of animosity toward “politics as usual” more generally and the centrist Liberal Party specifically – after 15 years in power, several scandals and a weak economy – cannot be understated.

The financial and manufacturing center of the country, Ontario has seen significant manufacturing job losses over the last few decades, which have hit certain areas of province quite hard – while the Greater Toronto Area has seen skyrocketing living costs, deepening (and very racialized) inequality and growing poverty. This trend was exacerbated by the 2007-08 Great Recession.

Thus, in a context in which unions have shown little fight (with a notable exception or two), and the NDP has moved consistently to the political center in a warm embrace of neoliberalism, Ford’s mantra of government and “elites” being out of touch with “hard working taxpayers” and his attack on Liberal corruption clearly has wide resonance.

In fact, Ford’s campaign itself did not have an actual platform in the conventional sense, just vague promises that raised more questions than they answered.

Ford did promise $7.6-billion in annual tax cuts and a balanced budget in three or four years, but unlike the last hard-right government in Ontario (that of Mike Harris, from 1995 to 2002) – and perhaps a sign of the shifting political terrain in which there is now greater political risk in boasting about your slash-and-burn fiscal agenda – he assured people there would be no major cuts or job losses.

Instead, Ford claimed he would find “efficiencies” – to the tune of several billion dollars a year – in government operations.

The shifting of political terrains and the galvanizing impact of capitalist crisis we have seen in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere have, not surprisingly, hit Ontario. This is not lost on the ruling class. Reflecting on the Doug Ford campaign and the growth in the NDP’s popularity, one Globe and Mail columnist somberly remarked that “the political center is collapsing.”

AS: How did the other parties do?

TG: The Liberal Party’s vote dropped sharply from 38.6 per cent of the popular vote in the last election in 2014 to 19.5 per cent of the popular vote this time around, which translated into seven seats – not enough to receive party status in the legislature (which impacts funding for staffers and speaking rights).

However, their popular vote didn’t collapse to the extent many thought (and on the left hoped) it would, and in some districts, they remained strong enough to split the vote with the NDP, allowing the Tories to win.

But, one of the biggest stories during the campaign, was the growth of the NDP. The NDP had not been a serious electoral threat in Ontario since the early 1990s, when it formed a government during what at the time was the deepest recession in Canada since the Great Depression. It brought in a few small reforms, and then, in the name of deficit reduction, it imposed wage freezes and unpaid days off on public-sector workers and began a campaign against “welfare fraud,” alienating itself from unions and left-wing activists.

After campaigning to the right of the Liberals in the last provincial election and suffering a disappointing result (an experience repeated by the federal NDP in 2015), the Ontario NDP tacked to the left this time with a platform that committed to maintaining a planned increase to a $15-an-hour minimum wage in January 2019 and labour law reforms passed by the Liberals, dental care, a modest pharmacare program, replacement of student loans with grants, and increased funding for overcrowded hospitals.

As a result, despite media, PC and Liberal warnings about reckless spending and runaway deficits under an NDP government, the campaign gained traction. The NDP started the campaign a distant third, but steadily built momentum, and with a week to go, according to some polls, it was threatening to overtake the PCs.

In the end, the NDP saw a bigger proportional jump in votes than the PCs – it increased its popular vote from 23.7 per cent in 2014 to 33.5 per cent this time around. The NDP also led among women and people under 44.

AS: There has been a debate on the left about one of the parties, the NDP. What should the left’s posture toward the party be?

TG: The NDP was formed in 1961 as a pro-capitalist workers’ party with strong ties to the union officialdom and real support in sections of the working class. Like social democratic parties in Europe, it has moved to the right, though more slowly and less brazenly than, say, Labour in Britain.

Its leaders accept neoliberal capitalism. Federal NDP officials were, in fact, keen to try to copy the Obama playbook for electoral success. They would like to make the party more like the Democrats – Clinton’s version, not Sanders’s! Although there are plenty of members who are more left wing, they are mostly unorganized, and those organized progressive currents that do exist remain relatively small.

With only a very few exceptions, the NDP’s federal members of parliament and members of the provincial legislatures only think of politics in terms of elections. And so, while the Ontario election undoubtedly represents a positive turn for the party in terms of its platform, it does not change what it is or the need to build an alternative party rooted in movement building.

Notably, save for a few candidates, the NDP did not actively seek to deepen ties with and garner support from social movements and organizers in the way Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbin did.

Post-election, we can expect the NDP to try to channel protest against Ford away from the kind of broadening and escalating fightback in the streets and in workplaces that is needed. People who understand this should try to draw as many NDP supporters as possible into efforts to build an active fightback, but also work to keep these efforts from being subordinated to the party.

AS: What will Ford do in power? Will his program be like Trump’s? And what will this mean for politics in the whole Canadian state?

TG: Given the vagueness of his platform, it is hard to say with certainty what Ford will do in power. But there are some potentially serious dangers lurking on the horizon.

For instance, his tax cuts and promises to balance the budget in a few years will come at a severe price. It is hard to believe that he won’t pursue massive cuts to public spending, with the resulting job loss to public-sector workers and harm to people who access public services this will entail.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) has modeled three scenarios for potential job cuts: an optimistic scenario (70,000 to 46,000 layoffs), a more likely scenario (87,000 to 62,000) and the worst-case scenario (as high as 135,000).

On top of those possible public-sector cuts, Ford has committed to terminating the planned increase of the minimum wage to $15 an hour, while business owners are advocating for a rollback of other labour law reforms implemented by the Liberals.

He has vowed to get rid of Ontario’s cap-and-trade program, which he wrongly calls a carbon tax, and not surprisingly, he has no alternative plan for a genuine reduction in carbon emissions. During the campaign, he raised the specter of opening up development in northern Ontario in the so-called Ring of Fire, a controversial plan that will face opposition from some Indigenous communities.

He has raised repealing a law that makes it illegal to harass women outside of abortion clinics and left open the possibility of legislation forwarded by party backbenchers that would restrict access to abortions. And, in a reflection of the right-wing reaction to anti-oppression politics that has gained ground in Ontario universities, Ford has also mooted cutting funds for universities that do not support “free speech.”

AS: What has been the response in Ontario to Ford’s election by unions, community organizations and the left?

TG: These are early days still. But discussions are already occurring, informally and in organized spaces, about building a fightback.

Articles discussing the strength and limits of the 1990s Days of Action strike wave against the last hard-right government in Ontario have been circulating. The Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) and Fight for $15 and Fairness campaign planned a post-election rally for “Good Jobs” before the election, which will likely draw thousands.

People are no doubt disappointed, particularly those who held out hope that the NDP would be able to pull off a late surge and the victory. But people also clearly see both the need and possibility of building some kind of resistance.

It is important to remember that 60 per cent of voters opposed Ford, and when we consider that 42 per cent of eligible voters didn’t cast a ballot, Ford’s electoral support amounts to only 23.5 per cent of all potential voters.

The energy around the NDP’s progressive campaign can also potentially be drawn on to build the resistance. The challenges are undoubtedly significant, and the stakes high, but the possibilities of building broad and escalating resistance are real.

*

David Camfield contributed to this article.

The media nowadays are busy congratulating themselves for their vigorous criticism of Donald Trump. To exploit that surge of sanctimony, Hollywood producer Steven Spielberg rushed out The Post, a movie depicting an epic press battle with the Nixon administration. Critics raved over the film, which the New York Post enthusiastically labeled “journalism porn of the highest order.” Boston Public Radio station WBUR called it the “most fun you’ll ever have at a civics lesson.”

Spielberg, touting his movie, claimed that “the free press is a crusader for truth,” But the media hoopla around The Post is akin to geezers boasting of having shown moments of courage when they were almost 50 years younger.

The Post is built around the Pentagon Papers, a secret study begun in 1967 analyzing where the Vietnam War had gone awry. The 7000-page tome showed that presidents and military leaders had been profoundly deceiving the American people ever since the Truman administration and that the same mistakes were being endlessly repeated. Like many policy autopsies, the report was classified as secret and completely ignored by the White House and federal agencies, which most needed to heed its lessons. New York Times editor Tom Wicker commented in 1971 that “the people who read these documents in the Times were the first to study them.”

Daniel Ellsberg, a former Pentagon official, heroically risked life in prison to smuggle the report to the media after members of Congress were too cowardly to touch it. The New York Times shattered the political sound barrier when it began courageously publishing the report despite a profusion of threats from the Nixon administration Justice Department. After a federal court slapped the Times with an injunction, the Washington Post and other newspapers published additional classified excerpts from the report.

The Post ignores the fact that U.S. government policy on Vietnam did not become more honest after the Pentagon Papers disclosure. In such cases, the government’s notion of “repenting” is merely to substitute new and often more-ludicrous falsehoods. Besides, as retired State Department whistleblower Peter van Buren noted,

“The Post has no real interest in the Pentagon Papers except as a plot device, almost an excuse needed to make this movie.”

Because the Washington Post had a female publisher, Spielberg made it, rather than the Times,the star of the show. Van Buren suggested,

“Spielberg might as well have costumed Meryl Streep (who played Post publisher Katherine Graham) in a pink pussy hat for the boardroom scenes.”

The movie fails to mention Graham’s cozy relationship with President Lyndon Johnson. A few weeks after John F. Kennedy was assassinated, a secret tape made by the Johnson White House captured Johnson and Graham (whom he called “sweetheart”) flirting up a storm during a phone call. She later flew to his Texas ranch for a personal visit.

Spielberg’s movie portrays Post editor Ben Bradlee denouncing dishonest government officials to Graham:

“The way they lied — those days have to be over.”

Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, who deluged the media with falsehoods about battlefront progress, did more than anyone else (except perhaps Lyndon Johnson) to vastly increase the bloodbath for Americans and Vietnamese. McNamara’s disastrous deceits did not deter the Washington Post from appointing him to its board of directors. As Norman Solomon, author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, recently observed,

“The Washington Post was instrumental in avidly promoting the lies that made the Vietnam War possible in the first place.”

The Pentagon Papers proved that politicians and their tools will brazenly con the American public to drag the nation into unnecessary wars. But that lesson vanished into the D.C. Memory Hole — conveniently for bootlicking journalists such as Post superstar Bob Woodward.

The late Robert Parry, a Washington correspondent for Newsweek in the late 1980s, declared that he saw “self-censorship because of the coziness between Post-Newsweek executives and senior national security figures.”

Post-Vietnam coziness

Perhaps the memory of winning the Pentagon Papers showdown with the feds helped make the media overconfident about their ability to resist the temptation to become political tools. New York Times columnist Flora Lewis, writing three weeks before the 9/11 attacks, commented in a review of a book on U.S. government lies on the Vietnam war,

“There will probably never be a return to the discretion, really collusion, with which the media used to treat presidents, and it is just as well.”

Within months of her comment, the media had broken almost all prior kowtowing records. CNN chief Walter Isaacson explained,

“Especially right after 9/11 … there was a real sense that you don’t get that critical of a government that’s leading us in wartime.”

On March 17, 2003, George W. Bush justified invading Iraq by invoking UN resolutions purporting to authorize the United States “to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.” A year later, he performed a skit at the Radio and Television Correspondents’ annual dinner featuring slides showing him crawling around the Oval Office peaking behind curtains as he quipped to the poohbah attendees,

“Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere…. Nope, no weapons over there…. Maybe under here?”

The crowd loved it and the Post headlined its report on the evening, “George Bush, Entertainer in Chief.” Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor and Publisher, labeled the press’s reaction that night as “one of the most shameful episodes in the recent history of the American media and presidency.”

Most of the media had embedded themselves for the Iraq war long before that dinner. The Post blocked or buried pre-war articles exposing the Bush team’s shams on Iraq; their award-winning Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks complained,

“There was an attitude among editors: ‘Look, we’re going to war; why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?’”

Instead, before the war started, the Post ran 27 editorials in favor of invasion and 140 front-page articles supporting the Bush administration’s case for attacking Saddam. The New York Times printed a barrage of false claims on WMDs while axing articles by Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter James Risen demolishing “the administration’s claims of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” The New York Times also refused to publish classified documents showing pervasive illegal National Security Agency spying on Americans prior to the 2004 election, even though it had received the proof of vast wrongdoing. If the Times had not flinched, George W. Bush might have been denied a second term.

Broadcast media were even quicker to grovel for the war effort. PBS NewsHour host Jim Lehrer explained,

“It would have been difficult to have had debates [about invading Iraq]…. You’d have had to have gone against the grain.”

Lehrer neglected to say exactly how kowtowing became patriotic. News anchor Katie Couric revealed in 2008 that there was pressure from “the corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kind of dissent or any kind of questioning of” the Iraq war.

And now, Syria

Despite the role of media gullibility (or worse) in helping the Bush administration sell the Iraq war, the press showed scant skepticism about subsequent U.S. attacks abroad. The media behave at times as if government lies are dangerous only when the president is a certified bad guy — like Richard Nixon or Donald Trump. Barack Obama’s semi-sainthood minimized media criticism of his Syrian debacle — a civil war in which the United States initially armed one side (Syrian rebels who largely turned out to be terrorists) and then switched sides, a flip-flop that resulted in far more dead Syrians. But Americans have received few insights into that bellicose schizophrenia from the media. Historian Stephen Kinzer wrote in the Boston Globe,

“Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the American press.”

Even in the Trump era — when the press is openly clashing with a president — bombing still provides push-button presidential redemption. Trump’s finest hour, according to much of the media, occurred in April 2017 when he attacked the Assad regime with 59 cruise missiles, raising hopes that the U.S. military would topple the Syrian government.

When Trump announced he was sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, the Washington Post editorial page hailed his “principled realism” — regardless of the futility of perpetuating that quagmire. At a time when Trump is saber-rattling against Iran and North Korea, the media should be vigorously challenging official claims before U.S. bombs begin falling. Instead, much of the coverage of rising tensions with foreign regimes could have been written by Pentagon flacks.

Richard Nixon’s henchman H.R. Haldeman warned Nixon that the Pentagon Papers might make people believe

“you can’t trust the government; you can’t believe what they say; and you can’t rely on their judgment. And the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this.”

Unfortunately, much of the media continue to presume that presidents are infallible — as long as they are killing enough foreigners.

One of the starkest lessons of the Pentagon Papers was that politicians and their henchmen will tell unlimited lies — and ignore stark warnings — to plunge the nation into unnecessary foreign wars. And forgotten falsehoods almost guarantee new political treachery. Politicians don’t need to provide strong evidence as long as the media continue treating them as if they were Delphic oracles. Truth delayed is truth defused, because there is no way to rescind bombs that have already detonated.

Media tub-thumpers were crestfallen when The Post struck out on Academy Awards night (it was nominated for Best Picture and other categories). But that worked out well for history, since it leaves the path more open for subsequent documentaries or movies that provide more honest exposure of how wars get started and perpetuated. Future movies might even venture into the forbidden ground of media docility regarding systemic violations of human rights.

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, in his 1971 opinion on the New York Times’s right to publish the Pentagon Papers, declared,

“Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government.”

Unfortunately, the media often choose to trumpet official lies instead of fighting them. Permitting glorious tales from eight presidencies ago to absolve subsequent media kowtowing would be as foolish as forgetting the lessons of the original Pentagon Papers. Worshipping the media is as foolish as worshiping politicians.

*

James Bovard is a policy adviser to The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a USA Todaycolumnist and has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New Republic, Reader’s Digest, Playboy, American Spectator, Investors Business Daily,and many other publications.

At the beginning of this year, The DXY U.S. dollar index ended January with losses of 3 percent, its worst drop in nearly 2 years, and its third straight month in negative territory. And for all the stimulus from tax cuts, growth in the U.S. economy is still anaemic, no matter what they say. The real numbers don’t lie. The stakes are high as the coming trade wars start to take shape.

State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert released a statement today warning the Syrian government to cease and desist from its final military push against ISIS and al-Qaeda groups in southwest Syria. The United States is “deeply troubled by reports of increasing Syrian regime operations in southwest Syria” because such operations are within the “de-escalation zone negotiated between the United States, Jordan, and the Russian Federation last year and reaffirmed between Presidents Trump and Putin in Da Nang, Vietnam in November,” the statement says.

What a strange warning. The United States, which illegally occupies territory of a country nearly 6,000 miles away, is warning Syria, the country it partly occupies, not to conduct military operations against terrorist organizations within its own borders!

Aside from the absurdity of Nauert’s press release, there is the important matter that the whole statement is a lie.

First, the “deconfliction zone” to which she refers has been unilaterally declared by the United States. Syria never agreed to cease military operations within its own borders. Suggesting that Damascus is violating some agreement when it was never party to the agreement is shockingly dishonest.

Second, even the “de-escalation zones” agreed between Russia, Iran, and Turkey in Astana, Kazakhstan, in May, 2017, exempted UN-recognized terrorist groups from the deal. So even if Syria was a party to the US-claimed “de-escalation” agreement, its current advance on ISIS and al-Qaeda controlled territory would not be a violation.

Third, the State Department’s claims on the “Da Nang” agreement between Presidents Putin and Trump are purposely misleading. The very first sentence of the “Da Nang” statement affirms the two leaders’ “determination to defeat ISIS in Syria,” demonstrating the high priority placed on fighting ongoing terrorist occupation of parts of Syria.

So why now, seven months later, is the US warning Syria against completing the very task that Trump and Putin made a top priority?

Also, the “Da Nang statement” discusses the “de-confliction” areas explicitly in the context of the fight against ISIS:

The Presidents agreed to maintain open military channels of communication between military professionals to help ensure the safety of both US and Russian forces and de-confliction of partnered forces engaged in the fight against ISIS. They confirmed these efforts will be continued until the final defeat of ISIS is achieved.

So, again, why is the US objecting to the Syrian government’s actions to achieve a goal — defeat of ISIS — reiterated by the US government?

The “Da Nang” statement also made it clear that when it comes to Syrian territory, that country’s sovereignty must be respected:

The Presidents affirmed their commitment to Syria’s sovereignty, unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character…

How can the US be committed to Syria’s sovereignty when it violates that sovereignty by occupying Syrian territory and warning the Syrian government against attacking al-Qaeda and ISIS-dominated areas of Syria?

The United States — which maintains hundreds of US troops illegally in Syria — warns Syria about conducting military operations within its own borders against internationally-recognized terrorist groups, citing the “Da Nang” agreement, which:

…reinforces the success of the ceasefire initiative, to include the reduction, and ultimate elimination, of foreign forces and foreign fighters from the area…

But those “foreign fighters” they agreed to eliminate by definition must include the US military itself! So actually it is the US that is violating the agreement by remaining in Syria, not the Syrian government by fighting al-Qaeda!

As an astute colleague wrote today,

“have also been rumors in Washington that the Administration is preparing for something ‘big’ in Syria, possibly related to warnings from the Pentagon that Syrian forces have been threatening the unilaterally declared “de-escalation zone” in the country’s southeast.”

Nauert’s release may be one big lie, but the US threat against Syria is looking to be deadly serious.

*

Featured image is from the author.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions didn’t lose any sleep over those children forcibly separated from their parents. He maintained most of the asylum seekers will be denied because “many of them . . . like to make more money . . .” Unfortunately, however, when children are used as bargaining chips we may never know the conditions these families have experienced. As Daily Kos argues, “sign here and get your baby back” is hardly a way to elicit accurate information.

Trump’s hard right base imagines hordes of greedy, poorly educated workers eager to steal our well- deserved prosperity. Unfortunately, amidst the justifiable horror evoked by US authorities’ criminal treatment of these children there is too little examination of the conditions that spur many of these mass migrations. Nor is this an accident. US policy has played a major role in fostering or sustaining the violence that impels many to flee. Admitting that role by implication challenges the legitimacy of those policies.

From the days of the Monroe Doctrine on the US has treated Central and South America as wholly owned subsidiaries. That has included support for even the most vicious authoritarians as long as they were hospitable to US multinationals. FDR is purported to have called Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza “an SOB, but he’s our SOB.” Take the recent example of Honduras, one home of those seeking asylum. In a late May conversation on Democracy Now between Amy Goodman and Dana Frank, University of California Santa Cruz scholar, Goodman reminded listeners that: this June marks “the fifth anniversary of the military coup that deposed the democratically elected Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, which the U.S did not oppose. It was the coup, more than drug trafficking and gangs, that opened the doors to the violence in Honduras and unleashed an ongoing wave of state-sponsored repression.”

Frank added,

“when we talk about the fleeing gangs and violence, it’s also this tremendous poverty. And poverty doesn’t just happen. It, itself, is a direct result of policies of both the Honduran government and the U.S. government, including privatizations, mass layoffs of government workers, and a new law that breaks up full-time jobs and makes them part-time and ineligible for unionization, living wage and the national health service.“

These policies have been supported by Democrats as well as Republicans. Frank reminds us

“A lot of these economic policies are driven by U.S.-funded lending organizations like the International Monetary Fund… The Central American Free Trade Agreement is the other piece of this. Like NAFTA … it opens the door to this open competition between small producers in agriculture in Honduras, small manufacturers, and jobs are disappearing as a result of that.”

In language that directly addresses Sessions contempt for these migrants. Frank adds:

”it’s not like people are like, “Let’s go have the American dream.” There are almost no jobs for young people. And we’re talking about starving to death—that’s the alternative—or being driven into gangs with tremendous sexual violence. And it’s a very, very tragic situation here. But it’s not like it tragically just happened. It’s a direct result of very conscious policies by the U.S. and Honduran governments.”

Throughout Central America extreme inequality along with ruthless and repressive governments have led to a pathological politics. Governments are brutal but also unstable. Often they rely on or tacitly encourage paramilitary forces. These allow them to evade responsibility for the crimes on which their rule depends.

That these conditions should constitute grounds for asylum is clear, but the Trump Administration defines violence in as narrow a manner as possible. Only a gun pointed at one’s head and imminently prepared to shoot is violence. To view violence of paramilitary forces or even spousal violence systemically– where murder and regular intimidation are the backdrop of daily life– might make the Trump administration appear soft on immigration and disdainful of its base. But equally significant, attention to these conditions and their cause casts doubt not only on the substance of US foreign policy but also on its methods.

The Obama Administration supported regressive economic policy in Latin America and stood idly by in the face of a brutal coup. Trump ups the ante. The US now has a president who explicitly supports foreign leaders’ assassination of drug dealers and here at home encourages his supporters to rough up opponents. How far are we from importing not only asylum seekers but also paramilitary violence from these unstable states? If we do not end this cruelty on our borders our children may pay a heavy price.

*

John Buell has a PhD in political science, taught for 10 years at College of the Atlantic, and was an Associate Editor of The Progressive for ten years. He lives in Southwest Harbor, Maine and writes on labor and environmental issues. His most recent book, published by Palgrave in August 2011, is “Politics, Religion, and Culture in an Anxious Age.” He may be reached at [email protected]

Featured image is from the author.

Harvey Weinstein isn’t in jail; neither is actor Kevin Spacey, chef Mario Batali, TV host Matt Lauer, nor New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman. Although some might like to see them behind bars. Even convicted felon Bill Cosby is free until he’s sentenced in September. 

(Being out of jail does not of course imply any of those accused are innocent. Their temporary respite could be related to the degree of their misconduct, the status of investigations underway, or the efforts of highly paid attorneys.)

As the extent of widespread abuse of women came to light, I too could not help but recoil with anger. Then, sobering and remembering an unvoiced childhood experience, I signed #MeToo.

When Tariq Ramadan’s name was added to the growing list of “MeToo” culprits, my response was distress similar to sorrow I felt learning about other ‘outed’ misogynists whose work I had admired. 

There’s a further worrying dimension to Ramadan’s alleged sexual misconduct, namely, his disrepute would be a blow to Muslims’ already uphill struggle to articulate the meanings and experiences of Islam to the public, a universal community needing to hear an eminently qualified and soft-intellectual voice in the debate, such as Ramadan’s was. (Never enthusiastic about Ramadan, I viewed him as an apologist at times. I also found his critiques of institutional Islamophobia and biased media too mild—maybe that’s the academic in him. So Ramadan may have been imperfect at many levels. But his calm style and his erudition are as needed as that of the regrettably few articulate Muslim leaders we have, including the irrepressible and savvy activist Linda Sarsour.)

