They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45

June 18th, 2018 by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

Iconic. This particular image is borrowed from this site.

Journalist Milton Mayer traveled to Germany in the wake of World War II to find out how ordinary, normally decent, educated German people got caught up, co-opted or neutralized in the horrible devolution of the country that ended in the atrocities with which we are all so familiar — and a World War that cost countless lives.

The book he wrote should be better known: They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45 was published in 1955 by the University of Chicago Press.

There is an excerpt at the link, a chapter called “But Then It was too Late.” Under provisions of the U. of C Press copyright notice, included below, part of the excerpt is reproduced below.

***

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it…

“The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting.

It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing….

Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’

that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head….

“You see,” my colleague went on, “one doesn’t see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse.

You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion,  thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow.

You don’t want to act, or even talk, alone; you don’t want to ‘go out of your way to make trouble.’ Why not?—Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

“And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it.

These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

“But your friends are fewer now…

“But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes.

That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens.

In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next.

Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.

“And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves;

“You have gone almost all the way yourself.

Life is a continuing process, a flow, not a succession of acts and events at all. It has flowed to a new level, carrying you with it…

Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

“What then? You must then shoot yourself. A few did. Or ‘adjust’ your principles. Many tried, and some, I suppose, succeeded; not I, however. Or learn to live the rest of your life with your shame.

This last is the nearest there is, under the circumstances, to heroism: shame. Many Germans became this poor kind of hero, many more, I think, than the world knows or cares to know.”

*

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

U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents are systematically violating U.S. and international law by blocking immigrants at international ports of entry on the southern border from entering the country so they can claim asylum. Immigration civil rights advocates have been documenting this illegal behavior since late 2016, from Texas to California. It was sporadic then, and appears to have been based at least in part on CBP’s difficulties with handling large numbers of people.

Even so, the practice of turning immigrants away has suddenly become routine, creating chilling scenes of immigrants and children camped out near the bridges, exposed to sun, wind, and rain, amid make-do bedding, scattered clothing, and trash. A few times a day, the immigrants walk to the middle of the bridges and ask to be admitted to the port of entry building on the U.S. side so that they can request asylum. They are almost always turned back.

The Intercept witnessed such a scene on June 4 in El Paso, Texas. At 6 a.m., the sun rose on a 15-year-old Guatemalan boy and his father who were trying to walk across the border to apply for asylum. They did not swim the Rio Grande or otherwise attempt to enter the country illegally — they’d made their attempt on an arcing, international bridge that joins El Paso with its Mexican sister city, Ciudad Juárez.

They were stopped at the top of the bridge by two CBP agents who refused to let them cross, pointed them back to Mexico, and said to try crossing later. This was the sixth time in three days that the man, his son, and about a dozen other Guatemalans had been thus rejected.

I knew they were Guatemalans because I’d spoken with the man two days earlier. I spotted him and the group squatting disconsolately on the Mexican side of the bridge by the public bathrooms. This man and others in the group told me then that they were asylum-seekers afraid to go back to their home country because of violence there. They were extremely frustrated about being turned away. They recounted that the agents always told them there was “no room” to process them at the port of entry, and they should come back later when there might be room. There never was room. “False words,” the man with the son said, in Spanish that was heavily accented by Q’eqchi’, his indigenous tongue. Another man started crying.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, immigrants within the U.S. who tell immigration officials they’re afraid to return to their countries have the right to request asylum and to be immediately processed. They are not supposed to be turned back at bridges. They are not supposed to be banished to life on Mexican sidewalks, by public toilets, begging passersby for tacos to feed their children.

Yet this has been happening, not just at El Paso but also at ports of entry all along the southern border. Immigration rights advocates first noticed that asylum-seekers were being turned away at some bridges shortly after the election of Donald Trump, and the practice continued into 2017. A Southern California immigrant advocacy group, Al Otro Lado, responded by suing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for violations of U.S. immigration law and the Constitution. The suit is ongoing.

The blocking works this way: In the precise middle of the international bridges, CBP agents stand, sentry-like, near the imaginary line dividing the two countries — a line often marked with a ceremonial metal plaque. The agents peer at everyone crossing, looking for people they think might be candidates for asylum. If the people say anything suggesting they might be requesting asylum — if they’re not Mexicans, and especially if they’re from Central America — the agents block their way and say to come back another time.

Local people who frequently cross the border started noticing the agents in early May, but did not know why they were on the bridge. Some people started calling Ruben Garcia, director of Annunciation House, a migrant shelter which encompasses a network of satellite shelters. The shelters have for years maintained a close relationship with ICE. They regularly take in immigrants who’ve been picked up by the Border Patrol, processed, and released by ICE pending the results of their immigration cases. Garcia says he is very familiar with how many people the government picks up from week to week, and with how much of their own space CBP and ICE have to process people.

In late May, Garcia and some volunteers at his shelters began visiting the bridges and taking statements from Central Americans who’d been denied entry.

Based on that experience and on other information he has gathered, Garcia believes that the sudden day-in, day-out presence of CBP agents on the bridges, and their routine turn-backs of Central Americans and other migrants, is something new and disturbing.

In El Paso, Garcia believes that the government’s claims of “no room” in 2016 and 2017 might have had some merit.

“Back then, there really were a lot of Central Americans coming, and I know the government was overwhelmed in El Paso because we were overwhelmed at our shelters,” Garcia said.

But now, he said, the situation has changed:

“The numbers are down at our shelters. And if they’re down at our shelters, they’ve got to be down at the government’s facilities.”

Garcia said those facilities include interview rooms at ports of entry. He can’t imagine they are overtaxed. Yet, he said, Central Americans stranded at the bridge constantly tell him that CBP agents say there’s “no room” to process the migrants.

Garcia said he asked a low-level CBP agent, who was working at an international bridge, why Central Americans were being blocked. “This is a borderwide policy,” Garcia said the agent answered. Garcia believes the policy is connected to Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s “zero tolerance” policy initiated in early May.

That is when the Trump administration began routinely splitting up immigrant adults and children who were caught crossing into the U.S. Most were families from Central America.

By blocking asylum-seekers from crossing legally, CBP is pressuring them to cross illegally. Garcia believes that this new practice gives the government an excuse to split up even more families.

“By putting officers on the bridge,” said a CBP spokesperson, the agency “is taking a proactive approach to ensure that arriving travelers have valid entry documents in order to expedite the processing of lawful travel.”

Depending upon port circumstances at the time of arrival, individuals presenting without documents may need to wait in Mexico as CBP officers work to process those already within our facilities. The number of inadmissible individuals we are able to process in a day varies based on the complexity of the cases, resources available, medical needs, translation requirements, holding/detention space, overall port volume and enforcement actions.  As in the past when we’ve had to limit the number of people we can bring in for processing at a given time, we expect that this will be a temporary situation.

Amber Ramirez, a former immigration paralegal, came to the same conclusion earlier this month after she saw social media posts on Facebook about CBP agents blocking asylum-seekers on the international bridge.

Ramirez, 25, crosses frequently between El Paso and Juárez. On her way to El Paso one day after looking at Facebook, Ramirez saw a group of people who looked distressed. Speaking with them, she learned that all were from Guatemala: a 16-year-old girl and a woman with a frightened preschool-aged daughter. The teenager told Ramirez they had been prevented from crossing for days. They said they were considering coming into the U.S. by wading and walking under the bridge.

Ramirez knew that the wading and walking would result in the mother being criminally prosecuted and separated from her child, so she decided to act, even though she felt shaky.

“My whole life, I’ve been scared and intimated” by border agents, she said.

She gathered the teenager, the woman, and the child. She walked them to the top of the bridge.

Once there, she noticed that one CBP agent was standing north of the border, well within the United States. Ramirez then looked at the Central Americans and realized that they inadvertently had stepped forward. They were in the United States, too.

The agents tried to get Ramirez and the group to take a few steps backward, into Mexico. Instead, the group stayed politely but stubbornly in place. A quiet standoff ensued.

A supervisor arrived and seemed angry. Ramirez tried hard to remember the text of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the part about “aliens” in U.S. territory having the right to claim asylum. She wanted to quote it to the supervisor, but apparently he already knew the law. She remembers him scowling but waving the Central Americans past the blockade and toward the port of entry.

Two days later, on June 4, I saw the Guatemalan man with his 15-year-old son walking south on the bridge to Mexico. The man said they had just been prevented from crossing by CBP blockade for the sixth time in three days. I asked if he and his son would walk back again, with me behind them, filming. He agreed.

At the top, something similar to Ramirez’s experience occurred. When the agents saw us, they noticed that I was taking a video with my phone and seemed flustered. While telling the man and his son that there was “no room,” they stepped backward into the U.S. The Guatemalans stepped forward.

I noted to the agents that the Guatemalans were now in the U.S. and now had the legal right to request asylum.

“It’s not that we’re not going to help them — it’s a capacity issue,” one agent said.

The two shifted from foot to foot, and one called a supervisor. The Guatemalans stolidly held their ground in their first few inches of America.

The supervisor arrived, assessed the situation, and waved the father and son northward. I followed. The supervisor’s walkie-talkie squawked to officials farther down the line that asylum-seekers were coming to the port of entry along with a reporter.

Suddenly, another Guatemalan father-and-son pair came up behind us. I’d earlier met and filmed them, too. They said they had decided to follow me when they saw I was walking behind the others. This second family had also been denied entry many times. Now, they had also just been let through.

Inside the port, a gray-haired CBP agent peered at the four Guatemalans’ wrinkled identity papers, which the fathers had fished from old plastic bags. In a pleasant voice, the agent asked,

“Are you afraid to return to your country?”

“Yes,” said the Guatemalans.

“Step this way.”

I said goodbye and good luck to the Guatemalans.

But without advocates or press at their sides, other immigrants are still not getting past the bridge blockade. On June 9, two journalists — Bob Moore, a freelancer, and Claudia Tristán, of El Paso’s KFOX-TV — stood on the southbound side of the bridge, where they were not immediately visible to the CBP officials. Each pointed their phones toward the northbound side and filmed a woman — whom they later determined was a Honduran asylum-seeker — and her small son walking several feet into the United States. Their videos show the two being turned back to Mexico.

Karolina Walters is a staff attorney at the Washington, D.C.-based American Immigration Council, one of three groups representing plaintiffs in the Al Otro Lado lawsuit. She says these turn-backs of people already on U.S. soil constitute civil rights violations and “get to the heart of the lawsuit.”

The day after the journalists made their turn-back videos, Garcia called a community meeting to recruit volunteers to go to the bridge in shifts. Almost 50 people came to the meeting — a very impressive number for El Paso, Garcia said. Similar gatherings have been underway during the past several days in other Texas border cities.

Garcia is training some of his recruits to go to the bridges in shifts and take notes when they see refugees being turned back from requesting asylum. He has another group that is learning to accompany the immigrants to the invisible line. He hopes those volunteers will be able to help asylum-seekers exercise their rights in the face of blockading border agents.

*

Featured image is from the author.

“For the past decade, Stephen Harper has led a government that is increasingly partisan, suspicious, and hostile when dealing with our closest neighbours: the United States and Mexico. We will end this antagonism and work with our partners to advance our shared interests.” – Liberal Party of Canada campaign platform (2015)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Following his election victory in the fall of 2015, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau distinguished his approach from that of his predecessor Stephen Harper and boasted of the changes his government would bring to Ottawa.

He spoke of ‘sunny ways’ as a governing style built on positive engagement with Canadians. A Trudeau government would succeed where its predecessor failed to get a major oil pipeline to the West Coast built by securing ‘social license’ from affected communities.

The Liberal platform pledged to reduce obstacles to trade with the U.S. [2]

Now, more than halfway through its mandate, the Liberal ship has coasted into some precarious waters. Trudeau’s hope to secure the twinning of Kinder Morgan’s Trans-Mountain pipeline, which would take diluted bitumen from land-locked Alberta to the West Coast of Canada, has encountered serious resistance. Meanwhile, the quarter century old North American Free Trade Agreement faces an uncertain future, as the Prime Minister confronts a protectionist Trump Administration determined to .

And speaking of the president, several officials within the White House have dumped on Trudeau in ways that no other US president in recent memory have publicly,

This week’s Global Research News Hour attempts to examine where the charismatic Canadian leader has gone wrong, and how he can fix it. The show also explores the meaning behind the Trump administration’s character assassinstion of the Prime Minister, as happened the weekend of the G7.

Our first guest is David Hughes. A former Earth scientist and fellow of the PostCarbon Institute, and the author of a new study on Canada’s Energy outlook. He believes that the priority of getting Tar sands oil to tide water doesn’t make economic sense.

In our second half hour, organic farmer, author and political activist David Orchard weighs in on the new round of tariff actions being taken by Trump against Canadian interests. He is convinced that NAFTA should be scrapped not just renegotiated as appears to be the case. Finally, We hear from John Helmer, who sees the attacks by the U.S. against Trudeau as a coordinated attack and not just the rants of a temperamental Commander – in- Chief.

David Hughes is a former Earth scientist, a fellow with the Post Carbon Institute, and the President of Global Sustainability Research. He is author of the May 2018 study, Canada’s Energy Outlook, for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

David Orchard is a Borden, Saskatchewan-based organic farmer, political activist and two-time contender for leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. He is also author of the 1993 best-seller The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism (Stoddart, 1993; 2nd ed. Robert Davies, 1999). His website is davidorchard.com

John Helmer is the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent based in Moscow, and directs his own independent bureau there. He has been a professor of political science, sociology and journalism, and has advised government heads in Greece, the United States and Asia. He served as a staffer in President Jimmy Carter’s White House from 1977 to 1981. Helmer’s blog ‘Dances with Bears’ can be found at johnhelmer.net.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . Excerpts of the show have begun airing on Rabble Radio and appear as podcasts at rabble.ca.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 4pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time. 

Notes:

  1. https://www.liberal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/New-plan-for-a-strong-middle-class.pdf ; p.66
  2. ibid

Scapegoating Iran

June 18th, 2018 by Chris Hedges

Seventeen years of war in the Middle East and what do we have to show for it? Iraq after our 2003 invasion and occupation is no longer a unified country. Its once modern infrastructure is largely destroyed, and the nation has fractured into warring enclaves.

We have lost the war in Afghanistan. The Taliban is resurgent and has a presence in over 70 percent of the country.

Libya is a failed state.

Yemen after three years of relentless airstrikes and a blockade is enduring one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters. The 500 “moderate” rebels we funded and armed in Syria at a cost of $500 million are in retreat after instigating a lawless reign of terror.

The military adventurism has cost a staggering $5.6 trillion as our infrastructure crumbles, austerity guts basic services and half the population of the United States lives at or near poverty levels. The endless wars in the Middle East are the biggest strategic blunder in American history and herald the death of the empire.

Someone has to be blamed for debacles that have resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead, including at least 200,000 civilians, and millions driven from their homes. Someone has to be blamed for the proliferation of radical jihadist groups throughout the Middle East, the continued worldwide terrorist attacks, the wholesale destruction of cities and towns under relentless airstrikes and the abject failure of U.S. and U.S.-backed forces to stanch the insurgencies. You can be sure it won’t be the generals, the politicians such as George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the rabid neocons such as Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton who sold us the wars, the Central Intelligence Agency, the arms contractors who profit from perpetual war or the celebrity pundits on the airwaves and in newspapers who serve as cheerleaders for the mayhem.

“The failed policies, or lack of policies, of the United States, which violate international law, have left the Middle East in total chaos,” the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, Gholamali Khoshroo, told me when we met in New York City. “The United States, to cover up these aggressive, reckless and costly policies, blames Iran. Iran is blamed for their failures in Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon.”

The Trump administration “is very naive about the Middle East and Iran,” the ambassador said.

“It can only speak in the language of threats—pressure, sanctions, intervention. These policies have failed in the region. They are very risky and costly. Let the Americans deal with the problems of the countries they have already invaded and attacked. America lacks constructive power in the Middle East. It is unable to govern even a village in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen or Syria. All it can do is use force and destructive power. This U.S. administration wants the Middle East and the whole world to bow to it. This is not a policy conducive to sound relationships with sovereign states, especially those countries that have resisted American influence.”

“The plan to arm ‘moderate’ rebels in Syria was a cover to topple [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad,” the ambassador went on. “The Americans knew there were no ‘moderate’ rebels. They knew these weapons would get into the hands of terrorist groups like Daesh [Islamic State], Al-Nusra and their affiliates. Once again, the American policy failed. The Americans succeeded in destroying a country. They succeeded in creating bloodbaths. They succeeded in displacing millions of people. But they gained nothing. The sovereignty of Syria is expanding by the day. It is hard to imagine what President Trump is offering as a strategy in Syria. One day, he says, ‘I will move out of Syria very soon, very quickly.’ The next day he says, ‘If Iran is there, we should stay.’ I wonder if the American taxpayers know how much of their money has been wasted in Iraq, Syria and Yemen?”

Image on the right: Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations Gholam Ali Khoshroo

Image result for Gholamali Khoshroo

Trump’s unilateral decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, although Iran was in compliance with the agreement, was the first salvo in this effort to divert attention from these failures to Iran. Bolton, the new national security adviser, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, along with Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, advocate the overthrow of the Iranian government, with Giuliani saying last month that Trump is “as committed to regime change as we [an inner circle of presidential advisers] are.”

“The Iran nuclear deal was possible following several letters by President Barack Obama assuring the Iranian leadership that America had no intention of violating Iranian sovereignty,” Ambassador Khoshroo said. “America said it wanted to engage in a serious dialogue on equal footing and mutual interests and concerns. These assurances led to the negotiations that concluded with the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action]. From the beginning, however, America was not forthcoming in its dealings with us on the JCPOA. President Obama wanted the agreement to be implemented, but he did not want it implemented in its full capacity. Congress, on the day JCPOA was implemented, passed a law warning Europeans that were doing business with Iran. The staffs of companies had to apply for a visa to the United States if they had traveled to Iran for business purposes. This began on the first day. The Americans were not always very forthcoming. OFAC [Office of Foreign Funds Control] gave ambiguous answers to many of the questions that companies had about sanctions, but at least in words the Obama administration supported the JCPOA and saw the agreement as the basis for our interactions.”

