European leaders would significantly benefit if they oppose Washington’s sanctions, re-imposed following Donald Trump‘s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, former CIA officer Philip Giraldi told Sputnik, commenting on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent European tour.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is striving to persuade European leaders to turn their back on the Iran nuclear accords; Philip Giraldi, a former CIA case officer and US Army intelligence officer, outlines three reasons why Netanyahu’s mission was doomed from the outset.

“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is off to Europe on one of his regular charm offensives, seeking to convince European heads of state that Iran poses a threat not only to the Middle East but also to Europe and the world due to its development of ballistic missiles and because it has a secret nuclear weapons program,” Giraldi told Sputnik, highlighting that, for its part, Israel has both ballistic missiles and nuclear arms.

While Israel’s nuclear arsenal reportedly numbers some 200 weapons, Tel Aviv remains “a non-signatory to the United Nations Nuclear-Non Proliferation Treaty, which Iran has signed,” he highlighted.

Furthermore,

“Iran is also still participating in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which the United States has at least temporarily withdrawn from,” the CIA veteran underscored.

According to Giraldi, Netanyahu’s charm offensive will be unsuccessful for several reasons.

First is the recent slaughter of Gazans carried out by the Israeli Army, which has poisoned the thinking about Israel among Europeans,” the former intelligence official said. “Their governments will not be inclined to side with Netanyahu on any issue.”

“Second, Europe, if it acts boldly in defiance of possible US sanctions, is poised to reap significant benefits in trade and business agreements with Iran,” he opined.

And, third, Netanyahu’s claims bear no relation to reality, Giraldi says.

“Iran is not even a serious threat in its own neighborhood. It has no nuclear program and its ballistic missiles, still under development, are designed for regional defense and response, not for offensive action. It is Israel that threatens Iran, not vice versa, and the Europeans understand that very clearly,” the CIA veteran concluded.

On June 4 the Israeli prime minister held a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

During a joint press conference, Merkel made it clear that Berlin would remain committed to the Iran nuclear deal, as it prevents Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. She also said that Germany supports a two-state solution which envisages the peaceful co-existence of Israel and a Palestinian state.

She also referred to international agreements preventing the transfer of the Israeli capital to Jerusalem.

However, Merkel agreed with Netanyahu about the necessity of Iran’s pullout from Syria.

“There’s not agreement on every issue, but we’re friends and there’s a will to understand the other’s position,” the German chancellor said, as quoted by Deutsche Welle.

Likewise, on June 5, French President Emmanuel Macron told reporters during a joint press conference with the Israeli prime minister that Paris would continue to implement the JCPOA.

Citing the recent turmoil in the Palestinian territories, Macron expressed “condemnation of any form of violence toward civilians and in particular, these past few weeks in Gaza.”

UK Prime Minister Theresa May joined the chorus of European leaders on June 6 by telling her Israeli counterpart that London “ha[s] been concerned about the loss of Palestinian lives.” May reiterated the UK’s earlier vow to continue to support the Iran nuclear accords reached in 2015.

The recent wave of Palestinian protests in Gaza, the “Great March of Return,” kicked off on March 30, 2018. The demonstration was supported and endorsed by Hamas, a militant organization. Violent clashes peaked on 14-15 May, which coincided with the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the Israeli state and the Nakba Day (“Day of the Catastrophe”) generally commemorated by the Palestinians on May 15. According to some estimates, 110 Palestinians were killed by Israeli military forces between March 30 and May 15, while thousands were injured in the violent clashes.

*

This article was originally published on Sputnik International.

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.

On Wednesday, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management members held a hearing on US “War Powers and the Effects of Unauthorized Military Engagements on Federal Spending.”

It addressed a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) – proposed by Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Tim Kaine (D-VA).

Some facts:

Enacting the September 2001 AUMF was flagrantly illegal. Only Security Council members may authorize war by one nation on others – in self-defense alone if attacked or if one is imminent, never preemptively.

The executive, Congress and US courts have no legal power to approve war against another nation without Security Council authorization.

There no exceptions to this fundamental international law, automatically US law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause – Article VI, Clause 2.

Throughout Security Council history, authorization for US war was gotten only once – on June 27, 1950, approving US-led UN military action against North Korea because no Soviet Russian delegate was present to veto what never should have been endorsed.

The DPRK was victimized by Harry Truman’s aggression. The official record never corrected the historic wrong on a nation threatening no others – justifiably responding to US-orchestrated/multiple cross-border incursions by the South against the North.

America’s only enemies are invented ones – no others; not ISIS, al-Qaeda, or other terrorist groups it created and supports; not Russia, China, Iran, or multiple nations the US is waging war against.

No nation attacked America since December 7, 1941. None threatened it since WW II ended. The global war on terror is a colossal hoax. Washington uses it to wage permanent wars on humanity.

Earlier and newly proposed AUMF authority has nothing to do with combating terrorism – everything to do with US rage for transforming all sovereign independent nations into pro-Western vassal states.

With or without AUMF authority, they’re vulnerable to US aggression, on its target list for regime change.

AUMF power is a thinly veiled pretext for waging endless US wars on humanity – on any nation, group or entity, on the phony pretext of combating “non-state terrorist groups” wherever they exist.

ISIS, al-Qaeda, and likeminded groups are US imperial proxy forces – used where Washington wants them deployed.

Phony war against them is all about toppling governments the US wants replaced, including Gaddafi’s in Libya, Assad’s in Syria, and others.

It’s also a pretext for waging endless US wars of aggression on humanity – a diabolical plot for unchallenged global hegemony, risking destruction of planet earth to own it, wanting its resources looted, people everywhere exploited, dark forces in America benefitting by force-feeding misery everywhere.

That’s what US imperialism is all about, seeking global conquest, control and exploitation, no matter the human cost – a sinister scheme to benefit privileged interests at the expense of most others everywhere, creating a world unsafe and unfit to live in.

Testifying before the Senate subcommittee on Wednesday, Law Professor Jonathan Turley slammed the proposed new AUMF, saying:

It “amounts to a statutory revision of one of the most defining elements of the United States Constitution,” adding:

“Putting aside the constitutionality of such a change absent a formal amendment, the proposed legislation completes a long history of this body abdicating its core responsibilities over the declaration of war.”

Waging undeclared war is the “menace that the Framers sought to prevent,” prohibiting warmaking powers at the executive’s discretion.

Judge Andrew Napolitano explained US presidents have no legal authority to wage war on their own. It’s the most serious of all decisions a nation makes.

In 1821, John Quincy Adams said America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy” – its current agenda, all sovereign independent countries on its target list.

Napolitano:

“(L)egislation under scrutiny today would give the president far more powers than he has now, would directly violate Congress’ war-making powers by ceding them away to the president, would defy the Supreme Court on the unconstitutionality of giving away core governmental functions, would commit the US to foreign wars without congressional and thus popular support, and would invite dangerous mischief by any president wanting to attack any enemy – real or imagined, old or new – for foreign or domestic political purposes, whether American interests are at stake or not.”

ACLU Washington Legislative Office deputy director, Christopher Anders stressed that no decision made by any government is more consequential than going to war.

He urged Congress to use “the power of the purse to defund unauthorized military engagements.”

Separately he tweeted:

“To apply a medical term ‘do no harm,’ the first responsibility of this Congress is to make sure that the Corker-Kaine #AUMF does not pass.”

There is no legal authorization for ongoing US wars in multiple theaters. Proposed new AUMF legislation would grant Trump and his successors unchecked illegal power to wage endless wars of aggression.

Since Truman’s war on North Korea, US presidents waged naked aggression against one nation after another.

Enacting proposed Corker/Kaine AUMF legislation would make it easier to continue what no government anywhere should authorize or tolerate.

*

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

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s Endless Wars and the New Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
  • Tags: ,

Exposing the rumors about his supposed “death” as nothing more than fake news spread by his fearful enemies in the region, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s first foreign trip since emerging from his suspicious disappearance will be to Moscow, where President Putin is keen to strengthen his country’s partnership with the Wahhabi Kingdom as he “balances” Iran in the Mideast and seeks to guarantee Saudi support for the Russian peace plan in Syria.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, popularly known simply by his initials as MBS, will attend the World Cup opening ceremony in Moscow next Thursday on 14 June, representing his first foreign trip since emerging from his suspicious disappearance. His country’s regional state and non-state enemies had a field day spreading loads of fake news over the past month imagining that MBS was killed in a failed coup attempt in late April, with a fabricated “death” notice even emerging on social media last week purporting that the Kingdom’s de-facto ruler was already buried. To the disdain of his many regional critics and the utter embarrassment of everyone who participated in the fake news campaign about his death, MBS is clearly very much alive and dedicated to advancing the fast-moving and full-spectrum Russian-Saudi rapprochement as soon as he foreseeably can.

From Surviving A Failed Coup To Flying To The Kremlin

It might never be known exactly what happened to the Crown Prince over the last five or so weeks, but chances are that some of his enemies’ reports about his status were actually correct, in that he may have indeed been injured during a failed coup attempt and has spent the interim period recovering from his critical injuries. The author himself immediately suspected that something of the sort transpired and publicly wrote as much in his analysis at the time speculating whether “Saudi Arabia’s Drone Scare Might Have Really Been A Coup Attempt”, conjecturing that this was the most likely explanation for the unusual gunfire in the Saudi capital that went viral on social media. Remarking that both the US and Iran want MBS out of power for their own separate reasons, it’s now proven in hindsight that Tehran was much more eager to see this happen than Washington given that it was the Resistance-affiliated online community and related media outlets, and not the Mainstream Media, which contributed to the fake news campaign about his death.

Whether complicit in the likely failed coup attempt or not, Iran has very solid reasons for wanting to see the Crown Prince dead since the Islamic Republic fears his Vision 2030 socio-economic reform agenda and heavy regional geopolitical weight, silently acknowledging that MBS is the only hope for saving Saudi Arabia from an imminent “Arab Spring”-like domestic crisis, much to their consternation. In addition, Iran dislikes that its Russian partner in Syria is now accelerating its rapprochement with Tehran’s hated Wahhabi enemy and even outright “balancing” against the Islamic Republic in the Mideast’s premier proxy war, passively facilitating countless “Israeli” strikes against the IRGC and Hezbollah in the past two and a half years that have only gained in intensity coincidentally or not during the period of MBS’ absence from the public sphere.

While MBS’ forthcoming trip to Moscow is being billed as an apolitical event to support the Saudi national team in its opening game against Russia next Friday, that’s nothing more than a media cover story for masking the strategic purpose of his visit in learning more about the details of President Putin’s peace plan for Syria. MBS will actually be the fourth regional leader to come to Russia after Netanyahu, President Assad, and Emirati Crown Prince (and MBS’ mentor) Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ), all of whom were presumably treated to a personal briefing about Russia’s post-war vision for a “political solution” in Syria by none other than President Putin himself. Furthermore, it could be inferred that Russia may have discussed the War on Yemen with MBZ because of his country’s leading role in hostilities there, as will probably also be the case when MBS visits too. Just like in Syria, Russia is trying to work behind the scenes in Yemen to craft a peace plan there that also incorporates a fair degree of “decentralization” and “balancing”.

Squeezing Iran Out Of Syria

From Iran’s geostrategic vantage point as viewed through the Hyper-Realist paradigm of the “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard”, Russia is veritably “balancing” against it in both conflict theaters, though in a peaceful and pragmatic manner intended to make Moscow the supreme arbiter of Mideast affairs. In any case, Iran certainly won’t assess this as a positive development so long as it stubbornly refuses to “compromise” on its “maximalist” approach to ensuring the post-war military presence of the IRGC and Hezbollah in Syria, something that almost the entire world is opposed to despite it being Damascus’ sovereign right to invite whoever it wants into the country for however long it likes. The fact of the matter is that Iran will inevitably have to concede on this point otherwise Russia will continue passively facilitating “Israel’s” punitive strikes against it until these two enemies’ proxy war turns into a conventional one or Iran is driven out of the Arab Republic completely, which is why it’s in its interests to initiate a “phased withdrawal” sooner than later.

Russia recognizes Iran’s recalcitrance to adhere to this crucial element of President Putin’s unofficial peace plan, and that’s why it’s been coordinating so much with the country’s Zionist enemy and its two Gulf ones of the UAE and Saudi Arabia in order to ensure that enough pressure is put upon it that Tehran is ultimately left with no practical choice other than to comply with this peacemaking move. In view of this, MBS’ visit to Moscow next week takes on a relevantly urgent significance because of Saudi Arabia’s patronage of the last remaining “armed opposition” groups in southern Syria that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) is preparing to destroy. It was reported that an “Israeli”-Russian-Syrian “gentlemen’s deal” had been struck through Moscow’s mediating efforts whereby Tel Aviv wouldn’t militarily respond to the SAA’s liberation of the country’s territory near the “Israeli”-occupied Golan Heights so long as no IRGC or Hezbollah units participated in this campaign, and Saudi Arabia is presumably the fourth “silent partner” to this agreement because of its influence over these very same “armed opposition” groups.

A Deficit Of Trust

It’s therefore natural for President Putin to court MBS in a week’s time and explain to him the ins and outs of his peace plan for Syria now that the Crown Prince has evidently recovered from his speculative injuries during what may have likely been a failed coup attempt in late April, but there’s also a chance that Iran might throw a monkey wrench in Moscow’s plans by unilaterally going against the world’s will and taking part in the SAA’s liberation operation in order to deliberately obstruct this perquisite step of the peace process. Iran’s present leadership – or rather, whoever in its “deep state” is planning its strategies and responsible for executing them – doesn’t trust Russia’s role in Syria anymore, so it can be expected that they’ll react negatively (whether in public or more likely at least in private) to MBS being feted next week.

After all, in the span of only one month, Iranian observers watched  in horror as President Putin hosted Netanyahu as his guest of honor on Victory Day, stood side-by-side with President Assad while calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces (a euphemism that the President’s Special Envoy for Syria Alexander Lavrentiev later confirmed includes “Hezbollah, and of course, the Iranians”) from Syria, and then invited MBZ to the Kremlin, so there’s a reason why they’ll be extremely unhappy and uncomfortable with MBS’ upcoming visit. Not only do they suspect (somewhat rightly) that this is aimed against their interests in Syria, but the symbolism of the Crown Prince “rising from the dead” in disproving the Resistance’s fake news “wishful thinking” conspiracy about his “death” is embarrassing for everyone who promoted this debunked narrative, and the “cherry on top” is that he’s immediately setting out for Moscow to “catch up” on the bilateral coordination that’s been going on between his country and Russia during his absence.

Concluding Thoughts

With Trump’s Hybrid War pressure on the Islamic Republic building by the day in marshalling an ever-widening military and economic coalition against it full of willing partners and coerced vassals (i.e. the Europeans), and Russia playing “hardball” in Syria by “balancing” against Iran’s interests there, Tehran might conclude that the “least bad” option available would be for it to comply with Moscow’s peacemaking “compromises” on the IRGC and Hezbollah’s post-war “phased withdrawal” from Syria in order to keep its northern “pressure valve” open as it pivots east towards the “Golden Ring” in response.

*

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.

Responding to campaigning by BDS activists, Palestinian human rights supporters, its footballers and others, highlighting  Israeli high crimes against peaceful Gazan demonstrators, Argentina’s national football team cancelled what was billed as a friendly match with Israel.

Originally scheduled in Haifa, it was moved to Jerusalem to help Israel celebrate its 70th birthday, along with wanting to sanitize its viciousness against Palestinians, notably beleaguered Gazans.

The match was to take place in a stadium built on ethnically cleansed Palestinian al-Maliha village land.

Palestinian footballer Mohammad Khalil urged Argentina to cancel the match. Protesting peacefully in Gaza, he was willfully targeted. Israeli snipers severely wounded him in both legs, ending his playing days.

Thousands of Palestinians signed a petition, joining Khalil in urging the cancellation. Argentina’s national team responded, infuriating Netanyahu.

Extremist culture minister Miri Regev disgracefully equated the cancellation to “the same terrorism that led to the murder of eleven slain (Israeli) athletes in Munich,” adding:

“This is not BDS, but a terrorist incident that intimidates the athletes themselves” – bald-faced lies, typical of how Israel responds to a righteous slap-down.

The cancelled match is a big win for right over wrong, a triumph following others, the way pure evil is defeated, one victory at a time.

Last week, trade unionists and Madres de Plaza del Mayo took part in a rally outside the Argentina Football Association (AFA) in Buenos Aires.

Protests followed the team to Barcelona. On Tuesday, during its training session ahead of the World Cup, Palestinian human rights activists urged its footballers not to play in Israel.

Following the cancelled match, BDS co-founder Omar Barghouti issued a statement, saying:

“We welcome the decision by the Argentina team to cancel this ‘friendly’ match. It would have been extremely unfriendly to human rights!”

“Playing with an apartheid state is a form of complicity, magnified by Israel’s recent horrific massacre in Gaza against unarmed protesters demanding their basic freedom, dignity and UN-stipulated refugee right of return.”

“This was all part of the Israeli apartheid regime’s sports-washing policy to use international sporting events to cover up its war crimes and egregious human rights violations against Palestinians.”

“The fact that Argentina fans and human rights activists around the world succeeded in thwarting it gives us a lot of hope.”

The Red Card Israel campaign called on FIFA to expel the Jewish state for attacking, imprisoning, and killing Palestinian footballers, preventing them from playing, ending the careers of victims like Mohammad Khalil.

“Palestinian players are routinely attacked, imprisoned and killed,” the campaign explained, adding:

“Players are denied freedom of movement to attend their own matches. Palestinian stadiums have been bombed and destroyed.”

“Israel even prevents football equipment from being imported and football facilities from being developed.”

“Racism against Palestinians is institutionalized in Israeli football. (S)egregated youth football leagues (and) anti-Palestinian hate from fan clubs…goes routinely unpunished.”

“Seven Israeli clubs based in illegal settlements are allowed to play in the official league of the Israel Football Association (IFA) making FIFA – the football governing body – complicit with violations of international law.”

The campaign wants Israel barred from international sports competition until attacks against Palestinians end.

By video message, West Bank Nabi Saleh Palestinian footballers (the village home to Ahed Tamimi and her family members) thanked Argentina’s national team and Lionel Messi for cancelling the match with Israel.

In the video, Ahed’s relatives said

“(y)ou scored a goal for freedom, justice and equality.”

Israeli propaganda tried putting a brave face on a major embarrassing slap down – falsely claiming the cancelled match was over threats to Argentinian footballers.

With attribution to astronaut Neil Armstrong, the cancellation was one small step toward ending Israeli apartheid viciousness, perhaps a giant liberating leap to come.

A Final Comment

American/Palestinian lawyer Noura Erakat called the cancelled match unprecedented, “major,” adding:

“If I’m right, this is the first sports boycott of its kind. (It’s an) indication of mainstream support for Palestine…a bold rejection of US/Israeli violence (and) exclusionary futures.”

“Thank you” Argentina – its footballers, not its hardline regime.

*

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

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

For all of Europe’s bluster, and increasingly vocal “resistance” to Trump unique approach to international politics, especially when it comes to Iran when Brussels swore it would defy the US president and continue business as usual with Tehran, it took Europe about a month to fold, and as Reuters reports European refiners are now unofficially winding down oil purchases from Iran, closing the door on a fifth of the OPEC member’s crude exports.

And since the only true leverage that Iran had vis-a-vis Europe was its deeply discounted crude oil, the shuttering of crude purchases from the Islamic republic will suddenly make European governments especially ambivalent whether to continue fighting Trump in hopes of salvaging the Iranian nuclear, when there is only downside left.

How did Trump win? By the implicit threat to sanctioning and  cutting off Europe’s financial institutions, and although European governments have not – yet  – followed Washington by creating new sanctions, banks, insurers and shippers are gradually severing ties with Iran under pressure from the U.S. restrictions, making trade with Tehran complicated and risky, and if anything, all cash (or bitcoin).

Immediately after Trump announced on May 4 announced that the US is quitting the landmark 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers and reimposed sanctions on Tehran, effectively making Iranian exports “radioactive” on the global scene, ministers from Germany, France and Britain protested vocally and repeatedly, urging U.S. officials to shield European companies from the sanctions, but the refiners have decided to not take any chances.

“We cannot defy the United States,” a senior source at Italy’s Saras, which operates the 300,000-barrels-per-day Sarroch refinery in Sardinia, told Reuters. Saras is determining how best to halt its purchasing of Iranian oil within the permitted 180 days, the source said, adding: “It is not clear yet what the U.S. administration can do but in practice we can get into trouble.

Saras is hardly alone: virtually all other European brand refiners, including France’s Total, Italy’s Eni, Spain’s Repsol and Cepsa as well as Greece’s Hellenic Petroleum are preparing to halt purchases of Iranian oil. These refiners account for most of Europe’s purchases of Iranian crude, which represent around a fifth of the country’s oil exports.

Iran’s crude sales to foreign buyers averaged around 2.5 million bpd in recent months; and while the bulk of the exports go to Asia, roughly 500kbp/d in Iranian output will now be mothballed.

There is a few months before all purchases are cut off: the companies will continue to purchase cargoes until the sanctions take effect, after the 180-day wind down period ends on Nov. 4.

Europe’s largest refiner, Total, does not intend to request a waiver to continue crude oil trading with Iran after Nov. 4. Eni said it had an oil supply contract outstanding for the purchase of 2 million barrels per month, expiring at the end of the year.

“Our trading activity (remains) business as usual … We continue to strictly conform with European Union and international laws and regulations,” a Cepsa spokesman said, clearly forgetting that Europe’s poseur leaders are now part of the anti-Trump resistance. Or “are” only as long there are some fringe benefits to be had. Because if Europe can’t have access to Iran’s cheap oil, watch how the continent’s liberal elite forgets how to even spell Tehran.

All this is happening as Europe continues to pretend it is fighting Trump, if only for naive public consumption, and on Wednesday, the EU again urged the Trump administration to exempt European companies from sanctions on Iran.

Ministers from Germany, the UK and France, along with EU Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini, have signed a letter asking the US to allow its companies to continue to trade with Iran and spare certain industries from punitive measures. “As allies, we expect that the United States will refrain from taking action to harm Europe’s security interests,” the letter states before outlining a list of demands.

The letter is the functional equivalent of tweeting “thoughts and prayers” after yet another tragic terrorist incident or mass shooting event. Oh well, at least Europe can pretend to say “it did its best.”

However, at the basis of Europe’s humanitarian betrayal are not the oil companies but the banks: banks, shipping firms and insurance companies are now distancing themselves from the Islamic republic, leaving Europe’s refiners few options but to stop oil purchases.

“It’s a matter of finding a tanker and an insurer that will cover it. It’s definitely not easy right now,” a source at Repsol said.

Hellenic had to stop imports because the Swiss bank that it used was no longer processing payments to Iran, an industry source familiar with the situation said.

Yet as Europe prepares to wind down its Iranian oil imports, the wildcard is Asia, where some buyers are also expected to reduce their purchases, such as India’s Reliance Industries. The owner of the world’s biggest refining complex plans to halt oil imports from Iran, two sources familiar with the matter told Reuters last week.

The big question is whether China, which has been making aggressive inroads into Chinese commerce in recent years, which recently launched a new train landline to Iran, and whose state-owned oil giant, CNPC – the world’s third largest oil and gas company by revenue behind Saudi Aramco and the National Iranian Oil Company – is now set to take over the role held by Total in a huge gas project in Iran, will step up its Iranian oil imports and offset the loss of Iranian oil exports to Europe, India and Japan, and if so, just how will the Trump administration react.

Did Fracking Cause the Hawaii Volcanic Eruption?

June 7th, 2018 by Jon Rappoport

On the Big Island of Hawaii, where the Kilauea volcano has explosively erupted, there is a geothermal energy plant. It is the Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) Plant, in Puna.

There is a long-running debate about whether PGV is fracking. The debate may be a matter of terminology, because in the geothermal process, as hawaiifracking.com reports,

“…the drilling and the injection of cold water into hot rocks used in geothermal energy plants does fracture the rocks, which can induce earthquakes and through contamination of the atmosphere and water tables can affect our health and safety.”

Whether deep injection of fluid aims to capture oil, gas, or heat (geothermal), the beginning stage of the process is the same.

Earthquakes induced by this water-injection could obviously trigger a volcano.

For example, here is an alarming article about a geothermal project in Switzerland. Swissinfo.ch, December 10, 2009:

“The authorities in canton Basel City say they will cancel a geothermal energy project, which three years ago caused minor tremors that damaged many buildings.”

“A risk analysis study published on Thursday found that the danger of setting off more earthquakes was too great if drilling at the site resumed.”

“The project was put on hold three years ago after thousands of claims for damage were filed with insurers. Total costs for the damage were around SFr9 million ($8.78 million).”

“The study, commissioned by the canton, concluded that Basel was ‘unfavourable’ for geothermal power generation.”

“It said the resumption of Deep Heat Mining project and its operation over a 30-year period could set off around 200 tremors with a strength of up to 4.5 on the Richter Scale – in 2006, the quakes were about 3.4.”

“This would result in damages up to SFr40 million.”

“The Basel facility drilled five kilometres into the earth. The borehole was designed to be injected with water to capture the extreme heat. Back at the surface, the hot water – at a temperature of around 160° Celsius – would run a steam turbine coupled with a generator.”

This Swiss article outlines the risks, and also confirms that deep water-injection is used in the geothermal process—which can and does trigger earthquakes.

Here is another reference—The Guardian, July 11, 2013:

“Pumping water underground at geothermal power plants can lead to dangerous earthquakes even in regions not prone to tremors, according to scientists.”

Prof Emily Brodsky, who led a study of earthquakes at a geothermal power plant in California, said: ‘For scientists to make themselves useful in this field we need to be able to tell operators how many gallons of water they can pump into the ground in a particular location and how many earthquakes that will produce’.”

“It is already known that pumping large quantities of water underground can induce minor earthquakes near to geothermal power generation and fracking sites. However, the new evidence reveals the potential for much larger earthquakes, of magnitude 4 or 5, related to the weakening of pre-existing underground faults through increased fluid pressure.”

“The water injection appears to prime cracks in the rock, making them vulnerable to triggering by tremors from earthquakes thousands of miles away. Nicholas van der Elst, the lead author on one of three studies published on Thursday in the journal Science, said: ‘These [injected] fluids are driving [earthquake] faults to their tipping point’.”

“The analysis of the Californian site showed that for a net injection of 500m gallons of water into the ground per month, there is an earthquake on average every 11 days.”

Heather Savage, a co-author on the same study said: ‘It is already accepted that when we have very large earthquakes seismic waves travel all over the globe, but even though the waves are small when they reach the other side of the world, they still shake faults [such as the faults induced by geothermal water-injection]. This can trigger seismicity in seismically active areas SUCH AS VOLCANOES where there is already a high fluid pressure.” (emphasis added)

So, on the Big Island of Hawaii, where there is a massive volcanic eruption underway, there is a geothermal plant, PGV. How close to the volcano is PGV?

The Washington Post, May 12: “Long a concern for residents and the target of lawsuits challenging its placement ON AN ACTIVE VOLCANO, the Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) is a major safety issue [i.e., chemicals stored at PGV] in the wake of the eruptions and earthquakes that have shaken the Big Island for days, government officials say.” (emphasis added)

I see. PGV is ON the volcano. Other reports claim PGV is 15 miles from the volcano. In either case, PGV is close, very close.

Who owns PGV? Ormat Technologies. Through internal merger and stock swapping, Ormat appears to be a jointly owned Israeli and US company now.

Ormat is no stranger to scandals. At blog.heartland.org, H Sterling Burnett writes (4/1/15): One scandal that could haunt [Harry] Reid for his remaining time in the Senate (and possibly beyond) was reported on recently in the Washington Free Beacon and Courthouse News. It seems the Reid helped the green energy company, Ormat Technologies, a firm that owns and manages geothermal plants in California and Hawaii, secure nearly $136 million in economic stimulus funding from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

“Two former employees are suing the firm, claiming Ormat executives defrauded the United States of more than $130 million by reporting false information about two projects to get government grants, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.”

“Reid’s ties to Ormat are deep. The company runs geothermal plants in Nevada and Reid has been a big booster of the company in D.C. As reported in the Free Beacon, ‘Reid bragged about securing Ormat a $350 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy (DOE) and took credit for expanding the Treasury program that the former employees say illicitly provided Ormat with millions more in taxpayer funds’.”

“It is also worth noting that Ormat’s DOE award came a year after investors sued the company for allegedly inflating its stock price through ‘fraudulent accounting and overstated financial results.’ Ormat settled the allegations in 2012 for $3.1 million.”

Ormat potentially faces a much larger scandal now.

A massive volcanic eruption on the Island of Hawaii.

*

Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe.

These coming days, the final result of the inter-state negotiations between the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Greece about the official and internationally used state’s name of the former is to be announced. According to many unofficial sources, most probable new state’s name of FYROM is going to be the Republic of North Macedonia but other options like the Republic of Ilinden Macedonia are also circulating in mass media. Here, it is worth to remember some of the aspects of historical disputes over the “Macedonian Question”.

The focal Greek accusation of Yugoslav Macedonian policy after the WWII was that the recognition of Yugoslav Macedonians as a separate ethnolinguistic nationality was a tool for the creation of a Greater Yugoslavia of the communist dictator Josip Broz Tito – a country which had to dominate in the Balkan affairs. Yugoslav post-1945 policy of the recognition of Slavo-Macedonians as a separate ethnolinguistic entity was extremely important for Athens as the creation of the separate (socialist) political unit (republic) of Macedonia within the Yugoslav federation had its irredentist implications for the territorial integrity of Greece. The crux of the matter was that Yugoslav authorities as have been ideologically backed by the inter-war Comintern’s attitude and politics that Slavo-Macedonians were a separate nation which as such deserved its own united national state claimed after 1945 that the Macedonian diaspora living outside of Yugoslavia (in Greece and Bulgaria) has to be incorporated into the “motherland” – the Yugoslav Macedonia. Therefore, socialist Yugoslavia indirectly claimed parts of Bulgaria and Greece that was seen by both Sofia and Athens as a policy of the creation of a Greater Yugoslavia at the expense of the territorial integrity of Bulgaria and Greece – two countries which never recognized the existence of any “Macedonians” on their state’s territory.

Bulgaria, nevertheless, is not recognizing the existence of “Macedonians” at all, treating them as ethnolinguistic Bulgarians and henceforth claiming that a historical-geographical region of Macedonia belongs to Bulgaria. According to an American professor of political sciences, Alex N. Dragnich, Macedonia became a separate Yugoslav republic for the sake to beat Bulgarian irredentist propaganda by Yugoslav authorities but as well as in order to satisfy at least some territorial claims by Macedonian communists within the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. Nevertheless, such Macedonian policy of Yugoslav post-WWII authorities made Yugoslav Slavo-Macedonians to be one of the most satisfied Yugoslav ethnic groups.[1]

Macedina is Greece

It is a matter of fact that а Slavic speaking minority in North Greece is seen by Athens either as the “Slavophone Greeks” or the “Slavic speakers of Bulgarian origin” but surely not as the “Macedonians”. According to а Greek point of view, а term “Macedonia” can refer only to the land of North Greece and, therefore, the usе of this term for one of six Yugoslavia’s socialist republics after the WWII was a Yugoslav communist plot to annex the region of North Greece to a Greater Tito’s Yugoslavia.[2]

For the matter of better clarification of the issue, the term “Macedonia” was used to designate a separate republic as a national state of quasi-ethnolinguistic “Macedonians” when the communist leader of Yugoslavia Josip Broz Tito (1892−1980) established Macedonia as one of six Yugoslav socialist republics in 1945[3] and, therefore, Macedonia became a separate political-territorial entity for the first time in modern history. It was followed by the official recognition of Macedonians as an independent ethnic, linguistic and national subject, regardless to the very fact that a Macedonian national (self)identity was extremely problematic, disputed and ambivalent. It is true that the population of historical-geographical Macedonia did not always have a Macedonian national consciousness. The Slavs of Macedonia traditionally have been either without some exact ethnonational name or being self-identifying themselves as the Bulgarians. However, from the late-19th century, due to both Bulgarian and Greek political propaganda efforts, a Macedonian regional identity started to be developed but from 1945 became simply transformed into the ethnonational identity within the borders of ex-Yugoslavia. That is how today we have the “Macedonians” as an ethnolinguistic nation which is even internationally recognized as such by many political and academic authorities.

Yugoslavia_Map

The Macedonian state is fairly young and the Macedonian nationality is recently created in comparison to the other Balkan cases. The Macedonian identity is, as all other national identities, a product of imagined community[4] and, therefore, the Macedonian national identity has been constructed the same way as, for instance, the Greek national identity, just rather later on.[5] If we accept the leading Western (German) theory of the Slavic origin, the Slavs have been living since the end of the 6th century on the territory of Macedonia while the Macedonian national identity started to be developed only from the late 19th century. It is a historical fact that Slavo-Macedonian populated territories had always been part of other states like Bulgaria, Byzantine Empire, Serbia, and Ottoman Empire. Among all Yugoslavia’s provinces, Macedonia was longest occupied by Ottomans – from 1371 to 1912. After the collapse of ancient Kingdom of Macedon, Macedonia as an independent state appeared only in 1991 (like Slovenia as well) but having nothing in common with the previous one except having the same state-name. Subsequently, modern Macedonians are historically a “stateless ethnic group” (and, therefore, not a nation from the Western point of view) like many other Balkan ethnic groups like Gypsies or Vlachs. For that reason, three Balkan national states rather divided the territory of historical-geographic Macedonia in 1913 than to support the creation of a new Balkan independent state which would not have any historical background of the existence. However, a socialist Yugoslav historiography, for the very political purposes, reinterpreted the Balkan medieval history in order to overcome a very bad reputation of Yugoslav Macedonians as the “stateless ethnic group” but not a historical nation. As a result, a (quasi) Macedonian national state was found in the Empire of Samuel which existed as a state from 976 until 1018 when it was conquered by Byzantine Emperor Basil II.[6]

The foundation for such Yugoslav and present-day Macedonian claim was a self-constructed interpretation that the subjects of Samuel’s state were the “Macedonians” regardless on historical fact that all Byzantine and other sources of the time were clearly calling this state as of Bulgarians.[7] Even a Byzantine Emperor Basil II after the final victory over Samuel took for himself an official title of the “Killer of Bulgarians” rather than of Macedonians. Furthermore, after the occupation of the territory of the Empire of Samuel, „Bulgaria once more became an integral part of the Byzantine Empire and was divided into ‘themes’”[8] (the Byzantine administrative provinces), but no one of them was named “Macedonia” while the biggest of them, established on the central territory of ex-Empire of Samuel, with its administrative centre in Skopje, was named as Bulgaria.[9]

It is quite understandable, henceforth, that Bulgarians see the Empire of Samuel as a part of the history of Bulgaria and Bulgarian people as their claims that Samuel was a Bulgarian and ruler of the Bulgarian state are founded on the number of historical sources of the time. Nevertheless, FYROM Macedonians base their claim on the Macedonian character of the Empire of Samuel on the fact that the capital of this state was Ohrid, a city located on present-day FYROM (on the very border with Albania), whereas the medieval Bulgarian rulers administered their state traditionally from Preslav in Bulgaria.[10]

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is Founder & Editor of POLICRATICUS-Electronic Magazine On Global Politics (www.global-politics.eu). Contact: [email protected]

Notes

[1] Алекс Н. Драгнић, Титова обећана земља – Југославија, Београд: Задужбина Студеница−Чигоја штампа, 2004, 90−91.

[2] Victor Roudometof, “Nationalism and Identity Politics in the Balkans: Greece and the Macedonian Question”, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1996, 253−301.

[3] Nikolaos Zahariadis, “Nationalism and Small-State Foreign Policy: The Greek Response to the Macedonian Issue”, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 109, No. 4., 1994, 647−667.

[4] Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Revised edition, London: Verso, 2016.

[5] Looring M. Danforth, ”Claims to Macedonian Identity: The Macedonian Question and the Breakup of Yugoslavia”, Anthropology Today, Vol. 9, No. 4, 1993, 3−10.

[6] Historija naroda Jugoslavije, I, Zagreb, 1960, 295−301.

[7] Ivan Božić, Sima Ćirković, Milorad Ekmečić, Vladimir Dedijer, Istorija Jugoslavije, Drugo izdanje, Beograd: Prosveta, 1973, 38.

[8] Georges Castellan, History of the Balkans: From Mohammed the Conqueror to Stalin, New York: Columbia University Press, 1992, 23.

[9] Георгије Острогорски, Историја Византије, Београд: Просвета, 1969, 296−297.

[10] Short History of Macedonia.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Slavo-Macedonians as a Tool for the Creation of Tito’s Greater Yugoslavia
  • Tags: ,

US Trade War with the European Union

June 7th, 2018 by Peter Koenig

According to an AFP Report “The EU is envisaging “a raft of retaliatory tariffs, including on whiskey and motorcycles, against painful metals duties imposed by the US” 

The European Commission, which handles trade matters for the 28-country bloc, “expects to conclude the relevant procedure in coordination with member states before the end of June,” said European Commission Vice-President Maros Sefcovic at a news briefing.

This would allow “that the new duties start applying in July,” he added.

“It is a measured and proportionate response to the unilateral and illegal decision taken by the US to impose tariffs on the European steel and aluminum exports which we regret,” said the former Slovak prime minister.

From blue jeans to motorbikes and whiskey, the EU’s hit-list of products targeted for tariffs with the US reads like a catalogue of emblematic American exports.

The European Union originally drew up the list in March but pledged not activate it unless US President Donald Trump followed through on his threat to impose 25 percent tariffs on steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum.

The Trump tariffs came into effect on June 1 and the EU now joins Mexico and Canada and other close allies that have announced their own wave of counter-duties against Washington.

The EU commission must now take their proposal to be signed off by the bloc’s member states amid divisions over what path to take against Trump’s unpredictable policies.

France and the Netherlands back a tough line against the US, while export powerhouse Germany has urged caution towards Trump’s “America First” policies.” (AFP, June 6, 2018)

***

PressTV: How do you think this will affect the US? Wouldn’t it create more unemployment in America?

Peter Koenig: First, I think we have to distinguish between the various trade blocks and trade wars, like China, Russia, the NAFTA partner countries, Mexico and Canada – and the European Union – the EU. They are all different in as much as they have different motives.

Second, there is much more behind the so-called trade wars than trade. Much of this trade war is propaganda, big style, for public consumption and public debate, where as in reality there are other negotiations going on behind closed doors.

And thirdly, there are mid-term elections coming up in the US this fall, and Trump must satisfy his home base, all the workers to whom he promised “Let’s Make America Great Again” – meaning bring back jobs, use US-made metals. So, Trump is also addressing those Americans who wait for jobs. As you know the unofficial but real figure of unemployment in the US is about 22% – and that does not even include the large segment of underemployed people, mostly youth.

I think we have to see the Big Picture here. And Trump, or rather those who give him orders, may not see all the risks that this complex multi-polar tariff war implies.

But for now, let’s stick to Europe.

It is very well possible that the EU will also impose import duties on US goods. But if it stays at that, it is very likely that this so-called trade war with the US is pushing Europe even faster than is already happening towards the East, the natural trading partners – Russia and China. As I said, its already happening.

But the Big Picture, in the case of Europe, I believe is IRAN. With tariffs on steel and aluminum – quite sizable tariffs, European producers of these metals, the second largest after China, would hurt. There may not be an immediate replacement market for America.

So, Trump may want to blackmail Europe into accepting his new sanctions on Iran. In other words, “either tariffs or you follow my dictate – abandon the Nuclear Deal and impose sanctions”.

Frankly, I doubt very much that this will work, since EU corporations have already signed billions worth of contracts with Iran. On the other hand, Germany in particular, is keen in renewing political as well as trade relations with Russia.

And the recent remark of the new US Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, that he will support conservative right-wing movements in Germany and in Europe – did certainly not go down well in Germany, with already a Parliamentary movement to expulse him – which certainly doesn’t help US-German relations.

As we speak, most likely this type of “blackmail” negotiations, “either tariffs or you go with us against Iran”, are going on with the EU behind closed doors.

Of course, nobody knows the outcome.

Trump is like a straw in the wind, bending to whatever seems to suit him best at the moment.

Remember, a couple of months ago he already imposed tariffs on Europe, along with everybody else, on steel and aluminum, then he lifted them again – and now we are on again. It’s like with most everything he does. It’s probably his business negotiation strategy.

But, this would just confirm, that this trade war is much more than meets the eye, more than a trade war – it’s about geopolitics – like “show me your card – which camp are you in?”

Trump and those who manage him may still be under the illusion of the last 70 years, that the whole world, especially Europeans, have to bend over backwards to please the US of A, because they saved Europe – and the world – from the Nazi evil.