The urgency with which Ramadan’s case be reexamined came to my attention four months ago in Alain Gabon’s lengthy account of the charges against Ramadan and the history of assaults on him by French leaders. I learned that Ramadan was in preventative detention in a Paris prison, held in solitary, denied medical treatment and contact with his wife (a French citizen; Ramadan himself is Swiss, of Egyptian-Arab origin).     

Ramadan, without legal indictment or trial, was summarily jailed soon after the allegations surfaced. According to reports, he voluntarily traveled to Paris to answer the charges, only to find himself immediately detained, placed in solitary confinement without medication for a serious neurological illness. He remains imprisoned, subjected to unusually harsh conditions during these past six months. 

Tariq Ramadan is not only an Oxford University professor and highly respected author. He is a regular media commentator on Islam and Muslim affairs. Most who know his work were shocked learning he was accused by two French women of a serious sexual offence—rape. He’s one of the three Muslim leaders who faced accusations of sexual misconduct; of the other two—both Americans, and both exposed before 2017—one was eventually convicted, the second banished by the community, according to a US publication which then uses these cases to explore ‘personality worship’ in Islam! What about personality worship in America?)

The American press ceased following Ramadan’s case after accusations surfaced. And the American Muslim community has been shamefully absent on the issue. Shameful because there is reason to believe Ramadan’s treatment is unjust (if not illegal), and because those organizations claim a human rights agenda. Although Ramadan was a featured guest at Islamic and other religion-related conferences, and his books are popular, the American Muslim community of mosques and Islamic organizations have remained silent since his arrest.

Details of the case are well known, as documented in several lengthy articles, including that cited above. They report that there’s clear evidence that one enamored accuser had harassed and stalked him for years. Of the other’s charge, he maintains he was not in the city of the alleged assault. This accuser is said to be an associate of a well known French feminist with a long record of anti-Islamic behavior.

These arguments do not posit that Tariq Ramadan is innocent. What concerns people familiar with Ramadan’s work in France are: first, a long history of attacks against him as a Muslim spokesperson by (mainly Socialist) political headers who include former President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Valls. Ramadan’s current case seems further prejudiced by its transfer to the office of Paris prosecutor Francois Molins who is concerned with cases of Islamic terrorism. Second, defenders question why Ramadan has been singled out for imprisonment when French film director Luc Besson and state ministers Darmanin and Hulot, all included in the list of accused rapists in the wake of #MeToo, have not been jailed. Thirdly, there’s outrage over the severe conditions of Ramadan’s detention.

With more is learned about Ramadan’s prison conditions, and the credibility of his accusers is challenged, arguments in his defense are garnering attention, mainly in Europe; and a campaign on his behalf is now underway. Besides the worldwide appeal, and more than 151,000 signatories (to date) on the www.change.org petition, hundreds of scholars have recently signed a due process plea.

This month, New Trend, the online newsletter, published by Jamaat Al-Muslimeen (06/10/18, #1762) called for inquires into Ramadan’s status. There, The Muslim Association of Britain publicly expressed its shock “to see that even the most basic rules of justice being flagrantly ignored by the French authorities”. 

For the present, a French court agreed that Tariq Ramadan’s wife may now visit him. Let’s see what further appeals produce. 

*

Dr Aziz is the author of Heir to A Silent Song: Two Rebel Women of Nepal, published by Tribhuvan University in Nepal in 2001, and available through Barnes and Nobel. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: Peace and Freedom Party campaign launch at State Capitol. Liberation Photo.

In yet another California election dominated by tech, developer, banking and other corporate money, the capitalists won again. And thanks to the corrupt and anti-democratic “top-two” system, the only candidates on the statewide ballot in November’s “general election” will be Democrats and Republicans: no third party candidates allowed and not even write-in votes will be counted.

Democrat Gavin Newsom and Republican John Cox will be on November ballot for Governor, while two Democrats, Dianne Feinstein and Kevin de Leon will be the U.S. Senate candidates. The Democrats are heavily favored to once again sweep the statewide offices. Democratic domination of California politics has done absolutely nothing to stem soaring rents and homelessness.

While ballots are still being counted, it is now clear that more than 300,000 people voted for the candidates of the socialist Peace and Freedom Party (PFP), a multi-tendency party which has ballot status in California.

As of June 15, gubernatorial candidate Gloria La Riva has received over 17,000 votes, more than any other third-party candidate for that office, and is 12th among 27 candidates. Insurance Commissioner candidate Nathalie Hrizi has received more than 295,000, 5 percent of the votes in a four-person race and the highest vote for any PFP candidate. Hrizi received more than 14 percent of the vote in San Francisco, her hometown. Both La Riva and Hrizi are leading members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

In order to maintain its ballot status, Peace and Freedom needed to receive two percent of the vote in at least one of the statewide elections.

In addition to Hrizi, Controller candidate Mary Lou Finley and Treasurer candidate Kevin Akin, both surpassed the 2 percent requirement, with Finley receiving 3.9 percent (242,000) and Akin 2.2 percent, (132,000). In San Francisco, Akin received nearly 10% of the vote, more than either of the  Republican candidates. PFP U.S. Senate candidate John Parker received over 20,000 votes, finishing 23rd in a field of 32.

PFP Secretary of State candidate C.T Weber has received more than 57,000; votes.  Jordan Mills has 212 votes in U.S. Congressional District 49 among 12 candidates in an election where both the national Democratic and Republican parties spent millions.

The Vote Socialist campaign distributed tens of thousands of palm cards as well as many lawn signs, statements and T-shirts. We raised thousands of dollars and collected hundreds of petition signatures, just to be on the ballot. We built two websites and a strong social media presence, particularly on Facebook, with numerous posts, videos and photos reaching hundreds of thousands of people with the message that only the socialist reorganization of society can solve the multiple crises that capitalism has created.

The PFP candidates campaigned across the state, from Arcata in the far north, to San Diego in the south, in the Central Valley and Silicon Valley, and more.  They represented, as Gloria La Riva emphasized:

“The millions of disenfranchised – the undocumented, permanent residents, prisoners and former prisoners — as well as those eligible to vote.”

Gloria La Riva’s radio interview with Dr Drew and Laura Sivan

Nathalie Hrizi campaign video

How the “Top-Two” system further diminishes an already-undemocratic system

Even before the passage of Proposition 14 in 2010 which created the “top-two” system, the election process was a form of “dollar democracy.” Candidates with the most dollars – raised overwhelmingly from Corporate America and the super-rich – generally prevail.

Proposition 14 made it worse – much worse. It barely passed after a heavily funded campaign of lies and deception so typical of capitalist politics in California and across the country.

Under the old system, each of the six ballot-qualified parties elected their candidates in the June primary election, who then went to the November general election. The requirements for “third party” candidates to be placed on their respective party’s primary ballot were relatively simple and didn’t include huge filing fees.

Of course, “dollar democracy” prevailed then, as well, with the millions flowing into the accounts of the Democrat and Republicans.

Proposition 14 threw all the candidates into one big primary, with filing fees ranging from $3-4,000 or many thousands of signatures, just to appear on the June ballot for statewide office.

The wealthy authors of Prop. 14, sold it to the voters on the false theme that it would be more “democratic,” in that all voters would be able to participate in primary voting, even if they weren’t registered in a party.

What they didn’t include in their massive, deceptive ad campaign was that it would make the general election far less democratic, being restricted to just two choices. Under the current law, there is no means whatsoever for a third candidate to be placed on the ballot or even to have write-in votes counted.

It reality, “top-two” converts the primary election into the general election, and reduces the November election, formerly the main one, into a mere run-off.

Discontent with “top-two” is growing. At the same time, it takes many millions of dollars to place a new proposition on the ballot and carry out an effective campaign. It remains to be seen whether such a campaign will unfold.

Socialist know that the electoral arena will not be decisive in bringing about a new system.  Ultimately, it is the struggle in the streets, workplaces, neighborhoods and campuses that really effects change and a revolution that is desperately needed.

But despite all the anti-democratic obstacles the system has created, the elections still offer a unique (even if diminishing) opportunity to reach millions of people with the message of socialism.

*

This article was originally published on Liberation News.

Introduction

Ever since the achievements of Renaissance humanism with the triumph of art over nature, with the development of new artistic techniques (the optics of perspective, the structure of anatomy, the mixing of pigments, and the development of movement) art was strengthened and, combined with the scientific explorations and achievements of the Enlightenment, led to the idea that Man could become stronger and better and hold an optimistic view of the future. He could improve his well-being and even take control of nature to create a better life for all.  This view continued through the decades and was associated with social revolutions and political activity which connected progressive ideas about society to artistic forms of expression which would illustrate and advance the hopes and desires of the masses for a better life and future. These artistic movements changed and developed from the Enlightenment to Realism to Social Realism and then to Socialist Realism as artists both inspired and reflected the people’s progressive movements the world over.

However, at every juncture, oppositional movements also stepped in and opposed progressive change and revolution by the people; from the Romantic movement in Revolutionary France to the Modernist movement to Postmodernism and now Metamodernism. These movements have derided every aspect of the progressive forces, from the quietist “l’art pour l’art” of Romanticism to the attack on artistic form by Modernism, to the later attack on ideological content by Postmodernism and now the ‘oscillation’ between the two (form and content) of Metamodernism, a movement caught between self-obsession and the pressing desire of the masses for ideas and culture that will deal with climate change, financial crises, terror attacks and the neo-liberal squeeze on the social welfare system.

These two movements, Romanticism and the Enlightenment, have their basis in attitudes towards and beliefs in the efficacy of the burgeoning scientific movement. Romanticism, beginning in the 1770s formed the basis of an anti-scientific strand in culture over the last two hundred years while the Enlightenment formed the basis of a scientific strand roughly between between 1715 and 1789. Both strands have been in opposition ever since, their ideas reflected through various cultural movements which sprang up in different countries and at different times, some revolutionary and some reactionary.

Let’s take a look at these two opposing strands in more detail.

The Anti-Scientific Strand

Romanticism

One of the most important movements is Romanticism particularly as it still has a strong anti-science influence today. Romanticism was characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism and glorified the past and nature, putting emphasis on the medieval rather than the classical traditions of ideals of harmony, symmetry, and order.  The Romantics rejected the norms of the Age of Enlightenment and the scientific rationalization of nature which were  important aspects of modernity. Isaiah Berlin believed that the Romantics opposed classic traditions of rationality and it basis in moral absolutes and agreed values which led “to something like the melting away of the very notion of objective truth”.

Objective truth and reason were elevated by the artists and philosophers of the Enlightenment to understand the universe and solve the pressing problems of the world. However, Romanticism promoted the individual imagination as a critical authority allowed of freedom from classical notions of form in art (harmony, symmetry, and order). Romantics were distrustful of the human world, and tended to strive for a close connection with nature to escape elements of modernity such as urbanisation, industrialisation and population growth and therefore allowed them to avoid questions centred around the working class, such as alienation, the ownership of the means of production, living conditions and conditions of employment. The Romantics pursued the idea of “l’art pour l’art” (art for art’s sake) believing that art did not need moral justification and could be morally neutral.

According to Arnold Hauser in The Social History of Art:

“Revolutionary France quite ingeniously enlists the services of art to assist her in this struggle; the nineteenth century is the first to conceive the idea of “l’art pour l’art” [ital] which forbids such a practice. The principle of “pure”, absolutely “useless” art first results from the opposition of the romantic movement to the revolutionary period as a whole, and the demand that the artists should be passive derives from the ruling class’s fear of losing its influence on art.” [1]

This position originated with the elites in the nineteenth century and serves the same function, Romanticism being the main influence of culture today.

Modernism

By the  beginning  of  the  20th  century, the  Modernist  movement was generally referred to as the “avant-garde” until the the word “Modernism” became more popular. Modernism  was  the rejection of tradition, and the creation of new  forms  using reprise, incorporation, rewriting, recapitulation, revision  and  parody. The Modernist ‘rejection of tradition’, like with Romanticism, is the rejection of classical notions of form in art (harmony, symmetry, and order). Modernism (like Romanticism) also rejected  the  certainty  of  Enlightenment thinking.  Modernism emphasised form over political content and rejected the ideology of Realism and Enlightenment thinking on liberty and progress.

The Realist movement began in the mid-19th century as a reaction to Romanticism, and Modernism was a revolt against the ‘traditional’ values of Realism. Realist painters used common laborers, and ordinary people in ordinary surroundings engaged in real activities as subjects for their works. However, Modernism rejected traditional forms which over time became less and less ´real´ and more abstract and conceptualised.

The Great War brought about more disillusionment with Enlightenment ideals of progress among the Modernists who turned inwards and attacked art forms, instead of war-mongering capitalism. The Romantic continuity in Modernism produced individual, horrified reactions but were ultimately no threat to the ruling elites. Like an angry child smashing his own toys, the Modernist attacked his particular cultural forms and then expected the public to pick up the pieces. What was left was atonalism and abandonment of traditional rhythmic strictures in music, the departure from traditional realist styles in art and the prioritisation of the individual and the interior mind and abandonment of the fixed point of view in literature. The Dada movement, for example, was developed in reaction to the Great War by ‘avant-garde’ artists who rejected the logic, reason, and aestheticism of modern capitalist society but then only to respond with nonsense and irrationality in their art works.

As for the Great War, the avant-garde and Modernism – like the Romantic movement and the French Revolution – failed the masses again as it stood outside the people’s movement, turning in on itself and attacking reason instead of uniting with the progressive forces against war. In the end it was mainly the political movements of James Connolly in Ireland and V.I. Lenin in Russia (the two geographical ends of Europe) who organised the working classes against the war and destruction.

David Alfaro Siqueiros (1896-1974), the revolutionary artist and founder of the Mexican Mural Movement, had this to say about the Modernist ‘avant-garde’:

“If we look closely at their work it is the most reactionary movement in the history of culture. It has not developed anything new in composition or perspective and has lost much of that which has been accumulated over twenty centuries. It is based on the hysteria of novelty for the sake of novelty, in order to satisfy a parasitic plutocracy. The artist who changes his style every 24 hours is the best-known artist. When he has exhausted all the solutions, the others become his followers and sink into repetitious imitation.” [2]

The allusion here presumably to Picasso (1881–1973), famous for changing his style many times, is interesting in relation to Joaquín Sorolla (1863–1923) the great Spanish artist whose  depictions of ordinary Spanish people in monumental works of social and historical themes was overshadowed by Picasso until relatively recently. Cubism, credited to Picasso as its inventor, was an art style that conflicted with the representational system in art that had prevailed since the Renaissance, as the subject was depicted from differing viewpoints at the same time within the same painting.

Many pseudo-scientific explanations were given to explain Cubism regarding art in modern society, new scientific developments etc but even Picasso himself ridiculed this:

“Mathematics, trigonometry, chemistry, psychoanalysis, music and whatnot, have been related to cubism to give it an easier interpretation. All this has been pure literature, not to say nonsense, which brought bad results, blinding people with theories”. [2]

Indeed, Cubism is probable the most parodied of all forms of Modernist art.

Other Modernist forms such as Expressionism have been seen to be at least critical of capitalism and war, but according to Lotte H. Eisner who quotes a ‘fervent theorist of this style’, Kasimir Edschmid:

“The Expressionist does not see, he has ‘visions’. According to Edschmid. “the chain of facts: factories, houses, illness, prostitutes, screams, hunger’ does not exist; only the interior vision they provoke exists.” [p10]

Therefore, the external reality of life and death for the working class is ignored for the ecstasy of ‘interior visions’.

For Eisner, writing in The Haunted Screen, German Expressionist cinema is a visual manifestation of Romantic ideals. She writes:

“Poverty and constant insecurity help to explain the enthusiasm with which German artists embraced this movement [Expressionism] which, as early as 1910, had tended to sweep aside all the principles which had formed the basis of art until then.” [pp9-10]

Richard Murphy also notes:

“one of the central means by which expressionism identifies itself as an avant-garde movement, and by which it marks its distance to traditions and the cultural institution as a whole is through its relationship to realism and the dominant conventions of representation.” [3]

Expressionists rejected the ideology of realism, and Expressionist art, in common with Romanticism, reacted to the dehumanizing effect of industrialization and the growth of cities with extreme individualism and emotionalism, not collective social empathy and political change.

After the Great War and the Russian Revolution, in the 1920s and 1930s, the idea of depicting ordinary people in art spread to many countries in Realist and Social Realist forms especially as a reaction to the exaggerated ego encouraged by Romanticism. In the United States the Ashcan School was well know for for works portraying scenes of daily life in New York city’s poorer neighborhoods. However, the unsettling depictions of the darker side of capitalism by the Ashcan School was soon displaced with Modernism in the Armory Show of 1913 and the opening of more galleries in the 1910s who promoted the Modernist artwork of Cubists, Fauves, and Expressionists.

This takeover by Modernism in New York continued into the 1940s and 1950s with the development of Abstract Expressionism, an art form which was soon promoted globally as a counterweight to the Socialist Realism style developed in the Soviet Union, especially during the Cod War. The loose, splashing and dripping of paint in the work of Jackson Pollack became used as a symbol of the ideology of freedom and free enterprise in the United States. The victory of Modernism in the United States served two purposes: national and international. It dampened down the critical dissent of the Ashcan School while at the same time serving as a useful tool of foreign policy.

According to Frances Stonor Saunders in The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters, Abstract Expressionism was “Non-figurative and politically silent, it was the very antithesis to socialist realism. It was precisely the kind of art the Soviets loved to hate.” [4] This was Modernism at its zenith as the wealthiest of art investors and the most influential art critics promoted Abstract Expressionism as “independent, self-reliant, a true expression of the national will, spirit and character.”[5] However, the size of the confidence trick being perpetrated on the unsuspecting public became unsettling. According to Saunders:

“It was this very stylistic conformity, prescribed by MoMA and the broader social contract of which it was a part, that brought Abstract Expressionism to the verge of kitsch. ‘It was like the emperor’s clothes,’ said Jason Epstein. ‘You parade it down the street and you say, “This is great art,” and the people along the parade route will agree with you. Who’s going to stand up to Clem Greenberg and later to the Rockefellers who were buying it for their bank lobbies and say, “This stuff is terrible”?” [6]

The imposition of Modern Art on the public was also noted by the journalist, Tom Wolfe, who wrote about the 1960s and 1970s art scene in New York in The Painted Word:

“The notion that the public accepts or rejects anything in Modern Art, the notion that the public scorns, ignores, fails to comprehend, allows to wither, crushes the spirit of, or commits any other crime against Art or any individual artist is merely a romantic fiction, a bittersweet Trilby sentiment. The game is completed and the trophies distributed long before the public knows what has happened. […] We can now also begin to see that Modern Art enjoyed all the glories of the Consummation stage after the First World War not because it was “finally understood” or “finally appreciated” but rather because a few fashionable people discovered their own uses for it.” [7]

It was also in the early 1970s that the Irish artist Seán Keating (1889–1977), a Realist painter who painted images of the Irish War of Independence, the early industrialization of Ireland and many portraits of the people of the Aran Islands, was brought face to face with Modernism. In a well-known televised interview, Keating, now in his 60s, was brought around the ROSC’71 exhibition and asked to give his opinion on the exhibits. As Eimear O’Connor writes:

“When confronted by The Table, made by German artist Eva Aeppli (b.1925), Keating said it was ‘downright horrible perversity, nightmare stuff … an old lady who had gone completely mad and is dangerous … I think it is morose … vengeful against the human race…'” [8]

This baiting of a famous Irish humanist whose love of the Irish people and progress displayed the new confidence of the Irish elites who had jumped on the Modernist bandwagon as an symbol of fashionability and of final acceptance by the European elites who would allow Ireland to join the EEC (EU) in 1973.

Economic Pressure by Seán Keating (1949)
Scene of man bidding farewell to his family as he prepares to emigrate from Aran Islands.
(The Irish peasant betrayed: elevated as a national symbol before Independence yet ignored afterwards.)

Postmodernism

In the meantime, Postmodernism was gaining strength. Some features of Postmodernism in general can be found as early as the 1940s but it would compete with Modernism in the late 1950s and became predominant by the 1960s.

Postmodernism is defined as follows:

“Postmodernism, also spelled post-modernism, in Western philosophy, a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power. Postmodernism as a philosophical movement is largely a reaction against the philosophical assumptions and values of the modern period of Western (specifically European) history—i.e., the period from about the time of the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries to the mid-20th century. Indeed, many of the doctrines characteristically associated with postmodernism can fairly be described as the straightforward denial of general philosophical viewpoints that were taken for granted during the 18th-century Enlightenment, though they were not unique to that period.”

In other words, Postmodernism had a direct line of descent from Modernism and Romanticism before that. The same Romantic characteristics show up again – the suspicion of reason, subjectivism and denial of the ideas of the Enlightenment. Once again cynicism towards the idea of progress and working class improvement is the mainstay. Every technique and trick of avoidance of the important issues facing the people’s movement is used in Postmodernism: “common targets of postmodern critique include universalist notions of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress” and “postmodern thought is broadly characterized by tendencies to self-referentiality, epistemological and moral relativism, pluralism, subjectivism, and irreverence.”

Postmodernist artists decided that past styles (once criticised for being ‘traditional’) were now usable in a parodic way along with appropriation and popular culture. The Postmodernist critique of universalist notions of objective reality and social progress, or the Grand Narratives, has particular implications for the working classes and popular political movements as their liberatory philosophy and ideologies are based on them – whatever their supposed successes or failures in the past. To take them away is to fall back on the neo-liberal philosophy of the end-of-history and more of the same globalised capitalism ad infinitum. After the attack on Form in Modernism, we now get an assault on Content in Postmodernism.

When applied to the people’s movement itself, such as the French Revolution, Postmodernist historiography for example, all but wipes out its historic relevance and importance. As Richard J Evans writes in In Defence of History, Simon Schama’s book Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution over-emphasises the bloody and violent nature of the revolution as if the politically-conscious people taking their lives into their own hands were irrational beings exploding with an animal lust for violence. Evans comments:

“In Citizens, indeed, the French Revolution of 1789-94 becomes almost meaningless in the larger sense, and is reduced to a kind of theatre of the absurd; the social and economic misery of the masses, an essential driving force behind their involvement in the revolutionary events, is barely mentioned; and the lasting significance of the Revolution’s many political theories and doctrines for modern European and world history more or less disappears.” [9]

The more opaque forms of relativistic Postmodernist writing and thinking were exposed when Alan Sokal refused to get into line and exposed the French Postmodernists in a hoax essay published in Social Text in 1996. According to Francis Wheen in How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World:

“As a socialist who had taught in Nicaragua after the Sandinista revolution, he [Sokal] felt doubly indignant that much of the new mystificatory folly emanated from the self-proclaimed left. For two centuries, progressives had championed science against obscurantism. The sudden lurch of academic humanists and social scientists towards epistemic relativism not only betrayed this heritage but jeopardised ‘the already fragile prospects for a progressive social critique’, since it was impossible to combat bogus ideas if all notions of truth and falsity ceased to have any validity.” [10]

The obvious contradictions and cul-de-sacs of Postmodernism eventually brought it into decline and soon doors opened for a new obfuscatory philosophy to buttress increasingly crisis-ridden globalised capitalism – Metamodernism.

Metamodernism

According to Timotheus Vermeulen & Robin van den Akker in ‘Notes on Metamodernism‘:

“The postmodern years of plenty, pastiche, and parataxis are over. In fact, if we are to believe the many academics, critics, and pundits whose books and essays describe the decline and demise of the postmodern, they have been over for quite a while now. But if these commentators agree the postmodern condition has been abandoned, they appear less in accord as to what to make of the state it has been abandoned for. In this essay, we will outline the contours of this discourse by looking at recent developments in architecture, art, and film. We will call this discourse, oscillating between a modern enthusiasm and a postmodern irony, metamodernism. We argue that the metamodern is most clearly, yet not exclusively, expressed by the neoromantic turn of late”.

So there you have it – this is the best that Metamodernism can offer – a return to Romanticism! We have now come full circle as “the metamodern is most clearly, yet not exclusively, expressed by the neoromantic turn of late”.

And where is this pressure coming from, to allow a little reality back into the arts?

“Some argue the postmodern has been put to an abrupt end by material events like climate change, financial crises, terror attacks, and digital revolutions […] have necessitated a reform of the economic system (“un nouveau monde, un nouveau capitalisme”, but also the transition from a white collar to a green collar economy)”.