“President Trump, however, even as a candidate, called the agreement ‘the worst deal America ever made,’ ” the ambassador said. “He called this deal a source of embarrassment for America. Indeed, it was not the deal but America’s unilateral decision to walk away from an agreement that was supported by the United Nations Security Council, and in fact co-sponsored and drafted by the United States, that is the source of embarrassment for America. To walk away from an international agreement and then threaten a sovereign country is the real source of embarrassment since Iran was in full compliance while the U.S. never was.”

“In 2008, the Israelis told the world that Iran was only some days away from acquiring an atomic bomb,” he said. “The Israelis said there had to be a military strike to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. What has happened since? During the last two years, there have been 11 reports by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] clearly confirming and demonstrating Iran’s full compliance with the JCPOA. All of the accusations [about] Iran using nuclear facilities for military purposes were refuted by the IAEA as well as by Europe, Russia, China, along with many other countries in Asia, Latin America, Africa. America is concerned about Iranian influence in the region and seeks to contain Iran because the U.S. administration realizes that America’s policies in the Middle East have failed. Their own statements about Iran repeatedly contradict each other. One day they say, ‘Iran is so weak it will collapse,’ and the next day they say, ‘Iran is governing several Arab capitals in the Middle East.’ ”

Iran announced recently that it has tentative plans to produce the feedstock for centrifuges, the machines that enrich uranium, if the nuclear deal is not salvaged by European members of the JCPOA. European countries, dismayed by Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement, are attempting to renegotiate the deal, which imposes restrictions on Iran’s nuclear development in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.

Why go to war with a country that abides by an agreement it has signed with the United States? Why attack a government that is the mortal enemy of the Taliban, along with other jihadist groups, including al-Qaida and Islamic State, that now threaten us after we created and armed them? Why shatter the de facto alliance we have with Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why further destabilize a region already dangerously volatile?

The architects of these wars are in trouble. They have watched helplessly as the instability and political vacuum they caused, especially in Iraq, left Iran as the dominant power in the region. Washington, in essence, elevated its nemesis. It has no idea how to reverse its mistake, beyond attacking Iran. Those both in the U.S. and abroad who began or promoted these wars see a conflict with Iran as a solution to their foreign and increasingly domestic dilemmas.

For example, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, mired in corruption scandals, hopes that by fostering a conflict with Iran he can divert attention away from investigations into his abuse of power and the massacres Israel carries out against Palestinians, along with Israel’s accelerated seizure of Palestinian land.

“The most brutal regime is now in power in Israel,” the Iranian ambassador said. “It has no regard for international law or humanitarian law. It violates Security Council resolutions regarding settlements, its capital and occupation. Look at what Israel has done in Gaza in the last 30 days. On the same day America was unlawfully transferring its embassy to Jerusalem, 60 unarmed Palestinian protesters were killed by Israeli snipers. [Israelis] were dancing in Jerusalem while the blood of unarmed Palestinians was running in Gaza. The Trump administration gives total support and impunity to Israel. This angers many people in the Middle East, including many in Saudi Arabia. It is a Zionist project to portray Iran as the main threat to peace in the Middle East. Israel introducing Iran as a threat is an attempt to divert attention from the crimes this regime is committing, but these too are failed policies that will backfire. They are policies designed to cover weakness.”

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, facing internal unrest, launched the war in Yemen as a vanity project to bolster his credentials as a military leader. Now he desperately needs to deflect attention from the quagmire and humanitarian disaster he created.

“Saudi Arabia, as part of [the civil war in Yemen], has a tactical and strategic cooperation with Israel against Iran,” the ambassador said. “But the Saudi regime is defying the sentiments of its own people. How long will this be possible? For three years now, Saudi Arabia, assisted by the United States, has bombed the Yemeni people and imposed a total blockade that includes food and medicine. Nothing has been resolved. Once again, Iran is blamed for this failure by Saudi Arabia and the United States in Yemen. Even if Iran wanted to help the Yemenis, it is not possible due to the total blockade. The Yemeni people asked for peace negotiations from the first day of the war. But Saudi military adventurism and its desire to test its military resolve made any peaceful solution impossible. The U.S. and the U.K. provide military and logistical support, including cluster bombs to be used by the Saudis in Yemen. The Emiratis are bombing Yemen. All such actions are doomed to failure since there is no military solution in Yemen. There is only a political solution. Look at the targets of Saudi airstrikes in Yemen: funerals. Wedding ceremonies. Agricultural fields. Houses. Civilians. How do the Saudis expect the Yemeni people to greet those who bomb them? With hugs? The war has cost a lot of money, and Trump responds by saying [to Saudi Arabia], ‘Oh you have money. [Paraphrasing here.] Please buy our ‘beautiful weapons.’ They are killing beautiful children with these ‘beautiful’ weapons. It is a disaster. It is tragic.”

And then there is President Donald Trump, desperate for a global crusade he can use to mask his ineptitude, the rampant corruption of his administration and his status as an international pariah when he runs for re-election in 2020.

“Of course, blaming and threatening Iran is not new,” the ambassador said. “This has been going on for 40 years. The Iranian people and the Iranian government are accustomed to this nonsense. United States intervention in the internal affairs of Iran goes back a long time, including the [Iranian] war with Iraq, when the United States supported Saddam Hussein. Then America invaded Iraq in 2003 in their so-called ‘intervention for democracy and elimination of WMDs.’ Iran has always resisted and will always resist U.S. threats.”

“America was in Iran 40 years ago,” the ambassador said. “About 100,000 U.S. advisers were in Iran during the rule of the shah, who was among the closest allies of America. America was unable to keep this regime in power because the Iranian people revolted against such dependency and suppression. Since the fall of the shah in 1979, for 40 years, America continued to violate international law, especially the Algeria agreements it signed with Iran in 1981.”

The Algeria Declaration was a set of agreements between the United States and Iran that resolved the Iranian hostage crisis. It was brokered by the Algerian government. The U.S. committed itself in the Algeria Declaration to refrain from interference in Iranian internal affairs and to lift trade sanctions on Iran and a freeze on Iranian assets.

The warmongers have no more of a plan for “regime change” in Iran than they had in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Syria. European allies, whom Trump alienated when he walked away from the Iranian nuclear agreement, are in no mood to cooperate with Washington. The Pentagon, even if it wanted to, does not have the hundreds of thousands of troops it would need to attack and occupy Iran. And the idea—pushed by lunatic fringe figures like Bolton and Giuliani—that the marginal and discredited Iranian resistance group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), which fought alongside Saddam Hussein in the war against Iran and is viewed by most Iranians as composed of traitors, is a viable counterforce to the Iranian government is ludicrous. In all these equations the 80 million people in Iran are ignored just as the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were ignored. Perhaps they would not welcome a war with the United States. Perhaps if attacked they would resist. Perhaps they don’t want to be occupied. Perhaps a war with Iran would be interpreted throughout the region as a war against Shiism. But these are calculations that the ideologues, who know little about the instrument of war and even less about the cultures or peoples they seek to dominate, are unable to fathom.

“The Middle East has many problems: insecurity, instability, problems with natural resources such as water, etc.,” Khoshroo said. “All of these problems have been made worse by foreign intervention as well as Israel’s lawlessness. The issue of Palestine is at the heart of turmoil in the Middle East for Muslims. Any delay in finding solutions to these wounds in the Middle East exposes this region to more dangerous threats. Americans say they want the Middle East to be free from violent extremism, but this will only happen when the Middle East is free from occupation and foreign intervention. The Americans are selling their weapons throughout the Middle East. They calculate how much money they can earn from destruction. They don’t care about human beings. They don’t care about security or democratic process or political process. This is worrisome.”

“What are the results of American policies in the Middle East?” he asked. “All of the American allies in the region are in turmoil. Only Iran is secure and stable. Why is this the case? Why, during the last 40 years, has Iran been stable? Is it because Iran has no relationship with America? Why is there hostility between Iran and America? Can’t the Americans see that Iran’s stability is important for the region? We are surrounded by Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen. What good would come from destabilizing Iran? What would America get out of that?”

*

Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, New York Times best selling author, former professor at Princeton University, activist and ordained Presbyterian minister. He has written 11 books, including the New York Times best-seller “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt” (2012), which he co-authored with the cartoonist Joe Sacco.

Featured image is from Mr. Fish/Truthdig.

The State Department reportedly asked US Middle East embassies to assure aid isn’t given to foreign militaries involved in human rights abuses.

The above sounds more like fiction than reality. No militaries anywhere violate human rights more egregiously than America’s and Israel’s.

It’s gone on throughout the entire history of both countries, countless millions harmed by their high crimes of war and against humanity, their use of chemical, biological, radiological, and other banned weapons, their contempt for rule of law principles, their disdain for the rights of invented enemies.

Zionist ideologue Trump regime ambassador to Israel David Friedman opposes scrutiny of IDF practices – enforcing occupation harshness, waging undeclared war on defenseless Palestinian civilians, responsible for over 14,000 casualties in Gaza since March 30 alone, Israel holding an entire Palestinian population hostage to what the late Edward Said called its “refined viciousness.”

Responding to alleged State Department human rights guidelines, Friedman turned truth on its head claiming

“Israel is a democracy whose army does not engage in gross violations of human rights,” adding:

The IDF “has a robust system of investigation and prosecution in the rare circumstance where misconduct occurs…(I)t would be against (US) national interests” to limit military aid to Israel “especially in a time of war.”

Israel’s self-styled world’s most moral army is one of the most ruthless. Its war crimes and other human rights abuses are rife.

Its so-called “robust system of investigation and prosecution” consistently whitewashes flagrant abusiveness time and again.

America and Israel partner in each other’s Nuremberg-level high crimes, accountability never forthcoming.

Both countries flagrantly violate the laws of war and other fundamental human rights.

US law is clear, unequivocal and ignored. The 1961 Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) prohibits aiding governments engaged:

“in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, or other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, and the security of person, unless such assistance will directly benefit the needy people in such country.”

The Leahy Law provision of the 2001 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act (FOAA) (Sec. 8092 of PL 106-259) states:

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to support any training program involving a unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of Defense has received credible information from the Department of State that a member of such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights, unless all necessary corrective steps have been taken.”

FOAA prohibits funding foreign security forces involved in gross human rights violations. It’s proscribed unless “effective measures (are taken) to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice.”

When it comes to Israel, the Saudis, and other US allied flagrant human rights abusers, the above laws don’t apply – no matter how lawless their practices.

Israel has a well-documented appalling human rights record. Yet it gets billions of dollars in US military aid annually, including state-of-the-art weapons, munitions and technology, more on request – along with special benefits afforded no other countries.

Every US administration along with virtually the entire Congress, bureaucracy, and major media support Israel, ignoring its high crimes, blaming victims for its brutality inflicted on them.

Alleged State Department concern for human rights is a ruse, especially with neocon extremist Mike Pompeo in charge as secretary of state – an unindicted war criminal, an assassin and torturer as CIA director.

Israel and other US allied rogue states are immune from accountability no matter how flagrant their high crimes and human rights abuses.

The above cited US laws and alleged State Department concern for human rights don’t apply to 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

Maybe it is the best agreement ever signed…Maybe by applying it, Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, will enter an era of great friendship and enormous prosperity…

Maybe…The only small detail is the majority of the deputies of the Greek Parliament do not know the agreement is so good. Their parties declared they are opposing the agreement and they won’t ratify it. Even the An.Ell. party, which is the junior partner of SYRIZA in the government, does not know how profitable is this agreement. They said they would vote No to the agreement when introduced in the Parliament. The population does not know it also. 70% of those asked in the polls, including 50% of the SYRIZA voters, answered they are against the agreement.

The opposition asked the Government to have a vote in the Parliament on the agreement Tsipras and Kotzias wanted to sign before it is signed. The government refused the request and refused also the calls for a referendum from various corners and personalities, including from Mikis Theodorakis, the legendary symbol of the International Leftist movement. No, Tsipras and Kotzias know better what is good for the people than the people itself.

Given the official opposition of the parties commanding the majority of deputies of the Parliament, the clear opposition of the people and other circumstances we will try to elucidate, the signing today of the agreement between Tsipras and the FYROM PM Zaev was nothing less than a political, if not a legal stricto senso, coup d’ etat against Greek constitutional order and the principles of Popular and National Sovereignty, with the sole aim of opening the way of FYROM to NATO and the EU, and that irrespective of the opinion one may hold of the agreement itself.

As we said everybody can have an opinion about this agreement (*) But there is a much larger and probably far more important question than how to solve the dispute between Greece and FYROM. And this question is: Who rules Greece and FYROM? Their citizens and elected Parliaments, or US, Germany, NATO and the EU?

Image result for kotzias + tsipras

Kotzias and Tsipras (image on the right) had technically the right to sign this agreement, but they did not have any legitimacy to do it, as Greek political parties commanding a majority of deputies in the Greek Parliament have expressed their disagreement with it in the most official way.

By the way, a closer look at the agreement will persuade you than in fact, instead of solving, it is recognizing and eternalizing the existing differences between Greeks and Macedonian Slavs. The main aim of the agreement is to open the way of NATO to FYROM and then, the differences of the two nations will be used to provide Americans with a permanent tool to use the one nation against the other. The agreement was conceived to facilitate US-NATO advanced strategic planning for controlling Balkans, encircling, containing and threatening Russia.

The agreement has also the potential of destabilizing and provoking much greater instability, chaos and conflicts in the region, including in Greece itself. (By the way there are also doubts if Mr. Zaev, the PM of FYROM, who came into power in 2016, as a result of a color revolution, greatly helped by US Secret Services, has also sufficient legitimization to sign this agreement.)

Only by a series of legal coup d’ etats and flagrant violations of the most elementary democratic and parliamentarian rules, we will expose in detail, Tsipras and Kotzias were able to sign today this agreement. Of course, all massive violations of democratic rule and legitimacy in a member of the EU are not representing any obstacle for Federica Mogherini, the EU Representative on Foreign and Security Policy, the EU Commissioner on Enlargement Johannes Hahn, Rosemary DiCarlo, Deputy General Secretary of the UN and Mathew Nimetz, UN special Envoy who were present and celebrated the signing of the agreement in lake Prespes, an agreement representing the will of the Empire, not the will of the two nations.

The agreement is also strongly supported by US President Trump, the German government, NATO and the EU. All of them are wishing to include FYROM to NATO as soon as possible in order for this organization to control the whole of the Balkans. FYROM is located on the very center of the peninsula, between Albania and Bulgaria and between Greece and Serbia. To control it means to control the whole peninsula. In FYROM the US have established since many years enormous military installations and the country has become the center of CIA activities covering all Balkans. (**)

The only reason Tsipras and Kotzias proceeded to the signing of this agreement, circumventing the essence of the Greek Constitutional Order, with the help of the EU Commission, always willing to attack democratic principles in any member state of the EU, is exactly their wish to satisfy everything NATO and the US are asking from them, something they do also (***) in all spheres of Foreign and Defense Policy.

The signature of this agreement, in opposition to the will of the Parliament and the people, is the second so grave violation of the very foundations of the democratic regime in Greece and of the principles of Popular and National Sovereignty, since the disregarding of the clear verdict of the 2015 Referendum. In fact it is the continuation of the previous, 2015 coup, but without even the shadow of a justification. Tsipras claimed, back in 2015, that he could not do anything else. Now there is no other reason to sign this agreement than to satisfy the American desiderata. By signing such an agreement and paying a huge corresponding, this government proves that is controlled directly by foreign powers in a way no Greek government was controlled after the military junta. The fact that the centers of Western Imperialism were able to control the leadership of the Greek Left, one of the most radical and strong in any European country after WWII is a tremendous triumph for the Empire,  for many reasons (****).

The main difference between now and 2015 is that the main role is played now by US and NATO. The European Union is relegated to a back stage supporting role, the opposite of what happened in 2015. Of course, we should remember that already in 2015 American diplomacy did also play an important back stage role in the signing of the Greek capitulation and the Greek vice-Prime Minister Dragasakis has even gone on record to thank the US Administration for its vital contribution to the … surrender of his own government! The supposed “radical left” (SYRIZA) and supposed “radical right” (An.Ell.) were unable to capitulate by themselves, they needed outside help even for that!

We said that this new coup is the continuation of the previous one, because both are included in a project of destroying the Greek nation and democracy, by turning the Greek state into a Western protectorate in all fields, including foreign and defense policies and status. The Tsipras – Zaev agreement is not representing but the transition from the economic to the geopolitical methods of colonization of Greece.

Why this is a coup d’ Etat

As we already said, one problem is how Greece and FYROM want to regulate their relations. Another one is who holds and how he exercises power in both nations.

In the Greek case, it is clear that the Troika, Germany and the EU are making the law as far as economy and society is concerned, US, NATO and their allies as far as Geopolitics are concerned.

But up to now, this was happening through a formal respect of parliamentary forms. Now, we have a clear violation even of those forms and rules.

This is why we said the signing of this agreement is a coup d’ etat, probably not in a strict legal sense, but at least in a political sense.

A government has of course the right to sign international agreements, which subsequently have to be ratified by the National Parliament.

But there are some limits to this possibility. The agreements should not be in clear violation of people’s will or of the expressed will of the majority of the Parliament!

For example, Mr. Tsipras, before going to Brussels to negotiate his surrender after the 2015 referendum, he felt the need to go to the Greek Parliament asking for an authorization to negotiate and sign an agreement.

