Global Research

Das Ereignis am 2. Juni (der Tag, an dem Italien 1946 eine Republik wurde) war keine Militärparade, nicht einmal eine Parade, sondern ein „Rückblick“, laut dem Verteidigungsministerium, das sie ausgerichtet hat (der letzte Akt von Minister Pinotti).

Die Parade bei den Fori Imperiali – vor der neu eingesetzten Regierung – wurde symbolisch von 330 Bürgermeistern, die die zivile Gesellschaft repräsentieren eröffnet, gefolgt von allen Sektoren der Streitkräfte, um das „Fest der Italiener – vereint für das Land“ zu feiern.

In seiner Botschaft drückte der Präsident der Republik Mattarella den Streitkräften den Dank des  italienischen Volkes aus, für „den wertvollen Einsatz, den sie in vielen Krisenregionen der Welt leisten, um die Bevölkerungen, die unter bewaffneten Konflikten leiden“ zu helfen. Einsätze, die auf „unserer Verfassungsurkunde, Architrav [Stützbalken] der Institutionen und grundlegender Maßstab für alle“ basieren.

Als die Militäreinheiten paradierten, listeten die Ansager die Militäreinsätze auf, an denen italienische Streitkräfte in über 20 Ländern beteiligt sind. Vom Kosovo bis Irak und Afghanistan, vom Libanon bis Lybien und Lettland, von Somalia bis Dschibuti und Niger. Mit anderen Worten, sie führten Kriege und andere Militäroperationen auf, an denen Italien teilgenommen hat und noch immer teilnimmt, in Verletzung seiner eigenen Verfassung, im Rahmen der aggressiven Expansionsstrategie der USA/NATO.

Die Anzahl der Militäroperationen im Ausland, an denen Italien beteiligt ist, wächst ständig. Am 5. Juni begannen italienische Jagdbomber Eurofighter Typhoon, im Namen der NATO, gemeinsam mit Einheiten der griechischen Luftwaffe den Luftraum von Montenegro, dem neuesten Mitglied der Allianz, zu „beschützen“. Italienische Jagdbomber „schützen“ bereits den Luftraum von Slowenien, Albanien und Estland vor der „russischen Bedrohung“.

Italienische Kriegsschiffe bereiten sich darauf vor, in den Pazifik auszulaufen, wo sie  an der RIMPAC 2018, der größten Marineübung der Welt, teilnehmen werden. 27 Länder werden unter dem Kommando der USA mit ihrer Marine an der Übung teilnehmen, die gegen China gerichtet ist (das von den USA der „Expansion und Nötigung“ im Südchinesischen Meer beschuldigt wird).

Italienische Spezialkräfte nahmen in Niger an einer von der Europäischen Union finanzierten Übung des Afrikanischen Kommando der Vereinigten Staaten [AFRICOM] teil, in der ca. 1.900 Soldaten aus 20 afrikanischen Ländern ausgebildet wurden.

In Niger, wo die USA in Agadez einen großen Stützpunkt für bewaffnete Drohnen und Spezialeinheiten aufbaut, bereitet Italien den Bau einer Basis vor, der zunächst 470 Soldaten, 130 Militärfahrzeuge und zwei Flugzeuge aufnehmen soll. Der offizielle Zweck der Operation, die von der Opposition innerhalb der nigerianischen Regierung behindert wird, besteht darin, Niger und seinen Nachbarländern im Kampf gegen den Terrorismus zu helfen. Der wahre Zweck liegt, im Windschatten Frankreichs und der Vereinigten Staaten, in der militärischen Kontrolle über eine rohstoffreiche Region – Gold, Diamanten, Uran, Koltan, Öl und viele weitere – von denen nicht einmal Brosamen an die Bevölkerung gehen, die überwiegend in extremer Armut lebt. Als Ergebnis wächst die soziale Spannung und in der Folge auch der Migrationsstrom in Richtung Europa.

Die neue Regierung beabsichtigt “unsere Präsenz in internationalen Missionen im Hinblick auf ihre tatsächliche Bedeutung für die nationalen Interessen neu zu bewerten”. Dazu ist es jedoch nötig festzulegen, was das nationale Interesse ist.  Das heißt, ob Italien in einem von den USA und den führenden europäischen Mächten dominierten Kriegssystem bleiben sollte, oder entscheidet, ein souveränes und neutrales Land zu sein, das auf den Prinzipien seiner Verfassung basiert. Innenpolitik und Außenpolitik sind zwei Seiten derselben Medaille: Es kann keine wirklich Freiheit zuhause geben, wenn Italien, in Verletzung des Artikels 11, Krieg als Instrument nutzt, um die Freiheit anderer Völker anzugreifen.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 5. Juni 2018

Artikels 11:

Italien lehnt Krieg als ein Instrument des Angriffs auf die Freiheit anderer Völker und als ein Mittel zur Beilegung internationaler Konflikte ab; es stimmt unter den Bedingungen der Wechselseitigkeit mit den anderen Staaten den Beschränkungen der Souveränität zu, die für eine Ordnung notwendig sind, die Frieden und Gerechtigkeit zwischen den Nationen gewährleistet; es erweckt und begünstigt internationale Organisationen, die dieses Ziel verfolgen.

Übersetzung: K.R.

VIDEO :

The NGO CAGE, which campaigns against discriminatory state policies and advocates observance of due process and the rule of law, reminds readers that in October 2017, US President Donald Trump replaced the Obama rules pertaining to drone strikes with his own ‘rules’ called the “Principles, Standards, and Procedures,” or PSPs.

It reports that according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) these laws “make it easier to kill more people in more places outside recognized battlefields, posing grave risks of death and injury to civilians”:

“They do this by eliminating the requirement that a person must present a “continuing, imminent” threat to the United States before being targeted for killing. There is also no longer a high-level vetting process required for each individual strike. This means strikes can be okayed by other officials of lower rank. This means there are fewer lines of command to follow in the event of deaths, less chance of objectivity, and less likelihood of accountability”.

The current US administration has adopted a more secretive approach to drone strikes

It has denied requests for information or, as in October 2017, halted the reporting of strikes to the Bureau for Investigative Journalism and other NGOs that document drone casualties. Last month, the US Air Force, according to the Bureau, “ordered an overhaul of its public affairs operations aimed at preventing the release of information deemed sensitive”. This is all being done, naturally, for the sake of “practicing sound operational security”.

Case histories

In August last year, a US drone strike near the Somalian town of Jilib killed seven civilians. They were all from the same family and they included women and children. The family was not a prominent (read ‘wealthy’) one, so they had no recourse to justice.

Initially it made local newspapers and pictures of the human remains were circulated on Somali media. Now this information is unavailable.

A local online news report acknowledges the civilian deaths but does not mention the cause as an American drone strike. Rather the ‘planes’ were ‘unidentified’. CENTCOM, the central point for US ‘operations’ in Africa, released a PR, claiming – in contrast to the local media reports – that those killed were al-Shabaab militants. Local officials echoed their paymasters with slightly less severity and insisted those killed were ‘extremists’.

In the same month Reuters reported that Somali government officials said 10 men and boys killed in a joint U.S.-Somali raid were civilians and blood money will be paid to the families. U.S. Africa Command confirmed the presence of U.S. troops in the raid, carried out under the expanded powers that Donald Trump granted to U.S. troops in Somalia in March.

 “The 10 people were civilians. They were killed accidentally… The government and relatives will discuss about compensation. We send condolence to the families,” said lawmaker Mohamed Ahmed Abtidon at a public funeral held for the 10, who were killed in a raid in Bariire village on Friday.

Hina Shamsi (right), Director of the ACLU National Security Project, writes:

“Now, the Trump administration is killing people in multiple countries, with strikes taking place at a virtually unprecedented rate—in some countries the number has doubled or tripled in Trump’s first year in office.

The U.S. is conducting strikes in recognized wars in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, but also in operations governed by the secret rules whose public release our new lawsuit demands — those conducted outside “areas of active hostilities” in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Nigeria, and elsewhere.

Untold, officially unrecognized numbers of civilians have died and continue to die at increasing rates. Most strikes take place in majority-Muslim countries, and most of the civilians killed are brown or Black.”

In such areas, people live in poverty, hunger and a state of perpetual terror wrought by a US-led ‘war’. CAGE observes, “as a result, for some, the lure of fighting back through violent groups (‘blowback’)will be too strong to resist”.

The Washington Post agrees:

“Human rights organizations and even some former U.S. military commanders argue that drone strikes inadvertently increase terrorism by exerting a “blowback” effect. Their logic is simple. Drone strikes kill more innocent civilians than terrorists, which radicalizes affected populations and motivates them to join terrorist groups to retaliate against the United States”.

CAGE also believes that:

“Until we have a global acknowledgement at government level that all lives are equal and precious, and all countries have the right to govern themselves in a manner they see most fit for their people, we – the population of the world – will continue to witness ongoing and increasing cycles of violence”.

CAGE calls for an end to extrajudicial killings by drone or otherwise, in favour of a dialogue-based approach to end violence and full accountability for war crimes for all perpetrators of civilian deaths and terror, adding:

“The people of Somalia and other countries around the world deserve nothing less”.

*

All images in this article are from Drone Warfare.

The event on June 2nd (the day in 1946 when Italy became a Republic) was not a military parade, not even a parade, but a “review”, according to the Ministry of Defense that directed it (Minister Pinotti’s final act).

The parade at the Fori Imperiali – in front of the newly-installed government – was symbolically opened by 330 mayors representing civil society, followed by all the sectors of the Armed Forces, to celebrate “Italians’ Day – United for the Country”.

In his message, President of the Republic Mattarella expressed the gratitude of the Italian people to the Armed Forces for “the precious work they carry out in many troubled regions of the world to assist the populations who suffer from armed conflict”, a work based on “our Constitutional Charter, architrave of the Institutions and fundamental benchmark for all”.

As the military units paraded, the announcers listed the military missions in which Italian armed forces are engaged in over 20 countries: from Kosovo to Iraq and Afghanistan, from Lebanon to Libya and Latvia, from Somalia to Djibouti and Niger. In other words, they listed the wars and other military operations in which Italy has participated and is still participating, in violation of its own Constitution, in the framework of the USA/NATO’s aggressive expansionist strategy.

The number of military operations abroad in which Italy is engaged is constantly increasing. On June 5, on behalf of NATO, Italian Eurofighter Typhoon fighter-bombers began, together with units of the Greek airforce, to “protect” the airspace of Montenegro, the latest member of the Alliance. Italian fighter-bombers already “protect” the skies of Slovenia, Albania and Estonia from the “Russian threat”.

Italian warships are preparing to sail to the Pacific, where they will participate in RIMPAC 2018, the largest naval exercise in the world. The military navies of 27 countries will be taking part in the exercise, under US command, directed against China (accused by the US of “expansion and coercion” in the South Chinese Sea).

Italian special forces participated in Niger in an exercise run by United States Africa Command, sponsored by the European Union, in which about 1,900 soldiers from 20 African countries were trained.

In Niger, where the US is building a large base in Agadez for armed drones and special forces, Italy is preparing to build a base that will initially host 470 soldiers, 130 military vehicles and 2 aircraft. The official purpose of the operation, hampered by opposition within the Nigerian government, is to help Niger and its neighbors to fight terrorism. The real purpose is to participate, in the wake of France and the United States, in the military control of a region rich in raw materials – gold, diamonds, uranium, coltan, oil and many others – of which not even crumbs go to the population, who mostly exist in a state of extreme poverty. As a result, social tension is growing, and consequently, also the migratory flow towards Europe.

The new government intends to “re-evaluate our presence in international missions in terms of their effective importance for the national interest”. To do so, however, it is necessary to determine what the national interest is. That is, whether Italy should remain within the war system dominated by the US and by the major European powers, or should decide to be a sovereign and neutral country based on the principles of its Constitution.

Internal policy and foreign policy are two sides of the same coin: there can not be real freedom at home if Italy, subverting Article 11, uses war as an instrument of offense to the freedom of other peoples.

Source: PandoraTV

*

This article was originally published on Il Manifesto.

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Saudi efforts to isolate Iran internationally are producing results in North Africa and Central Asia. Authorities and religious leaders in Tajikistan and Algeria have in recent weeks accused Iran of subversive activity and propagating Shiism while Morocco last month announced that it was breaking off diplomatic relations with the Islamic republic.

While similar accusations have been lobbed at Iran in the past as part of a four-decade-long covert war between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic republic, the more recent incidents suggest that the Saudis are increasingly focussing on isolating Iran diplomatically.

In doing so they are benefitting from ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim Islam’s appeal in North Africa and Central Asia even if Saudi Arabia is believed to have substantially reduced its financial support for Salafi and other groups.

At times, like in the case of Algeria, a country in which Shiites account for at most two percent of the population and that has seen an increase in popularity of Saudi-inspired Salafi scholars, the allegations seem to involve above board Iranian activities that are unlikely to have the alleged effect of fomenting sectarianism.

The anti-Iranian campaign at times also appears to be designed to pressure countries like Algeria, whose relations with the kingdom are strained because of its refusal to adopt anti-Iranian Saudi policies. Algeria supports the embattled 2015 international nuclear agreement with Iran as well as Iran’s presence in Syria and has refused to declare Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia, a terrorist organization.

In the most recent incident, Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat, a pan-Arab, Saudi-owned newspaper, quoted, former Algerian Ministry of Religious Affairs and Endowments official Idah Falahi as demanding the withdrawal of Iranian diplomat Amir Mousavi because of his “extensive contacts with civil society groups, through Facebook and social media” and alleged attempts to meddle in the dispute between Morocco and Algeria over the Western Sahara.

Morocco last month broke off diplomatic relations with Iran, alleging that Tehran had provided financial and logistical support as well as surface-to-air missiles to the Algerian-backed West Saharan liberation movement, Frente Polisario, using Hezbollah as an intermediary. Both Iran and Hezbollah have denied the allegation.

“It…became apparent that Mousavi was in fact an Iranian intelligence agent, whose remit was to interfere in the dispute between Algeria and Morocco over the Western Sahara conflict,” said Ash-Sharq Al-Awsat columnist Tony Duheaume.

The newspaper reported that Iran was seeking to recruit Algerian Shiites who travel to the holy city of Karbala in Iraq and was using Iranian companies as vehicles to promote Shiism.

“With the launching of a production line for Iranian vehicles, plus another for the production of medicines, and with the two countries boosting their cooperation enormously in the private sector, Iran has ensnared Algeria through an ongoing succession of trade deals,” Mr. Duheaume said.

The newspaper quoted Algerian member of parliament Abdurrahman Saidi as charging that Iran was attempting to create a Shiite movement in North Africa.

“The Algerian state is aware today that it faces the risk of sectarianism,” the newspaper asserted.

Algerian minister of endowment and religious affairs Muhammad Issa last year compared Iran to the Islamic State in an interview with a Saudi newspaper amid a growing anti-Iranian sentiment in Algeria.

An international book fair in Algeria banned Iranian books because they “incite sectarianism and violence” after Bou Abdullah Ghulamallah, the head of Algeria’s High Islamic Council, charged that “thousands of imported books carry dangerous thoughts that are aimed at convincing the Algerian people that their Islamic religion is wrong.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani cancelled a visit to Algeria after an Arabic-language hashtag, #No to Rouhani’s visit to Algeria, went viral.

“It is difficult to corroborate allegations made in the Asharq al-Awsat report. It is also unlikely that Tehran would be able to significantly expand its influence in Algeria through the Shiite community,” said Ahmad Majidyar, the director of the Washington-based Middle East Institute’s IranObserved Project.

Its equally difficult to verify a link between Saudi-inspired Salafism’s increased popularity and rising anti-Iranian sentiment, but the development of anti-Shiite sentiment is not dissimilar to growing intolerance, anti-Iranian sentiment and anti-Shiism in countries like Tajikistan, Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia where the influence of Saudi-inspired religious ultra-conservatism is expanding.

Developments in Tajikistan, ironically a nation that has linguistic and cultural links to Iran, mirror the growing anti-Iranian sentiment in Algeria. Tajikistan’s Council of Ulema or Islamic scholars, this month accused Iran of trying to destabilize the country. The council charged that Iran was funding Muhiddin Kabiri, head of the opposition Islamic Renaissance Party (IRP), that has been designated a terrorist organization by the government.

The council’s statement came days after anti-Iranian demonstrators in front of the Iranian embassy in Dushanbe demanded the return of Tajik religious students from Iran and accused the Islamic republic of supporting extremists and planning assassinations.

Iran has in recent years suspended charitable operations in the capital Dushanbe, including a hospital managed with Tajik health authorities, and halted its economic and cultural activities in Khujand, Tajikistan’s second largest city, on orders of the government.

“Nowhere is this contrast between the hyped-up Iranian threat and reality more evident than in Tajikistan,” said Eldar Mamedov, who is in charge of the European Parliament’s delegations for inter-parliamentary relations with Iran, Iraq, the Gulf, and North Africa.

Iran helped negotiate an end to Tajikistan’s civil war and an agreement between President Emomali Rahmon, a former Soviet Communist Party official, and the IRP. Mr. Rahmon, determined to demolish any opposition, banned the IRP in 2015.