Not only is it time to stop the vassalage and become autonomous again, but also, many European start understanding that whom they really have to thank for liberating them from the Nazis – is Russia.

*

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

The mechanical, robotic striving of university politburos and their jack boot managers have always been interesting when it comes to one particular topic: the role of technology and its adoption.  For it is in technology that the mediocre paper clip shuffler can claim to have achieved something – on someone else’s back, naturally.

The shift to Google by universities as a storage and communication mechanism was something taken with a breezy obliviousness to its implications.  For Google, it was a magical boon: mass concentration of staff and student data, cloud facilities, the magic of information.  Such decisions are generally taken without asking the staff who actually use it – the nature of university management is piously anti-democratic, with all the usual balloons of sentiment about faux consultation and the like.

Google’s move into the university sector with a mixture of predatory zeal and seductive wooing was inexorable, mimicking the cyber colonisation drive of Steve Jobs at Apple (“computers are bicycles for the mind”).

In schools, Google has built a relentless, unquestioned empire, taking root in such systems as Chicago Public Schools, the third largest school district in the United States.  As the New York Times noted in May 2017, such an event heralded “the Googlification of the classroom.”  Teachers became Google grunts advertising products to other schools, bypassing school district officials. Students became Google converts, effectively disabled from considering any alternatives and indifferent to pure knowledge.  They have become the new worker bees. 

University managers were tickled and thrilled by the jargon, the applications, the idea of productivity, sending out such messages to staff as follows:

“The College is Going Google!  What does this mean?  How will it impact teaching and learning at The College?  Many K-12 school districts are using Google Apps for Education, providing their students with access to Google productivity tools as early as primary school.  Students coming to The College in the next five years may never have opened Microsoft Word, but will be familiar with the sharing, collaborating, and publishing with Google tools. Are you ready?”

Such gush and wobbly prose characterised the nature of such unwanted missives.  (Most staff, at least the sentient ones, could not have cared less.)  And Google was certainly winning over its competitors, most notably Microsoft.  In 2011, it scored the coup of coups by netting University of California at Berkeley.

The Californian giant displayed those usual budgetary considerations typical of such decisions: Google, for one, was cheaper and easier on the bottom line.  Office 365 would also require the initial installation and configuration of local software as a preliminary for any migration to be effectuated.

“Office 365 offers an integrated experience for on-premise and cloud users,” went the explanatory document comparing Google and Office 365.  “This comes at a greater ongoing, operational expense and complexity of maintaining central infrastructure.”

Google, on the other hand, would be able to do amply more with significantly less – and at goggle eyed speed. 

“A UC Berkeley migration to Google [from CalMail] can start faster and with less infrastructure investment.”

But some universities, after conducting their whirlwind Google romance, soured over the giant company.  UC Berkeley students and alumni contended in a law suit in 2016 that Google had given the false impression that email accounts would not be scanned for commercial purposes.

In 2015, Macquarie University reconsidered a move it undertook in 2010 to migrate some 6,000 staff from its Novell GroupWise to Gmail.  Students had already commenced using Gmail in late 2007.   

Again, as with UC Berkeley, it is worth scrutinising why the university initially decided to go with Google over Microsoft, that ever contending beast in the tech boardroom.  The reasons are crusty as they are old:

“The university rejected Microsoft as an option at the time,” explained Allie Coyne in ITNews, “for being too expensive.”  

Being careful to market such economic reasons appropriately, the Macquarie public relations unit was keen to emphasise that the university had only gone with Google after being reassured that generated data would be hosted in the European Union.  With data protections being more securely moored in the EU, this was a consideration decorated to sell.  To have hosted it in the US would have naturally brought the US Patriot Act and Digital Millennium Copyright Act into play.

With a change in hosting policy on the part of Google, Macquarie found itself veering into the arms of Microsoft and Office 365.  That company had, it so happened, opened two Australian data centres in 2014, a point that alleviated the infrastructure impediments that bothered the paladins at UC Berkeley.

The move to Office 365 is simply exchanging one demon’s credentials for another, and the rosy line being parroted by university management must be unpacked with diligence.  The example offered by RMIT University, for instance, in abandoning Google is fittingly opportunistic, with one email circulated amongst staff finally revealing why one of Australia’s largest teaching institutions is moving to Office 365:

“RMIT strategic vision is to expand into China.  Google is NOT supported in China.” 

A truly mercantilist sentiment.

*

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

Argentina’s cancellation of a friendly against Israel because of Israeli attempts to exploit the match politically is likely to reverberate far beyond the world of soccer and spotlights the risks of Israeli efforts to persuade the international community to recognize Jerusalem as its capital.

The Argentinian decision suggests that despite the fact several countries, including East European nations, are debating whether to follow US President Donald J. Trump’s decision earlier this year to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state and move the US embassy to the city, Israel is likely to find it difficult to capitalize on the US move in ways that convincingly project widespread international support.

Argentina’s cancellation of a friendly against Israel, Middle East Eye

Even worse, the decision illustrates that efforts to force recognition could backfire.

The Argentinian move has buoyed the grassroots Boycott, Divestment Sanctions (BDS) campaign that seeks to isolate Israel in non-violent defense of Palestinian rights after Israel has made countering the movement one of its top foreign policy objectives.

“The cancellation of Israel’s ‘friendly’ match with Argentina is a boost to the Red Card Israel campaign, which has called on FIFA to expel Israel – as it expelled apartheid South Africa – due to its violations against Palestinian football and its disregard for FIFA statutes,” BDS said in a statement.

The cancellation is BDS’s greatest success to date. Before that, it had only persuaded a small number of artists and organizations to boycott Israel.

An online campaign late last year convinced New Zealand singer-songwriter Lorde to cancel a planned concert in Israel. She followed other artists who have cancelled performances, including Elvis Costello, Lauryn Hill and Gorillaz.

The Argentinian decision has prompted concern that it could become the model for similar efforts in the future. One immediate target could be Israel’s scheduled hosting next year of the Eurovision song contest.

Argentina decided to cancel the match in the run-up to this month’s World Cup in Russia after Israel insisted on moving it from the Mediterranean port city of Haifa, home to Israel’s best stadium, to Jerusalem as part of the Jewish state’s 70th anniversary celebrations. Tickets for the Jerusalem match had sold out quickly.

Image result for lionel messi

The Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and Argentinian media said the decision was in response to a series of unidentified “threats and provocations” against star player Lionel Messi (image on the right) and his wife.

“Since they announced they would play against Israel, various terror groups have been sending messages and letters to players on the Argentina national team and their relatives, including clear threats to hurt them and their families. These included video clips of dead children,” said hard-line Israeli Culture and Sports Minister Miri Regev, whom many hold responsible for Israel’s public relations fiasco.

Ms. Regev was referring to video clips that had been circulated by the Islamic State, including pictures of Mr. Messi in an orange jumpsuit and ones that insinuated his beheading. A Palestinian campaign against playing the match in Jerusalem involved images of Mr. Messi’s white and sky-blue striped jersey stained with red paint resembling blood and threats to burn Messi posters.

The Palestine Football Federation (PFF) had early called on its Argentinian counterpart to cancel the match because of the move to Jerusalem, which it described as a violation of world soccer body FIFA’s principle of a separation of sports and politics.

Image result for Jibril Rajoub

PFF president Jibril Rajoub (image on the left) also urged Palestinian fans to burn pictures of Messi and replicas of his shirt if he played in the match in Jerusalem.

“He’s a big symbol so we are going to target him personally, and we call on all to burn his picture and his shirt and to abandon him. We still hope that Messi will not come,” Mr Rajoub said after talks with Argentinian diplomats based in the West Bank city of Ramallah prior to the cancellation.

It was FIFA’s ban on political interference in soccer that persuaded Argentine President Mauricio Macri to reject a request by Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to pre-empt the cancellation of the match.

The Israeli failure to have the match played in Jerusalem strengthens not only the BDS movement.

It also boosts Mr. Rajoub’s so far unsuccessful effort to persuade FIFA and the International Olympic Committee to impose sanctions against Israel because of the Israeli settlements in occupied territory and travel restrictions on Palestinian players and other allegedly security-related measures that hinder the development of Palestinian soccer.

Mr. Rajoub and liberal Israeli newspaper put responsibility for the soccer fiasco at the doorstep of Ms. Regev.

“She’s the main culprit for legitimizing Argentina’s decision not to come… Beyond squandering millions in taxpayer money, in forcing the game to move to Jerusalem, Regev displayed gross intervention…  If the game had stayed in Haifa, it would have happened… There’s a saying that a thousand wise men can’t rescue a coin thrown into a well by a fool….  All it takes is one fool to burn down a forest,” said Haaretz reporter Uzi Dann in an article entitled, Who Needs BDS: Israel Scores Spectacular Own Goal in Argentina Soccer Fiasco

“Instead of soccer, Miri Regev wanted politics and she got politics… It’s a great farce that gives immense momentum to the BDS campaign against Israel”, added Itzik Shmuli, a centre-left member of the Israeli parliament.

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin appeared to echo the sentiment by saying that “the politicization of the Argentinean move worries me greatly” even if he blamed the Argentinians for involving politics by cancelling the match.

Assertions by Israeli officials that the Argentinian decision had handed a victory to terrorism may go down well with hard-line public opinion in Israel as well as supporters of Israel across the globe but is unlikely to help Israel forge bridges to opponents of its policies or facilitate its efforts to get a broader international buy-in of its insistence that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of the Jewish state.

Israeli opposition leader Avi Gabbay pinpointed the potential fall-out of the cancellation of the match when he warned on Twitter:

“We just absorbed a shot in the face. This is not just sports. This, unfortunately, could start an international tsunami.”

*

This article was originally published on The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title as well as Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, co-authored with Dr. Teresita Cruz-Del Rosario,  Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa, and the forthcoming China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom.

Featured image is from the author.

The headlines are filled with news of China – United States trade disputes and imposition of damaging tariffs on steel and aluminum by the U.S.and countervailing tariffs by China on U.S. agricultural and other exports.

Will trade disputes escalate into a trade war between the world two largest economies? A trade war is a fight that almost all economists agree that both parties will be bloodied. No one will win. This is the position of Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, an economist. President Donald Trump famously opined on March 2 that

“Trade wars are good and easy to win.”

Well founded economic wisdom is: free trade good – trade war bad. Negotiation between nations, adherence to international trade agreements, WTO rules, and dispute resolution is the path forward. Equally supported is the belief that developing economies, from the United States to China, practiced an aggressive policy of import substitution using protective measures to shield their infant industries from foreign competitors.

Now we have the world’s two largest economies about to square off in potential ruinous economic combat if it spirals out of control with ever escalating tariffs. No one really knows if Donald Trump’s negotiating style is just bluster and brinkmanship with limited goals to appease his base supporters.

Some conservative U.S.business interests are more than just rhetorically concerned. The Koch Brothers are planning to focus their very substantial organizing and lobbying powers in support of free trade in the 2018 Republican primaries fight where they can exert substantial influence.

President Trump could have declared victory in March in trade talks with China when Premier Li Keqiang announced a further cut of 30 million metric tons of steel capacity in 2018 as part of ongoing plans to reduce overcapacity in Chinese government and provincial owned and financed steel. This was combined with Premier Li’s announcement of deficit reduction from 3 per cent to 2.6 per cent meaning less subsidy that could be reflected in steel pricing. Chinese steel exports in 2017 decreased 31 percent from 2016 for a total of 73.3 million metric tons, or 23% of world total steel exports.

Chinese steel total production is enormous, about 50% of global steel production. In 2017 ,China produced 825 million metric tons of steel and used 87 percent of this production domestically.This is the practical meaning of China becoming the global factory.

Some subsidized state-owned steelmakers, alleges economist Wolf Richter, “have turned into loss-making zombies,” an industrial version of bad debt laden banks. At the same time as wasteful steel overcapacity as being trimmed, a reduction of 150 metric tons of coal were announced for 2018, again ahead of schedule.

The U.S.and China as the two largest global economies have common interest in being global leaders cooperating in global renewable energy conversion, carbon dioxide emissions reduction, and rebuilding global industrial infrastructure to met sustainable ends of a global ecological civilization that is China’s express policy. But the United States under Trump has expressed little or no interest in these common pursuits. Indeed Trump is indifferent or hostile on renewable energy and is doing everything he can to subsidize and maintain the U.S.coal industry unable to compete with zero fuel cost renewable power and with fracked natural gas.

Long Term Significance

What is the context and long-term significance of China-United States trade disputes? The current imbroglio was driven by the unanticipated rise to power by Donald Trump with an America First ideology that on the world stage means America Last.

Trump’s America first policies are an unfortunate mixture of opposition to free trade, an anti-internationalism that’s more than just tinged with racism and American nativism. Such racist nativism was historically expressed in the United States by the odious Chinese exclusion acts starting in 1882. This led to the 1929 National Origins Act that banned all Asian immigration. Not until the Immigration Act of 1965 that large scale Chinese immigration to the U.S was allowed to begin again.

China in 2018 is no longer just a source of cheap labor. China is the world’s second largest economy, rapidly overtaking the United States as world economic leader. At bottom, this is the dynamic driving China- U.S. trade disputes. One of Donald Trump’s first act as president was to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership, a carefully constructed U.S. plan to act as a firewall against Chinese economic expansion that was torn down by the new administration.

The new administration left the door wide open for Chinese influence and at the same time savaging U.S. international leadership. On March 18, 11 nations, Australia, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, Canada and Mexico signed the TPP without the United States.

In 2018, it is President Xi Jinping that is warmly welcomed in Davos. It is Premier Li Keqiang, with an economics doctorate, leading Chinese trade initiatives, and cautioning the United States that there will be no winner in trade wars. And it is U.S.business publications like Forbes noting that the U.S. trade deficit with China is the basis for purchase of U. S. treasury notes and bonds by China to help finance the huge U.S budget deficit rapidly accelerating into more than one trillion dollars a year as a consequence of Trump administration business friendly tax cuts. What will happen when recession strikes the U.S.?

While the focus is on steel and aluminum, the long term question is very much on China’s concrete plans to be world leader in renewable energy, super computers, quantum computing, robotics, artificial intelligence, and leading edge scientific and medical research. Today, many of the world’s leading scientific researchers are choosing China as the place to lead laboratories not in the United States. As the United States turns a cold visa shoulder toward young scientists it is China that embraces them with open arms.

It is China’s pursuit of the enormous and ambitious Belt and Road initiative to tie China to Asia Europe and Africa through transport, energy and infrastructure investments that is of concern in Washington. It is China’s very substantial and growing investment across Europe in energy,in real estate,in ports, in factories that can not escape notice.

Made in China 2025 is a bold plan to move Chinese manufacture up the value chain, gaining leadership in emerging high technology fields and increasing Chinese made content of systems to 40% by 2020 and 75% by 2025. Chinese companies that are already competitive internationally shall expand and consolidate their markets. This a classic industrial policy exercise similar to Germany’s efforts to build and maintain a high value high tech high skilled manufacturing and technology sector. China simply intends to compete and beat the best of the world at their own high technology game and do so within the context of an enormous domestic market to complement international efforts.

Made in China addresses 10 key areas: Computer chips, sensors, and cloud computing; Robotics; Aircraft, jet engines, space craft; High tech ships; High speed rail; Electric and hybrid vehicles; Renewable energy; Farm equipment; Materials and rare earths; Medicine and drugs.

Made in China combined with Belt and Road initiative is a recipe for China to escape the so-called middle income trap of competing on the basis of low value added commodities and cheaper manufactured goods. China wants not to just be the assemblers of Apple phones with profit margins driven down to minuscule levels by competitive supplier bids that suppress labor costs and working conditions. China wants to develop the new high tech,high value added high margin products.

Trump’s threatened 25% tariff on Chinese high tech exports are as likely to hurt than to help American manufacturers. Much of China’s high tech imports are used by U.S.high tech companies like Boeing who markets its products internationally. Kristin Hopewell points out in the Washington Post that such a tax would raise the price on Boeing exports and assist European Air Bus competition.

What’s an unhappy U.S.superpower to do? Already, as Trump talks tariffs, U.S. governors like Jerry Brown of California and Charlie Baker of MA are talking joint ventures. China should invite the United States and its governors, Europe, and other OECD nations to join with China in working together to help plan and build the global renewable energy infrastructure to replace fossil fuels. This is the crucial path to save all of us from the emerging ecological catastrophe of climate change.

As Elon Musk of Tesla has made clear that it is an enormous and achievable industrial challenge to produce the storage batteries, solar panels, and wind machines to power an ecological civilization the 21st century and beyond.

If Made in China helps open the door for such global cooperation China,the United States and all the world will be a better place for it. President Xi Jinping can help catalyze and lead the pursuit of a coordinated and planned efficient renewable energy transformation just in time to mitigate climate disaster.

Fact check

Trump: ‘Trade wars are good, and easy to win’ – CNBC.com
Mar 2, 2018 – Even if new tariffs spark an international trade war, Trump is confident the United States would come out on top.

China Steel Exports Report 2017 Annual – International Trade

In 2015, China’s steel exports reached a record high of 110 million metric tons — an increase of 20.5 percent from 2014. In 2017, exports decreased 31 percent from 2016 for a total export volume of 73.3 million metric tons.

Who Dominates Global Steel Production & Trade?
by Wolf Richter • Jun 1, 2018 • 108 Comments

Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)
Harvard University Library

11 countries sign TPP trade pact without the United States
by Patrick Gillespie @CNNMoney

China’s 36-page official report on its goals for 2018, in four charts
Zheping Huang March 05, 2018

What is ‘Made in China 2025’ — and why is it a threat to Trump’s trade goals?
By Kristen Hopewel

*

Roy Morrison‘s Latest Book is Sustainability Sutra (2017). He is working on building solar on working farms www.dual-cropping.com.

They Disagree on Everything but Israel

June 7th, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

There is currently considerable agitation in Congress over what is loosely being referred to as “free speech.” The crux of the matter appears to be that many self-identified conservatives appear to believe that rules put in place by many college and university administrations unfairly discriminate against them, establishing restrictions on speakers whose opinions might be viewed as offensive to liberals and minority constituencies. This has lately led to the blocking of attempts by notable conservative lecturers to speak on campus and in other public fora lest they cause a breakdown in public order. It is interesting to note that the campaign against conservatives is never packaged quite as an actual free speech issue. It is generally expressed as a desire to sustain community values and to avoid violent confrontations.

Many of the groups engaging in agitprop seeking to redefine the First Amendment at the college level are inevitably Jewish, many of them politically liberal, seeking to eliminate hurtful commentary or actions that involve criticism of Israel. A common complaint is that demonstrations or speakers on campus make Jews feel uncomfortable and therefore should be banned. Ironically, the political conservatives, who believe themselves to be victims of a suppression of free speech, often hypocritically support the Jewish students’ drive to curtail the same commodity because they are strong supporters of Israel. That reality demonstrates that the complaints from both parties are more ideologically driven than based on any perception of the need to maintain basic constitutional rights.

More curious still are the actions of some Jewish legislators in Congress. The debate over free speech on campus to allow conservative voices is much in the media, but the desire of many of America’s normally liberal Jews to curtail any and all criticism of Israel is hardly mentioned at all, even though it is in many respects far more serious an attack against the First Amendment, as support of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement would be enshrined in federal legislation with draconian penalties attached.

Two leading Jewish senators, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Chuck Schumer of New York, are the driving forces behind the so-called Israel Anti-Boycott Act, which is continuing to make its way through Congress. It was introduced by Cardin and quickly attracted a number of co-sponsors and supporters, many of whom were predictably Republicans. The irony inherent in the bill comes from the fact that both Cardin and Schumer are solidly liberal in their voting records, to include support of issues generally regarded as protective of constitutional rights and liberties.

Theirs might reasonably be considered reliable votes whenever the Bill of Rights is challenged, but when it comes to Israel they are quite willing to flip 180 degrees.

Schumer might be considered Israel’s senator in Congress now that Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) has finally disappeared from the scene. Schumer has referred to himself as Israel’s “shomer” or protector, a derivation of his own name. If he is challenged at all in that status it would be by Cardin, who votes a straight pro-Israel line when called upon to do so and who is the product of Maryland’s largely Jewish dominated Democratic Party machine. Both are, not coincidentally, major recipients of campaign contributions coming from the Israel lobby. Two years ago both Schumer and Cardin opposed President Barack Obama’s agreement to the plan adopted to monitor Iran’s nuclear program, placing them in line with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in opposition to their own party’s president.

So here is the problem. Many American Jews in politics support Israel right or wrong without any regard for the impact on the rest of their constituents. This is obviously wrong, but they do it shamelessly because they believe that they will never be held to account. Unfortunately for them, attitudes toward Israel and its criminal regime are shifting, particularly in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Cardin has indeed faced some problems with his promotion of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act. The generally Israel-friendly American Civil Liberties Union objected strongly both to the obvious unconstitutionality of the bill as well as the punitive measures that it mandated, which included in the original version civil fines up to $250,000, criminal fines of up to $1 million, as well as a possible 20 years in prison. Two elements of the bill are particularly appalling. One criminalizes anyone even making inquiries about BDS and the other specifies that Israel includes by definition “settlements in the Palestinian occupied territories.” That means that the settlements, which all the world including the United States considers illegal, cannot be criticized under penalty of law.

These draconian features, which essentially criminalize a broad range of any criticism of Israel if implemented, were recently watered down but have not been completely eliminated from the current version of the bill. To be sure, a number of liberal Jewish organizations have come out against the bill but have been unable to make much progress, as the well-funded and much more numerous organizations that constitute the lobby have better access to both politicians and the mainstream media.

Against those who find the bill a bridge too far, even in defense of the Jewish state, one indeed finds an array of Jewish oligarchs who support Israel reflexively as well as the formidable power of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its hundreds of employees and $100 million annual budget. AIPAC is America’s most powerful foreign policy lobby. In terms of getting out the votes in Congress it is comparable to the gun lobby for the GOP. It is committed to the Cardin bill and considers it its top priority because it, echoing the repeated warnings issued by Netanyahu, believes that BDS is the greatest internal threat to Israel. Netanyahu is, of course, not rational on threats to Israel. He has long promoted attacking a militarily inferior Iran because it is an alleged threat and his judgment on BDS is similarly 90% scaremongering.

So here we have it again. Two prominent Jewish senators are working to destroy the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and they are doing it to “help” Israel. Some might call it treason.

*

This article was originally published on American Free Press.

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 TheFreeThoughtProject.com.

The Transatlantic bloc sees in the South American country a formidable ally with impressive economic, military, and altogether, strategic potential. Colombia’s economy is one of the best-performing in the hemisphere, and it’s also part of the “Pacific Alliance” trading bloc along with Mexico, Peru, and Chile. Its nearly 50 million people represent a huge labor pool and marketplace in the future, with the country’s regional importance also rising as a result of its oil and coal exports. The end of the civil war in summer 2016 also brought about much-needed stability for unlocking these potentials, and Bogotá’s historic military partnership with Washington made it a natural pick for NATO’s strategic expansion to the hemisphere.

About that, the US has been providing massive support to Colombia in its war against communist rebels for decades, but with that conflict having officially concluded two years ago, the country now functions as a centrally positioned springboard for NATO right at the nexus of North and South America, one which has the potential for being used as their proxy against the multipolar ALBA countries of Venezuela and Nicaragua. The first-mentioned one is Colombia’s neighbor that’s been suffering under a US-backed Hybrid War for years already that’s responsible for sparking a heavily politicized regional migrant crisis, while the latter had a maritime dispute with Bogotá in the Caribbean Sea that could be revived through provocations. Colombia could therefore conceivably be used by NATO to advance its unipolar objectives in the region.

Duque wins 1st round of Colombian presidential election

The presidential candidate of the Democratic Center party, Ivan Duque (C-R), celebrates after receiving most votes in the first round of the presidential elections accompanied by his family, in Bogota, Colombia, 27 May 2018. With 99.8% of the polls counted, Duque obtained 39.13% with more than 7.5 million of votes, while leftist candidate Gustavo Petro collected 4.8 million votes (25.9%). Duque and Petro will compete in the second round of the Colombian Presidency on June 17

The expansion of “Operation Condor 2.0”, which is what the US’ hemisphere-wide rollback operation of the past 10 years amounts to in evoking strong shades of what happened in the middle of the Old Cold War, could either heat up or be jeopardized depending on the results of this month’s presidential run-off. The hard-right hand-picked successor of the lame duck president scored 15% more of the vote last weekend than his closest second-place left-wing challenger but not enough to win outright. If Senator Ivan Duque comes out on top again, then he’s promised to reconsider some important clauses from the 2016 peace agreement with FARC, which could reignite hostilities in the country, while former Bogotá mayor Gustavo Petro is campaigning on a semi-socialist agenda that could revolutionize the country.

Clearly, Duque’s potential victory would play into NATO’s hands both regionally per the anti-ALBA reasons already explained but also internally by possibly providing the bloc with valuable combat experience if the FARC conflict re-erupts, while Petro would endanger all of that through his electoral socio-economic revolution that would be bound to have geopolitical consequences as well.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Latin America and the Globalization of NATO: Colombia’s Presidential Run-off Will Decide Its “Global Partnership” with NATO
  • Tags: , ,

We need to urgently cut carbon emissions and eventually cease greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution in coming decades. Ignored by Mainstream media is the need to drawdown atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from the present dangerous and damaging 410 parts per million CO2 (410 ppm CO2) to a safe and sustainable 300 ppm CO2 i.e. negative GHG emissions. However a feasible, large-scale mechanisms for doing this, namely Direct Air Capture (DAC),  is  expensive, leaving future generations with an inescapable present Carbon Debt of about $130 trillion that is remorselessly increasing at about $10 trillion per year.

1. Required atmospheric CO2 drawdown to 300 ppm CO2.

The excellent climate activist organization 350.org, that was co-founded by American journalist Bill McKibben, demands a requisite CO2 draw-down to no more than 350 ppm CO2 that would roughly halve the Carbon Debt [1]. However scores of scientists and science-informed activists argue that a target of about 300 ppm CO2 is required for a safe and sustainable environment for all peoples and all species [2, 3], noting that  before the Industrial Revolution the atmospheric CO2 had not exceeded 280 ppm CO2 in the last 800,000 years.

Thus, for example, 23 eminent coral scientists  and biologists comprising  the technical working group on coral of  The Royal Society issued a report including following summation (2009):

“The Earth’s atmospheric CO2 level must be returned to <350ppm to reverse this escalating ecological crisis and to 320ppm to ensure permanent planetary health. Actions to achieve this must be taken urgently” [4].

Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (leading coral scientist) (2009):

“We are already well above the safe levels for the world’s coral reefs. The proposed 450ppm/2 degree target is dangerous for the world’s corals and for the 500 million people who depend on them. We should not go there, not only for reasons of coral reefs, but for the many other impacts that are extremely likely. We deduce, from the history of coral bleaching, that the safe level for coral reefs is probably about 320 or 325ppm [CO2]” [5].

Professor  James Hansen (leading climate scientist) and colleagues (2008):

“Stabilization of Arctic sea ice cover requires, to first approximation, restoration of planetary energy balance. Climate models driven by known forcings yield a present planetary energy imbalance of +0.5-1 W/m2. Observed heat increase in the upper 700 m of the ocean confirms the planetary energy imbalance, but observations of the entire ocean are needed for quantification. CO2 amount must be reduced to 325-355 ppm to increase outgoing flux 0.5-1 W/m2, if other forcings are unchanged. A further imbalance reduction, and thus CO2 ~300-325 ppm, may be needed to restore sea ice to its area of 25 years ago” [6].

Dr T. Goreau (Jamaica delegation climate change expert making a scientific and technical briefing to the Association of Small Island States, UN Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark) (2009):

“The long-term sea level that corresponds to current CO2 concentration is about 23 meters above today’s levels, and the temperatures will be 6 degrees C higher. These estimates are based on real, long term climate records, not on models. We have not yet felt the real impacts of the current excess of greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuels, and the data shows that they will in the long run be many times higher than IPCC models project. In order to prevent these long term changes, CO2 must be stabilized at levels below preindustrial levels, around 260 parts per million. CO2 build up must be reversed,  not allowed to increase or even to be stabilized at 350 ppm, which would amount to a death sentence for coral reefs, small island developing states,  and billions of people living along low lying coast lines” [7].

Dr Andrew Glikson (an Earth and paleo-climate research scientist at Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) (2009):

“For some time now, climate scientists warned that melting of subpolar permafrost and warming of the Arctic Sea (up to 4 degrees C during 2005–2008 relative to the 1951–1980) are likely to result in the dissociation of methane hydrates and the release of this powerful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere (methane: 62 times the infrared warming effect of CO2 over 20 years and 21 times over 100 years) … The amount of carbon stored in Arctic sediments and permafrost is estimated as 500–2500 Gigaton Carbon (GtC), as compared with the world’s total fossil fuel reserves estimated as 5000 GtC. Compare with the 700 GtC of the atmosphere, which regulate CO2 levels in the range of 180–300 parts per million and land temperatures in a range of about – 50 to + 50 degrees C, which allowed the evolution of warm blooded mammals. The continuing use of the atmosphere as an open sewer for industrial pollution has already added some 305 GtC to the atmosphere together with land clearing and animal-emitted methane. This raised CO2 levels to 387 ppm CO2 to date, leading toward conditions which existed on Earth about 3 million years (Ma) ago (mid-Pliocene), when CO2 levels rose to about 400 ppm, temperatures to about 2–3 degrees C and sea levels by about 25 +/- 12 metres” [8].

Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research., Germany)  (2008):

“It is a compromise between ambition and feasibility. A rise of 2oC could avoid some of the big environmental disasters, but it is still only a compromise…It is a very sweeping argument, but nobody can say for sure that 330ppm is safe. Perhaps it will not matter whether we have 270ppm or 320ppm [CO2], but operating well outside the [historic] realm of carbon dioxide concentrations is risky as long as we have not fully understood the relevant feedback mechanisms” [280 ppm is the pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration] [9].

David Spratt (leading Australian climate change analyst and activist on the website called “Climate Code Red”, the title of a key book by David Spratt and Phillip Sutton) (2009):

“The central point is that Arctic sea-ice is undergoing dramatic loss in summer, having lost 70-80% of its volume in the last 50 years, most since 2000. Without summer sea-ice, Greenland cannot escape a trajectory of ice-sheet loss leading to an eventual sea-level rise of 7 metres. Regional temperatures in the Arctic autumn are already up about 5C, and by mid-century an Arctic ice-free in summer, combined with more global warming, will be pushing Siberia close to the point where large-scale loss of carbon from melting permafrost would make further mitigation efforts futile. As Hansen told the US Congress in testimony last year, the “elements of a perfect storm, a global cataclysm, are assembled”. In short, if you don’t have a target that aims to cool the planet sufficiently to get the sea-ice back, the climate system may spiral out of control, past many “tipping points” to the final “point of no return”. And that target is not 350ppm, it’s around 300 ppm. Hansen says Arctic sea-ice passed its tipping point decades ago, and in his presentations has also specifically identified 300-325ppm as the target range for sea-ice” [10].

Shaye Wolf  and Miyoko Sakashita (Center for Biological Diversity, San Francisco, California) (2009):

“Given the documented detrimental impacts to corals at the current atmospheric CO2 concentration of ~387 ppm CO2, the best-available science indicates that atmospheric CO2 concentrations must be reduced to at most 350 ppm, and perhaps much lower (300-325 ppm CO2), to adequately reduce the synergistic threats of ocean warming, ocean acidification, and other impacts” [11]

2. Record GHG emissions and biodiversity loss.

The world scientific  community has been aware since the 1980s of the actual global warming impact of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4).  This awareness and concern was translated into the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) [12]. Atmospheric CO2 has been monitored at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, since 1958 and has now reached a record 410 ppm CO2 and was increasing at a maximum rate of 3 ppm CO2 per year in recent years [13-15]. The highest annual average  atmospheric CO2 each year (it increases in the  Northern winter and decreases in the  Northern summer) has increased at an ever-increasing rate from 320 ppm CO2  in 1960 (increasing at 0.5 ppm CO2 per year) to 408 ppm CO2 in 2016 (increasing at 3.0 ppm CO2 per year). In 2017 the maximum CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory was 410 ppm CO2.

A neoliberal, profit-driven world in which Big Money determines politician and public perception of reality has been simply ignoring a quarter century of pleas for action from the world’s scientists. The present stupid,  ignorant, populist, anti-science and neoliberal president of the US , Donald Trump, is guided by powerful climate change denialists and has busily set about reversing what little was achieved by his predecessor Barack Obama, most notably green-lighting fossil fuel exploitation and withdrawing America from the Paris Climate Change Agreement.

In 2017 over 15,000 scientists  around the world signed a detailed statement  that we are badly running out of time to save the Planet from over-exploitation,  man-made global warming and massive biodiversity loss. This warning was backed by data on disastrous trajectories in 9 out of 10 key areas over the last 24 years, came  25 years after a similar warning by 1,700 scientists, coincided with the 2017 UN Climate Change Conference COP 23 in Bonn, and concluded “Time is running out” for action. Extrapolation from quasi-linear trajectories indicates a looming disaster in key areas, with man-made CO2 emissions increasing from 12.0 Gt (Gigatonnes or billion tonnes) CO2 per year in 1992 to 26.0 in 2016 to a projected 51.1 in 2040 [16, 17].

The Historical Carbon Debt (or Carbon Debt) of a country can be measured by the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) it has introduced into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century. Thus the total Carbon Debt of the world from 1751-2016 (including CO2 that gone into the consequentially acidifying oceans) is about 1,850 billion tonnes CO2. Assuming a damage-related Carbon Price of US$200 per tonne CO2-equivalent [18],   this corresponds  to a Carbon Debt of $370 trillion, similar to the total wealth of the world and about 4.5 times the world’s total annual GDP. The world has a Carbon Debt of $370 trillion that is increasing at $13 trillion per year [19], and Australia (among world leaders in fossil fuel exploitation and climate change inaction [20, 21]), has a Carbon Debt of $7.5 trillion (A$10 trillion) that is increasing at $400 billion (A$533 billion) per year and at $40,000 (A$53,000) per head per year for under-30 year old Australians [19].

CO2 is presently about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere (equal to 410 parts per million CO2 or 400 ppm CO2) which corresponds to approximately 3,200 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2  (the molecular weight of CO2 is 44 and the atomic weight of C is 12, and thus the atmospheric C  = 3,200 Gt CO2 x (12 Gt C/44 Gt CO2) =   873 Gt of carbon (C)). Each part per million by volume (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere thus represents 3,200 Gt CO2/410 ppm CO2 = 7.8 Gt CO2 (2.13 Gt C) [22]. Lowering the atmospheric CO2 from the present 410 ppm CO2 to a requisite  300 ppm CO2 would mean removing 110 ppm CO2 x 7.8 Gt CO2 per ppm CO2 = 858 Gt CO2 i.e. a Carbon Debt of 858 Gt CO2. Assuming a damage-related Carbon Price of US$200 per tonne CO2-equivalent [18], this corresponds to a Carbon Debt of $172 trillion.

With atmospheric CO2 increasing at 3 ppm CO2 per year, the annual increase in Carbon Debt is 3 ppm CO2 x 7.8 Gt CO2 per ppm CO2 = 23.4 Gt CO2 or $4.7 trillion per year. However it gets worse. Thus World Bank analysts have revised annual GHG pollution by considering the contribution of methanogenic livestock production and attendant land use together with a Global Warming Potential of methane (CH4) that is 72 times that of CO2 on a horribly pertinent 20 year time frame  as compared to 21 on a 100 year  time scale (CH4 has a half-life  in the atmosphere of 8 years as compared to 100 years for CO2). The World Bank revised estimate increases the annual GHG pollution from 41.8 Gt CO2-equivalent (CO2-e)  to 63.8 Gt CO2-e [23], this latter figure corresponding to an annual increase in Carbon Debt of 63.8 Gt CO2-e  x $200 per t CO2-e = $12.8 trillion or $1,701 each for every one of the present 7.5 billion human beings [24]. One notes that the world average GDP per capita is presently about $10,000 [25]. Further,  the annual increase in global Carbon Debt of $12.8 trillion may be an under-estimate because the Global Warming Potential  of CH4 on a 20 year time frame is 105 if atmospheric aerosol  impacts are considered [26].

Unlike conventional debt that can be expunged by default, bankruptcy, or printing money,   Carbon Debt is inescapable. Thus with a world facing a circa 1 metre sea level rise this century, coastal cities and populations will drown if sea walls are not built or the populations are not relocated to zones safe from sea surges due to warming-intensified storms. Carbon Debt involves immense climate criminality, intergenerational inequity and intergenerational injustice [27, 28]. If the young fully realized the awful extent of the worsening and inescapable Carbon Debt to be paid by future generations there would be a (hopefully non-violent) Climate Revolution [29].

The forgoing estimate of annual Carbon Debt increase does not take into account the cost of human lives lost to global warming impacts. Thus climate change is already killing an estimated 0.4 million people each year [30], although this may be a considerable under-estimate because climate change disproportionately  impacts the tropical and sub-tropical Developing World in which 16 million people die avoidably from deprivation each year [31]. Indeed carbon fuel burning is associated with toxic air pollutants (notably fine carbon particulates and nitrogen oxides) that eventually kill about 7 million people each year [32]. Several leading climate scientists have estimated that only 0.5 billion people will survive this century if man-made climate change is not requisitely addressed, this predicting a Climate Genocide in which 10 billion people would perish this century at a average rate of 100 million per year [33].

The risk avoidance-based Value of a Statistical Life (VOSL) is about $9 million for Americans [34]  and on  the basis of “all men are created equal” could thus apply to all Humanity in an ideal world. On the basis of a $9 million per person VOSL, the annual cost of fossil fuel burning and/or global warming  could be $3.6 trillion (0.4 million climate change-related deaths pa), $63 trillion (7 million pollution-related deaths pa), $144 trillion (16 million climate change-impacted  global avoidable deaths from deprivation pa), and $900 trillion (adumbrated average of 100 million deaths pa from unaddressed climate change this century).

We have the extraordinary situation today of deadly Trump American inaction over a worsening climate emergency and a worsening climate genocide as compared to a commitment to a long-term accrual cost of $6 trillion for the endless War on Terror  – yet there are 400,000 climate change-related deaths globally annually (climate terrorism victims)  versus an average of 4 US deaths annually in America from political terrorism  since 9-11. Similarly, since 9-11 there have been 3.3 million US air pollution deaths (carbon terrorism) versus 60 US political terrorism deaths in America [35, 36]. The 3.3 million US air pollution deaths since 9-11 from carbon fuel burning pollutants translates to a “wasted” risk avoidance-based cost of $30 trillion

The Carbon Debt transcends measurability when one considers  the worsening desertification, salinization, deforestation, ocean resource depletion, speciescide,  ecocide  and omnicide  associated with burgeoning human population and inextricably linked GHG pollution associated with increased urban industrial activity and  agricultural methanogenic livestock-related land use.

According to  biologists Drs Phillip Levin and Donald Levin (2002):

“Rates of extinction appear now to be 100 to 1,000 times greater than background levels, qualifying the present as an era of “mass extinction”” [37].

A letter signed by over 15,000 scientists in 2017 documented massive over-exploitation,  man-made global warming and massive biodiversity loss,  declaring that

“Moreover, we have unleashed a mass extinction event, the sixth in roughly 540 million years, wherein many current life forms could be annihilated or at least committed to extinction by the end of this century” [16].

We cannot destroy what we cannot replace. In 2017 a  Leonardo Da Vinci painting sold at auction for $450 million but a same-size faithful reproduction  of this work could be generated for a mere few dollars.  In contrast, any species is essentially priceless – it cannot be reproduced once it has been rendered extinct.  Attempts have been made to quantify the economic value of the Biosphere. Thus Costanza et al. (1997) estimated the aggregated annual value of nature’s services (updated to 2000 US $) to lie in the range $18 – $61 trillion [38, 39]. Dr Andrew Balmford et al. (2002) estimated that “our current undervaluation of nature is reflected in marked underinvestment in reserves. To the best of our knowledge the world spends (in 2000 US $) ~ $6.5 billion each year on the existing reserve network… the total cost of an effective, global reserve programme on land and at sea is some $45 billion per year. This sum dwarfs the current $6.5 billion annual reserve budget yet could be readily met by redirecting less than 5% of existing perverse subsidies… our hypothetical global reserve network would ensure the delivery of goods and services with an annual value (net of benefits  from conversion) of between ~ $4400 and $5200 billion [$4.4-$5.2 trillion pa], depending on the level of resource use permitted within protected areas, and with the lower number coming from a network entirely composed of strictly protected reserves…  The benefit : cost ratio of a reserve system meeting minimum safe standards is therefore around 100 : 1” [38].