Now, not only he has not any authorization of the Parliament to sign the agreement he is signing, the majority of the Greek political parties commanding a majority of deputies in the Greek Parliament are publicly opposing the agreement he is signing. This fact is putting into obvious and serious doubt his right to sign the agreement, as it would happen in any other law-ruled country of the world.

There is worse. SYRIZA has refused to put the agreement to the preliminary approval of the Parliament and to satisfy a demand of the opposition for a vote on it.

Maybe you will ask how a government commanding a majority in the Parliament, has not a majority on that  particular issue. This is happening because SYRIZA has a parliamentary majority only by adding An.Ell. deputies and An.Ell. is included in the parties opposing the agreement.

There is even more. It is maybe the first time in the international history of parliamentarianism and of international relations that a Foreign Minister is signing an international agreement against not only the will of the majority of his own Parliament, but one which his own government is not fully supporting! One of the two governing parties in Greece, the smaller partner of SYRIZA, An.Ell., disagrees also with the agreement. This is why Mr. Tsipras and Mr. Kotzias did not ask even for an authorization from their own Council of Ministers before signing!

Except SYRIZA, who was voted by less than 20% of the Greek electorate back in September 2015, there is only another small party, Potami, with four deputies supporting the agreement. All other political parties, from the Communist Party of the Far Left to Golden Dawn of the Far Right are opposing the agreement Tsipras+ and Kotzias are signing.

Speaking about the institutional order, the only Greek state institution which has debated and decided ever about the FYROM issue has been the Council of Heads of Political Parties, which has met under the President of the Greek Republic, back in 1992. Then all the heads of the Greek Political Parties represented in the Parliament, the President of SYN (the predecessor of SYRIZA) included, with the exception of the Communist Party, decided that Greece does not accept for FYROM any name in which the term Macedonia or its derivatives would be included.

It is true that this is not any more the opinion of most Greek political parties, but nobody bothered to change that decision. If SYRIZA respected in an elementary way the institutions of the Greek State and Democracy, the minimum it had to do was to ask for convening again this Council, or, alternatively, convening the Parliament to ask for changing this decision and for authorization to negotiate on a different basis.

The Referendum question

The agreement is not only signed against the will of the Parliament, it is also signed against the will of the people.

Hundreds of thousands of people, probably more than a million, have demonstrated in Athens and Salonica against SYRIZA’s policy on this question. Those demonstrations were by far the biggest in the country since many years.

The polls show since last February that a constant absolute majority of Greek citizens are against the policy of the government on that issue, including half of the SYRIZA voters themselves. According to the latest poll, taken after the agreement was known, 70% of Greeks reject the agreement. The influence of SYRIZA in all Northern Greece is collapsing.

All that puts in even bigger doubt the political legitimacy of a government signing an agreement like the one signed today, but it is also putting a huge question on the reasons it is doing it. It seems as one more clear indication, which is also verified by a lot of different indications, that the two governing parties of Greece are following strictly the agenda of the United States, of NATO and of their allies.

Given the importance citizens in all countries pay to national questions, affecting their idea of their own Nation, the divisions in Greek society are very deep, especially in the context of a country under attack. The internal atmosphere in the country is aggravated by the extremely authoritarian way SYRIZA and Tsipras himself are behaving towards everybody in disagreement with them.

Mr. Tsipras himself, who spend all his life in street demonstrations or organizing the occupation of public buildings went live to treat half to one million peaceful demonstrators in Athens as Mob. But the polls made among demostrators proved that a clear majority of them have voted No in the 2015 referendum.

Those who demonstrate against the “Macedonia” policy of SYRIZA represent the same, deep social revolt of Greeks to save themselves and their nation, which brought this party to power, not because, but in spite of its ideas and leading cadres, because the country was in an emergency situation, facing existential threats and because Tsipras was intelligent enough to adopt revolutionary slogans and ideas from outside his party, which he betrayed consequently.

By the way, it is rather ridiculous if not immoral to treat like that the demonstrators who went to the Constitution Square to hear Mikis Theodorakis, the legendary symbol of the Greek and international Left, or Professor Kasimatis, the leading authority in Constitutional Law in Greece, ex-advisor of PM Andreas Papandrou and an ardent critique of the neocolonial Loan agreements imposed to Greece. SYRIZA, in a classic Stalinist methodology, is portraying all people disagreeing with its policies as primitive, far right nationalists, “forgetting” that among themselves there is a number of real Leftist intellectuals and politicians, like the legendary veteran of the Greek Left Manolis Glezos, nine times condemned to death because of his political ideas and saved from execution because of the mobilization of European personalities, including Charles De Gaulle, who called his the “first Resistant in Europe”.

By attacking all those people as “nationalists”, “extremists”, “far right people”, “populists” etc. SYRIZA is not only committing political suicide, it creates gradually the conditions for a kind of low intensity civil-war in the country and of a real rise of the Far Right, if it will stay the only major force able to use the Greek national feeling. SYRIZA leaders, except those among them who are serving directly foreign interests, maybe they hope that they will develop far-right to cut the percentages of the conventional right, but in fact they play with fire, completely detached from reality and any kind of principles.

In fact, SYRIZA itself has come to power expressing and then betraying a deep feeling of social and national revolt. But even right wing Greek nationalism, even when it is adopting primitive forms, is essentially a defensive nationalism, no Greek claiming any territory outside the frontiers of Greece. The reaction on the Macedonian question is out of the huge fears of Greeks that after the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, the dismemberment of Greece will follow. And in a way it did happen. The Greek state and society were not bombed by NATO as Yugoslavia, but they were destroyed and kidnapped by economic warfare by the same forces which destroyed Yugolsavia.

The potential of this question to provoke serious internal strife in Greece was is one more reason, various Greek personalities have called for a Referendum to be held about the agreement with FYROM, including Mikis Theodorakis, a proposal which can protect democratic decision making and also civil peace in the country.

Of course the proposal was rejected by SYRIZA, for decades an advocate of referendums.

SYRIZA not only does not want a referendum in Greece, he does not want it also in FYROM. The FM Kotzias has even suggested publicly to the FYROM authorities not to do it, in alliance with the pro-American and pro-NATO leaders of the Albanian community in this country.

A strong supporter of everything Soviets and East Germans were doing, including interventions in Eastern Europe, a stalinist ideologue who never permitted any doubt to himself about the regimes he was serving and a virulent critique of Western Imperialism once, Mr. Nikos Kotzias left the Greek CP in 1990. Some years afterwards he seemed to enjoy full confidence of this same “Western imperialism”, if we judge from the fact he has worked as an advisor and a kind of theoretician of Greek FM G. Papandreou, himself one of the most pro-American ever Foreign Ministers of Greece. He had also served as President of the PASOK think tank during its “modernization”, right wing turn. After not being appointed as Foreign Minister when Georges Papandreou became Prime Minister, Kotzias gradually begun to criticize his policies. He is one of the people who commanded huge influence to the shaping of Tsipras’ideas, especially as Tsipras had a very low level of education, in particular as far as it concerned foreign and international policy. We assume he has contributed a lot to the pro-western behind the scenes orientation Mr. Tsipras and SYRIZA have taken. Something which was facilitated by the fact SYRIZA has never functioned as a collective, not even to speak of a democratic political entity. All decisions were taken by Tsipras himself and a group of close friends of him, something which made eventually mush easier the manipulation of this party by various foreign centers.

The Imperial Strategy is probably to use SYRIZA in a first stage to get from Greece all concesiions they want in Cyprus, the Balkans, in the Aegean and concerning relations with Turkey and use of the Greek territory as a gigantic US military base. This is the Plan A which will have as a result the birth of the plan B. The destruction not only of the SYRIZA leadership, because of the policy it is implementing, but also a huge blow to the underlying, now more and more orphan, strong social current of a Greek national, popular and antiimperialist Left, which has shaped Greek politics since the time of the huge Resistance to Nazi Occupation.

Undermining Democracy and States: τhe Legal Tricks of the Agreement concerning NATO and its Ratification

The Agreement as signed is constructed in such a way as

  1. To produce as quickly as possible and before the text is ratified by the Greek Parliament a maximum of results as far as FYROM’s integration into NATO is concerned.
  2. To create enormous political difficulties to the Greek Parliament in order to make near to impossible to it to refuse to ratify it.

All that is done by reversing the usual chronology for the implementation of an international agreement.

In the first phase the agreement will be submitted to the FYROM parliament for ratification, but not to the Greek one! If the FYROM parliament will ratify it, Athens will revoke its veto to the inclusion of FYROM into NATO and EU and the Alliance will issue an invitation to FYROM  to join it. All that before the agreement is submitted to the Greek parliamentarians.

That means the political and military integration of FYROM into NATO will begin, with Americans taking care to make as much as possible a sheer formality the final act of inclusion of FYROM, which has to be ratified by all parliaments of the Members of NATO.

If things are going as planned and FYROM takes all the necessary steps it has to take changing its constitution and adopting all that in a referendum, then and only then the Greek parliament will examine the agreement and decide if it wants it and if it wants FYROM inside NATO.

In theory, Greek deputies have the possibility to cancel all that. But how logical is for FYROM to have begun accession negotiations with NATO and EU, to have satisfied all conditions put by the Greek government and then suddenly for the Greek deputies to say “Just a moment, all that was a mistake”. If they do it enormous pressures will be exercised on Greece and it will be accused of fraude.

We repeat, one can agree or disagree with the content of this agreement and with this or that solution of the dispute between Greece and FYROM. But nobody has the right to impose his views organizing coup d’ etats and circumventing the Constitutional Order and Democracy itself. The fact that this is accepted and even supported by the European Commission in one of the members of the European Union (which also happens to be the birth place of Democracy!) constitutes one more serious proof how far the EU has gone into its transformation to a totalitarian structure, acting on behalf of International Finance and NATO.

Notes

*As it happens with all agreements, there are those who like them and those who do not like them. In Greece there are those who believe that Athens should not recognize any state whose name includes the term Macedonia or its derivatives. There are also people who say that FYROM can have the name it wishes to have. In the middle there are people who say Greece cannot deny to Slav Macedonians altogether the use of the term Macedonia, but in such a form which will make clear they represent a part, but not the whole of Macedonia, as Slav Macedonian nationalism claims.  Equally conflicting views exist in FYROM. This dispute did not create any problem in the relations between two countries and nobody was remembering it until recently, when Washington asked the Tsipras and Zaev governments to solve it quickly, in order for FYROM to be invited to NATO next July and to be given pre-acession status to the EU.

**We remind our readers that this region of SE Europe, of critical importance in any war with Russia, has been transformed into a chain of small, socially and economically ruined and plundered and closely controlled western protectorates. Germany and other European countries are looting them systematically, but it is NATO and the US which make the Law, as far as geopolitics is concerned. There are only some “details” for the control of the whole region to be completed, like incorporating all Western Balkan states into NATO and its corollary, the EU and organizing regime change in Serbia.

***Look http://www.defenddemocracy.press/mikis-theodorakis-blasts-greek-governments-foreign-policy/

****First, they are able to use the SYRIZA-An.Ell.government in Athens to get concessions from Greece in foreign and military policy no other government would be able to deliver to them.

Second, they use this policy to destroy the social basis of the Greek left, to put the SYRIZA leaders into open clash with both their social base and the national feeling of Greeks. They want to finish with one of the deepest social, national and antiimperialist currents, shaping Greek policies and social ideology since the Nazi occupation, the strongest and the deepest in any European country.

Third, they want to create if possible a current of primitive nationalist Far Rigth, as a result of a series of betrayals by SYRIZA.

Such a current may be useful in the next stage of the Greek, European and Middle Eastern Crisis. A low intensity civil war or an open dictatorship, a war with Turkey or in the Balkans cannot be excluded.

Featured image is from Yanis Varoufakis.

The ugliness of US immigration policy is once again evident. There is national outrage that separating children, often infants, from their parents is wrong. There is also national consensus (nine out of ten people in the US) that people brought here by their parents, the Dreamers, should not be forced out of the country as adults.

The highly restrictive, dysfunctional immigration system in the United States serves the interests of  big business and US Empire. Investors can cross borders to find workers who will accept slave-labor wages and dangerous environments, but workers cannot cross borders to find better wages and safety.

US-pushed corporate trade agreements serve the interests of transnational corporations, allowing them to legally take advantage of cheap labor and to steal natural resources, but workers cannot cross borders  when their economy is destroyed or their communities are poisoned.

US militarism and regime change cross borders to replace governments that are working to improve the lives and autonomy of their people and install authoritarian governments, but people who are facing the terrorism of US-supported security states cannot cross the border to find refuge.

The violence of the drug trade that serves US consumers creates mafia and gang violence in other countries, but people who live with the violence of drug gangsterism cannot cross borders to escape.

Separating Children From Their Parents

President Donald Trump claims he hates to have to separate children from their families at the border and that he is merely enforcing a law passed by the Democrats.

This is a false description of why children are separated from their parents.

The reason for the separation is that the Trump administration has decided on zero tolerance criminal enforcement of immigration laws.  A 1997 court settlement in Flores barred children from being imprisoned with their parents. In 2014, President Obama put hundreds of families in immigration detention but federal courts stopped them from holding families for months without trial, resulting in the release of families to return for trial. Trump has taken the approach of arresting the parents and holding the children.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for taking care of “unaccompanied alien children,” the label put on these youth, already has 11,000 immigrants under the age of 18 in its custody who haven’t yet been placed with relatives or other sponsors. Under the new Trump policy, 2,000 children have been separated from their parents in just six weeks.  These youth are held in tent cities and warehouse jails, which could fairly be called prison camps.

This is resulting in heartbreaking stories. A man from Honduras, where the US supported a coup, Marco Antonio Muñoz, killed himself in a detention cell after his 3-year-old son was taken. CNN reports agents ripped a Honduran  woman’s infant daughter from her arms while she was breastfeeding. The New York Times reported on one child, referred to only as José, also from Honduras, who refused to take a shower or change his clothes after being separated from his parents as he didn’t want anything else taken away from him.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says separation will cause “irreparable harm” to children. While Jeff Sessions and Sarah Huckabee Sanders have used the bible to justify the policy, there is a revolt among Trump’s religious base.  The Chicago Tribune reports

“The Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, who delivered a prayer at Trump’s inauguration, signed a letter calling the practice ‘horrible.’ Pastor Franklin Graham … a vocal supporter of the president’s who has brushed aside past Trump controversies, called it ‘terrible’ and ‘disgraceful.’”

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, described “a groundswell of opposition from virtually every corner of the Christian community.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention issued statements critical of the practice. Even Evangelical Trump supporters are speaking out against it.

Separating children from their parents is justified as a deterrent to convince people not to attempt to cross the border, but it has not worked. The children are also a bargaining chip. Trump will not change the policy unless Congress agrees to his immigration demands, including the border wall, tightening the rules for border enforcement and curbing legal entry. In turn, the Democrats are using child separation as a tool for the 2018 election. Both parties are holding immigrant children hostage for their agendas.

A group of students lead the larger crowd that turned out and showed up in support of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) at Acacia Park and ended their rally at the office of Cory Gardner on Tuesday September 5, 2017 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. (Photo by Dougal Brownlie, The Gazette).

Immigrant Youth Brought to the US by their Parents

Immigrant youth are also being used by Trump to force negotiation for tougher immigration policies and by Democrats for the 2018 election.

Trump’s repeal of policies protecting youth brought to the US by their parents has resulted in outrage and national consensus that these youth should not be punished. A CBS News poll found 87 percent believe the Dreamers should be allowed to remain in the US.

Dysfunction in Congress and an obstinate White House have left these youth in limbo-risk. Obama allowed certain immigrant youth brought to the U.S. without documents as children to live and work here without fear of deportation. Trump reversed that, announcing he would rescind the program, and gave Congress six months to find a legislative fix. His rescission has been blocked by a federal court.

President Trump sent mixed signals last week. First he said he would veto a bill that would protect Dreamers from deportation, then the White House reversed that statement saying Trump had misunderstood the question and would sign the legislation passed by Congress. People in both Chambers are trying to find a way forward, but sensible immigration laws have lots of barriers to overcome.

Rallies Call For Immigrant Rights Persist

Across the country there have been rallies for immigrant rights. Groups like Mijente and the Cosecha Movement are doing strong organizing for permanent protection for all immigrants. Last week, actions were focused on the issue of separating parents from their children.

These types of immigration policies have existed for multiple administrations. Trump has not come close to Obama’s record level of deportations. From 2009 to 2016, Obama oversaw the forcible removal of more than 3 million undocumented immigrants. ICE under Obama averaged 309,887 arrests per year from 2009-2012, while ICE under Trump averaged 139,553 in 2017. Obama set records between 2008 and 2014 for the number of people arrested and placed in deportation proceedings.

Remember that there were multiple mass protests against Obama on immigration throughout the country. Protesters blocked traffic around the White House highlighting how “Obama deports parents.” Obama did not use the harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric of Trump, but he had strong enforcement policies against immigrants.

Immigration, as we noted at the outset, is tied into issues of corporate trade agreements, regime change, US Empire, the drug war and capitalism. These issues are forcing a race to the bottom for worker rights and wages and destruction of the environment. They are driving a growing security state, militarization of law enforcement and mass incarceration. Border patrols lock people into countries where they face poverty, pollution and violence with little chance of escape.

Immigrants are the scapegoats, but it is the systems that are driving migration. Most people would prefer to remain in their home countries where they have roots, family and communities. Extreme conditions drive people to abandon everything and endure harsh and dangerous travel in hope of finding safety and the means of survival.

This is typical divide and conquer – encouraging us to blame each other and fight while the wealth of the elites expands. We are all hurt by the systems and crises that drive mass migration. This includes climate change as well.

While we take immediate action to protect immigrant children and families, let’s also speak out about the connections between migration and the many crises we face. We need to educate those who are being misled into blaming immigrants for the conditions that force them to leave their homes.