So the contemporary crises of capitalism and climate change are finally impinging on the disintegrating Postmodern artistic consciousness and the answer is reformism and ‘new capitalism’. However, Metamodernism is “Like a donkey it chases a carrot that it never manages to eat because the carrot is always just beyond its reach. But precisely because it never manages to eat the carrot, it never ends its chase”. With a little bit of progressive critique, the Metamodern artist can regain credibility without ever really challenging the status quo.

From all of the above we can see the common threads tying Romanticism, Modernism, Postmodernism and Metamodernism together: individualism, art for art’s sake, suspicion of reason, subjectivism and denial of the ideas of the Enlightenment. All individualist movements that oppose the idea of collectivist ideology and action. Movements that ultimately serve the status quo and the ruling elites. Yet some of these same elites were involved in the development of the concepts of the Enlightenment in the beginning. What happened to them?

Night’s Candles Are Burnt Out by Seán Keating (1927-28)
Ardnacrusha –  Ireland’s first power-station built by Siemens post-independence in the 1920s, a hydro-electric dam built on the river Shannon, north of Limerick.
(Disillusioned Irish workers unemployed and drinking as the new elites begin the process of state-building.)

The Scientific Strand

The Enlightenment

The Enlightenment was an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe during the 18th century. Enlightenment thinkers believed in the importance of rationality and science. They believed that the natural world and even human behavior could be explained scientifically. They felt that they could use the scientific method to improve human society. For the artists and philosophers of the Enlightenment, the ideal life was one governed by reason. Artists and poets strove for ideals of harmony, symmetry, and order, valuing meticulous craftsmanship and the classical tradition. Among philosophers, truth was discovered by a combination of reason and empirical research.

In the field of political philosophy the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes developed some of the fundamentals of European liberal thought: the right of the individual, the natural equality of all men and the idea that legitimate political power must be “representative” and based on the consent of the people. Therefore the Enlightenment popularised the idea that with the use of reason and logic social development and progress would be the norm for the masses and science and technology would be the instruments of human progress. The ideas of the Enlightenment paved the way for the political revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries as it undermined the authority of the monarchy and the Church. The French Revolution become the first main conflict between the men of the Enlightenment and the aristocracy. Within the arts this conflict arose between those who believed that art had a role to play and those who believed in art-for art’s-sake. As Hauser notes:

“It is only with the Revolution that art becomes a confession of political faith, and it is now emphasized for the first time that it has to be no “mere ornament on the social structure,” but “a part of its foundations.” It is now declared that art must not be an idle pastime, a mere tickling of the nerves, a privilege of the rich and the leisured, but it must teach and improve, spur on to action and set an example. It must be pure, true, inspired and inspiring, contribute to the happiness of the general public and become the possession of the whole nation.” [11]

However, the rising bourgeoisie who advocated the ideas of the Enlightenment realised that their objectives and those of the revolutionary public were not the same:

“Yet as soon as the bourgeoisie had achieved its aims, it left its former comrades in arms in the lurch and wanted to enjoy the fruits of the common victory alone. […] Hardly had the Revolution ended, than a boundless disillusion seized men’s souls and not a trace remained of the optimistic philosophy of the enlightenment.” [12]

Thus began the conflict between the new rulers, the bourgeoisie, who wanted to set limits on progress, and the interests of the toiling masses who had not yet achieved one of the most basic concepts of Enlightenment philosophy: the natural equality of all men. This struggle for political and social freedom took different forms over the next century or so but had as one of its bases the idea that the arts would play a role.

Realism

As the bourgeoisie stepped up its development of capitalist society building factories and markets, the Realist movement reacted to Romanticist escapism in favor of depictions of ‘real’ life, emphasizing the mundane, ugly and sordid. The Realist artists used common laborers and ordinary people in their normal work environments as the main subjects for their paintings. Its chief exponents were Gustave Courbet, Jean-François Millet, Honoré Daumier, and Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot. Courbet hated the aristocracy and royalty, and advocated political and social change. He painted ordinary people and in sizes usually reserved for gods and heroes. Realist movements, like the Peredvizhniki or Wanderers group in Russia, developed in many other Western countries.

Social Realism

Meanwhile, as the the Industrial Revolution grew in Britain, concern for the factory workers led to a meeting betwen Marx and Engels and a major change in the ideology of the working class organisations seeking better conditions. While the Romantics believed that the Industrial Revolution and its exploitative extremes in the factories was the result of science, the Marxists instead questioned the ownership of the factories and who benefited from the greatly increased power of the new means of production, means that could benefit society as a whole. Therefore while the Romantics looked back to the medieval artisans and peasants, the Marxists saw science creating new possibilities for a better future for everybody.

Social Realism grew out of these changes as Social Realist artists drew attention to the everyday conditions of the working class and the poor and criticised the social structures which maintained these conditions. The Mexican and Russian revolutions gave a fillip to the Social Realist movement which reached its height of popularity during the 1920s and 1930s when capitalism was under severe pressure from the global economic depression. The Ashcan School in the USA and the Mexican muralist movement were two groups who exerted a huge influence at the time and many of the artists involved at the time were supporters of political working class movements. While contemporary Social Realism has been kept in the background it is still a popular style with progressive artists.

Socialist Realism

As nationalist struggles of the nineteenth century changed into socialist struggles during the twentieth century, the style and form of the art changed too as ordinary people were now depicted as subjects with dignity and power. This style became known as Socialist Realism. It was pronounced state policy at the Soviet Writers’ Congress in 1934 in the Soviet Union and became a dominant style in other socialist countries. Like Social Realism, Socialist Realism also met with fierce denunciations and controversy. However, despite its caricature as a style that depicts people as naïve, happy, joyous ciphers, its originators condemned any attempt to portray people living in an idyllic paradise as the work of shallow artists who would never be taken seriously by the populace:

“An artist who tried to represent the birth of socialism as an idyll, who tried to represent the socialist system, which is being born in hard-fought battles, as a paradise populated by ideal people – such an artist would not be a realist, would not be able to convince anyone by his works. The artist should show how socialism is built out of the bricks of the past, out of the material which the past has left us, out of the material which we ourselves create in the sweat of our brow, in the blood of our toil and struggle, in, the hard battles of classes and in the hard toil of man to remold himself.”

Socialist Realism went into decline in the 1960s as the Soviet Union itself went from crisis to crisis until its end in 1991. Today it is a style which is still much criticised. Why is Socialist Realism such a taboo? Because Socialist Realism is a quadruple whammy – it contains four elements that elites don’t like:

1. Anything to do with the Soviet Union (then) or Russia (today)
2. Any depictions of the working class anywhere (which are not subservient)
3. Any discussion of socialism or socialist ideology (past, present or future)
4. Any realist depiction of opposition to capitalism (that could influence others)

If one looks at ‘history of Western art’ books it becomes apparent that there are very few positive images of the working class but plenty of images glorifying monarchs, aristocrats, the middle classes and Noble Peasants (the useful idiots of nationalism). Representations of peasants usually take the form of non-threatening genre paintings and any Socialist Realist art is excluded.

Irish Industrial Development (oil on wood panels) by Seán Keating (1961)
International Labour Offices (ILO) Geneva, Switzerland
(Positive images of Irish workers by Irish artist in Geneva – must be Socialist Realism!)

Conclusion

The fact is that Romanticism in its different forms has made sure to keep the working classes out of the picture and the only response of the people’s movements should be to keep Romanticist influences at arms length. Romanticism has become the capitalist art par excellence. Romanticism vacillates between cultures of despair and Nihilism. It is opposed to logic and reason and its extreme individualism ensures a divisive affect on any collectivist organisation. Romanticism pervades most mass culture today and sells egoism and impotence back to the very people who turn to it for solace from desperation.

The long conflict between Romanticism and Enlightenment ideas contained in art movements over the last two centuries is set to continue as new responses to the contemporary crises of capitalism try to ameliorate the situation or fundamentally change the system underpinning it. What is needed are new national debates on the role and function of art in maintaining or changing the structure of society. Debates similar to those described by an eyewitness to the Paris Commune, Villiers de l’Isle-Adam, who wrote: “a whole population is discussing serious matters, and for the first time workers can be heard exchanging their views on problems which up until now have been broached only by philosophers.” [13]

*

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

Notes:

[1] Arnold Hauser, The Social History of Art, Vol 3 (Vintage Books, 1958) p147
[2] D. Anthony White, Siqueiros: Biography of a Revolutionary Artist (Booksurge.com, 2008) p413
[3] Richard Murphy, Theorizing the Avant-Garde: Modernism, Expressionism, and the Problem of Postmodernity (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1999) p43
[4] Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (The New Press, 1999) p254
[5] Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (The New Press, 1999) p254
[6] Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (The New Press, 1999) p275
[7] Tom Wolfe, The Painted Word (Bantam Books, 1987) p26/7
[8] Eimear O’Connor and Virginia Teehan, Sean Keating: In Focus (Hunt Museum, 2009) p33
[9] Richard J. Evans, In Defence of History (Granta Books, 2000) p245
[10] Francis Wheen, How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World (Harper Perennial, 2004) p89/90
[11] Arnold Hauser, The Social History of Art, Vol 3 (Vintage Books, 1958) p147
[12] Arnold Hauser, The Social History of Art, Vol 3 (Vintage Books, 1958) p157
[13] Villiers de l’Isle-Adam, in Le Tribun du Peuple, May 10, 1871, quoted in Stewart Edwards, The Paris Commune 1871 (Quadrangle, 1977) p283

For a long time I have observed the rancor in modern American political discourse, and I have become concerned about where all of this anger and frustration is taking us.  In order for any society to function, there must be some form of government.  And in order for government to function, a certain percentage of the population has to be willing to submit to the authority of that government. 

For example, there will always be a few tax protesters out there that refuse to pay their taxes, but if every single American suddenly decided to stop paying taxes our system of taxation would collapse overnight.  Sure, the government could prosecute thousands of us, but if that crackdown still didn’t motivate people to start paying their taxes there is not much that could be done.  The only reason any form of government works is because enough people buy into the narrative that the government is legitimate and should be respected.  Here in the United States, fewer and fewer people are buying into that narrative.

The Pew Research Center, Gallup, and NPR have all run polls that show that faith in government is near all-time lows in the United States.  A lot of us have been let down so many times, and most of us simply do not “believe in America” like we once did.  Yes, we may still believe in “the people” or “the values” that the nation was founded upon, but at our core we just do not have faith in our governmental institutions.

But simply being disillusioned is not going to be enough to make us ungovernable.  Generations of Americans have complained about government, but they have always gone along with the system.  Unfortunately, things are changing in a fundamental way.  Instead of just complaining about government, Americans are being trained to think of government as the enemy.  We certainly witnessed a great deal of this under Barack Obama, and without a doubt Obama was absolutely terrible, but now under Donald Trump things have gone to an entirely new level.

We literally have millions of people in this country that truly believe that President Trump is the moral equivalent of Adolf Hitler and that the Republican Party is a bunch of fascists.  Of course some conservatives have been saying similar things about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democrats for years.  But with Trump we are witnessing something that we have never seen before.  The mainstream media is actually pounding the drumbeats of hatred for our president day after day, and when you say something long enough and loud enough some people are going to believe you.

If you truly believe that someone is just like Adolf Hitler, the logical response would be to do whatever is necessary to end the tyranny.  And this is precisely what we have seen from Antifa – their open embrace of violence is justified in their eyes because of the “enemy” that they are fighting.

And it isn’t just Trump that the left is targeting.  Just this week a deranged man in Ohio was arrested for threatening U.S. Congressman Brian Mast (image on the right)…

A Stuart man was arrested Tuesday after a federal complaint states he threatened U.S. Rep. Brian Mast’s children over the Trump administration’s child-separation immigration policy.

Laurence Key called Mast’s Washington office Monday and said, “I’m going to find the congressman’s kids and kill them,” an intern who took the call told the FBI, according to a federal complaint filed in U.S. District Court. “If you are going to separate kids at the border, I’m going to kill his kids.”

For those of you that don’t know, Congressman Mast is a double amputee.  He lost both legs serving our nation overseas, and he has a young girl and two young boys that are all younger than 8.

Are you starting to understand why more good people don’t run for office in this country?

Now that President Trump has signed an executive order that will keep immigrant families together at the border, the left has got to come up with something else to keep the rancor going.  So now we are being told that President Trump is inhumane for “putting entire families in cages” at the border, when that is not true at all.

But it really doesn’t matter what the truth is – the key is to keep the narrative going.

We have already reached a point where a certain percentage of the population is not going to recognize the legitimacy of our government no matter who is sent to the White House.  Millions upon millions of Americans refer to Donald Trump as “not my president”, and there are millions of us that never accepted the legitimacy of the Obama presidency.

So who would the American people accept?

Someone in the middle?

Sadly, the truth is that Barack Obama and Donald Trump are “the middle” today.  There is no longer a single set of values that unites our nation, and America is becoming more deeply divided with each passing day.

The only thing that is really holding us back from mass rioting and chaos on a constant basis is our massively inflated debt-fueled standard of living.

As long as people have plenty of food to eat and lots of entertainment to keep them sedated, a complete and total societal meltdown is unlikely.

But if our food and entertainment were to be taken away, the American people are primed for the biggest temper tantrum in the history of our nation.

We have never had a president that is hated as much as President Trump, and the mainstream media keeps feeding that hatred on a daily basis.  Whatever goes wrong over the next few years will be blamed on him, and the moment a real crisis hits we will start to see cities burn all over the country.

The second president of the United States, John Adams, once made the following statement…

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Today, the American people are not very religious and they certainly are not moral.  Suicide rates are absolutely soaring, and we are very deeply unhappy as a nation.

It would be wonderful if we could unite behind the values that this nation was built upon, but we discarded those values long ago.

So now we face a very uncertain future, and it is only a matter of time before someone lights a spark that sets off mass societal unrest all across the United States.

*

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 author.

“The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man.  Society highly values its normal man.  It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal.  Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years.  Our behavior is a function of our experience.  We act the way we see things.  If our experience is destroyed, our behavior will be destructive.  If our experience is destroyed, we have lost our own selves.” – R.D. Laing, The Politics of Experience, 1967

“The artist is the man who refuses initiation through education into the existing order, remains faithful to his own childhood being, and thus becomes ‘a human being in the spirit of all times, an artist.’” – Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death                      

Most suicides die of natural causes, slowly and in silence.  

But we hear a lot about the small number of suicides, by comparison, who kill themselves quickly by their own hands.  Of course their sudden deaths elicit shock and sadness since their deaths, usually so unexpected even when not a surprise, allow for no return.  Such sudden once-and-for-all endings are even more jarring in a high-tech world where people are subconsciously habituated to thinking that everything can be played back, repeated, and rewound, even lives.  

If the suicides are celebrities, the mass media can obsess over why they did it.  How shocking!  Wasn’t she at the peak of her career?  Didn’t he finally seem happy?  And then the speculative stories will appear about the reasons for the rise or fall of suicide rates, only to disappear as quickly as the celebrities are dropped by the media and forgotten by the public. 

The suicides of ordinary people will be mourned privately by their loved ones in their individual ways and in the silent recesses of their hearts.  A hush will fall over their departures that will often be viewed as accidental.

And the world will roll on as the earth absorbs the bodies and the blood. 

“Where’s it all going all this spilled blood,” writes the poet Jacques Prévert.  “Murder’s blood…war’s blood… blood of suicides…the earth that turns and turns with its great streams of blood.”

Of such suicides Albert Camus said,

“Dying voluntarily implies you have recognized, even instinctively, the ridiculous character of that habit [of living], the absence of any profound reason for living, the insane character of that daily agitation, and the uselessness of suffering.” 

He called this feeling the absurd, and said it was widespread and involved the feeling of being an alien or stranger in a world that couldn’t be explained and didn’t make sense.  Assuming this experience of the absurd, Camus wished to explore whether suicide was a solution to it.  He concluded that it wasn’t.

Like Camus, I am interested in asking what is the meaning of life.  “How to answer it?” he asked in The Myth of Sisyphus.  He added that “the meaning of life is the most urgent of questions.”  But I don’t want to explore his line of reasoning to his conclusions, whether to agree or disagree.  I wish, rather, to explore the reasons why so many people choose to commit slow suicide by immersing themselves in the herd mentality and following a way of life that leads to inauthenticity and despair; why so many people so easily and early give up their dreams of a life of freedom for a proverbial mess of pottage, which these days can be translated to mean a consumer’s life, one focused on staying safe by embracing conventional bromides and making sure to never openly question a system based on systemic violence in all its forms; why, despite all evidence to the contrary, so many people embrace getting and spending and the accumulation of wealth in the pursuit of a chimerical “happiness” that leaves them depressed and conscience dead.  Why so many people do not rebel but wish to take their places on this ship of fools.

So what can we say about the vast numbers of people who commit slow suicide by a series of acts and inactions that last a long lifetime and render them the living dead, those whom Thoreau so famously said were the mass of people who “lead lives of quiet desperation”?  Is the meaning of life for them simply the habit of living they fell into at the start of life before they thought or wondered what’s it all about?  Or is it the habit they embraced after shrinking back in fear from the disturbing revelations thinking once brought them?  Or did they ever seriously question their place in the lethal fraud that is organized society, what Tolstoy called the Social Lie?  Why do so many people kill their authentic selves and their consciences that could awaken them to break through the social habits of thought, speech, and action that lead them to live “jiffy lube” lives, periodically oiled and greased to smoothly roll down the conventional highway of getting and spending and refusing to resist the murderous actions of their government?

An unconscious despair rumbles beneath the frenetic surface of American society today.  An unspoken nothingness.  I think the Italian writer Robert Calasso says it well:

“The new society is an agnostic theocracy based on nihilism.” 

It’s as though we are floating on nothing, sustained by nothing, in love with nothing – all the while embracing any thing that a materialistic, capitalist consumer culture can throw at us.  We are living in an empire of illusions, propagandized and self-deluded.  Most people will tell you they are stressed and depressed, but will often add – “who wouldn’t be with the state of the world” – ignoring their complicity through the way they have chosen compromised, conventional lives devoid of the spirit of rebellion.

 I keep meeting people who, when I ask them how they are, will respond by saying, “I’m hanging in there.”  

Don’t common sayings intimate unconscious truths?  Hang – among its possible derivatives is the word “habit” and the meaning of “coming to a standstill.”  Stuck in one’s habits, dangling over nothing, up in the air, going nowhere, hanging by a string. Slow suicides. The Beatles’ sang it melodically:

“He’s a real nowhere man/Sitting in his nowhere land/Making all his nowhere plans for nobody/Doesn’t have a point of view/Knows not where he’s going to/Isn’t he a bit like you and me.” 

It’s a far cry from having “the world on a string,” as Harold Arlen wrote many years before.  

Maybe if we listen to how people talk or what popular culture throws up, we will learn more through creative associations than through all the theories the experts have to offer.  

There have been many learned tomes over the years trying to explain the act of suicide, an early and very famous one being Emile Durkheim’s groundbreaking sociological analysis Suicide (1897).  In thousands of books and articles other thinkers have approached the subject from various perspectives – psychological, philosophical, biological, etc.  They contain much truth and a vast amount of data that appeal to the rational mind seeking general explanations.  But in the end, general explanations are exactly that – general – while a mystery usually haunts the living whose loved ones have killed themselves.

But what about the slow suicides, those D. H. Lawrence called the living dead (don’t let “the living dead eat you up”), those who have departed the real world for a conscienceless complacency from which they can cast aspersions on those whose rebellious spirits give them little rest.  Where are the expert disquisitions about them?

We’ve had more than a century of pseudo-scientific studies of suicide and the world has gotten much worse.  More than a century of psychotherapy and people have grown progressively more depressed.  Large and increasing numbers are drugged to the teeth with pharmaceutical drugs and television and the internet and cell phones and shopping and endless talk about food and diets and sports and nothing. Talk to talk, surface to surface. Pundits pontificate daily in streams of endless bullshit for which they are paid enormous sums as they smile with their fake whiter-than-white teeth flashing from their makeup masks.  People actually listen to these fools to “inform” themselves. They even watch television news and think they know what is happening in the world.  We are drowning in a “universe of disembodied data,” as playwright John Steppling has so aptly phrased it.  People obsessively hover over their cell phones, searching for the key that will unlock the cells they have locked themselves in. Postliteracy, mediated reality, and digital dementia have become the norm.  Minds are packaged and commodified.  Perhaps you think I exaggerate, but I feel that madness is much more the norm today than when Laing penned his epigraphic comment.

Not stark raving screaming madness, just a slow, whimpering acceptance of an insane society whose very fabric is toxic and which continues its God-ordained mission of spreading death and destruction around the world in the name of freedom and democracy, while so many of its walking dead citizens measure out their lives with coffee spoons.  A nice madness, you could say, a pleasant, depressed and repressed madness.  A madness in which people might say with T. S. Eliot’s J. Alfred Prufrock (if they still read or could remember): 

“I have measured out my life with coffee spoons…And I have seen the eternal Footman hold my coat, / and snicker, / And in short, I was afraid.” 

But why are so many so afraid?  Everyone has fears, but so many normal people seem extremely fearful, so fearful they choose to blend into the social woodwork so they don’t stand out as dissenters or oddballs.  They kill their authentic selves; become conscience-less.  And they do this in a society where their leaders are hell-bent on destroying the world and who justify their nuclear madness at every turn. I think Laing was right that this goes back to our experience.  When genuine experience is denied or mystified (it’s now disappeared into digital reality), real people disappear.  Laing wrote: 

In order to rationalize our industrial-military complex, we have to destroy our capacity to see clearly any more what is in front of, and to imagine what is beyond, our noses.  Long before a thermonuclear war can come about, we have had to lay waste our sanity.  We begin with the children.  It is imperative to catch them in time. Without the most thorough and rapid brainwashing their dirty minds would see through our dirty tricks.  Children are not yet fools, but we shall turn them into imbeciles like ourselves, with high I. Q.’s if possible.   From the moment of birth, when the Stone Age baby confronts the twentieth century mother, the baby is subjected to these forces of violence, called love, as its mother and father, as their parents and their parents before them, have been.  These forces are mainly concerned with destroying most of it potentialities, and on the whole this enterprise is successful.  By the time the new human is fifteen or so, we are left with a being like ourselves, a half-crazed creature more or less adjusted to a mad world.  This is normality in our present age. Love and violence, properly speaking, are polar opposites.  Love lets the other be, but with affection and concern.  Violence attempts to constrain the other’s freedom, to force him to act in the way we desire, but with ultimate lack of concern, with indifference to the other’s own existence or destiny.  We are effectively destroying ourselves by violence masquerading as love…We live equally out of our bodies and out of our minds.

So yes, I do think most people are victims.  No one chooses their parents, or to be born into poverty, or to be discriminated against for one’s race, etc.  No one chooses to have their genuine experience poisoned from childhood.  No one chooses to be born into a mad society.  This is all true.  Some are luckier than others.  Suicides, fast and slow, are victims.  But not just victims.  This is not about blame, but understanding.  For those who commit to lives of slow suicide, to the squelching of their true selves and their consciences in the face of a rapacious and murderous society, there is always the chance they can break with the norm and go sane.  Redemption is always possible.  But it primarily involves overcoming the fear of death, a fear that manifests itself in the extreme need to preserve one’s life, so-called social identity, and sense of self by embracing social conventions, no matter how insane they may be or whether or not they bring satisfaction or fulfillment.  Whether or not they give life a meaning that goes deep. 

But for those who have taken their lives and are no longer among us, hope is gone.  But we can learn from their tragedies if we are truthful.   For them the fear of life was primary, and death seemed like an escape from that fear. Life was too much for them.  Why?  We must ask.  So they chose a life-in-death approach through fast suicide.  Everyone is joined to them in that fear, just as everyone is joined by the fear of death.  It is a question of which dominates, and when, and how much courage we can muster to live daringly.  The fear of death leads one to constrict one’s life in the safe surround of conventional society in the illusion that such false security will save one in the end.  Death is too much for them.  So they accept a death-in-life approach that I call slow suicide.  