The stirring of the anti-Iranian pot coincided with a Saudi effort to woo Mr. Rahmon who was invited last year to an Arab-Islamic summit in Riyadh with Donald J. Trump during the US president’s visit to the kingdom despite the fact that he is a bit player on the global stage. Tajikistan was earlier invited to join a Saudi-led Muslim counter terrorism force.

Like in Algeria, it also coincided with rising popularity of Saudi-inspired ultra-conservatism in Tajikistan.

In a move that garners favour in Riyadh, Tajikistan has opposed Iran’s application for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) that requires approval of membership by unanimous vote. Iran has observer status with the SCO, while Saudi Arabia has yet to establish a relationship.

By stirring the pot, Mr. Rahmon has a vehicle to maintain his iron grip at home and garner investment and financial support from the kingdom.

Saudi Arabia agreed last month to acquire a 51 percent stake, in troubled Tojiksodirotbank (TSB), Tajikistan’s largest bank. The Saudi investment was a life saver after other investors, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), turned the opportunity down.

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author.

Syrian government forces have launched a military operation against ISIS cells in eastern al-Suwayda and have already established control of the village of Ashrfya and the area of Beir Aura. Battle tanks, artillery units and warplanes actively supported the advance.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), 15 soldiers and officers of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and 9 ISIS members were killed in the clashes. However, this number of casualties allegedly includes results of the SAA-ISIS clashes near the T2 pumping station near the border with Iraq.

A source in the 9^th Division of the SAA told SouthFront that ISIS members in eastern al-Suwayda are poorly armed. So, no serious ISIS resistance is expected there.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) captured the villages of al-Murjan, Kulib Tahtani, al-Khuirah and seven farms north of the town of Dashisha near the Syrian-Iraqi border.

According to the SDF, its fighters had killed 42 members and 2 commanders of ISIS during their advance towards Dashisha.

The Syrian Liberation Front (SLF) and several Free Syrian Army (FSA) groups, including Jaysh al-Izza, Jaysh al-Ahrar and the Suqour al-Sham Brigades, are planning to merge their forces in order to form a unified group in the province of Idlib. The SLF was established in February after a merger of Ahrar al-Sham and Nour al-Din al-Zenki.

In late May, 11 other FSA groups created the Turkish-backed National Front for Liberation. Idlib militant groups are uniting larger groups in order to strengthen their position ahead of the expected developments after the SAA finishes dealing with militants in southern Syria.

*

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

The US Government’s Labor Department today, June 7, 2018, released a report on the condition of what’s called ‘precarious’ jobs in the US. The meaning of precarious is generally assumed to be contingent labor, alternative work arrangements, and, most recently, ‘gig’ work.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ survey concluded, however, that contingent-alternative work is not a serious problem in the US today; that its survey showed that only 3.8% of the US work force (5.9 million workers) were ‘contingent’ (meaning they didn’t have a permanent relationship of work with their employers). And only another 9.5% were in what’s called ‘alternative work’ arrangements, meaning independent contractors, on-call, or temp help agency employment (about 15.5 million). The BLS then further concluded these numbers showed a decline compared to its previous 2005 report on the topic. (There was no ‘gig’ work in 2005 and the BLS excluded ‘gig’ jobs from its just released report). So only 13-14% of the 165 million US work force were contingent-alternative (e.g. precarious) according to its (BLS) worst case estimate.

What follows is my initial criticism of the BLS supplement report just released today. My comments are in the form of a reply to a noted progressive radio show–blogger, Doug Henwood, who distributed his view on the Report earlier today as well. Doug basically agrees with the BLS report, that it shows precarious work is not a problem. To consider it is so is a distraction, according to Henwood, from the problems faced by the vast majority of US workers still in traditional forms of work.

In my comments below, I disagree with Henwood, and argue the BLS report represents a ‘low-balling’ of the problem of precarious work arrangements (contingent, alternative, gig) that is a consequence of a radical restructuring of labor markets in the US in recent decades–i.e. a restructuring that is destroying jobs, wages, benefits, and working conditions in general. The expansion and deepening of precarious employment is a serious symptom of that restructuring. Moreover, it reflects an intensification of exploitation of workers now accelerating–in both precarious and traditional work.

Here’s my comment-reply to Henwood:

“While I rarely comment on other blogs, I feel it is necessary to do so to Doug’s current commentary on the BLS contingent-alternative survey just released.

I certainly agree with Doug that US workers who are not employed in what’s called ‘precarious’ jobs are being exploited increasingly severely. But that fact is not a justification for arguing that addressing those in precarious employment is a distraction from the conditions of those still in traditional work, as Doug seems to suggest.

Nor do I think that just because the latest BLS supplement survey is not that different from the previously most recent 2005 survey, that it shows contingent-alternative work–which is almost always accompanied by lower pay, benefits, and working conditions–is not a critical issue. If non-contingent labor is being screwed more with every passing year, then contingent is being even more screwed. If American workers are being increasingly exploited (meaning wages stagnating, benefits being taken away or their costs shifting, employment security becoming even more tenuous, etc.) then workers in precarious jobs are super-exploited (wages even lower, benefits virtually non-existent for many, fired at any moment for any reason, exemption from rudimentary legal rights, etc.)

There are serious problems with the BLS supplement survey on contingency to which Henwood refers. One should not simply take the BLS ‘at face value’. What’s behind that ‘appearance’ is important. That’s not to say there’s a conspiracy by government to cook the numbers to reduce the magnitude of the precarious jobs growth problem. It’s all in the definitions, assumptions (overt and hidden), and statistical methodologies that underlay the BLS report.

First of all, the gig economy is excluded by the BLS own admittance (see the BLS Technical note on their website). No Uber, Lyft, Taskrabbit, AirBNB, etc. jobs are included in the BLS survey. They may add it later, but not in these numbers. So we’re talking about contingency and alternative work only. So what’s the definition of these terms, and is the BLS’s the best definition?

Moreover, according to the BLS study, all jobs (whether gig or contingent or alternative) that are second jobs are excluded. Only if the contingent-alternative jobs are the worker’s primary job are they included in the tally. But shouldn’t the BLS be estimating ‘jobs’ that are contingent-alternative, etc., whether primary or secondary, and not just if primary employment only?

Here’s another problem: Contingency refers to a condition that is not permanent in some way. The BLS defines lack of permanency by referring to time–i.e. hours of work and conditions of employment a year or less. A worker is contingent-alternative only if he expects to be employed less than a year. What about those who have been temp or on call or whatever for more than a year? But why the BLS definition based on a time limit? Shouldn’t contingency refer to the existence of a different set of conditions of work–i.e. a different wage structure, a second tiered benefits provisioning, restricted legal rights, other working conditions, or whatever may create a group of workers’ relationship to the employer that is second tier or ‘second class’? Why just time as the key definition; why not working conditions as the basis for defining contingent?

Given the BLS’s actual assumptions and definitions, there are significant problems in what the BLS includes and excludes. Here’s just a few:

First, BLS defines ‘temp’ workers as those employed by Temp Agencies. But there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, who are hired direct by employers on a temp basis, not through agencies. The CPS has always ignored temps direct hired. Check out the auto industry where their numbers have been expanding for years.

What about public workers and higher ed teachers? I could not find any verification in the BLS study that they interviewed this sector? Many studies show that 70% of higher ed college teachers are now lecturers. (CHeck out the SEIU study). I suspect they aren’t adequately weighted in the BLS survey if at all. What about, as well, public home health workers, and the growing number of K-12 part timers, especially in charter schools.

And what about the company practice of hiring interns without pay for 3 to 6 months, then let them go and hire another cohort without pay. That’s a growing practice in tech. Aren’t they ‘super-contingent’? One could add the general practice in Tech of requiring skilled tech job candidates to solve a company problem, for which they aren’t paid, and then not hire them. Or the exploitation of young workers in so-called ‘coding academies’, where they do projects for companies in the hope of being hired, and then aren’t.

Another big problem with the BLS survey is it was conducted in May. That’s a big seasonality problem. Other studies. that Doug dismisses, were conducted in October-November. Obviously there would be far more ‘contingent’ workers in retail, wholesale, warehousing, etc. that would show up in November than in May. Remember, BLS findings are ‘statistics’, not raw data. They aren’t actual real numbers but estimates of real numbers (as is all BLS data). Seasonality issues are an important problem in the latest BLS survey.

And what about farm labor. They are certainly contingent. Many are undocumented and are not accurately surveyed (their numbers are plugged in based on assumptions about their numbers and employment). The same could be said for the huge underground economy in the US, now at least 12% of US GDP. Millions of inner city youth are not accurately weighted in CPS surveys in general. The CPS does a phone survey. That survey is biased toward workers who are not transient, who have a landline phone (and only most recently has the BLS been adding cell phones to that phone survey). Inner city youth and undocumented workers do not respond to government phone surveys, if they are even called upon in the first place. These are problems with the BLS-CPS general employment and wage surveys, which they ‘resolve’ by simply assuming an adjustment factor.

The BLS admits it excludes day labor. Does that mean also that the majority of longshore ‘B Men’, casual workers (who fit the BLS definition of contingent) are also not included? And why shouldn’t students working also be considered contingent? It fits the BLS definition. Why exclude that arbitrarily?

In short, there’s a lot of problems with the BLS survey, that in general results in a low balling of the magnitude and growth rate of contingent-alternative work. That low balling is baked into the definitions, assumptions, and methodologies it uses. (And of course the many important occupation categories it excludes). The truth is probably somewhere between the Princeton academics’ and freelancers’ union estimates, and the BLS study. But whatever the numbers, it makes no sense to say that precarious employment is not a growing problem in the US (and elsewhere in the advanced economies). Or that we should ignore it and focus on the ‘real problem’ with noncontingent work. They’re both a problem. We should not ignore the growing exploitation and destruction of noncontingent work; nor should we fall in line with government estimates of the precariate world by simply taking their (BLS) report at ‘face value’.

It’s no service to the US working classes, that have been beaten down in countless ways for more than three decades now, to say that the accelerating capitalist restructuring of labor markets creating gig, contingent, and alternative work (with less pay and benefits) is not a problem. The US government is minimizing the problem. Those who call themselves progressives should not join in.”

*

This article was originally published on Jack Rasmus’s website.

Dr. Jack Rasmus is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Alex Stamos, Facebook’s chief security officer, presented an overview of the Orwellian censorship regime implemented by the world’s largest social media company last week at an annual military conference in Tallinn, Estonia.

Speaking before an audience of generals, intelligence agents and US-aligned Eastern European politicians, Stamos warned that millions of “people who feel they have been ignored or oppressed” are using Facebook to “push for radical politics.”

The speech was an account of how the company is partnering with the US and other governments throughout the world to control public discourse online, with the primary but unstated aim of suppressing access to left-wing, anti-war and socialist viewpoints.

Stamos was speaking at CyCon, a conference sponsored by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on cyberwar and psychological operations. The very presence of a social media company at such an event, just a few hundred miles from NATO’s heavily-militarized border with Russia, makes clear the extent to which the US technology giants have been integrated into the US military-intelligence apparatus and its international operations.

Stamos began by pointing to a map of the social connections facilitated by Facebook.

“As the people who have drawn those lines, and given folks the ability to make those connections,” Stamos said, Facebook has the “responsibility to understand and to mitigate” the risks that its platform might be “used for bad,” which he called an attack “against the ideals of Facebook.”

First, Stamos said Facebook is seeking to combat “fake news” through “changes in the news feed that surface this content to people.”

But instead of seeking to determine if a piece of news is “fake,” Facebook is carrying out mass profiling of news sources by “Look[ing] to metadata around the people who have created the account, the news site that’s running it,” to evaluate whether it is “trustworthy.” Through this Orwellian censorship regime, Facebook segregates news organizations into categories and determines how many people are able to view their postings on that basis.

In other words, the company’s evaluation of whether a piece of news is “fake” is determined not by whether it is accurate, factually grounded or verifiable, but rather by who posts it. The logical implication is that if one of Facebook’s “partners” in the establishment media posts a story, no matter how inaccurate, biased, or poorly sourced, the company will still promote it as “trustworthy.”

Facebook’s policy on “fake news,” in other words, is political blacklisting.

In order to block “foreign influence operators,” Stamos said, Facebook is carrying out “manual investigations of organized groups,” and it is using machine learning to find “bad actors” at “scale” across its billions of users.

However, he added,

“The biggest growth category of information operations that we’re going to see over the next couple of years is domestic influence operations”—that is, political organizations who are seeking to “influence” politics in their own countries.

Facebook is targeting groups of “people who feel they have been ignored or oppressed,” whose “goal” is to “push for radical politics,” he said. These groups, he noted, can be “quite large.” As an example, Stamos mentioned Anonymous, a “hacktivist” group that supported the Occupy Wall Street protests against social inequality and was associated with support for the online journalism group WikiLeaks.

Alex Stamos speaking at CyCon

Numerically, however, the largest target of Facebook’s censorship measures consists of “individual participants,” who are often motivated by “legitimately held beliefs” to become “partners in information operations.” That is, millions of people who are not part of any organized political group, but who voice their agreement with the political views promoted by groups targeted by Facebook by sharing their content or voicing their support.

A “domestic operator,” he said, can have “thousands and thousands of people who believe in your cause.” The effect of “these people should not be understated,” he said.

To stifle the political statements of the broader public is open political censorship. For that reason, Facebook must be careful not to appear to stifle public discourse, but to block the “effectiveness” of the public in participating in “organized campaign[s].”

Stamos stated,

“Our response here has to be very, very careful because part of free expression means that sometimes people are going to say stuff you don’t agree with, right? Part of freedom is the freedom for people individually to be wrong, and we have to allow people to be wrong and to say things that while they don’t fall afoul of our hate speech standards or standards meant to ensure safety, but that are considered inappropriate, those are the kinds of things that open societies have to accept. But we do want to implement product enhancements to make sure that we are reducing the effectiveness of these people to be part of, unwittingly part of, an organized campaign.”

These “product enhancements” include redirecting users to content that Facebook approves of and providing “educational cues” informing them that their views are “disputed.”

Under American law, Facebook is regulated like a communications utility, similar to a phone company or a package delivery service. It has neither the “responsibility” nor the right to impose its “ideals” onto its users.

In the company’s view, however, the fact that it acts as a communications platform gives it the paternalistic obligation to police what its users say and block their speech if the company disagrees with it.

The social content of these “ideals” is made clear by the military-intelligence audience Stamos was speaking before. Over the course of the past two years, Facebook has come under relentless pressure from the US government to serve as an agent of the state intelligence forces to censor and suppress oppositional views on its platform. Leading advocates of censorship, including Democratic Senator Mark Warner and Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff, have made clear that the company will face intense regulatory and public pressure if it does not comply with their demands to stifle political opposition online.

In so doing, Facebook is acting as an agent of the American state, doing its dirty work to subvert the public’s constitutionally-protected freedoms of speech and assembly.

In perhaps his most ominous statement, Stamos concluded by calling for broader social changes in line with the measures Facebook has already taken. “Our societies overall are going to have to start to adapt to the idea that not all information is created equal,” he concluded. His conclusion harkens to the motto of the pigs in George Orwell’s Animal Farm:

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

With the vast majority of written communication taking place online, Facebook’s actions, together with other technology companies, constitute the largest, most comprehensive regime of censorship in human history. Outside of and in contradiction to fundamental constitutional and human rights, Facebook claims the right to determine what hundreds of billions of people read and say.

The World Socialist Web Site is fighting to expose the effort by Facebook, Google and other technology giants to censor the internet, which is the spearhead of a drive to dismantle the freedoms of association and expression across the world. We urge all of those who want to take up this struggle to contact us.

Former President Jimmy Carter has called U.S. politics a system of “legalized bribery” in which powerful interests spend billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign funding to ensure that members of Congress pay more attention to them than to the general public. With the upcoming midterm elections, we will see the full force of this tsunami of cash washing over our electoral system.

The human cost of this corrupt system has been searingly rammed home since the Parkland school shooting, as grieving high school students determined to curb America’s gun violence have found themselves in a pitched battle with the “gun lobby,” led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the most entrenched and powerful interest groups in the country.

The gun lobby has already spent over $12 million on lobbying and given at least $1.1 million to members of Congress in this election cycle, 98% of it to Republicans.  The gun lobby also wields power over Democrats through lobbying and public relations, and the threat of targeting individual Democrats who take a public stand for gun control.

But what about the even greater violence of America’s wars and the record military budget that makes them possible?  U.S. weapons makers spend far more money on lobbying and campaign contributions than the domestic gun lobby: $162 million on lobbying and tens of millions in direct funding for members of Congress so far in the 2017-18 election cycle.

There is a strong correlation between campaign contributions from the companies that build America’s warships, tanks and warplanes, and critical votes in Congress to keep the guns firing, the missiles flying, the bombs falling and the cash flowing to the military-industrial complex.