3. Unavoidable catastrophic plus 2C and the near-terminal Methane Bomb.

The global warming  trajectory gets even worse still if one considers the Methane Bomb of the Arctic tundra and Arctic Ocean sea bed [40-45]. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 is 21 times that of CO2 on a 100 year time frame but is 105 times greater than that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame and taking atmospheric  aerosol  impacts into account [26]. Huge stores of CH4 as water-methane (H2O-CH4) clathrates  in the Arctic  tundra permafrost and on the Arctic Ocean sea bed may be released in coming decades due to global warming, with this release involving a disastrous positive feedback loop in which global warming causes CH4 release, thence more global warming and consequently even more CH4 release.  Atmospheric CH4 increased in 1983-1998 by up to 13 ppb (parts per billion) per year, increased much more slowly in the period 1999-2006 (up to 3 ppb per year, the 2001-2005 average being 0.5 ppb/year),  and has increased more rapidly from 2007 onwards, reaching 12.5 ppb per year in 2014.  Atmospheric CH4 increased  to 1,843 ppb CH4 in  December 2015 [41] as compared to a pre-Industrial Revolution level of 700 ppb CH4 [15].

Professor Peter Wadhams (professor of Ocean Physics, and Head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, 90-Nobel-Laureate University of Cambridge, UK)  and colleagues on the threat of 50Gt methane from East Siberian Arctic Shelf (2013):

“Economic time bomb. As the amount of Arctic sea ice declines at an unprecedented rate, the thawing of offshore permafrost releases methane. A 50-gigatonne (Gt) reservoir of methane, stored in the form of hydrates, exists on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. It is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly” [42].

However the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CH4 on a 20 year time frame and with aerosol impacts considered is 105 times that of CO2 [26] .   The German WBGU (2009) and the Australian Climate Commission (2013) have estimated that no more than a Terminal Carbon Pollution Budget of 600 billion tonnes of CO2 can be emitted between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050 if the world is to have a 75% chance of avoiding a catastrophic 2C temperature  rise  [46, 47]. That Terminal Carbon Pollution Budget has now effectively been exceeded [48]. Indeed climate criminal Australia’s commitment to fossil fuel exploitation  means that Australia is set to exceed the world’s 2009 Terminal Carbon Pollution Budget by a factor of 3 [49]. However the 50 Gt (billion tonnes) CH4 in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is thus equivalent to 50 billion tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes  CO2-equivalent/tonne CH4 = 5,250 billion tonnes CO2-e or about nine (9) times more than the world’s remaining Terminal  Carbon Pollution Budget in 2009. We are doomed unless we can stop this Arctic CH4 release.

4. The cost of Direct Air Capture, Biochar & other CO2 drawdown systems.

(A) Direct Air Capture (DAC)

The Direct Air Capture (DAC) system captures as water-insoluble calcium carbonate (CaCO3)  all the CO2 in the incoming air stream (circa 80% nitrogen, N2; 20% oxygen, O2; 0.04% CO2) by passage through a lime solution of calcium ions (Ca2+ )  and hydroxyl  ions (OH ) . The  calcium carbonate is then heated to generate lime (calcium oxide, CaO) and a stream of circa 100% carbon dioxide (CO2) which can then be compressed and hopefully permanently sequestered [50](e.g. in deep ocean, in underground in spaces from former coal or gas extraction or by underground reactions to form carbonates with basalt rocks) [50]. Note that in chemistry carbon dioxide is denoted as CO2 but for convenience I have used CO2 elsewhere in this essay  except for chemical equations such as those below summarizing the key steps of DAC:

  • (a) CO2 (CO2) scrubbed out of air by passage through lime solution (Ca2+  + 2 OH ) in water (H2O) to form carbonate ions (CO32-):  CO2 + 2OH -> CO32- + H2O
  • (b) Carbonate (CO32-  ) precipitated as calcium carbonate (CaCO3 ): Ca2+ + CO32-  -> CaCO3
  • (c) Lime (calcium oxide, CaO) regenerated by heating calcium carbonate (CaCO3) with the resultant CO2 being sequestered :  CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2 -> CO2 sequestered.
  • (d) Lime (CaO) dissolved in water (H2O): CaO + H2O -> Ca2+  + 2 OH  .

A pilot plant has been constructed that sequesters 1 Mt CO2 per year (equivalent to annual emissions of 250,000 average cars) at a cost of $100-150 per tonne of CO2 captured, purified, and compressed to 150 bar [50]. To get the atmospheric CO2 back to 300 ppm CO2 from the present 410 ppm CO2 we would have to lower the atmospheric  CO2 by 110 ppm CO2 by removing 3,200 Gt CO2 x (110/410) = 859 Gt CO2 (234 Gt C). Doing sequestration of 859 Gt CO2 by DAC at $100 per tonne of CO2 sequestered would cost 859 Gt CO2 x $100/ t CO2 = 85,900 billion = $85.9 trillion but at $150 per tonne of CO2 sequestered  it would cost $128.9 trillion (one notes that at a damage –related carbon price of  $200 /tonne CO2-e  [18 ] getting back to 300 ppm CO2 would cost 859 Gt CO2 x  $200 /t CO2-e = $171.8 trillion).

Burning  thermal coal on average yields 2.129 tonnes CO2 per tonne coal (2.622 tonnes CO2 per tonne anthracite  coal) [54] . In April 2018 the present price of coal is US$94.21 per tonne coal but the price has been in the range $50-100 per tonne coal in the period 2014-2018. At $100 per tonne of coal, the Carbon Price in US dollars per tonne CO2 is accordingly $100 per tonne coal x (tonne coal/2.129 t CO2 = $47.0/t CO2 or about 3 times less than the upper estimate of DAC-based CO2 sequestration of $150 per tonne of CO2 sequestered.

Thus at a coal price of $100 per tonne coal, for every $1 received for coal leading to coal-based CO2 pollution it will cost future generations $3 to sequester the CO2. If the coal price is $50 per tonne, for every $1 received for coal-based CO2 pollution it will cost future generations $6.4 in today’s dollars  to sequester the CO2. Indeed  the coal price is set to fall until it reaches zero when coal mining is banned in a world that finally comes to its senses.

(B) Biochar Carbon, C, charcoal

One could envisage a sane world building sufficient DAC plants to get us back to 300 ppm CO2 (by removing 859 Gt CO2 from the atmosphere) within a decade at a cost of $9-13 trillion dollars per year. However a nicer approach would be to get rid of atmospheric CO2 by O2 (oxygen)-yielding photosynthetic capture of CO2 as cellulose or related insoluble polysaccharides (CH2O)n) and thence converting such cellulosic material to Biochar (carbon, C) by heating in anaerobic conditions to circa 700C (anaerobic pyrolysis):

  • (a) fixing CO2 as cellulose via solar-energy-driven photosynthesis:  nCO2 + nH2O -> (CH2O)n + O2
  • (b) anaerobic pyrolysis of waste wood and straw ((CH2O)n) to yield carbon (C, charcoal, Biochar):  (CH2O)n  -> nC + n H2O.

The Biochar (carbon, C, charcoal )  can then be buried in fire-proof holes in the ground (old coal mines) or added to soil (the Amazonian Indians discovered that Biochar – charcoal or “terra preta” – was an agriculturally very beneficial additive to soil [56]. Without diverting arable land to Biochar production, we could presently obtain about 12 Gt of cellulosic carbon each year from the following sources: 1.7 GtC/yr  (straw from agriculture) +  4.2 GtC/yr  (total grass upgrowth from grasslands upgrowth)  + 6 GtC/yr (possible sustainable wood harvest) = 11.9 GtC/yr [57]. From this one can see why Biochar expert Professor Johannes Lehmann of Cornell University was correct in   calculating that it is realistically possible to fix 9.5Gt C (34.9 Gt CO2) per year as Biochar, noting that global annual production of carbon from burning fossil fuels is about 9GtC (33.0 Gt CO2)[58, 59].

In order to get back to 300 ppm CO2 we would need to remove 859 Gt CO2 (234 Gt C), and at 9.5 Gt C per year this would take 234 Gt C x (year/ 9.5 Gt C) = 24.6 years. However a realistic assessment  is that carbon sequestration as Biochar could amount to only  2.2 GtC annually by 2050 [60] and at this rate it would take 234 Gt C x (year/ 2.2 Gt C) = 106 years to draw down CO2 to 300 ppm CO2.

A further crucial question here is how much does it cost to produce Biochar? Based  on biomass from sustainable forest, non-farm and ranch-based feedstock production, the total cost of Biochar is  $194- $424 per ton of cellulosic ((CH2O)n ) feedstock and every 30 t cellulose feedstock generates 12 t Biochar (C ). Accordingly the cost of Biochar is $194-$424 per t cellulose x (30 t cellulose/ 12 t C) = $485-  $1,060/t C or  $485-  $1,060/t C x (12 t C/ 44 t CO2) = $132-$289 /t CO2.

At $100 per tonne of coal, the Carbon Price in US dollars per tonne CO2 is accordingly $100 per tonne coal x (tonne coal/2.129 t CO2 = $47.0/t CO2 i.e. about 2.8-6.1 times or roughly 3-6 times  less than the cost of removing the CO2 as Biochar. A coal price of $50 per tonne corresponds to $23.5/t CO2 which is 6-12 times less than the cost of removing the CO2 as Biochar.

(C) Accelerated Weathering of Limestone (AWL)

The waste gas from burning coal or gas is passed through a sea water-limestone (CaCO3) scrubber to generate bicarbonate ions (HCO3 ): CO2 (gas) + CaCO3 (solid) + H2O <-> Ca2+ (aqueous) + 2 HCO3 (aqueous) . The scrubbing solution is then piped to the sea [62-66]. Carbon in the oceans as bicarbonate is 10 times that in all recoverable fossil fuel reserves and about 60 times that in the CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon in carbonate minerals is about 4,000 times greater than the carbon in oil and coal fossil fuel reserves and the AWL process would in part reverse the deleterious acidification of the oceans due to the massive CO2 pollution of the atmosphere [15].

The main problems with the AWL system are that ideally it would involve CO2-producing cement factories and fossil fuel-based power stations (which we want to abolish)  being located adjacent to the sea and limestone deposits (so that the CO2-rich flue gas could be  passed through limestone suspensions in sea water (but can you imagine the British demolishing the iconic White Cliffs of Dover and Eastbourne?)

G.H. Rau has proposed an electrochemically accelerated   version of such sequestration:

“Electrochemical splitting of calcium carbonate (e.g., as contained in limestone or other minerals) is explored as a means of forming dissolve hydroxides for absorbing, neutralizing, and storing carbon dioxide, and for restoring, preserving, or enhancing ocean calcification. While essentially insoluble in water, CaCO3 can be dissolved in the presence of the highly acidic anolyte of a water electrolysis cell. The resulting charged constituents, Ca2+ and C03(2-), migrate to the cathode and anode, respectively, forming Ca(OH)2 on the one hand and H2CO3 (or H2O and CO2) on the other. By maintaining a pH between 6 and 9, subsequent hydroxide reactions with CO2 primarily produce dissolved calcium bicarbonate, Ca(HCO3)2aq. Thus, for each mole of CaCO3 split there can be a net capture of up to 1 mol of CO2. Ca(HCO3)2aq is thus the carbon sequestrant that can be diluted and stored in the ocean, in natural or artificial surface water reservoirs, or underground. The theoretical work requirement for the reaction is 266 kJe per net mole CO2 consumed. Even with inefficiencies, a realized net energy expenditure lower than the preceding quantity appears possible considering energy recovery via oxidation of the H2 produced. The net process cost is estimated to be <$100/tonne CO2 mitigated. An experimental demonstration of the concept is presented, and further implementation issues are discussed” [66].

Setting aside the limitations of this proposed AWL technology (it would be most effective when associated with coastally-located cement plants or coal- or gas-burning power stations, polluting plants that we want to eliminate), a  cost of $100 per tonne CO2 sequestered by AWL would mean that for every tonne of CO2 thus sequestered as bicarbonate, at $100 per tonne of coal the cost would be $100 per tonne CO2 sequestered/$47.0 per tonne CO2 generated = 2.1 times the amount received for the coal generating that tonne of CO2 on combustion. At a coal price of $50 per tonne, the cost would be $100 per tonne CO2 sequestered/$23.5 per tonne CO2 generated = 4.3 times the amount paid for the coal. Accordingly, the cost of removing CO2 by AWL is 2.1-4.3 times greater than the price received by climate criminals for the thermal coal.

(D) Mineral carbonation

Mineral carbonation involves reaction of CO2 with minerals using  wollastonite (CaSiO3) or steel slag as feedstock. W.J.J Huijgen et al.:

“A cost evaluation of CO2 sequestration by aqueous mineral carbonation has been made using either wollastonite (CaSiO3) or steel slag as feedstock. First, the process was simulated to determine the properties of the streams as well as the power and heat consumption of the process equipment. Second, a basic design was made for the major process equipment, and total investment costs were estimated with the help of the publicly available literature and a factorial cost estimation method. Finally, the sequestration costs were determined on the basis of the depreciation of investments and variable and fixed operating costs. Estimated costs are 102 and 77 €/ton CO2 [$111 and $84] net avoided for wollastonite and steel slag, respectively. For wollastonite, the major costs are associated with the feedstock and the electricity consumption for grinding and compression (54 and 26 €/ton CO2 [$59 and $28] avoided, respectively). A sensitivity analysis showed that additional influential parameters in the sequestration costs include the liquid-to-solid ratio in the carbonation reactor and the possible value of the carbonated product. The sequestration costs for steel slag are significantly lower due to the absence of costs for the feedstock. Although various options for potential cost reduction have been identified, CO2 sequestration by current aqueous carbonation processes seems expensive relative to other CO2 storage technologies. The permanent and inherently safe sequestration of CO2by mineral carbonation may justify higher costs, but further cost reductions are required, particularly in view of (current) prices of CO2 emission rights. Niche applications of mineral carbonation with a solid residue such as steel slag as feedstock and/or a useful carbonated product hold the best prospects for an economically feasible CO2 sequestration process” [67].

Setting aside the large-scale feasibility of this mineral carbonation technology, an IPCC Report estimates the cost of mineral carbonation at $50-$100 per tonne CO2 sequestered [17]. At a coal price of $50 per tonne,   that would mean that for  every tonne of CO2 thus sequestered as magnesium carbonate , the cost would be $50-$100 per tonne CO2 / $47.0/t CO2 = 1.1- 2.1 times the amount received for the coal generating that tonne of CO2 on combustion i.e. for every $1 received for coal about $1.1- $2.1 would have to be paid for subsequent CO2 removal through mineral carbonation. At a coal price of $100 per tonne, the cost of CO2 removal would be  $50-$100 per tonne CO2 / $23.5/t CO2 = 2.1-4.3 times the mine gate receipt for the coal

(E) Carbon Capture and Sequestration  (CCS)

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)  involves concentrating  CO2 as a liquid , piping it  to a suitable location and then storing  it  underground or at the bottom of the ocean [68-71]. The economic and practical difficulties of CCS mean that it has yet to be applied on a large scale. The IPCC reports that the cost of such capture from a coal- or gas-fired power station would be up to $75 per tonne CO2 sequestered [68] . The Global CCS Institute states (2011):

“The cost of mitigating, or avoiding, CO2emissions for a coal power plant fitted with current CCS technology ranges from US$23-92 per tonne of CO2 and is a little higher for natural gas fuelled power plants” [70].

For coal burning–based power plants the cost of CCS is $35-$83 per tonne CO2 sequestered [71]. At a mine gate coal price of $100 per tonne, the cost of CO2 removal by CCS would be $35-$83 per tonne CO2 / $47.0/t CO2 = 0.7-1.8.times the amount received for the coal generating that tonne of CO2 on combustion i.e. for every $1 received for coal about $0.7- $1.8 would have to be paid for subsequent CO2 removal. At a mine gate coal price of $50 per tonne, the cost of CO2 removal by CCS would be $35-$83 per tonne CO2 / $23.5/t CO2 = 1.5-3.5 times the amount received for the coal generating that tonne of CO2 on combustion.

(F) Photosynthesis-based CO2 sequestration via re-afforestation and fertilizing the oceans

After centuries of de-forestation, net loss of forests has ceased in North America and Europe but continues apace at 7.3 million hectares per year in Latin America, the Developing World and Australia [72]. Thus rich, climate criminal Australia is not only among world leaders in terms of per capita greenhouse gas pollution [20, 21] and climate change inaction (ranking 57 out of 60 countries on a climate change performance index) [73],  but it also ranks with Brazil  among world leaders in land clearance) [74, 75]. Paradoxically, the South East  Australian native Eucalyptus forests are World’s best forest carbon sinks –  14 million hectares, 25.5 Gt CO2, and a loss of 460 Mt CO2/year avoided for next 100 years if retained [76]. Re-afforestation, while desirable, would come at the expense of arable land in a hungry world that is suffering remorseless  population increase in the face of loss of arable land through urbanization, desertification, salinization and global warming-driven sea level rise.

Fertilization of the oceans to promote the growth of photosynthetic algae has been proposed as a geoengineering solution to rising atmospheric CO2 [77-81]. However CO2 could be released from dead plankton through oxidation rather than evading the carbon cycle and falling out of circulation to the ocean bottom. Further, it has been surmised that blooming algae could actually promote warming of the Arctic [81].  And of course if the remorselessly destructive continuation of the circa 10,000 year-old Anthropocene Era has taught us anything  it is that gross  interference with ecosystems that have evolved over millions of years is very likely to be catastrophically and indeed terminally destructive of ecosystems and species.

Final comments and conclusions

A catastrophic plus 2C temperature rise is now unavoidable but decent people are obliged to do everything  they can to make the future “less bad” for their children, grandchildren and for future generations. Arrayed against the young is the sustained mendacity of the neoliberal One Percenters who possess 50% of the world’s wealth. While buffoons like Donald Trump can bluster absurd and dangerous climate change denialism, a more insidious  neoliberal agenda has been promotion of the dangerous  “coal to gas transition” favoured by his predecessor Barack Obama. Methane (CH4) (about 85% of natural gas)  has a Global Warming Potential  (GWP) that is  105 times greater than that of  CO2 on a 20 year time frame and taking aerosol impacts into account. Methane leaks (3.3% in the US based on the latest US EPA data and as high as 7.9% for methane from “fracking” coal seams)  and thus a 2.6 % leakage of CH4 yields the same greenhouse effect as burning the remaining 97.4% CH4. Accordingly, depending  upon the degree of systemic gas leakage,   gas burning for electricity  could be much dirtier than coal burning greenhouse gas-wise (GHG-wise) [43, 82].

In addition to urgent cessation of carbon fuel burning, there must be “negative CO2 emissions” to drawdown atmospheric CO2 to a safe and sustainable  level of about 300 ppm CO2 from the present damaging and dangerous 410 ppm CO2.  Of the 6 systems analysed here, Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Biochar are the most feasible. However a realistic assessment  is that carbon sequestration as Biochar could amount to only  2.2 GtC annually by 2050 [60] and at this rate it would take 106 years to drawdown atmospheric CO2 to 300 ppm CO2.

The upper cost estimate for DAC is $150 per tonne CO2 sequestered but a coal price of $50 per tonne means $23.5 per tonne CO2 produced on combustion –  thus  on this basis, for every $1 paid for coal today, future generations will have to pay 6.4 times that amount in today’s dollars to sequester the CO2 by DAC. This represents  unconscionable intergenerational theft and intergenerational injustice through imposed Carbon Debt that the young should simply not tolerate [27-29, 83]. Unlike conventional debt that be variously evaded by default, bankruptcy or printing money,  Carbon Debt is inescapable – if the sea wall is not built the city will drown.

Young people and those who care for them must (a) inform everyone they can, (b) demand rapid cessation of carbon fuel burning, (c)  demand rapid  atmospheric CO2 drawdown to a safe and sustainable 300 ppm CO2, and  (d) urge and apply Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against all those people, politicians , parties, companies,  corporations and countries disproportionately complicit in the worsening Climate Emergency and Climate Crisis. There is no Planet B.

*

This article was originally published on Countercurrents.

Dr Gideon Polya taught science students at a major Australian university for 4 decades. He published some 130 works in a 5 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, New York & London , 2003).

Sources

[1]. 350.org:  https://350.org/ .

[2].  300.org: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org .

[3]. “300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm CO2”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org—return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm .

[4]. Professor John Veron (Coral Reef Research) Dr Mary Stafford-Smith (Coral Reef Research), Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (University of Queensland) and 20 other eminent scientists including Sir David Attenborough FRS (working group co-chair) , Output of the technical working group meeting, The Royal Society, London, 6th July, 2009, “The Coral Reef Crisis: scientific justification for critical CO2 threshold levels of <350ppm”: http://www.carbonequity.info/PDFs/The-Coral-Reef-Crisis.pdf .

[5]. Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg quoted in “Scientists call for urgent “global cooling” to save coral reefs”, University of Queensland News, 8 November 2009: https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2009/11/scientists-call-urgent-global-cooling-save-coral-reefs

[6]. Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani, M. Raymo, D.L. Royer, and J.C. Zachos, 2008: Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231:  http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Hansen_etal.html (abstract) and http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal.pdf .

[7]. Dr T. Goreau, “What is the right target for CO2? 350 ppm is a death sentence for coral reefs and low lying islands, the safe level  for SIDS [Small Island Developing States] is around 260 parts per million [ppm]”, scientific and technical briefing to the Association of Small Island States, UN Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, December 7-18, 2009: http://www.globalcoral.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/01/aosis_briefing_2009.pdf  .

[8]. Andrew Glikson, “The Methane Time Bomb and the Triple Melt-down”, Countercurrents, 2009  : http://www.countercurrents.org/glikson101008.htm .

[9]. Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber quoted by David Adam, “Roll back time to safeguard climate, expert warns”, Guardian, 15 September 2008 : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/15/climatechange.carbonemissions .

[10]. David Spratt, “350 is the wrong target: put the science first”, Climate Code Red website, 22 January 2009: http://www.climatecodered.org/2009_01_01_archive.html .

[11].  Miyoko Sakashita and  Shaye Wolf  (Center for Biological Diversity, San Francisco, California), “Before the Secretary of Commerce. Petition to list 83 coral species under the Endangered Species Act”,  20 October 2009: http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/petitions/83_corals_petition_2009.pdf .

[12]. “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change .

[13]. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, “Full Mauna Loa CO2 record”: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html .

[14]. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, “Annual mean growth rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii”: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html .

[15]. “2011 climate change course”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/2011-climate-change-course .

[16]. William J. Ripple et al., 15,364 signatories from 184 countries, “World scientists’ warning to Humanity: a second notice”, Bioscience, 13 November 2017: https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/bix125/4605229 .

[17]. Gideon Polya, “Over 15,000 scientists issue dire warning to Humanity on catastrophic climate change and biodiversity loss”, Countercurrents, 20 November 2017: https://countercurrents.org/2017/11/20/over-15000-scientists-issue-dire-warning-to-humanity-on-catastrophic-climate-change-and-biodiversity-loss/ .

[18]. Chris Hope, “How high should climate change taxes be?”, Working Paper Series, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, 9.2011: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/workingpapers/wp1109.pdf  .

[19]. “Carbon Debt Carbon Credit”: https://sites.google.com/site/carbondebtcarboncredit/ .

[20]. Gideon Polya, “Revised Annual Per Capita Greenhouse Gas Pollution For All Countries – What Is Your Country Doing?”, Countercurrents, 6 January, 2016: https://countercurrents.org/polya060116.htm .

[21]. Gideon Polya, “Exposing And Thence Punishing Worst Polluter Nations Via Weighted Annual Per Capita Greenhouse Gas Pollution Scores”, Countercurrents, 19 March, 2016: https://countercurrents.org/polya190316.htm .

[22]. “Carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere” , Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere .

[23]. Robert Goodland and Jeff Anfang. “Livestock and climate change. What if the key actors in climate change are … cows, pigs and chickens?”, World Watch, November/December 2009: http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf .

[24]. UN Population Division, 2017 Revision of World Population Prospects”: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/  .

[25]. “List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita .

[26].    Drew T. Shindell , Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch ,   Gavin A. Schmidt ,   Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”, Science, 30 October 2009: Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716  .

[27]. “Climate Justice & Intergenerational Equity”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-justice .

[28]. “Stop climate crime”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-climate-crime .

[29]. “Climate Revolution Now”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/climate-revolution .

[30]. DARA, “Climate Vulnerability Monitor. A guide to the cold calculus of a hot planet”, 2012, Executive Summary pp2-3: http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/ .

[31]. Gideon Polya, “Body Count. Global avoidable mortality since 1950”, that includes a succinct history of every country and is now available for free perusal on the web: http://globalbodycount.blogspot.com/  .

[32]. “Stop air pollution deaths”: https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/stop-air-pollution-deaths .

[33]. “Climate Genocide”: https://sites.google.com/site/climategenocide/ .

[34]. “Value of life”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life .

[35]. “Climate terrorism: 400,000 climate change-related deaths globally annually versus an average of 4 US deaths from political terrorism annually since 9-11”: https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/climate-terrorism .

[36]. “Carbon terrorism: 3 million US air pollution deaths versus 53 US political terrorism deaths since 9-11 (2001-2015)”: https://sites.google.com/site/statecrimeandnonstateterrorism/carbon-terrorism

[37].  Phillip Levin, Donald Levin, “The real biodiversity crisis”, American Scientist, January-February 2002: http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/levin/bio213/articles/14_Nov_Macroscope1.pdf .

[38]. Andrew Balmford et al, “Economic reasons for conserving wild nature”, Science, 9 August 2002:  http://www.envirosecurity.org/conference/working/ReasonsConservWildNature.pdf .

[39]. R. Costanza et al., Nature 387, 253-260 (1997).

[40]. “Methane Bomb Threat”: https://sites.google.com/site/methanebombthreat/ .

[41]. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Trends in atmospheric methane”: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/index.html .

[42]. Gail Whiteman, Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams, “Vast costs of Arctic change”, Nature, 499, 25 July 2013: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7459/pdf/499401a.pdf .

[43]. “Gas is not clean energy”: https://sites.google.com/site/gasisnotcleanenergy/ .

[44]. Andrew Glikson, “There is no Planet B”, Countercurrents, 15 March 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/03/15/there-is-no-planet-b/ .

[45]. Andrew Glikson, “The methane time bomb and the future of the biosphere”, Countercurrents, 29 April 2018: https://countercurrents.org/2018/04/29/the-methane-time-bomb-and-the-future-of-the-biosphere/ .

[46]. WBGU, “Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach”: http://www.ecoequity.org/2009/10/solving-the-climate-dilemma-the-budget-approach/

[47]. Australian Climate Commission, “The critical decade 2013: a summary of climate change science, risks and responses”, 2013, p7: http://climatecommission.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/The-Critical-Decade-2013-Summary_lowres.pdf  .

[48]. Gideon Polya, “Country By Country Analysis Of Years Left Until Science-demanded Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions”, Countercurrents, 11 June 2011: https://countercurrents.org/polya110611.htm .

[49]. Gideon Polya, “Australia ‘s Huge Coal, Gas & Iron Ore Exports Threaten Planet”, Countercurrents, 15 May 2012: https://countercurrents.org/polya150512.htm .

[50]. Carbon Engineering, “Direct Air Capture”: http://carbonengineering.com/about-dac/ .

[51]. Climate Discovery, “Healthy Climate Alliance and 300 ppm CO2 by 2050 (300x 2050)”, 4 February 2018:  https://climatediscovery.org/healthy-climate-alliance-and-300-ppm-co2-by-2050-300×2050/ .

[52]. Chris Mooney, “They may save us yet: scientists found a way to turn our carbon  emissions into rock”, Washington Post, 18 November 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/18/they-may-save-us-yet-scientists-found-a-way-to-turn-our-carbon-emissions-into-rock/?utm_term=.75d37f022135 .

[53]. Peter Fiekowski, “Where do we put a trillion tons of CO2?”,  Healthy Climate Alliance, 29 January 2018: https://healthyclimatealliance.org/put-trillion-tons-co2/ .

[54]. Climate Accountability, “Summary of emissions from identified coal production”: http://climateaccountability.org/pdf/SumCoalEmissions%2010p.pdf

[55]. Australian coal  price monthly: https://ycharts.com/indicators/australia_coal_price .

[56]. “Biochar”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar .

[57]. A.V. Bridgwater (editor), “Progress in Thermochemical Biomass Conversion”, volume 1, IAE Bioenergy, page 224, Blackwell Science, 2001.

[58]. Tyler Hamilton, “The case for burying charcoal” , MIT Technology Review, 26 April 2007: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407754/the-case-for-burying-charcoal/ .

[59]. Gideon Polya, “Forest biomass-derived Biochar can profitably reduce global warming and bushfire risk”, Yarra Valley Climate Action Group, 2011: https://sites.google.com/site/yarravalleyclimateactiongroup/forest-biomass-derived-biochar-can-profitably-reduce-global-warming-and-bushfire-risk

[60]. “Biochar”, ClimateTechWiki: http://www.climatetechwiki.org/technology/biochar .

[61]. Granatstein, D., Krugner, C., Collins, H., Garcia-Perez, M., Yoder, J. (2009). FINAL REPORT: Use of Biochar from the Pyrolysis of Waste Organic Material as a Soil Amendment. Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. Washington State University.

[62].  Long Cao and Ken Caldeira, “Atmospheric carbon dioxide removal: long-term consequences and commitment”, Environmental Research Letters, 5(2) (2010): http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/024011 .

[63]. Ken Caldeira and Greg H. Rau, “Accelerating carbonate dissolution to sequester carbon dioxide in the ocean: geochemical implications”, Geophysical Research Letters, 27 (2), 225-226 (2000): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999GL002364/abstract  .

[64]. Greg H. Rau, Ken Caldeira, Kevin G. Knauss, Bill Downs and Hamid Sarv, “Enhanced carbonate dissolution as a means of capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide”, First National Conference on Carbon Sequestration, Washington DC, May 14-17, 2000: http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/p24.pdf .

[65]. G.H. Rau, “CO2 mitigation via capture and chemical conversion in seawater”,  Environ Sci Technol 45:1088–1092, 2011: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es102671x .

[66]. G.H. Rau , “Electrochemical splitting of calcium carbonate to increase solution alkalinity: implications for mitigation of carbon dioxide and ocean acidity”, Environ Sci Technol., 2008 Dec 1;42(23):8935-40: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19192821 .

[67]. W.J.J Huijgen et al, “Cost evaluation of CO2 sequestration by aqueous mineral carbonation”, Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 48, Issue 7, July 2007, Pages 1923–1935: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196890407000520 .

[68]. IPCC, “Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage”, 2005: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf .

[69]. “Carbon capture and storage”, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage .

[70]. The Global CCS Institute , “The cost of CCS and other low carbon technologies”, 2 November 2011: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/costs-ccs-and-other-low-carbon-technologies .

[71]. “Fact sheet on carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS)”: http://www.gi.ee/co2net-east/failid/Factsheeteng.pdf .

[72]. Alina Bradford, “Deforestation: facts, causes and effects”, Life Science, 3 April 2018: https://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html .

[73].  Climate Change Performance Index 2018: https://www.climate-change-performance-index.org/

[74]. “Fact check: Is Queensland clearing land as fast as Brazil?”ABC News, 23 February 2018: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-01/fact-check-queensland-land-clearing-brazilian-rainforest/9183596 .

[75]. Frances Pike, “Australia: world leader in deforestation and species extinction”, Independent Australia, 3 June 2015: https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/australian-logging-and-the-end-of-species,7788  )

[76]. Heather Keith, Dr Brendan Mackey, and Dr. David Lindenmayer (ANU), “Re-evaluation of forest biomass carbon stocks and lessons from the world’s most carbon-dense forests”, PNAS July 14, 2009 vol. 106 no. 28 11635-11640: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/28/11635.abstract?sid=c2645cfb-f32c-4e89-8323-5bf507db88a0   ;

[77]. “Climate engineering”, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_engineering .

[78]. Clive Hamilton, “Earthmasters. The dawn of the age of climate engineering:, Yale University Press, 2014.

[79]. “What is geoengineering?”:  http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/what-is-geoengineering/what-is-geoengineering/ .

[80]. “Geoengineering the climate. Science, governance and uncertainty”, Royal Sicisety, 2009: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf .

[81]. Michael D. Lemonick, “Blooming algae could accelerate Arctic warming”, Climate Central, 27 April 20915: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/algae-accelerate-arctic-warming-18929 .

[82]. Gideon Polya, “Pro-gas Obama’s EPA-based Plan To Reduce Coal-based Pollution Amounts To Climate Change Inaction”,  Countercurrents, 7 June, 2014: https://www.countercurrents.org/polya070614.htm .

[83]. Gideon Polya, “Intergenerational Theft – For Every $1 For Coal Today Future Generations Will Pay $1-$14 To Sequester CO2”, Countercurrents, 8 April, 2015: http://www.countercurrents.org/polya080415.htm

 

I have asked for this statement to be read out at this evening’s Right of Return demonstration in London for justice for the Palestinian people:

In recent weeks, scores of unarmed Palestinian civilians have been killed in Gaza by Israeli forces. Hundreds have been wounded. Most are refugees or the families of refugees from what is now Israel, and they have been demonstrating for their right to return, week after week.

The killing of Razzan Najjar, the 22 year old medical volunteer shot by an Israeli sniper in Gaza on Friday, is the latest tragic reminder of the outrageous and indiscriminate brutality being meted out, under orders from the Netanyahu government.

The silence, or worse support, for this flagrant illegality, from many western governments, including our own, has been shameful.

Instead of standing by while these shocking killings and abuses take place, they should take a lead from Israeli peace and justice campaigners: to demand an end to the multiple abuses of human and political rights Palestinians face on a daily basis, the 11-year siege of Gaza, the continuing 50-year occupation of Palestinian territory and the ongoing expansion of illegal settlements.

President Trump’s decision to recognise Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city, and move the US embassy there, in violation of international agreements, has demonstrated that the US has no claim to be any kind of honest broker for a political settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

A sustainable, just peace between Israelis and Palestinians, that recognises the rights and security of all, and puts an end to the continuing dispossession of the Palestinian people, is an interest we all share, in the Middle East and far beyond.

We cannot turn a blind eye to these repeated and dangerous breaches of international law. The security of one will never be achieved at the expense of the other. And that is why we are committed to reviewing UK arms sales to Israel while these violations continue.

The UK Government’s decision not to support either a UN Commission of Inquiry into the shocking scale of killings of civilian protesters in Gaza, or the more recent UN resolution condemning indiscriminate Israeli use of force – and calling for the protection of Palestinians – is morally indefensible.

Britain, which is a permanent UN security council member and has a particular responsibility for a peaceful and just resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, should ensure there is a credible independent investigation, genuine accountability and effective international action to halt the killings – and bring Gaza’s ever-deepening humanitarian crisis to an end.

In Unanimous Vote, House Says No Legal Right to Attack Iran

June 7th, 2018 by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

Featured image: Rep. Keith Ellison

In a little noticed but potentially monumental development, the House of Representatives voted unanimously for an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (H.R. 5515) that says no statute authorizes the use of military force against Iran.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minnesota), states,

“It is the sense of Congress that the use of the Armed Forces against Iran is not authorized by this Act or any other Act.”

A bipartisan majority of the House adopted the National Defense Authorization Act on May 24, with a vote of 351-66. The bill now moves to the Senate.

If the Senate version ultimately includes the Ellison amendment as well, Congress would send a clear message to Donald Trump that he has no statutory authority to militarily attack Iran.

This becomes particularly significant in light of Trump’s May 8 withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal. That withdrawal was followed by a long list of demands by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, which could set the stage for a US attack on Iran.

Co-sponsors of the Ellison amendment include Reps. Barbara Lee (D-California), Ro Khanna (D-California), Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois), Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) and Walter Jones (R-North Carolina).

“The unanimous passage of this bipartisan amendment is a strong and timely counter to the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Iran deal and its increasingly hostile rhetoric,” Ellison said in a press release. “This amendment sends a powerful message that the American people and Members of Congress do not want a war with Iran. Today, Congress acted to reclaim its authority over the use of military force.”

Likewise, Khanna stated,

“The War Powers Act and Constitution is clear that our country’s military action must first always be authorized by Congress. A war with Iran would be unconstitutional and costly.”

McGovern concurred, stating,

“Congress is sending a clear message that President Trump does not have the authority to go to war with Iran. With President Trump’s reckless violation of the Iran Deal and failure to get Congressional approval for military strikes on Syria, there’s never been a more important time for Congress to reassert its authority. It’s long past time to end the White House’s blank check and the passage of this amendment is a strong start.”

Moreover, the Constitution only grants Congress the power to declare war. And the War Powers Resolution allows the president to introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities only after Congress has declared war, or in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” or when there is “specific statutory authorization.”

But even if the Ellison amendment survives the Senate and becomes part of the National Defense Authorization Act, Trump would likely violate it. He could target Iranian individuals as “suspected terrorists” on his global battlefield and/or attack them in Iran with military force under his new targeted killing rules.

Unilateral Sanctions Against Iran Are Illegal

Although the Ellison amendment states that no statute authorizes the use of US armed forces in Iran, it does not prohibit the expenditure of money to attack Iran. Nor does it proscribe the use of sanctions against Iran.

In fact, other amendments the House adopted mandate the imposition of sanctions against Iran.

An amendment introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois) reflects the sense of Congress that

“the ballistic missile program of Iran represents a serious threat to allies of the United States in the Middle East and Europe, members of the Armed Forces deployed in those regions, and ultimately the United States.”

The Roskam amendment then states the US government “should impose tough primary and secondary sanctions against any sector of the economy of Iran or any Iranian person that directly or indirectly supports the ballistic missile program of Iran as well as any foreign person or financial institution that engages in transactions or trade that support that program.”

And the House mandated the imposition of sanctions against people connected to named groups in Iran that “commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism,” in an amendment introduced by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas).

When Trump announced his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, he also reinstated US nuclear sanctions and “the highest level” of economic restrictions on Iran. Those sanctions could remove over one million barrels of Iran’s oil from the global market.

The unilateral imposition of sanctions by the United States, without United Nations Security Council approval, violates the UN Charter. Article 41 empowers the Council, and only the Council, to impose and approve the use of sanctions.

The other parties to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the formal name for the Iran deal, oppose ending it. Known as P5+1, they include the permanent members of the Security Council — the US, the United Kingdom, Russia, France and China — plus Germany, as well as the European Union.

At a minimum, France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom are not likely to cooperate with the US’s re-imposition of sanctions.

Trump Administration Gunning for War on Iran and Regime Change

Before Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement, Iran was complying with its obligations under the pact.

Once Trump named John Bolton, notorious for advocating regime changein Iran, as national security adviser, it was a foregone conclusion the United States would pull out of the pact.

Pompeo also supported renunciation of the deal. His over-the-top demands on Iran include the cessation of all enrichment of uranium, even for peaceful purposes (which is permitted by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty).

“Taken together, the demands would constitute a wholesale transformation by Iran’s government, and they hardened the perception that what Trump’s administration really seeks is a change in the Iranian regime,” the Associated Press reported.

Jake Sullivan, who served in the Obama administration and was Hillary Clinton’s lead foreign policy advisor during the presidential campaign, said of the Pompeo demands,

“They set the bar at a place they know the Iranians can never accept.”

Ellie Geranmayeh, a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, called the demands “conditions of surrender.”

Meanwhile, it is unclear how long it will take to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act. Constituents who become aware of the risk of a US attack on Iran will invariably lobby their senators to include an admonition comparable to the House’s Ellison amendment.

*

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and an advisory board member of Veterans for Peace. An updated edition of her book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, was recently published. Visit her website: http://marjoriecohn.com.

Is There an Alternative to Global Capitalism?

June 6th, 2018 by Prof. Sam Ben-Meir

First published by Global Research on October 11, 2017

It never ceases to surprise me how merely the suggestion that our current global capitalistic system is not the best humanity can do for itself, is so often met with virulent hostility. One would think that when we are still recovering from the economic crisis of 2007-2008 (and many economists see an even worse crisis on the horizon), when inequality has been steadily rising since the neoliberal turn of the early 1980s, when real wages have remained virtually stagnant, and the list goes on – one would think that perhaps we would keep an open mind regarding alternatives; instead of buying the tired old argument that anything else must either lead to totalitarianism, or be incurably utopian.

Capitalism has always been about movement, and our era of deregulated globalization has only further augmented the hyper-mobility of capital. As a consequence, this has produced a virtually endless supply of cheap labor – trade liberalization has seen jobs flee the country and compelled developing countries to deregulate and turn a blind eye to labor standards so as to maintain a competitive advantage. Trump’s promises to keep jobs at home have been mostly empty rhetoric.