But in the end as in the beginning and throughout our lives, there is really no escape.  The more alive we are, the closer death feels because really living involves risks and living outside the cocoon of the social lie. Mr. Pumpkin Head might seize you, whether he is conceived as your boss, an accident, disease, social ostracism, or some government assassin.  But the deader we feel, the further away death seems because we feel safe.  Pick your poison.  

But better yet, perhaps there is no need to choose if we can regain our genuine experience that parents and society, for different reasons, conspire to deny us.  Could the meaning of our lives be found, not in statements or beliefs, but in true experience?  Most people think of experience as inner or outer.  This is not true.  It is a form of conventional brainwashing that makes us schizoid. It is the essence of the neuro-biological materialism that reduces humans to unfree automatons. Proffered as the wisdom of the super intelligent, it is sheer stupidity.   

All experience is in-between, not the most eloquent of phrasing, I admit, but accurate.  Laing, a psychiatrist, puts it in the same way as do the mystics and those who embrace the Tao.  He says,

“The relation of my experience to behavior is not that of inner to outer.  My experience is not inside my head.  My experience of this room is outside in this room.  To say that my experience is intrapsychic is to presuppose that there is a psyche that my experience is in.  My psyche is my experience, my experience is my psyche.” 

Reverie, imagination, prayer, dream, etc. are as much outer as inner, they are modalities of experience that exist in-between.  We live in-between, and if we could experience that, we would realize the meaning of life and our connection to all living beings, including those our government massacres daily, and we would awaken our consciences to our complicity in the killing.  We would realize that the victims of the American killing machine are human beings like us; are us, and we, them.  We would rebel.  

Thoreau said a life without principle was not worth living.  Yet for so many of the slow suicides the only principals they ever had were those they had in high school.  Such word confusion is understandable when illiteracy is the order of the day and spelling passé. Has anyone when in high school ever had Thoreau’s admonition drummed into his head:

“The ways by which you may get money almost without exception lead downward. To have done anything by which you earned money merely is to have been truly idle or worse.” 

Of course not, since getting a “good” living is never thought to involve living in an honest, inviting, and honorable way.  It is considered a means to an end, the end being a consumer’s paradise. 

“As for the means of living,” Thoreau added, “it is wonderful how indifferent men of all classes are about it, even reformers, so called – whether they inherit, or earn, or steal it.” 

Is it any wonder so many people end up committing slow suicide?  “Is it that men are too much disgusted with their own experience to speak of it?”

What the hell –TGIH!

I believe the story has it that when he was in jail for refusing the poll tax that supported slavery and the Mexican-American war, Thoreau was visited by his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson, who asked him, “Henry, what are you doing in there?”  To which Thoreau responded, “Ralph, what are you doing out there?”  Today, however, most folks don’t realize that being outside their cells is being in them, and such imprisonment is far from principled.  That’s not a text message they’re likely to receive.

I recently met a woman, where or when I can’t recall.  It might have been when walking on the open road or falling in a dreaming hole.  She told me “if you look through a window, you can see the world outside.  If you look in a mirror, you can see yourself outside.  If you look into the outside world, you can see everyone inside out.  When the inside is seen outside and the outside is seen inside, you will know what you face.  Everything becomes simple then,” as she looked straight through me and my face fell off.

*

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/.

Fighters of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and the Tiger Forces have liberated the villages of Musaykah and al-Dallafa from militant groups in northeastern Daraa. Thus, they de-facto besieged the militant-held are of al-Lajat and cut off supply lines to it.

According to pro-militant sources, at least 7 government fighters were killed and a vehicle and a battle tank were destroyed in the clashes.

On June 19, units of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) attacked an SAA position in the area of al-Fukharah in northern Latakia. Nine soldiers and officers of the SAA were killed.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other militant groups continue to undermine a de-escalation zones agreement reached by Turkey, Iran and Russia in the Astana format. The further escalation of actions by militants in northern Latakia, southern Idlib and western Aleppo may force the SAA and its allies to implement a military option to put an end to these attacks.

On June 20, the Syrian state media announced that the SAA had cleared 2,500km2 between Palmyra and Humaymah in the province of Homs from ISIS cells. Government troops secured at least 14 settlements during these efforts. Separately, the SAA cleared 1,200km2 between the areas of Faydat ibn Muiny’a, the T-2 station, M’aizliyah and Dahrat Wadi al-Miyah in the southern part of Deir Ezzor province.

The Syrian military also deployed additional reinforcements in the border town of al-Bukamal, which has recently faced a series of attacks by ISIS.

Government forces also achieved notable gains against ISIS cells in eastern al-Suwayda where they secured 11 various locations, including settlements and important hills. Despite this, hundreds of ISIS members are still reportedly operating in the desert area.

Representatives of the Syrian government and opposition are expected to have a meeting on a constitutional committee on July 10, according to Qadri Jamil, a leader of the so-called Moscow platform of the Syrian opposition. However, there is still a problem with forming the list of opposition representatives. In other words, some Turkish-backed groups are ignoring this initiative.

Seaprately, Russian Presidential Envoy for Syria Alexander Lavrentyev said that the Kurds will be represented in the constitutional committee.

“There will be Kurdish members of the opposition and government delegation, as well as civil society members. We [call] for refraining from attempts to divide the Kurds into pro-Turkish, pro-Syrian ones and those associated with the People’s Protection Units and the Democratic Union Party that Ankara views negatively,” he said.

The establishing of a committee tasked with drafting a new Syrian constitution is one of the key points agreed in the framework of diplomatic efforts by Damascus, Ankara, Teheran and Moscow to solve the current crisis in Syria by peaceful means.

*

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

Latvia is actively preparing for one of the most important political events of the year. Parliamentary elections will take place on October 6, 2018. Submission of the lists of candidates for the 13th Saeima elections will take place very soon – from July 18 to August 7, 2018. But the elections campaign as well as all political life in the country face some problems which require additional attention from the authorities. And these problems spoil the image of Latvia as a democratic state which respects the rights of its people.

This is a well-known fact, that the image of the state is composed of several components: it heavily depends on its foreign and domestic policy directions. The more so, internal events very often influence its foreign policy and vice versa.

Latvia considers itself a democratic state and tries to prove it by all possible means. But all attempts fail because of a serious unsolved problem – violation of human rights in Latvia.

It is not a secret that about one third of Latvians are ethnic Russians. Their right to speak and be educated in their native language is constantly violated. This problem is in the centre of attention of such international organizations as OSCE and EU. This fact makes Latvian authorities, which conducts anti Russia’s policy, extremely nervous.

Thus, the Latvian parliament recently passed in the final reading amendments to the Education Law and the Law on General Education under which schools of ethnic minorities will have to start gradual transition to Latvian-only secondary education in the 2019/2020 academic year. It is planned that, starting from 2021/2022 school year, all general education subjects in high school (grades 10-12) will be taught only in the Latvian language, while children of ethnic minorities will continue learning their native language, literature and subjects related to culture and history in the respective minority language.

Hundreds joined a march in the centre of Riga in June to support Russian-language schools in Latvia. The event was held under the slogan: “For Russian schools, for the right to learn in native language,” as the government wants to switch the language of the education system to Latvian.

The European Parliament deputies called for support of Russian education in Latvia. 115 people have signed the joint declaration that will be forwarded to the Latvian Sejm and government. The declaration is signed by representatives of 28 EU countries, and almost all parliamentary factions. Every 7th deputy supported the necessity of the Russian school education in Latvia. The document authors marked that this is unprecedented expression of solidarity towards the national minorities, especially Russian residents of the EU. Authors of the letter sharply criticize the education reform that takes away from children of national minorities the right to study in their native language.

On the other hand the parliament contradicts itself by rejecting a bill allowing election campaigning only in Latvian.

The matter is in parliamentary election will take part not only Latvians, speaking Lantvian, but Latvians, who speak Russian. Their voices are of great importance either. The authorities had to recognize this and tempered justice with mercy.

After years of oppressing Russian speaking population and violating their rights Saeima committee this month rejected a bill allowing election campaigning only in Latvian.

It turned out that politicians need ethnic Russians to achieve their political goals. They suddenly remembered that Campaigning Law should not promote discrimination because publicly active people should not have problems using the state language.

“Wise” deputies understand that Russian speaking children are not going to participate in the elections while Russian speaking adults can seriously damage political plans. Only this can explain the controversy in the Parliament’s decisions.

In Russia Riga’s decision to shift the medium of learning to the Latvian language for the schools of national minorities is considered as unacceptable and could cause introduction of special economic measures against Latvia as well as condemnation by the international community.

So, Latvia’s on-going war against its residents also could become a reason for deterioration in attitudes not only with Russia but with EU and OSCE that will have unpleasant economic and political and even security consequences for Latvia. It is absolutely clear that making unfriendly steps towards own citizens and neighboring states, Latvia cannot expect a normal attitude in return.

Featured image: First large meeting of One Democratic State Campaign (ODSC) with Israeli Jews in Jaffa: Awad Abdel Fattah, Jeff Halpern, Ilan Pappe and Yoav Haifawi [Jeff Halper]

A Trump political initiative for peace is looming on the horizon, but no one expects that “Ultimate Deal” to be, in any sense, a “Palestinian political initiative”.

It is difficult to formulate a Palestinian “political initiative”, period. Palestinians are not free political agents.

A Palestinian citizen of Israel (example, Haneen Zoabi) is not a free agent politically, even as a member of the Israeli parliament (Knesset). And neither, of course, are Palestinian leaders jailed by Israel (example, Marwan Barghouti or Ahmad Sa’adat or Khalida Jarrar) or Palestinian leaders in exile (example, Ali Abunimah, author of ‘One Country’ or Ramzy Baroud or Salman Abu Sitta) or, for that matter, Mahmoud Abbas himself, whose own people are now no longer willing to listen to him, and who is certainly not a free agent politically speaking.

But if such a Palestinian political initiative were to be put forward (with a little help from friends of Palestine such as the Israeli Jews of One Democratic State Campaign), the receptivity to such an initiative by the Jewish Israeli public is going to be minimal, at least initially, whether those advancing such an initiative are Palestinians or Israeli Jews or both.

The Israeli Jewish public is thoroughly brainwashed, not least through Israel’s education system. An honest discussion of Zionism and Jewish identity in the context of the Nakba is being slowly and painfully conducted in Israel by Zochrot.

As Ilan Binyamin (Pappe) notes on Facebook (in the comments section of this post link):

It is not easy to bring a Palestinian initiative to the Jewish society… But this is new — never done before- and is the only way forward (together with the resistance on the ground and B D S) [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement]

But that’s exactly what Pappe and co-founders of the ‘One Democratic State Campaign’ are doing, as Jeff Halpern explains:

Our initiative to create a movement for one democratic state in Palestine/Israel, the only political settlement that is substantially just and workable, continues. After a number of meetings with Palestinians, we held our first meeting with Israeli Jews, about 20 in number, in Jaffa.

…Activism on the issue of Palestine/Israel, as over any issue, cannot succeed in resolving the situation without a political program. As the PA continues its decline towards complete collapse and Trump’s “Ultimate Deal” of permanent apartheid looms, articulating a just political program and getting activists and their organizations world-wide behind it become the most urgent task.

How difficult can formulating and advancing a Palestinian political initiative by this Campaign in a Jaffa headquarters be?

Well, the initiative is barely off the ground and the reaction, as gleaned on Facebook in the comments to Jeff Halper’s post are heartfelt and also lighthearted, referring to what the participants at the meeting (in the photo below) are wearing:

Rafael Balulu:

בגישה הזו זה בחיים לא יצליח. רוב המוחלט של הישראלים והפלסטינים שחיים פה קונים בגדים בביג פאשן והגישה שלכם נעה בין מחסן הקיבוץ ליד שנייה של ויצ”ו. זו לא צורה רצינית לגשת ככה לשלום. This attitude will never work. The absolute majority of the Israelis and Israelis who live here buy clothes in big fashion and your attitude moves between the kibbutz warehouse next to a second of Wichita. It’s not a serious way to come in peace.

And pointing out the difficulty of the endeavor:

Mark Klein: Finding 20 Israeli Jews (of any gender) who agree with this was probably hard enough.

Formulating a political plan on how to reunite the three territories of partitioned Palestine — The Jewish state of Israel on the one hand and the Palestinian territories it has been “occupying” militarily for the past fifty-one years — is no easy undertaking, no matter who initiates it.

It is easier for Israeli Jews than for Palestinians to reach the Jewish Israeli public, logistically, in terms of access to documents and media, as well as psychologically and linguistically.

Nevertheless, reaching the Jewish Israeli public with a pro-Palestinian initiative, and especially that embraces one democratic state, is far from an easy task, because it means an end to the Apartheid Jewish state.

Another Israeli Jew who takes a pro-Palestine position is Miko Peled, author of ‘The General’s Son’ (himself — he is the son of a prominent major general in the Israeli army), who, unlike his father, does not believe that a two-state political solution is either “viable or just”.

He speaks about his “journey” of understanding (or rather of “conversion” away from Zionism) in the following terms:

The longer the journey continues — and it still continues — the more I discover, the more I learn, the more I…gain understanding and appreciation for the Palestinian experience, for the Palestinian reality, for Palestine itself as a country, as a nation, as a culture.

Needless to say, Peled’s political position resonates with Palestinians much more than it does with his fellow Jews in Israel, who are largely among those who see it as “quixotic”:

Now he [Peled] is fighting for what he calls “Jewish values.” His aim: an Israel that embraces Palestinians as full, equal political partners. Nothing less than a Republic of Palestine-Israel. It is ambitious. Some would say quixotic.

Judaism as a religion and Jewish identity or “Jewishness” are not the same, but they are linked, hence the too-frequent conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism.

Activists, whether Jewish or not, who want to discuss or point out that link as the core problem of Zionist ideology and the Jewish state of Israel often find themselves in trouble. They are often viewed as having obsessions and identity issues (if they are Jews) or outright bigots and racists or as “skirting” bigotry.

Zionism is and has been a Jewish enterprise, so much so that Judeo-centrism still frames Western political approach to the problem of Israel, rendering Palestinians powerless and invisible politically.

Pervading this mindset is an understandable sensitivity to Jewish suffering in history.

What’s not understandable is when that sensitivity turns into a blind spot that makes even Israeli Zionist Jews (like Ari Shavitz, for example) who admit the Nakba, only to draw the line at one democratic state — i.e., balk at Palestinian return to their homeland, thus dehumanizing Palestinian suffering in the process, and elevating Jewish suffering as unique.

*

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.

There’s nothing fair and balanced about the Commission of Inquiry (COI) on Syria since established in August 2011 – around four months after the Obama regime launched war on the country for regime change, conflict in its 8th year, resolution nowhere in sight.

The COI is mandated to investigate human rights abuses in Syria. Since established, it operated largely as an imperial tool.

Its reports bear testimony to hostility toward the nation’s sovereignty and liberating struggle – most often blaming government forces for high crimes committed by US-supported terrorists, ignoring horrific Pentagon-led terror-bombing for the past four years, including the rape and destruction of Raqqa, massacring countless thousands of civilians on the phony pretext of combating ISIS America supports.

Earlier, Syrian UN envoy Bashar al-Jaafari accused the COI of “deliberately blowing things out of proportion when displaying its findings, also fully disregarding or downplaying core issues,” adding:

“There are blood-curdling scenes that flagrantly contravene the Syrians’ dignity and human rights regarding the crimes of the armed terrorist groups, ranging from eating human flesh, cutting throats, mutilating bodies, beheadings on sectarian and confessional grounds, throwing bodies from rooftops to committing hundreds of suicide bombings using car bombs in populated areas, recruiting children, abducting and slaughtering clergymen, assassinating scholars in mosques, issuing instigative fatwas on ‘sexual jihad,’ killing children” indiscriminately and much more.

COI members understate or ignore these high crimes, focusing mainly on falsely accusing Syrian forces of wrongdoing they had nothing to do with.

On June 20, a COI report falsely called the siege of Eastern Ghouta “the longest…in modern history, lasting over five years…”

The COI failed to explain US-supported terrorists held enclave residents captive throughout the April 2013 – April 2018 period.

Nor was anything said about Israel’s illegal siege of Gaza, virtually imprisoning its population – ongoing for 11 years since mid-2007, subjecting two million people to suffocating conditions, three wars of aggression, intermittent IDF terror-bombing, and cross-border incursions by the ruthless Olmert and Netanyahu regimes.

Syrian and allied forces, aided by Russian airpower, liberated Eastern Ghouta from US/Israeli-supported terrorists. The COI report merely referred to the campaign as “recapturing” the enclave.

False accusations followed, claiming government forces “carried out aerial and ground bombardments which claimed the lives of hundreds of Syrian men, women, and children,” accusing Damascus of “war crimes (by) launching indiscriminate attacks, and deliberately attacking protected objects.”

Great care was taken by Syrian forces and Russia’s aerial campaign to avoid or at least minimize civilian casualties – polar opposite how Washington, NATO and Israel operate, massacring civilians indiscriminately, attacking them as legitimate targets.

Three Israeli wars of aggression on Gaza since December 2008, along with the US-led rape and destruction of Mosul and Raqqa alone reveal the disdain of both countries for the laws of war, as well as the fundamental rights of noncombatants.

US-led NATO and Israeli wars of aggression bear testimony to their ruthlessness. No COI exists to investigate their war crimes, no demand for them to be held accountable.

Western and UN Big Lies haunted Syria throughout years of war, a government and its military combatting US/Israeli-supported terrorists, struggling to protect and preserve its sovereignty.

COI chairman Paulo Pinheiro:

“It is completely abhorrent that besieged civilians were indiscriminately attacked, and systematically denied food and medicine. What is clear from the terminal phase of this siege is that no warring party acted to protect the civilian population” – wrongfully pointing finger mainly at government and allies forces.

Fact: Testimonies by freed Eastern Ghouta residents explained that US/Israeli-supported terrorists held them oppressively as human shields.

Fact: Anyone trying to flee the enclave was shot at. One resident said there was no flour, bread, or water under captivity.

Fact: A woman said trapped residents wanted Syrian army forces to liberate them. Another woman said:

“Look at our children, bare feet, hungry, and without clothes, but (the terrorists) showed no mercy. They kept the commodities in stores for their benefit while our children starved to death, and they fired at us…when we wanted to get out.”

Where’s the outrage from Pinheiro and other COI members? All of the above information was suppressed in the one-sided anti-Syria report.

While accusing terrorists called “rebels” of crimes, to sanitize them and their atrocities, along with concealing their use as imperial foot soldiers, the COI report focused mainly on unfairly criticizing Syrian and allied forces, ignoring their liberating struggle against US/Israeli-supported terrorists and Pentagon-led terror-bombing – massacring civilians, destroying vital infrastructure, committing Nuremberg-level high crimes gone unpunished.

The CIO report concealed what should have been featured. Pinheiro and other commission members serve US-led Western imperial interests.

They failed to expose Washington’s war without mercy or demand Obama and Trump regime officials be held accountable.

When America goes to war, victims are blamed for its high crimes. Largely imported cutthroat killer terrorists are called “rebels” or anti-government opposition forces.

Ruling authorities in Syria and other nations attacked by Washington, NATO, Israel, and their imperial partners are vilified for defending themselves.

Since March 2011, government and allied forces have gone all-out to liberate the Syrian Arab Republic from US/Israeli-supported terrorists – wanting the nation’s sovereignty protected, its territorial integrity preserved.

They deserve high praise for courage in the face of extreme adversity, not unjustifiable criticism from an imperial commission established to vilify them unjustly.

*

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

Featured image: European refugee camps, Syria 1945 (Source: TruePublica)

Wars, violence and conflict were the main drivers that uprooted record numbers of men, women and children worldwide last year, making a new global refugees crisis more critical than ever, according to a UNHCR report published yesterday. But have we forgotten what Middle-Eastern countries did for European refugees after WW2?

The UN Refugee Agency’s annual Global Trends study found 68.5 million people had been driven from their homes across the world at the end of 2017, more people than the population of Gt Britain or France.

Refugees who fled their countries to escape conflict and persecution accounted for 25.4 million. This is 2.9 million more than in 2016, also the biggest increase UNHCR has ever seen in a single year.

New displacement is also growing, with 16.2 million people displaced during 2017 itself. That is an average of one person displaced every two seconds.

Overwhelmingly, it is developing countries that are most affected.

Contrary to what many believe, four out of five refugees globally remain in countries next door to their own and 85% of the population of the wealthy global north do not contribute or support them in any way.

Breaking some of the numbers down reveals some other statistics.

Of the 25.4 million refugees on the run from conflict, just over 5 million are Palestinians under the care of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees or UNRWA.

Two-thirds of all refugees come from just five countries with Turkey being the world’s leading refugee hosting country in terms of absolute numbers, with a population of 3.5 million refugees, mainly Syrians. In all, 63 per cent of all refugees under UNHCR’s responsibility were in just 10 countries.

To put this in context. The greatest calamity in human history was World WarII. That event created 40 million refugees. Today, there are 70 per cent more refugees than in 1945. In 1950 there were still over 11 million refugees displaced. Around the same time, 750,000 Palestinians became refugees with the establishment of the state of Israel.

From there, wars and conflict continued over the decades to create millions more refugees.

The partition of India and Pakistan created 14 million refugees, the Bangladeshi war of Independence in 1971 created 11 million refugees. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 created 6.3 million and a further 5.7 million were displaced in the 1992 Mozambique civil war. The conflict following the breakup of Yugoslavia and Bosnia in 1995 caused 2.5 million to become refugees. Rwanda created 3.5 million more in 1994.

The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 saw millions of ethnic Russians flow into Russia from the newly independent states and there were many more such as East Temor, 540,000, Kosovo 350,000, Vietnam 800,000, civil wars in Central America over a decade saw 2 million. Georgia, Croatia, Armenia – the list goes on. We have become desensitised to all this despair and hardship.

What We Have Forgotten

In World WarII there were many desperate people from Europe trying to escape the bloodiest conflict ever. At the height of that conflict, the Middle East Relief and Refugee Administration (MERRA) operated camps in Syria, Egypt and Palestine where people from across Europe sought refuge.

The archival record provides limited information on the demographics of World War II refugee camps in the Middle East. The information that is available, however, shows that camp officials expected the camps to shelter more refugees over time. Geographic information on location of camps come from records of the International Social Service, American Branch records, in the Social Welfare History Archives at the University of Minnesota.

MERRA was part of a growing network of refugee camps around the world that were operated in a collaborative effort by national governments, military officials and domestic and international aid organizations. Social welfare groups including the International Migration Service, the Red Cross, the Near East Foundation and the Save the Children Fund all pitched in to help MERRA and, later, the United Nations to run the camps.

Once registered, recent arrivals wound their way through a thorough medical inspection. Refugees headed toward what were often makeshift hospital facilities — usually tents. They were inspected and washed until officials believed they were sufficiently healthy enough to join the main population without bringing disease.

After medical officials were satisfied refugees were split up into living quarters for families, unaccompanied children, single men and single women.

Naturally, food was an essential part of refugees’ daily lives. Refugees in MERRA camps during World War II typically received a half portion of Army rations each day. Officials acknowledged that when possible, rations should be supplemented with foods that reflected refugees’ national customs and religious practices.

Greek refugees who lived in a refugee camp in Moses Wells, Egypt from 1945 to 1948 reunite with family members on their island home of Samos

Camps that weren’t pressed for space were able to provide room for refugees to prepare meals. In Aleppo, for example, a room was reserved in the camp for women to gather and make macaroni with flour that they received from camp officials.

Camp officials did try to create opportunities for refugees to use their skills in carpentry, painting, shoemaking and wool spinning so that they could stay occupied and earn a little income from other refugees who could afford their services.

Some camps even had opportunities for refugees to receive vocational training. At El Shatt and Moses Wells, hospital staff was in such short supply that the refugee camps doubled as nursing training programs for Yugoslavian and Greek refugees and locals alike.

The head nurses of the training program hoped they could eventually garner formal accreditation so that anyone who finished the program would be licensed to practice nursing after leaving the camps — at the time, nursing students in refugee camps were only able to treat patients because they were “emergency nurses” operating by necessity in wartime.

Rows of tents in a World War II refugee camp in Nuseirat, Palestine

MERRA officials agreed that it was best for children in refugee camps to have regular routines. Education was a crucial part of that routine. For the most part, classrooms in Middle Eastern refugee camps had too few teachers and too many students, inadequate supplies and suffered from overcrowding. But there was a global war raging at the time.