When an evenly-divided Senate voted to confirm Gina Haspel as CIA Director, six Democrats joined 48 Republicans to vote for her confirmation.  But it was not just any six Democrats. In the 2018 election cycle, those six – Senators Nelson (FL), Donnelly (IN), Manchin (WV), Heitkamp (ND, Shaheen (NH) and Warner (VA)– have received an average of $170,220 each in campaign cash from the war industry, while the 43 Democrats who voted against Haspel took in an average of only $91,409 each.

Four of the Haspel Six (Nelson, Donnelly, Manchin and Heitkamp) also recently cast critical votes to confirm Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and to continue the murderous U.S.-Saudi war on the people of Yemen.

U.S. weapons companies have traditionally treated the Republican Party as their base in Congress, and they still contribute more to Republicans than Democrats. But as we can see in these three recent votes, hawkish Senate Democrats play a critical role as swing votes to keep the country at war and to ensure that the lion’s share of tax revenues keep flowing to the military-industrial complex.

The support of these hawkish Senate Democrats for endless war and record military spending stands in sharp contrast to the concerns of grassroots Democrats and Independents and even many Republicans, who are sick of the intractable cycle of violence and chaos that U.S. militarism has unleashed around the world since 2001.

The Haspel Six, who voted for a woman who oversaw horrific forms of torture, are not the only Democrats corrupted by the war industry.  Many more regularly vote for record military budgets that hand over the lion’s share of U.S. tax revenues to war profiteers.

Thirteen Senate Democrats have already raked in more than $200,000 each in contributions from the war industry in this election cycle: Durbin (IL); Reed (RI); Kaine (VA); Schumer (NY); Nelson (FL); Leahy (VT); Murray (WA); Shaheen (NH); Warner (VA); Blumenthal (CT); Schatz (HI); Donnelly (IN); and Heinrich (NM). Of these, only Leahy had the integrity to vote against final passage of the $700 billion FY2018 military budget.

In this election cycle, the 49 Democrats and Independents in the U.S. Senate have raised $5 million dollars in direct campaign contributions from the war industry, plus an additional $2.3 million for their “Leadership PACs,” from which they distribute funds to other corporate politicians and candidates.  That amounts to 44.5% of the war profits Lockheed Martin and other weapons makers have reinvested in the U.S. Senate in this election cycle, compared with $9.1 million, or 55.5%, to the 51 Republicans.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee may soon take up the Corker-Kaine Bill for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which would be an even more explicit blank check for endless war than the 2001 AUMF, which only authorized

“…all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons (the president) determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons….”

Three successive U.S. administrations have interpreted that language to justify wars that have destroyed several countries, and killed and maimed millions of people who had nothing to do with the crimes of September 11th. Now we face the even greater danger that, instead of simply repealing the serially-abused 2001 AUMF, a Congress bought and paid for by the war industry will explicitly authorize endless war.

How can we, the public, make our voices heard by a Congress corrupted by war profiteers, when the war industry can buy a bipartisan majority for war and militarism in the U.S. Senate with such a tiny fraction of its profits?

How can we bring the same good sense and common humanity to America’s bomb problem that the students from Parkland have brought to our domestic gun problem?

CODEPINK and other groups of concerned citizens have started a campaign called Divest from the War Machine. We ask elected officials to refuse contributions from the NRA and the top five weapons manufacturers: Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing and General Dynamics. Since these officials are constantly voting on issues related to military spending, these decisions must not be tainted by the corrupting influence of weapons lobbyists. Check out the list of those who signed the pledge and help us get more officials on board.

Learn more about the campaign and join us in building an economy that is not dependent on killing and maiming people to boost the profits of weapons manufacturers.

*

This article was originally published on Common Dreams.

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Global Exchange and CODEPINK: Women for Peace, is the author of the new book, Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Her previous books include: Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection; Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control; Don’t Be Afraid Gringo: A Honduran Woman Speaks from the Heart, and (with Jodie Evans) Stop the Next War Now (Inner Ocean Action Guide). Follow her on Twitter: @medeabenjamin

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

Venezuela is a champion in democracy, in democratic elections, as proven twice within the last twelve months and more than a dozen times since 1999. Never mind that the lunatic west doesn’t want to accept it – simply because the west – the US and her handlers – and her European vassals, cannot tolerate a socialist country prospering – one that is so close to the empire’s border and on top of it, loaded with natural riches, like oil and minerals. Venezuela’s economic success could send intellectual “left-wing” shock waves to the dumbed and numbed American populace, with shrapnel ricocheting all the way to blindfolded Europe.

That would be terrible. That’s why Venezuela must be economically strangled, literally, by illegal sanctions, by totally unlawful outside interventions within sovereign Venezuela, by corrupting internal food and medicine distribution, literally buying off bus drivers to stay home rather than driving their assigned routes to take people from home to work and vice-versa; and corrupting truck drivers not to deliver the merchandise, so that supermarket shelves are empty. They can be photographed, to make the world believe that Venezuela is at the brink of collapse. Those who are not too young, may recall exactly the same pattern of outside (CIA) interference on the Chilean system in 1973, leading up to the CIA instigated coup that killed the democratically elected President, Salvador Allende and put hard-core neonazi Augusto Pinochet in power. Outside interference – CIA and other State Department funded secret services – was also widely responsible for trying boycotting and influencing the Venezuelan democratic election process. To no avail. They did not succeed.

A similar situation exists with Iran, a mighty powerful nation with a high level of intellect, research, industrial and agricultural potential and – foremost – with a collective mindset that does not want to be trampled by the west, let alone by Washington. Iran is the leader in the Middle East and eventually will be the pillar of stability of the region. No Israel Government would dare to mess with Iran. Netanyahu’s threats are just empty saber-rattling. Iran has also strong and reliable allies, like China and Russia. China is buying the bulk of Iran’s hydrocarbon production and would not stand idle in an Israel-US confrontation with Iran. Hence, Iran doesn’t need to submit to the dictate of Washington. Iran is a sovereign nation, having already embarked on a path of ‘Resistance Economy’ – meaning, a gradual decoupling from the western fraudulent dollar-based monetary system. Iran is considering launching a government-owned and managed cryptocurrency which would be immune from western sanctions – same as is the Venezuelan oil-backed Petro.

If Venezuela was allowed by the west to prosper, the people of North America could wake up. And, for example, demand explanations why their government is actually so undemocratic as to interfering in other countries affairs around the world, overthrowing other sovereign governments – killing millions, who do not want to bend to the rules of the US dictator; and at home planting fear through false flags and staged terror acts, i.e. multiple school shootings, sidewalk car rampages (Manhattan) and Marathon bomb attacks (Boston).

Never mind whether the US Presidents behind such terror are called Trump, Obama, Bush, or Clinton – and the list doesn’t end there. One could go way back to find the same pattern of attempted submission through fear, propaganda, acts of terror. They are all pursuing the same sinister agenda, world hegemony at any price.

Venezuela – and Iran for that matter – are in a totally different league. Venezuela voted on 29 July 2017 for the National Constituent Assembly, an elaborate, transparent process to establish a true People’s Parliament. The idea is brilliant, but was, of course, condemned by the west as fraud – because the reigning elite of the west could and will not allow the people to be in power.

When Iran’s President Rouhani was re-elected in May 2017, Washington was happy, believing Rouhani would bend to the rules of the west. He didn’t. In fact, he stood his course, though trying to maintain friendly – and business – relations with the west, but at Iran’s terms. As this doesn’t seem to be possible, specially after Trump’s unilateral stepping out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also called the Nuclear Deal, and re-imposing “the strongest sanctions the world has ever seen”, what is there left, other than decisively detaching from the west and joining the eastern alliances, the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). This is precisely what Venezuela is doing, calling her losses, but moving on to more friendly pastures – and to certainly a more prosperous future.

Western parliaments have become smoke screens, for hiding financial dictatorships, and lately worse, police and military oppression for fear people might stand up — which they actually do, right now in France against Macron’s new labor law, intent of stripping workers of their benefits acquired through decades of hard work. Basically, since last February, people take to the streets of Paris, fearless, despite France being the most militarized country of Europe. They are exposed to tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets, but do not give up defending not only their labor rights but also defending theirs and the peoples of France’s democratic right of freedom of expression – which in most EU countries has died a silent dead.

On 20 May 2018 Venezuela held another peaceful and absolutely democratic Presidential Elections, witnessed by international observers from more than 40 countries, including former President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa, and former President of Spain, José Luis Zapatero. They all have confirmed the transparency of the Venezuelan electoral system and called upon the international community to respect the election results. Indeed, the United States as well as Europe could learn a lot from the Venezuelan electoral process and from Venezuelan democracy.

Washington, its European Union vassals and the Organization of American States (OAS), again – what else – condemned the elections as a fraud before they actually took place, urging President Maduro to cancel them (what an abject arrogance!). Similarly, the so-called Lima Group – a collective of 14 Latin American nations – has accused the Maduro Administration of manipulating the elections, declaring the results “illegitimate“, also before the ballots were cast. But former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, founder of the Carter Center, said:

“Of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

Zapatero said at a press conference that the EU, who was invited directly by President Nicolas Maduro to join international election observers, didn’t send delegations because of “prejudice”. Zapatero said,

“There is prejudice, and life and political experience consists of banishing prejudices and getting to know the truth firsthand.”

He also pointed to the OAS’s double standards against Venezuela:

“What are they saying about what’s happening in Brazil and Honduras?” –

And allow me to add,

“and currently in Nicaragua”?

Correa doubled up, saying,

“No one can question the Venezuelan elections… in the world there is no election as monitored as Venezuelan elections.” –

The absolute correctness of the Venezuelan election was further confirmed by CEELA, the Latin American Council on Electoral Experts. Mr. Moscoso, the head of CEELA, stated that the CEELA delegation has met with experts and candidates ahead of last Sunday’s [20 May 2018] elections and confirmed “harmony in the electoral process.”

There is no doubt by any member of the high-powered and professional electoral observation delegations that the Venezuelan elections were correct and that Nicolas Maduro has legitimately been re-elected with 68% of the votes for the next 6 years – 2019 to 2025. The “low” turn-out of 54% is blamed by the west on Venezuela for barring the opposition candidates and opposition parties from voting. In fact, the turn-out is “low”, because of the west (EU and US) instigating the opposition to boycotting the elections. Under these circumstances, 54% is a great turnout, especially when compared to the only slightly higher numbers – 55.7% – of   Americans who went to the polls in 2016, when Trump was elected; and 58% in 2012, for Obama’s second term.

It is actually a horrendous shame that we, independent journalists and geopolitical analysts, have to spend time defending the transparency and correctness of the Venezuelan elections and democratic system – the best in the world – in the face of governments where fraud and lies are on their every-day menu – and where initiation of conflict and wars – mass killings – is their bread and butter. Yes, bread and butter, because the economy of the United States could not survive without war, and the elite puppets in Europe might be trampled to mulch, if they had not become militarized oppressive police states.

That’s the state of the neoliberal / neofascist world of the 21^st Century – defending the honest and correct from accusations by the criminal lying hooligans – is what the west has become, a bunch of mafia states without ethics, where laws are made by white collard criminals for their corporate dominated governments.

There are other reasons why Venezuela has become a vanguard of a new emerging world – a world that is separating itself gradually from the west. Other than China and Russia, Venezuela is among the first countries to abandon the US dollar as trading currency. Caracas has been selling its hydrocarbons to China for gold-convertible Yuan. Venezuela is also the world’s first country to introduce a government controlled, petrol backed cryptocurrency, the Petro which will soon be enhanced by the Petro-Oro, another government-controlled cryptocurrency, based on gold and other minerals.

None of the other, privately launched blockchain currencies, like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero, Ripple – and literally more than 3,000 digital blockchain currencies, have any backing. They can be considered similar to fiat money, highly speculative, lending themselves to money-laundering and other fraud.

When the Petro was launched in March 2018 it attracted presale interests from 133 countries of US$ 5 billion equivalent. The first day presale raised US$ 735 equivalent; impressive record figures indicating a huge interest of the world at large to find an alternative to the US currency dominated western monetary system – the one and only tailored to hand out sanctions, block international monetary transfers and confiscate foreign funds abroad. And this is because all international dollar transactions have to transit through a US bank either in London or in New York.

Without divulging many details about the Petro – for good reasons – President Maduro has praised the Petro as a key weapon in his fight against what he describes as an “economic war” led by the United States. The oil-backed digital cryptocurrency is convertible into: yuan, rubles, Turkish liras and euro – all of which is indicative that the world wants an alternative – and Venezuela has initiated this alternative.

In the meantime, Russia and Iran have also announced the introduction of a government owned cryptocurrency. They are formidable shields against US-dollar intrusion and interference. Government owned and managed cryptocurrencies are in fact master tools for an approach of “Economic Resistance” against economic sanctions. Russia is way ahead of the pack. As President Putin said already two years ago, the sanctions were the best thing that could have happened to Russia, which was economically devastated after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Sanctions allowed Russia to promote self-sufficiency, rebuild agriculture and her outdated industrial park, put new energy and savvy into research and development – and actually become in the last three years the world’s first wheat exporter.

Similar approaches are already happening large-scale by other nations, subject to Washington’s sanctions regime, i.e. Iran, Cuba, North Korea and of course China. Independence from the western economy also means moving away from globalization and especially the globalized US-dollar hegemony. – Venezuela is the vanguard of a slowly growing movement of countries that have already abandoned the use of the US-dollar for international trade, like India, Pakistan, Iran. This growing trend may become a groundswell of independent nations, that may bring the US economy to its knees. It is a war without aggression, but with alternatives for circumventing economic hostilities from Washington, from the US led attempts to subjugate the world to the dollar dictate – i.e. to US-dollar hegemony. The resistance movement shall overcome.

*

This article was also published on New Eastern Outlook.

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

The Democratic Party has made a strategic decision to bypass candidates from its progressive wing and recruit former members of the military and intelligence agencies to compete with Republicans in the upcoming midterm elections. The shift away from liberal politicians to center-right government agents and military personnel is part of a broader plan to rebuild the party so it better serves the interests of its core constituents, Wall Street, big business, and the foreign policy establishment. Democrat leaders want to eliminate left-leaning candidates who think the party should promote issues that are important to working people and replace them with career bureaucrats who will be more responsive to the needs of business. The ultimate objective of this organization-remake is to create a center-right superparty comprised almost entirely of trusted allies from the national security state who can be depended on to implement the regressive policies required by their wealthy contributors. Here’s more background from Patrick Martin at the World Socialist Web Site:

“An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.

If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress….

… it should be noted that there would be no comparable influx of Bernie Sanders supporters or other “left”-talking candidates in the event of a Democratic landslide. Only five of the 221 candidates reviewed in this study had links to Sanders or billed themselves as “progressive.” None is likely to win the primary, let alone the general election.” (“The CIA Democrats, Patrick Martin, The World Socialist Web Site)

The world is riven with class conflicts in Latin America, political conflicts between the Anglo-Americans and Russians, and economic conflicts between Washington against Europe and Asia.

The conflicts have called into question the capacity of ruling elites to promote growth, to secure international stability and to foster global as co-operation.

To understand the underlying source of conflicts it is essential to identify and unmask the underlying political and economic interests which spread and deepen class, regional and global confrontations.

Latin America: Reforms Which Deform

In recent decades throughout Latin America, rulers have spoken and demanded ‘reforms’ as essential to stimulate and sustain growth and foster equity and sustainability. The ‘reforms’ involve implementing ‘structural changes’ which require large scale privatization to encourage entrepreneurship and end state corruption; deregulation of the economy to stimulate foreign and domestic investment; labor flexibility to ‘free’ labor markets and increase employment; and lower business taxes. According to the reformers all this will lead to free markets and promote democratic values.

Over the past thirty years, ruling elites in Latin America have carried out IMF and World Bank structural reforms in two cyclical periods: between 1989-1999 and more recently between 2015-2018. In both cases the reforms have led to a series of major economic, political and social deformations.

During the first cycle of ‘reforms’, privatization concentrated wealth by transferring public means of production to oligarchs, and increased private monopolies, which deepened inequalities and sharpened class divisions.

Deregulation led to financial speculation, tax evasion, capital flight and public- private corruption.

‘Reforms’ deformed the existing class structure provoking social upheavals, which precipitated the collapse of the elite led ‘reforms’ and the advent of a decade of nationalist populist governments.

The populists restored and expanded social reforms but did not change the political and economic ‘deformations’, embedded in the state.

A decade later (2015) the ‘reformers’ returned to power and restored the regressive free market policies of the previous neo-liberal ruling elite. By 2018 a new cycle of class conflicts flared throughout Brazil and Argentina, threatening to overturn the existing US center free market order.

Anglo America Russophobes as Fake Miracle workers; the Post Christ Resurrections

As part of the propaganda campaign to discredit and isolate Russia, the UK and the Ukraine, stalwart flunkies of Washington, accused Moscow of assassinations by poison and bullets. Both alleged victims appeared live and well in due time!

On March 4, 2018, the Prime Minister of the UK Theresa May claimed that Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia were poisoned by Russian secret agents. Foreign Secretary Boris “Bobo” Johnson called the poison, ‘the most-deadly agent known to man’ (sic) – Novichok. According to “Terry and Bobo” the poison kills in 30 seconds. Two months later Sergei and Yulia were seen taking a stroll in a park.