The growing concentration of wealth among a tiny few has been helped along by a tax code that has shifted the burden off the very rich and onto the middle class. And now the Republicans want to cut taxes on the rich yet further: the wealthy will pay only thirty-five percent on their income taxes – down from thirty-nine point five percent. In addition, Trump’s proposal gives the rich a substantial tax break by eliminating the estate tax, which will only further exacerbate economic inequality.

How is this defensible? The main argument one hears is that fallacy that Republican leaders have continued to foist upon the American public since President Reagan: that high taxes on the top income bracket is bad for growth; that slashing taxes will spur the economy.

This is not historically accurate – in fact, it is a bald-faced lie. The period in which America enjoyed unprecedented growth, during the fifties and sixties and until the late seventies, the tax rate never fell below seventy percent. America’s growth during that time was four to five percent. Then in 1981, Reagan’s Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) cut the marginal tax rate twenty-five percent across-the-board, with the top marginal tax rate falling from seventy to fifty percent. In 1987, Reagan lowered the top tax rate from fifty to thirty-eight point five percent, where it has hovered since. The average rate of growth since the 1970s has been two percent. Indeed, there is no indication that Trump’s “trickle-down” tax plan will engender any significant growth.

What we have seen is that under neoliberalism there has been a redistribution and concentration of wealth in the hands of the very rich few. Real wages have remained stagnant while economic disparity has increased since the mid- to late-1970s when “the uppermost tier’s income share began rising dramatically.” A 2015 report by the Economic Policy Institute states that between 1979 and 2013, “the hourly wages of middle-wage workers … were stagnant… The wages of low wage workers fared even worse, falling 5 percent from 1979 to 2013.” As Warren Buffet acknowledged,

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Last year, I used the October 13 birthday of Great Britain’s late Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as an occasion to observe how her vision of laissez-faire capitalism still holds ideological sway in our globalized landscape. Her famous claim that ‘There is no alternative’ to capitalism needs to be abandoned once and for all. At the very least, we need to begin to consider alternatives to the kind of capitalism we have.

A good place to start is with extending democratic practices to new social spaces currently occupied by hierarchical and bureaucratic organizations, including the urban setting as well as the workplace. The fact is that there is an alternative to the way firms are run on the capitalist model. That alternative is worker self-management and it has seen remarkable success.

Look, for example, at the Mondragon Corporation centered in the Basque region of Spain. Mondragon has a thoroughly democratic structure of governance with a General Assembly that meets annually, as well as a supervisory council that appoints management, a social council with jurisdiction concerning matters to do with workers’ well-being, and a watchdog council that monitors and gathers information for the general assembly. A federation of supportive cooperative firms, Mondragon has now over a dozen education centers including a polytechnical university. In 2015, Mondragon generated revenues in excess of twelve billion euros, and employed over 74.000 people.

To claim that we have no choice but to accept the global capitalist status quo is simply no longer plausible. This is not to say that worker self-directed firms will be idyllic, that they will all succeed, or that they will not face a myriad of unforeseen challenges. However, they have shown themselves to be successful, even while operating in highly competitive environments. If companies are self-directed and workers themselves participate in the decision making process regarding, for example, the location of production, it becomes far more unlikely that we will see plant closures, outsourcing, job exports, and so on.

Such firms will embrace democratic processes in which goals can be internally defined: where there is equality of voting power, and workers themselves make decisions about production and distribution. Furthermore, in the process of nurturing participatory attitudes, we not only facilitate and reinforce self-management within the firm (or neighborhood, school, etc.): we are also educating and empowering individuals to seek  self-determination and democratic participation in the political arena.

The same fundamental commitments that urge us to promote political democracy should compel us to promote economic democracy as well, a society in which enterprises are collectively governed by all those actively contributing to the process of production. Indeed, economic democracy is essential to the legitimacy of a fully democratic society – which is to say that democratic legitimacy must be grounded in the social realm, as much as the political.

Sam Ben-Meir is a professor of philosophy and world religions at Mercy College in New York City.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is There an Alternative to Global Capitalism?

Featured image: Mulan is located approximately 170km north east of Harbin City in Heilongiang, China’s northenmost province. (Flickr/Land Rover Our Planet, Creative Commons)

The increasingly dynamic renewable power sector is enjoying “falling costs, increased investment, record-setting installation and new, innovative business models that are creating rapid change”, according to the REN21 Renewables 2018 Global Status Report (GSR), published this week.

Taken together, renewables accounted for an estimated 70 percent of net additions to global power generation capacity, up from 63 percent in 2016.

“Thanks to years of active policy support and driven by technology advances, rapid growth and dramatic reductions in costs of solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind, renewable electricity is now less expensive than newly installed fossil and nuclear energy generation in many parts of the world”, the report states. “In some places it is less expensive even than operating existing conventional power plants.”

Market prices

Solar PV emerges in the report as the “star performer for the second year in a row”, with newly installed capacity increasing by almost 100 GW over 2017, representing an astonishing increase of 33 percent over the record-setting additions of 2016.

This brought the world’s PV capacity to just over 400 GW by the end of the year. Underlying the trend is the ever-falling cost of solar PV. A Mexican tender late in 2017 saw a world record low price below $20 per MWh, while a 150 MW project in Texas came in at $21 per MWh – the country’s lowest ever US solar power purchase agreement.

Wind power remains well ahead of solar PV with some 540GW of installed capacity by the end of last year, but with a much slower growth rate – about 50 GW of wind power was added globally in 2017, an increase of nearly 11 percent over 2016. Canada, India, Mexico and Morocco all saw prices bid for onshore wind power come down to about $30 per MWh.

Within the wind sector, the global offshore wind market was the star performer, with an impressive 30 percent growth rate reflecting sharply falling costs with increasing industrial experience of the technology, and with growing investor confidence reducing financing costs.

Indeed offshore wind is now so cheap that tenders in Germany and the Netherlands in 2017 attracted zero-subsidy bids – that is, producers agreed to be paid market prices only for projects due to come online in 2024 and 2022, with governments providing grid connections and other support. “This would have been unthinkable even just a few years ago”, comment the authors.

National targets

So far, so good. But the GSR warns against excessive optimism as renewable power generation is only one facet of a much wider energy landscape that needs to be delivering on all fronts to meet key climate objectives.

“The power sector on its own will not deliver the emissions reductions demanded by the Paris climate agreement or the aspirations of Sustainable Development Goal 7 to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all.”

The heating, cooling and transport sectors, which together account for about 80 percent of global total final energy demand, are “lagging behind”. In heating and cooling, modern renewable energy supplies only about 10 percent of final energy use (while 16 percent still comes from traditional biomass).

In transport, only three percent of the final energy use is met with modern renewable energy, and 92 percent of transport energy demand is met by oil.

These sectors also lack the intensity of policy focus enjoyed by renewable generation. While 146 countries have national targets for renewable power generation, only 48 have similar targets for heating and cooling; only 42 countries have national targets for the use of renewable energy in transport.

More competitive

However the growth in renewable power generation does offer the potential for inroads into these neglected sectors.

This is illustrated by the example of China, for example, which is “specifically encouraging the electrification of heating, manufacturing and transport in parts of the country where large renewable power capacity exists”.

This means that when ‘variable renewable energy’ (VRE) from wind and solar is abundant, it can be diverted to these non-traditional uses rather than going to waste, so reducing the fossil fuel burn, and maintaining grid stability.

China has also emerged as the single dominant country for renewables investment generally, with 45 percent of the world’s total investment in the sector – excluding large hydropower over 50MW), up from 35 percent in 2016.

By contrast the EU comes in with 15 percent and the US with 14 percent. Paradoxically, world investment in renewables grew only two percent from 2016-2017 (up from $274 bn to $280 bn) and remained well below the 2015 record of $323 bn – even as the technologies are becoming ever more competitive.

Devastating impacts

And among ‘developed’ economies investment fell by 18.3 percent on average. Here the UK led the negative trend with a massive 65 percent cut, followed by Germany (35 percent), Japan (28 percent) and the US (six percent).

One explanation may come from the world’s lamentable performance on ending subsidies for fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. Despite numerous high level commitments to phase out these subsidies, most recently from the G20 in 2017, “governments have continued to allow such subsidies to distort the market and impede the transition to renewable energy.”

In 2016, global fossil fuel production and consumption subsidies were estimated to total some $370 billion, only a 15 percent reduction since 2015″, states the GSR.

“And while renewables continue to be perceived as ‘too expensive’ in some quarters, subsidies for fossil fuels were nearly double the estimated subsidies for renewable power generation”, at $140 billion.

“If negative ‘externalities’ from burning fossil fuels such as their devastating impacts on human health, pollution and climate change were factored in, it adds, “the value of fossil fuel subsidies would be considered higher by an order of magnitude.”

Ending subsidies

An important consequence of the subsidies, both direct and indirect, is that although renewables are increasingly often the least-cost power generation option, investments in fossil fuel capacity remained high in 2017 at an estimated $103 billion, while $42 billion was invested in high-priced nuclear power.

Together, the two account for 32 percent of global investment in new power capacity.

But these figures suggest a solution. According to the IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2017 (‘Sustainable Development Scenario’), keeping global temperature rise well below 2C in accord with the Paris Agreement would require a $12 trillion investment in renewable power supply from now to 2040.

This implies investments of around $500 billion per year, compared to the $280 billion recorded in 2017. Switch the $140 billion fossil fuel subsidy to renewables and the figure would rise to $420 billion. Factor in the additional private investment into renewables that would follow and … problem solved.

Arthouros Zervos, chair of the REN21, said at the report launch:

“To make the energy transition happen there needs to be political leadership by governments – for example by ending subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear, investing in the necessary infrastructure, and establishing hard targets and policy for heating, cooling and transport.

“Without this leadership, it will be difficult for the world to meet climate or sustainable development commitments.”

*

Oliver Tickell is a regular contributor to Resurgence & Ecologist and a former editor of The Ecologist. He is the author of International Law and Marine Plastic Pollution: Holding Offenders Accountable, a report published by Artists Project Earth.

What’s at Stake in the Ontario Election?

June 6th, 2018 by David Bush

With just days to go until Ontario voters go to the polls it is worth remembering what is at stake in this election.

The Ontario Liberals have been in power since 2003. It is clear their government is well past its due date. Years of scandals, Bay Street policies and austerity have left a sour taste in the Ontario electorate’s mouth. Last Saturday, in an unprecedented announcement, Kathleen Wynne conceded that the Liberals will not be forming the next government. The question before the voters now is whether they will have a government led by Doug Ford and the Tories or the New Democrats (NDP).

So what’s in store if Ford wins? It is hard to say with precision exactly what will happen as the Tories only just released their platform and it is not even costed. What we do know is that the Ford government’s budget will have massive cuts in store for Ontario. Because of previous Liberal accounting tricks, It has been revealed that there is actually a $12-billion deficit. So what will Ford cut?

Underfunding Social Services and Tax Cuts for the 1%

We know that Ford plans to do nothing on childcare and housing. We know the meager three per cent rise in social assistance is likely to be scrapped. Hospitals, already chronically starved for funds and understaffed, will likely see more cuts. There will likely be no new money for struggling transit systems. Schools and education at all levels which need far more care and attention look to be getting a lot less. He will likely earmark the LCBO for some sort of privatization scheme. There is literally no public service or social program that will improve under Ford’s regime. He claims he will find efficiencies without jobs being lost, but his record and record of the Tories is the exact opposite.

Ford’s platform contains yet more tax cuts for business and the rich. There are tax cuts for low income earners but they come nowhere close to the handouts he is planning on giving to the rich. For low-income earners Ford plans to freeze the minimum wage at $14 offering a tax cut instead, which will leave them much worse off (full-time minimum wage workers would receive $815 a year under Ford’s plan versus $1,900 (after tax) under a $15 minimum wage).

Ford’s attacks on workers’ rights won’t just stop at a $15 minimum wage. Newly won rights like the fairer scheduling provision (which ends zero hour contracts) and gives shift workers pay for cancelled shifts are set to come into effect in January 2019. Ford is likely to stop this and rollback other elements of the Employment Standards Act like equal pay for equal work or new rules governing temp agencies. Under the last Progressive Conservative (PC) government, workers saw their employment standards gutted from head to toe. The minimum wage was frozen from 1995 to 2003, overtime rules were dramatically overhauled to favour employers, the ability to join a union was weakened, and the enforcement employment standards was non-existent. And, Ford’s election all but ensures that the 175 employment standards officers set to be hired in 2021 will not happen.

The Mike Harris years (1995 to 2002) were bad for workers and the poor all around. The Tories presided over a dramatic overhaul of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) system which injured workers have yet to recover from. Social assistance was slashed and welfare recipients were demonized, the poor in this province have never recovered from the 21 per cent cut welfare rates instituted by the Harris government. Hospitals were closed and gutted, thousands of nurses lost their jobs. Education at all levels took a major hit, with workers and students paying the price for severe cuts. Tens of thousands of public sector workers were fired, while private sector workers had to go up against corporations that were backed by a ruthlessly anti-worker and anti-union government. Harris lifted the ban on scab labour, gutted regulations and gave the green light for union busting. Harris was the reverse Robin Hood, taking from the poor and workers and giving to the rich. It was class war and it had casualties, most notably when 7 people died and 2,300 were made ill from tainted drinking water in Walkerton after Harris had slashed oversight and privatized water inspection.

Latest Iteration of Harris’ “Common Sense Revolution”

Doug Ford is not some new breed of Progressive Conservative. He is just the latest iteration of Harris’ “common sense revolution” – his father after all was part of the Harris government.

At city council Ford was an ardent proponent of privatization, famously saying the Fords’ would “outsource everything that isn’t nailed down.” The Fords’ privatized garbage collection in the West end of Toronto. The result has been a poorer quality service that actually costs more. Sanitation workers employed by the private companies have significantly lower wages and benefits. The only winners in the privatization scheme were Green For Life Environmental East Corporation and the bureaucrat who pushed for it. At Queen’s Park a Ford government will take his pro-privatizon ethos to new levels. The fact that Wynne and the federal Liberals are ardent backers of privatization only makes it easier for Ford to sell off public assets.

Ford is also no fan of unions. He and his brother came to power in Toronto by aiming their guns at public sector unions. With teacher union contracts coming due in two years look for Ford and the Tories to squeeze and demonize unions. Ford is also likely to rollback provisions in Bill 148 that makes it easier to keep and join a union.

His rhetoric will embolden every bigot and bully boss. Racists and misogynists will feel more empowered under a Ford government. Just look at how far the far-right is run stoking the xenophobic fears of the NDP wanting to make Ontario a sanctuary province (a reasonable policy of saying that public services should be available to those in Ontario who live here regardless of their immigration or citizenship status).

Employers will take his victory as a signal to run wild in the workplace. Ford is after all a factory owner. They know the Ministry of Labour will be less likely to enforce the scant rights workers have. Every employer will look to attack workers’ rights and paint a picture of government regulation and workplace standards as hampering the business environment.

Nationally and internationally there are stakes as well. If the Fight for $15 and Fairness victories get rolled back what message does this send to other like-minded burgeoning movements and workers across the country? Ford and Ford Nation will position themselves as the opposition to Justin Trudeau – dragging the whole national political terrain to the right. And his victory will only put wind in the sails of Trump and his far-right sympathizers across the globe.

Clear Class Choices

A lot is at stake. Of course a Ford victory does not mean all hope is lost, there are really possibilities of building an effective fight back if he wins. His support is wide, but shallow. When I was out canvassing for the $15 and Fairness campaign in his riding this weekend there was sentiment that he was for the little guy against the political and economic elites. But when we drilled down into his actual positions on issues like workers’ rights and the minimum wage had little support.

The more we do over the next couple of days to galvanize support against him on the issues, to show the NDP as a real alternative the better we are prepared to take on Ford if he wins.

With the Liberals showing their true colours over the last bunch of days, attacking workers’ rights, unions and calling the NDP as bad as Ford (even running adds calling for strategic voting by Tories to beat the NDP), it is clear the Liberals are done. The choice is between Ford and his folksie factory owner rhetoric of “for the little guy” or an NDP that, while flawed, is still seen as representing the interests of workers. The former will assuredly be a boon for bosses and blow for workers, while the latter will raise expectations of workers across the province.

Over the next three days the political fight for ideas in the workplace, on the streets, at the kitchen table will set-up the struggle for the next four years. With the class choices at the ballot box clearer than they have been in a long-time, the stakes for Ontario’s workers are sky high.

*

David Bush is a Ph.D. student at York University, a labour organizer active with the Fight for $15 and a writer in Toronto, Canada.

Featured image is from The Bullet.

Units of the Syrian Army’s 11th Armoured Division have been deployed in the northern part of the Syrian-Lebanese border where they are set to replace Hezbollah fighters. The area of Qusayr has been one of the key Hezbollah footholds in western Syria. It is unclear if it will be abandoned.

According to some pro-government sources, Russian military police units are also withdrawing from the border area.

The situation over the northern town of Manbij has been rapidly developing since the US and Turkey endorsed a roadmap for the area.

On June 5, the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) announced that their “military advisers” will leave the town. The militia claimed that its forces withdrew from Manbij in November 2016, but the military advisers remained to work with the Manbij Military Council (MMC). However, the group said its forces will be redeployed there once again if this is needed.

Both the MMC and the YPG are part of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). However, the YPG and its political wing the PYD clearly dominate within the group.

At the same time, Ankara says that the YPG is a local branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and describes them both as terrorist groups.

On the same day, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu stated that Kurdish forces in northern Syria will be disarmed in the framework of the reached roadmap, which will also include the area east of the Euphrates. According to Cavusoglu, Turkish and US intelligence, military, defense officials and diplomats are set to hold a preparatory meeting in 10 days to set a foothold for the implementation of the plan.

According to the Turkish side, the roadmap will reportedly include 3 stages and will be fully implemented less than in 6 months.

While the US is yet to comment on Cavusoglu’s statements, it becomes clear that the YPG may find itself in a very complicated situation. If Ankara and Washington find a common ground over the situation in Syria, the YPG’s importance as a tool of the US foreign policy as well as the US support and supplies will decrease dramatically.

*

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

Will US Agree to What North Korea Wants Most?

June 6th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

It’s clear what both countries want. For Washington it’s “complete, verifiable, irreversible (DPRK) denuclearization.”

Pyongyang’s willingness to comply depends on assured security guarantees – what Washington rejected for seven decades, including under less belligerent administrations than Trump’s.

 

Under both right wings of Washington’s one party system, ruling authorities can never be trusted, its promises most often breached – Trump’s JCPOA pullout the latest example.

The lesson of Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Libya under Muammar Gaddafi is well understood in Pyongyang – its leadership not wanting the DPRK to become another US imperial trophy.

Can North Korea fare better than other US targeted countries? Can summit and follow-up talks turn a new page after decades of US hostility?

Will an extremist administration under Trump deal fairly with North Korea? The Kim Jong-un/Trump summit is the beginning of a likely long process.

It’s hard imagining a durable positive outcome when concluded. Why this time when virtually never before – betrayal happening time and again with most every country Washington deals with.

North Korea is right to be cautious, knowing the kind of regime it’s dealing with, one never to be trusted – hoping for a good outcome, knowing the chance is slim at best, most likely unattainable like always before.

Security guarantees by China, Russia, South Korea and Japan aren’t good enough. Assurance from Washington with teeth matters most.

Given how often US administrations pledge one thing and do another, how can North Korea or any other countries take any US administration at its word.

It blames other nations for its high crimes and broken promises, invents reasons to be hostile to independent states it doesn’t control.

North Korea’s best defense against feared US aggression is a nuclear deterrent and long-range ballistic missile delivery system.

Why would it relinquish what best protects its security in dealings with an adversary never to be trusted.

Is there any reason to believe talks with Washington can achieve durable peace and stability on the peninsula, lifting unacceptable sanctions, a formal end to the 1950s war agreed to by South Korea and America – and for the first time in DPRK history, normalized relations with the West and its regional neighbors.

It requires a giant leap of faith to think what’s always been unattainable is within reach now in dealing with perhaps the most extremist administration in US history.

It’s waging endless wars of aggression, wants all sovereign independent governments toppled, and is militantly hostile to the DPRK.

Don’t be fooled by an upcoming first-time-ever summit between a North Korean and US leader.

When all is said and done, US betrayal is the most likely outcome – always before with Pyongyang, most often with other nations in the modern and earlier eras.

Entering into talks with Washington, Kim should be mindful of longstanding US duplicity, that no US administrations can be trusted – maybe Trump’s least of all.

Will this time be different? Did America ever keep its word in dealing with North Korea throughout its history?

Why then expect it ahead for the first time ever! Believing otherwise is a sucker’s bet almost sure to lose.

*

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

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Featured image: The Russian President Vladimir Putin and FIFA President Gianni Infantino attend a meeting in Sochi on 31 May (Photo: Sputnik/Aleksey Nikolskyi)

“I can assure you that all aspects have been taken into account and we have taken note of all threats,” said Alexei Sorokin, head of World Cup Organising committee. “The right balance will be found between security and comfort for fans.”

However, because of the recent months’ ‘Russia ‘bashing’ – by the UK and US governments in particular – I have reason to be worried.

Earlier this week, incoming right-wing Italian populist prime minister Giuseppe Conte used his maiden speech to call for the lifting of sanctions against Russia and, in effect, an improvement of relations with Putin, opening up a deep rift amongst the EU politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels.

Last week, even the wine loving head of the EU, Jean-Claude Juncker, called for an end to ‘Russia-bashing’ some two months after countless Moscow diplomats across the EU were expelled in response to the alleged use of a nerve agent in the UK, that has now been proven beyond any reasonable doubt to have been a fabrication of lies by a desperate Conservative British government trying to deflect the public from its many other problems. The President of the European Commission added that he believed it was time to fully renew ties with Russia.

Jean-Claude Juncker is not renowned for having a formidable intellect, yet he showed rare common sense and wisdom by making this statement.

The good news, if you can call it that, is that the idiots that prepared these ‘false flags’ like the Skripal affair, are just that: incompetent idiots, fortunately for Russia.

Everybody, by whom I mean ordinary people on any British Street, will tell you they believe the British government is and has been lying over the Skripal affair, such is the disillusionment of the public in its government. The mass media which sadly includes the BBC, has a different Orwellian script of the Skripal events which of itself is an absolutely frightening development.

Also, alarm bells rang in my head when I read almost the same headlines that appeared on June 4th in several publications and media outlets, ABC, Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times et al who all seemed to pick similar headlines. Words to the effect:

“World Cup security is Putin’s top priority, but threats exist”.

That the Western government-controlled mass media attempts to instil the fear of terrorism is an indicator that the West itself is not beyond secretly orchestrating such acts. Forgive my cynicism, but if it can fabricate the Skripal affair, for me, anything now is possible.

That said let’s get back to the World Cup itself.

Some of the largest Western corporations with long-standing FIFA relationships are in full support of the World Cup. The official sponsors and partners, include Adidas, Budweiser, McDonalds and Coca Cola. Bastions of Western imperialism!

In Sochi, on 31 May, FIFA stated unequivocally that Russia is “absolutely ready” to host the 2018 World Cup in June and July. In the presence of the Russian President and high-ranking officials in Sochi, one of 12 World Cup cities, FIFA’s head Gianni Infantino said preparations for the month-long tournament were complete.

“Russia is absolutely ready to host the world, to celebrate a summer of festivities here in this beautiful country,” Infantino said.

Russia will host the World Cup from 14 June to 15 July in stadia spread across several cities, including Moscow, St Petersburg and Sochi, having worked for years to build new stadia and transportation infrastructure for the tournament.

Putin responded

“We understand our responsibility, we understand that much still needs to be done… all the events are still ahead,” adding Russia will do “all in its power” to ensure that the tournament meets the highest standards.

“We are all hoping that our players will be fully in the game, will give themselves entirely,” he said. “And most importantly, that they play the strong-willed, uncompromising soccer that the fans value and love.” Putin concluded.

“We know how important of course the last weeks are to finalise the little elements which are still missing,” he said.

One little-publicised aspect has been from analysts at Moody’s Rating Agency regarding the economics of the World Cup and the consequences, if any, of staging this event.

“The games will last just one month and the associated economic stimulus will pale in comparison to the size of Russia’s $1.3 trillion economy,” said Ms. Kristin Lindow, Senior Vice President at Moody’s.

“We do not expect the World Cup to make a meaningful contribution to broader economic growth in Russia,” she said in a statement.

“The impact is likely to be even lower than that of the Sochi Olympic games, which developed an under-built resort area that is more accessible than many of the regions where the World Cup will be staged,”

Nevertheless, Moody’s said certain regions would still derive some economic benefit from the investments.

Moody’s added

“food retailers, hotels, telecoms, and transport will see a temporary boost in revenue” from the World Cup.

The construction sector was the main beneficiary of investment, but this has already been accomplished and completed by the Russians.

We can only hope that the World Cup in Russia is a success and, to quote one of the greatest ever managers (Liverpool FC) that ever lived, the legendary Bill Shankly “Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it’s much more serious than that.”

*

Richard Galustian is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All Gazan Casualties Are Intentional, Not Accidental

June 6th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

On June 1, Israeli snipers murdered 21-year-old voluntary Palestinian paramedic Razan al-Najjar in cold blood – threatening no one, shot in the neck and back, an exploding dum dum bullet destroying her heart, killing her instantly.

Clearly identified as a first-responder medic in the field by her white attire, she was treating wounded Gazans well inside Israel’s repressive border fence when lethally shot – a willful act of murder, nothing accidental about it.

Joint (Arab) List MK Ahmad Tibi called her killing “a heinous war crime.” Neocon extremist US UN envoy Nikki Haley disgracefully blamed Gazans for Israeli high crimes committed against them.

Since Great March of Return protests began on March 30, Israeli snipers killed two Gazan paramedics, wounding 223 others, 29 shot with live fire – individuals clearly identified as medical personnel by their attire.

According to Gazan Health Ministry spokesman Dr. Ashraf al-Qedra, Israeli snipers last Friday alone targeted five medics treating Palestinians in the “Return Camp.”

When conducted, Israeli investigations of violent incidents virtually always whitewash IDF high crimes, blaming them on victims.

A preliminary IDF probe into Najjar’s killing falsely called it accidental, claiming soldiers fired on demonstrators, not Najjar or other paramedics – a bald-faced lie, how Israel nearly always absolves itself of high crimes of war and against humanity.

Longstanding Israeli policy permits live fire against nonviolent Palestinian demonstrators, resulting in countless thousands of casualties, many victims killed or maimed for life – physically and/or emotionally, trauma especially harming young children.

During weeks of peaceful Great March of Return demonstrations, clearly identified Palestinian medical personnel and journalists have been prime targets.

Claiming thousands of Gazan casualties since Good Friday were accidental reflects typical Israeli deception and indifference to Palestinian lives, rights and welfare.

It also contradicts a March 31 IDF statement, saying

“nothing was carried out uncontrolled. Everything was accurate and measured, and we know where every bullet landed” – the statement later deleted.

Israeli rules of engagement are like Washington’s – permitting anything goes, the human toll of no consequence, accountability for high crimes of war and against humanity never forthcoming.

Since Great March of Return protests began on March 30, over 120 Gazans threatening no one were lethally shot in cold blood, around 13,400 others wounded, countless numbers maimed for life, hundreds with life-threatening injuries, the death toll sure to rise.

Najjar was killed for doing her job, an angel of mercy, gunned down in cold blood by a ruthless occupier.

A Final Comment

Zionist ideologue US ambassador to Israel David Friedman shames the position he holds, an Islamophobic extremist.

He blasted journalists for reporting accurately on Israeli high crimes against Great March of Return Gazan demonstrators.

“Keep youth mouths shut,” he roared, falsely claiming “nine out of ten articles that are written about the Gaza conflict are critical of Israel,” adding:

“(A)ll you’re doing is creating impressions that have no basis in fact. They fit a narrative. They fit an opinion. They fit an agenda. But it’s not reporting, because it’s not based on hard, factual analysis.”

Friedman and likeminded ideologues want cold hard facts about Israeli high crimes suppressed.

Most Western and Israeli media one-sidedly blame Palestinians for their own misery – including IDF crimes committed against them.

Independent media alone report fully and accurately on Israeli high crimes too egregious to ignore.

*

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

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Bloody protests against Nicaragua’s President Daniel Ortega’s government have the United State’s fingerprints all over it.  Over 100 people have been killed since the civil unrest broke out in mid-April and it doesn’t take much to realize the US government is fueling the bloodbath.

According to RT, the so-called marea rosa, or “pink tide”, of allied leftist governments which held sway across Latin America in previous years is being rolled back. Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff was removed from power in a right-wing coup, co-conspirators of which have now managed to imprison the current presidential frontrunner, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Ecuador’s Lenin Moreno has stabbed his former leader Rafael Correa in the back by barring him from seeking re-election, while seemingly purging his cabinet of remaining Correa loyalists and beginning the process of allowing the US military back into the country

These are all coalescing as other democratic and not-so-democratic removals of leftist governments from power continue. NATO has nabbed itself a foothold in the Latin American region, now that Colombia has joined the obsolete yet aggressively expanding Cold War alliance, in a thinly veiled threat to neighboring authoritarian Venezuela.

Now it’s Nicaragua’s turn for the US to interfere in the government’s efforts to “police the entire world,” paid with by our stolen tax money, of course. Student demonstrations began in the capital Managua as a reaction to the country’s failure to handle forest fires in one of the most protected areas of the Indio Maiz Biological Reserve. The situation was then exacerbated when, two days later, the ruling Sandinista National Liberation Front announced it was slashing pensions and social security payments, sparking further anti-government protests. Targeted opposition violence along with police repressions have led to a mounting body count on both sides. Violence persists in the country, despite the fact that President Ortega has now ditched the proposed welfare reforms and has been engaging in talks with the opposition.

The government has adamantly denied it was responsible for snipers killing at least 15 people at a recent demonstration. And, while we may never know what really happened, it’s fair to say an embattled national leadership in the midst of peace talks has little to gain from people being gunned down in front of the world’s media at an opposition march on Mother’s Day. All I’ll say on the matter is it’s not like we didn’t have mysterious sharpshooters picking off protesters during US-supported coups in Venezuela and Ukraine. –RT

It is unsurprising then that the US is apparently attempting to capitalize on the growing discontent, stoking dissent among the youth in a deliberate attempt to destabilize the Sandinista government. Infamously nefarious US soft power organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, also known as the CIA’s ‘legal window’, have set up extensive networks in Nicaragua. Among the leading Nicaraguan student activists currently touring Europe to garner support for the anti-government movement is Jessica Cisneros. Cisneros is a member of the Movimiento Civico de Juventudes, which is funded by Madeline Albright’s National Democratic Institute (NDI). Albright is the former US Secretary of State that said that 500,000 Iraqi Children dying as a result of US sanctions against Saddam Hussein was “worth it”.

If the idea of Washington supporting progressive anti-government forces in Latin America confuses you, then you’re failing to grasp the nature of US interference. During the Cold War, for example, the US supported both the Mujahideen inAfghanistan as well as eastern European trade unionists against the Soviet Union. Indeed, throughout the Syrian conflict, Washington has been arming leftist groups alongside jihadist organizations. It goes without saying that, despite US politicians getting all dewy-eyed over “freedom fighters,” the likes of Jihadists or even trade unionists are not welcome in US society. –RT

It isn’t like the US never interferes, in fact, if it can, it will. And unfortunately, all we get is the bill and the knowing that our tax dollars are being used to slaughter human beings we don’t even know.

Putin’s Endgame in Syria: Victory or Stalemate?

June 6th, 2018 by Adeyinka Makinde

In a recent article for Foreign Policy magazine, Jonathan Spyer, a research fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategic Studies, argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin was content with what Spyer perceives to be the current situation in Syria: A “frozen conflict” in which Putin is prepared to accept a continuous low level conflict and the de facto partition of Syria. This piece offers a different appraisal to Spyer’s argument that these were Putin’s ultimate goals and instead argues that Putin has been forced to accept the state of affairs by the machinations of the United States and its regional ally Israel, which has always desired the weakening and balkanisation of the Syrian state.

In an interview in October 2015 broadcast soon after Russian involvement in the Syrian conflict had moved from supplying the Syrian military with armaments to providing it with decisive air power, Russian President Vladimir Putin summarised the primary Russian objective as “stabilising the legitimate power in Syria and creating the conditions for political compromise.”

“Stabilising” the government of Bashar al Assad of course meant protecting and maintaining Russia’s strategic establishments in the Middle East, namely the Mediterranean naval bases in Tartus and Latakia as well as the air base in Khmeimim. It also entailed neutralising the threat posed by Islamist militias which had conquered large swathes of Syrian territory. In doing this, Putin reckoned that he would be protecting the Russian Federation from the menace of jihadi fighters of the sort that had overthrown the government of Libya and whose overthrow of Assad would ineluctably lead to their relocation to theatres in the Muslim lands on Russia’s borders.

It is important to note at the outset that Putin’s initial hesitancy in entering the conflict in an overt manner was, unsurprisingly, to do with the fear of becoming bogged down in a protracted conflict as had occurred with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Whatever the perception is of Putin in terms of the power he wields at the helm of the Russian state, it is clear that domestic opinion in regard to his foreign policy decisions are never far from his mind.

It is also essential to point out that while Spyer claims that Putin has “initiated and managed such conflicts elsewhere, including in Georgia and Ukraine”, a more faithful recollection of the instigation of those conflicts places responsibility on other parties.

The brief Russo-Georgian War of 2008 was prompted by the incursions into South Ossetia ordered by the then Georgian leader, Mikheil Saakashvili. Saakashvili would not have initiated this action by his Israeli-trained and equipped army without the prompting of the United States. Likewise the Ukrainian conflict was prompted by an American sponsored coup that was overseen by the then US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland.

In regard to the former, Russia completed a withdrawal from Georgian buffer zones in October 2008. So far as Ukraine was concerned, seeing the threat posed to its Black Sea naval fleet by the installation of an overtly Russophobic regime in Kiev, Putin, on the advice of the relevant national security body, decided to annexe Crimea after the completion of a referendum.

Both actions were clearly measured responses to what were perceived to be American-sanctioned provocations on Russia’s borders. Russia did not militarily overrun Georgia, a nation which had for centuries been a part of both Russian and Soviet empires. And in the case of Ukraine, a country which critics claim is coveted by a supposedly revanchist Russian state, Putin resisted calls from Russian ultranationalists to invade the eastern part of the country and declare a state of Novorossiya. Instead, it is clear that a combination of Russian nationalist volunteers and the covert deployment of Russian special forces have aided the militias of the separatist proto-states of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Russian military engagements in these countries have therefore been reactive rather than proactive. The same can be said of Syria.

For Russia had stood by in previous years after the United States had invaded or destabilised country after country in order to achieve a so far undeclared geo-political aim of taking out seven countries in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks of 2001. Starting with Iraq, the list included Libya and Syria, and was to culminate with the destruction of Iran. Each of the aforementioned countries did not espouse the Wahhabist strain of Islamism claimed by the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, but happened to stand in opposition to Israel.

Roland Dumas, a former French foreign minister, quoted a former Israeli prime minister as telling him that

“we’ll try to get on with our neighbours, but those who don’t agree with us will be destroyed.”

Dumas has asserted that the Syrian War was “prepared, conceived and organised” by the Western powers at least two years in advance of what became an insurgency. And the insurgents have had the covert backing of the United States and its regional allies including Saudi Arabia and Israel.

In concert with Iranian military advisers and units of the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, it is likely that the Russian intervention would have enabled the Syrian Arab Army to have purged Syria of the likes of al Nusra and the so-called Islamic State at an earlier point in time, but for a number of ill-timed withdrawals by the Russians such as occurred in March 2016 and December 2017. There have also been a few ill-judged ceasefires.

The Syrian Army would also have been capable of liberating the whole of Syria, but has been hindered by continuing illegal interventions by the United States. Whereas the overt Russian involvement in Syria stems from a formal request made in July 2015 by President Bashar al-Assad, the United States, which nominally respects the territorial integrity of the country by virtue of its formal endorsement of UNSC Resolution 2254, has worked towards the de facto partition of a sovereign nation. And the instrument of this policy has been its support of Kurdish militias, which has been facilitated by the establishment of two military bases in eastern Syria.

The balkanisation of Syria has been a long-term objective of both the United States and Israel. When in July 2006, the former US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice called for a ‘New Middle East’, she was alluding to the neutralising of the ‘Shia Crescent’ consisting of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah.

The means of achieving this was to foment disorder and violence on a scale which would bring about a lasting change to the region. It was a struggle in which Rice insisted that the United States and its allies “will prevail”.

In June 2006, a map prepared by a retired US Army Lieutenant Colonel named Ralph Peters, was published in the Armed Forces Journal. It depicted a redrawn Middle East including a Kurdish state, which would consist of an amalgam of territory ceded by four countries including Syria. Achieving the fragmentation of Syria using militant Sunni proxies was a clear objective in more recent times. A declassified Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document from August 2012, clearly stated the desired policy of “establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria”.

However, given the Russian-aided Syrian Army victories over jihadist militias, the United States has used Kurdish militias such as the YPG as a means of keeping this goal alive. These militias control Syrian territories east of the Euphrates River, which include Syria’s major oil producing areas. They have also been actively ethnically cleansing areas under their control of Sunni Arabs, including the majority-Arab city of Raqqa.

Condoleezza Rice’s comments regarding the “birth pangs” of a ‘New Middle East’ were made in Jerusalem to Ehud Olmert, then the prime minister of Israel during the war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006. Her statement was welcomed, given that it represented a meeting of minds between the United States and Israel.

The Yinon Plan, the name given to a 1982 paper entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s”, is often used as a reference point for evidence of Israel’s aim to balkanise the surrounding Arab and Muslim world into ethnic and sectarian mini-states. Of Syria, Oded Yinon wrote the following in Kivunim (Directions):

Syria will fall apart in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon, so there will be a Shi’ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbour, and the Druzes will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in Northern Jordan.

Although the passage does not refer to a Kurdish state, Israeli policy has encouraged the development of autonomous Kurdish territories first in Iraq, and then in Syria. Israel has had long standing political and intelligence connections with the family of the Kurdish-Iraqi leader Masoud Barzani, and it supported the referendum vote on independence in 2017. It also became the first state to endorse an independent Kurdistan.

Along with the political motive is an economic one. In August 2015, an article in the Financial Times reported that Israel was importing as much as three-quarters of its oil from Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish north. It is clear that Israel would seek to benefit similarly from the oil reserves of a declared or undeclared Kurdish state in Syria, just as it intends to exploit the oil reserves believed to be hidden in the depths of the Golan Heights, acquired from Syria in the war of 1967, and illegally annexed in 1981.

This carving up of Syria would of course have not been possible to achieve if the Kurdish militias had aligned themselves to the Syrian-Russian effort. Instead, they chose to combat the jihadis under the umbrella of the United States. And in doing so, the risk of a confrontation between two nuclear armed powers has acted as a check on how far Vladimir Putin has been prepared to go. Committing more Russian resources in an effort to help its Syrian ally reclaim Kurdish-held territory would not only increase the danger of a Russian-United States conflict, it would raise the spectre of increasing numbers of Russian servicemen returning home in body bags.

During the conflict, both the United States and Israel consistently sought to diminish the ability of the Syrian military to contend with the jihadist insurgency. For instance, in September 2016, the American airstrike in the eastern province of Deir al-Zour purportedly targeting jihadist militias, but which ‘accidentally’ killed over 60 Syrian soldiers and wounding over a hundred, was a cynical attempt aimed at giving the Islamist insurgents an advantage on the battlefield.

The missile strikes organised against Syrian army bases after dubious allegations about government use of chemical weapons were part and parcel of this strategy.

Israel, which has had a history of supporting a range of Islamist militias, has actively supported the efforts of al-Qaeda-affiliated rebels active near the Golan Heights by providing them with medical care, arms and cash. It has also, with the apparent consent of the Russians, launched its own attacks on Syrian and Iranian positions.

Israel’s actions, as is the case with those of the United States, are illegal under international law.

Putin has faced criticism for being ‘weak’ in accepting these persistent infringements on the sovereignty of Russia’s ally. He has reneged on a promise to supply the Syrians with SS-300 missiles, and has also called for the withdrawal of the Iranians without extracting a promise that the Americans withdraw their own troops and aircraft.

Some would argue that by failing to ‘protect’ his ally and creating a rift with Iran, he is emboldening the efforts of the Americans and Israelis to undermine the control the Assad government has over the territories it has reclaimed. These critics can point to an official statement issued by the State Department on May 25th of this year, warning the Syrian Army against launching an operation in the south west of the country.

In accomplishing the task of preserving the Syrian government, Putin’s intervention has frustrated the American and Israeli objective of overthrowing Bashar al Assad and the ruling Baathist Party. However, given the evidence of the long-term policies of both American and Israel in trying to engineer a ‘New Middle East’, speculation that “de facto partition” and a “frozen conflict” may have been “his goal all along” is somewhat disingenuous.