We must work in solidarity to create democratized economic systems, demand trade agreements that strengthen worker rights and protection of the environment and transition to a clean energy economy and a foreign policy that respects the autonomy of peoples while we also end racist systems, militarism, imperialism and mass incarceration.

*

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

All images in this article are from the authors unless otherwise stated. Featured image is by Susan Melkisethian from flickr.

In a strange case of reversed roles Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland, tried to convince US president Donald Trump to return to his lost path of globalization and international trade agreements in an impassionate speech she gave at the Foreign Policy Forum last June 13 in Washington D.C. 

Ms. Freeland seems to have a good reputation in some circles in Washington. At least enough to get her centre stage and a nomination as “diplomat of the year.”  Though she should know that the recognition she received was not meant to acknowledge necessarily her achievements but rather to use her as an “international voice” on behalf of some US sectors that dissent with Donald Trump’s foreign policy – more specifically, those aspects of US foreign policy that are perceived to hurt business such as international trade and tariffs. Ms. Freeland obliged and that was precisely the focus of her speech.

We don’t know the impact that Ms. Freeland’s speech has had on Donald Trump. But her message would have been fitting had she been on the same stage with the likes of Ronald Reagan whom she did praise once.

What we do know is that her speech – probably meant to be inspirational – was full of liberal, capitalist and imperial rhetoric, and showed little understanding of the geopolitical realities of today. Her tenacious defense of the virtues of capitalism lacked vision and placed her right back at the time of the old Cold War with the only exception of authoritarianism being the nemesis instead of communism. She pointed her accusatory finger at Venezuela, Russia and China as examples of current unruly countries that do not follow her image of international order. 

So, no one should fear that Chrystia Freeland’s “mano-a-mano” retort to Donald Trump’s mischief towards Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the G7 meeting means a deep fissure in Canada-US relations. On the contrary, hers was an exaltation of the common goal the two countries share, albeit with tactical differences:

the fight for liberal democracy and the international rules-based order that supports it.”

By “international” she obviously meant North American.

Ms. Freeland made a strong defense of “liberal democracy” that others cannot question in her fading world. But she never noticed the contradiction that a forced liberal democracy is in fact authoritarianism of the worst kind. If democracy needs a Canadian or US stamp of approval, then it stops being a democracy. Democracy by definition is based on people’s free decisions, not on imposed decisions, much less on foreign imposed decisions.

In a very revealing – but not surprising – colonial language, she showed a concern that

within the club of wealthy Western nations, we are seeing homegrown anti-democratic forces on the rise.”

And again, she failed to link that concern to her own grim admission that “Middle-class working families are not wrong to feel left behind. Wages have been stagnating. Jobs are becoming more precarious, pensions uncertain, housing, childcare, and education harder to afford.” She simply justified it by saying that

these are the wrenching human consequences, the growing pains” of righteous liberal democracies.

She went on to say,

Liberal democracy is also under assault from abroad. Authoritarian regimes are actively seeking to undermine us with sophisticated, well-financed propaganda and espionage programs.”

An obvious reference to Russia. In fact she did refer specifically to Venezuela’s “authoritarianism” and to Russia’s move “backwards” from “democratic capitalism.” 

Her reductionist view that reproducing a patched up worn out capitalist system will make new friends despite the evidence to the contrary is quite shocking. 

Ms. Freeland was in total denial failing to recognize that it is not authoritarianism that is “on the march,” but it is a new multipolar world on the march to replace the North American-centered unipolar world of the 20th century. 

China and Russia are leading the way successfully towards reducing the domination of a Western liberal consensus in world affairs. China is doing that with its Silk Road Economic Belt as a development strategy that focuses on connectivity and cooperation between Eurasian countries and possibly beyond. Russia is using a no less effective strategic approach by using its soft power building new alliances and balancing the conflicting forces, especially in the Middle East, with an eye to a positive relationship with the European Union. This spells danger to the diminishing might of the US and its ally from the North, Canada.

In concluding, in the new upcoming world order countries can come with their different systems willing to form alliances and work together, be it China’s communism, Venezuela’s 21st century socialism, or Russia’s balancing soft power to deescalate major conflicts and bring competitors together.

It is shortsighted to admit that a one-fits-all liberal democracy is not perfect and to ignore that other nations assert the right to try their own social system, willing to fail and try again without foreign interference. Freeland doesn’t grasp the importance that other nations attribute to trying on their own, being sovereign in solving their own problems and being respected. 

Ms. Freeland, assertion of the right to freely and peacefully choose our own destiny is not authoritarianism. Your desire to shape the world to your image is. Your definition of authoritarianism is someone else’s sovereignty.

We have to acknowledge that there was one statement Ms. Freeland made that we have to agree on, “You [the US] may feel today that your size allows you to go mano-a-mano with your traditional adversaries and be guaranteed to win. But if history tells us one thing, it is that no one nation’s pre-eminence is eternal. 

In other words, empires fall. 

But then we are left wondering why is Canada pursuing a close ties with a falling empire instead of embracing an emerging multipolar world?

*

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and writer based in Vancouver, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” http://www.cubasolidarityincanada.ca. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


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

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

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

From G7 to SCO Summit, U.S. Swagger Falls Flat

June 17th, 2018 by Sara Flounders

The response to President Donald Trump’s arrogant withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and wild threats of tariffs on U.S. allies has exposed declining U.S. influence on a global scale.

This became all too obvious at the gathering in Quebec, Canada, of the G7 summit of the seven major imperialist powers — United States, Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. With the exception of Japan, the other six countries are also leading members of the U.S.-commanded NATO military alliance.

Trump’s insults and contradictory statements before and after the G7 meeting, and his threats of new tariffs unleashing an unpredictable trade war, reinforced the disarray in the global capitalist order that U.S. imperialism has commanded for 70 years.

Washington is increasingly unable to control the global agenda. U.S. corporate power finds it can no longer order the nations of the world to isolate the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea or Iran.

The U.S. has less to offer except threats of military destruction, unpayable debt and broken agreements. This untenable situation is the cause of Trump’s rants, tweets and temper tantrums.

The June 12 meeting in Singapore of President Kim Jong Un and Trump, and the joint communiqué signed afterwards, was met with great enthusiasm in North and South Korea — and worldwide. But this is hardly based on Trump’s skill as a negotiator. Events in Asia are moving far beyond U.S. control.

The images of the two warm meetings of President Moon Jae-in of South Korea and President Kim of the DPRK; President Kim’s two meetings with President Xi of China; and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit, which opposed all sanctions, ending the day before Trump arrived in Asia; confirmed that decades of U.S. efforts to isolate DPRK had failed.

G7 – a thieves summit

In past years G7 summits were usually weekend photo ops, with a vague unity statement to paper over deep economic rivalries behind the scenes.

The only agreement among these top officials, who represent the largest bankers and corporations, is about imperialist wars. They agree on the NATO bombing of Libya, the concerted regime change effort in Syria, the expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia, and the effort to pull Ukraine into the NATO military alliance. They agreed to impose harsh sanctions on Russia and expel Russia from what was then the G8 when Russia moved in 2014 to save its only naval port in Crimea from being captured by NATO.

In past decades, the U.S. had great influence in establishing, and steering for its benefit, this gathering of the world’s largest imperialist powers. In essence it is a gathering of thieves and robbers in an alliance to loot the developing world through international banking agreements, utilizing the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and imposing starvation sanctions on countries that have stepped out of line. But at the same time, these pirates are also ruthlessly competing with each other.

A different alliance

As one meeting of world leaders of the major imperialist countries ended in Canada, another very different meeting was opening in China.

More than 2,500 domestic and foreign reporters and 2,000 guests came to Qingdao, a coastal city in Shandong province, to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit on June 9 and 10. A dozen agreements on economic cooperation and security were signed.

The SCO summit involves eight Asian countries in the developing world. Four of them — China, Russia, India and Pakistan — are large countries. The Central Asian countries Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are also members. Several other Asian countries have observer and dialogue partner status. The member countries account for 3 billion people, almost half the world’s population.

SCO’s newest member, as of this summit, is Iran.

This meeting of global significance has received scant attention in the U.S. media. One headline of CNNMoney, however, summarized the new reality: “Forget the G7. A summit happening in China is what really matters.” (June 8)

The SCO is not a revolutionary alliance. Nor is it an international coalition that challenges capitalist property relations or the global order in any fundamental way.

It is an international gathering outside of all imperialist-dominated forums. Many of the member countries are targeted by imperialism and seek mutual assistance and cooperation in order to develop.

Initially established as a regional security grouping, the SCO nations have increasingly focused on expanding trade and strengthening wider cooperation among developing countries.

Plans already underway for vast modernization, the introduction of new industries and advanced communication will lead to a large expansion of the working class throughout the entire region.

China’s agenda in hosting the SCO summit is to expand its regional influence and bypass U.S. military encirclement through numerous trade and infrastructure agreements. It now has the nationalized resources and the expertise to help fund large-scale development projects and to upgrade the infrastructure of major roads, railways, ports, pipelines and telecommunications to meet the needs of neighboring countries.

U.S. breaks Iran deal

Trump’s May 8 announcement on Iran unraveled an international agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, signed by seven countries — U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, Iran and the European Union — after years of dire U.S. threats. Although Iran had met every provision of the restrictive treaty, stringent sanctions and harsh new penalties to any country doing business with Iran will be imposed.

France, Germany and Britain, along with the EU, denounced the unilateral action because it blocked their unfolding business deals. In a joint statement, they officially reminded Trump that a U.N. Security Council endorsement had made this a binding international agreement. Despite their opposition to Washington’s decision, they began closing down their projects in Iran.

Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran agreement is hardly a surprise. From the hundreds of treaties made with Indigenous nations to the Vietnam Peace Treaty, agreements with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, Washington has never respected or abided by any pact made with oppressed, developing or targeted nations.

But Washington’s decision to withdraw from the signed agreement, reimpose sanctions and demand every other country follow suit or face penalties no longer has the impact it did even five years ago.

China’s invitation to Iran

China — Iran’s number-one energy partner — used Washington’s effort to isolate Iran and undercut Wall Street’s European rivals by turning the tables.

President Xi Jinping invited Iranian President Hassan Rouhani for a bilateral meeting on trade and cooperation. Jinping also publicly invited Iran to participate in the SCO meeting.

Iran is a key transport hub between Asia and Europe and provides maritime access to landlocked countries. China’s proposal for a high-speed railway across Central Asia is advantageous to Iran and to the development of the whole region.

Iran recently signed a free-trade zone agreement with the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union.

Russia, Iran and China can trade in the Chinese yuan, now an international currency. This means they can avoid U.S. sanctions on both Iran and Russia, which complicate all U.S. dollar transactions.

Attendance at the SCO

It is significant that both Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India and President Mamnoon Hussain of Pakistan attended the SCO summit and shook hands. These two nuclear states have fought three wars against each other. British and U.S. policy for decades was to do everything possible to keep India and Pakistan in hostile contention.

Presidents of four central Asian countries that are former Soviet republics — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan — attended as members. Each country secured very favorable new economic and trade agreements. For example, in return for greater access to regional energy, China offers lesser developed countries like Kazakhstan, the largest world exporter of uranium, access to world markets for its exports as well as increased regional trade among member states.

Russian President Vladimir Putin attended the summit. Russia’s economy is much smaller than China’s and is growing slowly. But Russia is one of the world’s biggest energy producers. It also faces U.S. and EU sanctions.

Qingdao was a symbolic choice to host the SCO summit. It is at the eastern end of a vast railway network across Eurasia and a logistical center linking the Silk Road Economic Belt with the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road.

According to Chinese news reports, this 18th summit is expected to “ratify a five-year outline for the implementation of the Treaty on Long-term Good Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation,” as well as “approve more than 10 cooperation deals covering areas including security, economy, and people-to-people exchanges.”

Changing balance

U.S. imperialism’s economic domination has declined dramatically. So has the economic weight of the EU countries.

In contrast, the Asia Pacific region’s share of the global economy is expected to rise to 39 percent by 2023, while that of North America is estimated to fall to 25 percent, according to the IMF.

French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted that the other G7 members wouldn’t “mind signing a six-country agreement if need be.” The six other G7 countries now form a larger market than the U.S. market.

But, as Putin pointed out, the combined purchasing power of the SCO now outstrips that of the G7.

News reports and commentaries at the SCO focused on this new alliance challenging the existing world order led by the U.S.

All of this will have an impact on Trump’s talks with the DPRK. Trump faces a common determination to not allow U.S. threats or sanctions to isolate any country or destabilize whole regions.

Pentagon threatens all progress

The Pentagon’s response to the historic SCO gathering was to send U.S. B-52 bombers on maneuvers in the South China Sea on June 5. Earlier, on May 27, two warships sailed near the South China Sea islands claimed by China. China denounced U.S. militarization of the region and its willful trespassing as highly provocative.

While fighting among themselves at the G7 meeting, both Britain and France agreed to have their warships join the aggressive U.S. naval operation, labeled the “Freedom of Navigation Flotilla,” in the world’s most important shipping corridor.

It is hardly a coincidence that the announcement among these imperialist pirates was made in Singapore days ahead of Trump’s meeting with President Kim Jong un of the DPRK.

This old-fashioned gunboat diplomacy can’t stop the people of the world from pursuing development and communication.

*

This article was originally published on Workers World.

Sara Flounders is co-coordinator of the International Action Center.

The Atlantic Council describes itself as:

…an essential forum for navigating the dramatic economic and political changes defining the twenty-first century by informing and galvanizing its uniquely influential network of global leaders. Through the papers we write, the ideas we generate, and the communities we build, the Council shapes policy choices and strategies to create a more secure and prosperous world.

The Atlantic Council seeks to create this “secure and prosperous world” for its corporate-financier sponsors which include weapons manufacturers like Airbus, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing – big-oil interests like Chevron, BP, and ExxonMobil – big-banks like JP Morgan, Bank of America, and HSBC – and also governments and organizations like the US State Department itself, the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and NATO.

Yet despite the scale and scope of both the Atlantic Council’s mission and resources, its ability to influence public perception appears to be diminishing.

It has been in Syria in particular where the Atlantic Council’s influence has reached all time lows in both credibility and effectiveness. This is owed mainly to the fact that Atlantic Council “experts” are confined to armchairs in offices scattered across the West while alternative media sources are on the ground in Syria.

A recent piece co-authored by one of these Atlantic Council “experts” – Aaron Stein – along with US Army reserve officer Luke J. O’Brien – serves as an example of how ineffective the Atlantic Council and its sponsors have become in communicating narratives to the public.

Alleged Rationale for Syrian CW Use is Illogical at Face Value 

The article titled, “The Military Logic Behind Assad’s Use of Chemical Weapons” published in “War on the Rocks,” claims as its premise (emphasis added):

When Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime uses chemical weapons, as it has done on at least four different occasions in the past five years (August 2013, March 2017, April 2017, and April 2018), conspiracy theorists and Russian propaganda outlets immediately kick into gear to begin denying it. They posit that the Syrian regime would never use chemical weapons because, after all, it is already winning the civil war. Instead, these outlets suggest, the anti-Assad opposition (working with external powers) stages “false flag” events to provide excuses for an American military strike aimed at toppling the regime. 

These denials are absurd for a number of reasons, one of which is that there is an obvious – but often overlooked – rationale for the regime’s use of chemical weapons. The Syrian conflict has demonstrated the value of these weapons for Assad’s enemy-centric approach to counter-insurgent warfare, which is premised on the idea of using overwhelming force to punish local populations where insurgents are active. Rather than working to deliver services and stability to contested spaces to compel popular support, the intent is to re-establish central government control through naked aggression.

The article would claim that chemical weapons (CWs) are more psychologically damaging to targeted populations than conventional weapons. The article also makes the claim that to dislodge militants from even a moderately-sized structure, it would require upward to 147 unguided 155mm artillery shells. Thus CWs – Stein and O’Brien argue – are more efficient than conventional weapons.

The article claims that CWs can (emphasis added):

…seep into these buildings with relative ease, as long as the shells land even reasonably close to the target. In Syria as well as in other conflicts, the anti-Assad opposition has dug fairly sophisticated tunnel systems that are, in theory, impervious to the regime’s heavy artillery and unguided bombs. To effectively target these buried facilities, Assad has turned to chemical weapons, which often descend and concentrate in low-lying areas. The advantage is clear: The regime can ensure heavy casualties with a small amount of effort, either by incapacitating or killing combatants, or by terrorizing these groups and the civilians who live alongside them.

Yet in order for this narrative to be viable – readers would need to believe that the Syrian government had only encountered determined, well-entrenched enemies on “at least four different occasions in the past five years,” as admitted in the article’s opening paragraph – an utterly absurd notion at face value.

Even casual observers of the Syrian conflict are now familiar with the dense urban environments combat has taken place in, with literally hours of combat footage available even to the Atlantic Council’s office-bound “experts” to observe online, depicting Syrian combat operations using conventional weapons to dislodge militants from “moderately-sized structures,” immense structures, and even entire cities.

While Stein and O’Brien attempt to describe Syria deploying chemical weapons as a cheap and effective weapon of war to dislodge entrenched enemies, the fact that they themselves only cite four attacks in the past five years and the fact that the number of dead from those attacks – 1,620 by the West’s most politically-charged accusations – represents only 1.2% of the total number of militants killed or 0.45% of the total war dead since 2011 – reveal their premise as an inverted reality.

All Areas Syria “Used Chemical Weapons,” Still Held by Militants Afterwards 

Stein and O’Brien never explain how such limited use of chemical weapons – even if the Syrian government was the culprit in each case – afforded Damascus any significant advantage over the overwhelming use of conventional weapons Damascus is actually winning the war with.

In fact, all of the CW attacks they cited in their opening paragraph appear to indicate precisely the opposite.