And Yet

Today, it should not be forgotten that it was the global north that caused this latest massive migration of human misery by attacking Afghanistan then Iraq, Libya and Syria and not intervening in other conflicts for good and proper humanitarian reasons such as Yemen and Somalia.

The Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi warned repeatedly in 2010-11 that the country acted as a cork to the African migration bottle and must not be attacked – but Britain, France and America through NATO decided that oil was more important. How wrong they were. On September 15th, 2011, David Cameron and French leader Sarkozy arrogantly declared victory in Tripoli, which triggered a refugee crisis and aided the rise of Isis that then led to a wave of terrorist attacks across Europe.

The migration of people from these countries has since completely destabilised the European Union, helped Brexit become a reality and divided Western populations as seen through the appointment of hard-right political leaders in places like Italy, Austria, Poland and Hungary.

And yet, through all this, we, in the global north have completely forgotten what Middle Eastern countries such as Syria and Palestine did for Europeans who were on the run from fascists and Nazis not so long ago. We have forgotten how Europeans were treated given the appalling lack of post-war resources, certainly better than the other way round. The vast majority of Europeans were, of course, repatriated to their homelands in the end, but as mentioned earlier, in 1950, there were still over 11 million refugees displaced from their homes and families. Europeans were treated like human beings by Muslim host nations and irrespective of your personal feelings about the current refugee crisis, we should not forget that it was our tax dollars/pounds/euros that caused much of the misery we have in the world today – and we should bear some of that responsibility. That doesn’t mean Europe should be accepting millions of refugees where they can barely look after their own citizens, but it does mean that safe harbour and dignified treatment should be the very minimum provided in some meaningful way.

Fierce clashes between the Saudi-led coalition’s forces and the Houthis are ongoing near the port city of al-Hudaydah in western Yemen.

On June 19, the coalition’s forces once again entered the al-Hudaydah airport claiming that this time they really captured it. However, they were not able to establish full control of this important facility because of a fierce resistance from the Houthis. On June 20, clashes in the area continued.

Since June 13, when the coalition kicked off its advance on al-Hudaydah, pro-Saudi sources had claimed at least 3 times that the airport is in the hands of the coalition. All these claims appeared to be false.

The control of the airport is an important if the coalition wants to storm the city from the southern direction.

At the same time, coalition-led fighters continued their attempt to outflank al-Hudaydah from the eastern direction, engaging the Houthis in the Matahin square area. While the square remains contested, the highway linking al-Hudaydah and the Yemeni capital, Sanaa, is already closed because of the clashes.

The only save highway from the besieged city is heading in the northern direction.

According to pro-Houthi sources, up to 40 vehicles of the coalition-led forces have been destroyed and up to 250 fighters of the coalition-led forces have been killed over the past few days. These claims are partly confirmed by released photos and videos.

In turn, the Saudi-led bloc expanded its bombing campaign on the besieged city. Airstrikes aimed at alleged positions of the Houthis are also destroying the civilian infrastructure and cause civilian casualties.

Pro-Saudi sources provide contradictory numbers, but in general, they claim that about 30 strikes hit the city and its vicinity on a daily basis.

On June 18, Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s minister for foreign affairs demanded from the Houthis to withdraw “unconditionally” from Hudaydah. Then, he claimed that the coalition’s forces kept the Hudaydah Sanaa highway “open for the Houthi militias to withdraw”. However, by June 20, the highway had been closed because of clashes. This is another signal that the sides can hardly find a solution to de-escalate the situation.

Separately, the Houthis launched a Badr-1 rocket at an oil facility of the Saudi state company Aramco in the Abha area of the province of Asir. Another rocket, Qaher M2, was launched at positions of the coalition’s forces in the western Yemeni coast.

As the battle for al-Hudaydah is developing the Houthis will likely expand their missile strikes at the coalition’s forces in Yemen and important targets in Saudi Arabia.

*

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,

In this column I am going to use three of the current top news stories to illustrate the disconnect that is everywhere in the Western mind.

Let us begin with the family separation issue. The separation of children from immigrant/refugee/asylum parents has caused such public outcry that President Trump has backed off his policy and signed an executive order terminating family separation.

The horror of children locked up in warehouses operated by private businesses making a profit off of US taxpayers, while parents are prosecuted for illegal entry, woke even self-safisfied “exceptional and indispensable” Americans out of their stupor. It is a mystery that the Trump regime chose to discredit its border enforcement policy by separating families. Perhaps the policy was intended to deter illegal immigration by sending the message that if you come to America your children will be taken from you.

The question is: How is it that Americans can see and reject the inhumane border control policy and not see the inhumanity of family destruction that has been the over-riding result of Washington’s destruction in whole or part of seven or eight countries in the 21st century?

Millions of people have been separated from families by death inflicted by Washington, and for almost two decades protests have been almost nonexistent. No public outcry stopped George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump from clear and indisputable illegal acts defined in international law established by the US itself as war crimes against the inhabitants of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. We can add to this an eighth example: The military attacks by the US armed and supported neo-Nazi puppet state of Ukraine against the breakaway Russian provinces.

The massive deaths, destruction of towns, cities, infrastructure, the maiming, physical and mental, the dislocation that has sent millions of refugees fleeing Washington’s wars to overrun Europe, where governments consist of a collection of idiot stooges who supported Washington’s massive war crimes in the Middle East and North Africa, produced no outcry comparable to Trump’s immigration policy.

How can it be that Americans can see inhumanity in the separation of families in immigration enforcement but not in the massive war crimes committed against peoples in eight countries? Are we experiencing a mass psychosis form of cognitive dissonance?

We now move to the second example: Washington’s withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council. On November 2, 1917, two decades prior to the holocaust attributed to National Socialist Germany, British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour wrote to Lord Rothschild that Great Britain supported Palestine becoming a Jewish homeland. In other words, the corrupt Balfour dismissed the rights and lives of the millons of Palestinians who had occupied Palestine for two millennia or more. What were these people compared to Rothschild’s money? They were nothing to the British Foreign Secretary.

Balfour’s attitude toward the rightful inhabitants of Palestine is the same as the British attitude toward the peoples in every colony or territority over which British power prevailed. Washington learned this habit and has consistently repeated it.

Just the other day Trump’s UN ambassador Nikki Haley, the crazed and insane lapdog of Israel, announced that Washington had withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, because it is “a cesspool of political bias” against Israel.

What did the UN Human Rights Council do to warrent this rebuke from Israel’s agent, Nikki Haley? The Human Rights Council denounced Israel’s policy of murdering Palestinians—medics, young children, mothers, old women and old men, fathers, teenagers.

To critize Israel, no matter how great and obvious is Israel’s crime, means that you are an anti-semite and a “holocaust denier.” For Nikki Haley and Israel, this places the UN Human Rights Council in the Hitler-worshipping Nazi ranks.

The absurdity of this is obvious, but few, if any, can detect it. Yes, the rest of the world, with the exception of Israel, has denounced Washington’s decision, not only Washington’s foes and the Palestinians, but also Washington’s puppets and vassals as well.

To see the disconnect, it is necessary to pay attention to the wording of the denunciations of Washington.

A spokesperson for the European Union said that Washington’s withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council “risks undermining the role of the US as a champion and supporter of democracy on the world stage.” Can anyone image a more idiotic statement? Washington is known as a supporter of dictatorships that adhere to Washington’s will. Washington is known as a destroyer of every Latin American democracy that elected a president who represented the people of the country and not the New York banks, US commerical interests, and US foreign policy.

Name one place where Washington has been a supporter of democracy. Just to speak of the most recent years, the Obama regime overthrew the democratically elected government of Honduras and imposed its puppet. The Obama regime overthrew the democratically elected government in Ukraine and imposed a neo-Nazi regime. Washington overthrew the governments in Argentina and Brazil, is trying to overthrow the government in Venezuela, and has Bolivia in its crosshairs along with Russia and Iran.

Margot Wallstrom, Sweden’s Foreign Minister, said:

“It saddens me that the US has decided to withdraw from the UN Human Rights Council. It comes at a time when the world needs more human rights and a stronger UN – not the opposite.”

Why in the world does Wallstrom think that the presence of Washington, a known destroyer of human rights—just ask the millions of refugees from Washington’s war crimes overrunning Europe and Sweden—on the Human Rights Council would strengthen rather than undermine the Council? Wallstrom’s disconnect is awesome. It is so extreme as to be unbelievable.

Australia’s Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, spoke for the most fawning of all of Washington’s vassals when she said that she was concerned by the UN Human Rights Council’s “anti-Israel bias.” Here you have a person so utterly brainwashed that she is unable to connect to anything real.

The third example is the “trade war” Trump has launched against China. The Trump regime’s claim is that due to unfair practices China has a trade surplus with the US of nearly $400 billion. This vast sum is supposed to be due to “unfair practices” on China’s part. In actual fact, the trade deficit with China is due to Apple, Nike, Levi, and to the large number of US corporations who produce offshore in China the products that they sell to Americans. When the offshored production of US corporations enter the US, they are counted as imports.

I have been pointing this out for many years going back to my testimony before the US Congress China Commission. I have written numerous articles published almost everywhere. They are summarized in my 2013 book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism. 

The presstitute financial media, the corporate lobbyists, which includes many “name” academic economists, and the hapless American politicians whose intellect is almost non-existent are unable to recognize that the massive US trade deficit is the result of jobs offshoring. This is the level of utter stupidity that rules America.

In The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, I exposed the extraordinary error made by Matthew J. Slaughter, a member of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, who incompetently claimed that for every US job offshored two US jobs were created. I also exposed as a hoax a “study” by Harvard University professor Michael Porter for the so-called Council on Competitiveness, a lobby group for offshoring, that made the extraordinary claim that the US work force was benefitting from the offshoring of their high productivity, high value-added jobs.

The idiot American economists, the idiot American financial media, and the idiot American policymakers still have not comprehended that jobs offshoring destroyed America’s economic prospects and pushed China to the forefront 45 years ahead of Washington’s expectations.

To sum this up, the Western mind, and the minds of the Atlanticist Integrationist Russians and pro-American Chinese youth, are so full of propagandistic nonsense that there is no connection to reality.

There is the real world and there is the propagandistic made-up world that covers over the real world and serves special interests. My task is to get people out of the made-up world and into the real world. Support my efforts.

*

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

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

I recall how a friend of mine who once served as a senior Pentagon intelligence briefer described what he called “breaking in” a new president. Today, incoming presidents receive some intelligence briefings so that they do not land in office on a cold January day totally unprepared for what awaits them. But generally speaking, the real surprises are unveiled during the first week when they get the full classified briefings that are carefully prepared both to inform and to enhance the value of the agency doing the briefing.

In the case of the Central Intelligence Agency, the most secret clandestine operations are revealed in power point to convince the new chief executive that the intelligence community is keeping the nation safe. The Pentagon for its part unveils flashy new weapons systems either about to come on line or being planned to demonstrate its ability to deter aggression from any source.

The thinking is that if you get the new president on board in his first few days he will be yours forever, signing off on budget increases year after year while also providing political cover when things go wrong. While the Defense Department and intelligence community benefit from the process and are frequently able to get the president’s ear because they are able to unveil some sensational “secrets,” other government agencies also competing for dollars do not have that appeal and do not do so well. State Department, for example, rarely makes much of an impression because its work is basically prosaic.

The systematic attempts to get the president on one’s side inevitably are more successful with chief executives lacking experience in government as they have nothing to measure the power points they are seeing against. President George H. W. Bush, emerging from years spent as a naval officer, a congressman and CIA Director, is unlikely to have been much influenced by a briefing. President Bill Clinton, harboring a negative perception about CIA, did not even see his Director James Woolsey for over a year. But, on balance, most new presidents are willing to be seduced by the inside-the-Beltway establishment as represented by the Pentagon and the intelligence community.

Donald Trump in particular appears to have succumbed, deferring to generals and intelligence chiefs much more often than not, but he has also taken the message of American omnipotence too much to heart. Trump, with no military or government experience, defers to the national security advocates without any sense of the hard reality that all actions have consequences.

The Pentagon is still planning for a military parade in Washington on Veterans’ Day in November, a huge waste of resources that will do little more than stroke the presidential ego. And the open admiration for the armed forces makes it easy for Trump to think first of using weapons and coercion instead of diplomacy, to launch cruise missiles and endorse an admitted torturer as the new CIA Chief. The president is very much wedded to the idea that the United States can go it alone if necessary and the rules that constrain other nations need not apply, a very dangerous conceit.

There have been several ominous developments in Syria, which could bring the U.S. nose-to-nose with Russian forces in the country. A recent Israeli airstrike, initially credited to Washington, appears to have killed 52 Syrian soldiers. There have also been rumors in Washington that the Administration is preparing for something “big” in Syria, possibly related to warnings from the Pentagon that Syrian forces have been threatening the unilaterally declared “de-escalation zone” in the country’s southeast. This suggests that the U.S. will block attempts by the government in Damascus to regain control of areas until recently dominated by terrorists. Trump has also quietly restored funding to the so-called White Helmets, a terrorist front group much loved by Hollywood and Congress.

All of these steps in Syria serve no real American interest. More ominously, Trump has now revealed that he has ordered the Pentagon to create a military Space Force as a new branch of the armed forces. He explained

“…Our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security. It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space.”

How other nations will adapt to American rule over outer space and the planets is difficult to predict, but if the past seventeen years of Washington’s assertion of its supremacy are anything to go by, the result will be very, very bad. And it is quite unsettling to also observe that a nation that clearly cannot provide access to decent health care for its citizens is now aspiring to turn the moon into a fortified bastion.

*

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

The Outer Space Treaty (1967) bans America, Britain, and other signatories from placing WMDs (not conventional weapons) in earth orbit or otherwise in outer space.

It restricts use of celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, bans space bases and outer space weapons testing.

In January 2001, the UN General Assembly’s Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space Resolution A/55/32 said:

“The exploration and use of outer space shall be for peaceful purposes and be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development.”

“(The) prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security.”

Five treaties address space issues:

1. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, prohibiting nuclear testing in outer space.

2. The 1968 Astronauts Rescue Agreement, requiring the safe return of astronauts and objects launched into space to their country of origin.

3. The 1972 Liability Convention, establishing procedures for determining the liability of nations damaging space objects of others.

4. The 1976 Registration Convention, requiring the registration of objects launched into space.

5. The 1984 Moon Agreement, establishing how space resources may be developed and used.

The 1972 SALT I Treaty, 1987 INF Treaty, 1992 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, 1994 START I Treaty, and other international agreements deal with space-related issues.

The UN Conference on Disarmament, established in 1984 to negotiate arms control and disarmament agreements, strongly opposes weaponizing space.

So do the vast majority of world nations. The cosmos should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes benefitting humanity.

Washington refused to negotiate with Russia and China on their joint draft treaty to ban space weapons.

The 1972 ABM Treaty banned testing or deploying weapons in space. The treaty became null and void after Bush/Cheney pulled out in June 2002.

The US-staged 9/11 mother-of-all false flags changed everything, unleashing America’s rage for global dominance by brute force.

Space is the final frontier. Hawkish Trump regime neocon extremists want it militarized for real-life star wars, the president saying:

“I’m…directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces.”

“We have the Air Force, and we’re going to have the Space Force. Separate but equal.”

“America was first in flight, first to the moon, and why America will always be first in space. We don’t want China and Russia and other countries leading us…We’re going to be the leader by far.”

According to the Institute of the Commonwealth of Independent States deputy director Lt. Col. Vladimir Evseev,

“(i)f that happens, Russia will have to retaliate doing that jointly with China.”

“That will be effective and not be too costly. Moscow and Beijing have stated they are strongly opposed to creating space weapons.”

“China has already learned to destroy low earth orbit satellites. Russia likewise has the means of countering and destroying space vehicles.”

“That’s why these threats to China and Russia related to establishing the US space force will be neutralized sooner or later.”

Washington has provided no information on the structure and mission of a space force. Given its rage for dominating other nations, clearly this is what establishing it is all about – permanent warmaking its main purpose.

The idea of weaponizing space has been around for a long time. In 1996, head of US Space Command General Joseph Ashy minced no words, saying:

“(W)e’re going to fight in space. We’re going to fight from space, and we’re going to fight into space. That’s why the US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms. We will engage terrestrial targets someday – ships, airplanes, land targets – from space.”

Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space co-founder/coordinator Bruce Gagnon earlier warned:

“If the US is allowed to move the arms race into space, there will be no return. We have this one chance, this one moment in history, to stop the weaponization of space from happening.”

“The peace movement must move quickly, boldly, and publicly” to challenge and stop this reckless agenda. Otherwise, star wars could become reality.

The Pentagon plans to develop sophisticated space weapons, including space vehicle delivery systems able to travel at hypersonic speeds.

America’s National Security Strategy reserves the right to wage preemptive wars, including first-strike nuclear weapons, against designated enemies, real or invented.

It’s currently not feasible from space. The Pentagon wants the technological capability developed to be used at the discretion of US regimes in power.

Helen Caldicott earlier said

“one single failure of nuclear deterrence could end human history (quickly).”

“Once initiated, it would take one hour to trigger a swift, sudden end to life on this planet.”

Only nuclear disarmament and elimination of nuclear weapons globally can stop it.

Humanity has a choice. Put an end to global wars and weapons of mass destruction or they may end us.

*

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

The Pacific Alliance, Three Seas Initiative, Continental Free Trade Area, Vision 2030, and the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor are changing geopolitics, but comparatively few people have ever heard of these projects, let alone have any idea how Russia could benefit from them. 

The world is in the midst of multiple paradigm-changing processes as the post-Cold War Unipolar World Order gives way to the Multipolar World Order of the New Cold War, marked by a diversification of stakeholders in the global system and the struggle to equalize their role in International Relations. The friction between the previous world model and the incipient one has led to a renewed round of intense Great Power competition between their proponents, mostly represented by the US and Russia & China, respectively, with each side working hard to woo others to their way of thinking. The US wants its partners to invest in largely preserving the Washington Consensus and only undertaking minimal reforms within this American-led system, while Russia and China believe that more ambitious changes are required and that the entire world structure must gradually evolve to more accurately represent the emergence of more power centers.

One of the prevailing trends of these present times has been the launching of ambitious integrational initiatives that seek to bring together a host of different states in pursuit of shared objectives, whether geopolitical, economic, or both, and these platforms have naturally become objects of strategic competition in the New Cold War. South America’s Mercosur, for example, is in the throes of an existential crisis, just as Unasur is too, having been torn apart by unipolar intrigue over the past couple of years. Others, though, have a much more promising future, but have curiously been underreported on until now. Most people are already aware of the CSTO, SCO, BRICS, AIIB, and OBOR, yet comparatively few know anything about the Pacific Alliance, Three Seas Initiative, Continental Free Trade Area, Vision 2030, and the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor that are changing the world, which is why this analysis aims to raise awareness about each of them and explain the best way for Russia to interface with them to its ultimate benefit.

The Pacific Alliance 

A relatively new neoliberal trading bloc created only in 2012, the Pacific Alliance brings together Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Chile, and prospectively soon Costa Rica and possibly Panama into a geographically expansive north-south trading bloc. Unlike its hemispheric counterpart Mercosur, the Pacific Alliance is rapidly growing and has become stronger by the year, with an organizational intent to become Latin America’s premier platform for developing more robust trading ties with Asia. Pursuant to this, three of its four official members (Mexico, Peru, and Chile minus Colombia) originally planned to join the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership megabloc until Trump withdrew from it, though they still managed to symbolically revive it even without Washington’s participation.

In any case, the Pacific Alliance is more of an economic initiative than a geopolitical one, though it might soon take on some characteristics of the latter in that its countries generally support the US’ hemispheric objectives, especially relating to Venezuela for instance. However, Trump’s dramatic levelling of aluminum and steel tariffs on his nominal NAFTA allies in Mexico and the leading position that populist leftist-nationalist presidential contender Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador holds prior to the country’s upcoming election on 1 July suggest that the Pacific Alliance’s leader might be willing to display a newfound and unprecedented independence in the future, which is where Russia could come in.

Eager to develop economic ties with non-traditional partners, Moscow could try to advance a free trade agreement between the Eurasian Economic Union and the Pacific Alliance, which the latter might suddenly be more interested in clinching for the aforementioned circumstantial reasons.

The Three Seas Initiative

Poland unveiled an ambitious integrational platform in 2016 bringing together Austria and the post-communist EU members of “New Europe” spanning the three seas region of the Adriatic, Baltic, and Black Seas, unofficially hoping to recreate its interwar “Intermarium” vision in a modern-day context but formally trying to pool together this bloc’s collective political and economic resources in order to enhance their chances of striking better deals with Brussels and the EU’s Western European leaders. The Three Seas Initiative isn’t often in the news, but Trump did speak at its 2017 Warsaw Summit in a clear sign of the US’ support for this transnational body, likely due to the potential that it has for one day creating a “cordon sanitaire” that serves as a wedge in preventing a comprehensive German-Russian rapprochement.

For as grand as Poland and its American ally envision the Three Seas Initiative’s geostrategic function as being, the group is actually divided along a north-south axis over its members’ relations with Russia. The northern half of Poland and the Baltics despises the country and especially its Nord Stream II project, while the southern half centered on Austria-Hungary is much more pragmatic in their relations with it and are actively encouraging the construction of more Russian pipelines to their people. This intra-bloc friction won’t deter its members from cooperating with one another in maximizing the benefits of Chinese Silk Road investment in their shared Three Seas space nor in backtracking on forming a united front for bettering their odds of successfully bargaining with Brussels, but it will stop it from becoming an anti-Russian organization.

Russia’s approach to the Three Seas Initiative can be expected to remain largely the same in continuing cooperation with its more pragmatic southern members and trying to transform the goodwill between them into tangible economic investments.

The Continental Free Trade Are

Just like all other parts of the world, Africa is finally (if belatedly) pursuing the continent’s economic integration through the recent signing of the Continental Free Trade Area between most of its countries that aims to establish an EU-like free trade space. While it remains to be seen how effectively it’s implemented and whether or not there will be any inadvertent problems that arise between rival states and already existing regional blocs like the Southern African Development Community and the East African Community, the best-case scenario that its many signatories are hoping for is that Africa will finally become a more independent pole of economic power in its own right which is perceived as one large investment zone that’s more attractive for non-African investors.

The end goal is to transplant the structural economic basis of the EU onto the African Union but in a more neoliberal fashion that national leaders believe is necessary for jumpstarting growth and development, thereby enabling them to simultaneously court more investment while encouraging existing entrepreneurs to expand their operations beyond their host countries’ borders and further into the region beyond. Russia could take advantage of this by using its strategic presence in Egypt, Sudan, the Central African Republic, and perhaps soon even Ethiopia and Rwanda too as a springboard for deepening economic relations with Africa as a whole via the Continental Free Trade Area, though provided that its national companies have the will to do so.

To assist with this, Russia will probably use the Red Sea as its gateway to East and Central Africa, striking strategic partnerships with coastal and transit countries as it strives to gain preferential trading access for its companies in the resource-rich central portion of the continent.

Vision 2030

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has made the Vision 2030 series of socio-economic reforms within his country the hallmark of his early de-facto rule over the Kingdom in proactively initiating Saudi Arabia’s inevitable post-oil transition before it’s too late. This responsible move is characterized by the courting of real-sector economic investments from China that are designed to turn his state into a tri-continental Silk Road hub strategically situated at the crossroads of Afro-Eurasia, but it’s not necessarily a Chinese-dominated process because any country can invest in it too. In order to increase his country’s labor pool and therefore give investors more opportunities to get involved, the Crown Prince is lessening strict Wahhabi restrictions on women’s freedom of movement and right to work, though this hasn’t been without whispers of some domestic opposition.

Russia can assist Saudi Arabia with this commendable task by sharing its peoples’ centuries-long experience with what is conventionally described by non-Muslims as “moderate Islam”, working to build a bond of trust between these two non-traditional partners that could then be expanded through more intensive cooperation between Russia’s majority-Muslim autonomous republics and the Kingdom. Russian Railways, the national leader in this industry, also announced at the end of last month that it would like to participate in constructing the Trans-Arabian Railway that’s presumably one of the physical pillars of Vision 2030, so Russia might have a unique chance to cooperate with China on a Silk Road investment in a third-party state for the first time ever, potentially paving the way for more projects of this sort elsewhere in the future if this one proves successful.