The partition of Syria, after all, has been the endgame favoured by the United States and Israel, an objective both continue to work towards with ruthless resolve.

*

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

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

Britain has a special relationship with Israel that is little recognised in the mainstream media but unmissable in light of the killings in Gaza. With more than 110 protesters dead, Britain is in effect defending Israeli actions. The British government has not, as far as I have seen, actually condemned Israel for the killings.

Rather, it has simply “urged Israel to show restraint” while recognising its “right to secure itself” and also blaming Hamas for the violence.

When British Prime Minister Theresa May phoned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 10 May, by which date 40 Palestinian protesters in Gaza had already been shot, it appears she did not even raise the issue. Meanwhile, the government infers it will not even review UK arms exports to Israel after the Gaza massacres which have only been discussed once in the British cabinet.

That Britain is supporting Israel over the Gaza killings is true to form. The UK’s relationship with Israel is special in at least nine areas, including arms sales, air force, nuclear deployment, navy, intelligence and trade, to name but a few.

Consistent support

Theresa May says that Israel is “one of the world’s great success stories” and a “beacon of tolerance“. To Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson, Israel is a “light unto the nations” whose relationship with the UK “is underpinned by a shared sense of values: justice, compassion, tolerance”.

These gushing words translate into consistent British support for Israel internationally, helping to shield it from ostracism. Britain abstained on the recent UN vote to authorise an investigation into the Gaza killings because it would not also investigate Hamas; instead, the UK supports Israel carrying out its own inquiry.

Last year, the Foreign Office refused to sign a joint statement at the Paris peace conference on Palestine, accusing it of “taking place against the wishes of the Israelis”.

Britain has approved arms sales to Israel worth $445m since the 2014 Gaza war and there is little doubt that some of this equipment has been used against people in the occupied territories. UK drone components are exported while Israel uses drones for surveillance and armed attacks.

The UK exports components for combat aircraft while Israel’s air force conducts air strikes in Gaza, causing civilian deaths and destruction of infrastructure. The government admits it has not assessed the impact of its arms exports to Israel on Palestinians.

This policy follows the knowledge that Israel promotes an “increasing pattern” of deliberately shooting Palestinian children and that Palestinians generally are “increasingly killed… with impunity” by Israel, as a 2015 Home Office report noted. Since 2000 Israel has killed nearly 5,000 Palestinians not taking part in hostilities, around one-third of whom are under 18.

Double standards

In May 2018, Israel became the first country to mount an air attack using the new generation F-35 stealth warplane, hitting targets in Syria. While F-35 production is led by US arms company Lockheed Martin, British industry is building 15 percent of each F-35, involving companies such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce.

Nothing is allowed to interrupt the “very close defence… cooperation” between Britain and Israel. British military pilots are even being trained by a company owned by Israel arms firm Elbit Systems.

Israel is believed to possess 80 to 100 nuclear warheads, some of which are deployed on its submarines. The UK is effectively aiding this nuclear deployment by supplying submarine components to Israel. According to the commander of Haifa naval base, General David Salamah, Israel’s submarines regularly operate “deep within enemy territory”.

Britain has a long history of helping Israel to develop nuclear weapons. In the 1950s and 1960s Conservative and Labour governments made hundreds of sales of nuclear materials to Israel, including plutonium and uranium.

Foreign Secretary statement on the Iran nuclear deal

The contrast with British policy towards Iran is striking. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson states that the UK is “adamant that a nuclear-armed Iran would never be acceptable” and thus maintains sanctions against Iran. At the same time Britain refuses to adopt any sanctions against Israel, an actual nuclear state.

In 1995, the UK and other states agreed to a UN resolution to establish a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East. It is not known whether Britain has ever seriously pressed Israel on this.

‘A strong partnership’

This week British and Spanish warships, part of NATO’s forces, docked in Israel’s Haifa port to conduct a joint NATO-Israel naval exercise. This follows naval exercises between Britain and Israel in December 2017 and November 2016. Through its blockade, the Israeli navy restricts Palestinians’ fishing rights, even firing on local fishermen.

The blockade of Gaza is widely regarded as illegal, including by senior UN officials, a UN independent panel of experts and Amnesty International, partly since it inflicts “collective punishment” on an entire population. Britain is failing to uphold its obligation “to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law”.

Little is known of the intelligence relationship between the UK and Israel. There have been differences such as in 1986 when prime minister Margaret Thatcher ordered a freeze in relations with Mossad after a female Israeli agent lured Mordechai Vanunu, who was trying to reveal Israel’s nuclear secrets, to Rome where he was kidnapped.

Former MI6 director Sir Richard Dearlove recently said that British intelligence did not always share information with Israel “because we could never guarantee how the intelligence might or would be used”. But the Telegraph reports that the relationship between MI6 and Mossad has become closer in recent years with both concerned about nuclear proliferation in Iran.

The director of the British spy centre GCHQ says the latter has a “strong partnership with our Israeli counterparts in signals intelligence” and that “we are building on an excellent cyber relationship with a range of Israeli bodies”.

Documents from 2009 leaked by the whistleblower Edward Snowden show that GCHQ spied on the Israeli military, defence firms and diplomatic missions. But they also revealed that GCHQ monitored Palestinian communications, including the phone calls of President Mahmoud Abbas and his two sons.

The interceptions took place just three weeks before Israel’s offensive on Gaza in January 2009, suggesting that they may have helped Israel gear up for the offensive.

Violating UN resolutions

The UK is deepening trade with Israel “as we leave the EU” and has established a joint trade working group. Britain completely opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and rejects imposing even the most basic sanctions on Israel, such as travel bans on those involved in expanding illegal settlements.

Indeed, the government appears to be helping Israel counter the BDS movement. In September 2017, then communities minister Sajid Javid met Gilad Erdan, Israel’s “strategic affairs” minister in charge of combating the BDS movement, to discuss “steps to counter anti-Israel delegitimisation and BDS”.

Rather, the UK wants trade relations to go from “strength to strength“, bolstering the UK’s position as the primary Israeli investment location in Europe.

The UK is aware that there are more than 570,000 Israeli settlers in the occupied territories and its formal position regards the settlements as illegal. Yet this is meaningless in light of actual British policy, which is never known to press Israel strongly to end settlement building or the occupation.

The UK simply calls on Israel to “ease” restrictions on Gaza, and rather than demand an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights, Britain only calls on Israel to “uphold its obligations under international law”.

Israel’s policy in the occupied territories has been described by human rights body B’Tselem as an “unbridled theft”. Hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of goods produced in these settlements are exported internationally each year, including oranges, dates and spring water.

Yet Britain permits this trade and does not even keep a record of imports into the UK from the settlements. Indeed, Boris Johnson has explicitly said that it is the “policy of the UK” to trade with the illegal settlements and that this will continue. This policy violates UN Security Council resolutions which require all states to “distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967”.

What explains British policy?

Britain has a long history of supporting Israeli aggression. As the mandatory power in Palestine from 1920 to 1948, Britain enabled the gradual takeover of Palestine by the Zionist movement. When the Arab revolt against Britain and its Zionist proteges broke out in the late 1930s, the British army brutally crushed it. The UK supported Israel’s brutal takeover of Palestine in 1948 and also aided Israel’s 1967 war, having furnished Israel with hundreds of British tanks.

Two reasons are clear in explaining current British policy. One is commercial: arms exports and trade are increasingly profitable to British corporations. The other is that UK policy towards Israel is to a large degree determined in Washington and by London wanting to curry favour with the US and not challenge its closest ally.

But British policy goes beyond this. Gavin Williamson has said that the UK-Israel relationship is the “cornerstone of so much of what we do in the Middle East” while former international development secretary, the neocon Priti Patelnoted that

“Israel is an important strategic partner for the UK”.

Patel was forced to resign last year after it was revealed that she held secret meetings in Israel with key officials, including Netanyahu. Most significantly, she visited Israeli military hospitals in the Golan Heights where Israel treats anti-government fighters involved in the Syrian war, including members of the al-Qaeda affiliate al-Nusra, which Israel is seen as effectively supporting. Patel even wanted to give British aid to the Israeli army.

Britain effectively backs Israeli military policy in the Middle East while it has carried out more than 100 clandestine air strikes inside Syria against government, Iranian and Hezbollah targets. Israel is seen as an ally against Syria and Iran – Britain’s two main enemies in the region.

London increasingly regards Israel as a strategic asset, especially now that the old Arab-Israeli conflict has largely disappeared, meaning that Britain can more easily back both Israel and its despotic Arab allies at the same time. The Palestinians are the expendable unpeople in this deepening special relationship.

*

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

It is not enough that Donald Trump has destroyed some of the most important international agreements in the democratised West. Trump is now moving on to the next stage of his grand plan.

With just a few days to go before the leaders of the world’s seven largest and most advanced economies meet in Canada, the G7 organizers have a serious problem.

Trump has thrown out the agenda and by all accounts is making it near on impossible to agree even on the agenda itself. The effort has taken diplomats months and at the last moment Trump’s team say it’s all about America – not the G7.

This year’s annual gathering is the day after tomorrow in Quebec, Canada and according to senior officials in the US and Europe, an unprecedented division remains on what joint statements can be issued. In other words, they don’t know what they will be discussing because they can’t agree on it and therefore can’t prepare a set of unified statements either before or after the event.

As Trump has already blown the unified approach idea, for instance, the Paris climate agreement, Iran nuclear deal, increasing tensions over NATO – the new disruptive force that resides in the White House has effectively torn up the global consensus that existed – leaving speech writers and diplomats scratching their heads at arguably one of the most important meetings in the political calendar.

If ever there was any doubt that Donald Trump was going to cause trouble to the world order as we knew it – that idea should have vapourised completely by now, because if the G7 cannot find any common ground with which to agree upon – then the disharmony is both deafening on the one hand and damaging to the other.

The whole premise that the biggest powers in the West are ideologically aligned has historically been a pre-agreed arrangement emphasised by this all-powerful group.

Politico reports that:

“The Canadians have no idea what to do,” one adviser to a G7 leader said on condition of anonymity. A second aide — a diplomat for a different G7 leader who has been working on the agenda for months — said they have never been this close to a summit without having general agreement on what leaders would say coming out of it.

A third official working for another administration involved in the summit said the talks have been “disconnected and unfocused.”

One senior aide said: “At the moment there’s nothing. It’s just about being nice to women, which is fine, but is that it?” 

According to some reports, Justin Trudeau, the Canadian PM wanted the agenda to include climate change, women’s empowerment, peace and economic growth. These goals, more or less backed by other leaders was ‘binned’ with Trump’s “America First’ list of discussion topics.

As of this week so far, there was no agreement on either the final communiqué signed by all leaders or the meeting agenda as has been the norm since they first started meeting in 1997.

One official for a G7 country said that the original communiqué was dropped because the agenda included topics that weren’t signed off by all the diplomats involved.

In a statement, Chantal Gagnon for the Trudeau government said:

The seven most advanced economies are facing the same challenge: How do we create growth that benefits everyone, including the middle class and people working hard to join it.”  “The G7 leaders have all been elected, one way or another, on a commitment to make the economy work for everyone, not just for the few, not just for the wealthy.

Well, on that point, the G7 has emphatically failed for years – hence the reason for Trump, Brexit, Italy, Austria et al.

In the meantime, as we at TruePublica stated weeks ago and Reuters reiterated this week, the threat of trade wars has turned the G7 into six plus Trump.

What this G7 is going to show is that the United States are alone against everyone and especially alone against their allies,” French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire said.

The crux of this meeting is unity. Will the G7 remain so or will Trump’s agenda divide them. University of Ottawa international affairs professor Roland Paris, who served as Trudeau’s first foreign policy adviser, has a less upbeat view.

The primary challenge for this summit is to maintain the integrity of the G7 itself. There is the real possibility of a more open rupture.”

Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow described the tensions over trade as a family quarrel.

“This thing can work out. I’m the optimist,” he told reporters last week without providing a hint on what that optimism was based.

We’ll see what the final statements say after the meeting. The language will tell us everything.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

The CEO of Russian Railways, the state-backed leader in this industry, announced his company’s intent in participating in the Trans-Arabian Railway during last week’s Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), thus drawing attention to a project that’s been on the drawing board for a few years already but has failed to get off the ground. The concept is for the GCC states to tighten their non-energy economic integration with one another through a coastal railway that hugs the southern edge of the Persian Gulf and would run from Kuwait to Oman, but this vision hasn’t yet been prioritized. That might change in the coming future, however, as a result of trilateral cooperation between Russia, Saudi Arabia, and China.

To explain, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s ambitious Vision 2030 agenda of socio-economic reforms dovetails perfectly with China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity in the sense that it aims to position the Wahhabi Kingdom as a tri-continental economic hub for Afro-Eurasia. Some of the over $130 billion worth of investments that China clinched in Saudi Arabia last year alone will be used to modernize the recipient’s economy and place it on the trajectory for developing a sustainable post-oil future, and it’s here where Russia’s railway expertise comes in.

Russian Railways has been working very hard to establish itself as a global player and the Trans-Arabian Railway project provides the perfect opportunity for showcasing its services. Not only that, but it’s a quid pro quo for Saudi investment in the Russian economy over the past couple of years, and it will help to accelerate the Russian-Saudi rapprochement, too.  Moscow’s deepening all-around involvement in Arab affairs, especially with the influential GCC, will enable it to gain wider respect and acceptance as a Mideast power as well. Altogether, Russia’s successful involvement in the Trans-Arabian Railway project and China’s game-changing investments in the Kingdom could help Saudi Arabia diversify its foreign policy and ultimately become more multipolar as a result.

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

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.

On June 4, the US State Department officially acknowledged that Turkey and the US had endorsed a roadmap for the northern town of Manbij. The announcement came after a meeting between Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and U.S. State Secretary Mike Pompeo in Washington.

Manbij is currently controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). Kurdish YPG and YPJ forces are the core of the SDF. Ankara sees them as a terrorist group.

Earlier, Turkey claimed that the US-Turkish roadmap on Manbij will force YPG/YPJ elements to leave the area. However, the implementation and real details of this roadmap still remains in question.

On the same day, an explosion erupted near a US-French military base in the SDF-held town of Ain Issa. According to pro-opposition sources, at least one person was killed in the incident. However, no further details are currently available.

According to reports, the Ain Issa base hosts around 200 US and 75 French troops.

On June 4 and June 5, the SDF continued its advance against ISIS on the eastern bank of the Euphrates reportedly capturing al-Nammurah, Tal Manakh and al-Dahu.

On June 3 and June 4, the Syrian Arab Army and its allies repelled a series of ISIS attacks carried out from both eastern and western banks of the Euphrates. Main clashes took place in the areas of Jalaa, Saiyal and Hasrat.

Some sources even speculated that the terrorist group used these attacks to transfer some of their members from the SDF encirclement in the area of Hajin to the Homs desert.

Firefights between government forces and militants were reported in the area west of the city of Aleppo. This incident and other cases in northern Hama and northern Latakia show that the establishment of observation posts in the so-called Idlib de-escalation zone are not enough to impose a fully-fledged ceasefire regime in the area. The key reason behind this is still high level of influence of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) in this part of Syria.

*

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

Canadian government News Fabricators would have us believe that the so-called “Syrian opposition” and its “peace negotiations” will benefit from a continued growth in the participation of Syrian women in the peace process.  The picture below projects perceptions of equal rights, humanitarianism, peace and justice. It shouts that we are the good guys and our “interventions”, and “destabilizations” are altruistic. The Canadian flags in the background add just the right touch.  It’s a civilizing mission that we have been called upon to perform, and we shoulder the burden with pride.

The White Helmets – al Qaeda auxiliaries – are also sharing the burden, and they too are being fortified  with the addition of increasing numbers of women actresses1.  

Given that the West’s proxy “opposition” are misogynist, [most of whom are Al Qaeda affiliated] sectarian terrorists, one would think that the equal rights/affirmative action card would be a hard sell.  Not so. 

Canadians swallow the lies willingly.

Canadians are not interested in the fact that the legitimate, democratic, hugely popular, secular Syrian government is especially strong because of its pluralism, and the strong representation of women in powerful positions.

Presumably Canadians are not interested, either, in the fact that Asma al-Assad, President al- Assad’s wife, is a role model for women in Syria and beyond.

Canadian News Fabricators, needless to say, have successfully obliterated the “opposition” reality from broad-based Canadian perceptions:

Syria will win this war, and when she does, histories will be written. 

If a true history is ever written, the criminality of the West, and the historical illiteracy of Western populations, will emerge for the world to see. The Canadian government will be front and center in the Parade of Shame.

*

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

Note

1. David Macilwain, “Protecting Syria from the Women of Idlib.” American Herald Tribune. 5 June, 2018. (https://ahtribune.com/world/north-africa-south-west-asia/syria-crisis/2288-women-of-idlib.html) Accessed 5 June, 2018.


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

On October 25th, 2002 the last great hero of the common people in the US Senate was very likely murdered by agents of the shadow US crime cabal government otherwise known as the Bush-Cheney regime. His wife and daughter and two pilots also died in the air crash. Paul Wellstone’s story deserves to be retold and Americans need to be reminded that criminals in and out of our government still need to be punished for their unindicted crimes. This article was written as both a tribute to an outstanding American patriot and a reexamination of his probable assassination by criminals still on the loose.

Minnesota Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone was a man of integrity who was among the few politicians openly and adamantly opposing the Iraq invasion as well as the creation of the US version of Gestapo-land Security. As a fearless populist leader he’d been a constant thorn in the side ever since then President George H. W. Bush responding to the junior senator’s uncomfortable questions at a reception asked, “Who is this chickenshit?”

Years later as the only senator up for reelection who voted against the Iraq War when Democrats held just a one seat edge over the Republicans in the Senate (with one independent caucusing with Democrats), his thorny side made him the #1 GOP target. With the Karl Rove led Republican Party just one seat away from gaining Republican control over the US Senate, Wellstone’s death gave his Republican challenger Norm Coleman the 49-49 split and, as the President of the Senate, Cheney’s tie breaking vote would deliver the GOP 50-49 advantage needed to steamroll yet more tax cuts through for the rich, unending bankers’ wars and a never seen before boom for the military-security industrial complex. Again, motive and means tilt heavily towards assassination. The facts make it more than probable.

A month prior to the November 2002 election Vice President Cheney had arranged a meeting with Wellstone, threatening him with grave consequences should he vote against the preplanned Iraq invasion. A few days later speaking to a group of war veterans, Wellstone publicly recalled Cheney’s threatening words:

“If you vote against the war in Iraq, the Bush administration will do whatever is necessary to get you. There will be severe ramifications for you and the state of Minnesota.”

Then just days after that, 11 days prior to the midterm election and a year to the exact day after the deadly anthrax pushed Patriot Act victory, on October 25th Paul Wellstone, his wife and daughter along with three staffers and two pilots all died in an extremely suspicious plane crash.

The FBI was at the crash site within 90 minutes, indicating they’d left their Minneapolis office before the “accident” at about the same time Wellstone’s plane was just taking off that morning, indicating the possibility of pre-knowledge.

“The authors note that it would’ve taken agents at least three hours to reach the swampy and remote crash site. How they got there from the Twin Cities so quickly remains a mystery.”

Additionally, the NTSB as the national agency that normally takes the lead role investigating all US plane crashes suddenly wasn’t. The FBI moved in ahead immediately proclaiming just another bad weather accident. Yet all on the ground witnesses and reports disagree, from pilots landing at the destination airport just two hours prior to the Wellstone flight to the airport manager who less than an hour after the crash was himself flying over the crash site. The plane considered a Rolls Royce among small planes was in tiptop shape and the two pilots steeped in skilled experience.

As the feds’ rogue cops for go-to cover-ups, as in 9/11 and the anthrax attacks the year before, and the 1993 World Trade Center and 1995 Oklahoma City bombings, the FBI has a long shady history of leaving its corrupt dirty fingerprints all over these well documented false flag, history changing events.

A couple of brave Democratic House members anonymously stated that they believe Wellstone was murdered. In one Congressman’s words:

I don’t think there’s anyone on the Hill who doesn’t suspect it. It’s too convenient, too coincidental, too damn obvious. My guess is that some of the less courageous members of the party are thinking about becoming Republicans right now.

An unnamed CIA source admitted:

“Having played ball (and still playing in some respects) with this current crop of reinvigorated old white men, these clowns are nobody to screw around with. There will be a few more strategic accidents. You can be certain of that.”

A number of other Democratic politicians at a 2 to 1 margin to Republicans have also incurred mysterious deaths  holding “unpopular” views just ahead of hotly contested elections. Two years earlier while traveling in Colombia Senator Wellstone had already experienced one known attempt on his life when a bomb planted en route from the airport was discovered.

As a longtime critic of the CIA and covert operations, Wellstone was targeted for assassination in both Colombia and in Minnesota by the masters of mayhem, murder and deceitful cover-ups – the FBI/CIA Criminals-In-Action at the behest of mastermind Cheney.

So far in our two-tiered justice system, murder pays off for those high up on the psychopath food chain like Cheney, the Bushes and Clintons. Renowned investigative reporter Seymour Hersh exposed Cheney’s “executive assassination ring.” Cheney used the CIA as well as the military Joint Special Operations Command as his personal army of hitmen reporting directly to him. (see video below)

If the neocons can live with themselves for murdering 3000 Americans on 9/11, they certainly never lose sleep over a few more targeted eliminations that include the genocidal 4 million Muslim bloodbath caused by the Bush crime family wars.

Mintpress, August 18, 2015

The heavy-handed Bush-Cheney push for Iraq War and a DHS congressional vote prior to their 2003 invasion cast enormous high stakes in the Senate. Then add the known history of contempt from former CIA director Bush, the Cheney threat just days prior to Wellstone’s death, a slew of brazenly contradictory crash site anomalies, and the exposed murderous means used to pass the Patriot Act and the 9/11 false flag tragedy the year prior, all of this circumstantial evidence taken together strongly points to yet more diabolical skullduggery perpetrated by Skull & Bones criminals against humanity.

The neocons grabbed the Hegelian solution they needed for waging unlimited war in the name of terrorism anywhere in the world while simultaneously at home merging FEMA into their newly created Homeland Security tasked with stripping away the rest of America’s constitutional liberties in the name of “national security.” In its first dozen years alone, deep state’s gluttonously monolithic DHS cancer has metastasized into the third largest federal department boasting near a quarter million full-time employees. By hook, crook and murder the Cheney-Bush gang in 2003 got what they’d been wanting and plotting for years, two concurrent never-ending wars in the Middle East and the monstrous apparatus Homeland Security whose purpose is making war against the American people. Sadly the rest of the Western vassal nations play follow the leader.

If examined according to the Hegelian Dialectic of 1) problem, 2) reaction and 3) solution, a draconian formula used by deep state to manufacture increased authoritarian control over the US populace, Paul Wellstone’s death can easily be explained.

More than any other single member of Congress, the Minnesota senator posed a serious threat as the major opposition leader standing in the way of war criminals Bush and Cheney’s Iraq invasion as well as their formation of the Department of Homeland Security, two preplanned agendas rooted in the neocon think tank the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Prior to their stealing the 2000 election and their PNAC’s “Pearl Harbor” event they created called 9/11, their regime had already called for attacking Iraq for regime change and erection of the DHS cancer. The Bush-Cheney reaction to their problem Paul Wellstone was to assassinate him making it appear as an accident.

By murder once Wellstone was out of the way, the neocons’ solution sent a loud and clear message of intimidation and a death threat in order to effectively silence any other potential Congressional opponents to the war in Iraq. Wellstone’s elimination paved the way for the war criminals’ successful campaign to win national support for the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq. That said, the month before the invasion on February 15th10-15 million people around the world in over 600 cities assembled in massive protest against the US intervention, the biggest one day antiwar demonstration in history. But unfortunately once the US military occupation began, the antiwar movement gradually fizzled out.

And the PNAC (members of PNAC project, image left) calling for regime change in seven sovereign nations including Iraq within five years was underway. The predatory rape and pillaging of Iraq as the world’s second largest oil producer was justified by lies of Saddam’s non-existent WMD’s and ties to terrorism. Sadly the neocons who are still at the helm wreaking havoc in 2016 were able to implement an enormous new Department of Homeland Security monstrosity masquerading as public “safeguard” against terrorism. So without Wellstone and virtually no further opposition in Congress, the neocons created their multibillion dollar security state apparatchik promoting and enforcing draconian counterterrorism laws leading to increasing centralized authoritarian government control that is ushering in their New World Order.

This tried and true Hegelian strategy has also been regularly utilized to further identify deep state obstacles as problems based on perceived neocons’ threats to US global unipolar hegemony.

American Empire’s relentless efforts to isolate, weaken and target for global war designated international enemies Russia, China and Iran through propagandized demonization and orchestrating fake crises illustrate yet more examples of the Hegelian Dialectic in action. And just as the US crime cabal was successful in eliminating Wellstone as their New World Order threat, for decades the crime cabal government has been planning its war against identified American dissenters as enemies of the state who object to its heavy-handed tyranny.

Paul Wellstone’s courageous opposition to the powerful Washington establishment’s evil cost him and his family’s life. Since we Americans are now in the same crosshairs of the same still entrenched shadow assassins, it’s time to make their arrests for treason and mass murder prior to our own death and destruction.

*

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In recent years he has focused on his writing, becoming an alternative media journalist. His blog site is at http://empireexposed.blogspot.co.id/.

The Absence of Diplomacy Is Isolating Washington

June 6th, 2018 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The dissolution of the Soviet Union removed the constraint on Washington’s unilateralism. The neoconservatives, who had just risen to power, seized the opportunity and replaced diplomacy with threat and coercion. One infamous example is from the George W. Bush regime when the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, told Pakistan to do as you are told or you will be bombed into the stone age. We have this on the authority of the president of Pakistan himself, who did as he was told.

In the case of Russia during the Putin era, this level of threat is excessive as Russia can bomb back. So the threat has been reduced to: do as you are told or we will impose sanctions.

Sanctions are an assertion of hegemony of one country over another. They are an assertion that the imposer of sanctions has extra-legal international authority to tell other sovereign states what to do or to suffer consequences if they do not.

Once the constraint on Washington’s unilateralism was removed, sanctions became an instrument of US foreign policy and replaced diplomacy. The Clinton regime used them on Iraq. When the UN reported that the effect of the Clinton regime’s sanctions on Iraq was the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, Clinton’s Jewish Secretary of State was asked by Lesley Stahl on the national TV program “60 Minutes” if the sanctions were worth the deaths of a half million children. Madeleine Albright said yes, “the price is worth it.” The Jews feel the same way about the Palestinians. As the Palestinians’ country has been stolen by Israel, what is the point of Palestinians? Killing them is Israel’s answer. As one Israeli minister said, we are only doing what the Americans did to the native Americans known as Indians. As America shares this crime with Israel, little wonder that Washington always vetoes any UN action against Israel for its crimes against the Palestinians. The two criminal states stand united against the world.

And from Washington’s view, it has been “worth it” ever since as Washington during the 21st century proceeded to destroy in whole or part seven countries, and is still working on several more.

Any time a country doesn’t follow Washington’s orders, Washington imposes sanctions. Iran, North Korea, Russia, and Venezuela are all bearers of Washington’s sanctions. Moreover, Washington forces other countries, including its European allies, to also impose sanctions or Washington will sanction them as well.

This worked until Washington’s assertion of its hegemony over the world became excessive. That happened when Trump, guided by Israel and by Israel’s neoconservative agents who are Trump’s advisers, denounced and withdrew from the Iranian nuclear agreement signed by the US, Iran, Russia, China, France, the UK, and Germany.

When Washington’s European vassals did not also withdraw from the agreement that they had signed, Trump threatened them with sanctions.

All of Europe already suffers from high unemployment. Washington’s sanctions worsen the situation for Europe, which has resumed profitable business with Iran. Finally Europe has caught on. Washington is telling Europe that Europe must suffer economically so that Washington can exercise hegemony, from which Europe gets no benefit.

This is too much even for the European and British governments that have been Washington’s vassals since 1945. Rebellion is reported everywhere in the Internet news although not in the presstitute media. European and EU officials are saying that it is time that Europe represents its own interests instead of Washington’s. Even the head of the EU, a CIA creation, is in rebellion.

Will the rebellion last, or is it merely the antics of Europeans long on Washington’s payroll posturing for more money? How much does Washington have to shell out to quiet the European rebellion?

Vladimir Putin has been eating insults and provocations for years while awaiting for Washington’s arrogance to break up its European empire. Perhaps Putin’s patience is paying off, and it is happening now.

There are signs that Washington is isolating itself. Washington has ordered India and also Turkey, a NATO member, not to purchase Russian weapons systems, but both countries have given the bird to Washington, rejected Washington’s interference in their affairs and have gone ahead with the purchases.

The chairman of the European Commission, Jean Claude Juncker, said that it was time for Europe to reconnect with Russia and to stop attacking Russia. Will the EU, the CIA’s own creation, turn against Washington?

It is possible. Washington has threatened Germany with sanctions if Germany participates in Russia’s North Stream 2 gas pipeline project bringing energy to Europe. Washington’s preference is that Europe close down from lack of energy rather than to be dependent on Russia, as this dependency reduces Washington’s power over Europe.

Germany’s Merkel, long Washington’s whore, has changed her spots. She announced that the US is no longer a reliable political partner and that Germany “needs to take its fate into its own hands.” The latest poll shows that 82 percent of Germans agree with her that Washington is an “unreliable partner.”

Washington, wallowing in its fabled incompetence, is now worsening all of its empire relationships by threatening its own allies with trade wars. There is no one of sufficient competence in the Trump regime to be able to understand that America’s “trade problem” is entirely of its own making and is not due to Mexico, Canada, China, and Europe.

America’s extremely serious trade problem is due to globalism, neoliberal economics, and to the New York investment banks.

The US trade deficit with China has its origin in the offshoring of American jobs. Products, such as Levis, Nike shoes, Apple computers, once produced in America by American workers are now produced abroad where wages and various compliance costs are much lower. When these products produced abroad for American markets by US corporations come back to the US to be sold, they arrive as imports. Thus, the offshored production of US corporations is the most direct cause of American trade deficits.

However, this basic, indisputable fact is never reported by the presstitute media, or by the neoliberal economists or US government statistical agencies. The pretense is that it is all China’s, or Mexico’s, or Canada’s fault. You would never know that it was the direct result of the profit-seeking activity of US corporations.

What has happened is that with the Soviet dissolution, the governments of socialist India and communist China made a decision that capitalism was the wave of the future, and they opened their labor markets to foreign capital.

The American firms that did not want to desert their home towns and work forces by offshoring their production were forced to do so by threats from the New York investment banks. Domestic producers were told to move operations to China where lower labor costs would boost profits or face a takeover of the corporation that would raise profits by moving operations abroad.

The reason high productivity high value-added jobs have exited America is because of Wall Street and the greed of corporate executives and shareholders. As always happens, the ruling interest groups and their Washington puppets blame foreigners, thus protecting themselves.

However, now they have started what is mischaracterized as a “trade war.”

In effect, the Trump regime is not at war with China and other countries. The Trump regime is at war with the US corporations who moved their production for US markets offshore and with the New York banks that forced this move. The tariffs will fall not on Chinese exports but on the offshored production of US corporations. The tariffs will raise the price that Americans pay for the products that US corporation make in China.

Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum raise the cost of inputs used in US production functions. Raising the price of these inputs means that the products of US industry made from steel and aluminum also rise in price, thus hurting US competitiveness. This is the opposite of how protectionism is supposed to work. Protectionism works by minimizing the costs of inputs and by protecting outputs with tariffs on competing foreign products. In other words, the prices of domestically produced goods are lowered, and the prices of competing imports are raised.

The neoliberal economists lied when they gave assurances that the US manufacturing and professional skill jobs moved offshore would be replaced with better jobs for Americans. As the official payroll data makes clear, the replacement jobs are worse, consisting as they do of lowly paid domestic service jobs that characterize employment in third world countries.

Jobs offshoring has been disastrous for America. The resulting trade deficit is the least of it. The loss of well-paying jobs has hurt consumer purchasing power. To maintain living standards, consumers have substituted debt for the missing income. The result is that 41 percent of Americans cannot raise $400 should they be faced with an emergency.

The budgets of states that were once manufacturing powerhouses have also been hurt, calling into question their ability to meet pension obligations. The benefits of jobs offshoring were concentrated on a small group of corporate executives and shareholders and are dwarfed by the massive external costs of jobs offshoring on the US economy and work force.

Robotics will make the situation far worse. The smart people so happily working on replacement of humans in the work force are in fact stupid. They are destroying the social system. Tariffs cannot protect jobs lost to robots. Moreover, robots don’t buy houses, furniture, cars, clothes, entertainment, food, drink, smart phones, computers. All the money saved by replacing people with robots is not available to purchase the products made by robots. Consumer demand collapses. The only solution is the socialization of production that makes all members of society owners of the output. Even this is only a partial solution as it leaves unanswered the question of what people do with their time and what happens to people who do not have to work and to develop their capabilities.

Capitalism, despite the claim that it efficiently allocates resources over time, has a short-run time horizon—the next quarter’s profits. Everything about the system is short-term. We have reached the point at which executives destroy the company by indebting it in order to buy back the company’s shares, thus driving up the stock price and maximizing their “performance bonuses.”

By undermining the strength of the economy, the consequence of short-run profit maximization is to make the US more belligerent. Plunder becomes a way of keeping the system afloat. Thus, hegemony over others becomes a means of survival.

Matters are coming to a head in the Trump regime. Trump’s bullying personality mated with the belligerence of neoconservative hegemony produces war in its many forms. The economic warfare with which Washington is threatening its vassals can lead to an independent Europe friendly to Russia.

The decline in Washington’s hegemonic power is a prerequisite for the resurrection of the American economy. When plunder is not an option, policy has to turn inward. The responsibilities of corporations have to be restored to include employees, customers, and communities along with shareholders. The Sherman Anti-trust Act must be revived, monopolies dismembered, banks too big to fail broken up, and offshored production brought home by taxing corporations according to whether they produce for the US market at home or abroad.

Historically, foreign trade was unimportant to US economic development. A rising middle class produced a large consumer market that sufficed for the prosperity of large-scale manufacturing and industrial enterprises. This prosperous America was destroyed by globalism. American revival awaits a new class of leaders devoid of the hubris of “exceptionalism” who can reject the role of world bully and focus on the problems at home.

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Absence of Diplomacy Is Isolating Washington

Last week major state and corporate news outlets reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had met and agreed on removing Iranian troops from Syria and/or Iran’s border with Syria. Then, on June 3rd, Haaretz and other outlets reported that Israel had, for the first time, participated in a NATO “exercise” near the Russian border. I spoke to Rick Sterling, an investigative journalist specializing in Syria, about what could be behind these reports.

***

Ann Garrison: I’d like to go through some of these disparate reports about Russia and Israel one by one, but first, what do you think of Israel’s first ever participation in NATO war games near the Russian border?

Rick Sterling: The head of NATO recently confirmed that NATO would NOT get into a war involving Israel because Israel is not a NATO member. But Israel is a [NATO] “partner,” and in 2014 the US Congress designated Israel as a “major strategic partner.” So I think Israel may be participating in the war maneuvers to demonstrate that it’s a good partner. Of course, Russia sees the NATO military exercises on its border as provocative. They are countering with their own military exercises, so it’s just a continuation in the wrong direction away from peace and mutual acceptance.

AG: OK, now to these reports about negotiations between Russia and Israel. Just before the news that Israel had participated in NATO war games near Russia, Bloomberg News reported that Israel was campaigning to break the alliance between Iran and Russia. What do you think of that?

RS: It’s certainly true that Israel is playing the diplomatic game and trying to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, but the stories are highly exaggerated. They contain both contradictory information and outright disinformation. Russia has friendly relations with Israel, and more than a million Russian Jews emigrated to Israel. But Iran is a strategic ally of Russia.

AG: On June 2nd, the Times of Israel reported that Israel denies inking a deal with Russia on Iranian withdrawal from Syria. What about that?

RS: Well, I haven’t seen any written deal. So what we’re going on are media reports, which are spun in different directions. So, number one, I don’t know if there was a written agreement. Number two, it’s certainly the case that Israel is not only saying that they don’t want Iranian militia or advisors anywhere near the border with the Israeli occupied Golan Heights, but also that they want them all out of Syria.

Russia and Syria may have agreed to relocate some of the Iranian advisors or Iranian militias away from the Golan Heights border. There were reports that some of those forces were headed out to eastern Syria to do combat there against ISIS, which continues to hold an important area. But even if Israel is trying to insist that no Iranian advisors or militia be in Syria, I can’t see Syria or any sovereign state agreeing to such a demand. Israel exaggerates the Iranian involvement in Syria for its own purposes.

AG: Asharq Al-Aswat reported, also on June 2nd, that Russia and Israel had agreed to keep Iran away from Syria’s South.

RS: Asharq Al-Aswat is a Saudi-owned newspaper coming out of London, so the Saudi influence and heavy anti-Iran bias is evident. The one element of this story that may be true is that the US may actually be uncomfortable with any agreement regarding the US forces that control the area around Al Tanf, a Syrian border area with Iraq. That’s the main highway from Baghdad to Damascus, and it’s currently controlled by US military and various armed militants—including former ISIS fighters—who are trained and controlled by the US. The US doesn’t want to give that up, but the Syrian foreign minister is not mincing his words. He’s saying that all the US forces must leave Syria eventually, and specifically that they should leave that area at the Syria-Iraq border soon.

Al Tanf and the highway between Iraq and Syria is a flashpoint. The US has no right to be there but seems to be digging in while Syria is getting increasingly adamant that they must leave. Things may come to a head there.

AG: Al Monitor says that Russia is “trying a new playbook to calm the escalation between Israel and Iran.” How about that?

RS: I think that’s true. What we’ve seen emerge in the last several years is that the diplomat in the room is Russia. If you look at what’s going on there, the Russian diplomacy is quite impressive and at times quite surprising. Six or eight months ago, the Saudi monarch flew to Moscow for the very first time. Russia brought Iran and Turkey together at the Astana talks, and Russia is trying to soothe the tension and danger of conflict between Israel and Iran. So that story is probably accurate.

AG: Have you seen any reports about negotiations between Russia and Israel on RT, Russia’s state- sponsored English outlet?

RS: I’ve seen some RT coverage, both stories and photographs. They certainly don’t put the spin on it that some of the Western and Israeli media do.

The fundamental fact is that Russia doesn’t want to go to war with the US. They realize how dangerous the situation in Syria currently is. They are not going to give up their long-term alliance with Syria, but at the same time, they’re doing everything they can to cool things down and avoid a head-on conflict.

AG: OK, so we’ve gone through just a sample of the wildly disparate reports and commentary about this, but after reading a lot of it, I had the feeling that this is headed toward the Balkanization of Syria, which has been much discussed for a long time. What are your thoughts about that?

RS: Well, that’s the reality on the ground right now. Turkey is occupying part of the north. Israel and Israeli-supported terrorists are occupying part of the south. The US and the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) control big swathes of eastern Syria. So Balkanization is already the informal reality on the ground.

In early 2016, John Kerry called it “plan B,” dividing up Syria and partitioning it. He didn’t say it quite that explicitly, but he was clearly suggesting that that’s where things were headed. Now, in opposition to that, you’ve got the Syrian government saying that it will not allow partition and that the US has to leave Syria. Both Assad and the Syrian foreign minister are saying that increasingly forcefully. So we’ll have to see. At the same time it’s dangerous because there’s also threatening talk coming from the United States.

The US, Turkey, and Israel are, of course, violating international law codified in the UN Charter by their military presence in Syria, but the Syrian government seems to be taking things step by step with the support of Russia and Iran. Hopefully, progress can be made and the conflict can be wound down. That would certainly be to the benefit of all Americans as well as Syrians and other peoples of the Middle East.

AG: Do you think that Russia is opposed to Balkanization?

RS: Oh, absolutely. They’re opposed to it. They saw what happened with the war in Yugoslavia and the split, the separation into smaller, weaker states.

Russia also has its own experience with Western and Saudi-funded terrorism. If you look at a map, Syria is not that far from Russia, so of course they are very concerned with the situation there. They have a big stake in seeing the conflict wind down and a peaceful resolution, remote as that may seem. They’re taking the lead in helping to resolve it and working toward reconciliation, which is going to require concessions on the part of Damascus. Russia has explicitly talked about an internationally supervised election in Syria, and hopefully that’s where things will end rather than in World War III.

The question is whether the US and its allies, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia, will give up their goal of “regime change” in Syria. Or will they continue to finance and arm the opposition to further bleed Syria and its allies? The US and allies are prolonging the conflict behind a pretense of humanitarian concern. Meanwhile they ignore obvious travesties such as the Israeli killings at the Gaza border.