The first attack cited by Stein and O’Brien was the 2013 Ghouta incident itself – Eastern Ghouta having only just been liberated by Syrian government forces in 2018 – 5 years after the alleged attack.

The second cited attack was in Ltamenah, Hama in 2017. Ltamenah – at the time of this writing – is still under militant control.

The third cited attack was the Khan Sheikhoun incident. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) would admit in its own report that its investigators were unable to access the actual site of the attack because it was still firmly held by anti-government militants. At the time of this writing – Khan Sheikhoun is also still held by militants.

The fourth and final incident cited by Stein and O’Brien was the recent Douma incident – in which allegations of CW attacks were made when the city was all but already taken by Syrian forces.

In other words – in 3 out of 4 cases cited by Stein and O’Brien themselves – CW attacks attributed to the Syrian government failed to produce any tactical or strategic advantage. In 2 out of 4 cases, militants still hold the areas the alleged attacks took place in. The fourth and final case was a chemical attack carried out when Syrian forces had already obtained victory through the use of conventional weapons.

Of course, there is another serious problem with claiming Damascus opted to use CWs in the absence of precision-guided munitions – Damascus does indeed have access to precision-guided munitions in the form of the Russian air force.

Syria Does Not Lack Precision Strike Capabilities 

The article attempts to make the argument that the Syrian government lacks “precision-guided munitions,” and thus has used CWs as a “cheap” substitute, claiming:

Unlike expensive precision-guided munitions (and the advanced command, control, communications, and intelligence systems needed to use them), even smaller and less advanced states can field chemical weapons programs relatively cheaply.

And:

If you’re an army forced to fight a war on the cheap, chemical weapons make a great deal of sense.

Yet this is entirely untrue. Syria does indeed have access to precision-guided munitions in the form of the Russian air force.

While Stein and O’Brien cite only four CW attacks they assign blame to the Syrian government for – to be charitable – consider the highly questionable UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria and its claims of over two dozen CW attacks attributed to Syrian government forces.

Compare that number to the number of daily Russian air sorties at various points since its 2015 military intervention in Syria on behalf of Damascus.

The Daily Beast – a decidedly anti-Moscow publication – would describe the tempo of Russian air operations in Syria in its 2016 article titled, “Russia Is Launching Twice as Many Airstrikes as the U.S. in Syria,” claiming (emphasis added):

Five months after the first Russian warplanes slipped into Syria to reinforce the embattled regime of President Bashar al-Assad, the Kremlin’s air wing near Latakia—on Syria’s Mediterranean coast in the heart of regime territory—has found its rhythm, launching roughly one air strike every 20 minutes targeting Islamic State militants, U.S.-backed rebels and civilians in rebel-controlled areas. 

“From Feb. 10 to 16, aircraft of the Russian aviation group in the Syrian Arab Republic have performed 444 combat sorties engaging 1,593 terrorist objects in the provinces of Deir Ez Zor, Daraa, Homs, Hama, Latakia and Aleppo,” the Russian defense ministry claimed in a statement.

From February 10 to February 16, 2016, Syria had at its disposal on average, 74 airstrikes per day – versus the 4 CW incidents in 5 years cited by Stein and O’Brien or the roughly 24 incidents the UN Commission of Inquiry dubiously accused Damascus of.

It is clear that Damascus had at its disposal a more effective and less politically controversial method of delivering effective firepower onto well-fortified targets than “CWs.” The Daily Beast itself admits in its article that Russian airpower was “tilting the balance of the war in Bashar al-Assad’s favor.”

Claims that Chemical Attacks Do Not Serve US Interests are also Absurd 

Stein and O’Brien also claim that the US has no means of intervening and toppling the Syrian government because of Russia’s military presence in Syria. The article claims:

Assad can count on the presence of Russian forces in Syria to act as a deterrent against strikes that could threaten regime stability. He can reasonably assume that American military action has to be refined to try and prevent unintended escalation, and will therefore be relatively small in scale.

However – it was the staged CWs attack in 2013 and subsequent attempts to cite such attacks as a basis for US-led regime change that – in part – prompted Russia’s direct military intervention in the first place.

The US is also currently occupying the vast majority of Syrian territory east of the Euphrates – an occupation originally predicated on fighting the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS). Yet with ISIS all but defeated, the US has justified its continued presence in Syria in part based on allegations of remaining CWs – meaning that again – Stein and O’Brien’s premise is refuted – this time by the very establishment their war propaganda is meant to serve.

The Guardian’s article, “US military to maintain open-ended presence in Syria, Tillerson says,” would report (emphasis added):

In his Stanford speech, [then US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson] laid out five US goals in Syria: the defeat of Isis and al-Qaida, a UN-brokered resolution for Syria that involved Bashar al-Assad’s departure, a curb on Iran, conditions for the safe return of refugees, and the complete elimination of remaining chemical weapons.

The Bottom Line

Claiming that Syria is using CWs as a “cheap” substitute for precision-guided munitions to dislodge militants from fortified positions contradicts reality both in terms of basic facts on the ground and logic. The fact that Stein and O’Brien failed to cite even one single instance where the use of CWs provided Damascus any measurable advantage tactically or strategically exposes their “analysis” as – at best – lazy war propaganda.

In fact, the four instances they do cite illustrate precisely the opposite – with militants remaining in control of contested territory after the use of these supposedly “cheap” and “effective” weapons.

Claiming that Damascus needs CWs for a lack of precision-guided munitions requires readers to ignore the fact that Russia has provided such capabilities to the Syrian government in the form of airstrikes since 2015, amounting on average to 74 a day at varying points in the conflict.

Claiming that the United States does not benefit from staging chemical attacks when the very pretext for its continued occupation of Syrian territory – according to the US Secretary of State – includes accusations of CW use by the Syrian government – at face value is a contradiction.

For the Atlantic Council and “War on the Rocks” which published Stein and O’Brien’s article, had their goal been serious analysis – finding actual experts is imperative. Had their goal been to produce convincing war propaganda – it is recommended that they find more skillful liars than Stein and O’Brien.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author.

Israelis are governed by civil law. Palestinians suffer under the oppressive yoke of unlawful militarized rule – their fundamental rights denied.

Military order 1797 is the latest example of extremist Israeli policy – apartheid ruthlessness by any standard, unrestrained because of full US support.

The world community, including the UN, has done nothing over many decades to challenge what no just societies tolerate.

International law is a nonstarter in Israel, repeatedly breached with impunity, accountability never forthcoming. Slow-motion genocide of an entire population continues unimpeded – notably in Gaza.

There’s no ambiguity about fundamental international law – binding on all nations, overriding their domestic laws, in America automatically US law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Clause 2) – for treaties and conventions it signed.

Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court bans “(d)eportation or forcible transfer of (a) population.”

Fourth Geneva’s Article 49 prohibits the forcible transfer or displacement of protected persons – nor may occupying powers legally shift any portion of their own population to territory they occupy.

The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal said forcible deportation of a population constitutes a war crime.

Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations requires an occupying power to respect and observe laws of the territory it occupies.

Israeli Military Order (MO) 1797 is all about unlawful ethnic cleansing. Established under Oslo II (1995), West Bank Area C comprises over 60% of the territory – controlled by Israel, the most valued occupied land along with East Jerusalem.

The MO more greatly empowers Israel’s Civil Administration to order demolitions of Palestinian homes and other structures – without the right of a hearing or appeal, excluding judicial authority to overrule what’s ordered.

Any Palestinian structure completed in the last six months, under construction, or inhabited for less than 30 days can be demolished within four days by order of a Civil Administration inspector – without near-impossible to get permit authorization to build.

The MO applies solely to Palestinians, not settlers. It’s all about slow-motion (extrajudicial) ethnic cleansing.

Israel wants all valued West Bank land annexed, the so-called “Green Line” erased, intolerant of a two-state solution it rejects – despite phony public posturing otherwise.

On Tuesday, the PA foreign ministry said Israel’s ethnic cleansing plan “imperils any opportunity for achieving peace based on the two-state solution; which is done through the continuous settlements expansion in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and in the borders alongside the Green Line, Jerusalem, and the Jordan Valley, in addition to the series of decisions and measures that facilitate the imposition of Israeli law in Area C in order to annex it.”

Extremist Israeli minister Naftali Bennett explained it, saying

“(t)he West Bank and all the settlements around it will soon become part of Israel.”

Commenting on his statement, the PA foreign ministry said:

“These statements are translated on the ground through their extraordinary measures, the latest of which is the Military Order 1797 which expands the powers granted to the so-called Civil Administration in demolishing Palestinians facilities, and evacuating area C from its Palestinians citizens,” adding:

“(T)he long series of colonial measures are continuously escalating for the purpose of Palestinian lands theft.”

“The latest notices were distributed by the Israeli occupation authorities yesterday to raze more than 29 dunums in the Jordan Valley, and the Israeli occupation forces handed over the order to seize more than 24 dunums in the villages of Yetma, Qabla and Qablan under military pretexts.”

“(S)eizing large areas of Beit Surik in order to expand the settlement of Mevaseret Zion will create a situation of urban colonial expansions at the expense of the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the rights of its citizens.”

“The Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu bears full and direct responsibility for these ongoing crimes and their consequences and prospects for peace and its sequences on the future of security and stability in the region.”

“The US administration also (is) directly responsibl(e) for the outcomes of its blind bias towards the occupation and its expansionist colonial policies.”

“The Ministry expresses its deep astonishment regarding the international community’s silence that claim their interest in the two state solution.”

“Israel is not held accountable and punished for its crimes which encourages the occupation to continue implementing its colonialist expansionist plans.”

MO 1797 is the latest Israeli ethnic cleansing action, part of its longterm plan for maximum Jews and minimum Arabs, systematically stealing historic Palestine – an unlawful agenda in flagrant violation of fundamental international law.

*

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

Tuesday’s Singapore summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un has set the stage for the sharpening of disputes in the Asia-Pacific, particularly with China, despite the apparent relaxation of tensions.

During his press conference in Singapore, Trump mixed promises with veiled threats. He said crippling economic sanctions on North Korea would remain in place and there would be no reduction of the 32,000 US troops in South Korea—3,500 more than usually reported—notwithstanding his vague references to bringing the troops home.

Trump said

the US “will be stopping the war games (with South Korea), which will save us a tremendous amount of money, unless and until we see the future negotiation is not going along like it should.”

Like his other statements, this nebulous promise can be easily abrogated, should Pyongyang fail to toe Washington’s line.

The declaration apparently caught US allies by surprise. South Korea’s presidential spokesman Kim Eui-gyeom said:

“For now, there still is a need to find out the exact meaning and intention of President Trump’s remarks.”

South Korean President Moon Jae-in is scheduled to meet US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Seoul on Thursday to discuss the summit. Pompeo will then head to Beijing.

Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera opposed Trump’s proposal, saying:

“The US-South Korean exercises and US forces in South Korea play significant roles for the security of East Asia.”

The massive war games send a regular threatening message to China, which is the true target of US and Japanese aggression.

US Forces Korea seemed to be taken by surprise, saying:

“In coordination with our ROK [South Korean] partners, we will continue with our current military posture until we receive updated guidance from the Department of Defense and/or Indo-Pacific Command.”

China’s response gave a clearer indication of the developing conflict. A Tuesday op-ed in China’s state-owned Global Times insisted that if North Korea was no longer a “threat,” then “there will be no grounds for the US and South Korea to continue large-scale military drills and for Washington to maintain its military presence in South Korea.”

Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang stated:

“China has consistently held that sanctions are not the goal in themselves. The [United Nations] Security Council’s actions should support and conform to the efforts of current diplomatic talks towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, and promote a political solution for the peninsula.”

China hopes to incorporate North Korea into its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), an infrastructure plan to connect Asia with Europe and Africa. A Global Timesarticle on Wednesday called for China to “gradually shift to economic assistance” to Pyongyang in order to bring it into the BRI.

Washington is whipping up further tensions with Beijing. On May 27, the US sailed two naval vessels within the 12-nautical-mile zone around the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea, risking a clash with the Chinese navy. Trump’s emerging trade war with Beijing could likewise lead to military conflict.

Trump used the summit with Kim to deliver North Korea an ultimatum: join the United States in the growing war drive against China or become a casualty on the road to such a conflagration.

Amid the growing confrontation with China, the US Democratic Party and its allies have uttered their usual empty phrases about “human rights.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi criticized Trump for “[elevating] North Korea to the level of the United States while preserving the regime’s status quo.”

The US media has largely denounced Trump for supposedly allowing China to emerge as the summit’s “winner.” Both the New York Times and Washington Post expressed anger at the apparent decision to cancel joint military exercises with South Korea.

The Times Nicholas Kristof, who regularly brays for imperialist war in the name of human rights, wrote an opinion piece, “Trump Was Outfoxed in Singapore.” He said:

“Trump has eased the tensions that he himself created when he threatened last fall to ‘totally destroy’ North Korea. I’m just not sure a leader should get credit for defusing a crisis that he himself created.”

For these layers, the US policies should continue to assert its hegemony in the Indo-Pacific region as aggressively as possible. They backed the Obama administration’s repudiation of the 2007 six-party agreement with Pyongyang, and its “pivot to Asia” to further militarize the region. They supported the decision to install a THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) battery in South Korea, escalating tensions with North Korea and China, and the deployment of massive strategic weaponry to the Korean Peninsula, which threatened Pyongyang with total destruction.

The Washington Post denounced Trump for supposedly yielding US ground in the Asia-Pacific:

“With backing from China and Russia, which seek to diminish US strategic standing in Asia, North Korea has long sought an end to the exercises—and until Tuesday, this and previous US administrations had flatly rejected the idea.”

This campaign against Trump is not based on his domestic brutalization of immigrants, the destruction of entire societies in the Middle East, or the numerous other violations of democratic rights Washington has carried out. For this affluent layer, their primary concern is that Trump is not fully using the military against China and Russia, lamenting any let-up in US aggression.

Whatever their disagreements, Trump and the Republicans, as well as the Democrats and their allies, will continue the preparations for great power conflicts as laid out by the Pentagon in January’s National Defense Strategy, which branded China and Russia as threats to America’s post-World War II hegemony.

The Key Word in the Trump-Kim Reality Show

June 17th, 2018 by Pepe Escobar

Featured image: South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un embrace each other after releasing a joint statement at the truce village of Panmunjeom, Friday. / Korea Summit Press Pool

The Trump-Kim geopolitical reality-TV show – surreal for some – offered unparalleled entries to the annals of international diplomacy. It will be tough to upstage the US President pulling an iPad and showing Kim Jong-un the cheesy trailer of a straight-to-video 1980s B-grade action movie – complete with a Sylvester Stallone cameo – casting the two leaders as heroes destined to save the world’s 7 billion people.

Away from the TV, the former “Rocket Man”, now respectfully recast in Trump terminology as “Chairman Kim”, did strike a formidable coup by completely erasing the dreaded acronym CVID – or “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization” – from the final text of the Singapore joint statement.

Throughout the pre-summit negotiations, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) had always stressed an “action-for-action” strategy leading to denuclearization, as in Pyongyang being compensated every step of the way instead of waiting until after complete denuclearization – a process that could last over a decade – to be eligible for economic benefits.

The Singapore joint statement enshrines exactly what the Russia-China strategic partnership – formalized in the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit – was suggesting from the beginning: a double freeze.

The DPRK holds off on any new nuclear and missile tests while the US and South Korea stop the “war games” (Trump’s terminology).

This logical sequence of the Sino-Russian roadmap is based on what South Korean President Moon Jae-in agreed with Kim Jong-un at the inter-Korean summit last April. And that ties in with what North Korea, South Korea and Russia had already discussed at the Far East summit in Vladivostok last September, as Asia Times reported; economic integration between Russia and the two Koreas, including the crucial connectivity of a future Trans-Korean railway with the Trans-Siberian.

Once again, this is all about Eurasia integration; increased trade between North Korea and Northeast China, concerning mostly Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjiang provinces; and total, physical connectivity of both Koreas to the Eurasian heartland.

That’s yet another instance of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) meeting the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU). And not by accident South Korea wants to connect deeper with both BRI and the EAEU. 

When in doubt, re-read Panmunjom

The Singapore joint statement is not a deal; it’s a statement. The absolutely key item is number 3: “Reaffirming the April 27, 2018, Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

This means that the US and North Korea will work towards denuclearization not only in what concerns the DPRK but the whole Korean Peninsula.

Much more than “…the DPRK commits to work toward the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula”, the keywords are in fact    “reaffirming the April 27, 2018, Panmunjom Declaration…”  

Even before Singapore, everyone knew the DPRK would not “de-nuke” (Trump terminology) for nothing, especially when promised just some vague US “guarantees”.

Predictably, both US neocon and humanitarian imperialist factions are unanimous in their fury, blasting the absence of “meat” in the joint statement. In fact there’s plenty of meat. Singapore reaffirms the Panmunjom Declaration, which is a deal between North Korea and South Korea.

By signing the Singapore joint statement, Washington has been put on notice of the Panmunjom Declaration. In law, when you take notice of a fact, you can’t ignore it later. The DPRK’s commitment to denuclearize in the Singapore statement is a reaffirmation of its commitment to denuclearize in the Panmunjom Declaration, with all of the conditions attached to it. And Trump acknowledged that by signing the Singapore statement.

The Panmunjom Declaration stresses that:

“South and North Korea confirmed the common goal of realizing, through complete denuclearization, a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula. South and North Korea shared the view that the measures being initiated by North Korea are very meaningful and crucial for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and agreed to carry out their respective roles and responsibilities in this regard. South and North Korea agreed to actively seek the support and cooperation of the international community for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

That’s the commitment. “International community”, as everyone knows, is code for the US as The Great Decider. If Washington does not bring back its military from South Korea, there will be no denuclearization. Essentially, that’s the deal discussed between Kim and President Xi Jinping in their two crucial, pre-Singapore meetings. Get the US out of the peninsula, and we have your back. 