Altogether, Russia’s role in Vision 2030 could foreseeably be one of leveraging a combination of “religious diplomacy” and its renowned infrastructure expertise in certain industries in order to expand its new Mideast presence into the cash-flush Gulf while reaping a hefty return on its investments.

The Asia-Africa Growth Corridor

The last of the five-mentioned but underreported international structures changing geopolitics is the Indo-Japanese Asia-Africa Growth Corridor that’s meant to be these two Great Powers’ answer to China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity. They obviously can’t replace or adequately compete with the many connective infrastructure investments that China has made all across the world and especially in the Global South, but they aspire to carve out their own niche in soft infrastructure through helping their partners in the healthcare, educational, and job training fields, among others that Beijing has been previously lambasted by some for supposedly neglecting. It’s still too early to say whether this initiative will yield the geostrategic dividends that its backers envision, but it’s nevertheless still a promising pan-hemispheric project that holds a lot of potential.

Russia has its reasons getting involved with the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor, which include strengthening ties with its historical partner India; accelerating the ongoing rapprochement with Japan; showing China that it has multilateral investment options with the hopes of then striking better Silk Road deals; and deepening its presence in the Global South. It can advance all of these by offering up a quid pro quo of preferential investment opportunities for India and Japan in its Far Eastern and Arctic regions in exchange for some role or another in their African and ASEAN projects. Russia can’t ignore an initiative as far-reaching and globally important as the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor even if its implied intent is to challenge China, so it must utilize all means at its disposal to get involved with this, even if only to maximize its “balancing” capabilities.

Having said that, Russia will probably find a way to implicitly implement the quid pro quo strategy mentioned above as a means of first proving that the concept of its cooperation with the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor is capable of yielding results prior to officially announcing its partnership with it.

*

This article was originally published on InfoRos.

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

A Canadian doctor who was shot by Israeli forces last month during protests in the Gaza Strip has taken his fight for health-care access for Palestinians to Ottawa, the Canadian capital.

Dr Tarek Loubani is asking the Canadian government for $15m Canadian ($11m) to help expand a longstanding project that aims to bring 24-hour electricity to medical facilities in the besieged coastal enclave.

The renewable energy project, known as EmpowerGAZA, involves installing solar panels on the rooftops of hospitals and medical clinics.

So far, three hospitals in Gaza have been equipped with solar panels.

The $11m investment would pay for the installation of solar panels on about nine other hospitals, as well as 50 medical clinics, explained Loubani, an emergency physician based in London, Ontario.

Loubani met with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier this week in Ottawa, as well as several parliament members from all the major political parties, all of whom welcomed the idea, he said.

“I was very happy to see the general Canadian mood – that the health concerns of Palestinians in Gaza have to be taken seriously – reflected in their representatives from all parties,” he told Middle East Eye in a telephone interview.

“I think all the parties agree that we have to do something about the desperate health conditions that currently exist in Gaza,” he said.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau participates in a Muslim Leadership roundtable today in Ottawa. pic.twitter.com/mQ3SDgGQDL

— CanadianPM (@CanadianPM) June 19, 2018

The image, tweeted by the prime minister’s office, shows Trudeau sitting directly across from Loubani, at a meeting earlier this week.

The prime minister’s office redirected MEE to the ministry of international development.

Louis Belanger, director of communications in that ministry, said the department was “not currently in a position to comment specifically on Dr Loubani’s proposed project”.

“We salute the humanitarian work that Dr Loubani has done in Africa and the Middle East, especially today as we mark World Refugee Day,” Belanger told MEE in an email.

He said Canada “remains deeply concerned” about the humanitarian needs of Palestinians, and acknowledges that “the limited supply of electricity exacerbates the situation”.

Helene Laverdiere, an MP for the New Democrats and the party’s foreign affairs critic, said on Twitter the NDP supports Loubani’s request.

She urged “the Canadian government to fund this initiative, which will save lives in #Gaza”.

Gaza’s health-care network has been on the brink of collapse for several years, with frequent electricity cuts limiting available services and a shortage of medical supplies resulting from a strict blockade on the territory imposed by Israel and supported by Egypt.

In that context, providing reliable electricity to medical facilities is critical.

So far, solar panels have been installed at Beit Hanoun Hospital and the Indonesia Hospital, both in Beit Hanoun, and at al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah, after an online fundraising campaign garnered more than $215,000 in 2015.

The steady flow of electricity has allowed patients at each facility to benefit from “the most essential, life-saving” care, Loubani said.

“In these three hospitals, Palestinian patients never have to worry about whether or not there’s going to be a cut in power in the intensive care unit, in the operating rooms or for the dialysis units,” he said.

If there’s electricity left over after these essential services are met, it goes to power the hospitals’ emergency rooms.

The project’s effects go beyond direct medical care, however.

Knowing their local hospitals will be able to respond to their needs – and importantly, that they won’t be sent away amid a lack of power – also provides Palestinian patients in Gaza with a sense of relief.

“They know that whenever they come to this hospital, it’s always working. They know that they can always receive care and doctors [w]on’t send them away,” Loubani said.

Loubani acknowledged that the Israeli blockade makes it challenging to get the necessary equipment into Gaza to instal the solar panel systems.

Still, the difficulties don’t “make [the project] any less worthwhile”, he said.

There is no timeframe yet for Canada’s possible investment, but Loubani said he’s hopeful Ottawa will come through.

“There is currently an unfolding health disaster in Gaza and as a doctor that is my primary interest,” he said.

“This is so clearly a humanitarian project, that I can’t imagine anybody objecting.”

*

Featured image is from Democracy Now!

Time magazine, founded almost a hundred years ago (in 1923), runs like a well-oiled machine: there are departments and sub-departments for everything; nothing is left to chance. So when, in its latest issue, it publishes a two-page spread of the US’s recent history with Korea, readers should be able to take it to the bank.

What jumps out from the timeline — and the US press in general — is that when it comes to US diplomacy, and hence US history, there is never but one actor, America’s ‘enemy’ of the moment. Whether stealthy Indians, Kamikaze pilots or ISIS terrorists belted into explosives, the US has consistently peered down from its impregnable city upon a hill, upon one ‘enemy’ after another, invariably concluding it must go to war.

According to Time’s latest illustration of this lopsided worldview, from 1953, when the Korean Armistice was signed, (failing, as its name states, to end the state of war between north and south), to the meeting between its current leader and the US president, the North appears to have been the only actor in the Korean drama, making one threatening gesture after another. The US is nowhere to be found.

According to this ‘document’, having tested nuclear missiles in 1984, in 1986 North Korea joined the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

“In 1992, North and South signed a joint declaration of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. In 1994, the US and North Korea sign the Agreed Framework Deal to replace North Korea’s nuclear power plants in exchange for better trade relations. In 1996 floods triggered a massive famine in which hundreds of thousands died.”

What was the US doing as these things were happening? What actions did it or did it not take vis a vis North Korea, according to the framework? Specifically, what about the promise of ‘improved trade relations’? The time-line shows that the richest (at the time) and most powerful nation in the world did NOTHING to fulfill its obligations toward one of the poorest countries in the world, all through the nineties and into the new century, causing the ‘North Korean dictator’ to double down on nuclear methods of persuasion.

During that entire period, whenever the press turned its attention to North Korea it reported that the people were starving, thousands were in concentration camps. And yet, according to Time’s unchallengeable records, the US did nothing. (“Let them eat cake…”) Nor, as I recall, did pundits offer an explanation for Washington’s failure to ‘live up to its signature’. That explanation is laid out here, justifying in turn why Kim failed to uphold his end of the bargain. (The help given by China was not part of the bi-lateral agreement between Korea and the US…)

Let’s repeat what the time-line published by the US weekly of record says: In 1994, the US and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework Deal to replace the North’s nuclear power plants in exchange for better trade relations. In 1996, floods trigger a two-year long famine in which hundreds of thousands die. These are Time magazine’s own words, not a handout from Pyongyang.

And as if these facts were meaningless, in two color graphs, Time headlines: “The US Aims to Prevent any Attack”, followed by the 2017 progression of Kim’s nuclear weapons’ reach. Below the fold, under the headline: “North Korea Aims to Improve its Economy”, Time admits that

“The US and other world powers cut off trade, with 90% of North Korean exports sanctioned since 2006, and alarming figures on disparities with the South, including [the fact that] 41% of the North’s population is undernourished.”

Kim, remember, is accused of ‘starving his people’. What we know for certain is that he remembered the ancients. It was the Koreans who in the thirteenth century, invented movable type, not the Chinese— Kim Jong Un was educated in Switzerland before becoming the undisputed head of his country, empowered to follow the advice of early Greeks, Romans and Chinese: “If you would have peace, prepare for war.”

The media appears unable to recognize that what may ultimately bring an end to a 73 year standoff was not diplomacy, but deadly preparations for war — the ultimate statecraft. While attention is focused on when and how far Kim’s denuclearization will go, Trump’s breakthrough came only when North Korea achieved the ability to nuke the US. Unlike the Soviet Union — or China — Kim appeared capable of acting if the US failed to unfreeze the Korean situation: a country divided 73 years ago by Mao’s China and the US.

Why then, since the signing of a historic first agreement between Trump and Kim, have we heard nothing but doubts and caveats from the press? Most astonishingly, the fourth estate questions the wisdom of the US removing what Trump rightly referred to as a provocation: twice yearly military maneuvers in South Korea, to which were recently added the US Air Force. These exercises do not claim to affect the Norths’ ability to strike the US with a nuclear missile, so what is their point, other than to intimidate? To claim that they ‘protect our allies’, when what brought the US to the table was a nuclear threat to the home country is pure bunkum. But never mind, the press has to feel that it’s doing its job….

The sole reason for Kim’s nuclear program was to bring the US to the table to begin to resolve the deadlock that has endured on the Korean Peninsula since 1953. So once he has achieved that aim, it is perfectly logical for him to proceed apace with denuclearization. People don’t deliberately do what doesn’t make sense for them to do, even though the US press’s job — with respect to all other players except its own government — is to systematically express doubt about all foreign players.

What Trump’s encounter with Kim actually makes clear is that the US President is determined to put diplomacy on a new footing, emulating the outreach practiced by Putin and Xi. The media unanimously taunts Trump’s approval of ‘authoritarian leaders’, but this is not some attraction to ‘strong men’, such as might be experienced by an adolescent. It’s a conviction that the world needs to be run differently from what has been the case during the American century. As proof, an overlooked remark the US president made during the G7 Summit in defense of re-admitting Russia:

“I don’t know whether anyone has noticed, but we have a world to run.”

That one sentence says it all: the US President agrees that we need, in Vladimir Putin’s words ‘a multi-polar world’.

President Trump hasn’t read the history books, but he is changing America’s approach to international relations. It may be the only thing a ‘deal-maker’ has to offer, but it is the silver lining in the overall disaster of the Trump presidency: Historically, America has seen all ’others’ as potential enemies. Twenty-first century international governance will be built on cooperative interpersonal relations, with or without the United States.

*

Deena Stryker is an international expert, author and journalist that has been at the forefront of international politics for over thirty years, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from the author.

The battle of Daraa against the “Islamic State” (ISIS) group (known under the name of Jaish Khaled Bin al-Waleed), al-Qaeda and the “Free Syrian Army” is happening without doubt. The Syrian government won’t take into consideration the US menace to bomb the Syrian Army, or Israel’s threat – Israel which is supporting Jihadists for years offering to these finance, intelligence information and medical assistance – to prevent the Damascus forces from reaching the borders. Damascus will also ignore the Russian-US-Jordanian agreement of protecting and respecting the de-escalation zone for very long.

Damascus asked its special forces under the command of General Suheil al-Hassan (known as al-Nimer – Tiger) to move to Daraa. These forces have been operating exclusively under the Russian military command over the entire Syrian geography. The Syrian government is also gathering anti-air missile units in Daraa and in also at the back of the front around Damascus and have commanded its strategic missile units to be ready to intervene offering protection to the ground forces. This indicates the forthcoming battle is expected to be harsh and doesn’t exclude the intervention of the regional forces in Syria.

The Syrian command ignored the US and the Israeli requests to exclude Hezbollah and the Iranian allies from being present in Daraa. Thus, the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad asked Hezbollah al-Ridwan Special Forces to take positions in Daraa and around it to participate in the forthcoming attack.

Sources on the ground believe the US is not expected to pull out of al-Tanf crossing between Syria and Iraq – as requested by Damascus in exchange of Hezbollah and Iran absence in Daraa – because Israel believes the battle is not going to take place. Therefore, the Syrian government has decided to engage in the Daraa’ battle and remove all jihadists from the south to regain total control of the territory or even impose a negotiation by force to reached a withdrawal of the US forces from al-Tanf.

The Syrian Army is also aiming to end the southern battle so it can move all offensive forces to the north and al-Badiya afterwards, to attack the remaining ISIS forces present in that part of Syria.

The US faces a dilemma with thousands of trained, supported and funded Syrian proxies militias in the border area between Syria and Iraq. These militias can be a burden if the US decides to withdraw because they are Arab and non-Kurdish forces. Thus, any agreement that returns al-Tanf to the central government means the retreat of these thousand militants to the area controlled by the Kurdish forces in al-Hasakah northern province, also under US occupation forces’ control. This may cause ethnic battles between the Kurds and the Arab tribes of the region who refuse Kurdish dominance, especially bearing in mind that Ankara and Damascus look at the Kurdish cooperation with the occupying forces with a very hostile approach. Moreover, it is evident that no occupation force is destined to remain forever in an occupied country and that, sooner or later, the occupier historically knowns that it will face popular resistance.

As for the Russian position in relation to the battle of Daraa, the military sources in the south of Syria said the Syrian Brigadier Suhail al-Hasan would not be present in the region without a special request from Russia. The “Tiger” forces are Special Forces operating under the command of Russia with the consent and agreement of President Bashar al-Assad. Therefore, Moscow does not want any jihadist forces working with Israel or with the US to retain territory in Syria. Moreover, Russia is not aiming for a partial victory in the Levant now that the useful part of Syria (the most populated geographic area of the country) is liberated, with the exception of the north. This is why the south becomes a necessity that must be liberated.

Russia has bigger plans in the Levant: during my visit to the city of Palmyra and its surroundings, the presence of thousands of Russian troops is striking, indicating that Moscow is sending new infantry and special forces in very large numbers. This large presence has not been announced.

This could also indicate that Russia does not want the US to maintain a long-term sphere of influence in Syria and also wants to remain the only force in Syria as its sphere of influence. This perception of Russia’s approach towards Syria’s allies is complicated and difficult to achieve today. Moscow can’t hold the ultimate decision of who can stay or leave in Syria. Moreover, for the time being, Russia considers that all the allied forces – including Hezbollah and Iran and its allies – are absolutely necessary as long as there are US forces occupying the country.

Turkey is not a threat or a dilemma for Russia. Moscow and Ankara have reached various understandings since the battle of Greater Aleppo, the battle of Ghouta and then the battle of Afrin and the Turkish spread in Idlib and its environs, with the aim to strike and “divide” al-Qaeda (the most radical “Hurraas al-Deen” split from “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” under Abu Mohammad al-Joulani at the request of Turkey).

Russia and Turkey consider the US as the biggest threat in Syria because of the “regime change” intention and the partition projects the US is capable of promoting, and the desire to create for the Kurds a special entity, not for the love of the Kurds, but to keep pressure on both Ankara and Damascus.

Thus, the battle of the south is coming despite the Israeli harassment and striking the allied forces of Iran fighting ISIS in Albuqmal and its request – in vain – to see Hezbollah away from Daraa. Israel is trying to disrupt the stability of Syria but has failed to attract any serious attention to its necessity because the strategic goal today is to liberate the south. Assad is not worried about Israel’s concern and is far from respecting Israel’s border security and the 1974 demarcation line in the occupied Golan heights.

Damascus is working with its allies to liberate the south with no hesitation, free from any influence or threats of any magnitude, because the time has come to end al-Qaeda and ISIS in the south first, so that the army can move towards the eastern desert and concentrate on the US and Turkish occupation forces in the north.

*

Featured image is from the author.

Some 200 members of a French beekeeping cooperative in the northern Aisne region have sued Bayer — on the same day the giant chemical company’s acquisition of Monsanto was finalized — after discovering that their honey was contaminated with toxic glyphosate, a known endocrine disruptor and probable human carcinogen (according to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer). Monsanto is the long-time manufacturer of Roundup, the popular glyphosate pesticide; Bayer now owns not only the company, but also, the liabilities that come with it, including the “Monsanto” name.Environmental activists had denounced the merger, which creates an agrichemical leviathan that promotes use of chemical herbicides and genetically engineered/modified (GE/GMO) seeds.

The beekeepers’ suit was filed in early June after Famille Michaud, a large French honey marketer, detected glyphosate contamination in three batches from one of the coop’s members — whose hives happen to border large fields of rapeseed, beets, and sunflowers. Glyphosate is commonly used in French agriculture; President Emmanuel Macron has vowed to ban its use by 2021.

Emmanuel Ludot, a lawyer for the cooperative, is looking for an outcome that includes mandated investigation of the extent of glyphosate contamination of honey, and of health consequences the pesticide represents for people. Mr. Ludot said,

“It’s also a matter of knowing how widespread this might be. Famille Michaud tells me this isn’t an isolated case.”

Familles Michaud president Vincent Michaud noted that

“we regularly detect foreign substances, including glyphosate. Usually, beekeepers will say, ‘In that case I’ll sell the honey at a roadside stand or a market,’ where there’s no quality control. But this beekeeper had the courage to say, ‘I’m not going to be like everyone else, I’m going to file suit against Monsanto.’”

French beekeepers are not alone in pushing back on glyphosate contamination of honey. Stateside, several organizations and individuals have approached the issue with a different strategy. Rather than suing the manufacturer, in November 2016, Beyond Pesticides, along with the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), brought suit against Sioux Honey Association(Sue Bee Honey) in Superior Court in Washington, DC for deceptive and misleading labeling of its products. The suit, which followed revelations that Sue Bee honey products labeled “100% Pure” and “Natural” tested positive for glyphosate residue, claimed that Sioux Honey’s labeling and marketing practices violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act. Plaintiffs’ argument was that consumers expect a product labeled “100% Pure” and “Natural” to contain only honey, and that contamination of the product makes that labeling deceptive and misleading.

The introduction to the filed complaint says,

“Beekeepers are often the victims of, and have little recourse against, contamination of their hives caused by pesticide applications in the fields where bees forage. Given the failure of current law to protect beekeepers, retailers like Sioux Honey can and should use their market power to promote practices that protect beekeepers from contamination to ensure that consumers are provided products free of glyphosate and other pesticide residues. . . . Unless the paradigm of modern agriculture is shifted, however, synthetic chemicals will continue to contaminate everyday consumer products, and until that time, producers, distributors, and retailers of food products must be mindful of the fact that products containing such contaminants are not ‘natural’ or ‘pure,’ as a reasonable consumer would define the terms, and it is unlawful to label or advertise them as such.”

The intent of the suit was, broadly, to highlight the issue of pesticide contamination in the food supply. OCA director Ronnie Cummins said,

“Regardless of how these products came to be contaminated, Sioux Honey has an obligation to . . . prevent the contamination, disclose the contamination, or at the very least, remove these deceptive labels.”

Beyond Pesticides and OCA lost the case. In March 2017, Associate Judge William Jackson of the DC Superior Court granted Sioux Honey’s motion to dismiss, finding that there was no evidence consumers had been misled by Sioux’s labeling on the honey. He also found that the trace amounts of glyphosate in the honey “were not ingredients or additives because the chemical had been introduced into the products by bees carrying it back to the hive rather than something the company added during production.” The judge found that the court did not believe that consumers expect “pure” honey to be free from small amounts of glyphosate. Beyond Pesticides has not yet announced next steps in the case, but is determined, on all fronts, to highlight the fact that our food supply is being contaminated by glyphosate (and other pesticides).

In a similar case brought before a District Court in California — Susan Tran v. Sioux Honey Association, Cooperative — the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) responded to an order by Judge Josephine Staton, of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asking FDA to determine whether and in what circumstances honey containing glyphosate may or may not be labeled “Pure” or “100% Pure.” The FDA declined to provide a determination, saying

“FDA’s role is to ensure that pesticide chemical residues on or in food are lawful because they do not exceed the limits established by EPA or, if present on or in foods without a tolerance, EPA has established an exemption from the need for a tolerance. . . . Any food that bears or contains a pesticide chemical residue that is not within the limits of a tolerance established by EPA, or is not exempted from the need for a tolerance, is adulterated. . . . EPA has established tolerances for glyphosate on such crops as corn, soybean, oil seeds, grains, and some fruits and vegetables, EPA has not established any tolerances or exemptions for glyphosate in honey. FDA understands that EPA’s review of the safety of glyphosate is ongoing. FDA intends to consider the need for any appropriate actions with regard to glyphosate findings in honey in consultation with EPA.”

Essentially, FDA declined to issue a determination based on a lack of clarity about whether or not the presence of glyphosate residues in honey is lawful. Because EPA has issued neither a tolerance level, nor an exemption from such tolerance, for glyphosate, FDA asserts that its presence is in a sort “legal limbo” until, apparently, EPA decides to take up the matter. Beyond Pesticides contends that the lack of an established tolerance means that glyphosate should not be present in honey. Oddly, one of FDA’s points in its letter — “Any food that bears or contains a pesticide chemical residue that is not within the limits of a tolerance established by EPA, or is not exempted from the need for a tolerance, is adulterated” — would appear to support the contention of the plaintiffs.

The real and lasting solution is, of course, to disallow EPA registration of pesticides that will (or can) contaminate the food supply. Beyond Pesticides executive director Jay Feldman notes, “It is our hope that beekeepers in the U.S. will, as did those in France, join the effort to push back against the registration of pesticides that invade the environment and cause indiscriminate poisoning and contamination. Until that is achieved, it is misleading to label contaminated food — especially food without a tolerance — as ‘100% pure’ or ‘natural.’”

*

Featured image is from Beyond Pesticides.

A new study of the security situation in Libya between 2012 and 2018 by Airwars and the New America Foundation has identified hundreds of civilians credibly reported killed and injured by domestic and international airstrikes – but with no accountability for those deaths from any belligerent.

In total at least 2,162 strikes were identified by Airwars during the nine month research project, based on local public reporting and official claims made between 2012-2018. At least 242 civilians likely died in these actions according to local communities, yet not one of the eight belligerents identified in the new study has ever conceded casualties from its actions – an unwelcome echo of NATO’s 2011 Libya campaign, in which the alliance boasted at the time of causing zero civilian harm.

The new Libya findings were officially launched June 20th in Washington DC.

“Libyans have been living with significant security concerns in the years since NATO’s 2011 intervention – though with little interest from the outside world,” said Chris Woods, the Director of Airwars. “A key way to better understand this neglected conflict is to understand what Libyans themselves are reporting – particularly when it comes to civilian harm.”

Monitoring

A small team of Airwars researchers – based in both the troubled nation and in Europe – poured over thousands of local Arabic-language reports dating from the years after dictator Muammar Gaddafi was deposed and killed in 2011.

A range of troubling patterns emerged, including intense urban bombardments; attacks on boats and ocean-going vessels; and the frequent killing of poor foreign workers and migrants alongside Libyans.

By far the most concerning trend was that of impunity among all parties to the conflict. In many respects, Libya offers a more lawless and uncontrolled version of long-criticised US counterterror operations in Somalia and Pakistan. In Libya a handful of countries now conduct strikes unilaterally – with some such as the UAE and France never choosing to declare their actions.

Research indicates that Libya has become a country where other nations and local actors have few qualms about dropping explosive munitions from above – while never taking responsibility for their effects below. New America’s report accompanying the Libya launch is aptly titled Lawless Skies.

Image of an alleged LNA airstrike in Benghazi on October 18th 2014 (via Alzarook_Nabbos on Twitter)

No accountability

NATO’s intense Libya air campaign ended in 2011. But peace did not return to Libya with the death of long-standing dictator Muamar Gaddafi. Instead the North African nation has lurched from crisis to crisis, sliding into civil war in 2014. Even today Libya has two rival governments. Former US president Barack Obama has described his administration’s failings over Libya as his greatest foreign policy regret.