AG: And just one more point of clarification regarding the presence of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in Syria. Their presence is legal, according to international law, because they’re there at the request of the Syrian government. Right?

RS: Yes, that’s correct. Russia, Iran, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah are in Syria supporting Syrian sovereignty. The Iranian presence in the West tends to be wildly exaggerated, but they do have militia there. They also have advisors, and they’ve lent economic support to Syria. Both Lebanon and Iran know that their own governments are at risk there.

Of course, it was General Wesley Clark who said, back in 2007, that the US had a hit list of seven countries, and we’ve already seen several of them overthrown. Lebanon and Iran know they’re on that list. I’m sure they all realize that if the Syrian state is destroyed, if the government there is toppled and chaos reigns as it does in Libya, they’ll be the next targets. So they’re there for their own sake and for regional stability, not just to support their ally Syria.

*

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. His work most often appears in Consortium News. He can be reached at [email protected].

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

 

The Power of Self-Pardon: Trump’s Novel View

June 6th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“If a president was dumb enough to pardon himself that would be such an arrogant statement of power that the House would probably impeach him in a week and the Senate would convict him.” – Newt Gingrich, Jun 5, 2018

It is a view that Charles I would have been proud of: The means by which one can forgive and exculpate oneself for purported wrongs. Admittedly, that out of sorts Stuart king only believed that one source was worthy of pardoning him: God and God alone.  It was the divine who had vested him with legitimacy; accordingly, it was only the divine that might judge him or remove his crown.  Oliver Cromwell proved otherwise and sneaked off his head.

Trump does not believe in Sky Creatures, and remains very terrestrial in his lusts and ambitions. He seems to be constantly jockeying for the next position, embracing less issues of policy as matters of expedient stance.  Those stances, written in water, alter with whirling consistency, leaving the pundit to lurch after the next novel interpretation.

Axiomatic to the Trumpland playbook are questionable interpretations of the US constitution.  The president finds the whole notion of checks and balances more than inconvenient: he finds them risible.  

To that end, he is testing the water, largely as a means to banish Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller to the outer reaches of the political system. This forms a strategy of neutralisation that lies at the core of Trump’s legal approach, one that seeks to cut Mueller’s wings and limit his own exposure.

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

Such an expansive reading was bound to poke the Twittersphere, with one response to his observation being curt and tangy in rebuke.

“No person is above the law, not even the president,” came an irate respondent.  “The president – the executive branch of our government is co-equal to the other two branches of government.” 

Former federal prosecutor and White House counsel Nelson Cunningham relevantly noted that no one was “going to indict the president while he is sitting. So whether he can pardon himself for a crime for which he won’t be charged – is a moot point.” The art of the television president is mastering the moot point and delivering it as a matter of pre-emption. 

Former White House counsel to President Barack Obama Bob Bauer also draws upon those who suggest that a prosecution for obstruction would not take place while Trump was in office. 

“The case for immunity has its adherents, but they based their position largely on the consideration that a president subject to prosecution would be unable to perform the duties of the office, a result that they see as constitutionally intolerable.”

Reference should, instead, be made to the Pardons clause within the US constitution:

“The President… shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment” (Article II, section 2).   

A thorny issue for the president to negotiate, given the glaring parallel offered by Richard Nixon.  The president who desperately dragged the US national security state into its imperial form was confronted with the damning words of the Articles of Impeachment that he “obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice”. 

While there is a certain tyrannophobic tendency in assessing elements of the current president’s misrule, such signature moves as enunciating the power of self-pardon by their very definition suggests authoritarian sensibilities.  New York University professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat smells something going off in the US. “It’s in the tradition of the trial balloons he’s been launching since his campaign, which warn the public and his GOP allies that he feels he’s above the law.”  

Charlie Sykes sees a president in a state of permanent, and dangerous experimentation. 

“This is the president who has taken the unthinkable and made it thinkable,” he claimed with some exasperation. “Why go there?  Unless you are floating it to see what would be considered acceptable in Congress and to the public.”

Trump’s own advisers have done their best to tell their employer what he wants to hear, notably over whether he could ever be guilt of obstructing justice.  Attorney John Dowd, by way of example, did come up with the potentially dangerous hypothesis that the “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case”. 

And here we again return to the notion of the immune sovereign who can technically commit no wrong.  Rudy Giuliani, who now spends time advising Trump, has been even more unequivocal on the power of self-pardon.

“The constitution gave the president the right to pardon himself”. 

There would be no need to avail himself of that, as he had not done “anything wrong”.   

US constitutional history flies in the face of such a rosy reading, though it is undeniable that the executive branch, as one presiding over the Justice Department, does have latitude on prosecutions and terminations.  Issues of impeachment, linked as they are to obstruction, remain key. Can the nation’s chief law enforcement officer obstruct an investigation he has the power to terminate? White house counsel past and present cannot agree, but none can ignore the context of politics.

*

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

Featured image is from The Greanville Post.

After 70 years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still unresolved. The conflict simmers for a few years, then erupts again with new massacres and violence. This article describes recent events, the failure of the “two state solution” and need for a different approach.   

In the past couple months, Israeli Defence Force (IDF) soldiers have killed 118 Palestinian protesters and seriously wounded many thousands more. The protesters were unarmed and no threat to the soldiers. Gaza hospitals overflow with victims. 

In the wake of this violence, human rights groups filed a legal petition to make it unlawful for Israeli soldiers to fire on unarmed protesters. Last week the Israeli Supreme Court rejected the petition. 

Israeli violence is usually portrayed as a “response” to Palestinian violence, but the reality is the opposite. The sequence of recent events is as follows: 

  • From the end of March til May 25, Palestinians in Gaza protested against their oppression as close as they could get to the border fences. About 118 were killed and many thousands seriously injured by Israeli snipers. They were all shot inside Gaza. 
  • On May 27 – 28, the Israeli military launched tank mortars at Palestinian military outposts inside Gaza, killing four.
  • Next day, on May 29, Palestinian militants launched unguided mortars into nearby Israel. Most of them fell harmlessly and there were no Israeli casualties.    
  • Next day, on May 30, Israeli jets and helicopters launched guided missiles and bombs on 65 different locations within Gaza. 

Clearly, the violence started with Israelis killing protesters and then militants inside Gaza, but it’s not portrayed that way. Time magazine began its article with, “Palestinian militants bombarded southern Israel….” 

Pro Israel advocates wish to prevent people from seeing what is really happening. They know the potential damage if people see video such as Israeli snipers celebrating the shooting of unarmed protesters. To prevent this, a proposed law will make it illegal to photograph or video record Israeli soldiers. Palestinian journalists have condemned this attempt to criminalize journalism.   

The Reality of the Israeli Occupation

Israel calls itself the “Startup Nation” because of the economic and technological achievements. But in Gaza and the West Bank, Israeli policies and actions strangle the economies and worsen living conditions.

Palestinians in Gaza are kept separate from Palestinians in the West Bank. There is no trade, travel or inter-family visitation. This is in violation of international agreements including the Oslo Accords. 

The claim that Israel “departed” Gaza is false. Israel controls the borders, sky and waters around Gaza, a coastal strip just 5 miles wide by 25 miles in length. Unemployment in Gaza is approaching 50%, the highest unemployment in the world. Fisherman are prevented from going out into deeper waters and shot at when they go beyond Israel’s imposed zone. Gazan farmers cannot export independently. Israel frequently blocks the import and export of crops and products. It is almost impossible to leave Gaza. Even outstanding students winning international scholarships may have their exit denied. The electrical and water treatment facilities have been bombed and destroyed by Israel. Nearly all the drinking water is contaminated. Israel restricts the amount of food permitted to enter Gaza so there is continual shortage leading to nutritional deprivation, stunted growth and anemia. 

This situation is not new. Eighteen years ago, Israeli journalist Amira Hass described the history, the facts and statistics as well as her personal experience living in Gaza in the profound book “Drinking the Seat at Gaza: Days and Nights in a Land Under Siege”. The situation was extremely grim then but keeps getting worse.  

At the northern Gaza border, Israel is now building a “sea barrier” extending far out into the Mediterranean. It will be above and below the water line. A major reason for this expensive project is to block sewage and pollution from the waters in front of Gaza. Because of Israeli attacks on sewage treatment and electrical infrastructure, sewage flows into the sea. Last summer, Zikim Beach in southern Israel had to be closed due to the inflow of sewage from Gaza. The ‘sea barrier’ now in construction will block the sea currents. This will keep the Israeli beach clean and greatly compound the problem in Gaza. 

The strangulation, impoverishment and oppression is not confined to Gaza. In the West Bank, Israeli settlements continue to expand. This increases the number of check points, restrictions and repression. Travel from Bethlehem to Jerusalem is impossible for most Palestinians. The majority of West Bank water from the aquifers is transferred to Israel or provided cheaply to settlers while Palestinians must buy water and store it in tanks on their rooftops. In the last few years, Israel has made it increasingly difficult or impossible for humanitarian groups to provide medical support including breast cancer screening. A compelling new book titled “The Other Side of the Wall” describes the daily struggle in the West Bank where Palestinians and international allies protest against the theft of land, abuses, random killings and imprisonments.  

Defiant Courage 

There seems to be a trend toward greater Palestinian unity and strategic agreement. The tens of thousands of Palestinians protesting in Gaza were unarmed and united behind the Palestinian flag rather than separate party or movement flags of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP, etc..    

The Palestinian protesters in Gaza show remarkable courage. Beginning on Friday March 30, they have returned week after week despite seeing thousands of their fellows shot and wounded or killed. 

In an article titled “The Gaza Fence that Separates the Brave from the Cowardly”, Amira Hass wrote,

“The desperate courage demonstrated by tens of thousands of citizens of Gaza over the past few weeks in general and on Monday in particular hints at the energies, the talents, the dreams, the creativity and the vitality of the inhabitants of this strip of land – who have been subjected to a 27 year policy of closure and siege aimed at suffocating and crushing them.”  

Steadfast and Persistent 

Palestinian resistance continues despite Israeli violence and bloodshed. Seven years ago Palestinian refugees in Syria and Lebanon held “March of Return” protests at the northern borders. Israeli soldiers killed 13 and wounded many more.  

In recent days, Gazans have again challenged the Israeli port blockade which prevents ships from departing or arriving. International solidarity with the Palestinian cause is also persistent. Three ships (two Swedish and one Norwegian) recently departed Scandinavia heading for the Mediterranean Sea and Gaza. Named the 2018 Freedom Flotilla, the ships are carrying dozens of international citizens to again demand that Israel stop its blockade of Gaza. 

Despite the huge imbalance today, time may be on the side of the Palestinian cause. Systemic apartheid in South Africa existed for a long time and seemed strong. But ultimately it collapsed quickly. The same may unfold in Israel / Palestine. 

Today, South Africa is an important supporter of the Palestinian cause. South Africa was the first nation to recall its ambassador to protest the “indiscriminate and grave Israeli attack” in Gaza. 

Israel has the military might but Palestinian resistance and courage persists. The Palestinian population is steadfast, persistent and growing. They have increasing number of allies who support their cause. Young American Jews are unlike their parents and increasingly critical of Israeli policies. Some courageous Israelis, such as Miko Peled, speak out unequivocally that Israeli apartheid must end and be replaced by one state with democracy and equality for all. A million registered Palestinian refugees live in Lebanon and Syria, patiently waiting. They have not forgotten their legal claim and right to return. 

The recent bloodshed and massacres underscore the fact that there is no solution on the current path. It only leads to increasingly unlivable conditions in Gaza plus more illegal settlements and oppression in the West Bank. The so-called “two state solution” has been dead for many years and should be forgotten. As happened in South Africa, the international community can and should help. It is time to increase international pressure and expand BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) against Israel to help bring a peaceful end to this conflict with its constant oppression and recurring massacres.   

The alternative is very grim. As described by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy,

The truth is that Israel is well prepared to massacre hundreds and thousands, and to expel tens of thousands. Nothing will stop it. This is the end of conscience, the show of morality is over. The last few days’ events have proved it decisively. The tracks have been laid, the infrastructure for the horror has been cast. Dozens of years of brainwashing, demonization and dehumanization have borne fruit. The alliance between the politicians and the media to suppress reality and deny it has succeeded. Israel is set to commit horrors. Nobody will stand in its way any longer. Not from within or from without.” 

Palestinian courage should spur international action.    

*

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area in California.  He can be contacted at [email protected]

Featured image: A destroyed house where 28 members of the Badran family and five neighbors were killed in a US-led coalition airstrike on August 20, 2017, Raqqa, Syria (Amnesty International)

While the Amnesty Report confirms that the US-led coalition violated “international humanitarian law”, it fails to acknowledge that ISIS-Daesh was SUPPORTED by the U.S. coalition from the very outset. 

And then President Obama ordered the conduct of “humanitarian bombings” with a view to “liberating Raqqa” from the clutch of the ISIS terrorists generously funded by America’s allies (including Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states).

America’s fake counter-terrorism “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) mandate was used as a justification to wage a war of aggression against Syria. The unspoken truth is that the US is the State sponsor of ISIS-Daesh. The Islamic State is a construct of US intelligence, affiliated to Al Qaeda. 

America’s ultimate intent was to destroy, destabilize and fracture Syria as a nation State. 

The “Liberation” of  Raqqa by US led forces constitutes an extensive crime against humanity consisting in actively supporting the ISIS terrorists occupation of Raqqa, and then waging an extensive bombing campaign to “liberate” the city.

The media has presented the Liberation of Raqqa as a counter-terrorism operation rather than an illegal aggression against a sovereign country.

The logic of the US led operation directed against Raqqa is similar to that led against Mosul in Iraq. 

Below is the review of the Amnesty Report by Prof. Scott Lucas

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 5, 2018

***

Amnesty International concludes that US-led coalition forces killed hundreds of civilians in last year’s campaign to take the city of Raqqa in northern Syria from the Islamic State.

The organization issued a report on Monday based on visits to 42 sites of airstrikes and interviews with 112 civilian residents whose relatives were killed as the US-supported, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces captured the devastated city last October after a four-month offensive.

Four representative cases are detailed in which 90 civilians — 39 from a single family — were slain. Amnesty concludes,

“They are part of a wider pattern and provide a strong prima facie case that many Coalition attacks that killed and injured civilians and destroyed homes and infrastructure violated international humanitarian law.”

During the campaign, coalition forces carried out tens of thousands of airstrikes, more than 90% by American warplanes. The US also fired 30,000 artillery rounds on the city and surrounding arreas.

Donatella Rivera, a senior advisor at Amnesty, summarizes:

The Coalition’s claims that its precision air campaign allowed it to bomb IS out of Raqqa while causing very few civilian casualties do not stand up to scrutiny. On the ground in Raqqa we witnessed a level of destruction comparable to anything we’ve seen in decades of covering the impact of wars.

[The Islamic State’s] brutal four-year rule in Raqqa was rife with war crimes. But the violations of IS, including the use of civilians as human shields, do not relieve the Coalition of their obligations to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians. What levelled the city and killed and injured so many civilians was the US-led Coalition’s repeated use of explosive weapons in populated areas where they knew civilians were trapped.

One resident, Munira Hashish, explains,

“Those who stayed died and those who tried to run away died. We couldn’t afford to pay the smugglers; we were trapped.” She and her children finally escaped through a minefield “by walking over the blood of those who were blown up as they tried to flee ahead of us”.

Rasha Badran and her husband lost their entire family, including their 1-year-old daughter. She recounts:

We thought the forces who came to evict Daesh [the Islamic State] would know their business and would target Daesh and leave the civilians alone. We were naïve. By the time we had realised how dangerous it had become everywhere, it was too late; we were trapped.

*

Scott Lucas is Professor of International Politics at the University of Birmingham and editor-in-chief of EA WorldView. He is a specialist in US and British foreign policy and international relations, especially the Middle East and Iran. Formerly he worked as a journalist in the US, writing for newspapers including the Guardian and The Independent and was an essayist for The New Statesman before he founded EA WorldView in November 2008.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Can anything be said that doesn’t warrant an empaneled jury of twitting twats to determine the fate of an individual?  It is evident that branding, marketing and selling can only be done in a context of controlled hypocrisy.  Companies long happy to use celebrities as fronts for promoting products and the image of a television network have become obsessed with the idea of sensitivity.   

While Roseanne Barr’s tweet describing former President Barack Obama’s senior advisor Valerie Jarrett in simian terms (“Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj”) was stingingly rude, the hammer option adopted towards her by the ABC was manic.  Was the Roseanne Barr slated to return in her show meant to have been reformed, one more economical in her rattled, and rattling opinions?  

The sense among the writers and producers was to fall in line.  People were all meant to be horrified at this new creation, this new Barr.  Executive producer David Caplan claimed to be helpless before the implications of the tweet.

 “I really wasn’t sure what to do because I didn’t feel like there was really any response to it.  It was so far over the line and so loathsome that I suspected there might not be any coming back from it.”

Caplan recounted Barr during season 10 of the program.  She was found to be “reasonable with the writers.”  Despite disagreements regarding her political beliefs, she proved “reasonable to work with at that point.”

This suggests a bit of hand washing on Caplan’s part in anticipation of future employment: Barr’s tweet had nothing to do with work matters, and certainly nothing to with the scripting of the show.  Keep new freaky marginalised, isolated, for fear of being contaminated.

This stomach turning sanctimony can be found in the idea that the ABC network is magically tolerant (family values and all that), and that Barr was somehow out of step.  Take Hal Boedeker, who happily marches to a tune that is not only discordant but silly. 

In the Orlando Sentinel, the righteous Boedeker made the following observation held down by the assumptions of pure fantasy:

“Disney sends the message that it welcomes all. Barr violated the Disney philosophy with her racist tweet about former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.” 

As if it made any difference whatsoever,

“Barr also had a history of bashing others with tweets, and she trafficked in conspiracy theories.”

What makes such mind addled assessments even more unearthly is the remark that Barr’s conspiracy theories do not cut it in the world of fantasy. (What runs for fantastic these days?)  “Disney deals in fairy tales, not conspiracy theories.”  A good reading of the text, subtext and inner meaning of many a fairy tale repudiates such a view.  In-between readers such as academics keen to secure their next grant constitute, it could be said, a conspiracy of interpretation, finding a spectral hook upon which to hang upon the next questionable interpretation.

Image on the right: Valerie Jarrett and Roseanne Barr 

Image result for Valerie Jarrett

True to corporate form, the production vultures at the ABC are trying to find ways to move beyond RB for what is enthusiastically being proclaimed a salvation.  Spin-offs are being sought, though they must be emphatic on one point: the absence of the protagonist that made it to begin with.  In the manner that resembles something of a theft, Barr, according to The Hollywood Reporter, “would not be able to financially benefit from any new incarnation of the series.” (Legal minds, ready yourselves.)  

The point about Barr is that she never changed, which might well be the problem.  To understand the market and the nature of one’s employer is to understand how hypocrisies and cant might change at any given moment in time.  The fury directed against her is the misplaced anger of the trend follower with the attention span of a light lured moth. 

Treating Barr in such a manner is also bound to encourage others to come out with their scything swipes.  An example is provided by Jonathan S. Tobin in The National Review, who has asked for “an amnesty for speech offenses.” If Barr can be sent to the television’s salt mines for a racist tweet “why shouldn’t Samantha Bee lose hers for a presumably scripted line on her show in which she called Ivanka Trump a cunt and implied that she could get her father to change her mind about an issue by wearing something tight and low cut?”

Ironically enough, in the age of Trump, where the ad hominem remark has been given a whole new lease of life, becoming total, normal and unstoppable, mechanisms of control and punishment are finding their bearings.  Trust broadcasting to be one of them in their righteous corrections.

Those familiar enough with Barr would have taken her comment as deserving of a chastising, disturbed rebuke, a point she would have been more than capable of accepting.  But debate before the lynch mob is nigh impossible.  The noose speaks volumes, and expression can gradually slide into a dull, controlled oblivion.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Twats and Tweets: Roseanne Barr and the Issue of Proportion
  • Tags:

On June 3, Syrian government forces repelled an ISIS attack on their positions east of the town of Hasrat in southeastern Deir Ezzor. According to reports, ISIS used small boats to cross the Euphrates to its western bank and then carried out the attack.

Taking into account the fact that the terrorists had come from the Euphrates bank controlled by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), some pro-Damascus sources once again accused the US-led coalition of encouraging ISIS activity against pro-government forces in eastern Syria.

At the same time local sources revealed that the SDF, i.e. Kurdish YPG/YPJ militias dominating the group, and the Syrian government have reached an oil sharing agreement over the Omar oil field.

According to Turkey’s state-run news agency Anadolu, the YPG will give 100 barrels of oil from the field to the Syrian government in return for 75 barrels of fuel. The Omar oil fields is one of the largest oil fields in Syria. The SDF captured it in October 2017.

On June 2, reports appeared that the Syrian Army and Iranian-backed militias are preparing to launch a military operation in the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert against ISIS. During the last two months, the Syrian army launched two attacks against ISIS in the desert. However, they were limited because pro-government forces were dealing with militants on other fronts, mainly around the city of Damascus. Now, the Syrian military has more resources to contribute to securing the desert.

Some sources linked these developments with an alleged agreement reached by the key powers influencing the conflict. Under this agreement Iran will allegedly withdraw its forces from southern Syria. In turn, the Syrian army will re-establish control over the border with Jordan and a contact line with Israeli forces.

However, Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said that there will be no agreement until the US-led coalition is occupying the area of At Tanf. So even if the aforementioned agreement is finalized, its implementation is still a big question.

*

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

Puerto Rico is America’s Okinawa, Japan’s poorest prefecture – the rights, needs and welfare of people on both islands largely ignored.

Okinawans are harmed by America’s presence, including rapes, murders, and other crimes committed by US military personnel, unacceptable noise, pollution, environmental contamination, and use of valued public land for imperial purposes – hostile to regional peace and stability.

Puerto Rico is a virtual US colony, exploited by America since 1898, its people, governor and other officials powerless – the island ruled and exploited by Washington.

Islanders have no control over their lives, welfare and destiny, no say over foreign relations, commerce, trade, air space, land and offshore waters, immigration and emigration, nationality and citizenship, currency, maritime laws, military service, US bases on its territory, constitutionality of its laws, jurisdictions and legal procedures, treaties, radio and television, communications, agriculture, natural resources and more.

For 120 years, Puerto Ricans have been victimized by US imperial rapaciousness, transforming the island into wasteland of high unemployment, poverty, deprivation, and human misery – before Hurricane Maria struck last September, devastating Puerto Rico and its people.

They lack enfranchisement on the mainland – paying federal taxes, getting back pathetically little in return.

They suffer from gross mismanagement, political greed, widespread corruption, deplorable social services, and monied interests exploiting them, enforced by police state harshness.

Hurricane Maria was Puerto Rico’s worst ever natural disaster, causing humanitarian crisis conditions – the island a long way from recovery, rebuilding painfully slow, many islanders lacking basic services, including rural areas and elsewhere without electricity and clean water.

Hundreds of thousands of people left the island for America. Nearly 300,000 are in Florida. Many never received federal aid. Others got pathetically little short-term, expired in most cases, desperate people ending up virtually homeless.

According to Trump regime disinformation, Hurricane Maria only caused 64 deaths, a disgraceful Big Lie, covering up a human catastrophe.

A new Harvard University study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported an estimated 5,000 deaths – 70-fold higher than the fabricated official number, more than double Hurricane Katrina’s 1,833 deaths, also likely under-countered.

The leading cause of mortality in Puerto Rico was from “inability to access medications…and need for respiratory equipment requiring electricity,” reported the Harvard study, adding:

“(M)any households also reported problems with closed medical facilities…or absent doctors…In the most remote category, (many) households (couldn’t) reach 911 services by telephone.”

Basic services were lacking for months, including medical care, electricity, potable water, adequate food, shelter for many, and ability to communicate by phone.

Federal and island government indifference to essential human needs bear most responsibility for vital help left unaddressed. What was provided was woefully inadequate.

Eight months after Hurricane Maria, thousands of islanders still lack electricity, proper healthcare, and other vital services, the death toll likely rising, possibly much higher than Harvard’s 5,000 figure.

Washington spends trillions of dollars on militarism and warmaking, social justice on the chopping block for elimination to feed it.

America’s agenda reflects imperial viciousness and neoliberal harshness triumphing over governance of, by, and all its people, not just its privileged few.

The plight of long-suffering Puerto Ricans is Exhibit A.

*

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

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

We have gone through, for the last three months, unusual experiences.

We could admire the humanism in sports; we were touched by the beauty, the elegance and the professionalism of North Korean singers and dancers.

We saw, through the Kim-Moon summit and the North-South exchange of musical groups, that the North-South blood tie was stronger than the North-South regime divide. 

We were hoping with all our mind and heart for the closing of the last pages of the Cold War. But we realized that the Pyongyang Wall was pretty high. 

We pray that the Singapore summit will make the Pyongyang Wall crumble, once and for all, as did the Berlin Wall.

We have been, for the last three month, hearing and reading, in connection with the nuclear issues, about governments, political leaders, diplomats and different events. 

But, we seldom hear or read about the people who have been affected in different ways by the nuclear crisis.

Well, in this paper, I will discuss about how the South Korean people have been affected by the nuclear crisis.

To better understand the impact of the nuclear crisis on South Korea and its people, it is better to examine its internal political history.

In South Korea, there are two distinct groups in connection with the nuclear crisis. The one which has benefitted from the nuclear crisis is the conservative government and its supporters. The other one is the South Korean people for whom the nuclear crisis and North-South conflict were a heavy burden.

The principal negative impact of the nuclear crisis on the South Korean people includes the retreat of democracy, the increased Korea risk hurting foreign direct investments and the destruction of the groundwork of reunification.

My argument is that these heavy cost incurred by the South Korean People is attributable, mainly, to the dictatorship of the conservative government, which was facilitated by the Korean nuclear crisis and North-South tension.

On the other hand, as far as the conservative government and its supporters are concerned, the nuclear crisis has been very beneficial.

There are two reasons for this.

First, the nuclear crisis of North Korea has allowed the conservative government to scare the voters with frequent fabricated threats from the North and to get the votes in its favour. It has made itself elected many times owing to this unethical tactic.

Second, the nuclear crisis has given the conservative government ample opportunities to enrich, through illegal kickbacks, bribes and other illegal means, those individuals and the institutions involved in the production and the transactions of weapons.

Consequently, the denuclearization is a losing game as far as the conservative government and its supporters are concerned; they may even wish the Trump-Kim summit not to be successful.

To see this, we have to learn a few things from the Korean political history of the post-Pacific War era.

We will see how the conservative government has exploited the North-South conflict for its political ambition and financial greed.

When Korea was liberated from the yoke of Japanese colonialism in 1945, a conservative democratic government was established in the South under President, Syngman Rhee and a communist government, in the North under President, Kim Il-sung.

Thus, from the beginning of the post-Pacific War era, Korea was divided along the line of ideology. This was bad enough, but what was even worse was the division along the line of pro-Japan and anti-Japan positions. 

The South Korean government was formed essentially by those who served the Japanese during the colonial era and who participated in the torturing of the Korean patriots and in many other crimes against Koreans, while the North Korean government was established by those who fought the Japanese armed forces.

In this way, the Korean peninsula was divided into pro-Japan democratic conservative group in the South and communist anti-Japan group in the North.

This double-line division of the Korean peninsula has created mutual mistrust, animosity and hostility. Under this situation, the conservative South Korean government and its supporters have developed “anti-North Korea culture” in which North Korea was demonized. North Korea was described as the eternal enemy of South Korea and a source of great danger.

Therefore, in the eyes of the conservative government, those who were sympathiser of North Korea were also enemies of South Korea, or more precisely, the enemy of the conservative government and its supporters.

The anti-North Korea culture made it easy for the conservative government to label all those who criticized it as “sympathizers of North Korea” and to punish them harshly in the name of the National Security Act. 

All those who criticized the conservative government or who were not friendly to it were categorized as “Red”. 

The “Red-Culture”, called in Korean language (Palgaing-ie-moon-hwa) emerged. Under the Red-Culture, even if you are pure democrat, you are a “Palgaing-ie”, if you are not with the conservative government.

Under this situation, it was easy to impose dictatorship. In fact, all the conservative governments since 1948 were ruled by dictators.

President Syngman Rhee (1948-1960) had the most aggressive anti-North Korea attitude. He accused more than two hundred thousand civilians for being “Red” and killed them all in areas of Jeju, Yosu and Soonchon. 

His government was one of the most corrupted governments and it ruled the country through the police dictatorship. 

On April 19th, 1960, more than sixty thousand students revolted and chased Rhee out of Korea. He escaped on board of an American CIA plane.

We call this student revolt as Revolution-4.19 (Sa-il-goo-hyung-myung)

The next brutal government was that of General Park Chung-hee who ruled from 1962 to 1979 through military-CIA dictatorship. To silence voices of criticism and objection, he used innocent citizens to produce false North Korean spies. 

Millions of families which had nothing to do with North Korea were the target of police harassment for the simple reason of knowing somebody who had liberal ideology. 

There were many who killed themselves by burning, because, in the absence of freedom of speech, it was perhaps only way of accusing injustice and violation of human rights. 

From October 16 to 20 of 1979, more than fifty thousand students in Busan and Masan (BU-MA) areas revolted against electoral fraud committed by General Park and this is known as Resistance-BU-MA (Bu-ma-hang- jaing).

General Park was assassinated by his CIA director, Kim Jae-kyu, on October 26, 1979.

The conservative government following Park Chung-hee’s was that of General Chun Doo-hwan who ruled from 1979 to 1987. He was as brutal, if not more, as General Park. 

His most subhuman crime was the massacre of Kwang-ju citizens on the 18th of May, 1980. 

About nine hundred were killed by the Korea army who used even helicopters to shoot down the citizens of all ages; more than one thousand were injured. 

It started by a peaceful demonstration against injustice and violation of human rights, but General Chun wanted to destroy the very roots of complaints against him and falsely accused the citizens as soldiers from North Korea.

This incident is called Kwang-ju Fight for Democratization-5.18 (Oh-il-pal- kwang-ju-min-ju-hwa-un-dong).

General Chun was tried and condemned to death but pardoned by President Kim Dae-jung. He was also accused for embezzling several hundred millions of US dollars.

The dictatorship of the conservative government had continued until June, 1987 when far more than one million citizens took the street to stop the system of indirect election of president and amend the constitution allowing direct presidential election.

This huge demonstration is called the June Resistence (Yu-wol-hang-jaing).

Chun was succeeded by another general, Rho Tae-woo (1987-1993) who continued military rule. He was condemned and imprisoned for the embezzlement of millions of dollars and corruption.

After the five-year rule of the government of Kim Yong-sam (1993-1998) during which the military domination became less visible, the two liberal progressive governments took power.

Ten years of liberal progressive government of Kim Dae-jung (1998-2003) and Rho Moo-hyun (2003-2008) was a period of peace and North-South multi-dimensional cooperation. 

And democracy was restored. 

But, the restoration of democracy and inter-Korea peace was broken when President Lee Myong-bak took power in 2008. 

He ended all inter-Korea contacts in 2010 by virtue of a decree of May 24 of 2010, called Policy Measure-5.24 (Oh-ie-sa-jo-chi). 

This Policy Measure prohibited North Korean ships from using South Korean harbours, cut off all North-South trade, prohibited South Korean citizens from traveling to North; it made illegal South Korean investments in North Korea. In addition, it stopped all aids to North Korea. 

In short, the Policy Measure-5.24 meant a complete cessation of North-South dialogues and cooperation.

The end result of this Policy Measure was the intensification of the North-South tension, which inevitably facilitated the conservative government’s control of media and political movement of the liberal progressive group. 

Lee Myung-bak ruled through the dictatorship of CIA, the police and even military intelligence service.

Lee Myong-bak is now in prison and accused of the manipulation of social media for his presidential election, embezzlement of millions of dollars, abuse of power and transaction of influences and several other crimes of corruption.

His successor, Mme Park Geun-hye (2013-2017), daughter of General, Park Chung-hee, took power in 2013. She repeated what Lee Myung-bak had done, may be even more.

She made a black list of ten thousand artists, filmmakers, actors, journalists and civil movement leaders to silence their voice of criticism. 

She has embezzled a huge amount of money in complicity with her friend Choi Sun-sil; she mobilized the whole government agencies of power for her personal greed and ambitions.

She is now in prison to serve 24 years of imprisonment.

Thus, South Korea has had six conservative presidents. Of these six, one was chased away by students, one was assassinated by his CIA director, four are or were imprisoned for abuse of power, embezzlement of public funds and violation of human rights.

The Korean people have, under these politicians, endured the 55-year dictatorship; they suffered from fear and anguish produced by the brutality of authorities; they were fed up with the never – ending corruption of high-placed people.

But, they did fight back; for seven months from 2016 to 2017, 17 million people of all ages, all regions and all sectors of the society took the sub-zero cold streets of Kwanghwah-Moon of Seoul and elsewhere in the country.

And they produced the miracle of the Candle-Light Revolution (Chop-pool- hyung-myung).

The Candle-Light Revolution impeached Park Guen-hye and elected, as President, one of the most honest, the most competent and the most loving men in the modern history of Korea.

His name is Moon Jae-in who will lead the destiny of Koreans toward the society of security, justice, equality and prosperity. More than 80% of South Koreans have faith in him.

With Moon Jae-in, the North-South tension is attenuated and the democracy is restored again after 55-year dictatorship of all sorts committed by the conservative government

The second type of cost imposed on South Korea was the increase in Korea risk preventing a normal inflow of foreign direct investments (FDI). South Korea shows one of the lowest FDI ratios among the OECD countries. In 2017, the ratio of inflow FDI stock to GDP was 12.0 % as against 52.0% for OECD countries.

Finally, another heavy cost was the total destruction – by Lee Mung-bak and Park Gun-hye – of the groundwork of Korean reunification carefully established by the two liberal progressive governments of Kim Dae-jung and Rho Moo-hyun

In short, the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula has imposed heavy cost on South Korea and its people. This cost includes, as seen above, the retreat of democracy, the destruction of the groundwork of the country’s reunification and negative impact on its economy. 

To conclude, if the Singapore Summit is successful so that denuclearisation takes place, it will be a great blessing for South Koreans. 

They will be able to further develop true democracy, advance toward the reunification of the Korean peninsula, a new round of the rapid economic development.

*

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 frequent of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

I would like to let Global Research readers know that there is fiction out there written for them. In a world full of books, movies and TV that perpetuates the myths, we normally have to dumb down what we know and overlook political statements in fiction. That can lead some informed people to lose interest in novels, but I hope to bring it back with the psychological suspense series.”

In this riveting interview with Author, UCLA writing instructor, and manuscript editor Tantra Bensko, I had the opportunity to ask a few questions about her exciting new fiction psychological suspense thriller series Agents of the Nevermind. The first two novels Glossolalia –which has won a gold medal in Intrigue from Readers Favorite Awards and Remember to Recycle, have been published and are available for purchase on Amazon, book III Encore: A Hypnotic Abduction, which takes place in England, and will be out in August.

The Agents of the Nevermind are masters of illusion, psy-op, false flag, theatrical news making the public support the military agendas. Ultimately, that scheme is about demonizing and taking down people like Assad, who is a huge hero of mine. As this is not a new or localized phenomenon, however, and because I’m an outsider, I leave the location vague in the fiction.

Tantra (image on the right) an author with a myriad of literary masterpieces to her name shares with Global Research contributor and independent journalist Sarah Abed where she draws her creative energy and inspiration from. As well as how she uses her talent to dismantle popular misconceptions and tackle matters that are of particular interest to informed readers.

All the novels in the series include the media working with intelligence agencies currently without referencing actual details of today’s world. But the accurate history of social engineering is referenced throughout the series in a wide variety of examples including the history of MK ULTRA mind-control and devious occult figures with military agendas that influenced people to believe mind-boggling things. The historical references in the books up until around 1990 are all accurate. But after that year, the Alternate History veers off slightly when the Agents of the Nevermind were amalgamated from other intelligence agencies in the US and UK. That gives me the chance to talk about the effects of propaganda in the United States in an interesting, entertaining way that provides fiction for people in the know about countries like Syria to enjoy without the action literally describing the details of life in the trenches. The heroes in the novels include indie journalists who expose social engineering”.

*

Sarah Abed (SA):  As a suspense/psychological thriller author, where do you draw your inspiration from?

Tantra Bensko (TB): Honestly, journalists like yourself, Vanessa Beeley, Eva Bartlett, Caitlin Johnstone and James Corbett are a source of inspiration and information. In The Agents of the Nevermind series in particular, it’s about the heroism of recognizing and exposing social engineering. People such as yourself and others involved with Global Research, including loyal readers, inspire the books. In turn, I hope to inspire the readers of the novels to keep up the good work of sharing links to well-researched factual articles on social media and doing all the other little things to promote awareness of how the mass media is a propaganda tool.

Remember to Recycle: Psychological Suspense (The Agents of the Nevermind Book 2) by [Bensko, Tantra]

One of the characters in the novels is a well-known indie video personality named Brandon who functions as a way for whistleblowers to get the word out about the actual practices of the government and military that are covered up by traditional media. Brandon doesn’t work alone, because ordinary citizens as well as reformed Agents pass him information. The entire network is required to counter the way the Agent-controlled news stations try to shut him down. I want my readers to have the same pumped feeling I had when leaving the theater after Kill the Messenger, about the journalist Gary Webb.

Readers who are familiar with the horrors such as perpetrated by the White Helmets in Syria, or the journalists demonizing Putin, for example, need entertainment like everyone else does, but what we’re offered is instead a blockbuster movie that perpetuates the illusion that the White Helmets are entirely a neutral, unarmed spontaneously formed do-gooder group of sweethearts.

How frustrating that we don’t have choices of movies and books that counter those kinds of lies. So, I provide that with The Agents of the Nevermind. I really hope your readers will embrace these books that I’ve spent so many years writing as a kind of love letter to them.

Book II is directly inspired by the White Helmet hoax and the similar group in the book are called The Rescuers and the foreign country remains unnamed. But people in the know will recognize that it is about characters in the United States affected by what’s going on in Syria. Still, it’s about more than one country or event; it’s about the ongoing pattern of intervention under the pretense of humanitarian aid and feigned shock over what foreign rulers are supposedly doing.

SA: How do world events shape your stories? What role do they play in how you formulate your characters or story plot? 

TB: World events compel me to write the novels in reaction to my compassion for the victims and my desire for the machinations of the perpetrators to become clear to readers. Since suspense and thriller novels need formidable antagonists who put the protagonists in grave danger, readers will agonize through the plots while their poor bodies pump adrenalin. Ultimately, readers’ bodies benefit by the end of the narrative by vicariously experiencing all the problems being overcome. But in the process, it’s a rough ride. I prefer to give them something truly meaningful to concerns themselves over.

In a world full of books, movies, and TV that perpetuates the myths, we normally have to dumb down what we know and overlook political statements in fiction. That can lead some informed people to lose interest in novels, but I hope to bring it back with the psychological suspense series. I call the books Thrills for Thinkers.

SA: Do spirituality, morals, ethics, or your own personal beliefs and political views tie into your writing? If so how?

TB: Psychological suspense stories go beyond simple black and white judgement. I’ve learned deeper compassionate toward anti-hero agents conducting psy-ops and people who cheat on tests, for example, so that I could write about them. I also encourage compassion for them in readers following the journey in which the flawed protagonists make positive changes.

Some spiritual experiences such as studying the interpersonal dynamics of the aura by doing aura viewing experiments, and spiraling energy between my body and a lover’s, inform some of the books, such as in Encore. In that one, the avant-garde performance troupe’s hypnotist gets them to work with auras to make the shows better and he also teaches a character how to meditatively circulate sensual energy.

But I keep esoteric subjects like that based on experience more than promoting any particular religious belief. I reference historical figures like John Dee and Edward Kelley, Madame Blavatsky and Nicholas Roerig, and Aleister Crowley to show the juncture between intelligence agents and the supposed occult throughout history.

I’m not aligned with any political party in the US, so I have an easy time being neutral with that in the work, which I think is a good idea, to avoid polarizing any more than necessary. But I’ll tell you, the presidential candidate who I was gung ho about was the brave and insightful Cynthia McKinney and she wrote a blurb for one of the books I may be able to afford to release one day if enough people buy the current books.

SA: What do you want your readers to learn or better understand by reading your books?

TB: I’d like for people who aren’t familiar with common corrupt practices like false flags, media theater, sexual bribery and blackmail, coups and proxy wars to see realistic examples of how the logistics. Many of my readers write reviews saying that they gained new insight into what they hear on the news. They can now conceive of how feasible it is that news anchors cover up something more complicated and sinister.