So all focus should be on “reaffirming”, the key word in the Singapore joint statement. 

In recent days, speculation has swirled regarding whether another chemical-weapons attack will soon take place in Syria, as sources in both Syrian intelligence and the Russian military have warned that U.S.-backed forces in the U.S.-occupied region of Deir ez-Zor are planning to stage a chemical weapons attack to be blamed on the Syrian government.

Concern that such an event could soon take place has only grown since the U.S. government announcement this past Thursday that the U.S. would provide $6.6 million over the next year to fund the White Helmets, the controversial “humanitarian” group that has been accused of staging “false flag” chemical weapons attacks in the past. Notably, the White Helmets were largely responsible for staging the recent alleged chlorine gas attack in Eastern Ghouta, which led the United States, the United Kingdom and France to attack Syrian government targets. That same attack in Eastern Ghouta had been predicted weeks prior by the Russian military and Syrian government, who are warning once again that a similar event is likely to occur in coming weeks.

An additional and largely overlooked indication that another staged attack could soon take place has been the recent movements of U.S. military assets to the Syrian coast, particularly the deployment of the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group (HSTCSG).

As MintPress previously reported, the deployment of the HSTCSG – which consists of some 6,500 sailors — was first announced in April prior to the U.S., France and U.K. bombing of Syria. However, the group did not arrive until after that bombing had taken place.

While the April bombing was called a “one-time shot” by U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, the fact that the Truman strike group’s deployment to the region was not canceled after the bombings occurred led some to suggest that the U.S. may have been anticipating more strikes against Syria’s government in the coming months. Indeed, soon after the U.S.-led bombing of Syria, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, declared the U.S. was “locked and loaded” should the Syrian government again be accused of using chemical weapons.

Now, amid claims from both the Syrian and Russian governments of another chemical weapons provocation, as well as the U.S.’ renewed funding of the White Helmets, the strike group’s deployment directly off the Syrian coast has only given greater credence to those previously voiced concerns.

According to a recent announcement from the U.S. Navy:

Bringing the Harry S. Truman strike group back into the fight against ISIS sends a powerful message to our partners that we are committed to peace and security in the region, and anywhere threatened by international terrorism. Once again, we demonstrate the incredible flexibility and capabilities of a carrier strike group: we are combat-proven and ready to answer the call anytime and anywhere to carry out any mission we are directed [sic].”

The statement also noted that fighter squadrons would be working with the strike group to “conduct precision strikes on ISIS targets” as part of the U.S. coalition’s Operation Inherent Resolve, which claims to be aimed at eliminating the presence of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In addition to the strike group, a report from SouthFront last month provided evidence that the U.S. had recently established a military garrison near the Jafra oil field, the exact location cited by both Syrian and Russian sources as the likely location for the future staging of a chemical weapons attack.

Fog of war: U.S. aiding the very terrorists it vowed to exterminate

While the U.S. has publicly claimed to be moving military assets as part of its campaign against ISIS, the fact that the U.S. has recently been accused of aiding ISIS in Syria — both as a pretext for its indefinite occupation of Syria’s Northeast and as a means of distracting and weakening the Syrian government that it has long sought to topple — casts doubt on the official narrative.

Indeed, since the U.S. and its proxy force, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), took control of northeastern Syria – nearly a third of the entire country – last November, neither group has done anything to target the ISIS pockets in the area until the recent June 4 announcement by Mattis that the U.S. and the SDF had “re-commenced” their offensive after a lengthy hiatus. The U.S. has yet to offer an explanation for the hiatus and reports have not yet surfaced regarding the specific actions of the new offensive to target ISIS.

However, during the “hiatus”, and despite its occupation of the territory, the U.S. has re-trained ISIS fighters and regrouped them into small militias which have been placed under the SDF banner. In addition, SDF defectors have asserted that the U.S. and SDF regularly collaborate with the terror group.

U.S.-backed anti-government Syrian rebels surround a piece of artillery while speaking to an American special forces member in Southern Syria near Tanf. (Hammurabi’s Justice News/AP)

Unidentified U.S.-backed Syrian rebels surround a piece of artillery during training by American special forces member in Southeastern Syria near Tanf. (Source: Hammurabi’s Justice News)

More recently, the U.S. again threatened the Syrian government over the latter’s planned offensive aimed at removing militant groups from the Dara’a governorate in the south of Syria. On Friday, the U.S. State Department announced that the U.S. would issue a “decisive response” if the offensive goes forward as planned. Given that the militants in the Dara’a governorate are either ISIS, Al Qaeda or their affiliates, the U.S. threat against a Syrian military offensive targeting these groups has been largely interpreted as a U.S. move actually aimed at protecting ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Given that the U.S. has been documented to be retraining ISIS fighters and protecting ISIS in the portion of Syria it occupies and elsewhere in the country, the movement of U.S. military assets such as the Truman strike group suggests that the official claim that those assets will be used in “the fight against ISIS” may not be what it appears.

Indeed, accusations by Russia and Syria of an imminent “false flag” chemical weapons attack, as well as the U.S.’ renewed funding of the White Helmets to the tune of over $6 million, instead suggest that the Truman strike group’s new deployment to Syria is in preparation for the U.S.’ predetermined response to anticipated accusations regarding the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

*

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile.


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

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

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

Selected Articles: Korea, China, Syria, Palestine

June 17th, 2018 by Global Research News

Dear Readers,

More than ever, Global Research needs your support. Our task as an independent media is to “Battle the Lie”.

“Lying” in mainstream journalism has become the “new normal”: mainstream journalists are pressured to comply. Some journalists refuse.

Lies, distortions and omissions are part of a multibillion dollar propaganda operation which sustains the “war narrative”.

While “Truth” is a powerful instrument, “the Lie” is generously funded by the lobby groups and corporate charities. And that is why we need the support of our readers.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no turning backwards. 

Support Global Research.

*     *     *

Pro-GMO Activism and Smears Masquerade as Journalism: From Seralini to Jairam Ramesh, Aruna Rodrigues Puts the Record Straight

By Colin Todhunter and Aruna Rodrigues, June 17, 2018

Rodrigues accuses Sandhya Ramesh of dubbing anything that is a proper critique of GMOs based on ‘independent’ science (the distinction is important) as the work of ‘anti-GMO’ activists. She argues that a properly researched piece would have entailed weeks of serious research into the various studies carried out by Seralini and his team over the last decade as well as the reappraisal of Bt brinjal (October 2009 to February 2010) ordered by Jairam Ramesh.

Trump Wants to Free America from “Fool Trade” and Flip the Tables on the EU

By Andrew Korybko, June 17, 2018

Tweeting from Singapore after the failed G7 Summit in Canada, the President wrote that “Fair Trade is now to be called Fool Trade if it is not Reciprocal”, before explaining how Canada and Germany “rip off” the US through their own protectionist tariffs and insufficient contributions to NATO, respectively.

Aftermath of the Trump-Kim Summit: Unilateral Denuclearization, Continued US Military Threats, Economic Sanctions

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 17, 2018

ROK president Moon had demanded the suspension of the US-ROK war games directed against the DPRK to no avail.

Under the US-ROK combined forces command, all South Korean Forces fall under US command. The South Korean president is not the Commander in Chief and cannot under any circumstances veto the conduct of joint war games.

Trump Approves $50 Billion in Tariffs on Chinese Goods

By Stephen Lendman, June 16, 2018

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

Drivers Behind the War on Syria and the Impoverishment of Us All

By Mark Taliano, June 16, 2018

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

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

What’s in Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’? The Answers Are in Plain Sight

By Jonathan Cook, June 16, 2018

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Korea, China, Syria, Palestine

In the six weeks that President Donald Trump‘s “heartless and cruel” family separation policy has been in effect, nearly 2,000 immigrant children have been separated from their families, according Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data obtained by the Associated Press and published on Friday.

The staggering figure—which averages out to 47 children ripped from their parents’ arms each day—comes as Trump and the Republican Party continue to lie about the White House’s responsibility for the so-called “zero tolerance” policy that made family separation a consistent practice.

According to the DHS figures, “1,995 minors were separated from 1,940 adults from April 19 through May 31,” the AP reports.

When Trump was asked about his administration’s family separation policy during a press gaggle on the White House lawn on Friday before the DHS numbers were made public, the president claimed to “hate” that children are been taken from their families and stated falsely:

“Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law.”

The crowd of reporters tried repeatedly to explain to Trump that his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions, is responsible for the family separation policy and that he could change it at any time—but Trump pressed on, unphased by the facts.

Watch:

*

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri.

Bolivian President Evo Morales said Saturday that Latin America “is no longer the United States’ backyard” while denouncing the United States’ attempt to convince its South American allies to help it orchestrate a military intervention or coup in Venezuela.

In an interview with news agency EFE, Morales explained that several Latin American leaders have confided in him that U.S. Vice president Mike Pence is “trying to convince some United States-friendly countries” help them seize control of the South American country and replace the current government led by Nicolas Maduro.

The real target, Morales explained, is not the Venezuelan president but “Venezuelan oil, and Venezuelans know that.”

Drawing parallels to 2011 military intervention in Libya, Morales said the U.S. isn’t interested in helping with alleged humanitarian crisis since, despite the current political and social turmoil in Libya, the U.S. will not intervene there since “the country’s oil is now owned by the U.S. and some European oil companies,” Morales asserted.

“One military intervention (in the region) would only create another armed conflict,” he added pointing to Colombia’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as a general sign of an escalation of “military aggression to all Latin America and the Caribbean” region.

Morales explained, however, that U.S. interventionism is not only militaristic.

“When there are no military coups, they seek judicial or congressional coups” as in the case of former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff‘s impeachment and the Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s imprisonment, which is barring him from running in the upcoming 2018 elections.

“I am certain we will free Lula. If he returns, some countries in Latin America will again strengthen the ideological, programmatic and liberation struggle against the North American empire,” Morales said.

The SCO and G7 Meetings Point to Different Worlds

June 17th, 2018 by James ONeill

Two meetings of considerable geopolitical significance took place last weekend. They could not have been more different in tone and outcome. Each in their way were representative of the fundamental realignment that is taking place in the world order, and each points to a very different future.

The first of these meetings was the G7 (or G6+1 as some of the participants described it) in Québec City Canada. Attending were political leaders of the six largest (as measured by GDP) of western industrial nations and Japan.

The American President Donald Trump did not bother to conceal his fundamental scorn for his alleged friends and allies. He arrived late, made little or nothing by way of a significant contribution, and left early. On his plane en route to a meeting in Singapore with North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un he resiled from the joint memorandum supposedly agreed to in Québec, and added some personal and bitter insults about the meeting’s host, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau.

Prior to arriving at the meeting, Trump had thrown a verbal bomb, suggesting that it was time that Russia was invited back into the group from which it had been suspended in 2014.

The European members of the G7, with the possible exception of Italy, were less than enthusiastic about Trump’s unheralded suggestion. Implicit in Trump’s suggestion was that if the other members agreed Russia would in fact rejoin the G7. It is indicative of just how out of touch with geopolitical realities the G7politicians actually are.

The Russian response was directly to the point: “we are,” they said, “focusing on other formats.”

Those ‘other formats’ are a range of multilateral arrangements in which Russia is one of the key players. They include for example the Brazil, India, China, South Africa (BRICS) Association who between them account for more than 40% of the world’s population. In 2018 three of them (China, India and Brazil) were, according to the IMF, in the top 10 of the world’s biggest economies. Perhaps needless to add, none of them are members of the G7.

The second key group central to Russia’s ‘other formats is the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) whose most important member economically and politically is Russia. Even more importantly, the EAEU has signed major cooperation agreements with the China instigated Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It has also signed a free trade agreement with Iran, to come into effect in 2020. Iran is a pivotal nation in all of the Eurasian and beyond multilateral agreements that are not only already in place, but are having a steadily mounting economic, financial and geopolitical impact.

The third grouping and a one having its annual meeting in Qingdao, China, is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). It was not by coincidence that the SCO meeting took place in Shandong Province, which is the birthplace of Confucius.

It was not a coincidence because in his opening remarks to the conference, China’s President Xi Jinping specifically quoted from Confucius’s teachings on a just cause being pursued for the common good. The Confucian philosophy’s emphasis on unity and harmony was reflected in Xi’s 2013 speech in Astana when he set out his vision for the BRI. That philosophy is incorporated in what is now known is the Shanghai Spirit; i.e. mutual trust, mutual benefit, and an emphasis on equality, consultation and respect for the diversity of civilisations.

Again without laboring the point, the contrast with the dominant ethos of the G7 group could not be greater.

The SCO meeting was the first to be held since Pakistan and India were admitted as full members in 2017. These two nations have a difficult history, but contrary to the expectations of many western commentators, they have nonetheless agreed to seek a resolution of their differences within the SCO framework.

Significantly, India and Pakistan have also agreed to work together to solve the seemingly intractable Afghanistan war, itself brought about by the illegal intervention and occupation of the United States and its allies. Unsurprisingly, the United States is not participating in this attempted peace process, which also includes Russia, China and Iran.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser to former United States President Jimmy Carter, and the principal architect of Operation Cyclone that gave birth to Al Qaeda, wrote in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard, that the strategic imperative for the United States was to prevent the rise of any national grouping of nations that could challenge US political, economic and military hegemony. He specifically nominated an alliance of Russia, China and “perhaps Iran” as the most dangerous scenario.

United States foreign policy since Brzezinski’s book has certainly striven to achieve this outcome, but ironically those policies have had the opposite effect. One unintended consequence has been a ‘look East’ policy by an increasing number of European nations. American sanctions, not only on its perceived enemies such as Russia and Iran, but also to its European “allies” who have the temerity to adhere to the spirit and the letter of the JCPOA, is causing a reappraisal by the Europeans as to where their national interest truly lies.

Of even greater consequence, China and Russia, through a combination of factors including complementary economies and resources, and the certain knowledge that they are more secure together than apart, have forged an increasingly close relationship. So much so in fact, that in Qingdao President Xi presented President Putin with a unique Medal of Friendship. Xi not only described Russia as China’s “best ally”, he also used the phrase “strategic partnership” for the first time in a public forum.

Twenty years after Brzezinski’s book, and 11 years after Putin’s seminal speech to the Munich security conference, the shape of a new political order is forming at an accelerating pace.

BRICS, SCO and the EAEU are similarly spearheading the drive away from the United States dollar as the medium of international trade. A slew of other countries, in Africa, the Middle East and South America are following suit. The gold backed Yuan convertible Note; a similar arrangement being negotiated with the London Metals Exchange; trading in national currencies and the development of CHIPS to replace the American dominated SWIFT system of international exchange are all part of the fundamental realignment taking place. The foundations of US hegemony are being rapidly eroded and short of a catastrophic war there is nothing they can do about it.

That does not mean they won’t try. They will undoubtedly cause enormous problems in doing so, not to mention the chaos inherent in a dysfunctional American leadership and their lack of a coherent strategic plan. Attempting to dictate outcomes and expecting blind adherence by its “allies” no longer suffices.

By contrast, the SCO conference has shown with abundant clarity however, that policies based on mutual respect, mutual benefit and respect for the sovereignty of others will trump (no pun intended) the fading imperialism of the self- interested and squabbling group that gathered in Québec.

*

James O’Neill is an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pro-GMO Activism and Smears Masquerade as Journalism: From Seralini to Jairam Ramesh, Aruna Rodrigues Puts the Record Straight

The Impact of War: Mental Health of Syrian Children

June 17th, 2018 by Hanaa Mustafa

In the wake of the Syrian crisis, I started experiencing physical pain and chronic fatigue. One day I saw a neurologist who asked for blood tests and MRI scan. After examining my results, he told me I was fine and that there was nothing to worry about. For me, it did not make sense. “What about the headaches, exhaustion and fatigue I am getting?” I asked. He briefly explained that sometimes emotional stress manifests itself as physical illness. I left baffled, but deep inside I knew what was wrong with me. What my country was going through was eating me up. This incident made me wonder about the war’s psychological effects on children. The war’s impact must be far greater on the younger generation of Syria. Almost each one of the kids I was teaching had a heartrending story to tell and some of them witnessed unspeakable tortures. Therefore, I started raising questions and seeking answers, regarding mental health awareness among children, which I wanted to share with you.

Unfortunately, during times of war and trauma, mental health is sometimes relegated or considered unimportant. Realizing the significance of mental health might be halfway through helping children. Wendy Smith, an American therapist, discussed in a TED Talk the importance of raising mental health awareness among children:

“Millions of our kids are suffering alone because they and we lack information we need.”

Therefore, a mental-health literate child can recognize his own symptoms and is, therefore, able to seek help. When I asked Dr. Tayseer Hassoun, Syrian psychiatrist, about the ways in which we could raise awareness inside schools, he suggested that:

“mental health should be smoothly integrated into the curricula. Besides, school medical officers should be trained to detect any mental health disorders among children and adolescents”.

Whereas, Ms. Shirin Khalil, Syrian therapist and trainer, highlighted the importance of training all school staff. Hassoun and Khalil were in charge of training over forty psychosocial supporters. However, Khalil thinks that step to be a drop in the bucket:

“All school staff should be trained including teachers and school principals”.

The problem does not only stem from the lack of mental health services. The social stigma related to mental health often prevents people from seeking help. According to the UK Mental Health Foundation, stigma might even “worsen someone’s mental health problems”. Some people in our society still use terms such as “crazy, schizophrenic, psycho…etc” as insulting words. Dr. Hassoun believes that working on erasing mental health stigma won’t be effective unless it is embedded in the programmes targeted towards children. It would be very useful, for instance, to discuss with pupils the importance of some stigmatized professions such as psychiatry. It seems, however, that mental health stigma in Syria has dramatically decreased.