Funded by the Open Society Foundations, Airwars has partnered with the US think tank New America for the Libya project. New America pioneered the monitoring of CIA drone strikes in Pakistan in 2010, and brings a wealth of analytical expertise to the project. Peter Bergen, the Director of the International Security and Future of War Program at New America, said of the partnership:

“The two organizations believe that helping to document the largely forgotten war in Libya is a necessary public service.”

The new project seeks to highlight ongoing security concerns for ordinary Libyans – while also helping to provide more reliable data on civilian harm for policymakers and investigators.

“An important feature of the conflict in Libya post-2011 has been the rise of airstrikes by multiple domestic and international belligerents,” New America notes in its own report release June 20th. “At least four foreign countries and three domestic Libyan factions are reported to have conducted air and drone strikes in Libya since 2012.”

Many of the world’s most fearsome air forces, including those of the US, the UAE and France – as well as Egypt – have bombed targets in Libya in recent years. Yet after six years and more than 2,100 airstrikes between them, no single actor has admitted to harming civilians in Libya from the air – a startling and troubling failure of accountability.

Some international powers don’t even acknowledge they are bombing Libya in the first place. The UAE conducts drone and airstrikes from a ‘secret’ base in eastern Libya, deep inside the territory of one of the country’s two main warring factions. Yet no strikes are ever publicly declared – and no subsequent civilian harm acknowledged.

“One of the most notable lessons of our Libya research was the abundance of belligerents we had to deal with,” said Airwars investigator Oliver Imhof. “It was at times difficult to keep track of them all. It shows to what extent Libya institutionally has become a failed state after the 2011 revolution – even though the extent of the conflict is much less horrific than in Syria or Iraq.”

Problematic as international actions are in Libya, the majority of more than 2,000 airstrikes identified since 2012 were in fact carried out by local actors. The largest and most active Libyan air force is that of Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) – which according to its own reports has conducted more than 1,000 airstrikes in recent years.

With the country’s military assets divided after the fall of Gaddafi, a smaller number of strikes has also been carried out by the internationally recognized General National Assembly (GNA). Neither the LNA or GNA has ever been known to have acknowledged killing or injuring a single civilian.

Despite its lack of international recognition, the LNA is in fact far more transparent about its actions than most foreign militaries engaged in Libya. Most of its strikes were officially declared at the time via media and social media outlets. With the exception of the United States (which itself has declared more than 500 recent airstrikes in Libya), no other belligerent regularly reports on its actions.

The array of domestic and foreign actors – and often challenging local reporting of events – can at times be far more confusing than Airwars’ longstanding monitoring in Iraq or Syria.

“We have events in Derna, Benghazi and al Jufra Distract where multiple local sources claimed variously that Egypt, the UAE and sometimes France were involved,” said Osama Mansour, Airwars’ chief Libya researcher.

RT Arabic showing footage of an alleged Egyptian airstrike on Derna on February 15th 2015, reportedly leading to seven civilian deaths

Patterns of civilian harm

The ending of NATO’s 2011 Libya campaign did lead to an initial lull in military actions by all parties. The number of alleged civilian casualty incidents tracked by Airwars was minimal through the end of 2013. However in 2014 – as the nation slipped deeper into chaos – local accounts and public reporting indicated at least 242 strikes – with the following year seeing 201 more strikes.

Yet as so-called Islamic State gained a foothold in Libya – and as the nation’s two rival factions went to war – more than 1,000 airstrikes were reported in 2016. Since then, 536 separate strikes were monitored in 2017, and 121 have been recorded so far in 2018.

Several additional patterns have emerged during the monitoring of strikes. As seen elsewhere in the region, urban areas have often borne the brunt. Nearly a third of all monitored strikes took place in Sirte – largely related to the 2016 US campaign there targeting ISIS.

However, despite heavy bombardments of residential neighbourhoods by various actors in both Benghazi and Sirte, the number of reported civilian deaths in these urban locales is relatively low when compared to recent conflict modelling in Syria and Iraq. This pattern is not limited to urban airstrikes, and may have several explanations — including lower population densities, and possibly more limited public reporting in Libya.

“Notably, the airstrikes that did not result in casualties among civilians were often declared by militaries, whereas in the event of any casualties everyone kept mute,” noted Mansour.

#بنغازي |قصف سلاح الجو الليبي قبل قليل لاهداف تابعه لتنظيم الدوله #داعش بمنطقة شارع الشريف pic.twitter.com/Mj200CX67C

— إمحمد بالريش (المرنقي) (@belreish) September 24, 2015

Heavy alleged LNA bombardment of residential neighbourhoods in Benghazi in 2015, reported via Twitter

Multiple actors

While American airstrikes in Libya often capture international attention, domestic actors are in fact responsible for most bombings. Airwars has monitored 1,122 strikes allegedly involving the LNA (Libyan National Army) — more than half of all actions documented by Airwars. These allegedly led to the deaths of between 95 and 172 civilians – the largest non-combatant death toll tied to any one belligerent.

The UN-recognised GNA (General National Assembly) has also reportedly conducted at least 68 strikes, leading to a minimum of between 7 and 9 civilian fatalities. However, a number of incidents that cite the GNA also accuse other belligerents, including the United States. Including such contested incidents, between 44 and 66 additional civilians deaths may in fact be associated with GNA attacks.

In 2016, the Obama administration listed Sirte as an “area of active hostility,” thereby avoiding strict limitations and civilian protections imposed by the 2013 Presidential Policy Guidance. Hundreds of strikes followed in Sirte under Operation Odyssey Lighting, between August 1st and December 19th of that year.

US strikes have focused primarily on ISIS targets, though they have at times operated in support of the GNA. The US is the most transparent of all actors in Libya, generally announcing when it has carried out actions. AFRICOM officially declared 495 strikes during the Sirte campaign, with a further 15 strikes before and afterwards.

For those actions, researchers tracked between 6 and 13 likely civilian deaths – none of which have been acknowledged by the US. US aircraft may also be implicated in up to 14 additional events in which at least 34 more civilians reportedly died – though these claims have also been attributed by some local sources to the GNA.

AFRICOM’s Major Karl Wiest  told Airwars that

“With regards to the specific incidents you highlighted and asked our team to review, they are not assessed as credible with the information currently available.”

Major Wiest added that the US command had also itself investigated two claimed civilian harm events in Libya, but had deemed them non-credible:

“From the Fall of 2016, the command has assessed two (2) recorded CIVCAS allegations related to operations in Libya. After thorough investigations, both claims were deemed not credible. In fact, the evidence gathered in one of the investigations strongly suggested that our adversaries in the region were simply lying about alleged civilian casualties in order to bolster their public perception. Evidence found at the time of the respective investigation to support this finding included our adversaries publishing photographs from another area of responsibility while claiming they were new CIVCAS incidents in Libya.”

AFRICOM declined to offer additional information when asked to identify the two events by date and location.

Additional state actors

Egypt meanwhile has launched an increasing number of strikes in Libya, often in the vicinity of a shared frontier. Strikes also take place on occasion in heavily populated areas. In February 2015, Egypt reported bombing alleged ISIS targets in Libya in response to the gruesome murder of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians in the country. The attack, which took place in Derna, reportedly killed at least 7 civilians and injured at least 21, according to local accounts.

Amnesty International later investigated the incident and determined that “the Egyptian Air Force failed to take the necessary precautions” in launching the attack.  According to local sources monitored by the Airwars/ New America project, Egypt has carried out at least 93 strikes in Libya, which have killed at least 13 civilians.

The Egyptian government only occasionally confirms its strikes, often after attacks in border areas where smuggling or terrorist activity is alleged. A reported strike on August 21st, 2017 is indicative: video posted on the Army Facebook page shows the destruction of what the military said were nine SUVs carrying weapons and explosives in the border area. On some occasions, such as an October 30th, 2017 strike in the Kufra district along the border, there are local  reports that the targets hit are in fact civilian vehicles. However given the scarcity of information, it is at times hard to confirm such cases. The Egyptian military has itself not admitted to harming any civilians in Libya.

Libya Today TV showing footage of Egyptian strikes near the border

Egypt has also played host to UAE assets engaged in their own cross-border raids. The UAE also carries out drone and air strikes in support of the LNA from within Libya. On many occasions, both the Gulf nation and the LNA might be blamed for casualties, making precise tracking more difficult. However, Airwars has monitored at least 41 strikes allegedly carried out by the UAE, leaving at least 11 civilians dead.

“While Egypt mostly seems to be interested in securing its border from smugglers and alleged terrorists with airstrikes, the reasons for Emirati involvement in Libya are less obvious due to its geographical distance,” said Imhof. “However, its current interventionist foreign policy seeking to fight political Islam and jihadism could be an explanation.”

France does not confirm its own actions in Libya, though local reports often accuse Paris of being behind attacks – particularly in the south. Often, blame for such incidents is split between France and the LNA – and in some instances they have blamed one another.  A January 10th 2016 strike reportedly killed at least 15 people — likely combatants. The LNA blamed France, while the French government in turn blamed the LNA. On November 14th of that same year, France allegedly killed at least four civilians in Wadi al Shatii district – though again, this could not be confirmed.

Overall, France has been cited for five alleged strikes in the reporting period, while it was mentioned in three more reports that also blamed the LNA – strikes that allegedly left at least 20 civilians dead.

One of the most troubling aspect of airstrikes in Libya is how many actions are by unknown belligerents. 165 Strikes without any named belligerents were assessed by Airwars. Of those, 25 were incidents of concern according to Airwars researchers, and 12 allegedly left civilian casualties.

On February 7th 2016 for example, an unknown aircraft bombed the Bab Tobruk neighborhood of Derna. Four civilians were reported killed. Though no group or nation claimed responsibility, local sources, including members of the GNA, accused the UAE of involvement.

Researchers contacted all eight local and international belligerents for comment on reported civilian harm from their actions in Libya. Only the US’s AFRICOM responded. These strikes – and the lack of clarity around them – are indicative of what New America has termed ‘Lawless Skies’.

Alnabaa shows the aftermath of the airstrike on February 7th

Troubling targets

A number of troubling patterns emerged from Airwars monitoring of civilian harm in Libya. Maritime traffic is frequently a target – with researchers tracking 66 strikes that reportedly hit vessels, including boats and ships off the coast of Libya.

The great majority of Libyans live in coastal areas, and the waters north of the country are used by an array of Libyan and foreign vessels, including – according to local sources – boats transporting weapons. In some cases such attacks are acknowledged by the LNA, which has posted videos of target vessels, for instance off the coast of Benghazi.

Images of a burning oil tanker and its injured crew members, hit by an alleged LNA airstrike on May 11th 2015 (via Omar al-Warfali)

Airwars also identified a likely under-reporting of civilian casualties among non-Libyan populations. While the killing of Libyan citizens in airstrikes often garners local headlines, the deaths of ‘foreigners’, especially Sudanese or Chadian civilians, tend only to be footnoted, or are even reported only in Sudanese or Chadian media. Yet scattered accounts suggest a significant toll. UNSMIL reported that on May 15th 2018, three Eritreans were killed and eight more injured when their vehicle was bombed along the Libyan-Egyptian border by “unidentified air assets” – most likely an Egyptian airstrike.

Hospitals, power stations and other critical infrastructure have also been targeted or struck by several parties to the conflict in Libya. On Janaury 12th 2016, the LNA reported airstrikes against targets in Benghazi – attacks that the UN Mission in the country (UNSMIL) later condemned for hitting a power plant in the city. In October of that same year, the LNA reportedly targeted a hospital in Benghazi.

The new project by Airwars and New America marks the most comprehensive modelling of airstrike harm since NATO’s 2011 intervention. Even so, its findings may represent an undercount of civilian casualties.

A key part of Airwars’ role is to permanently archive reports and claims – including photographs and videos – in case they are removed from the internet. In Iraq and Syria for example, up to 50 per cent of local reports disappear from the Web within 12 months. People are killed and towns overrun, Facebook and Twitter accounts banned, and videos and news sites blocked.

Those vulnerabilities are likely to extend to Libya, and it is probable that much media and social media material has already been lost, in particular from the earlier years after Gaddafi was deposed.

“Public reporting often seems low in Libya compared to Syria and Iraq, even for recent cases,” says Oliver Imhof. “We simply don’t know how much material was lost over the years, especially during the early years of the conflict.”

The LNA’s 2016 Facebook page – a key resource for confirming hundreds of publicly declared airstrikes – was luckily archived in its entirety by Airwars before being deleted recently by the LNA. Without those archives, a troubling lack of accountability for military actions in Libya would be worse than it already is.

We live in a state of perpetual war, and we never feel it. While you get your gelato at the hip place where they put those cute little mint leaves on the side, someone is being bombed in your name. While you argue with the 17-year-old at the movie theater who gave you a small popcorn when you paid for a large, someone is being obliterated in your name. While we sleep and eat and make love and shield our eyes on a sunny day, someone’s home, family, life and body are being blown into a thousand pieces in our names.

Once every 12 minutes.

The United States military drops an explosive with a strength you can hardly comprehend once every 12 minutes. And that’s odd, because we’re technically at war with—let me think—zero countries. So that should mean zero bombs are being dropped, right?

Hell no! You’ve made the common mistake of confusing our world with some sort of rational, cogent world in which our military-industrial complex is under control, the music industry is based on merit and talent, Legos have gently rounded edges (so when you step on them barefoot, it doesn’t feel like an armor-piercing bullet just shot straight up your sphincter), and humans are dealing with climate change like adults rather than burying our heads in the sand while trying to convince ourselves that the sand around our heads isn’t getting really, really hot.

You’re thinking of a rational world. We do not live there.

Instead, we live in a world where the Pentagon is completely and utterly out of control. A few weeks ago, I wrote about the $21 trillion (that’s not a typo) that has gone unaccounted for at the Pentagon. But I didn’t get into the number of bombs that ridiculous amount of money buys us. President George W. Bush’s military dropped 70,000 bombs on five countries. But of that outrageous number, only 57 of those bombs really upset the international community.

Because there were 57 strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen—countries the U.S. was neither at war with nor had ongoing conflicts with. And the world was kind of horrified. There was a lot of talk that went something like, “Wait a second. We’re bombing in countries outside of war zones? Is it possible that’s a slippery slope ending in us just bombing all the goddamn time? (Awkward pause.) … Nah. Whichever president follows Bush will be a normal adult person (with a functional brain stem of some sort) and will therefore stop this madness.”

We were so cute and naive back then, like a kitten when it’s first waking up in the morning.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that under President Barack Obama there were “563 strikes, largely by drones, that targeted Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. …”

It’s not just the fact that bombing outside of a war zone is a horrific violation of international law and global norms. It’s also the morally reprehensible targeting of people for pre-crime, which is what we’re doing and what the Tom Cruise movie “Minority Report” warned us about. (Humans are very bad at taking the advice of sci-fi dystopias. If we’d listened to “1984,” we wouldn’t have allowed the existence of the National Security Agency. If we listened to “The Terminator,” we wouldn’t have allowed the existence of drone warfare. And if we’d listened to “The Matrix,” we wouldn’t have allowed the vast majority of humans to get lost in a virtual reality of spectacle and vapid nonsense while the oceans die in a swamp of plastic waste. … But you know, who’s counting?)

There was basically a media blackout while Obama was president. You could count on one hand the number of mainstream media reports on the Pentagon’s daily bombing campaigns under Obama. And even when the media did mention it, the underlying sentiment was, “Yeah, but look at how suave Obama is while he’s OK’ing endless destruction. He’s like the Steve McQueen of aerial death.”

And let’s take a moment to wipe away the idea that our “advanced weaponry” hits only the bad guys. As David DeGraw put it,

“According to the C.I.A.’s own documents, the people on the ‘kill list,’ who were targeted for ‘death-by-drone,’ accounted for only 2% of the deaths caused by the drone strikes.”

Two percent. Really, Pentagon? You got a two on the test? You get five points just for spelling your name right.

But those 70,000 bombs dropped by Bush—it was child’s play. DeGraw again:

“[Obama] dropped 100,000 bombs in seven countries. He out-bombed Bush by 30,000 bombs and 2 countries.”

You have to admit that’s impressively horrific. That puts Obama in a very elite group of Nobel Peace Prize winners who have killed that many innocent civilians. The reunions are mainly just him and Henry Kissinger wearing little hand-drawn name tags and munching on deviled eggs.

However, we now know that Donald Trump’s administration puts all previous presidents to shame. The Pentagon’s numbers show that during George W. Bush’s eight years he averaged 24 bombs dropped per day, which is 8,750 per year. Over the course of Obama’s time in office, his military dropped 34 bombs per day, 12,500 per year. And in Trump’s first year in office, he averaged 121 bombs dropped per day, for an annual total of 44,096.

Trump’s military dropped 44,000 bombs in his first year in office.

He has basically taken the gloves off the Pentagon, taken the leash off an already rabid dog. So the end result is a military that’s behaving like Lil Wayne crossed with Conor McGregor. You look away for one minute, look back, and are like, “What the fuck did you just do? I was gone for like, a second!”

Under Trump, five bombs are dropped per hour—every hour of every day. That averages out to a bomb every 12 minutes.

And which is more outrageous—the crazy amount of death and destruction we are creating around the world, or the fact that your mainstream corporate media basically NEVER investigates it? They talk about Trump’s flaws. They say he’s a racist, bulbous-headed, self-centered idiot (which is totally accurate)—but they don’t criticize the perpetual Amityville massacre our military perpetrates by dropping a bomb every 12 minutes, most of them killing 98 percent non-targets.

When you have a Department of War with a completely unaccountable budget—as we saw with the $21 trillion—and you have a president with no interest in overseeing how much death the Department of War is responsible for, then you end up dropping so many bombs that the Pentagon has reported we are running out of bombs.

Oh, dear God. If we run out of our bombs, then how will we stop all those innocent civilians from … farming? Think of all the goats that will be allowed to go about their days.

And, as with the $21 trillion, the theme seems to be “unaccountable.”

Journalist Whitney Webb wrote in February,

“Shockingly, more than 80 percent of those killed have never even been identified and the C.I.A.’s own documents have shown that they are not even aware of who they are killing—avoiding the issue of reporting civilian deaths simply by naming all those in the strike zone as enemy combatants.”

That’s right. We kill only enemy combatants. How do we know they’re enemy combatants? Because they were in our strike zone. How did we know it was a strike zone? Because there were enemy combatants there. How did we find out they were enemy combatants? Because they were in the strike zone. … Want me to keep going, or do you get the point? I have all day.

This is not about Trump, even though he’s a maniac. It’s not about Obama, even though he’s a war criminal. It’s not about Bush, even though he has the intelligence of boiled cabbage. (I haven’t told a Bush joke in about eight years. Felt kind of good. Maybe I’ll get back into that.)

This is about a runaway military-industrial complex that our ruling elite are more than happy to let loose. Almost no one in Congress or the presidency tries to restrain our 121 bombs a day. Almost no one in a mainstream outlet tries to get people to care about this.

Recently, the hashtag #21Trillion for the unaccounted Pentagon money has gained some traction. Let’s get another one started: #121BombsADay.

One every 12 minutes.

Do you know where they’re hitting? Who they’re murdering? Why? One hundred and twenty-one bombs a day rip apart the lives of families a world away—in your name and my name and the name of the kid doling out the wrong size popcorn at the movie theater.

We are a rogue nation with a rogue military and a completely unaccountable ruling elite. The government and military you and I support by being a part of this society are murdering people every 12 minutes, and in response, there’s nothing but a ghostly silence. It is beneath us as a people and a species to give this topic nothing but silence. It is a crime against humanity.

---

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

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

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

As the debate swarms over illegal immigration, Americans on both the left and the right are at each other’s throats pointing fingers over who’s responsible. In the meantime, what was a “conspiracy theory” a month ago is now being confirmed by the very people accused of keeping people in cages. One question, however, has just been raised which gives one a dark and sickly feeling inside when thinking about the potential answers to it: “Where are the girls?”

There is something particularly disturbing about the minuscule amount of footage recently released by HHS last week—it only shows boys, and only boys age 10 and up. Where are the girls? Where are the toddlers? Where are the babies?

Could it be that HHS is only releasing footage of these older boys to portray an image of less suffering and compliant young men in order to keep the public happy? Are the places where girls are kept so disturbing that none of this footage cam be released?

According to official policy, the government does not remove toddlers and babies from their mothers. However, as TFTP reported, a mother from Honduras who came to the U.S. seeking asylum with her family said she was breastfeeding her infant at a detention center when her baby was suddenly taken from her with no warning and no explanation.

Now, the question of “where are the girls?” has become such an issue that it made its way to the White House and a reporter asked Department of Homeland Security Chief Kirstjen Nielsen.

Monday afternoon, during a White House press briefing, a reporter asked,

“Why is the government only releasing images of the boys being held? Where are the girls & toddlers?”

Nielsen could not answer. When asked about the now infamous footage released by HHS that has been played all day on every major network, showing boys inside the Brownsville, Texas Walmart turned detention center, Nielsen claimed she never saw it.

When pressed on the issue, Nielsen then deflected the reporter claiming that she will “look into that.”

Reporter: Why is the government only releasing images of the boys being held? Where are the girls & toddlers?

Nielsen: I'll look into that pic.twitter.com/aWZ7UoehEr

— POLITICO (@politico) June 18, 2018

Also on Monday, ProPublica released an audio recording that was taken inside a U.S. Customs and Border Protection facility. It is nothing short of heart-breaking.

The clip recorded two girls who had just been separated from their parents. They are scared to death and wailing as the border agent jokes,

“We have an orchestra here.”

Since the question of “where are the girls?” began to gain traction, a firestorm has erupted on social media of people fearing the worst. Many people are claiming that they are being trafficked or abused. Indeed, as TFTP reported yesterday, a police officer was arrested for abusing one of these little girls and threatening her undocumented mother with deportation if she spoke up.

Exactly what is happening to the girls that are making it over the border remains unclear. However, the video above is enough to show that something has to change. Sadly, however, the left/right divide makes effective change nearly impossible.

These children are being used as pawns in a political game as rivals bicker over how to handle them while ignoring real factors that would curb this massive immigration problem.

Many Americans have been taught to dehumanize these refugees and to believe that it is not our problem. However, these refugees are a direct result of decades-old US policy.

In the heart-wrenching video above, one of the girls claims to be from Honduras. Honduras is currently a crime-ridden hell hole rife with gang violence as coca plantations thrive—all thanks to the war on drugs.

Because making something illegal does nothing to curb the demand for it, the war on drugs acts as a fuel to the fire of gang violence and crime in these South and Central American countries by creating an incentive for criminals to capitalize on the constant demand.

As the Free Thought Project has reported, Ron Paul provides penetrating wisdom on truly effective ways to deal with the situation, while providing a financial benefit and removing a giant injustice being perpetrated by the U.S. government.

End the war on drugs.

From the Ron Paul Institute:

Likewise, the 40 year war on drugs has produced no benefit to the American people at a great cost. It is estimated that since President Nixon declared a war on drugs, the US has spent more than a trillion dollars to fight what is a losing battle. That is because just as with the welfare magnet, there is an enormous incentive to smuggle drugs into the United States.

We already know the effect that ending the war on drugs has on illegal smuggling: as more and more US states decriminalize marijuana for medical and recreational uses, marijuana smuggling from Mexico to the US has dropped by 50 percent from 2010.

This view is backed by data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In fiscal year 2015, illegal immigrants were responsible for 75 percent of federal drug possession charges.

Amusingly, both Sean Hannity and PolitiFact confirmed this. Data show that the ‘illegal alien” category accounted for “1,640 of 2,181 total convictions (75 percent) in which the primary charge was simple drug possession.”

It is important to note that a rise in gang violence in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala has caused this massive influx of immigrants seeking refuge lately. They are coming in by the thousands in an attempt to escape this violence created by the war on drugs.

Instead of looking at the cause of this violence, however, US policy is to separate immigrant children from their parents while prosecuting the adults—and this is supposed to somehow be a solution.