For example, Glossolalia arises from MKULTRA mind control programs, honeypots, assassins, evangelical involvement in the military and proxy wars. Remember to Recycle responds to the White Helmets trying to take down Assad, energy vampirism parties, organ harvesting and funding black ops through pornography. Encore focuses on intelligence agents tricking people by manipulating mythology and occult beliefs, riling up and dividing the populace, manipulating the market, and pandering to elite desires for immortality.

But ultimately, they’re big-hearted upbeat books. I want readers to understand the motives of not only the crooks and people forced and tricked into corruption their whole lives but also the impetus behind the heroic acts of bravery pulling away the veils of illusion. And I want them to understand themselves, because fiction is proven to do that. Not just in terms of moral behavior in a complex world but in more nuanced ways, fun ways, ways of love and art and friendship and family and appreciation for this wonderful gift we’re given.

I write fiction for people to enjoy, so avoid making readers feel like they’re being instructed or preached to with some sort of dull, predictable stereotypical war story. The backdrop of the series is reality, so ultimately, my hope is that relaxing into reading books about the real world ends up being relaxing. Because the readers don’t have to wear themselves out with cognitive dissonance and suspension of disbelief that is necessary with most Thrillers where the bad guys are the Russians and the good guys are the soldiers murdering them.

The plots and characters are not what one would expect, because they’re inventive as I can make them. I want readers to learn that they can have a good time that evening while they enjoy the books.

SA: How has writing changed you as an individual?

TB: You ask great questions, Sarah, thank you. I’ve been writing all my life, and it keeps me pushing myself to my limits; it’s not at all easy to do. I had a couple hundred short stories in magazines and each time I felt a kinship with the editors who chose my work. Because I’m writing for others, not myself, it prompts me to learn to understand readers better. It’s given me the occasion to meet lots of authors in person and online and every person we really get to know changes us a little.

Scientific studies show we are physiologically changed for a long time by reading fiction even for a short while. I think writers must be even more transformed by the characters than the readers are. So, I’ve been continually changed in a myriad of ways.

And I feel part of a wonderful community of people who tell me their reactions to my novels and review them on Amazon, Goodreads, blogs and review sites. I think I feel less isolated than I would without the writing, though it keeps me alone at home working all day most of the time.

Tantra’s books can purchased on Amazon. Her Agents of the Nevermind Minds page has links to journalists who dispel the kind of “real world” propaganda that informs her fiction. It will be exciting to see what new thrillers she has in store for us in the upcoming days.

*

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. Focused on exposing the lies and propaganda in mainstream media news, as it relates to domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on the Middle East. Contributes to various radio shows, news publications, and forums. For media inquiries please email [email protected]. Her articles can also be seen at The Rabbit Hole. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Thanks to the contributions of our readers, we have been able to maintain complete independence. You can help Global Research make information available to the widest possible readership.  

We ask that you consider making a donation to Global Research in our battle against mainstream media disinformation.

.

*     *     *

Israel Bombs Gaza Hours After Funeral of Murdered 21-year-old Paramedic

By Morning Star, June 04, 2018

Israeli warplanes blitzed the Gaza Strip today as the country continued to punish Palestinians for daring to hold peaceful demonstrations near the fence that seals off the territory.

Israeli Oncologists’ Letter: Let Gaza Cancer Patients Out!

By Physicians For Human Rights In Israel, June 04, 2018

The physicians have decided to act given the growing difficulties they have been experiencing over the past year in providing continuous treatment to cancer patients arriving at their clinics from the Gaza Strip. This is due to the tightening of the Israeli exit permit policy with regard to Gazan cancer patients. According to data provided by Physicians for Human Rights, over the past year medical treatment has been significantly delayed for at least 45 women cancer patients from Gaza.

Which Is the Greater Threat? Non-Nuclear Iran or Israeli F-35s and Their Nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction?

By Hans Stehling, June 04, 2018

Whilst non-nuclear Iran is subject to inspection by UN Inspectors from the IAEA, nuclear-armed Israel is completely free to increase its weapons of mass destruction, ad infinitum. That includes nuclear, chemical and biological WMD.

Israel’s Intensive Cover-up of Crimes against Palestinians, Complicity of Western Media

By Rima Najjar, June 04, 2018

The world has never witnessed a braver, more steadfast and resolute people than the en-caged Palestinians of Gaza — and that goes for every man, woman and child, from Hamas down, enduring unspeakable conditions and saying, in a voice that should be familiar to most Americans, give me liberty or give me death.

While Palestinian Paramedic Razan Lost Her Life, US Ambassador to UN Nikki Haley “Lost Her Humanity”

By Prof. Kamel Hawwash, June 04, 2018

Contrast the humane and selfless acts of 21-year-old Razan, with limited opportunities to bring peace and justice to her people, with the shameful and brazen attempts in the Security Council by US Ambassador Nikki Haley to deny another people, Razan’s people, protection from Israeli terror.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The UN Is Silent Amid Israeli Aggression in Gaza; Is It a Defunct Agency?

Every spring, as the calendar ticks off the two month span between April 4th (the assassination anniversary date of anti-war, anti-racist, anti-poverty activist Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr) and June 5th (the assassination anniversary date of anti-war  and pro-racial equality presidential candidate Senator Robert F. Kennedy), many progressive, anti-war, anti-racism, non-violent activists around the world such as myself have spent a lot of time thinking about how different America and the world might have been if the political, military and economic powers that were behind the Vietnam War and in charge of those two assassinations had decided instead to allow the will of the people – rather than the use of cowardly firearms – to decide America’s future.

1968, the Year When Everything Happened

1968 is sometimes referred to as the “year when everything happened”. 

  1. The Vietnam War intensified in the Battle of Khe Sanh (starting on January 21), the Tet Offensive (January 31), the Battle for Hue City (January 31) and the My Lai Massacre (March 16); 
  2. The anti-Vietnam War protests intensified in the US, resulting in Reactionary Police Brutality; 
  3. The Abdication of Lyndon Johnson (March 30); 
  4. The assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr (April 4) with over 100 American cities burning in response; 
  5. The Columbia University student occupations of campus buildings (April 23); 
  6. The Broadway Play Hair (April 29) started the Age of Aquarius; 
  7. The Catonsville 9  draft card burnings (May 17); 
  8. Bobby Kennedy’s Assassination (June 5);
  9. The Chicago Democratic Convention (August 28) with rampant police brutality;
  10. Richard Nixon’s divisive Southern Strategy campaign; 
  11. The segregationist Alabama Governor George Wallace’s presidential run for president, winning 13% of the national vote; 
  12. The Mexico Olympics and the famous Black Power Salute (October 16); 
  13. Black athletes kneeling during the national anthem at 1968 NFL games to protest police brutality and racial discrimination; 
  14. “National Burn Your Draft Card Day” (November 14); and 
  15. etc, etc.

1968 is also the year that hastened the destruction of true representative democracy in America and the beginning of a quasi-police state/Deep State establishment in its place. The unwelcome truths about Bobby Kennedy’s shooting on June 5, 1968 (by an assassin or assassins other than Sirhan Sirhan (see the irrefutable evidence further below) and his death on June 6, 1968 has been annually over-shadowed by the commemoration of the World War II anniversary of D-day, June 6, 1944. And every year teachable moments are lost.

Bobby Kennedy’s political assassination had occurred just 3 months before the infamous police state repression and beatings of non-violent protestors at the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago that brutalized so many young student anti-Vietnam war protestors. The police brutality ordered by Chicago mayor Richard Daley revealed that police power politics was alive and well in both political parties. It doomed the chances of Democrat Hubert Humphrey to keep the war-mongers Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger out of the White House. 

Related image

Shortly after the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, singer-song-writer Richard Holler was inspired to write the classic song, “Abraham, Martin and John”. See the lyrics further below.

Holler was inspired to write the song after the assassination of newly anti-war, Presidential candidate Bobby Kennedy. Holler saw the similarities between the assassinations of liberal/progressive political figures such as President Abraham Lincoln (1865), President John F. Kennedy (1963), Martin Luther King, Jr and Bobby Kennedy (both in 1968). 

Holler could just as well have written verses for other American justice-seeking activists such as Malcolm X, John Lennon and Democratic Senator from Minnesota Paul Wellstone, each of whom were progressive agitators, thinkers and doers who saw injustice and violence and then felt compelled to act upon their deeply-felt need to end the violence of racism, sexism, economic oppression/exploitation, police state repression, male supremacy and militarism. 

Each one was assassinated before they could achieve what they had so courageously tried to accomplish. Each died before their time at the hands of a well-disguised group of conspirators who would meet the definition of enemies of the state that the targeted individuals were trying to preserve. 

Here is a more complete list of dates of the assassinations and the relatively youthful ages of the victims:

  • Abraham Lincoln was assassinated on 4/15/1865 at age 56;
  • John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 11/22/1963 at age 46 by conspiratorial deep state assailants and NOT by the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald; The latest and best book on the subject is titled “JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Mattersby James Douglass. James Fetzer’s book on the assassination of JFK is “Murder in Dealey Plaza  which totally debunks the single shooter theory (and therefore proves that there was indeed a conspiracy to kill JFK) – click here for a review.
  • Martin Luther King was assassinated on 4/4/1968 at age 39 by deep state assailants and NOT by the patsy James Earl Ray; (for unassailable proof that Ray was a patsy, see this and also read “An Act of State” by attorney William Pepper, who is currently researching the Sirhan Sirhan case)
  • Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated on 6/5/1968 at age 43 by deep state assailants and NOT by the patsy Sirhan Sirhan; (For a review of the most recent book on the subject, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: Crime, Conspiracy and Cover-Up – A New Investigation”, see this.
  • Malcolm X was assassinated on 2/21/1965 at age 39;
  • John Lennon was assassinated on 12/8/1980 at age 40;
  • Paul Wellstone was assassinated on 10/25/2002 at age 58. (for details google “Wellstone: They Killed Him” or see this)
  • It should also be noted that the ancient progressive, non-violent, anti-sexist, anti-militarist, anti-poverty, peace and justice advocate Jesus of Nazareth was assassinated by his reactionary/conservative political and religious enemies at age 33.

Here are the lyrics to “Abraham, Martin and John”:

By Richard Holler

Has anybody here seen my old friend Abraham?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lot of people
But it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he’s gone

Has anybody here seen my old friend John?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lot of people
But it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he’s gone

Has anybody here seen my old friend Martin?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
He freed a lot of people
But it seems the good die young
But I just looked around and he’s gone

Didn’t you love the things that they stood for?
Didn’t they try to find some good for you and me?
And we’ll be free
Someday soon, it’s gonna be
One day

Has anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he’s gone?
I thought I saw him walkin’
Up over the hill
With Abraham, Martin and John.

Here is a recent article about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination by Edward Curtin. It was published on Global Research last week.

*

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

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

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

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

As the Forever AUMF 2018 (SJRes 59) (Authority for the Use of Military Force) continues to await action by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, one can only imagine the extent of the behind-the-scene efforts underway to sway those few wavering Senators who may be reluctant to go down in American history as voting to eliminate Congress’ sole, inviolate Constitutional authority ‘to declare war’. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11.

The law would remove Congress from its statutory authority as it transfers “uninterrupted” authority on “the use of all necessary and appropriate force” to one individual, allowing the President of the United States to pursue the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS and other ‘associated forces” including a proverbial too little-too late report to Congress 48 hours after the use of military force in a “new foreign country,” presumably in the Middle East (other than Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen or Libya). 

In addition to pressure within the Committee itself, it can be expected that those who will benefit most from a Forever State of War are currently pounding the Senate’s marble halls, perhaps even stalking members of the Committee as lobbyists from the MIC, AIPAC and other enthusiasts for war, will do whatever it takes to bring adoption of the AUMF to a favorable committee vote.

Since more than half the Committee, fourteen of its twenty one members received a grand total of $3,397,755 from pro-Israel PAC’s as identified by the Center for Responsive Politics, whenever and if ever the final vote comes, it will be positively titillating to compare the vote and the money.    

In an interesting reversal of common legislative procedure, the House of Representatives has, as yet, no pending AUMF comparable to the Foreign Relations Committee version while the Senate Committee appears eager to act; perhaps at the behest of one of those aforementioned aficionados of war.  If we assume that the Senate Committee adopts the AUMF with the next logical step being a vote by the full Senate, will the Senate create an awkward legislative conundrum without a comparable Forever AUMF 2018 being on a legislative track in the House?  

One factor in pushing for speedy AUMF approval might be that there is some new military escapade about to unfold with the need for an unwieldy Constitutionally mandated Congressional debate and vote too onerous, requiring too much effort and consuming a colossal amount of time whereas the Section 8 clause might better inform the American public whether their tax dollars are being efficiently used to improve their lives or might even threaten a halt to the steady drumbeat of war.   

Perhaps the delay may be attributed to ongoing negotiations of the finer points in an attempt to create a more perfect air-tight vehicle.  Whether there is a sunshine date or some i’s are not dotted or t’s not crossed makes little real difference in the final outcome since the ultimate goal is to allow war to go forward without meaningful Congressional participation while failing to provide the pesky public with information about why their sons and daughters are losing their limbs or lives in some far-away country that is no threat to our national security.

It is difficult to recognize a more ill-considered, reactionary vote of enormous global consequences as adoption of a Forever AUMF which will surely hasten the Final Chapter of the American Empire.  

As if the Constitutional violations are not sufficient reason for opposition and while Congress has been less than attentive to its Section 8 duties, a functioning AUMF will not only deny a full and thorough public Congressional debate and roll call vote on the merits of military action but will prevent creation of a historic Congressional record, a journal of which began in 1789 as necessary to providing a formal documentation of all official parliamentary proceedings essential to any operative democracy.

In mid April when the AUMF 2018 draft was introduced, retiring Committee Chair Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn) was optimistic that the AUMF would be approved within a few weeks indicating that a potential Senate floor vote depends on the strength of AUMF support within the Committee.   Corker suggested that a wide margin in favor would facilitate Senate floor passage which makes it curious that approval appears to have stalled and brings us back to question why the haste for rapid adoption of a new AUMF.

During the May 24th Committee hearing with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va) who was HRC’s running mate in 2016, serves on the Senate Armed Service Committee and is a driving force in favor of the AUMF, referred to adoption as little more than a ‘necessary update’ repealing AUMF 2001 and AUMF 2003. 

Kaine, who apparently sees no contradiction with an active-service son in the Marines and adoption of the Forever AUMF, stated that there is ‘near unity” on the Committee regarding a bi-partisan effort, military engagement against ISIS and the desire to do a ‘good job,’ none of which should be confused with real-time support for adoption of the AUMF. 

While Kaine and other members of the Committee may be untroubled by the discomfort of a contradictory, cognitive dissonance belief system as necessary qualities in order to function as a Senator, the US has become the most violent country on the planet as its legislative representatives exhibit the lack of any functioning global consciousness. 

*

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

The counterattack on those, including Senator Robert Kennedy’s children, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, claiming that Senator Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy involving at least a second gunman, has commenced.  The Boston Globe, the traditional hometown newspaper of the Kennedy family, published a clearly misleading piece on May 31, 2018 by Nik DeCosta-Klipa, with the curiously long and loaded title “Bobby Kennedy’s son thinks he was killed by a second shooter. Is there anything to it?  Or has RFK, Jr. “launched a whole new generation of conspiracy nuts 50 years later.”

Whether DeCosta-Klipa was acting on orders from above to produce such a specious piece or is ignorant of the fundamental research in a case that shouts out conspiracy is a question I cannot answer, although based on his go-to “expert” in his article – Daniel Moldea, whose contradictory disinformation on the case is well known to serious researchers – I would guess the former to be correct.   

Let me begin with the title, which is marvelously propagandistic and sets the naïve reader’s mind on the intended trajectory.    RFK Jr.’s recent claim in The Washington Post of a second shooter and his call therefore for a re-investigation (a redundancy since no genuine official investigation was done; it was a cover-up from the start) is followed by a question: “Is there anything to it?  This is followed by a quote from Moldea, repeating the CIA created meme about conspiracy nuts: Or has RFK Jr “launched a whole new generation of conspiracy nuts 50 years later.”  Note how Moldea is allowed an assertion in the title that is not followed by a question mark.  Language is the key to effective propaganda, including punctuation.  It is a subtle art, at which our mainstream corporate media are adept.

Screenshot from The Boston Globe, an article by Nik DeCosta-Klipa

DeCosta begins by asserting that “conspiracy theories concerning President John F. Kennedy’s death may be most widely circulated.” Thus the reader is led into this article with the insinuation that of course Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and anyone who questions that is a conspiracy nut.  So what about RFK’s murder?  

As the night follows day, we meet conspiracy nuts here too, courtesy of DeCosta-Klipa who allows Moldea a free hand to spout nonsense.  A person not familiar with the research done on this case by the great researcher Lisa Pease and others would assume that Moldea was the expert par excellence on RFK’s assassination, when nothing could be further from the truth.  James DiEugenio, Pease’s colleague and an equally brilliant researcher, has surgically dismembered Moldea’s work on the case.

So why has DeCosta-Klipa shined the spotlight on Moldea and given him so much space?

Image result for The killing of Robert F. Kennedy

It is unlikely that he has read Moldea’s 1995 book, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, a book about which DiEugenio rightly says: its “every major tenet is highly suspect, whose sourcing is not explicit, whose fairness is, to say the least, one-sided, whose completeness is just not there, whose use of witnesses-like Kaiser and McCowan-is rather lenient….it is a ‘bookshelf’ book that has no intellectual content or substance.”  He suggests it was commissioned by the government forces responsible for RFK’s death and the ongoing cover-up.

Moldea is allowed full leeway to rant:

To claim absurdly that the LAPD messed up and was not involved in the sinister plot and cover-up. 

To rip Robert Kennedy Jr. with the words “What Bobby Kennedy Jr. has done, he’s launched a whole new generation of conspiracy nuts who are going to believe that Sirhan didn’t do it and somebody else did.”

To utter the word conspiracy and conspiracy nuts constantly and to have that word repeated throughout by DeCosta-Klipa, as if he were Moldea’s echo.  The word conspiracy is used nine times in a highly pejorative sense.

(The conspiracy label was created by the CIA in 1967 to besmirch the name and reputation of anyone questioning the assassination of President Kennedy.  CIA agents and assets throughout the mass media were encouraged to use it constantly.  Of course they have.)

To preposterously claim that all the eyewitnesses were wrong and that since the autopsy definitively showed Kennedy was shot from the rear at point blank range that he must have turned around so Sirhan, who was standing feet away to the front could shoot him in his back and head.  To which, of course, DeCosta-Klipa has no reply, as if it weren’t ridiculous.

To falsely claim – lie – that Paul Schrade, an aide to the senator, who was walking behind him and was the first person shot, fell into RFK, pushing him toward Sirhan, when in fact Schrade fell backwards feet behind RFK.

To absurdly claim that the many bullet holes found in the door frames and wall weren’t bullet holes at all, but in DeCosta-Kipa’s words, paraphrasing Moldea, “were most likely the result of any number of kitchen carts banging into the wall.”  

Don’t laugh; there’s more.

To claim that the man highly suspected of having shot Kennedy from the rear, the security guard Thane Eugene Cesar, is innocent since he told him so.  But he doesn’t say that Cesar fled the country and is living somewhere in Asia under Moldea’s protection.

To claim the highly suspect police investigator of the shooting, DeWayne Wolfer, who also falsely asserts that no extra bullets were ever found, is a reliable source, despite extensive evidence to the contrary.

And to top it off, DeCosta-Klipa grants Moldea the final words: 

“I think [RFK Jr.] has been misled, conned, and corrupted by the conspiracy crowd to believe this garbage that the man that murdered his father is innocent.”

The truth is the readers of The Boston Globe have been misled, conned and corrupted by a classic piece of propaganda.  

It is a disgrace.

*

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/.

The Virginia Coalition for Human Rights (VCHR) and prominent Virginia college and university professors on May 30 demanded publishers protect the quality and accuracy of history and social studies textbooks used in K-12 classrooms across the commonwealth. The VCHR letter urged publishers not to adopt “factually-challenged, biased and exclusionary ICS [Institute for Curriculum Services] recommendations.” Publishers contacted include Houghton-Mifflin Harcourt, McGraw-Hill, Prentice Hall and National Geographic.

The Institute for Curriculum Services, with backing by state and local Israel advocacy organizations, submitted a large number of questionable proposed changes to the Virginia Department of Education and publishers during a recent textbook review process. Examples of ICS-submitted changes include:

1. Emphasizing Arab culpability for crisis initiation leading to military action and failure of peace efforts—and never Israeli culpability, even when it is undisputed historic fact.

2. Replacing the commonly used words of “settlers” with “communities,” “occupation” with “control of,” “wall” with “security fence,” and “militant” with “terrorist.”

3. Referencing Israeli claims such as “Israel annexed East Jerusalem” and the Golan Heights as accepted facts without referencing lack of official recognition by the United Nations and most member nation states.

Signatories of the VCHR letter to textbook publishers argued against “any rushed adoption” of such changes until “a diverse panel of qualified and nonpartisan academic experts is consulted for feedback.”

This initiative to maintain quality and accuracy in textbooks was led by the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights, a coalition of 16 organizations representing over 8,000 Virginians.

Among the 14 Virginia academic signatories of the letter are:

  • Professor Noura Erakat, Assistant Professor of Legal Studies, Social Justice, and International Area Studies, School of Interactive Studies, George Mason University
  • Professor Michael Fischbach, Professor of History, Randolph Macon College
  • Professor Peter Mandaville, Professor of International Affairs, Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University;
  • Professor William B. Quandt, Professor Emeritus, Department of Politics, University of Virginia;
  • Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary.

Letters presenting all academic and VCHR coalition member organization signatories and other documentation sent to textbook publishers may be viewed online at the Virginia Coalition for Human Rights website at vchr.org/vatextbooks.html.

For more information about the campaign to protect the integrity of Virginia textbooks, contact VCHR point of contact for this issue, Jeanne Trabulsi at [email protected], or VCHR co-chairs Paul Noursi at [email protected] or Nancy Wein at [email protected].

Syria recently announced that it has handed over to its Russian and Iranian Astana partners a list of experts to participate in the upcoming UN-supervised “constitutional commission”.

This is an important milestone in the peace process because it proves that President Assad was sincere when he told his Russian counterpart in Sochi last month about his intention to participate in this still-unscheduled gathering as soon as possible. Damascus had hitherto been dragging its heels in this respect as part of what can only be presumed was a strategic gamble to lessen the amount of “compromises” that it would inevitably have to make, though that policy backfired after it inadvertently led to Israel perceiving it as a pro-Iranian ploy to indefinitely preserve Tehran’s military presence in the Arab Republic. Consequently, Tel Aviv bombed Syria several timesover the past month in ever-larger and more dramatic attacks that seem in hindsight to have been partially responsible for bringing Damascus to the negotiating table so suddenly.

The upcoming “constitutional commission” doesn’t yet have a date attached to it, but the overall agenda is obvious and allows one to get an idea of some of the most contentious points of this gathering. Clearly, everyone is going to discuss the future role of President Assad, though it’s highly unlikely that he’ll be forced out of office after the Syrian Arab Army succeeded in liberating most of the country’s population. What’s more probable in this regard is that he will become a figurehead leader that remains in his position throughout the country’s post-war transition as it devolves from a centralized to a “decentralized” state. It’s precisely this transformation that will lead a lessening of his power as all sides try to figure out how it’ll play out in practice.

“Decentralization” is never an easy process, let alone in a state as identity-diverse as Syria whose previously unified identity was irreparably damaged as a result of the foreign-instigated conflict. Ethno-regional and sectarian fault lines have been violently forced to the surface in some parts of the country, mostly those in the “de-escalation zones” where so-called “armed opposition” members are still in control but also in the American-occupied northeastern one-third of the country east of the Euphrates. In the latter agriculturally and energy-rich region, the US’ Kurdish allies are already running their own de-facto independent “federation” and are unlikely to voluntarily give it up, nor is the national military capable of liberating it given that the Pentagon has already proven that it will respond with disproportionate force to even the mildest violation of the so-called “deconfliction line” across the Euphrates.

The “armed opposition” and the militant Kurds also need to come to terms with Damascus about the future of their militias and whether they’ll integrate into a reconstituted Syrian Army or remain as the main military force in their unofficial “spheres of influence”. This is a very sensitive issue that could make or break the negotiations just as much as the discussions over President Assad’s political future could too, so all sides will need to proceed very carefully when talking about this topic. Taking stock of these disagreements, they can be summarized as working out the nitty-gritty territorial, administrative, and military details of Syria’s probable “decentralization” as well as the higher-level ones related to President Assad and the likely bicameral parliament that he’ll preside over during a transitional period once this “constitutional reform” process is completed.

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

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

This is the first paragraph of The Times article (paywall) regarding Britain’s now famous Doomsday Brexit plan:

“Britain would be hit with shortages of medicine, fuel and food within a fortnight if the UK tries to leave the European Union without a deal, according to a Doomsday Brexit scenario drawn up by senior civil servants for David Davis.”

The Times confirms that the port of Dover will collapse “on day one” if Britain crashes out of the EU, leading to critical shortages of supplies. This was the middle of three scenarios put forward by senior advisors. A type of best guestimate if you like. You simply do not want to know the outcome of the worst of those three scenarios. Indeed, we have been spared from such details.

The article states that the RAF would have to be deployed to ferry supplies around Britain. And yes, we’re still on the middle scenario here.

You would have to medevac medicine into Britain, and at the end of week two we would be running out of petrol as well,” a contributing source said.

The report continues to describe matters such as cross-channel disruption for heavy goods vehicles, which would also be catastrophic. Massive carparks will be required.

A senior official said in the ‘Doomsday’ Brexit plan:

We are entirely dependent on Europe reciprocating our posture that we will do nothing to impede the flow of goods into the UK. If for whatever reason, Europe decides to slow that supply down, then we’re screwed.

Let’s not worry about the fact that French borders are often left in chaos due to the all too familiar strikes that appear almost monthly during holiday season for one reason or another.

Home secretary Sajid Javid makes an unconvincing comment stating he’s ‘confident’ a deal will be done. That’s hardly the type of assurance we need is it?

UK officials emphasised that the June EU summit due on the 28th was heading for a “car crash” because “no progress has been made since March” to devise plans for a long-term deal. If your confidence in Brexit is starting to wane, don’t worry, half the nation are not just anxious but downright fearful – mainly because, neither in or out has given any concreate evidence of likely outcomes. This is probably because Brexit hasn’t been done before – and was designed that way. Deliberately.

One official said

“the scenarios are so explosive they have only been shared with a handful of ministers and are “locked in a safe.”

At what stage of their hapless fiddling, constant arguing and pitiful attempts to administer the kiss of life to the corpse that Brexit has turned out to be, does a politician officially earn the title of – stupid idiot?

“Just bloody get on with it” shout the Brexiteers, except both they and the UK government still can’t decide what ‘it’ is.

Still, not to worry, we have a ‘special relationship’ with the United States of America. Britain sends about 19 percent of total exports to the USA (forget the 44 percent sent to the EU). Except, we’ve just found out we’re not special anymore. Frankly, we never were and never have been, but now, we have proof. There’s a trade war about to kick off. And we’re going to be in it – but on the side of the EU.

Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States are part of the G7. Except now that little club is already being referred to the G6 + 1, the plus one being the USA. The other six are furious that the USA would accuse them of being a national security threat over such simple matters as metal sales.

Let’s not worry about the fact that China, Russia, India and quarter of Africa are now executing oil trades outside of the USD. Let’s not worry that the rest of the world are now ganging up on isolationist America for attempting to tear down the world order. Just think about that for a moment. We’re on the wrong side – we’re on the losing side, because we’re with America – except now we’re not. And anyway, who would back the entire nation on a man like Trump and a country like America??

Liam Fox, a detestable man who rightly should be banned from managing a corner shop let alone negotiate the future prospects of Britain promised 40 trade deals signed up by next March. How many have signed? Nil, neant, null, and nulo. Not one.

Fox has previously claimed that securing a trade deal with the EU after Brexit would be, and I quote: “the easiest in human history.” He was wrong.

Then we have the Five-Eyes Alliance – the global spying and communications network of the USA, UK, N-Z, Canada and Australia. If anything, this would be something to do with that special relationship, especially as Britain excels in breaking international laws in areas such as illegal surveillance. Except that is falling apart too as N-Z is being threatened with expulsion by none other than America – because it works closely with China on a number of projects that America thinks makes it vulnerable to Chinese influence. What happens when Trump is reminded that one of the worlds largest nuclear power stations is in Britain – currently being built and funded in part by ….ahem …China.

In the meantime, Britain is being forced into making up fantastical stories about Russians running around the Shires with deadly nerve agents whilst we watch £1billion projects being shelved by banning football club owners who have resided and heavily invested in the country for decades. Britain has gone from farce to tragedy. Just as Thatcher walked away from the free market ideology of extreme neoliberal capitalism and all that it has brought, Cameron walked away from his little ‘miscalculation’ by offering a disaffected electorate a protest vote. The rest of us can’t walk away from a country in crisis – we have little option but to follow our so-called leaders.

The only credible plan they do have and let’s be fair, it was they who put the country in this position in the first place, is called the Doomsday Brexit Plan.

Excellent. At first, you were anxious, then a bit unnerved, but by now, you really should be alarmed. What if the Brexiteers are wrong and the officials and civil servants who created this document are right? What then?

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

Thousands attend the funeral for Razan al-Najjar, the 21-year-old medic shot and killed near the Gaza border with Israel June 1. (Reuters)

Thousands of people gathered in Gaza on Saturday for the funeral of Razan al-Najjar, a 21-year-old Palestinian medic who witnesses say Israeli soldiers shot dead near the border fence on Friday.

Medical workers, dressed in white uniforms, marched in her funeral procession, holding Palestinian flags and photos of her face. Her father walked holding his daughter’s own medical vest, once white, now stained red with her blood.

More than 115 people have been killed since protests began on the border at the end of March, but Najjar is only the second woman to die. The first was a teenage protester.

Photos from the scene immediately after Najjar was shot show a group of men carrying the volunteer in her white uniform, her head tilted back and her gloved hand limp around their shoulders. Witnesses said she was shot in the chest.

The Israeli military said on Saturday that it would investigate her death but that its troops worked “in accordance with standard operating procedures.”

“The IDF (Israel Defence Forces) constantly works to draw operational lessons and reduce the number of casualties in the area of the Gaza Strip security fence,” the military said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the Hamas terror organization deliberately and methodically places civilians in danger.”

Last month, the New York Times interviewed Najjar in Gaza. She was one of the only female medics responding to medical emergencies during the protests organized by Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza.

“We have one goal — to save lives and evacuate people,” she said in the video. “And to send a message to the world: Without weapons, we can do anything.”

After her death, a volunteer ambulance worker, Izzat Shatat, told the Associated Press that he and Najjar were planning to announce their engagement at the end of Ramadan.

Hamas called the protests this spring the Great March of Return. The demonstrations intended to shed light on the Israeli-Egyptian blockade on Gaza, and also call for “right of return” for Palestinian refugees displaced during the 1948 war. On May 14, the same day the United States opened its controversial new embassy in Jerusalem, tens of thousands of Palestinians demonstrated in the Gaza Strip.

Organizers encouraged the protesters to try to burst through the fence into Israel, and Israeli soldiers responded with firepower. They killed dozens of people, including teenagers, and wounded at least 2,700 demonstrators, the Palestinian Health Ministry said. The United Nations said that “those responsible for outrageous human rights violations must be held to account.”

But on Friday, the United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that would have condemned Israel’s “excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force” against Palestinians. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley called the resolution one-sided. The White House has blamed Hamas for the violence in Gaza.

After Najjar died in the operating room on Friday, Nickolay Mladenov, the U.N. Middle East envoy, tweeted that

“#Israel needs to calibrate its use of force and Hamas need to prevent incidents at the fence. Escalation only costs more lives.”

“Medical workers are #NotATarget!” he wrote.

In her interview with the New York Times, Najjar said that Gaza needed more female medics like herself.

“The strength that I showed as a first responder on the first day of protests, I dare you to find it anyone else,” she said.

Having just returned from a trip to Russia, I am pleased to report that the Russian people and the officialdom that I encountered displayed none of the vitriol towards Americans that I half expected as a response to the vilifying of Moscow and all its works that pervades the U.S. media and Establishment.

To be sure, many Russians I spoke with were quick to criticize the Trump Administration for its hot and cold performance vis-à-vis the bilateral ties to Moscow while also expressing mystification over why the relationship had gone south so quickly, but this anger over foreign policy did not necessarily translate into contempt for the American people and way of life that characterized the Soviet period. At least not yet.

Somewhat to my surprise, ordinary Russians were also quick to openly criticize President Vladimir Putin for his autocratic tendencies and his willingness to continue to tolerate corruption, but everyone I spoke to also conceded that he had generally acted constructively and had greatly improved life for ordinary people. Putin remains wildly popular.

One question that came up frequently was “Who is driving the hostility towards Russia?” I responded that the answer is not so simple and there are a number of constituencies that, for one reason or another, need a powerful enemy to justify policies that would otherwise be unsustainable. Defense contractors need a foe to justify their existence while congressmen need the contractors to fund their campaigns. The media needs a good fearmongering story to help sell itself and the public also is accustomed to having a world in which terrible threats lurk just below the horizon, thereby increasing support for government control of everyday life to keep everyone “safe.”

And then there are the neocons. As always, they are a distinct force for creative destruction, as they put it, certainly first in line with their hands out to get the funding of their no-expenses-spared foundations and think tanks, but also driven ideologically, which has made them the intellectual vanguard of the war party. They provide the palatable intellectual framework for America to take on the world, metaphorically speaking, and constitute the strike force that is always ready to appear on television talk shows or to be quoted in the media with an appropriate intelligent sounding one liner that can be used to justify the unthinkable. In return they are richly rewarded both with money and status.

The neocons believe in only two things. First, that the United States is the sole world superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by force if necessary. That has been translated to the public as “American exceptionalism.” Indeed, U.S. interventionism in practice has been by force majeure preferably as it leaves little room for debate or discussion. And the second neocon guiding principle is that everything possible must be done to protect and promote Israel. Absent these two beliefs, you do not have a neocon.

The founding fathers of neoconism were New York Jewish “intellectuals” who evolved (or devolved) from being bomb throwing Trotskyites to “conservatives,” a process they self-define as “idealism getting mugged by reality.” The only reality is that they have always been faux conservatives, embracing a number of aggressive foreign policy and national security positions while also privately endorsing the standard Jewish liberal line on social issues. Neocon fanaticism on the issues that they do promote also suggests that more that a little of the Trotskyism remains in their character, hence their tenacity and ability to slither between the Democratic and Republican parties while also appearing comfortably on disparate media outlets considered to be either liberal or conservative, i.e. on both Fox news and MSNBC programs featuring the likes of Rachel Maddow.

I have long believed that the core hatred of Russia comes from the neocons and is to a large extent tribal or, if you prefer, ethno-religious based. Why? Because if the neoconservatives were actually foreign policy realists there is no good reason to express any visceral dislike of Russia or its government. The allegations that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. are clearly a sham, just as are the tales of the alleged Russian poisoning of the Skripals in Winchester England and, most recently, the claimed assassination of journalist Arkady Babchenko in Kiev which turned out to be a false flag. Even the most cursory examination of the past decade’s developments in Georgia and Ukraine reveal that Russia was reacting to legitimate major security threats engineered by the United States with a little help from Israel and others. Russia has not since the Cold War ended threatened the United States and its ability to re-acquire its former Eastern European satellites is a fantasy. So why the hatred?

In fact, the neocons got along quite well with Russia when they and their overwhelmingly Jewish oligarchs and international commodity thieves cum financier friends were looting the resources of the old Soviet Union under the hapless Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Alarms about the alleged Russian threat only re-emerged in the neocon dominated media and think tanks when old fashioned nationalist Vladimir Putin took office and made it a principal goal of his government to turn off the money tap.

With the looting stopped by Putin, the neocons and friends no longer had any reason to play nice, so they used their considerable resources in the media and within the halls of power in places like Washington, London and Paris to turn on Moscow. And they also might have perceived that there was a worse threat looming. The Putin government appeared to be resurrecting what the neocons might perceive as pogrom plagued Holy Russia! Old churches razed by the Bolsheviks were being rebuilt and people were again going to mass and claiming belief in Jesus Christ. The former Red Square now hosts a Christmas market while the nearby tomb of Lenin is only open one morning in the week and attracts few visitors.

I would like to suggest that it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia. The fact is that much of Bolshevik state atheism was driven by the large overrepresentation of Jews in the party in its formative days. British journalist Robert Wilton’s meticulously researched 1920 study “The Last Days of the Romanovs” describes how David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 message to Washington that

“The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”

Dutch Ambassador William Oudendyke echoed that sentiment, writing that

“Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”

Russia’s greatest twentieth century writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, feted in the west for his staunch resistance to Soviet authoritarianism, suddenly found himself friendless by the media and publishing world when he wrote “Two Centuries Together: A Russo-Jewish History to 1972”, recounting some of the dark side of the Russian-Jewish experience. In particular, Solzhenitsyn cited the significant overrepresentation of Russian Jews both as Bolsheviks and, prior to that time, as serf-owners.

Jews notably played a particularly disproportionate role in the Soviet secret police, which began as the Cheka and eventually became the KGB. Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro noted how “Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka “stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator.” In Ukraine, “Jews made up nearly eighty percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents.”

In light of all this it should surprise no one that the new Russian government pf 1918 issued a decree a few months after taking power making anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The Communist regime became the world’s first to criminally punish any anti-Jewish sentiment.

Wilton used official Russian government documents to identify the make-up of the Bolshevik regime in 1917-9. The 62 members of the Central Committee included 41 Jews while the Extraordinary Cheka Commission Cheka of Moscow’s 36 members included 23 Jews. The 22 strong Council of the People’s Commissars numbered had 17 Jews. According to data furnished by the Soviet authorities, out of the 556 most important functionaries of the Bolshevik state in 1918-1919 there were: 17 Russians, two Ukrainians, eleven Armenians, 35 Latvians, 15 Germans, one Hungarian, ten Georgians, three Poles, three Finns, one Czech and 458 Jews.

In 1918-9, effective Russian governmental power rested in the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party. In 1918 this body had twelve members, of whom nine were of Jewish origin, and three were Russians. The nine Jews were: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Larine, Uritsky, Volodarski, Kamenev, Smidovich, Yankel, and Steklov. The three Russians were: Lenin, Krylenko, and Lunacharsky.

The Communist diaspora in Europe and America was also largely Jewish, including the cabal of founders of neoconservativism in New York City. The United States Communist Party was from the start predominantly Jewish. It was in the 1930s headed by Jew Earl Browder, grandfather of the current snake oil salesman Bill Browder, who has been sanctimoniously proclaiming his desire to punish Vladimir Putin for various alleged high crimes. Browder is a complete hypocrite who has fabricated and sold to Congress a largely phony and self-serving narrative relating to Russian corruption. He is also not surprisingly a neocon media darling in the U.S. It has been more than plausibly claimed that Browder was a principal looter of Russia’s resources in the 1990s and Russian courts have convicted him of tax evasion among other crimes.

The undeniable historical affinity of Jews for the Bolshevik brand of communism coupled with the Jewishness of the so-called oligarchs rather suggests that the hatred of a Russia that has turned its back on those particular aspects of Jewish heritage might be at least part of what drives some neocons. Just as in the case of Syria which the neocons, bowing to Israel’s interests, prefer to see in chaos, some might long for a return to the good old days of looting by mostly Jewish foreign interests, as under Yeltsin, or even better for the heady days of 1918-9 Bolshevism when Jews ruled all of Russia.

*

This article was also published on The Unz Review.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hating Russia Is a Full-Time Job.“Who is Driving the Hostility towards Russia?”
  • Tags: ,

Echoing the tyrannical claim of his lawyer Rudy Giuliani in a Twitter outburst on Monday, President Donald Trump asserted that he has the “absolute right” to pardon himself—a statement legal experts said is both factually inaccurate and dangerous.

.

Responding to the president’s tweet, former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti wrote,

“You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand why courts would never uphold a president’s power to commit crimes and then pardon himself for them.”

Other legal experts and commentators similarly disputed Trump’s claim that he has a right to pardon himself—while also noting the “very, very disturbing” implications of the president’s assertion.

*

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Very, Very Disturbing’: Trump Asserts ‘Absolute Right’ to Pardon Himself
  • Tags:

No constitutional provision prohibits presidential self-pardons.

Article II, Section 3 states the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” – the Constitution’s so-called Take Care Clause.

No one is above the law, including US presidents. They can be indicted for criminal offenses. The issue of presidential self-pardoning authority is unchartered territory.