The fake charges were promoted by the entire Anglo-Americans mass media. The UK proceeded to charge Putin with ‘crimes against humanity’ , backed additional diplomatic and economic sanctions, increased military spending for homeland defense and urged President Trump to take forceful action. Once the ‘victims’ ‘rose from the dead’ the media never questioned the regime’s claim of a Russian conspiracy planned at the highest level.

The UK scored a few trivial merit points from Washington, which, however, did not prevent President Trump from slapping a double-digit tariff on British steel and aluminum exports (with more to come)!

The Ukraine joined the line of toadies trying to secure President Trump’s approval by cooking up another Russian murder plot. This time Ukraine leaders claimed Kremlin agents assassinated one Arkady Babchenko, an anti-Russian journalist and self-proclaimed exile in Kiev.

On May 29, 2018, Arkady was found ‘murdered’ or so said the Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko and repeated, embellished and circulated by the entire western mass media.

On May 31, a wide-eyed ‘Arkady’ turned up alive and claiming his ‘resurrection’ was a planned plot to catch a Russian agent!

Western regimes systematic use of lies, plots and conspiracies are central to the imperial drive for world power.

In Syria, the US accused Damascus of using poisonous gas against its own people in order to justify NATO’s terror bombing of Aleppo’s civilian population!

In Libya, Obama and Clinton claimed President Gaddafi distributed Viagra to his armed forced to rape innocent civilians, precipitating the US-EU terror bombing of the country and rape and murder of President Ghaddafi.

The question is whether western leaders will seek papal recognition of CIA directed resurrections to coincide with Easter?

Appeasement and Trump’s ‘Triumph of Will’

EU kowtowing to President Trump’s grab for global power, has only aroused his desire to dominate their markets, dictate their trade relations and defense spending. Trump tells the EU that his enemies are theirs.

Trump believes in the doctrine of unilateral trade and ‘deals’ based on the principle that the US decides what you sell, how much you pay, and what you buy. The giant French oil multinational, Total, which had promised to invest in Iran, submitted to Trump and withdrew from its agreement and turned a deaf-ear to the French President.

President Macron facing US tariffs on French exports bent his knee to Trump. Paris would support ‘joint efforts to reduce overcapacities, regulate subsidies and protect intellectual property’. Trump heard the ring of the EU begging cup and imposed tariffs and demanded more.

The EU ‘vowed’ to retaliate to Trump’s tariffs by . . . sucking up to Trump’s trade war with China. The European Commission (EC) announced it was launching a case against . . . China! Echoing Trump’s allegations that Beijing was committing the ‘crime’ of insisting (‘forcing’ in EU rhetoric) foreign investors transfer technology as part of the basis for doing business.

Trump turned on Mexico and Canada, his flunky allies in NAFTA by slapping both with tariffs.

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was ‘dismayed’ after wining and dining Trump in an embarrassing charm offensive, Trump ate, drank, and slapped a tariff on steel and aluminum and threatened to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In response Trudeau cited Canada’s century and a half military support for US imperial wars. To no avail!

For Trump, the past is the past. It’s time to move ahead and for Canada to ‘buy American’.

And when Trudeau talked of imposing reciprocal tariffs on US exports, Trump countered by threatening to break all trading agreements. At which point Trudeau proposed ‘further’ negotiations.

Trump’s tariff on Mexican steel and aluminum exports evoked the robust response of a true Treaty lackey – the Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto claimed negotiations were ‘continuing’ and US companies were ‘involved’!

The harder Trump pushed, the greater the retreat of his EU and North American ‘allies’. Facing rhetorical retaliation from the EU, Trump tweeted German Prime Minister Merkle’s nose out of shape, by threatening to slap Germany with car tariffs worth $20 billion dollars.

The German Prime Minister and the head of Volkswagen broke ranks with the EU, and forgot all talk of retaliation and EU ‘unity’. They embraced negotiations and proposed ‘bilateral trans-Atlantic agreements based on Trump’s terms!

Trump is not improvising’, nor is he ‘erratic’. He wields power; he knows that his competitors’ spinelessness is accompanied by mutual back-stabbing and he is exploiting their appeasement, by encouraging their belly crawling.

President Trump exhibits a ‘will to power’.

Appeasement in the nineteen thirties allowed Germany to defeat and occupy Europe. President Trump ,in the 21st century. is defeating the EU and conquering its markets.

Conclusion

The language of politics is the politics of dominant world powers. Trump’s ‘reforms’ have deformed all past and present treaties, alliances and agreements in his drive for world domination.

While the UK and the Ukraine run errands, fabricating Russian assassinations and resurrecting victims, Trump has his eyes on the prize; the world’s biggest markets — the EU and China.

Yes, Trump may thank the Canadians for dying for US wars in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, but he tells Prime Minister Trudeau, ‘Business is business Justin, now bend over and sing, ‘God Bless America’.

The same goes for Theresa May and Boris Johnson: Close your eyes and enjoy watching our tariffs close steel mills now and auto plants tomorrow.

Trump knows his prostrate allies. He moralizes: ‘the more you screw them the better they like it’!

That’s the Trump doctrine. And it’s not only his personal views: the stock market loves it; the Silicon billionaires and the manufacturers are cashing in on protection at home and free markets overseas.

Trump will be entertained by the quartet of Trudeau, Macron, Merkel and May who will perform an original composition; “Making America Strong in a World of Wimps”.

*

Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

One might well think that the only serious foreign policy imperative of the Donald Trump administration is to defend Israel. A president elected because he promised to put United States’ interests first has turned out to be little different than his predecessors, bowing to the power of various lobbies and constituencies to carry out their wishes while simultaneously pretending to be serving poorly defined policies to promote the security and well-being of the American people.

Israel possesses, to be sure, the most powerful foreign policy lobby operating not only in the United States but as well in Western Europe and Australasia. When Israel makes its incessant demands, politicians from Washington to Canberra and Wellington pause to listen. In Britain, fully 80% of Conservative parliamentarians are members of the Conservative Friends of Israel.

Israel benefits from a large, influential and wealthy community of diaspora Jews that is willing to do its bidding and which also possesses easy access to the media and to politicians, many of whom are more than willing to be corrupted by money. This has led to the creation of an “Israeli narrative,” most particularly in the United States, which glamorizes the state of Israel through the incessant reiteration of expressions like “the only democracy in the Middle East” and “America’s best friend and closest ally,” both of which assertions are completely false.

It should surprise no one that the Trump administration is packed with Israel-firsters from top to bottom. Those who deal with Israel directly – Ambassador David Friedman, Chief Middle East Negotiator Jason Greenblatt, and Special Envoy and son-in-law Jared Kushner are all Orthodox Jews with long standing ties to Israel and its leadership. They are major financial supporters of Israeli “charities,” to include projects on the occupied West Bank, which are both illegal under international law and contrary to long established U.S. policy. It would seem, without being too hyperbolic, that Israeli interests are at least as important to them as are the American interests that they ostensibly represent and are being paid by the taxpayer to support.

Within the White House, there is virtually no pushback against Israeli pretensions even when American interests are being damaged. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has repeatedly voiced his support of the Jewish state and his animosity towards that state’s enemy of choice Iran. National Security Adviser John Bolton, a long-time neoconservative, has never distanced himself in any way from complete identification with the policies being promoted by Israel and its increasingly right wing and racist governments. Donald Trump himself has declared that he will be the best president for Israel ever, a pledge that he has worked to honor by moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in spite of the damage that it does to actual regional American interests.

But the most vocal advocate for Israel within the Administration is Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, who has consistently taken the hardest of all possible lines against Israel’s claimed enemies while also fully endorsing the most brutal actions undertaken by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Haley’s most recent action reveals that the United States has truly lost its sense of direction and moral compass. If one were religious, it might be suggested that it has lost its soul.

Haley’s most recent foray into her own style of what she might refer to as statesmanship came on June 1^st. Kuwait had brought a resolution to the United Nations Security Council to call on it to fulfil its responsibility to help protect the people of Gaza, who were being bombed, gassed and shot dead by Israeli Army sniper fire. Nikki Haley, however, was thinking of something quite different, a resolution she had drafted to denounce Hamas for the alleged volleys of rockets that were launched into adjacent Israeli controlled areas in response to the Israeli gunfire and bombings. Votes on the two resolutions followed, with Haley failing to obtain any votes on her resolution except her own.

Haley again voted alone when she vetoed the Kuwaiti resolution to protect the Palestinian people. And it was not Haley’s first such bit of unilateralism. She had walked out of a previous Security Council meeting on Israel’s killing of Palestinian protesters as a deliberate insult to their representative who had risen to begin to speak. Haley unfortunately represents America. America the home of the free and brave? Bullshit.

*

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

Instead of looking at Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal as being solely motivated against the US’ top Mideast foe, it’s worthwhile to consider whether it was also a preplanned power play against the EU.

There’s been plenty of analysis put out over the past month since Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal about the many angles from which this will affect the Islamic Republic and its ties with the US, and most observers consensually agree that the President’s motivation for taking this step was to intensify the ongoing Hybrid War against his country’s chief Mideast foe. That’s certainly true, but there’s also another dimension to all of this that warrants examination too, which is whether it was partially a preplanned power play against the EU, which is now bearing the brunt of the US’ sanctions weaponization.

Trump, being the alpha male that he considers himself on the world stage, was eager to force his EuroLiberal socialist counterparts whom he already views with contempt into a humiliating submission after their media’s participation in the “deep state’s” fake news infowar against him for the last three years. Not only that, but in his quest to “Make America Great Again”, he wanted to reassert the US as the undisputed Western hegemon capable of inflicting serious pain on all of those opposed to it, including its nominal “allies” who have attempted to defy its unipolar power through their recent foreign policy and economic diversifications.

The Europeans are now groveling before Trump’s feet and literally begging him in a letter written by the EU, British, French, and German Foreign Ministers to exempt their companies from the US’ anti-Iranian sanctions, fearing that the effect of so-called “secondary sanctions” on their companies for their lack of compliance will shut them out of the American marketplace for good, catalyze another economic crisis, and consequently deal a deathblow to the EU. The threat of that happening, however, is precisely one of the reasons why Trump withdrew from the Iranian deal in the first place.

Of the many words that can be used in describing Trump, a few are indisputably accurate, and it’s that he’s a ruthlessly calculating businessman who knows how to twist his opponents’ arms in coaxing concessions out of them, which is exactly what he’s doing with the EU countries through the threats of excluding their sanctions-violating companies from its profitable marketplace.  Trump wants to inflict maximum soft power pain on them in order to teach his counterparts a lesson that they’ll never forget, punishing America’s vassals for daring to be insubordinate and holding out the potential for dealing heavy economic damage against them if they don’t renounce their independent ways.

With their reputations ruined both in the eyes of their populations and also the world, Trump has successfully asserted himself as the alpha male and is now in a better position to extract further concessions from his opponents, eventually compelling them to go along with his new trade policies and continue contributing more to NATO. The first-mentioned could have the point pressed further home if Trump proactively intensifies the so-called “trade war” with China and deliberately makes the EU collateral damage like he’s doing with the Iran deal, while the second one is already occurring through the fake news-driven “Russia threat”.

All in all, what the US is basically doing is re-monopolizing its influence over the West through the weaponization of “secondary sanctions” in order to roll back multipolar progress in what it considers to be its natural sphere of influence, openly treating its “partners” like the neo-colonial vassals that they are by forcing them to pay tribute (in the case of trade, quite literally) to their geopolitical lord. The Iran deal can therefore be seen as being just as much of an attack against the EU as against the Islamic Republic itself, with the key difference being that many people still can’t countenance the concept of the US purposely engaging in “friendly fire” against its supposed “allies” for Machiavellian purposes.

*

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: Yuli-Yoel Edelstein and Benjamin Netanyahu (Source: Liberation News)

Israeli leaders and their supporters in the U.S. never tire of proclaiming Israel to be the “only democracy in the Middle East,” while vehemently denying that it is an apartheid state.

But on June 5, the leadership of the Knesset (parliament) voted to not allow even the discussion of a bill calling for equal rights and status for the “Arab and Jewish nationalities” inside the 1948 borders of the Israeli state.

The bill, titled, “State of All Its Citizens,” was introduced by three members of the Balad party, Jamal Zahalka, Haneen Zoabi and Jouma Azbarga.  Balad is one of the parties representing the approximately 1.5 million Palestinians living inside Israel.

Speaker of the parliament, Yuli-Yoel Edelstein, an immigrant to Israel from Ukraine, called the bill “absurd,” and explained why the indigenous Palestinian population must not, from his point of view, be accorded equal rights:

“We cannot allow a proposal whose goal is to gnaw away at the foundations the State of Israel is built upon to be on the Knesset’s agenda.”

Most of Edelstein’s colleagues were in full agreement. Knesset Legal Adviser Eyad Yinon, stated:

“As a matter of principle and in its details, it’s hard not to see this proposal as seeking to negate the State of Israel’s existence as a state of the Jewish people.”

The admissions that a law calling for equal rights for all would “negate” or “gnaw away at the foundations” of Israel are very revealing, reconfirming the racism and exclusivism that has always characterized Zionism, the ideological foundation upon which the state of Israel was constructed.

While the bill would have been overwhelmingly defeated had it come to the Knesset floor, that was an eventuality that Israeli political leaders sought to head-off at all costs. Such a vote would have struck a devastating blow at the much-promoted fiction that Israel is both a democratic and Jewish state.

The contortions needed to maintain this position are illustrated by a June 4 headline in the right-wing Jerusalem Post: “Knesset Refuses to Put Bill Rejecting Jewish, Democratic Israel to a Vote.” In other words, in order to maintain Israel’s “democratic” character,” voting on – or even discussing – such issues as equal rights must be avoided

The corporate mass media in the U.S. “solved” the problem of how to cover this story by simply ignoring it.

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies have reportedly started deploying forces for a military operation against ISIS in eastern al-Suwayda. The villages of Tell Sa’d, Tamutha, Ashrfya and Aura are the target of the expected advance.

At the same time, the Tiger Forces have also continued deploying their units in southern Syria in a clear signal that a military action is near.

On June 6, the SAA artillery shelled several positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the  Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and its allies in the area of Khirbat Marata in southwestern Aleppo and in the district of al-Zahra west of the city.

Russian warplanes also reportedly carried out strikes on positions of al-Qaeda-affilated Horas al-Din in the areas of Urum al-Jawz, Bsheiriyeh and Ariha in northwestern Idlib.

According to some sources, these actions were a response and an additional warning to militant groups that had recently participated in attacks on government positions in Aleppo and Latakia.

On the same day, the Syrian government reopened the Hama-Homs highway for civilian traffic for the first time in seven years. The reopening of the highway is a part of the reconciliation agreement in the northern Homs countryside.

Government forces also continued its security operations in northern Homs where they found a weapons cache that included Grad rockets, mortar shells, heavy machineguns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers.

Additionally, Mays al-Kareidi, a spokeswoman for the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), made an official statement announcing that the SDC is ready for direct negotiations with Damascus. According to the statement, SDC Co-Chair Ilham Ehmed declared its readiness for negotiations with the Syrian government without any preconditions.

The SDC is another brand created to hide the YPG/YPD dominance within the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces. Ilham Ehmed is a senior member of the Democratic Union Party (PYD).

The SDC’s announcement came just a day after the withdrawal of the YPG from Manbij and two days after the announcement that Turkey and the US had endorsed the roadmap for the area.

*

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

The United States committed war crimes of staggering proportions last year during its four-month-long siege of the Syrian city of Raqqa, demolishing up to 80 percent of the city with an unrelenting blitzkrieg of bombs and artillery shells that killed hundreds of civilians.

The devastation left behind by the US military and its proxy troops in the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces was detailed in a damning report published this week by Amnesty International grimly titled “War of Annihilation.” Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis routinely used the phrase when describing the effort to take control of the city from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The US dropped thousands of bombs on Raqqa and shelled the city with 30,000 artillery rounds in just five months. The population of Raqqa and its surrounding villages have been reduced from a pre-war total of 340,000 to less than 100,000. Most of those who fled the city are unable to return as most homes and critical infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed. Those who have returned face the prospect of being blown apart by unexploded bombs and missiles dropped by the US and its allies or landmines set by ISIS.

While the US has been officially waging war in Syria to defeat ISIS, the report notes that artillery and airstrikes continued to pound civilian areas even as a deal was struck which allowed thousands of the group’s members to evacuate the city. With at least 2,000 US troops currently illegally occupying Syria, Washington’s ultimate aim is to overthrow the government of Bashar al-Assad and install a regime which is more pliant to the needs of American imperialism.

Amnesty’s researchers interviewed more than 100 survivors and surveyed the sites of 42 US airstrikes across the city, providing a sense of the death and destruction wrought by last year’s onslaught. The human rights group spoke to the Badrans, a family that lost 39 of its members, most of them women and children, to four separate US air strikes as they scrambled to find shelter.

The commander in charge of the assault boasted at its height that the attack on Raqqa was “the most precise air campaign in history.” The Pentagon has absurdly claimed that it killed fewer than 500 civilians in 2017 in all its various military operations across the globe, admitting to just 32 civilian deaths in Raqqa.