“More medical health services are being provided and the demand for those services is increasing. Many parents are contacting me to inquire about their children’s mental health state. This is an unprecedented improvement. In the past, parents never considered seeing a psychotherapist” Khalil added.

What Tayseer and Khalil implied is that looking for solutions and offering help should not only be the responsibility of Psychiatrists and therapists. Each one of us has a part to take in helping Syrian children. In fact, I have encountered many cases throughout my teaching experience in which I felt utterly impotent. After the Syrian crisis, teachers found themselves needing to play different roles in classrooms. The role of an educator does not suffice anymore. Dr. Hassoun stressed the significance of the teacher’s role in improving children’s mental health “since they are role models for their pupils”. He added that

“pupils learn much from their teachers’ behavior and they are affected by the way those teachers interact with them. Therefore, corporal punishment and verbal abuse must not be used by teachers”.

Since teachers are the second most important care providers for children, they may either improve or worsen children’s mental health”.

Nonetheless, many Syrian teachers are suffering on different levels as well. The question is whether it is fair or logical to demand them to take part in the healing process of children. Khalil argues that many humanitarian workers are helping others despite the horrors they have been exposed to since the beginning of the crisis. Thus,

“teachers can do so effectively if they are trained and provided with variant tools. Moreover, supporting children can be healing to the teachers themselves”.

In addition to the roles of parents and teachers, children can, in fact, help themselves by implementing stress management techniques. Dr. Hassoun said that

“breathing techniques, drawing, playing music, and participating in other creative activities such as acting, narrating stories and reciting poetry” can greatly reduce anxiety among young students.

In conclusion, there are so many things we need to learn as teachers. But, not getting the right training is not a justification for not acting and reaching out to children who are suffering in silence. Let’s start rethinking our approach and questioning our old inherited habits. When I asked Ms. Khalil for the piece of advice she would give to teachers, she responded:

“Love. With love we can help others lead better lives”.

*

Source

Stigma and discrimination: https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/a-to-z/s/stigma-and-discrimination

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Impact of War: Mental Health of Syrian Children
  • Tags:

The siege of Yemen’s Red Sea port of Hodeidah launched by Saudi and United Arab Emirates-led forces at dawn on Wednesday could cost the lives of some quarter of a million people in the crowded city itself, according to a UN estimate, while threatening to kill millions more across the country through hunger and disease.

Inflicting mass suffering upon civilians is the main purpose of the attack on Hodeidah, which is the principal lifeline for food, fuel and medicine for at least 70 percent of the population in a country that depends on imports for up to 90 percent of its food. The aim is to starve the impoverished Yemeni people into submission.

The battle for the city, the most crowded urban area in Yemen, with a population of between 400,000 and 600,000 people, promises to be the bloodiest since Saudi Arabia launched its war against the Yemeni population in March 2015 with the aim of toppling the rule of Houthi rebels and reinstalling the puppet regime of Riyadh and Washington headed by Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi.

In the little more than three years since the war began, at least 13,000 have been killed, the overwhelming majority of them civilian victims of Saudi air strikes. The toll exacted by the cut-off of food and medicine and the destruction of basic infrastructure inflicted by the Saudi-led blockade and air war, however, has been massively higher.

Last year alone, some 50,000 Yemeni children starved to death—roughly 1,000 every week—according to the aid group, Save the Children. One million Yemenis are infected with cholera, an epidemic that has claimed the lives of nearly 2,500 people. As part of its preparations for the Hodeidah offensive, Saudi warplanes bombed a cholera clinic run by Doctors without Borders.

This total war against an entire population, of the likes carried out by Hitler’s Third Reich three-quarters of a century ago, would be impossible without the uninterrupted support—military and political—of US imperialism since its outset.

The US, together with its main NATO allies the UK and France, has supplied the planes, warships, bombs, missiles and shells used to devastate Yemen and slaughter its people. In his eight years in office, President Barack Obama presided over some $115 billion in arms sales to the monarchical dictatorship in Riyadh. The Trump administration, which has sought to forge an anti-Iran axis with Saudi Arabia, the other reactionary Gulf oil sheikhdoms and Israel, has touted arms deals with Riyadh that potentially would amount to $110 billion.

The Pentagon has given direct and indispensable aid to the Saudi-led onslaught, providing midair refueling for the planes that bomb Yemeni civilians, staffing a joint command center in Riyadh with US intelligence and logistics officers and reinforcing the Saudi-UAE blockade of the country with American warships. Recently, US Green Berets have been deployed with Saudi ground forces to assist in their anti-Yemen operations. Under the banner of the “war on terror”, the Pentagon is waging its own air war in Yemen, conducting at least 130 air and drone strikes in 2017, quadruple the number in 2016.

The Trump administration gave the go-ahead for the current siege of Hodeidah in the form of a statement from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announcing that he had spoken with the rulers of the UAE and “made clear our desire to address their security concerns.” Pentagon officials have reported that US officers are helping to select targets in the port city.

Given the scale of the unfolding catastrophe in Yemen and the criminal role played by the US government, it is noteworthy that the American corporate media has largely ignored the siege of Hodeidah, much as it did with the US sieges that reduced the cities of Mosul in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria to rubble, killing tens of thousands, or, for that matter, the estimates of the number of civilians killed in the US war to topple Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, which ranged between 500,000 and a million.

Yemen is emblematic of the world situation three decades after the dissolution of the Soviet Union unleashed a period of continuous war and unrestrained imperialist violence.

War crimes on the scale of those committed in the 1930s and 1940s have become almost commonplace. Civilian populations can be massacred; refugees from the US southern border to the Mediterranean can be treated with the methods of the Gestapo; the Israeli military can gun down unarmed Palestinian demonstrators with impunity, defended by Washington–all barely raising an eyebrow in the corporate press.

An exception to the media silence was a pair of shamefaced editorials that appeared Thursday in the New York Times and the Washington Post. Reeking of hypocrisy, both of them expressed a certain amount of unease within the US ruling establishment over the events in Yemen.

The Times editorial notes that the war has resulted in “countless civilian deaths, many attributed to indiscriminate coalition bombing attacks.” It adds,

“Under international law, these attacks may qualify as war crimes in which the United States and Britain, another arms supplier, are complicit.”

The Washington Post warns:

“…the United States, which already has been supplying its two allies with intelligence, refueling and munitions, will be complicit if the result is what aid officials say it could be: starvation, epidemics and other human suffering surpassing anything the world has seen in decades.”

That both newspapers of record of the US ruling establishment use the word “complicit” in describing Washington’s role in Yemen has an undeniable significance. In legal terms, complicity means that someone is held criminally accountable for aiding and abetting the commission of a crime.

In the case of Yemen, the complicity is with war crimes on a world historic scale that could never have been committed without the aiding and abetting of US imperialism.

Based on the legal principles and criteria employed in the Nuremberg trials that sent the surviving leaders of Hitler’s Third Reich to the gallows or prison, there are many in Washington who should today be facing prosecution and the fate of life in prison or worse for the crimes committed in Yemen.

This includes not just Trump and those in his administration directly involved in the Yemen atrocities—Pompeo, Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis, Nikki Haley and other top officials in the military and intelligence apparatus—but also their predecessors, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Ashton Carter, Susan Rice and others responsible for initiating the US support for the Saudi-led war.

Based on the Nuremberg precedent, the CEOs of companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Raytheon that have made billions out of supplying the arms used to murder Yemeni men, women and children would likewise be on trial, as would political leaders of both major parties that have supported US policy and representatives of a mass media that has functioned shamelessly as an instrument of war propaganda.

Alongside them in this crowded defendants’ dock, room would have to be made for their British counterparts from the governments of Prime Minister Theresa May and David Cameron along with their respective foreign policy, military and intelligence officials, as well as British arms dealers who have reaped massive profits off of the bloodbath in Yemen.

The reality, however, is that none of the war criminals in Washington and London will be called to account for their crimes in Yemen—or for that matter those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and beyond—without the mobilization of the American and British working class, united in struggle with the working people of Yemen, the rest of the Middle East and the entire planet. Under conditions in which the mass killing in Yemen and the broader Middle East threatens to coalesce into region-wide and even world war, the fight to build a mass antiwar movement based on the working class and the youth and directed against the capitalist system is the most urgent political task of the day.

*

Featured image is from Yemen Press.

Trump promised to replace what he termed as “fool trade” with fair trade when it comes to America’s economic partnerships, especially those with NAFTA and the EU.

Tweeting from Singapore after the failed G7 Summit in Canada, the President wrote that “Fair Trade is now to be called Fool Trade if it is not Reciprocal”, before explaining how Canada and Germany “rip off” the US through their own protectionist tariffs and insufficient contributions to NATO, respectively. Trump’s sour that their leaders attacked him for his “Make America Great Again” steel and aluminum tariffs while hypocritically ignoring their own lopsided economic relations with the US, and he believes that now is the time to make right for what he truly believes are the historic wrongs that his predecessors committed in voluntarily handicapping American power. Proverbially speaking, the President conceptualizes America as Gulliver the “giant” tied down by a bunch of Lilliputian dwarves, albeit having previously put itself in this submissive position out of some sort of ideological masochistic-sadism that Trump wants to free it from.

The Cold War-era quid pro quo of the US providing costly security assistance to its NATO allies in order to enable them to concentrate more fully on building their utopian welfare states is no longer relevant because of the changing nature of geopolitics and the rise of asymmetrical threats, though Clinton, Bush, and Obama perpetuated this state of affairs because it advanced the Liberal-Globalist model that all three of them were pursuing at the expense of average Americans. Having entered into office because of the desperation that millions of regular folks in Middle America are experiencing as a result of the domestically catastrophic consequences of globalization on the American Heartland and especially the Midwest, Trump feels obligated to do something about this massive self-inflicted economic wound that’s bleeding hundreds of billions of dollars from the country each year for voluntary reasons that are impossible for this businessman to fathom.

Trump meets Trudeau

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (R) meets with U.S. President Donald Trump during the G7 Summit in the Charlevoix town of La Malbaie, Quebec, Canada, June 8, 2018 (Source: Oriental Review)

Transforming “fool trade” back into fair trade will harmonize this imbalance, at least from the US’ perspective, though it’ll be detrimental to its semi-socialist partners who have grown accustomed to having the “big brother” that they love to complain about so much subsidizing their militaries and de-facto doing the same for their economies through this decades-long legacy of uneven trading arrangements that Trump now wants to change. The far-reaching consequences of the Europeans losing out on this multibillion-dollar bonanza are that their domestic growth and social stability will undoubtedly suffer while the elite scramble to appease the masses as they frantically try to negotiate more favorable trading terms with the US. America can deal with an indefinite disruption of transatlantic trade much better than the Europeans can, and Trump’s betting that he can exploit the resultant geopolitical tumult in order to strengthen the US’ unipolar control over the EU.

*

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.

Michel Chossudovsky reporting from Seoul, South Korea, June 16, 2018

**

The Trump-Kim Summit Joint Statement includes an unwavering commitment on the part of the DPRK to carry out a complete denuclearization namely the abandonment of North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

In exchange for what?

Nothing on the part of the US.

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

The economic sanctions regime prevails.

Empty promises of guaranteed security? Under the terms of  the 1953 armistice agreement, the U.S. is still at war with the DPRK.

The history of the US led war against Korea and its aftermath are not mentioned. In the course of the Korean war (1950-53), thirty percent of the North Korean population was wiped out, 38 towns and cities were transformed into rubble.

And the media casually portrays the DPRK as a threat to global security.

The Joint Statement was extremely precise with regard to the DPRK’s commitment to “denuclearization”.

If negotiations regarding “denuclearization” break down, Trump had threatened to implement a new set of sanctions:

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

ROK president Moon had demanded the suspension of the US-ROK war games directed against the DPRK to no avail.

Under the US-ROK combined forces command, all South Korean Forces fall under US command. The South Korean president is not the Commander in Chief and cannot under any circumstances veto the conduct of joint war games.

The suspension of the May US-ROK “war games” were used as a means to enforce a unilateral process of denuclearization: 

“president Trump agreed to suspend military exercises with South Korea in return for a commitment to denuclearisation from North Korea.

“Trump said the war games were expensive and “very provocative”, and yet stopping them has been called a “major concession”, something the US has previously rejected as non-negotiable on the grounds that the exercises are a key element of its military alliance with Seoul”

What is striking in the formulation of this Joint Statement is the absence of a legal framework.

The 1953 armistice agreement prevails. The three countries (DPRK, China, U.S.) are still at war. The armistice agreement is simply not mentioned. Will it be rescinded? In turn, the Korean peninsula is militarized. More than 28 thousand troops are stationed in the ROK.

The US has a joint defense agreement with the ROK. Will that agreement be rescinded. The terms of the Kim-Moon Panmunjom Declaration, would require the scrapping of the combined forces command which puts South Korean forces under the command of a four star general appointed by the Pentagon. While the Singapore Joint Statement acknowledges that the DPRK would carry out “denuclearization” under the terms of the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the U.S. does not in any way signify its endorsement of the inter-Korean dialogue.

Unilateral Denuclearization

The Joint Statement requires the DPRK to abandon its nuclear weapons program, while ensuring the continued development of the US nuclear weapons program under a 1.2 trillion dollar project.

The deployment of America’s nuclear arsenal Worldwide will also be pointed at Korea: unilateral denuclearization on the part of the DPRK does not ensure the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Quite the opposite: it favors a move towards hegemonic control over nuclear weapons by the US and its NATO allies.

GRTV Video: Michel Chossudovsky reporting from Seoul, South Korea

What comes Next? The Insidious Role of Mike Pompeo

The Joint Statement confirms that Secretary of State Michael Pompeo will be in charge of the negotiations which up to now have been conducted by means of threats of military action, intimidation and continued economic sanctions.

In the lead up to the Singapore Summit, the CIA under Mike Pompeo played a key role in the negotiations. He was in Pyongyang for talks with Kim Jong-un on the Easter weekend which preceded the Singapore summit.

Followup negotiations are to be carried out by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and White House National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Neither of these Trump appointees are committed to peace. It is worth noting that back in May 2017, the DPRK had accused the CIA and its counterparts of South Korea’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) also know as the KCIA of plotting to assassinate Chairman Kim. (This accusation was also directed against the KCIA team under impeached president Park).

Barely six months later, in October 2017, Mike Pompeo intimated in a public statement that Kim Jong-un was on the hit list of the CIA’s political assassination program (which confirmed that the DPRK’s earlier statement regarding an alleged assassination attempt was not out of the blue).

Then in February 2018 at the height of the Olympics and the inter-Korean dialogue, the Pentagon threatened to wage a “bloody nose” attack, involving the possible use of a so-called mini-nuke or tactical nuclear weapon.

It is worth noting that the Trump-Kim Joint Statement, does not explicitly mention Washington’s support of the Kim-Moon Panmunjom Declaration. In fact from the very outsetWashington has been involved in the sabotage of the inter-Korean dialogue.

From a geopolitical standpoint, North-South reunification would weaken U.S. strategic interests in Northeast Asia.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Aftermath of the Trump-Kim Summit: Unilateral Denuclearization, Continued US Military Threats, Economic Sanctions

Trump Approves $50 Billion in Tariffs on Chinese Goods

June 16th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

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

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

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

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

On Thursday, Bloomberg News said

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

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

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

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said

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

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

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

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

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

Economist Tom Orlik said

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

On Friday, the state-run China Daily said

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

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

*

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

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

Robert DeNiro just fired off an f-bomb at Donald Trump, but where were he and his grandstanding, liberal friends when Obama was dropping more drone bombs and “removing” more immigrants than any president preceding him? Where were they when the Clintons were pimping poverty and peddling influence through the State Department and the Clinton Foundation? DeNiro was stumping for Hillary Clinton to “prevent Tuesday [election day 2016] from turning into a tragedy.” Reading Follow the Money, Flashpoints Radio Voices, an anthology of 2009-2016 KPFA “Flashpoints” interviews, would probably discomfit him because it’s full of tragedy: oil wars, drone bombing, torture, mass incarceration, mass surveillance, police militarization, neoliberal trade agreements, poisoned water, botched executions, ecocide, and the “too-big-to-fail” bank heist that kicked off the Obama years.

Follow the Money can at the same time serve as an organizing and networking manual, because it’s filled with the voices of those fighting back, and the names of their organizations. In the current Web-based information environment, they should be easy to find.

Suffering in Every Bite: Migrant Workers’ Bitter Fruit

There’s much to fascinate in this book, which begins with a forward by Mumia Abu Jamal, but I was most fascinated by “Suffering in Every Bite: Migrant Workers Bitter Fruit,” an interview with Seth M. Holmes, physician, medical anthropologist, and author of the book Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies: Migrant Farmworkers in the United States. I read this interview several times.

In the classic method of anthropological field research, Holmes spent 18 months migrating with indigenous Mexican migrants from the State of Oaxaca, beginning in Washington State, where they lived in a labor camp and picked strawberries. He shared a slum flat with the same group in central California, and crossed the border with them multiple times to pick crops in the US and to plant or harvest corn in Oaxaca, but he was “never able to keep up with the other folks” no matter how hard he tried. He’d have been fired many times, he said, if he hadn’t been a white academic of some interest to farm owners.

“Farmworkers are not unskilled labor; they are very skilled,” he concluded.

He couldn’t pick 50 pounds of strawberries—of the appropriate ripeness, without leaves—in an hour, but if they couldn’t, they were fired.

Holmes felt that he had to understand both the farm work and the border to understand what they called their “sufrimiento,” their suffering in the whole process. They suffer back and hip pain from picking and abuse at the hands of border agents and “coyotes,” whom they pay to help them cross the border. Some coyotes, those known to their communities, are trustworthy, but others—strangers at the border—can be dangerous.