Legal scholars disagree on if it’s permissible or not. Nothing in US law states it’s not.

On June 4, Trump tweeted:

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

“In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!”

According to Law Professor Jonathan Turley, Trump can pardon anyone including himself. The Constitution’s Article II, Section 2 states

“(t)he President…have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”

No constitutional provision or language prohibits presidential self-pardons. It’s not protection from impeachment – affecting government office holders.

Pardons concern individuals in or out of government, Turley explained. Under the Constitution, anyone impeached and convicted “shall…be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

Former Justice Department attorney Samuel Morison agrees with Turley, saying

“(i)f there are any limits on (pardoning) power, it’s got to be in the Constitution. It’s nowhere in the Constitution.”

Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuiliani said he has self-pardoning power, using it “unthinkable,” he added.

Law Professor Mark Tushnet said much the same thing. In Federalist No. 74, Alexander Hamilton (the first US Treasury Secretary) said “humanity and good policy” require pardoning power to be exclusive presidential authority to be used “scrupulously (with) caution” – not for self-interest.

Law Professor Andrew Wright said

“(o)ne of the basic rules is that no man is a judge in his own case. (Trump isn’t) a king.”

Law Professor Jessica Levinson explained that the Constitution means what Supreme Court justices decide. In other words, the law of the land is what they say it is. A constitutional amendment would be required to change or override this interpretation.

Ahead of Nixon’s August 1974 resignation, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said no one may judge his or her own case, claiming the president cannot pardon himself.

Law Professor Asha Rangappa interpreted this to mean that

“(t)he point of the pardon power (is) to bestow mercy on another, not to enrich oneself.”

Law Professor Jimmy Gurule said the notion of Trump pardoning himself isn’t the behavior of an innocent man, adding no one is above the law. No one can be criminally culpable with impunity, not even US presidents.

Not according to Law Professor Susan Block, saying presidents can self-pardon – but they cannot stop or interfere with an investigation. That would constitute obstruction of justice, an impeachable offense.

Emirta Professor of Law Marjorie Cohn called the notion of a presidential self-pardon an unsettled issue.

Yet “the fact that Trump is thinking about such pardons is an indication he is concerned about his own criminal liability,” adding:

“Rather than acting to fulfill his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws, Trump is violating or advocating violation of many of them. His law-breaking renders him vulnerable to criminal indictment and perhaps eventually to impeachment.”

Law Professor Keith Whittington calls presidential self-pardoning a murky area of law never before tested.

Many legal experts believe self-pardoning is an admission of guilt, risking a constitutional crisis – an issue the framers didn’t address.

A constitutional amendment or Supreme Court ruling would be required to correct the omission.

*

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

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

The Interminable Palestinian Uprising

June 5th, 2018 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

“Naila and the Uprising” is a new film about Palestine—an old story with a new edition. An almost exclusively women’s production “Naila” effectively employs evocative animation alongside compelling personal testimonials of Palestinian resistance 30 years ago.

The “Great March of Return” which the world just experienced– immobilized and shamed by the silence of political leaders– will doubtless be the focus of some future documentary. Naila’s story, which begins with her resistance efforts and imprisonment in the early 1980s, is nevertheless timely. See this.

Why? Because every record of Palestinian civil resistance is linked to today’s, to the next, and to the last– reaching back to the 1967 war. It was then that Israel imposed more severe restrictions on Palestinian life, when Israeli authorities explicitly announced their determination to suppress Palestinian aspirations of any kind, by any means, and to continue to expropriate their homes and lands.

Daily, in one form or another– by one death each day or 60, by one smashed home, one detention or one prison sentence, one deported dissident, one miscarried baby, one interrogation, or one handicapped body, one uprooted olive tree, one ravaged field, one expropriated farm, or one more check point, one dispossessed family, by another law restricting residence in Jerusalem, or another barrier set along an ancient road—Israel hammers at Palestinian existence. Then, every day, or each month, or after a year, Palestinian resistance re-emerges.

“Naila and the Uprising” returns to the 1980s to reveal the early stages of what has become an inexorable reassertion by Palestinians of their history and their legal and moral claims. The primary voice within this film, Naila Ayesh, speaks to Majd, her now grown son, taking him and viewers to before his birth, to 1950.

Majd’s mother was 8 years old, at school, when she heard that her home had been demolished by Israeli bulldozers. Now 60, Naila recalls her departure for Bulgaria to study 10 years later. There she met Jamal Zakout, the man she would marry, and with whom she would return to Gaza and engage together in their lifelong resistance to occupation.

Her story reminds us of now forgotten Zionist tactics, in this case, the exiling of dissidents. Zakout was one of many Palestinians expelled from Gaza. Moreover, we witness (with live footage from the event) how, when Naila and her son sought to visit Zakout (in Egypt), Israeli authorities allowed them to do so only if they remained away for two years. The history of heartless strategies employed by Israel is a long one.

The widespread deportation and imprisonment of Palestinian men at that time resulted in drawing Palestinian women more actively into the struggle, a point around which this film turns. See this. “Naila and the Uprising” includes testimonials by colleagues of Naila, young women, their babies on their backs who began to march in protest. Their actions in turn led to the formation of women’s committees which helped launch a successful boycott of Israeli goods. (Today that kind of boycott is less possible since Israel’s grip on Palestinian economy is far more impenetrable.)

That 1988 boycott and the pervasive engagement of women in the resistance, the film argues, was a major factor in creating a sustained uprising– what became known as the Intifada.
One could interpret last month’s Great March of Return —resulting in 123 murdered and over 13,000 wounded—as the latest expression of the Intifada. There are bound to be more.

Completed in 2017, “Naila and The Uprising” is showing in theaters in Europe, Canada and USA. See trailer below.

*

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.

VIDEO : Dietro la parata del 2 Giugno.

June 5th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

Quella del 2 giugno non è stata una parata militare, anzi nemmeno una parata, ma una «rassegna»: lo sostiene il ministero della Difesa che ne ha curato la regia (ultimo atto della ministra Pinotti).

La sfilata ai Fori Imperiali di fronte al nuovo governo appena insediato – è stata simbolicamente aperta da 330 sindaci in rappresentanza della società civile, seguiti da tutti i settori delle Forze armate, per celebrare la «Festa degli Italiani Uniti per il Paese».

Nel suo messaggio il Presidente della Repubblica Mattarella ha espresso la gratitudine del popolo italiano alle Forze armate per «la preziosa opera che svolgono in tante travagliate regioni del mondo per l’assistenza alle popolazioni gravate dai conflitti», in base alla «nostra Carta Costituzionale, architrave delle Istituzioni e supremo riferimento per tutti».

Man mano che i reparti sfilavano, venivano elencate le missioni militari in cui le Forze armate italiane sono impegnate in oltre 20 paesi: dal Kosovo allIraq e allAfghanistan, dal Libano alla Libia e alla Lettonia, dalla Somalia a Gibuti e al Niger. In altre parole, venivano elencate le guerre e le altre operazioni militari cui lItalia ha partecipato e partecipa, violando la propria Costituzione, nel quadro della strategia aggressiva ed espansionista Usa/Nato.

Le operazioni militari allestero, in cui lItalia èimpegnata, sono in continuo aumento. Oggi 5 giugno, su incarico della Nato, cacciabombardieri italiani Eurofighter Typhoon cominciano a «proteggere» insieme a quelli greci lo spazio aereo del Montenegro, ultimo entrato nella Alleanza. Cacciabombardieri italiani già «proteggono» i cieli di Slovenia, Albania ed Estonia dalla «minaccia russa». Navi da guerra italiane si apprestano a salpare per il Pacifico, dove parteciperanno alla Rimpac 2018, la piùgrande esercitazione navale del mondo cui prenderanno parte, sotto comando Usa, le marine militari di 27 paesi in funzione anti-Cina (accusata dagli Usa di «espansione e coercizione» nel Mar Cinese Meridionale).

Forze speciali italiane hanno partecipato in Niger a una esercitazione del Comando Africa degli Stati uniti, sponsorizzata dallUnione europea, in cui sono stati addestrati circa 1900 militari di 20 paesi africani.

In Niger, dove gli Usa stanno costruendo ad Agadez una grande base per droni armati e forze speciali, lItalia si appresta a costruire una base destinata a ospitare inizialmente 470 militari, 130 mezzi terrestri e 2 aerei. Scopo ufficiale delloperazione, ostacolata da opposizioni allinterno del governo nigerino, è aiutare il Niger e i paesi limitrofi a combattere il terrorismo. Scopo reale è quello di partecipare, sulla scia di Francia e Stati uniti, al controllo militare di una regione ricchissima di materie prime oro, diamanti, uranio, coltan, petrolio e molte altre di cui nemmeno le briciole vanno alla popolazione che vive per la maggior parte in povertà estrema. Col risultato che cresce il dramma sociale e di conseguenza anche il flusso migratorio verso lEuropa.

Il nuovo governo intende «rivalutare la nostra presenza nelle missioni internazionali sotto il profilo del loro effettivo rilievo per linteresse nazionale». Per farlo, occorre però stabiire quale sia linteresse nazionale. Ossia se lItalia debba restare allinterno di un sistema di guerra dominato dagli Usa e dalle maggiori potenze europee, o ne debba uscire per essere un paese sovrano e neutrale in base ai principi della propria Costituzione.

Politica interna e politica estera sono due facce della stessa medaglia: non ci può essere reale libertà allinterno se lItalia, sovvertendo lArticolo 11, usa  la guerra come strumento di offesa alla libertà degli altri popoli.

Manlio Dinucci

Video (PandoraTV) :

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on VIDEO : Dietro la parata del 2 Giugno.

First published in March 2018. See also the recently released Amnesty Report.

Currently, the attention of mainstream media is focused on the situation in the battered enclave of Eastern Ghouta. More than 80,000 civilians have already fled the region via humanitarian corridors despite numerous threats from terrorists, and the humanitarian situation there is being improved day by day. However, the same cannot be said of Raqqa that lies in ruins.

Almost four years since 2013 till 2017 Raqqa was run by ISIS terrorists. The residents who were unable to flee the city had to obey the diktats of the jihadists. Those who had refused to comply with the rules of ISIS were subjected to torture or publicly executed on the city’s streets.

In October 2017, after five months of grueling battle, the U.S. backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) ended the battle for the de facto ISIS capital. However, the U.S. media were silent about the price of victory in Raqqa.

Yet, during the city’s assault, several Syrian experts pointed to the irresponsible and ill-considered actions of the U.S.-led international coalition. The coalition strikes frequently led to numerous victims among civilians and extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure instead of the elimination of terrorists.

On October 19, 2017, USA Today quoting the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that the total civilian death toll was more than  1,800, and around 80% of the city had been completely destroyed.

Actually, much more people suffered from terrorist attacks as well as actions of the so-called liberators. This is evidenced by mass graves containing bodies of dozens of civilians and Syrian servicemen found in the outskirts of Raqqa.

At the same time, a woman told France 24 journalists that all her relatives had been killed by a coalition airstrike and their bodies were still under the rubble of her house. She also said the Kurdish commanders had tried to extort money for the alleged reconstruction of Raqqa instead of any assistance or support.

Notably, due to the rise of daily temperatures, the dead bodies lying under the rubble start to decompose very rapidly. Then putrefaction enters to the soil and groundwater that led to numerous disease outbreaks and epidemics.

Indeed, after the so-called “liberation” of Raqqa by SDF and American servicemen, the locals are still oppressed. This time the acts of aggression come from US supported Kurdish rebels.

Nowadays the locals face yet another threat in the shape of improvised explosive devices, left behind by the terrorists. According to Human Rights Watch statement, homemade landmines have killed and injured at least 500 civilians, including more than 150 children, in Raqqa, Syria since the Islamic State (also known as ISIS) was pushed out of the city in October 2017.

Such information sounds shocking and raises many questions pertaining to the SDF ‘engineering units’ that started demining works only one month after Raqqa’s full liberation.

Nowadays Raqqa looks like a ghost town with ruined and uninhabitable houses as the restoration works have not started in full swing. Moreover, the water and electricity supply have not yet been restored.

In comparison, demining and dismantling the explosive devices in Aleppo by the Syrian sappers with the support of the Russian colleagues began just after the liberation of the city and took only three months.

Furthermore, the American authorities have repeatedly stated their intention to take an active role in the restoration, mine-clearance as well as assistance to the locals after the full liberation of the city from ISIS. After the city fell under the control of SDF Washington preferred to break its promises.

So, the U.S. is directly responsible for the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Raqqa. Turning the city into ruins Washington tries to cover up the war crimes committed by its proxy forces while also blocking the humanitarian aid sent by the UN.


Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria directly from Global Research.  

Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than six years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and three years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes.

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Around two weeks ago, a Facebook friend of mine proposed an experiment to a small group of us. Social media has become a boxing ring, she said. The two sides, left and right, dig into their positions and slug it out in the comments — and that’s if they don’t just “block” each other. My friend suggested that for a month, we try to engage in a productive dialogue with right-wingers on Facebook, even with the most combative of commenters. After all, our aim is to change what and how people think, and to do that, we need to speak to other side. Let’s try it, I said, if only for a month — to see what happens.

For the past two days, I’ve been thinking about Razan al-Najjar, the 21-year-old paramedic shot and killed by Israeli soldiers Friday near the Gaza-Israel separation fence. According to witnesses, she was wearing her white paramedic’s uniform, attempting to treat protesters near the fence when she was shot. Immediately following Razan’s death, her picture appeared everywhere on my Facebook newsfeed. I, too, shared a post with her picture.

The angry responses came quickly.

Here was an opportunity to try out the dialogue experiment my friend had suggested, I thought. Maybe because Razan in her white uniform was so different from the image of the terrorist that the Israeli collective imagination assigned the protesters in Gaza, I hoped there would be an opening for compassion, for second thoughts, for a discourse free from blind hatred.

I was wrong.

Instead, the following responses came pouring in:

“What was she doing there in the first place? “Why didn’t she wait for the wounded in the hospital?” “You really think our soldiers kill protesters on purpose?” “That’s how it is in war.” “Hamas makes them to go to these protests.”

The funeral of Razan al-Najjar. (Mohammed Zaanoun/Activestills.org)

The funeral of Razan al-Najjar. (Mohammed Zaanoun/Activestills.org)

I tried to respond with calm, level-headed answers.

She didn’t wait for the wounded at the hospital because the Israeli army’s massive use of live fire made it necessary for first responders to be in the field — just like Israeli medics would at a mass casualty event.

And no, this is not “how it is in war.” Firstly, this is not a war. This is heavily armed soldiers facing down unarmed protesters. Secondly, even in war there are rules, and sniper fire against medics, journalists and children is a war crime. Hamas did not force her to be there, either; numerous interviews with Razan were published in recent weeks in which she explains why she volunteered as a medic during the protests.

Then the more violent responses came, in public and in private messages — bizarre death threats, a lot of toxic invective. What kind of a dialogue is possible when faced with that?

Someone asked,

“How do you know this is true, were you there?”

He added a picture from 2001 suicide bombing of the Dolphinarium, a beach-front nightclub in Tel Aviv, to prove some inexplicable point. Another commenter responded,

“How do you know there was an attack on the Dolphinarium, were you there?”

Another yet claimed that the entire story of Razan was fabricated, that they put a paramedic’s uniform on her body only after she died. No amount of photos showing Najjar treating wounded protesters over the past month could convince him. Palestinians, to him, are liars by definition.

Taken together, the responses reflected the depressing fact that for most of the Israeli public, Palestinians killed by Israeli soldiers are guilty by default. The identity of the deceased or the circumstances of the killing are irrelevant. Many of the commenters who responded to my post made the effort to stress that they were were not right-wingers. One even identified as a supporter of Meretz, the dovish left-wing party.

I gave up on the conversation because it was too frustrating and instead continued to look for interviews conducted with Razan. There are quite a few online. The young medic, it seems, was of significant interest to numerous international media outlets. In one of the interviews, Razan says:

 

People ask my father what I’m doing here, and getting a salary. He tells them, ‘I’m proud of my daughter, she provides care to the children of our country.’ And because in our society, women are often judged, but society has to accept us . If people don’t want to accept us by choice, they will be forced to accept us. Because we have more strength than any man. The strength that I showed as a first-responder on the first day of the protests — I dare you to find it in anyone else.

After that, I watched a short video of young men and women, perhaps Razan’s friends, perhaps her family members, in tears, their piercing cries announcing her death. One of them held his head and shouted her name over and over again.

Mourners during the funeral of Razan al-Najjar. (Mohammed Zaanoun/Activestills.org)

Mourners during the funeral of Razan al-Najjar. (Mohammed Zaanoun/Activestills.org)

I then returned to the comments that had accumulated under the picture of the young woman who went to care for wounded protesters and came back in a shroud. My heart struggled to contain the sadness.

I apologize to my well-intentioned friend. The bitter truth is that the Israeli collective consciousness is light-years away from a place where it can even begin speak about the basic concepts of justice, human rights, and human equality before God. I doubt that years of occupation and moral corruption can be corrected.

I also apologize to Razan, the young Gazan woman who lived her whole life under occupation, more than half under the brutal siege. She did not taste a single day of freedom in her short life. She went out into the Valley of Death by the separation barrier to care for her wounded countrymen and never came back. With shame beyond words, I apologize. Rest in peace Razan, may your memory bring freedom and justice to your people.

US Pacific Command (PACOM) is now the Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific Command, reflecting “connectivity between the Indian and Pacific oceans,” according to war secretary James Mattis.

US strategy remains unchanged, seeking Indo-Pacific and global dominance, wanting pro-Western puppet regimes replacing all challengers to its imperial aims.

China in the Pacific, Russia in Eurasia, and Iran in the Middle East remain prime US targets for regime change.

Trump continues Obama’s Asia pivot strategy, advancing Washington’s regional military footprint – involving containment of China’s growing political, economic and military strength, along with checking Russia.

War in a part of the world hostile to invaders is possible. Upcoming Trump/Kim Jong-un summit talks offer no assurance of easing tensions – responsibly stepping back from the brink not a US attribute.

Washington demands all nations bend to its will, GW Bush crudely saying:

“You’re either with us or against us.”

Neutrality isn’t an option.

Neither are fostering world peace and stability, promoting equity and justice, along with respecting rule of law principles and democratic values – anathema notions to Republicans and undemocratic Dems.

On Saturday, Mattis addressed the Asia Security Summit’s Shangri-La Dialogue plenary session in Singapore – his remarks aimed at China more hostile than encouraging, stoking tensions instead of responsible outreach to avoid them.

His comments about “a free-and-open Indo-Pacific” reflect US aims for regional dominance.

“(M)ake no mistake,” Mattis roared.

“America is in the Indo-Pacific to stay. This is our priority theater, our interests, and the regions are inextricably intertwined.”

Adding “no one nation can or should dominate the Indo-Pacific” belies Washington’s intent to control the region unchallenged – nations unwilling to bend to its will targeted for regime change.

Chinese General He Lei at the plenary session countered Mattis, saying America is the real source of regional tensions and possible conflicts.

Retired Chinese General Yao Yunzhu added

Washington “created a grand narrative consisting of keywords including ‘rule-based order’, ‘freedom of navigation and overflight’, and ‘militarization’ “ – criticism aimed at China.

People’s Liberation Army Col. Zhao Xiaozhuo slammed Washington, saying

“(t)he Shangri-La Dialogue has become an occasion for China and the US to engage in fights,” adding:

“(I)t was inevitable that China had to hit back at Mattis’ accusations. But engaging in a fight does not help to solve the problems.”

On North Korea, Mattis demanded what Washington is unlikely to get short of iron-clad security guarantees the DPRK seeks – never assured in dealings with the US.

“Our objective remains the complete, verifiable, and irreversible…denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” said Mattis – wanting the DPRK to eliminate its key deterrent to feared US aggression, getting nothing in return but empty promises.

At the same time, Mattis stressed “modernizing our alliance with both the Republic of Korea and Japan” – code language for pursuing increased regional militarization under Pentagon control.

“(I)ncreasing economic prosperity” means benefits accruing to US corporate predators at the expense of foreign competitors.

Mattis slammed China, saying its “policy in the South China Sea stands in stark contrast to the openness of our strategy.”

He criticized Beijing’s right to build and develop offshore islands, militarizing them for self-defense, China’s Global Times saying:

“These islands need to be protected. Therefore deploying defensive weapons is just as logical as planting trees.”

With frequent provocations by US warships near Chinese territorial waters “how could there not be even one air-defense or anti-ship missile on the islands?”

“The US has deployed more of its military assets in the South China Sea than those of the other countries in the region.”

“And Washington has the temerity to repeatedly accuse Beijing of ‘militarizing’ the South China Sea. We have seen hypocritical diplomatic rhetoric but none” matches extreme US hubris and arrogance, adding:

“These islands need to be protected. Therefore deploying defensive weapons is just as logical as planting trees. Given the complex geopolitical situation where US warships, including its aircraft carriers, continue to cruise the region, how could there not be even one air-defense or anti-ship missile on the islands?”

“The danger in the South China Sea is caused by the US continuing to increase its military presence in the region, forcing China to naturally upgrade its defensive weapons on the islands. This in turn gives the US more excuses to exert military pressure, causing regional tensions to spiral.”

Mattis turned truth on its head, accusing Beijing of “militarization (for) intimidation and coercion” – US policy globally, not China’s, cooperating with other nations, not bullying or attacking them.

*

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

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Last Friday, 1 June, a Palestinian volunteer medic, Razan Al Najar, was fasting and tending to the wounded at Gaza’s artificial fence with Israel. Thousands of miles away, the US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, was scheming on behalf of Israel at the world body. The day ended with martyrdom and glory for Razan and shame and humiliation for Nikki.

Just like she had done since the start of the Great March of Return on 30 March, Razan said goodbye to her family to go to the border, knowing that her skills would undoubtedly be called upon to treat Palestinians planning to march to the fence that artificially separates Gaza from the rest of historic Palestine. They have been marching to exercise their right of return to the homes they and their families hail from and which Israel and its terrorist gangs had expelled them from in 1948 and continued to do since then. Razan’s medical skills would surely be needed because Israel decided to deploy tens of highly trained snipers to kill Palestinians. The number killed has now reached 119, with over ten thousand injured; some estimates put this figure at over 13,000.

A post on Facebook whose accuracy I cannot verify says that her last words to her mother were to ask her to cook stuffed vine leaves for her breaking of the fast meal at sunset. She said her goodbyes and left to join her medical colleagues at the fence. Nikki Haley would at that time been probably having her breakfast before heading to the UN to decide how to deal with the 15-member Security Council. It had failed to agree on any statement regarding the events at the Gaza fence since the start of the marches, despite the high number of casualties. The choice for the Council that day was whether to back a resolution tabled by Kuwait calling for protection for the Palestinian people or to back an American resolution condemning Hamas for a volley of rockets fired from the Gaza Strip in response to Israeli crimes.

File photo of 21-year-old Razan Al-Najar, a volunteer medic in Gaza, killed on June 1, 2018, during the 10th week of the 'Great March of Return' protests at the Gaza-Israel border

Twenty-one-year-old Razan was the eldest of six siblings. She had a diploma in general nursing and had completed some 38 first aid courses. Although she had not secured paid work, she volunteered in hospitals and with NGOs and medical organisations, building skills and experience that made her an asset when it came to the Great March.

In an interview with The New York Times last month, Razan explained why she had volunteered to help with the Great Return March, especially as a woman.

“Being a medic is not only a job for a man,” Razan said. “It’s for women, too.”

She also bore witness to the final moments of some of those who were fatally wounded.

“It breaks my heart that some of the young men who were injured or killed made their wills in front of me,” she told Al Jazeera. “Some even gave me their accessories [as gifts] before they died.”

In a post on her Facebook account on the 16 May, Razan denied claims that she and others went to the fence under duress.

On 1 June, she was shot in the back by an Israeli sniper, the human rights group Al Mezan stated, citing eyewitnesses and its investigations. She was100m from the fence the moment she was shot and was wearing clothing which clearly identified her as a medic. Her blood stained medical vest accompanied her to her grave during what was a massive funeral the following day.

Palestinians attend the funeral ceremony of Razan Ashraf Najjar, 21, a female paramedic who was shot dead by Israeli forces while healing wounded demonstrators during 'Great March of Return' protests in Khan Yunis on Friday, in Huzaa neighbourhood of Khan Yunis, Gaza on June 02, 2018 [Mustafa Hassona / Anadolu Agency]

Palestinians attend the funeral ceremony of Razan Ashraf Najjar, 21, a female paramedic who was shot dead by Israeli forces while healing wounded demonstrators during ‘Great March of Return’ protests in Khan Yunis on Friday, in Huzaa neighbourhood of Khan Yunis, Gaza on June 02, 2018 [Mustafa Hassona / Anadolu Agency]

Contrast the humane and selfless acts of 21-year-old Razan, with limited opportunities to bring peace and justice to her people, with the shameful and brazen attempts in the Security Council by US Ambassador Nikki Haley to deny another people, Razan’s people, protection from Israeli terror. While Kuwait had brought a resolution to the Council to call on it to fulfil its responsibility to an oppressed people and ensure their protection, Haley was bringing a resolution to denounce Hamas for the volley of rockets that were launched into other Israeli controlled areas following the deadly attacks at the fence and bombings of the beleaguered enclave.

Votes on the two texts came shortly after Razan’s death. Haley failed to garner any votes for the resolution except her own, with three countries voting against it and 11 abstaining. A complete humiliation for the US and for Haley personally, leaving observers scrambling through historical records to find another occasion when a resolution only had the support of the country proposing it. None were found at the time of writing this piece.

Haley was again isolated when the US vetoed a resolution to protect Palestinians. With her Israel proxy, she had turned her back on a largely unarmed Palestinian people, facing the might of Israel’s military, aided by American military hardware worth billions of dollars. She had walked out of a previous Council meeting on Israel’s killing of Palestinian protesters when their representative began to speak. It was a clear breach of protocol which brought heavy condemnation.  Given her overall performance as US ambassador, President Trump should, without delay, sack Haley. She has brought isolation and disgrace to her country; all for the sake of an undeserving ally, Israel.

On 1 June 2018, Razan lost her life while Nikki Haley lost her humanity defending the terrorist actions of a rogue state, Israel. Razan died a proud Palestinian full of humanity and will be remembered with the same name she was born with. In contrast, Nimrata Randhawa, the daughter of Sikh immigrants will one day pass away to be remembered by her adopted name, Nikki Haley, hiding her Indian heritage. Razan will be remembered for her selfless volunteering while Haley will be remembered for her astonishing role, supporting and shielding the world’s only apartheid state.

Razan had little power to change the dynamics and bring peace to the holy land, while Haley, from one of the most powerful offices in world politics, could have helped protect Palestinians and bring peace to the region. If only Razan had such a high profile office, the world would be a better place.

Rest in peace Razan Al-Najar, you are worth more than a million Nikki Haleys.

Revelations on the use of torture by US intelligence personnel during the George W Bush presidency have been described as one of the “darkest chapters” in US history. 

Not only did it erode whatever moral authority the US claimed to have had during the first decade of the “War on Terror,” but the egregious mistreatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca also helped to give birth to the self-proclaimed Islamic State and to re-energise the global jihad movement.

You’d be mistaken, however, if you believed this nefarious chapter in US history started and ended with the Bush administration – and given that the Republican-controlled Congress has voted to probe whether US troops resorted to torture as part of their interrogation of prisoners in Yemen, you can be sure there is still much to learn.

Secret network of prisons

The measure, adopted on Thursday in a unanimous vote, calls on Defence Secretary James Mattis to investigate whether US military personnel or their allies were involved in torturing detainees in Yemen – no doubt a response to an Associated Press investigation, which revealed that hundreds of men detained in the hunt for al-Qaeda fighters disappeared into a secret network of prisons in southern Yemen.

Detainees described “being crammed into shipping containers smeared with faeces and blindfolded for weeks on end” and being subjected to “the grill,” in which victims were tied to a metal rod and spun above a fire, much like a spit roast.

According to the AP investigation, at least 18 clandestine lockups have been set up at a range of sites across southern Yemen by the United Arab Emirates and/or Yemeni forces, including military bases, private villas, seaports and even a nightclub. While senior US defence officials have acknowledged that American military personnel have been involved in the interrogation process at these secret prisons, they have denied participating in the torture of detainees or any knowledge of human rights abuses.

The Pentagon has now been directed by the US Congress to investigate the veracity of these denials, at the same time as these lawmakers affirmed the nomination of Gina Haspel as CIA director and Mike Pompeo as secretary of state, with the former overseeing the CIA’s torture programme under the Bush administration and the latter advocating for it. Hypocrisy, as they say, knows no bounds.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that the use of torture by the United States is far deeper, more widespread and more systemic than what has already been publicly acknowledged, as illustrated through the April release of published testimony and documents by the UK-based civil rights advocacy group CAGE, alleging that FBI interrogators – including Ali Soufan, a central character in the Looming Tower television series – tortured Qatari detainee Ali al-Marri (image below) on US soil.

Simulating suffocation

Image result for Ali al-Marri

When I interviewed Marri, he described how US interrogators tortured him using what is known as “dry-boarding,” an enhanced interrogation technique in which interrogators ram a cloth down the subject’s throat and seal the mouth shut with duct tape to simulate suffocation.

“They forced my head to look up, and when I looked up, I closed my eyes. At that moment, Ali Soufan brought the socks, put his hand on my jaw, forced me to open my mouth. He put the socks in, closed my mouth, and then Ramos [FBI interrogator] taped my mouth this way, vertically and horizontally, and then I started choking.”

Marri continued:

“Initially, Soufan played the good cop routine with me, bringing me Arabic food and pizza, and telling me that speaking to him was the best way for me to get back to my family. But then he noticed it was not working, playing the good cop, and then he threatened to have me raped by gays in the US military, and for my wife to be raped in front of me and my children.”

Americans display a permissive attitude towards the use of torture, as evidenced by a 2016 Reuters poll that found nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the use of torture to extract information from suspected terrorists is justifiable – a number that skyrockets to 82 percent among Republican voters. Thus, it’s not unreasonable to assume that overwhelming public support for torture – underwritten by President Donald Trump‘s advocacy for it – is translating to the use of torture behind closed doors.

Outsourcing dirty work

Others contend, however, that even if the US is carrying out interrogations in compliance with international law and human rights conventions, there is evidence to suggest it continues to outsource its dirty work to allies, much as it did in the early years after the 9/11 attacks.

“What the US has done is that they basically externalised this to surrogates, mostly the United Arab Emirates – but even the UAE has externalised this burden to local groups, so control and oversight, as well as the attribution to the US directly or indirectly, will be very difficult,” Andreas Krieg, assistant professor at King’s College London, said in an interview with Al Jazeera.

Moreover, a UN panel of experts affirmed the findings of the AP investigation, accusing the UAE – a staunch US ally – of carrying out torture, including electrocution, beatings and worse.

It will now be up to the Pentagon to determine the extent of US involvement in the use of torture in Yemen – but at the very least, it’s safe to presume we haven’t heard the last on this ugly chapter in American history.

*

CJ Werleman is an opinion writer for Salon, Alternet, and the author of Crucifying America and God Hates You. Hate Him Back. Follow him on Twitter: @cjwerleman

Featured image is from the author.

Previous reports that the United States is protecting and harboring ISIS near its positions in al-Tanf have been given even more credence with the recent statements of the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov.

“We have plenty of reports about strange things happening in the Al-Tanf area,” Sergei Lavrov said on Monday. “This area has no particular military value in terms of fighting terrorism. And in practical terms, we see a rise of presence in the region of militant groups, including those we believe to be connected with Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) in this or that way, including in the Rukban refugee camp.”

“This zone was created under manufactured justification with no military necessity,” he said. “If [the Americans] are arriving at the same conclusions, I expect this to translate into a practical implementation.”

Lavrov pointed out that, while he saw no indications that the U.S. was preparing to withdraw from Tanf, he would welcome their doing so.

Back on March 3, the Russian Defense Minister, Alexander Fomin, said that the United States was using its Special Forces operatives based in al-Tanf near the Iraqi border to create a “reserve for terrorists.”

As al-Masdar News writes,

Despite repeated promises to fully withdraw from their garrison at Al-Tanf, US special forces remain embedded throughout a 55 kilometer by 55 kilometer area throughout the region with recent reports suggesting that an additional six hundred American operatives are to be moved there.

Syrian pro-government forces who attempt to enter the US security perimeter near Al-Tanf are subject to airstrikes by coalition warplanes.

The Russian Ministry of Defense called out the US base as a “black hole” region that terrorists were able to use as their own base. The RT report from October, 2017 states,

The 100km area around the US Al-Tanf base near the Syrian-Jordanian border has become a “black hole” which ISIS terrorists use to carry out attacks against Syrian troops and civilians, the Russian Defense Ministry said.

The base, set up by the US in April 2017 near the border town of Al-Tanf, is becoming a problem for Syrian troops combatting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorists in Deir ez-Zor province, the statement says.

“Unlawful establishment by the US of this military base on Syria-Jordan border in April this year has been publicly justified by ‘the need to conduct operations against IS,’” the statement reads.

However, “there were no reports of a single American operation against Islamic State during the six months of its existence,” the Russian Defense Ministry said.

“Though the Pentagon repeatedly claimed that the base is used to train the so-called ‘New Syrian Army’ by the coalition instructors from the US, the UK and Norway,” it has become “a 100-kilometer black hole” on the Syria-Jordan border, the statement added.
The ministry also accused the US of not letting humanitarian convoys through the area to reach the Rukban refugee camp, which is located close to the base.

The camp is reportedly hosting around 60,000 women and children from Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor.

The refugees in Rukban serve as a “human shield” for the American base, the ministry’s spokesman, Major-General Igor Konashenkov, said.

bbc british special forces

On August 8, 2016 the BBC published photographs and reported on yet another illegal incursion into Syria by Western NATO forces and yet another violation of Syrian national sovereignty by the U.K. This time, the photographs showed British Special Forces operating on the ground inside Syria in al-Tanf, near the Syrian-Iraq border, an area that is also near the Jordanian border.

The pictures themselves date back to June of this 2016 and appear to have been taken shortly after a battle at al-Tanf between the New Syrian Army and ISIS, both Western-backed terrorist organizations. The British soldiers were photographed allegedly setting up a perimeter in order to guard the NSA base from further incursion by ISIS.

According to eyewitnesses, they were there in a defensive role. But they are carrying an arsenal of equipment including sniper rifles, heavy machine guns and anti-tank missiles.

If IS attacked again they would have been able to put up a considerable fight.

A New Syrian Army’s spokesman refused to comment on the pictures of the special forces, but acknowledged their help.

He said: “We are receiving special forces training from our British and American partners. We’re also getting weapons and equipment from the Pentagon as well as complete air support.”

Kareem Shaheen and Ewan McAskill of The Guardian added more detail in their own report published on August 9, 2016. They wrote,

It is believed to be the first time British forces have been photographed operating inside Syria, where they are engaged in relatively small numbers in wide-ranging roles that include surveillance, advisory and combat.

The images depict British special forces sitting on Thalab long-range patrol vehicles as they move around the perimeter of a rebel base close to the Syria-Iraq border.

The Thalab (Fox) vehicles are essentially modified, militarised and upgraded Toyota 4x4s used for long distance reconnaissance and surveillance missions, which were developed jointly in the middle of the last decade by a state-backed defence company in Jordan and the UK company Jankel.

The vehicle, which has mounted weaponry and is often used for border patrols, has been primarily used by Jordanian special forces.

Al-Tanf, where the vehicles were reportedly photographed, is a border crossing between Syria and Iraq that had been under Isis control, and is also not far from the Jordanian border. It is unclear how many Nato countries have deployed the modified trucks, though Belgium ordered a shipment of modified Fox vehicles earlier this year.

The images seem to show British forces securing the perimeter of the rebel base following an attack by Isis, according to the BBC. The soldiers can be seen carrying anti-tank missiles, sniper rifles and other heavy artillery.

The New Syrian Army is designated as a “moderate” terrorist organization and fights under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army, another Western-backed “moderate” operation that has committed innumerable horrific acts of violence and atrocities all throughout the Syrian crisis. It should be noted that the terrorist group that beheaded a young childon camera weeks ago, Nour al-Din al-Zenghi, was also considered a “moderate” organization and one that had been “vetted” by the U.S. State Department as worthy of receiving TOW missiles. As Michael Uhler of SouthFront describes the NSA,

Unlike the clear knowledge surrounding American–YPG relations of involvement, much less is known about US ties to the groups operating in the deserts of southern Syria. Two important groups operating in this area are the ‘Forces of the Martyr Ahmad al-Abdo’ (Arabic: قوات الشهيد احمد العبده) and the ‘New Syrian Army’ (NSyA) (Arabic: جيش سوريا الجديد). Although both of the aforementioned groups receive support from the US, the level of involvement differs. The partnership between America and the NSyA can be regarded as tighter than that of the YPG. Even though the NSyA could arguably be one of the smallest groups comprised under the so-called ‘FSA’, the level of training, coordination and equipment surpasses most other groups. Rumors have circulated indicating the possibility of Jordanian special forces within its contingent. (The NSyA has coordinated with the Iraqi government on multiple occasions surrounding the Syrian–Iraqi border). King Abdullah II of Jordan revealed earlier this year that Jordanian special forces were indeed participating with rebels in this area.

The sudden appearance of the NSyA occurred on November 15th, 2015. The NSyA launched its first operation on al-Tanf, which resulted in an attack on ammunition storehouses as well as on a bomb factory. Not much more information other than this video has been released about this raid. Bolstered by Jordan and America, the degree of cooperation can be seen in the group’s operational security (OPSEC). Quite different from the groups which fall under the umbrella of the FSA, the NSyA appears to be very professional and keen on keeping any sort of identification to a minimum.

It is thus noteworthy that a group working so close with UK Special Forces and, perhaps, Jordanian Special Forces would also be the group that is so keen on keeping the identities of its fighters secret. While this may simply be a result of better training by Western Special Forces (despite relatively poor battlefield performance), many might be caused to wonder whether or not the Special Forces troops themselves make up the ranks of the group, making privacy a necessity not present with other terrorist groups across the country.

It is also worth noting that the photographs were taken in June, the same general time frame as when the United States and Russian jets nearly clashed in the skies above al-Tanf.

“The mid-air confrontation occurred between F/A-18 fighters scrambled by the Pentagon and several SU-34s, Moscow’s most advanced bombers,” Ted Thornhill wrote for the Daily Mail. “The Russian jets had struck a 200-strong garrison of Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State in At-Tanf, near the Jordanian border.”

The Russian military did not deny the bombing raid but it did deny that it targeted Western-backed terrorists (i.e. terrorists publicly claimed by the United States), making the argument that the United States did not make the positions of its proxy terrorists known to the Russian Air Force. Russian Major General Igor Konashenkov, Spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, claimed the air strike was more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) away from the areas the U.S. had designated as being “controlled by legitimate opposition forces.”

It was not made clear which terrorist organization was being bombed specifically but, given the time frame and location, it is reasonable to wonder whether or not the NSA was the actual target of the Russian bombers and the reason the bombing mission provoked such a strong response from the U.S.

Screenshot from NBC News

There is also the question of the Rukban refugee camp which rests on the Jordanian-Syrian border, housing up to 80,000 internally displaced people. The camp is located not far from the US base in Tanf and the US has long hampered any UN and other humanitarian aid organizations’ aid deliveries from being made to the camp. It has also long been known that thousands of people in Rukban are “militants.” In fact, the ISIS presence in Rukban is so great that Jordan will not even use helicopters to deliver aid out of fear of being shot down by ISIS forces inhabiting it.

So what is the US hiding? Why not assist the UN in bringing aid to the people who are suffering?

Some speculate that the Rukban camp is both a “human shield” for America’s Tanf base. Others, however, suggest that the camp is a jihadist farm, where American forces can select and house terrorists to be trained at the US base and subsequently be let loose against the Syrian government or be used as an excuse to extend the American occupation further.

But are those terrorists ISIS proper or the New Syrian Army? The truth is that it doesn’t really matter. Names of terrorist groups are more important to the terrorists themselves and for Western propaganda purposes than to anyone or for anything else. Names like ISIS are used primarily for political reasons and can be changed at will. What was ISIS yesterday may very well be New Syrian Army today. If you’re a Syrian civilian, however, they look exactly alike in every facet.

Regardless, what is known for certain is that both the United States and the U.K. have egregiously violated Syrian national sovereignty and are working alongside terrorists for the purpose of destroying the secular government of Bashar al-Assad. For this claim, no speculation is necessary.

Lavrov’s statement, while tempered, shows that the Russians are becoming increasingly aware or, at least, increasingly willing to speak out about American collusion and direction of terrorist organizations in a public forum.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.