Paul also points out the burden of free medical benefits, food assistance, and education given to illegal immigrants which amounts to about $100 billion a year. Granted, many of them are part of the workforce in sectors such as agriculture, but not paying taxes and sending money back to Mexico creates a significant imbalance.

Instead of wearing the badge of the “largest prison population in the world” and continuing to convert Walmarts into detention centers, the United States could begin eliminating the national debt, reduce crime, foster personal liberty, and drastically decrease criminal gangs that flourish from prohibition—and all it would have to do would be end the war on drugs.

Sadly, at least for now, it appears that these dinosaurs in DC think that caging children, ripping them out of their parents arms, and repeatedly deporting them at the expense of the taxpayer, is the only solution. Please share this article with your friends and family to show them that there is a very real solution to this horrifying problem. Until this issue is pushed into the mainstream, the problem will only get worse.

*

Matt Agorist is an honorably discharged veteran of the USMC and former intelligence operator directly tasked by the NSA. This prior experience gives him unique insight into the world of government corruption and the American police state. Agorist has been an independent journalist for over a decade and has been featured on mainstream networks around the world. Agorist is also the Editor at Large at the Free Thought Project. Follow @MattAgorist on Twitter, Steemit, and now on Facebook.

Featured image is from the author.

The Trump administration is holding 1,469 teen and pre-teen boys separated from their parents in captivity along the Mexican border at an old abandoned Walmart called Casa Padre, Salt Lake Tribune reported.

The old Walmart has now been renovated with classrooms, recreation centers, and medical examination rooms to hold the boys now under federal custody. The boys are allowed two hours outside each day, including one hour of physical exercise and one hour of free time in between long days of learning. There are two separate shifts of education due to the number of boys at the facility.

A total of 1,469 boys, ages 10 to 17, are housed inside the 250,000-square-foot former Walmart superstore. None of the 313 bedrooms have doors or ceilings, so children are forced to lie in their beds. At least the government is feeding them according to reports; an image shows a hundred children neatly lined up for their supper of barbecued chicken or sandwiches single file past murals of former presidents, including one of the current president with a quote in Spanish alongside the English version:

“Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war.”

It’s a quote that President Trump once tweeted in 2014, a line from his 1987 book The Art of the Deal, shortly before going on to win the U.S. election 2 years later.

Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war. Don't ever get down on yourself, just keep fighting – in the end, you WIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 23, 2014

While most of the boys are teenagers who entered the United States alone on their own, dozens of others — some even younger were forcibly separated from their parents at the border by a new Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy for immigration.

A Washington Post reporter recently interviewed a teenager who spent about three months in Casa Padre, from February until early May of this year.

Jairom, 17, had fled his abusive home in Honduras and traveled through Mexico for a month, mostly by train, before he was detained crossing into Rio Grande.

Casa Padre wasn’t perfect, Jairom told the Post. The two dirt soccer fields behind the big-box store weren’t enough space for all the boys who wanted to play. And he said the food was terrible.

“They gave us a bit of bread, a nasty egg and some beans and an apple and some milk,” he said, describing breakfast. “Everyone complained about the food.”

Perhaps one of the worst people to quote, but she has it right this one time, former First Lady Laura Bush compared the immigrant children’s camp to internment camps used in WW2.

“These images are eerily reminiscent of the Japanese American internment camps of World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history,” Laura Bush wrote in an Op-Ed for The Washington Post.

Laura Bush: “These images are eerily reminiscent of the Japanese American internment camps of World War II, now considered to have been one of the most shameful episodes in U.S. history.” https://t.co/yc3SLxAbdy

— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) June 18, 2018

Only last month the Trump administration enacted a policy to refer every person caught crossing the border illegally for federal prosecution, a decision that has caused for the separation of children from their families.

“So, if you cross the border unlawfully, even a first offense, we’re going to prosecute you,” U.S. AG Jeff Sessions told a gathering of the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies in May. “If you’re smuggling a child, we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law. If you don’t want your child to be separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally.”

However, the nonprofit’s chief executive, Juan Sanchez of the company holding the federal contract Texas-based Southwest Key insists they aren’t running a prison and their ultimate goal is to reunite these young kids with their families, many of whom are probably now locked up under Sessions’ new policies.

“We’re trying to do the best that we can taking care of these children. Our goal ultimately is to reunite kids with their families,” he said. “We’re not a detention center. … What we operate are shelters that take care of kids. It’s a big, big difference.”

In the two weeks after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the separation policy, on May 7, 638 adults were prosecuted, and they had been accompanied by 658 children, federal officials have said.

One has to wonder if the Trump administration is imprisoning these 1,469 children and if there are other centers like these being operated around the U.S. holding children in detention internment camps. AG Sessions has ordered federal prosecutors to pursue criminal charges against all referrals for illegally crossing the border.

The Trump administration has separated nearly 2,000 children from their families since it initiated its harsh new immigration policies according to the Associated Press which analyzed records from the Department of Homeland Security and found that 1,995 children were taken away between April 19th through May 31st of this year.

How many more of these cases exist where children are being snatched from their parents who illegally cross the border? Is this the new type of behavior Americans wants to condone, or just the establishment making us all look bad?

*

Aaron Kesel writes for Activist Post. Support us at Patreon. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Steemit, and BitChute. 

Featured image is from Zero Hedge.

This will be the first official visit to any part of Israel by a member of the British Royal family since the Jewish state’s establishment in 1948 and which is due to take place next week. It is, of course, a distinctly odd choice of timing considering the current attitude of non-cooperation by the Netanyahu government towards any peace settlement that allows the return of stolen land to Palestinian refugees.

Perversely, the Conservative government of Theresa May seems determined to continue to increase Britain’s military reliance on the state of Israel despite the obvious danger to the NATO alliance by compromising UK national security with military equipment from a non-member state.

Israel currently has a massive trade surplus of $3.33bn with Britain by its exports to the UK that include military drones and guided missiles, which trade poses a direct threat to British national security by an undeclared nuclear state that is neither a party to the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) nor subject to inspection by the IAEA.

One solution would appear to be a European-wide boycott of the importation of Israeli military equipment and services together with an urgent review by the May government on the issue of British export licences of military parts and equipment to the IDF.

If this royal visit to the Occupied Territories is to be of any value, it must draw global attention to the continued blockade of essential goods and services for the 1.8 million civilian population of Gaza by the Israeli Right-wing, extremist Likud regime of Binyamin Netanyahu that has caused so much loss of life and hardship for the indigenous Muslim Arab population.

The British royal family is held in high esteem in most parts of the world and its public condemnation of human rights abuse by the Israeli government could only be of benefit to those millions still persecuted by this neo-colonialist, Right-wing administration.

*

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The Palestinian Health Ministry reported on June 1st that a beautiful young woman medic, Razan Ashraf Najjar, 21, was the second medic to be killed by Israeli army fire since March 30th. To date, Israel has killed 130 and injured more than 13,400 non-violent people in Gaza for protesting the siege. Among the injured are 238 medics, 29 shot with live fire after being directly targeted with high-velocity gas bombs.

Still, Israel is accorded impunity. Even when crimes are acknowledged, they “may” constitute a war crime or a crime against peace (Nuremberg), Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s entire infrastructure “may” render Gaza unliveable by 2017, 2018, 2019 or 2020, Gaza “may” be a humanitarian disaster, or Israel’s use of unconventional weapons in 2006, 2009, 2014 and 2018 should be investigated. And always underreported is the participation of nations and institutions in Israel’s “military-securitization-pacification” complex. Israel has long violated arms embargoes imposed on some of the most murderous regimes, and has produced and used prohibited weapons with impunity. Germany recently donated to Israel a submarine capable of carrying 144 nuclear warheads (as part of its Holocaust reparations!).

The Israeli historian Ilan Pappe has substantiated through archival records Israel’s ethnic cleansing of 1948 in the formation of the Israeli state, methodically researched and planned since before the Holocaust. Pappe now defines Israel’s modus operandi as an “incremental genocide.” At the 2014 Russell Tribunal, former UN Special Rapporteurs on the Occupied Territories John Dugard and Richard Falk also found evidence of “incitement to genocide.” More recently, Haaretz writer Gideon Levy wrote that Israel’s real purpose in its Gaza operations is “to kill Arabs” and that the Israel Defence Forces has a “map of pain.”

Israel’s lies have been closely interrogated by Noam Chomsky and former National Director of the American Jewish Congress Henry Siegman, among many others. They write that Israel surreptitiously instigates and pre-plans innumerable provocations until Palestinians eventually retaliate, allowing Israel to justify massively disproportionate reprisals in the name of “self-defense.” They document Hamas’ consistent compliance with truce agreements (unlike Israel’s systemic violations). The world should be forewarned that Israel has long used this same strategy against Iran, secretly “provoking Iran into responding with war or measures just stopping short of war” while manipulating public opinion with “semi-official horror scenarios” about Iran.¹

Israel and the Children of Palestine

Poetry often captures best what seems unimaginable. Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish’s eulogy to Edward Said identifies Israel’s “maximum proficiency” in killing and Palestinian hunger to live:

…Adept snipers, hitting their target
With maximum proficiency
Blood
And blood
And blood.
…And scream that you may hear yourself,
and scream that you may know you’re still alive,
and alive,
and that life on this earth is possible.

Aharon Shabtai’s poem “J’Accuse” is a requiem for Muhammad al-Durrah, a child killed with “maximum proficiency.”

The sniper who shot at Muhammad the child
Beneath his father’s arm
Wasn’t acting alone –
…The tree doesn’t go green
When a single leaf unfurls,
many wrinkled brows
leaned over the plans.
History has known
foreheads like these-
technicians of slaughter,
bastards in whose eyes
morality is a pain in the ass…..
Each one of these authorities
sees to his part in the plan:
one’s in charge of liquidation,
another of the daily harassment;
this one’s field is public relations,
that one’s collaboration;
this one deals with expulsion and fencing,
that one with the destruction of homes.
Because, when it comes down to it, we’re only speaking
of a population of a certain size,
which needs to be pounded and ground
then shipped off as human powder.
… For the sniper who fired at the child
is only a single stinking instrument
within an enormous orchestra…

Killing and tormenting children and parents are found in many other “civilized” nations: the U.S. policy toward Black and refugee children; the half million dead Iraqi children over the course of the American war and occupation; and Canada’s “scooping” tens of thousands of Indigenous children into residential schools. Britain’s maltreatment of whole classes of children is captured in Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal to eat Irish children to solve the demographic threat and food shortages.

In Israel’s disproportionate attacks on Gaza, one-third to one-quarter of the fatalities are children. In Operation Protective Edge, Israel killed 551 Gazan children while one Israeli child was killed. As a result of the Gaza siege imposed in 2007, 70 per cent of babies at nine months suffered from anemia, and about 15 per cent of Gaza’s children are reported as stunted in growth due to malnutrition. Closures prevent infants from leaving Gaza for life-saving cardiovascular surgery. As of January 2008, there were no first line paediatric antibiotics available in the Ministry of Health. Physicians for Human Right-Israel (PHR-I) filed a petition and a request to the Israeli Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to stop the nightly sonic booms, deeming it a collective punishment of the civilian population that particularly traumatized children, causing hearing loss, night terrors, and bedwetting, but the petition was rejected. Barring goods like potato chips and toys has to do with absolute power, not security.

Israelis shamelessly desecrate dead Palestinian children and their families. Former Prime Minister Golda Meir:

“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”

Golda Meir, the guilt-inducing Jewish mother in extremis, is utterly devoid of feeling the “majesty and burning” of a child’s death (Dylan Thomas). Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked has called for the slaughter of Palestinian mothers as they give birth to “little snakes” and Netanyahu accuses Palestinians of selecting photogenic pictures of child victims for propaganda. Israeli soldiers scrawled on a mourning notice for 16-year-old Musab Tamimi, killed by a sniper’s shot to the throat:

“‘Son of a bitch, slut, dead.’ For good measure, they drew a Star of David… Neatly folded, the notice is now in the possession of the bereaved father.”

Israel tried to blame the father and cameraman of faking the killing of Muhammad al-Durrah, the child in Shabtai’s poem “J’Accuse”. Thousands of Palestinian children have been kidnapped, incarcerated, and tortured in an apartheid juvenile justice system.²

There appears to be no self-awareness. In the article “Tell the Truth, Shimon” [Peres], Gideon Levy admonishes the spineless prime minister to “go to the village of Yamoun and meet Heira Abu Hassan and Amiya Zakin, who lost their babies three weeks ago when IDF soldiers wouldn’t let their cars through the checkpoint, while they were in labor and bleeding. Listen to their terrible stories.” Yigal Shochat evokes the gas chamber “selections,” writing that checkpoint officials “make a selection” as to who will be allowed to proceed to a hospital or to a maternity ward.³

Sakharov Peace Prize recipient Nurit Peled-Elhanan lost her own daughter to a suicide bombing. She speaks of “the megalomania of the insolent and corrupt leaders of the state of Israel … [who] have succeeded in converting this whole country into an altar on which they sacrifice other people’s children to the god of death….”

The late Dr. Eyad al-Sarraj, former director of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, wrote that

“children experienced beating, bone-breaking, injury, tear gas and acts of killing, and that the most excruciating psychological experience was to see their fathers beaten helpless by Israeli soldiers without resistance.”

Avi Mograbi’s documentary Avenge But One of My Two Eyes provides insights into the education of Israel’s Jewish youth. From earliest childhood through young adulthood they are repeatedly told by adults in positions of authority about the heroic and exciting suicide terrorism myths of Masada and Samson Under conditions of siege or of insults to male narcissism, they learn that male leaders are entitled to ask hundreds of women and children to commit suicide or to kill thousands of people. These seductive myths conflate the experiences of victimhood and heroic aggression, leading to guiltless entitlement to kill. According to Netanyahu,

“We don’t educate our people, our children in suicide kindergarten camps, as happens in the Palestinian side, and you should see what Hamas is educating them to do …. And the worst thing that I see, the worst thing, is that they use their children, … they don’t give any thought about them.”

Gideon Levy writes of Israel whitewashing “kill-and-destroy’ operations, with cruelly ironic names like “Locked Kindergarten.”⁴ For a brief time the 2006 operation was named “Samson’s Pillars” before it was changed to “Summer Rains.”

Israel and Legalized Illegality

The carnage of the Great March of Return has its precedents: the newly described butterfly bullet belongs to a line of non-conventional and illegal weapons tested in the “lab” of Gaza, including, Dense Inert Metallic Explosives (DIME), flechette shells, white phosphorus, and cube-shaped cluster bombs. Israel cleverly twists the law, claiming that Gaza is a “parastatal entity” to evade the legal obligations of the occupier. It claims that its aggression prevents a greater aggression and is in compliance with the principle of lesser evil.⁵

The late Israeli linguist and author, Tanya Reinhart, documents in detail the “scale and horror” of Israel’s planned killing and maiming in response to Palestinian protest. Since 2000 Israel has targeted the head, legs, knees, or eyes “by carefully aimed shots” that will cripple and maim people for life. By December 2001 there were 25,000 injured Palestinians. Reinhart quotes Ehud Barak:

“that with a stable average of five casualties a day, Israel could continue ‘undamaged’ in the media for many more months.”

She adds that there are no hospitals to care for them, that many are “near starvation amidst the infrastructure destruction that is inflicted on their communities.”⁶ Israel’s doctors have put Gazans on a “diet” by calculating the minimum caloric intake for each age group.

Israel, with its educated population, has squandered the post WWII possibility of “never again” for all people. Hannah Arendt and Albert Einstein opposed Israeli statehood, and warned of fascism, racism, and militarism. In 2004 about 200 Israelis, including founder of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel Dr. Ruchama Marton and Jerusalem Assistant Mayor Meron Benvenisti, signed the Olga Document:

“The State of Israel was supposed to tear down the walls of the ghetto; it is now constructing the biggest ghetto in the entire history of the Jews; …[ if Israelis] muster within ourselves the appropriate honesty and requisite courage, we will be able to take the first step in the long journey that can extricate us from the tangle of denial, repression, distortion of reality, loss of direction and forsaking of conscience, in which the people of Israel have been trapped for generations.”

Instead, Israel (and its allies) have justified and facilitated the imprisonment, maiming and massacre of civilian populations with appalling regularity. Here are the final words of “J’Accuse”:

when “that man smiles, …. when hoarsely, he pronounces the word ‘Peace’ – mothers wake up trembling;… and now, at long last, he’ll roll up his sleeves and get down to the work at which he excels, and bring about a blood bath.”

The 1955 exhibit The Family of Man included the photo of Jewish people herded out of the burning Warsaw ghetto, with the caption –

“Humanity is outraged in me and with me. We must not dissimulate nor try to forget this indignation which is one of the most passionate forms of love” (George Sand).

Israel has reversed its position from victim to perpetrator and, as such, has become an instrumental part of the deadly global political economy of arms and incarceration. The Palestinian struggle is of global significance, a fight for life in the face of legalized illegality, the Orwellian “peace” institutions that do not protect (as with the U.S. again just vetoing a UN resolution to protect Palestinians), proliferating nuclear and new weaponry, closed borders, and the scientifically calculated disposability of a people.

*

Judith Deutsch is a member of Independent Jewish Voices, and former president of Science for Peace. She is a psychoanalyst in Toronto. She can be reached at [email protected].

Notes

1. Israel Shahak, Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies, London: Pluto Press, 1997, pp. 53-55.
2. Catherine Cook, Adam Hanieh, Adah Kay, Stolen Youth: The Politics of Israel’s detention of Palestinian children, London: Pluto Press, 2004 and Defense for Children Itl. Palestine Section, 2004.
3. Yigal Shochat, “Red line, green line, black flag,” p. 129, and Gideon Levy, “Tell the truth, Shimon,” p. 81, in Roane Carey and Jonathan Shainin, The Other Israel, New York: The New Press, 2002.
4. Gideon Levy, The Punishment of Gaza, London: Verso, 2010, p. 24.
5. Jeff Halper, War Against the People, Pluto Press, 2015 and Eyal Weizman, The Least of all Possible Evils, Verso: 2011.
6. Tanya Reinhart, Israel/Palestine: How to end the war of 1948, New York: Seven Stories, 2002, pp. 112-16.

All images in this article are from the author.

The creation of a business association of Chinese mining companies in the Congo should be interpreted as Beijing centralizing its levers of control over the country through the establishment of a powerful lobbying group that will undoubtedly advance the strategic interests of the People’s Republic while the Central African state undergoes an unprecedented political transition fraught with developing Hybrid War tumult.

Bloomberg reported at the beginning of this week that 35 Chinese mining companies came together to form the “Union of Mining Companies with Chinese Capital” (also known as USMCC per its French acronym) in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC or simply Congo) “at the initiative of China’s embassy and on the advice of Congo’s mines minister”. This represents nothing less than the establishment of a powerful lobbying group that centralizes China’s enormous economic influence over the Congo and provides Beijing with the possibility of exerting its political will, interestingly at what was supposedly the suggestion of Kinshasa itself. On the surface, it might seem peculiar that a mineral-rich country would ask its top trading partner to do such a thing given the predisposition of any state to worry about losing its sovereignty through such means, but the situation in the Congo is unusual by any standard and deserves some further elaboration in order to understand the current context.

The Slow-Motion Collapse

The Western European-sized state and former battleground of the so-called “African World War” that killed an estimated 5 million people is once again on the edge of chaos as an incipient Hybrid War rages along parts of its periphery, allegedly driven by incumbent President Kabila’s postponement of the planned December 2016 elections for logistical reasons that would have deprived some of the electorate of their democratic rights. The real reason, however, is that the West is very uncomfortable with the Congo’s fast-moving and full-spectrum strategic partnership with China that has allowed the People’s Republic to gain control over the majority of the world’s cobalt production and possibly pioneer a trans-African connectivity corridor between the continent’s two coasts. This was explained in detail in the author’s June 2016 analysis titled “China vs. the US: The Struggle for Central Africa and the Congo”, which also accurately predicted the contours of the country’s developing conflict.

Since then, Kabila finally committed to holding elections this December, but the electronic voting mechanisms that his country plans to use were hypocritically criticized by the US for self-serving reasons intended to delegitimize the vote ahead of time in case his forthcoming designated successor wins at the polls, which remains a theoretical possibility. The author also elaborated on this in a March 2018 article about how “US Criticism Of Congo Highlights E-Voting Hypocrisy And Hybrid War Threats”, which followed an earlier analysis just two weeks prior titled “Congo Mining Code: Kabila vs. Cobalt Companies” that focused on how this new piece of legislation levelled the lopsided playing field between the state and international mining companies by giving Kinshasa a much greater share of royalties on “strategic minerals” such as cobalt. The recently promulgated mining code was seen as a serious threat to Western mining interests and reason enough to continue with the Hybrid War on the Congo.

Balancing The Blowback

As it turns out, however, the bulk of China’s investment in the country is concentrated in the mining sector, with even the largest non-mining joint project of the $13 billion Inga 3 dam indirectly connected to it given the potential that it has to take the Congo’s power-hungry mining operations to the next level upon expected completion in the next seven years. Therefore, China’s interests were also affected by this mining law, but the Congo evidently wanted to remain on the country’s good side by signaling that this legislation wasn’t aimed against it, hence the friendly suggestion that Beijing centralize its economic operations into a powerful lobbying group that will inevitably strengthen its political position. This is useful for Kinshasa because it creates a constructive counterforce for opposing Western influence, but it also carries with it certain strategic risks if the situation spirals out of control.

Katangese Considerations

China’s motivation for transforming its economic levers of influence into ones of political control is self-explanatory because it seeks to secure its presence in the strategic region of Katanga where most of its mineral investments are concentrated, as well as where it has the greatest potential of combining the recently refurbished Benguela Railway in Angola with its TAZARA counterpart in Tanzania and Zambia for streamlining a cross-continental bicoastal connectivity corridor. Given the developing Hybrid War on the Congo, however, China has no direct means of protecting this priceless piece of Central African real estate and isn’t (yet) ready to commit private military forces (“mercenaries”) there for that purpose. Furthermore, doing so might be interpreted as exceptionally hostile because of the history that Katanga has in being exploited by mercenaries who attempted to sever this mineral-rich region from the state at the behest of their Western masters.

The recent revival of the dormant 1999 Congo-Russian military agreement for Moscow to provide Kinshasa with arms and advisors is a step in the direction of this Great Power fulfilling its grand strategic ambitions to “balance” Afro-Eurasian affairs and provide “outsourced security solutions” for the New Silk Road, but it can’t be assumed that Russia will succeed with these objectives at the pace and scope that China needs in order to secure its Katangese mineral and connectivity investments. Therefore, Beijing understands the utility of leveraging its enormous economic influence for political means in encouraging Kinshasa to commit its forces to safeguarding these sites in the Katanga region, otherwise China might take the lead in a forthcoming UN stabilization mission there or perhaps even a unilateral one to do so instead if the Hybrid War escalates to such a level that its interests are credibly endangered.

That’s not what China wants, however, as it would rather “Lead From Behind” through a combination of its offshore aircraft carrier-based forces and indirect military supportto its in-country counterparts & their (Russian?) “mercenary”/”advisor” allies than to get directly involved in any African conflict, which is why it’s so important for the People’s Republic to first centralize its economic influence in the country through the recently created USMCC political lobbying organization in order to coordinate such an operation under those circumstances. In the worst-case scenario, the dominant Chinese economic and political presence in the southeastern part of the country could be relied upon to turn a “decentralized” Katanga into a de-facto “protectorate” until its reincorporation into the Congo, or even into an outright Chinese ally if ever becomes independent through the course of any forthcoming conflict.

Concluding Thoughts

It should be reminded that China officially supports all countries’ territorial integrity, but that it – like all states – would act to preserve and expand its interests “if push came to shove”, meaning that Beijing could show “pragmatic flexibility” in adapting to changing conditions in the Congo by “unofficially engaging” with local authorities in the Katanga region so as to safeguard its strategically precious mineral and connectivity investments there. The creation of the 35-company USMCC lobbying group could facilitate such measures under those complex circumstances, while in comparatively better ones it’ll work to expand China’s political influence throughout the entirety of the Congo, meaning that it’s a win-win for China regardless of whether the country descends further into Hybrid War or its first-ever democratic transition of power is a success. Therefore, no matter what happens, China isn’t going to cede its ultra-strategic position in the Congo but will do everything in its power to strengthen it.

*

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.