A report by the Associated Press in April found that close to 500 corpses had been pulled from the rubble and that hundreds of bodies were still being uncovered many months after the siege had ended. Airwars, which closely tracks airstrikes by the US and its allies in Syria and Iraq, has documented 1,400 civilian casualties resulting from US airstrikes in Raqqa.

Unlike the hysteria generated over the fake gas attack in Douma earlier this year, the revelations of widespread war crimes carried out by the US and its allies in Raqqa, as with the assault itself, have been treated as a non-event by the corporate media. Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post, the political establishment’s two main newspapers of record, carried any mention of the Amnesty report in their print editions.

Times columnists Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman, who both jump at any opportunity to denounce with the utmost moral outrage alleged atrocities carried out by the Assad regime or Russian forces in order to clamor for an escalation of US “humanitarian” intervention, apparently caught a joint case of writer’s block.

The editorialists and commentators in the American media, by and large, argue that Trump has not gone far enough in Syria, and that the US wars and occupations which have been raging for more than 15 years must be expanded to counter any challenge by Russia and Iran to US domination over the Middle East.

Amid the never-ending mudslinging over Trump’s supposed collusion with the Russians to win the 2016 election, all sides agree that the wars for complete control over the region’s oil reserves must continue and in fact be expanded, regardless of the cost in civilian lives.

The media’s failure to report on the atrocities in Raqqa and its coverup of Amnesty’s findings make them complicit in these crimes. They have made a deliberate decision to conceal from the American people the scope of the crimes carried out in their name in an effort to block the development of broad antiwar sentiments into a politically conscious movement against imperialist war.

A critical role in this effort is played by the pseudo-left, including organizations calling themselves “socialist” who work tirelessly to justify imperialist intervention. The International Socialist Organization has routinely attacked those who oppose the US war in Syria and Washington’s so-called “rebel” proxy forces. They have responded to the repeated illegal missile strikes by President Trump on the Assad government, which could have sparked a war with nuclear-armed Russia, by charging that they did not go far enough, while complaining that both Obama and Trump have failed to do enough to arm the Al Qaeda-linked “rebels” unleashed upon Syria.

Similarly, the Pabloite International Viewpoint published a statement this week calling for a renewal of the war for regime change in Syria, claiming that the US and its imperialist allies have “refused to allow the democratic components of the uprising to defend themselves…,” meaning that the US has not bombed Syria enough or delivered a sufficient amount of weaponry to their proxy forces.

The ever-compliant media has worked with the Pentagon to falsely portray its wars as bloodless surgical operations in which terrorists are being killed with precision bombs, while in fact the bodies of the innocents continue to pile up. The US effort to retake Mosul in Iraq from ISIS in 2016 and 2017 killed as many as 40,000 civilians, according to an estimate by Iraqi Kurdish intelligence, while more than a million people were displaced. The three-year-old Saudi-led war in Yemen, backed by US special forces on the ground, has killed over 13,000 civilians and threatens more than 18 million with starvation.

And now the Trump administration is considering more directly joining the Yemen war, while preparing for a far more dangerous military confrontation with Iran, placing millions more civilians in the crosshairs.

A parada de 2 de Junho não foi um desfile militar, nem mesmo uma formatura, mas uma “revista militar”: advoga o Ministério da Defesa, que conduziu a orquestração (o último acto da Ministra Pinotti). O desfile nos Fori Imperiali   – perante o novo governo, após empossado – foi simbolicamente aberto por 330 prefeitos representantes da sociedade civil, seguido por todos os sectores das Forças Armadas, para celebrar a  «Festa dos Italianos –Unidos pelo País».

Na sua mensagem, o Presidente da República, Mattarella, exprimiu a gratidão do povo italiano às Forças Armadas pelo  «valioso trabalho realizado em muitas regiões conturbadas do mundo, pela assistência às populações sobrecarregadas por conflitos», de acordo com «a nossa Carta Constitucional, trave mestra das Instituições e referência suprema para todos».

Enquanto os batalhões desfilavam, foram enumeradas as missões militares nas quais as Forças Armadas italianas estão envolvidas em mais de 20 países: do Kosovo ao Iraque e Afeganistão, do Líbano à Líbia e Letónia, da Somália ao Djibuti e ao Níger. Por outras palavras, foram enunciadas as guerras e outras operações militares nas quais a Itália participou e participa, violando a Constituição, no âmbito da estratégia agressiva e expansionista USA/NATO.

As operações militares no exterior, nas quais a Itália está empenhada, estão a aumentar constantemente.Hoje, 5 de Junho, sob a responsabilidade da NATO, os caças-bombardeiros italianos Eurofighter Typhoon começam a «proteger», juntamente com os gregos, o espaço aéreo de Montenegro, o último membro a entrar na Aliança.Os bombardeiros italianos já «protegem» os céus da Eslovénia, Albânia e Estónia da «ameaça russa».

Navios de guerra italianos estão a preparar-se para zarpar para o Pacífico, onde vão participar na RIMPAC 2018, o maior exercício naval no mundo em que irão participar, sob comando USA, as marinhas militares de 27 países em operações contra a China, (acusada pelos USA de «expansão e coerção» no Mar do Sul da China).

Forças especiais italianas participaram no Níger num exercício do U.S. AFRICOM, patrocinado pela União Europeia, no qual foram treinados cerca de 1900 soldados de 20 países africanos. No Níger, onde os EUA estão a construir, em Agadez,  uma grande base de drones armados e forças especiais, a Itália prepara-se para construir uma base que albergará inicialmente 470 soldados, 130 veículos terrestres e 2 aviões.

O objectivo oficial da operação, dificultado por oposições dentro do governo nigeriano, é ajudar o Níger e os países vizinhos a combater o terrorismo. O objectivo real é o de participar, na peúgada da França e dos Estados Unidos, no controlo militar de uma região rica em matérias-primas – ouro, diamantes, urânio, coltan, petróleo e muitas outras – das quais nem mesmo as migalhas vão para a população que vive na mais em extrema pobreza. O resultado é que o drama social cresce e, consequentemente, também aumenta o fluxo migratório para a Europa.

O novo governo pretende «reavaliar a nossa presença nas missões internacionais em termos de sua importância real para o interesse nacional». No entanto, para fazê-lo, é necessário estabelecer qual é o interesse nacional. Ou seja, se a Itália deve permanecer dentro de um sistema de guerra dominado pelos USA e pelas grandes potências europeias, ou se deve ser um país soberano e neutro, baseado nos princípios de sua Constituição.

A política interna e a política externa são as duas faces da mesma moeda: não pode haver liberdade real se a Itália, adulterando o Artigo 11, usar a guerra como instrumento de agressão à liberdade de outros povos.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 5 de Junho de 2018

Artigo 11: A Itália repudia a guerra como um instrumento de ataque à liberdade de outros povos e como meio de resolver conflitos internacionais; consente, em condições de reciprocidade com os outros Estados, as limitações de soberania necessárias a uma ordem que garanta a paz e a justiça entre as nações; fomenta e favorece as organizações internacionais que procuram alcançar esta meta».

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

Video em Italiano com sub-titulos em português :

.

Ahead of his visit to Vienna, President Putin spoke to an Austrian TV channel.

Despite the tone of the interview, Putin did manage to touch on important topics like the North Korea crisis.

And he gave a detailed reply to accusations of Russian meddling in the US presidential elections in 2016.

Introduction

There are no easy solutions to the problems in Syria. This is partly because there are many different layers to the conflict: the fighting between Government forces and Islamist militias; struggles between Kurds and Turks; and the proxy wars involving other nations. The crisis remains one of the worst humanitarian disasters of our time, resulting in massive internal displacement and outflow of refugees, affecting people of all ethnicities and religions. 

This short report of a brief visit is unable to address all of the complexities. It does, however, seek to reflect the priorities of all those with whom we met, including Christian and Muslim religious leaders, the Speaker of Parliament, MPs from many parts of Syria and opposition MPs, internationally-respected artists, musicians and intellectuals, the humanitarian aid organisation St Ephrem Patriarchal Development Committee (EPDC) and members of local communities in Damascus, Saidnaya, Maaloula, Homs and Aleppo.

We visited Syria at the invitation of His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Aphrem, the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch, to observe changes since our previous visit in November 2017, to listen to the concerns of the Syrian people, and to convey their requests.

The day before our departure, the USA, UK and France announced their intention to launch missile attacks in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government in Dhouma. We believed that it was especially important to visit Syria at this time to show solidarity with the Syrian people.

Members of the Delegation

Members of the group were primarily clergy, accompanied by two members of the House of Lords, several journalists, writers, an artist and a medical doctor. Members paid their own expenses.

Baroness Cox and Revd David Thomas also represent a small NGO, the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART), which works with local partners to provide aid and advocacy for people suffering oppression and persecution. This visit provided an opportunity to establish a relationship with St Ephrem Patriarchal Development Committee (EPDC) to initiate a programme helping women to develop entrepreneurial activities in Maaloula.

The report represents the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the rest of the group.

Summary

• Foreign interference: All those to whom we spoke passionately believe that Syrians should have the right to determine their own future and to elect their own leadership, without foreign interference.
• Western airstrikes: All expressed deep anger at the recent missile attacks by the USA, the UK and France. They question the legality of the attack, stating that it is fundamentally wrong to inflict missile strikes related to alleged chemical warfare before evidence is known and publicised. Moreover, there is real fear that the response by the USA, UK and France may encourage jihadists to initiate a chemical weapons incident in order to stimulate an even more ferocious response by these countries against the Syrian Government.
• Public opinion: Many Syrians are disturbed by the tendency of the UK response to be based on past actions and policies of the Assad government, rather than a willingness to confront current realities, including a widespread shift in Syrian public opinion in the face of the religious extremists.
• Regime change: There is a great desire for the UK to retract its commitment to an imposed ‘regime change’. As there are no longer any ‘moderate’ armed opposition groups, it is believed that such a policy would be disastrous and create another dire situation comparable to those in Iraq and Libya.
• Media coverage: Many asked why the horrendous and well-documented atrocities perpetrated by various jihadist fighting groups, and the appalling scale of those atrocities, are given very little publicity by Western media compared to the focus on actions carried out by the Assad government and armed forces.
•  Cultural heritage: Syria continues to strive to uphold its long tradition of being a multicultural, multi-religious secular State, offering a model different from most other countries in the Middle East. It is suggested that does not suit the interests of the other more totalitarian societies, seen as allies of the West.
• Sanctions: Different viewpoints were expressed regarding the effect of economic sanctions. Some claimed they had little effect. The majority maintained that restrictions on the supply of medicines, equipment and raw materials has very serious effects on essential supplies of health care and food – and seriously hampers reconstruction.
•  Reconstruction: As on our previous visit, we were encouraged by the consistently positive relations between Christians and Muslims in Government-controlled areas. We witnessed numerous cooperative reconstruction projects in regions which have been destroyed by war, including the (re)building of houses, universities, orphanages, medicine factories and historic religious sites.

Statement by Christian leaders in Syria, 14 April 2018 Response to missile attacks by the USA, the UK and France

We, the Patriarchs, condemn and denounce the brutal aggression that took place this morning against our precious country Syria by the USA, France and the UK, under the allegations that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons. We raise our voices to affirm the following:

1. This brutal aggression is a clear violation of the international laws and the UN Charter, because it is an unjustified assault on a sovereign country, member of the UN.

2. It causes us great pain that this assault comes from powerful countries to which Syria did not cause any harm in any way.

3. The allegations of the USA and other countries that the Syrian army is using chemical weapons and that Syria is a country that owns and uses this kind of weapon, is a claim that is unjustified and unsupported by sufficient and clear evidence.

4. The timing of this unjustified aggression against Syria, when the independent International Commission for Inquiry was about to start its work in Syria, undermines of the work of this commission.

5. This brutal aggression destroys the chances for a peaceful political solution and leads to escalation and more complications.

6. This unjust aggression encourages the terrorist organizations and gives them momentum to continue in their terrorism.

7. We call upon the Security Council of the United Nations to play its natural role in bringing peace rather than contribute to escalation of wars.

8. We call upon all churches in the countries that participated in the aggression, to fulfil their Christian duties, according to the teachings of the Gospel, and condemn this aggression and to call their governments to commit to the protection of international peace.

9. We salute the courage, heroism and sacrifices of the Syrian Arab Army which courageously protects Syria and provide security for its people. We pray for the souls of the martyrs and the recovery of the wounded. We are confident that the army will not bow before the external or internal terrorist aggressions; they will continue to fight courageously against terrorism until every inch of the Syrian land is cleansed from terrorism. We, likewise, commend the brave stand of countries which are friendly to Syria and its people.

We offer our prayers for the safety, victory, and deliverance of Syria from all kinds of wars and terrorism. We also pray for peace in Syria and throughout the world, and call for strengthening the efforts of the national reconciliation for the sake of protecting the country and preserving the dignity of all Syrians.

John X, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East Joseph Absi, Melkite-Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem Ignatius Aphrem II, Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East

Meetings: Religious Leaders

Meeting extracts. Names are sometimes withheld in the interests of security in relation to reprisals by extremists. 

Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun, Grand Mufti, whose son was killed in the conflict 

“We listen to BBC and we see your UK Prime Minister speaking about missiles. Please say to UK and Syrian people that your Government’s bombing of Syria was not right. I don’t want our people to hate your people. I wish your people would come to visit us and tell our stories.

“Some Syrians in UK are fanatics. They have killed people. I hear their voices on UK media. Please ask your Government not to embrace the terrorists. Dangerous Islamists are going back to the UK, including White Helmets.

“My message is this: In Syria, the Government and the people are one. There have been mistakes but these are not remedied by missiles.”

Mufti of Aleppo 

“During the battle for Aleppo, the Western media only told one side of story, not what happened in Western Aleppo where a big price was paid: many people were killed, mosques, churches homes and other buildings destroyed.

“In this country we need reforms, like any country. But reforms don’t come with weapons. They are incompatible. We want reforms by talking – not weapons, which kill reforms.”

Other religious and community leaders, Damascus 

“I say to the members of the UK House of Lords: ‘You must not just come here but do something. Help to rebuild Syria before it is too late.’

“I ask a question which we in Syria do not understand. We are fighting the terrorists. They wish to do away with all who are different. But whenever the Syrian Army is advancing over the terrorists we receive a strike from the US and Europe. We ask: ‘Are these governments in league with the terrorists?’

“We are sorry for your peoples who are believing what their governments are telling them. We know many of your people do disagree with their governments. It is time for Europeans to open their eyes.

“There was a need for reforms. But we didn’t think reform would come at such a high price. We never expected so much foreign intervention, which caused the violence to escalate.

“We Muslim and Christian leaders always meet. In our communities, Muslims and Christians live together. But those who want to change Syria and bring down the government want to change this. They hate the tolerance of our society. For them, communities should be at war with one another until there is only one left. What was good in Syrian society is being destroyed by civil war and encouraged by the western powers. We hope their peoples recognise this is an unfair war.”

Maronite Archbishop of Aleppo 

“The problem is this: the truth is not told. Christ said ‘The truth will make you free’. The people in Europe are slaves of mainstream media which doesn’t tell truth. You should discover the truth and tell it.”

Roman Catholic Bishop, Aleppo 

“In Aleppo, we had months without water. The terrorists tried to destroy our history of 2,000 years, with the theft of archaeological sites. They destroyed what they couldn’t steal. We hope you can help us to rebuild our heritage.

“Syria is a mosaic of different people. In West Aleppo, faith leaders, Muslim and Christian, are under threat. Before the kidnapping of the Bishops, four Muslim leaders were killed. Western media does not tell correctly what is happening in Syria. We have human rights and humanity, so we ask you to report the reality of our suffering and the injustice.

Armenian Protestant Church

“The Syrian Army is freeing much of Syria.

“Armenians are playing a positive role in defending Syria with prayer groups and helping IDPs with medical care in our polyclinics and dental clinics, where we work with six doctors, including Muslims and Arabs. We provide treatment free of charge; many of the patients are Muslims. We also provide school scholarships, clothes, food and books for school students.

“Syria is being attacked by many countries and we need to stay and support our country. Syria has values and attractions and a bright future. Christians need to play key role in peace building or Syria will become dominated by Saudi ideological Wahabis. Also, if we can help Iraq to become a place where fanatics do not take over, we must help the churches there to survive. What happens in Syria and Iraq is very significant for Europe. A Middle East without Christians is dangerous for Europe. Churches have been persecuted over history and survived; we hope to follow historical examples.”

Greek Catholic Priest 

“Until Christmas in 2010 Syria was self-sufficient and safe. Everything was good. We were enjoying everything but the political situation was delicate.

“The Iraqi system collapsed because Sadam was a dictator and the people were not ready for democracy. In Syria, Bashar was effecting change from autocracy towards democracy. Bashar is very educated. He is the right person in the right place. He has helped to open Syria up for the people. For example, he introduced cell phones and computers, enabling communication with other countries. People like him. He is not ruling alone and does not agree with everyone. There may be a need to change personnel.