There are more details about buses packed full of people without air-conditioning, walks through blazing heat, predation and scams of all sorts, money changers and wire transfers, and cash stashed in zip lock bags and stuffed into mayonnaise jars.

The US increased funding for law enforcement, drones, heat censors and other forms of border militarization as deaths in the borderlands increased during the two decades preceding this 2013 interview. The border patrol has put more agents at the safest crossings to force more migrants to the dangerous ones where more of them will perish. Migrants run into rattlesnakes and people with guns, and even walk into cactuses because they can’t carry flashlights while trying to sneak through the dark.

Nevertheless, the migrants keep coming because, as one told Holmes,

“There’s no other option for us. It’s either certain death in our villages where we can’t survive, largely due to NAFTA, or maybe dying on the road.”

A number of Americans have been prosecuted as “alien smugglers” for going into the borderlands to leave water, offer water, or get distressed migrants to hospitals if needed.

As I read Holmes’s first-person narrative, I counted my blessings, even though the Obama years were not kind to me either. His story ends in a border patrol jail, where he is separated from the indigenous Mexican Tirqui people he has been traveling with and placed in a separate cell because authorities don’t know what to make of him and his white skin, except to speculate that he might be a coyote. All the Tirqui are put in another cell, then taken, one by one, to be fingerprinted, photographed, and returned to their cell.

Holmes told Flashpoints host Dennis Bernstein,

“There’s a lot of debate about immigrants in the abstract, without listening to the stories, voices, realities of immigrants themselves—they’re fathers, sons, daughters, wives, and mothers.”

He said he hoped that his work would help Americans “vote differently, think and listen differently when they hear about people dying at the border.”

Unfortunately, we know how that next round of voting worked out. Much of the rest of Follow the Money explains the increasing poverty and grotesque upward transfer of wealth that generated so much of the fury wrongly directed at migrants and exploited by Donald Trump on the campaign trail.

There’s also a section—Global Militarism and Empire— devoted to blatant disregard for the first principle of international law during Obama’s presidency. The UN Charter bars any nation from invading, bombing, barricading, or otherwise violating another nation’s sovereignty, but if Obama ever showed any respect for the Charter, it must have been April Fool’s Day. Christine Hong speaks to “The Inverted Logic Behind the North Korea Crisis,” Antonia Juhasz to “The Oil Wars: Iraq, Kurdistan, and the Islamic State,” and Robert Parry to “A New Cold War with Russia.”

There’s much more that has in no way lost relevance and too much to list. Mara Verhayden-Hilliard discusses FBI monitoring of the Occupy Movement, Jeff Cohen makes an argument for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Chelsea Manning, and Dahr Jamail reports on British Petroleum’s Gulf Coast ecocide.

On a positive note, Marxist economist and University of Massachusetts Professor Emeritus Richard Wolff suggests a path forward by helping us imagine socialism in the US. Wolff says that a socialist president should be no more difficult to imagine than an African American president was before 2008, but that none of Europe’s socialist presidents have undermined or overthrown capitalism. He reminds us that it’s childish to tell the American people they can “use their vote to change the inequality that the economic system has dumped on us” without taking on the control of government by those who pay for it.

Indeed. Didn’t Obama tell us to vote for hope and change while he was contracting with Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Exelon, and more of the most sociopathic concentrations of power in human history?

 

Dennis Bernstein is the host of “Flashpoints” on Pacifica’s KPFA Radio in Berkeley, California and the recipient of many awards, including a Golden Reel from the National Federation of Community Broadcasters, and six Project Censored awards for investigative reporting. He can be reached at [email protected].

Riva Enteen was raised as a socialist and has been an activist since the 1960s. Dennis Bernstein knows Riva through her work as the Program Director of the National Lawyers Guild for over a decade, and asked her to edit a book of his interviews. She was also the chair of the first KPFA LSB.

*

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

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri.


Follow the Money

Title: Follow the Money

Author: Dennis J. Bernstein

ISBN: 9781387362622

Publisher: Left Coast Press

Published: April 9, 2018

Pages: 424

List Price: $19.96

Price: $15.97

Click here to order.

Europe Faces Crossroads as Atlantic System Crumbles

June 16th, 2018 by F. William Engdahl

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

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

No more Mr Nice Guy

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

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

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

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

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

Eurasian Contrast

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from the author.


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Europe Faces Crossroads as Atlantic System Crumbles

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

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

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

Regime change

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

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

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

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

Collaboration with extremists

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

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

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

Image on the right: Salman Abedi and Ramadan Abedi

Related image

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

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

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

Arms embargo

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unanswered questions

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

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

*

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

Damning Hillary Emails Probe Report

June 16th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it…”

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

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law Professor Jonathan Turley said the following:

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

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

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

*

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

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

Tales of North Korean Abuses: No Facts, All Fiction

June 16th, 2018 by Tony Cartalucci

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

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

Rumors Built Upon Rumors 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image result for kim jong nam

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

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

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

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

Adding Up to a Familiar Mountain of Lies 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Behind Every Mountain of Lies, an Agenda 

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

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

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

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

Screenshot from the Office of the Historian

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

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

It also claims:

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Featured image is from riacale, flickr/creative commons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gautam celebrated the decision by the SFI, saying

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

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

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

“The Pentagon planners have probably finally realized just how important the White Helmets are to the regime change operation,” Mike Raddie, co-editor of BSNews and an anti-war activist, told RT. “The fact that they have been so successful in proving fake imagery and fake evidence… just means that they can be relied upon whenever there is a need for a pretext for another missile attack or even a full-scale invasion.”

The anti-war activist recalled how the so-called Syria Civil Defence units, better known as the White Helmets, have been instrumental in the justification of the US strikes on Syria in April of 2017, and the trilateral strikes by the UK, France, and the US in April 2018.

The strikes, Raddie stressed, were all conducted as a hasty ‘retaliation’ against the Syrian government at times when the international community was horrified by fresh footage of alleged chemical incidents, conveniently provided by the likes of the White Helmets.

Calling the self-styled volunteer organization a clearly “belligerent party” with links to al-Qaeda terrorists, Raddie noted that the supposedly patriotic grassroots group has been actively calling for a “no-fly zone, which obviously means full invasion.” Thus, he believes, the State Department decided to release some $6.6mn in previously frozen funding for the group, just in case another pretext for a strike against Syria or a similar intervention is needed.

Meanwhile, Vanessa Beeley, an independent investigative journalist who has recently visited Syria, believes Washington never really intended to cut off the group’s funding.

“The funding freeze largely was a fake funding freeze,” Beeley told RT. “The funding freeze, in my opinion, was actually a way to secure further and more diverse funding for the White Helmets.”

The investigative journalist pointed out that in April, after the US announced the freeze, Raed Al Saleh, Head of the Syria Civil Defence, the White Helmets, came to the US to receive an award at the Sedona Forum 2018, hosted by the McCain Institute for International Leadership. That event was attended by US top leadership, including Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, and James Mattis, Secretary of Defense.

While nothing official was announced, following that meeting the White Helmets were allegedly awarded contracts with Turkey and Qatar, Beeley said. Furthermore, she noted that British Prime Minister Theresa May pledged to maintain and even increase the funding for the White Helmets.

“The British government has directly financed the White Helmets to the tune of almost 39 million pounds,” according to Beeley.

While the money is allegedly intended for the group to carry out its humanitarian work on the ground, Beeley, who has recently returned from East Aleppo and East Ghouta, says she could not find a single person to confirm that the White Helmets actually rescued civilians.


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.

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

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

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

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

What does this dystopian scenario look like on the ground?

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

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

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

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

Source: Philip Tierney

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

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

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

Aleppo Citadel (Source: Mark Taliano)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Notes

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

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

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

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


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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Featured image is from Yemen Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Netanyahu ‘the winner’

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alpher agreed.

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

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

Even then, he said, Netanyahu would profit.

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

Fragments of land

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gaza and Golan windfalls

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

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

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

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

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

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

No longer ‘occupied’

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

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

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

Netanyahu told a recent meeting of his Likud faction:

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

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

1. Gerrymandering Jerusalem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Abu Dis: a Palestinian capital?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Access to al-Aqsa

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

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

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

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

4. Jordan Valley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. The rest of Area C

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Gaza and Sinai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestinian protests

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arab pressure

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Preliminary Stated Goals and Deployments

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

U.S. Military Involvement in Ukraine: NATO Expansion through Proxy War

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

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

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

An Unofficial Military Component of NATO

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

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

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

U.S. Military Involvement in Ukraine: NATO Expansion through Proxy War

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Military Involvement in Ukraine: NATO Expansion through Proxy War

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

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

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

U.S. Military Involvement in Ukraine: NATO Expansion through Proxy War

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

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

U.S. Military Involvement in Ukraine: NATO Expansion through Proxy War

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

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

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

U.S. Military Involvement in Ukraine: NATO Expansion through Proxy War

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

Conclusions

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

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

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

*

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

All images in this article are from the author.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Series of humiliations

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

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

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

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

Ibrahim tells me:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s ethnic cleansing.

In the words of B’Tselem:

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

‘Step-change’ in occupation

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

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

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

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

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

Ibrahim told me:

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

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

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

*

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

Video: The Military Industrial Drain

June 16th, 2018 by Robert Reich

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

President Dwight D. Eisenhower once noted,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And fund the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

And expand broadband Internet access to rural America.

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

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

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

*

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

Raising the Flag of False Flags

June 16th, 2018 by Philip A Farruggio

This article was first published in April 2015.

Each morning I walk throughout my quiet neighborhood here in Central Florida noticing more and more homes with giant U.S. flags hanging from the garage tops.

Occasionally, if I know the neighbor with the flag, I ask what is the reason he or she keeps it up so long. The answer is always the same:

“To support our troops in the Middle East and the war on terror.”

It is thus useless to conduct a debate, as most of these folks happen to be senior citizens even older than me, the baby boomer.

And, if for some reason the neighbor hanging the sign happens to be a man or woman younger than yours truly, chances are any forthcoming “conversation” will get testy to say the least. Having stood weekly on street corners in my town with anti phony war signs for 10 years can attest to that fact. The propaganda sadly does run that deep!

So many Americans really do not have a correct sense of history. When this writer uses Nazi Germany as an example of an “empire on steroids” and compares it to our own, the critics go wild.

“How can you dare compare what the Nazis did to what our country is doing or done?” Well, let’s take a look back at then and now.

Let’s take the GI on the ground first. When Germany began its assault on Europe, many German soldiers, not the true believer Waffen SS, really bought into the skillful propaganda spun by Goebbels and others.

The Versailles Diktat, as it was really known by Germans after World War I, did in fact destroy any hope for economic recovery. Most German leaders and students of history alike agreed that Germany was excessively punished by the victors of World War I, which in fact aided the rise and popularity of parties like the National Socialists AKA Nazis.

When Hitler and his gang assumed power, a majority of  German citizens, including most of the soldiers in uniform, believed in whatever lies they were told about their European rivals Poland, France, England and Russia. So, when the Wehrmacht marched into those countries, the troops believed in the need for war. As time wore on and the atrocities and cruelties mounted, and victories turned into defeats, the morale level lowered.

Now, isn’t that what happened to our own soldiers after we did the dirty deed and invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq? Many returning soldiers, not the true believer right wing types (American Sniper lovers)  now see the futility of our country’s efforts in the Middle East. Hope springs eternal.

During the reign of the Nazi empire or Third Reich, the average hard working German citizen for the most part loved the economic boom occurring in the 1930s. Who wouldn’t love more jobs, higher wages, food on the table etc?

Factor out those who “knew better” about the brutality of the regime against not only Jews but unions and basically anyone who questioned Hitler and his gang (duh, like the fact that they outlawed any other political party but their own). What was left was a silent majority (wonder if Nixon and Agnew got inspiration from that?) of everyday Germans who reveled in the current better times.

They “drank the Kool-Aid” and hung the Swastika flags from their homes to support their brave troops. Need one say more? Cannot you the reader connect the dots?

How many of our fellow Americans really give a **** at what we have and are doing in the Middle East? Who cares about some rag head child or elderly person blown away by a smart bomb or smart drone missile?

If every good and decent neighbor of mine, the ones who proudly hang those flags, could watch the 2007 YouTube video of the Apache helicopter massacre of 19 Iraqi men who were just walking along in the daylight sun (and of course the two young kids in the parked car who were seriously maimed)… if they would listen closely and hear the audio of the soldiers in the copter who did the dirty deed… as if it was some video game! Perhaps then the bridge across the Rubicon would materialize.

*

This article was originally published on World News Trust in April 2015.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China

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

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

*

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media, TeleSUR, TruePublica, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on Is Washington “False Flagging” The New Russia-Iran-Syria-China “Axis of Evil”, into Nuclear War?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A different narrative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Nicaragua?

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

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

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

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

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

In closing

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Empowerment Now Means Peace for the Future

June 15th, 2018 by Global Research News

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

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

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

There are different ways that you can support Global Research:

DONATE ONLINE (Click button below):

DONATE BY MAIL

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

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

Tax Receipts for deductible charitable contributions by US residents

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


BECOME A MEMBER

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


BROWSE OUR BOOKS

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

Thank you for supporting independent media!

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

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

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

*     *     *

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

By Manlio Dinucci, June 14, 2018

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

Cameroun: The Battle of Languages Serves Colonial Masters

By J. B. Gerald, June 14, 2018

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

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

By Press TV, June 14, 2018

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

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

By Roy Morrison, June 14, 2018

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

The Kim-Trump Summit. Geopolitical Implications

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

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

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

By Adam Dick, June 14, 2018

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The US and EU Quarrel, But Remain United Against Russia and China

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

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

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

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

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

Screenshot from US Committee on Armed Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

$69 B     Overseas Contingency Ops 

$7.6 B    Assorted F35 Funding   

$5.2 B    Afghanistan

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

$850 M  Train/equip Iraqi forces to counter ISIS

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

$300 M  Train/equip ‘vetted’ Syrian opposition 

$200 M  Ukraine ‘legal security assistance’

as well as increased funding for the following:

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

$110 M    Space Constellation efforts

$  75 M    University research

$  20 M    Quantum Information Sciences

$  15 M    DARPA Microelectronics research

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

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

*

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

Dark Precedents: Matteo Salvini, the MV Tampa and Refugees

June 15th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Trump Confounds the Media Pundits

June 15th, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

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

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

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

Trump Confounds the Pundits

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Erdogan’s “Trojan Horse” in Macedonia

June 15th, 2018 by Prof. Alon Ben-Meir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevertheless, they continue to be manipulated by Erdogan.

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Lunacy and Profits

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

And for the refugees? What can they expect?

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

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

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

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

(Source)

Deliberate Cruelties

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

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

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

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

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

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

A New and Bigger Camp

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

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

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

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

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

Islanders and Refugees

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

Refugees arriving in Samos

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

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

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

Children

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

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

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

Image result for samos children refugees police guard

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

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

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

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

Disdain

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published on Samos Chronicles.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Still Here: Samos Refugees from Turkey. Humanitarian Crisis Triggered by Frontex, the EU Border Force
  • Tags: , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

This article was originally published in July 2012.

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

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

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

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

Jewish National Fund

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

Source: The Bullet

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

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

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

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

Clear-felling Palestinian Villages

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

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

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

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

Zionist Image

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

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

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

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

Green, Racist Capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

West Bank and Gaza

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

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

Water

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lake Hula

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

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

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

Justice

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

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

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

*

Ben Lorber is a journalist and radical activist who has worked extensively in the U.S. and the Middle East. In 2011, he spent six months in Palestine, as an activist with the International Solidarity Movement in the West Bank and as a journalist with the Israeli-Palestinian Alternative Information Center in Jerusalem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Khaled Ismail Said, 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Khaled Badran Ibn Ibrahim, 52

6. An unidentified man

7. An unidentified man’’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Featured image is from South Front.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The letter says, in part:

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

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published on Reader Supported News.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

BTC: 13iYp9CDYZwgSnFXNtpEKgRRqaoxHPr2MH,

BCH:1NE49pQW8yCegnFCMvKuhLUnuxvTnxNUhf, 

ETH: 0x962b312a9d41620f9aa0d286f9d7f8b1769bfae6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

All images in this article are from The Peace Report.

Decolonize Korea and Take Down the Imperialists!

June 15th, 2018 by Black Alliance for Peace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No compromise.

No retreat.

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

*

Featured image is from Black Agenda Report.

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

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

1.  Showcasing Russia’s Soft Power

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

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

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

2. Security & Diplomatic Coordination

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

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

3. Leadership Meetings

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Featured image is from Rehlat.

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

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

(a) Destruction or Removal of Property To Prevent Seizure

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

(b) Impairment of In Rem Jurisdiction

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

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

(c) Whoever corruptly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

Screenshot from the FBI

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Overview

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

Key humanitarian needs

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source of Israeli casualty data: Israeli media.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“If you are optimistic, you can find good news here,” says Christina Hulbe, a polar expert at the University of Otago in New Zealand. “Some amount of future change has been locked in by our past decisions, but there is still time to avoid the worst thatcan happen.”

Hulbe, whose first trip to Antarctica was in 1991 but was not directly involved with this week’s report, sees it partly as the culmination of what she’s been working for her entire life. In her view, the way the report is framed — as a stark choice presented to humanity — “accomplishes something that charts and graphs never will.”

In narrative prose unusual for a formal scientific study, the researchers imagine what Antarctica might be like in 2070 — with and without rapid cuts to emissions. Given the incredible size of the Antarctic ice sheets, actions taken in the next decade, the researchers conclude, will reverberate for millennia.

“I’ve never been at an Antarctic or climate conference where people said, ‘That happened slower than I thought it would,’” Hulbe says. “There is nothing here to be complacent about.”

*

Featured image is from Glenn Jacobson / Australian Antarctic Division.