“We didn’t know some people hate our President. Then people came from many countries including UK, USA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, enticed by the promise of money, paid by Western countries, including the UK.

“The UK uses the weapons trade for its own interests. Your Government should have compassion. Interests and benefits should not be acquired at the expense of other people. In Syria, we have encouraged peace for centuries. And we don’t go to other countries and rip them apart.”

Remains of a Syrian Army tank

Meetings: Political Representatives

Hammouda Sabbagh, Speaker of Parliament 

“The truth is, we’re fighting terrorists. But your Government is supporting them. At the start of war, terrorists were almost everywhere and now they are almost eliminated. Normal life continues in all Syrian cities and we won’t stop fighting until the terrorists are gone.”

Other Parliamentarians, representing diverse political parties, Damascus 

“I’m from Homs and you will hear what happened and how the Syrian Government is rebuilding the town and restoring schools. I’m proud to be Syrian. Unfortunately much of the UK media is supporting aggression against Syria. They should be reporting the experiences of the people in many places where women were enslaved by ISIS; many lost their husbands; some families lost five children.”

“How you can help: stop sanctions; reopen your Embassy; stop attacking us and we can rebuild. We can rebuild our country ourselves.”

“Chemical weapons were found in Ghouta. There was fabrication in front of cameras. The media coverage showed only children and women; helpers were not wearing protective clothing; there was no real chemical attack in Douma. Syria destroyed all Chemical Weapons under supervision of OPCW. The allegations have nothing to do with reality.”

“We ask you to convey to your Government the need to respect international law. How can a great power justify aggression against a smaller power?”

“I came to Homs in 2013 with my wife and only daughter. Throughout every night, we heard explosions of mortar shells. Many civilians were living in city among armed groups. We saw few people on the streets. The hospitals were always busy with many dead and wounded. There were armed groups with weapons in the centre of the city. All the streets around the city centre were damaged because of missiles from the armed groups.

“We could still see children going to schools and the University had 20,000 students in spite of bombs.

Destruction in Homs

“When the militants left, we asked people to return. Some brought a candle for light. We have given what we could and life is returning to normal. There are now 800 schools. We are optimistic that we will be able to restore normal life with this Government. 21,000 people have returned and we hope there will soon be another 21,000.

Meetings: Local Communities

“On 15 August 2015, three car bombs attacked checkpoints and armed groups attacked our village. In the morning, I and my wife escaped on a motorbike. The terrorists kidnapped 280 people, all Christians; 70 were handicapped. Some were kept for one year until a Dutch organisation paid ransom.”

“In 2012, my husband, an agricultural engineer, was going to work and was shot.”

“I was hit with my brother in a car bomb four years ago and I lost one leg. My brother also lost a leg. Another brother was kidnapped five years ago and we still don’t know if he is alive.”

“My husband was a taxi driver and was kidnapped with his car four years ago. I still don’t know where he is or if he is alive.”

“My husband was kidnapped three years ago; also a taxi driver. Thousands have been kidnapped.”

“My town was invaded by Jihadists who killed so many people, including 45 people in one day, before the Syrian Army rescued us.”

“We lived on a chicken farm and every day my husband used to walk away from the farm to throw away dead chickens. He was killed by a mine.”

“I was kidnapped by ISIS with three cows. I was tortured and humiliated. I was freed after three months. Now I suffer from an injured back and can’t work. Our house was destroyed and we live with my in-laws.”

Gym teacher, Homs 

Pharmacist and President of Orphanage, Homs 

Local man, Aleppo, a victim of kidnapping 

Local man, Aleppo, a victim of kidnapping 

Meetings: Musicians, Artists and Intellectuals

“The Syrian Army is winning on the ground. It would be illogical for them to use Chemical Weapons.

Opposition journalist, Damascus 

Former judge, Damascus 

Former director, Syrian TV 

Artist 

Architect 

Tom Duggan, Anglo Syrian Press, Damascus 

“Two months ago Damascus suffered serious missiles attacks from jihadists in East Ghouta using new warheads and cluster bombs, white phosphorus and napalm. Damascus has been shelled incessantly from Dhouma, targeting hospitals, schools, and even busy crossroads. Large numbers of people have been killed and injured.

“In East Ghouta there are munitions factories and chemical factories using white phosphorus and napalm. There is a foundry making small to large mortars. Everything is booby trapped. 3,000 hostages were taken to Dhouma. They were used as slave labour to dig tunnels. Only 200 of those 3,000 survived. Their release was negotiated as part of an agreement for the evacuation of jihadist militants. 12 buses of terrorists passed us, free, with rifles. In East Ghouta, jihadists shelled people as escaping.

“The White Helmets were set up in Turkey in 2014. James Le Mesurier, contractor to FCO, founded a medical organisation but many staff not trained medics. They only have pain killers and propaganda.”

“In 2016, the University Hospital and other hospitals were destroyed with 29,000 casualties including 4,000 children. Sanctions deeply affect care and need to be lifted.”

“The terrorists and other armed groups carried out massive destruction. The medical sector was deliberately destroyed, including the University Hospital from which they stole millions of dollars of equipment. Missiles were launched by terrorists on another hospital not far from here. Three women in childbirth were killed as well as female doctors and nurses. Many doctors and health workers were killed going to work and at work in hospitals.

Deputy President of the University of Aleppo 

Lawyer representing Governor of Aleppo 

“Our message is one of national unity – it is a symbol of reality. Please take this truth to your people and your Government.”

“Syria is a source of civilisation. Of the five oldest inhabited cities in the world, three are in Syria.

1: Unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity are priorities under the leadership of the President who is committed to a united Syria.

2. Survival of Eastern Christianity. We fear it will become extinct.

3. Reforms are needed. There is corruption in country, state, religious arenas, everywhere. But there is corruption in every country. We can achieve reform, given appropriate remedies.

“If terrorists attack London, you require research to know what reality happened. Europeans are more civilised than us. So why do you not investigate the whole truth and only listen to one side? Why not come to visit us? The ethics of Western politics are deteriorating.

Meetings: Camp for IDPs from El Ghouta

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.

*     *    *

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

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, June 07, 2018

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

The West Is Turning a Blind Eye to the Gaza Massacre

By Jeremy Corbyn, June 07, 2018

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

They Disagree on Everything but Israel

By Philip Giraldi, June 07, 2018

There is currently considerable agitation in Congress over what is loosely being referred to as “free speech.” The crux of the matter appears to be that many self-identified conservatives appear to believe that rules put in place by many college and university administrations unfairly discriminate against them, establishing restrictions on speakers whose opinions might be viewed as offensive to liberals and minority constituencies.

Israel Scores Painful Own Goal in Run-up to the World Cup. Argentina Cancels “Friendly” Match with Israel

By James M. Dorsey, June 07, 2018

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

Seymour Hersh: The CIA Is Filled with Criminals

By Seymour M. Hersh and Elon Green, June 07, 2018

When a reporter has covered 50 years of American foreign policy disasters, the last great untold story may be his own.

That, more or less, is the premise behind a new memoir by Seymour Hersh, the investigative journalist who has been revealing secrets and atrocities—and often secret atrocities—to great acclaim since he exposed the My Lai Massacre in 1969.

The Slavo-Macedonians as a Tool for the Creation of Tito’s Greater Yugoslavia

By Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović, June 07, 2018

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

2017 saw the highest-ever number of murders of human rights defenders. Following the death of Berta Caceres in March 2016,(1) there has been heightened awareness of the plight of human rights defenders. Front Line Defenders recorded reports of 312 killings, up from 281 the year before. Murders are, however, just the tip of the iceberg.  Criminalisation is, according to Front Line Defenders’ latest annual report(2),  once more “the most common strategy to obstruct and delegitimise the work of defenders”.

Companies can play a key role in improving the situation for human rights defenders but must be mindful of the range of threats faced by defenders.

The Business and Human Rights Resource Centre recorded a 34% increase in attacks on defenders in 2017, including murders, violent attacks, death threats, harassment, sexual assault, enforced disappearances, illegal surveillance, blackmail, cyber-attacks and criminalisation. Many of these attacks are life altering, if not life-threatening.

According to both Front Line Defenders and the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, the principal threat to defenders is criminalisation of themselves or their work. Criminalisation covers a vast array of actions including judicial harassment, detention on fabricated charges, detention without charge, outlawing peaceful protest, and subjecting defenders to unnecessary, lengthy and expensive legal proceedings.

Theodorus Tekwan, a member of a Dayak community in Indonesian Borneo, was arrested and jailed without charge for 109 days in 2014, after resisting logging on his community’s ancestral land.(3) The arrest was particularly traumatic

“I heard a lot of boats coming, then I saw them, a whole swat team fully kitted out… It was like they were arresting a terrorist.”(4)

The intent here was clear; to intimidate the community and force them to halt their fight and it worked; for two years after Tekwan’s arrest the community was successfully deterred from putting up any formal resistance.(5)

Abusing criminal law to intimidate defenders is a common strategy yet it is important to recognise that criminalisation targets defenders in many ways. Criminalisation might be used, for example, not to intimidate, but to distract defenders from their cause by tying them up in undue legal processes. Criminalised defenders can be forced to put inordinate amounts of time and money into battling in the courts, leaving them with little time or resources for their original fight. Even worse, some defenders, who are detained for lengthy periods of time, like Tekwan, are rendered physically unable to continue their work.

Criminalisation such as fabricating criminal charges is often part of a wider strategy to discredit defenders. In order to brand them as untrustworthy, so that their views are more easily dismissed, defenders can be subject to smear campaigns. False allegations splashed across newspapers, even if later rescinded, can severely damage the reputation of defenders, and ultimately impair their ability to defend human rights.

The Sengwer indigenous people of Kenya have been branded “criminals and cattle-rustlers”(6) by the Kenyan government in a bid to justify the continuation of violent evictions of the community from their ancestral land. Despite years of protestation from the Sengwer, the EU only suspended their funding for the WaTER project (Water Towers Protection and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaption), which was situated on Sengwer land, after community member Robert Kirotich was killed in January. Indigenous defenders, like the Sengwer, are particularly at risk as, frequently, it is their way of life that is criminalised.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, a 17-year-old Batwa boy, Christian Mbone Nakulire, and his father, Munganga Nakulire, were shot by an eco-guard while collecting medicinal plants on their ancestral land in Kahuzi Bièga National Park in August. Christian was killed and Munganga was seriously injured. Christian’s killer has yet to be brought to justice.

The Front Line Defenders report also highlights the increased use of anti-terrorism legislation to target defenders. Emergency laws which are brought in to legitimise exceptional national security powers after, or in the anticipation of, terrorist acts are increasingly being used to target defenders.

Vicky Tauli-Corpuz, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous people, found herself victim to this exact tactic in early 2017, when she was named a terrorist by the government of her native Philippines in retaliation for speaking out about the treatment of the indigenous Lumad peoples.

Although national governments have the ultimate responsibility for addressing the criminalisation of defenders, corporate actors can also take steps to improve the situation. Investor Alliance for Human Rights recently released recommendations for immediate measures companies should take including:

• Assessing the situation of civic freedoms and human rights defenders in the countries in which they operate, identifying gaps between international standards and national laws and practice;
• Ensuring that their policy commitments on human rights reflect the critical role that defenders play in bringing human rights issues to their attention and address the risks they face in doing so;
• Actively engaging with defenders and grass-roots civil society organisations in the elaboration of their human rights policies;
• Establishing and implementing processes for the remediation of adverse human rights impacts arising in any area of operations. (7)

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is leading the way in supporting human rights defenders by adopting a policy for ensuring the anonymity and security of defenders who make complaints. Physical protection must be a key aspect of this policy, given the increase in attacks on defenders, and to guarantee that making a complaint to the RSPO doesn’t cause the defender further harm, but given the findings of Front Line Defenders and the Business and Human Rights Group presented here, the RSPO also needs to be mindful of the range of threats faced by defenders, including criminalisation.

In 2016, the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders released a report stressing the involvement of businesses in the criminalisation of defenders in Latin America. The lack of impartiality of the judiciary was a key issue, but it was businesses who initiated nearly all the criminal cases against defenders. Businesses who strive to adhere to international standards on human rights need to take bold actions to separate themselves from these actions. By being publicly supportive of human rights defenders, acknowledging the importance of their role, and making strong policy commitments on human rights, companies can make it clear to national governments and other actors that they do not support retaliation against defenders.

*

Notes

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/03/honduras-berta-caceres-murder-enivronment-activist-human-rights

Today, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future and Free Press Action Fund announced plans for mass online actions on June 11, the day the FCC’s resoundingly unpopular repeal will go into effect.

The groups behind BattleForTheNet.com, a site millions have used to contact their lawmakers in support of an open internet, issued a strong warning to lawmakers: Sign the discharge petition and support the CRA resolution to block the repeal before its effective date, or become the target of a summer activism campaign including ad buys, in-district protests, small-business pressure, and a barrage of angry constituent phone calls.

Earlier this month, the Senate voted 52–47 in a historic upset to pass a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution disapproving of the FCC’s gutting of open-internet protections. More than 175 representatives in the House have already indicated their support for the same resolution. A total of 218 signatures are needed to force the CRA resolution to the floor, a goal that’s increasingly within reach in the wake of the Senate’s bipartisan vote.

Net Neutrality protections have broad bipartisan support among voters across the country. An April 2018 University of Maryland poll showed 82 percent of Republicans and 90 percent of Democrats oppose FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s decision to repeal the Title II open-internet protections his predecessor put in place. Several other public polls show a consistent pattern of support for Net Neutrality protections among Republicans, Democrats and independents alike.

June 11 will serve as the kick-off for intense campaigning focused on House lawmakers, who will be under tremendous pressure to support the CRA ahead of the midterm elections, given that voters from across the political spectrum overwhelmingly support restoring the rules.

“Few policies coming out of Washington in recent years have been as universally opposed as the FCC’s repeal of Net Neutrality,” said Demand Progress Communications Director Mark Stanley. “Poll after poll makes this clear, and grassroots energy in support of the CRA resolution to reverse the FCC vote remains at peak levels. An army of telecom lobbyists have worked overtime on Capitol Hill to turn Net Neutrality into a partisan issue. Despite these efforts, a bipartisan majority in the Senate voted to pass the CRA resolution. Now it’s up to representatives to follow suit and overturn the FCC’s disastrous repeal of Net Neutrality, which would cut off small businesses’ ability to reach customers, harm rural communities that lack choice in internet providers, and negatively impact everyone who relies on an open internet for news, speech and entertainment.”

“People are going to be pissed off. Really pissed off. And rightly so. It’s hard to imagine a more clear example of how our democracy is broken,” said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future. “We’re going to harness the power of the internet to ensure that people have a way to channel that anger productively. Any lawmaker of any party who fails to sign the discharge petition in support of the CRA will regret it come election time.”

“This will be one of the biggest showdowns of the summer in the House,” said Free Press Action Fund Campaign Director Candace Clement. “For constituents everywhere Net Neutrality is non-negotiable. Our elected representatives can either side with the people and support the CRA or with the cable and phone lobby. Activists and advocates in every district are already turning up the heat on anyone who sells out their constituents to line the pockets of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. Keeping the internet open is critical. It powers social movements, and provides a global platform for people of color, LGBTQ people and the most marginalized communities to tell their own stories, run their own businesses and route around powerful gatekeepers.”

Luxury safaris favored by wealthy foreigners have prompted the Tanzanian government to seize land promised to the Maasai people in previous government agreements, The Guardian reports.

The global elite favors the safaris and often pay large sums of money for big-game hunting such as lions, zebras and giraffes.

Proceeds from the hunting fees are supposed to go toward wildlife conservation. In recent years, these tours have become increasingly popular, and to capitalize on the demand for them, the indigenous Maasai people are being driven from their land.

A study from The Oakland Institute says hundreds of Maasai homes have been burned down, and hunting camps have been erected in the middle of villages.

Additionally, villagers have been assaulted and arrested by police officers, security guards and park rangers patrolling the area. Over 20,000 people have been left homeless according to Tanzanian news outlets.

Villagers say the destruction has left the Maasai susceptible to famine since the new camps block access to watering holes and other resources. They have appealed to the government for resources due to an alarming number of malnourished children.

“Imagine, a stranger comes and constructs a big building in the centre of your home,” one Maasai said. “Our livestock cannot go to the waterhole – there is no other route for the villagers or their livestock.”

The report centers on the actions of two firms, Thomson Safaris and Otterlo Business Corporation. Thomson is currently battling three Maasai groups for over 12,000 acres of land.

“The evictions are not justified because more and more land is being taken away from the villages without due process or compensation even though they have legal titles,” said Rashid S. Rashid, one of the lawyers defending the Maasai. “The policies of the government are based mainly on the arguments advanced by Thomson and Otterlo because they have more political influence than the villagers.”

Rick Thomson, a director of Tanzania Conservation, a sister company of Thomson Safaris, denies the allegations.

“These interventions have been played out to attract attention, provide stories and to disrupt the working relationship between company and communities on the ground,” Thomson said. “In these events, the endangered staff have a protocol of disengaging any way they can to avoid escalation and reporting to the authorities any situation where any people and property, are physically threatened. These situations have been rare, and no such events have occurred for the last four years.”

*

Featured image is from Twitter/African Updates.

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

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

Some facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Napolitano:

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

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

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

Separately he tweeted:

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

From Surviving A Failed Coup To Flying To The Kremlin

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

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

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

Squeezing Iran Out Of Syria

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

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

A Deficit Of Trust

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

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

Concluding Thoughts

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

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the video, Ahed’s relatives said

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

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

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

A Final Comment

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

? We ask the American authorities, in a letter signed with Germany, the UK and @eu_eeas to exempt European businesses doing legitimate trade in Iran from all extraterritorial American sanctions. Those businesses must be able to pursue their activities. pic.twitter.com/mDZP42gb0b

— Bruno Le Maire (@BrunoLeMaire) June 6, 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ormat potentially faces a much larger scandal now.

A massive volcanic eruption on the Island of Hawaii.

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[10] Short History of Macedonia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

But for now, let’s stick to Europe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, nobody knows the outcome.

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A truly mercantilist sentiment.

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

Featured image is from the author.

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

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

“Trade wars are good and easy to win.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Term Significance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact check

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

China Steel Exports Report 2017 Annual – International Trade …

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

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

Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)
Harvard University Library

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published on American Free Press.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TheFreeThoughtProject.com.

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

1. Required atmospheric CO2 drawdown to 300 ppm CO2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Record GHG emissions and biodiversity loss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(A) Direct Air Capture (DAC)

The Direct Air Capture (DAC) system captures as water-insoluble calcium carbonate (CaCO₃)  all the CO2 in the incoming air stream (circa 80% nitrogen, N₂; 20% oxygen, O₂; 0.04% CO₂) by passage through a lime solution of calcium ions (Ca^2+ )  and hydroxyl  ions (OH^– ) . The  calcium carbonate is then heated to generate lime (calcium oxide, CaO) and a stream of circa 100% carbon dioxide (CO₂) which can then be compressed and hopefully permanently sequestered [50](e.g. in deep ocean, in underground in spaces from former coal or gas extraction or by underground reactions to form carbonates with basalt rocks) [50]. Note that in chemistry carbon dioxide is denoted as CO₂ but for convenience I have used CO2 elsewhere in this essay  except for chemical equations such as those below summarizing the key steps of DAC:

• (a) CO2 (CO₂) scrubbed out of air by passage through lime solution (Ca²⁺  + 2 OH^– ) in water (H₂O) to form carbonate ions (CO₃^2-):  CO₂ + 2OH^– -> CO₃^2- + H₂O
• (b) Carbonate (CO₃^2-  ) precipitated as calcium carbonate (CaCO₃ ): Ca²⁺ + CO₃^2-  -> CaCO₃
• (c) Lime (calcium oxide, CaO) regenerated by heating calcium carbonate (CaCO₃) with the resultant CO₂ being sequestered :  CaCO₃ -> CaO + CO₂ -> CO₂ sequestered.
• (d) Lime (CaO) dissolved in water (H₂O): CaO + H₂O -> Ca²⁺  + 2 OH^–  .

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

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

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

(B) Biochar Carbon, C, charcoal

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

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

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

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

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

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

(C) Accelerated Weathering of Limestone (AWL)

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

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

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

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

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

(D) Mineral carbonation

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

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

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

(E) Carbon Capture and Sequestration  (CCS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final comments and conclusions

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

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published on Countercurrents.

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

Sources

[1]. 350.org:  https://350.org/ .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured image: Rep. Keith Ellison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likewise, Khanna stated,

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

McGovern concurred, stating,

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

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

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

Unilateral Sanctions Against Iran Are Illegal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Administration Gunning for War on Iran and Regime Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

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

First published by Global Research on October 11, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Market prices

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

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

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

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

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

National targets

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

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

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

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

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

More competitive

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

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

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

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

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

Devastating impacts

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

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

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

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

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

Ending subsidies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

Underfunding Social Services and Tax Cuts for the 1%

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

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

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

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

Latest Iteration of Harris’ “Common Sense Revolution”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clear Class Choices

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

BTC: 13iYp9CDYZwgSnFXNtpEKgRRqaoxHPr2MH,

BCH:1NE49pQW8yCegnFCMvKuhLUnuxvTnxNUhf, 

ETH: 0x962b312a9d41620f9aa0d286f9d7f8b1769bfae6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Putin responded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moody’s added

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

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

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

*

Richard Galustian is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also contradicts a March 31 IDF statement, saying

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

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

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

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

A Final Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

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

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

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

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

Consistent support

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

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

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

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

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

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

Double standards

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘A strong partnership’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Violating UN resolutions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What explains British policy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politico reports that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

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

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

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

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

BTC: 13iYp9CDYZwgSnFXNtpEKgRRqaoxHPr2MH,

BCH:1NE49pQW8yCegnFCMvKuhLUnuxvTnxNUhf, 

ETH: 0x962b312a9d41620f9aa0d286f9d7f8b1769bfae6

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

Canada is proud to host @SyrianHNC_en & advocate for the inclusion of #womeninpeace negotiations in #Syria. Since 2016, the number of Syrian women in peace process has grown with support. The path to peace in Syria must include women at all levels. #WomenPeaceSecurity pic.twitter.com/aEbKvhiWsE

— Foreign Policy CAN (@CanadaFP) May 16, 2018

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

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

Canadians swallow the lies willingly.

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

Note

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

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An unnamed CIA source admitted:

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

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

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

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

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

Mintpress, August 18, 2015

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

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

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

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

By murder once Wellstone was out of the way, the neocons’ solution sent a loud and clear message of intimidation and a death threat in order to effectively silence any other potential Congressional opponents to the war in Iraq. Wellstone’s elimination paved the way for the war criminals’ successful campaign to win national support for the March 2003 US invasion of Iraq. That said, the month before the invasion on February 15^th, 10-15 million people around the world in over 600 cities assembled in massive protest against the US intervention, the biggest one day antiwar demonstration in history. But unfortunately once the US military occupation began, the antiwar movement gradually fizzled out.

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Germany’s Merkel, long Washington’s whore, has changed her spots. She announced that the US is no longer a reliable political partner and that Germany “needs to take its fate into its own hands.” The latest poll shows that 82 percent of Germans agree with her that Washington is an “unreliable partner.”

Washington, wallowing in its fabled incompetence, is now worsening all of its empire relationships by threatening its own allies with trade wars. There is no one of sufficient competence in the Trump regime to be able to understand that America’s “trade problem” is entirely of its own making and is not due to Mexico, Canada, China, and Europe.

America’s extremely serious trade problem is due to globalism, neoliberal economics, and to the New York investment banks.

The US trade deficit with China has its origin in the offshoring of American jobs. Products, such as Levis, Nike shoes, Apple computers, once produced in America by American workers are now produced abroad where wages and various compliance costs are much lower. When these products produced abroad for American markets by US corporations come back to the US to be sold, they arrive as imports. Thus, the offshored production of US corporations is the most direct cause of American trade deficits.

However, this basic, indisputable fact is never reported by the presstitute media, or by the neoliberal economists or US government statistical agencies. The pretense is that it is all China’s, or Mexico’s, or Canada’s fault. You would never know that it was the direct result of the profit-seeking activity of US corporations.

What has happened is that with the Soviet dissolution, the governments of socialist India and communist China made a decision that capitalism was the wave of the future, and they opened their labor markets to foreign capital.

The American firms that did not want to desert their home towns and work forces by offshoring their production were forced to do so by threats from the New York investment banks. Domestic producers were told to move operations to China where lower labor costs would boost profits or face a takeover of the corporation that would raise profits by moving operations abroad.

The reason high productivity high value-added jobs have exited America is because of Wall Street and the greed of corporate executives and shareholders. As always happens, the ruling interest groups and their Washington puppets blame foreigners, thus protecting themselves.

However, now they have started what is mischaracterized as a “trade war.”

In effect, the Trump regime is not at war with China and other countries. The Trump regime is at war with the US corporations who moved their production for US markets offshore and with the New York banks that forced this move. The tariffs will fall not on Chinese exports but on the offshored production of US corporations. The tariffs will raise the price that Americans pay for the products that US corporation make in China.

Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum raise the cost of inputs used in US production functions. Raising the price of these inputs means that the products of US industry made from steel and aluminum also rise in price, thus hurting US competitiveness. This is the opposite of how protectionism is supposed to work. Protectionism works by minimizing the costs of inputs and by protecting outputs with tariffs on competing foreign products. In other words, the prices of domestically produced goods are lowered, and the prices of competing imports are raised.

The neoliberal economists lied when they gave assurances that the US manufacturing and professional skill jobs moved offshore would be replaced with better jobs for Americans. As the official payroll data makes clear, the replacement jobs are worse, consisting as they do of lowly paid domestic service jobs that characterize employment in third world countries.

Jobs offshoring has been disastrous for America. The resulting trade deficit is the least of it. The loss of well-paying jobs has hurt consumer purchasing power. To maintain living standards, consumers have substituted debt for the missing income. The result is that 41 percent of Americans cannot raise $400 should they be faced with an emergency.

The budgets of states that were once manufacturing powerhouses have also been hurt, calling into question their ability to meet pension obligations. The benefits of jobs offshoring were concentrated on a small group of corporate executives and shareholders and are dwarfed by the massive external costs of jobs offshoring on the US economy and work force.

Robotics will make the situation far worse. The smart people so happily working on replacement of humans in the work force are in fact stupid. They are destroying the social system. Tariffs cannot protect jobs lost to robots. Moreover, robots don’t buy houses, furniture, cars, clothes, entertainment, food, drink, smart phones, computers. All the money saved by replacing people with robots is not available to purchase the products made by robots. Consumer demand collapses. The only solution is the socialization of production that makes all members of society owners of the output. Even this is only a partial solution as it leaves unanswered the question of what people do with their time and what happens to people who do not have to work and to develop their capabilities.

Capitalism, despite the claim that it efficiently allocates resources over time, has a short-run time horizon—the next quarter’s profits. Everything about the system is short-term. We have reached the point at which executives destroy the company by indebting it in order to buy back the company’s shares, thus driving up the stock price and maximizing their “performance bonuses.”

By undermining the strength of the economy, the consequence of short-run profit maximization is to make the US more belligerent. Plunder becomes a way of keeping the system afloat. Thus, hegemony over others becomes a means of survival.

Matters are coming to a head in the Trump regime. Trump’s bullying personality mated with the belligerence of neoconservative hegemony produces war in its many forms. The economic warfare with which Washington is threatening its vassals can lead to an independent Europe friendly to Russia.

The decline in Washington’s hegemonic power is a prerequisite for the resurrection of the American economy. When plunder is not an option, policy has to turn inward. The responsibilities of corporations have to be restored to include employees, customers, and communities along with shareholders. The Sherman Anti-trust Act must be revived, monopolies dismembered, banks too big to fail broken up, and offshored production brought home by taxing corporations according to whether they produce for the US market at home or abroad.

Historically, foreign trade was unimportant to US economic development. A rising middle class produced a large consumer market that sufficed for the prosperity of large-scale manufacturing and industrial enterprises. This prosperous America was destroyed by globalism. American revival awaits a new class of leaders devoid of the hubris of “exceptionalism” who can reject the role of world bully and focus on the problems at home.

*

This article was originally published on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Last week major state and corporate news outlets reported that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had met and agreed on removing Iranian troops from Syria and/or Iran’s border with Syria. Then, on June 3rd, Haaretz and other outlets reported that Israel had, for the first time, participated in a NATO “exercise” near the Russian border. I spoke to Rick Sterling, an investigative journalist specializing in Syria, about what could be behind these reports.

***

Ann Garrison: I’d like to go through some of these disparate reports about Russia and Israel one by one, but first, what do you think of Israel’s first ever participation in NATO war games near the Russian border?

Rick Sterling: The head of NATO recently confirmed that NATO would NOT get into a war involving Israel because Israel is not a NATO member. But Israel is a [NATO] “partner,” and in 2014 the US Congress designated Israel as a “major strategic partner.” So I think Israel may be participating in the war maneuvers to demonstrate that it’s a good partner. Of course, Russia sees the NATO military exercises on its border as provocative. They are countering with their own military exercises, so it’s just a continuation in the wrong direction away from peace and mutual acceptance.

AG: OK, now to these reports about negotiations between Russia and Israel. Just before the news that Israel had participated in NATO war games near Russia, Bloomberg News reported that Israel was campaigning to break the alliance between Iran and Russia. What do you think of that?

RS: It’s certainly true that Israel is playing the diplomatic game and trying to drive a wedge between Russia and Iran, but the stories are highly exaggerated. They contain both contradictory information and outright disinformation. Russia has friendly relations with Israel, and more than a million Russian Jews emigrated to Israel. But Iran is a strategic ally of Russia.

AG: On June 2^nd, the Times of Israel reported that Israel denies inking a deal with Russia on Iranian withdrawal from Syria. What about that?

RS: Well, I haven’t seen any written deal. So what we’re going on are media reports, which are spun in different directions. So, number one, I don’t know if there was a written agreement. Number two, it’s certainly the case that Israel is not only saying that they don’t want Iranian militia or advisors anywhere near the border with the Israeli occupied Golan Heights, but also that they want them all out of Syria.

Russia and Syria may have agreed to relocate some of the Iranian advisors or Iranian militias away from the Golan Heights border. There were reports that some of those forces were headed out to eastern Syria to do combat there against ISIS, which continues to hold an important area. But even if Israel is trying to insist that no Iranian advisors or militia be in Syria, I can’t see Syria or any sovereign state agreeing to such a demand. Israel exaggerates the Iranian involvement in Syria for its own purposes.

AG: Asharq Al-Aswat reported, also on June 2nd, that Russia and Israel had agreed to keep Iran away from Syria’s South.

RS: Asharq Al-Aswat is a Saudi-owned newspaper coming out of London, so the Saudi influence and heavy anti-Iran bias is evident. The one element of this story that may be true is that the US may actually be uncomfortable with any agreement regarding the US forces that control the area around Al Tanf, a Syrian border area with Iraq. That’s the main highway from Baghdad to Damascus, and it’s currently controlled by US military and various armed militants—including former ISIS fighters—who are trained and controlled by the US. The US doesn’t want to give that up, but the Syrian foreign minister is not mincing his words. He’s saying that all the US forces must leave Syria eventually, and specifically that they should leave that area at the Syria-Iraq border soon.

Al Tanf and the highway between Iraq and Syria is a flashpoint. The US has no right to be there but seems to be digging in while Syria is getting increasingly adamant that they must leave. Things may come to a head there.

AG: Al Monitor says that Russia is “trying a new playbook to calm the escalation between Israel and Iran.” How about that?

RS: I think that’s true. What we’ve seen emerge in the last several years is that the diplomat in the room is Russia. If you look at what’s going on there, the Russian diplomacy is quite impressive and at times quite surprising. Six or eight months ago, the Saudi monarch flew to Moscow for the very first time. Russia brought Iran and Turkey together at the Astana talks, and Russia is trying to soothe the tension and danger of conflict between Israel and Iran. So that story is probably accurate.

AG: Have you seen any reports about negotiations between Russia and Israel on RT, Russia’s state- sponsored English outlet?

RS: I’ve seen some RT coverage, both stories and photographs. They certainly don’t put the spin on it that some of the Western and Israeli media do.

The fundamental fact is that Russia doesn’t want to go to war with the US. They realize how dangerous the situation in Syria currently is. They are not going to give up their long-term alliance with Syria, but at the same time, they’re doing everything they can to cool things down and avoid a head-on conflict.

AG: OK, so we’ve gone through just a sample of the wildly disparate reports and commentary about this, but after reading a lot of it, I had the feeling that this is headed toward the Balkanization of Syria, which has been much discussed for a long time. What are your thoughts about that?

RS: Well, that’s the reality on the ground right now. Turkey is occupying part of the north. Israel and Israeli-supported terrorists are occupying part of the south. The US and the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) control big swathes of eastern Syria. So Balkanization is already the informal reality on the ground.

In early 2016, John Kerry called it “plan B,” dividing up Syria and partitioning it. He didn’t say it quite that explicitly, but he was clearly suggesting that that’s where things were headed. Now, in opposition to that, you’ve got the Syrian government saying that it will not allow partition and that the US has to leave Syria. Both Assad and the Syrian foreign minister are saying that increasingly forcefully. So we’ll have to see. At the same time it’s dangerous because there’s also threatening talk coming from the United States.

The US, Turkey, and Israel are, of course, violating international law codified in the UN Charter by their military presence in Syria, but the Syrian government seems to be taking things step by step with the support of Russia and Iran. Hopefully, progress can be made and the conflict can be wound down. That would certainly be to the benefit of all Americans as well as Syrians and other peoples of the Middle East.

AG: Do you think that Russia is opposed to Balkanization?

RS: Oh, absolutely. They’re opposed to it. They saw what happened with the war in Yugoslavia and the split, the separation into smaller, weaker states.

Russia also has its own experience with Western and Saudi-funded terrorism. If you look at a map, Syria is not that far from Russia, so of course they are very concerned with the situation there. They have a big stake in seeing the conflict wind down and a peaceful resolution, remote as that may seem. They’re taking the lead in helping to resolve it and working toward reconciliation, which is going to require concessions on the part of Damascus. Russia has explicitly talked about an internationally supervised election in Syria, and hopefully that’s where things will end rather than in World War III.

The question is whether the US and its allies, especially Israel and Saudi Arabia, will give up their goal of “regime change” in Syria. Or will they continue to finance and arm the opposition to further bleed Syria and its allies? The US and allies are prolonging the conflict behind a pretense of humanitarian concern. Meanwhile they ignore obvious travesties such as the Israeli killings at the Gaza border.

AG: And just one more point of clarification regarding the presence of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in Syria. Their presence is legal, according to international law, because they’re there at the request of the Syrian government. Right?

RS: Yes, that’s correct. Russia, Iran, and Lebanon’s Hezbollah are in Syria supporting Syrian sovereignty. The Iranian presence in the West tends to be wildly exaggerated, but they do have militia there. They also have advisors, and they’ve lent economic support to Syria. Both Lebanon and Iran know that their own governments are at risk there.

Of course, it was General Wesley Clark who said, back in 2007, that the US had a hit list of seven countries, and we’ve already seen several of them overthrown. Lebanon and Iran know they’re on that list. I’m sure they all realize that if the Syrian state is destroyed, if the government there is toppled and chaos reigns as it does in Libya, they’ll be the next targets. So they’re there for their own sake and for regional stability, not just to support their ally Syria.

*

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. His work most often appears in Consortium News. He can be reached at [email protected].

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

“If a president was dumb enough to pardon himself that would be such an arrogant statement of power that the House would probably impeach him in a week and the Senate would convict him.” – Newt Gingrich, Jun 5, 2018

It is a view that Charles I would have been proud of: The means by which one can forgive and exculpate oneself for purported wrongs. Admittedly, that out of sorts Stuart king only believed that one source was worthy of pardoning him: God and God alone.  It was the divine who had vested him with legitimacy; accordingly, it was only the divine that might judge him or remove his crown.  Oliver Cromwell proved otherwise and sneaked off his head.

Trump does not believe in Sky Creatures, and remains very terrestrial in his lusts and ambitions. He seems to be constantly jockeying for the next position, embracing less issues of policy as matters of expedient stance.  Those stances, written in water, alter with whirling consistency, leaving the pundit to lurch after the next novel interpretation.

Axiomatic to the Trumpland playbook are questionable interpretations of the US constitution.  The president finds the whole notion of checks and balances more than inconvenient: he finds them risible.  

To that end, he is testing the water, largely as a means to banish Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller to the outer reaches of the political system. This forms a strategy of neutralisation that lies at the core of Trump’s legal approach, one that seeks to cut Mueller’s wings and limit his own exposure.

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

Such an expansive reading was bound to poke the Twittersphere, with one response to his observation being curt and tangy in rebuke.

“No person is above the law, not even the president,” came an irate respondent.  “The president – the executive branch of our government is co-equal to the other two branches of government.” 

Former federal prosecutor and White House counsel Nelson Cunningham relevantly noted that no one was “going to indict the president while he is sitting. So whether he can pardon himself for a crime for which he won’t be charged – is a moot point.” The art of the television president is mastering the moot point and delivering it as a matter of pre-emption. 

Former White House counsel to President Barack Obama Bob Bauer also draws upon those who suggest that a prosecution for obstruction would not take place while Trump was in office. 

“The case for immunity has its adherents, but they based their position largely on the consideration that a president subject to prosecution would be unable to perform the duties of the office, a result that they see as constitutionally intolerable.”

Reference should, instead, be made to the Pardons clause within the US constitution:

“The President… shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in cases of Impeachment” (Article II, section 2).   

A thorny issue for the president to negotiate, given the glaring parallel offered by Richard Nixon.  The president who desperately dragged the US national security state into its imperial form was confronted with the damning words of the Articles of Impeachment that he “obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice”. 

While there is a certain tyrannophobic tendency in assessing elements of the current president’s misrule, such signature moves as enunciating the power of self-pardon by their very definition suggests authoritarian sensibilities.  New York University professor Ruth Ben-Ghiat smells something going off in the US. “It’s in the tradition of the trial balloons he’s been launching since his campaign, which warn the public and his GOP allies that he feels he’s above the law.”  

Charlie Sykes sees a president in a state of permanent, and dangerous experimentation. 

“This is the president who has taken the unthinkable and made it thinkable,” he claimed with some exasperation. “Why go there?  Unless you are floating it to see what would be considered acceptable in Congress and to the public.”

Trump’s own advisers have done their best to tell their employer what he wants to hear, notably over whether he could ever be guilt of obstructing justice.  Attorney John Dowd, by way of example, did come up with the potentially dangerous hypothesis that the “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution’s Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case”. 

And here we again return to the notion of the immune sovereign who can technically commit no wrong.  Rudy Giuliani, who now spends time advising Trump, has been even more unequivocal on the power of self-pardon.

“The constitution gave the president the right to pardon himself”. 

There would be no need to avail himself of that, as he had not done “anything wrong”.   

US constitutional history flies in the face of such a rosy reading, though it is undeniable that the executive branch, as one presiding over the Justice Department, does have latitude on prosecutions and terminations.  Issues of impeachment, linked as they are to obstruction, remain key. Can the nation’s chief law enforcement officer obstruct an investigation he has the power to terminate? White house counsel past and present cannot agree, but none can ignore the context of politics.

*

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

Featured image is from The Greanville Post.

After 70 years, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is still unresolved. The conflict simmers for a few years, then erupts again with new massacres and violence. This article describes recent events, the failure of the “two state solution” and need for a different approach.   

In the past couple months, Israeli Defence Force (IDF) soldiers have killed 118 Palestinian protesters and seriously wounded many thousands more. The protesters were unarmed and no threat to the soldiers. Gaza hospitals overflow with victims. 

In the wake of this violence, human rights groups filed a legal petition to make it unlawful for Israeli soldiers to fire on unarmed protesters. Last week the Israeli Supreme Court rejected the petition. 

Israeli violence is usually portrayed as a “response” to Palestinian violence, but the reality is the opposite. The sequence of recent events is as follows: 

• From the end of March til May 25, Palestinians in Gaza protested against their oppression as close as they could get to the border fences. About 118 were killed and many thousands seriously injured by Israeli snipers. They were all shot inside Gaza. 
• On May 27 – 28, the Israeli military launched tank mortars at Palestinian military outposts inside Gaza, killing four.
• Next day, on May 29, Palestinian militants launched unguided mortars into nearby Israel. Most of them fell harmlessly and there were no Israeli casualties.    
• Next day, on May 30, Israeli jets and helicopters launched guided missiles and bombs on 65 different locations within Gaza. 

Clearly, the violence started with Israelis killing protesters and then militants inside Gaza, but it’s not portrayed that way. Time magazine began its article with, “Palestinian militants bombarded southern Israel….” 

Pro Israel advocates wish to prevent people from seeing what is really happening. They know the potential damage if people see video such as Israeli snipers celebrating the shooting of unarmed protesters. To prevent this, a proposed law will make it illegal to photograph or video record Israeli soldiers. Palestinian journalists have condemned this attempt to criminalize journalism.   

The Reality of the Israeli Occupation

Israel calls itself the “Startup Nation” because of the economic and technological achievements. But in Gaza and the West Bank, Israeli policies and actions strangle the economies and worsen living conditions.

Palestinians in Gaza are kept separate from Palestinians in the West Bank. There is no trade, travel or inter-family visitation. This is in violation of international agreements including the Oslo Accords. 

The claim that Israel “departed” Gaza is false. Israel controls the borders, sky and waters around Gaza, a coastal strip just 5 miles wide by 25 miles in length. Unemployment in Gaza is approaching 50%, the highest unemployment in the world. Fisherman are prevented from going out into deeper waters and shot at when they go beyond Israel’s imposed zone. Gazan farmers cannot export independently. Israel frequently blocks the import and export of crops and products. It is almost impossible to leave Gaza. Even outstanding students winning international scholarships may have their exit denied. The electrical and water treatment facilities have been bombed and destroyed by Israel. Nearly all the drinking water is contaminated. Israel restricts the amount of food permitted to enter Gaza so there is continual shortage leading to nutritional deprivation, stunted growth and anemia. 

This situation is not new. Eighteen years ago, Israeli journalist Amira Hass described the history, the facts and statistics as well as her personal experience living in Gaza in the profound book “Drinking the Seat at Gaza: Days and Nights in a Land Under Siege”. The situation was extremely grim then but keeps getting worse.  

At the northern Gaza border, Israel is now building a “sea barrier” extending far out into the Mediterranean. It will be above and below the water line. A major reason for this expensive project is to block sewage and pollution from the waters in front of Gaza. Because of Israeli attacks on sewage treatment and electrical infrastructure, sewage flows into the sea. Last summer, Zikim Beach in southern Israel had to be closed due to the inflow of sewage from Gaza. The ‘sea barrier’ now in construction will block the sea currents. This will keep the Israeli beach clean and greatly compound the problem in Gaza. 

The strangulation, impoverishment and oppression is not confined to Gaza. In the West Bank, Israeli settlements continue to expand. This increases the number of check points, restrictions and repression. Travel from Bethlehem to Jerusalem is impossible for most Palestinians. The majority of West Bank water from the aquifers is transferred to Israel or provided cheaply to settlers while Palestinians must buy water and store it in tanks on their rooftops. In the last few years, Israel has made it increasingly difficult or impossible for humanitarian groups to provide medical support including breast cancer screening. A compelling new book titled “The Other Side of the Wall” describes the daily struggle in the West Bank where Palestinians and international allies protest against the theft of land, abuses, random killings and imprisonments.  

Defiant Courage 

There seems to be a trend toward greater Palestinian unity and strategic agreement. The tens of thousands of Palestinians protesting in Gaza were unarmed and united behind the Palestinian flag rather than separate party or movement flags of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP, etc..    

The Palestinian protesters in Gaza show remarkable courage. Beginning on Friday March 30, they have returned week after week despite seeing thousands of their fellows shot and wounded or killed. 

In an article titled “The Gaza Fence that Separates the Brave from the Cowardly”, Amira Hass wrote,

“The desperate courage demonstrated by tens of thousands of citizens of Gaza over the past few weeks in general and on Monday in particular hints at the energies, the talents, the dreams, the creativity and the vitality of the inhabitants of this strip of land – who have been subjected to a 27 year policy of closure and siege aimed at suffocating and crushing them.”  

Steadfast and Persistent 

Palestinian resistance continues despite Israeli violence and bloodshed. Seven years ago Palestinian refugees in Syria and Lebanon held “March of Return” protests at the northern borders. Israeli soldiers killed 13 and wounded many more.  

In recent days, Gazans have again challenged the Israeli port blockade which prevents ships from departing or arriving. International solidarity with the Palestinian cause is also persistent. Three ships (two Swedish and one Norwegian) recently departed Scandinavia heading for the Mediterranean Sea and Gaza. Named the 2018 Freedom Flotilla, the ships are carrying dozens of international citizens to again demand that Israel stop its blockade of Gaza. 

Despite the huge imbalance today, time may be on the side of the Palestinian cause. Systemic apartheid in South Africa existed for a long time and seemed strong. But ultimately it collapsed quickly. The same may unfold in Israel / Palestine. 

Today, South Africa is an important supporter of the Palestinian cause. South Africa was the first nation to recall its ambassador to protest the “indiscriminate and grave Israeli attack” in Gaza. 

Israel has the military might but Palestinian resistance and courage persists. The Palestinian population is steadfast, persistent and growing. They have increasing number of allies who support their cause. Young American Jews are unlike their parents and increasingly critical of Israeli policies. Some courageous Israelis, such as Miko Peled, speak out unequivocally that Israeli apartheid must end and be replaced by one state with democracy and equality for all. A million registered Palestinian refugees live in Lebanon and Syria, patiently waiting. They have not forgotten their legal claim and right to return. 

The recent bloodshed and massacres underscore the fact that there is no solution on the current path. It only leads to increasingly unlivable conditions in Gaza plus more illegal settlements and oppression in the West Bank. The so-called “two state solution” has been dead for many years and should be forgotten. As happened in South Africa, the international community can and should help. It is time to increase international pressure and expand BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) against Israel to help bring a peaceful end to this conflict with its constant oppression and recurring massacres.   

The alternative is very grim. As described by Israeli journalist Gideon Levy,

“The truth is that Israel is well prepared to massacre hundreds and thousands, and to expel tens of thousands. Nothing will stop it. This is the end of conscience, the show of morality is over. The last few days’ events have proved it decisively. The tracks have been laid, the infrastructure for the horror has been cast. Dozens of years of brainwashing, demonization and dehumanization have borne fruit. The alliance between the politicians and the media to suppress reality and deny it has succeeded. Israel is set to commit horrors. Nobody will stand in its way any longer. Not from within or from without.” 

Palestinian courage should spur international action.    

*

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area in California.  He can be contacted at [email protected]

Featured image: A destroyed house where 28 members of the Badran family and five neighbors were killed in a US-led coalition airstrike on August 20, 2017, Raqqa, Syria (Amnesty International)

While the Amnesty Report confirms that the US-led coalition violated “international humanitarian law”, it fails to acknowledge that ISIS-Daesh was SUPPORTED by the U.S. coalition from the very outset. 

And then President Obama ordered the conduct of “humanitarian bombings” with a view to “liberating Raqqa” from the clutch of the ISIS terrorists generously funded by America’s allies (including Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states).

America’s fake counter-terrorism “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) mandate was used as a justification to wage a war of aggression against Syria. The unspoken truth is that the US is the State sponsor of ISIS-Daesh. The Islamic State is a construct of US intelligence, affiliated to Al Qaeda. 

America’s ultimate intent was to destroy, destabilize and fracture Syria as a nation State. 

The “Liberation” of  Raqqa by US led forces constitutes an extensive crime against humanity consisting in actively supporting the ISIS terrorists occupation of Raqqa, and then waging an extensive bombing campaign to “liberate” the city.

The media has presented the Liberation of Raqqa as a counter-terrorism operation rather than an illegal aggression against a sovereign country.

The logic of the US led operation directed against Raqqa is similar to that led against Mosul in Iraq. 

Below is the review of the Amnesty Report by Prof. Scott Lucas

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, June 5, 2018

***

Amnesty International concludes that US-led coalition forces killed hundreds of civilians in last year’s campaign to take the city of Raqqa in northern Syria from the Islamic State.

The organization issued a report on Monday based on visits to 42 sites of airstrikes and interviews with 112 civilian residents whose relatives were killed as the US-supported, Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces captured the devastated city last October after a four-month offensive.

Four representative cases are detailed in which 90 civilians — 39 from a single family — were slain. Amnesty concludes,

“They are part of a wider pattern and provide a strong prima facie case that many Coalition attacks that killed and injured civilians and destroyed homes and infrastructure violated international humanitarian law.”

During the campaign, coalition forces carried out tens of thousands of airstrikes, more than 90% by American warplanes. The US also fired 30,000 artillery rounds on the city and surrounding arreas.

This is is the Badran family in Raqqa, they moved house 4 times to escape the fighting. Everyone in this video is dead, killed by a coalition airstrike. Unable to escape from IS, 100s of civilians were killed by @CJTFOIR airstrikes in Raqqa. Time for accountablity says @amnesty pic.twitter.com/2miz93NrF1

— Quentin Sommerville (@sommervilletv) June 5, 2018

Donatella Rivera, a senior advisor at Amnesty, summarizes:

The Coalition’s claims that its precision air campaign allowed it to bomb IS out of Raqqa while causing very few civilian casualties do not stand up to scrutiny. On the ground in Raqqa we witnessed a level of destruction comparable to anything we’ve seen in decades of covering the impact of wars.

[The Islamic State’s] brutal four-year rule in Raqqa was rife with war crimes. But the violations of IS, including the use of civilians as human shields, do not relieve the Coalition of their obligations to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians. What levelled the city and killed and injured so many civilians was the US-led Coalition’s repeated use of explosive weapons in populated areas where they knew civilians were trapped.

One resident, Munira Hashish, explains,

“Those who stayed died and those who tried to run away died. We couldn’t afford to pay the smugglers; we were trapped.” She and her children finally escaped through a minefield “by walking over the blood of those who were blown up as they tried to flee ahead of us”.

Rasha Badran and her husband lost their entire family, including their 1-year-old daughter. She recounts:

We thought the forces who came to evict Daesh [the Islamic State] would know their business and would target Daesh and leave the civilians alone. We were naïve. By the time we had realised how dangerous it had become everywhere, it was too late; we were trapped.

*

Scott Lucas is Professor of International Politics at the University of Birmingham and editor-in-chief of EA WorldView. He is a specialist in US and British foreign policy and international relations, especially the Middle East and Iran. Formerly he worked as a journalist in the US, writing for newspapers including the Guardian and The Independent and was an essayist for The New Statesman before he founded EA WorldView in November 2008.

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Can anything be said that doesn’t warrant an empaneled jury of twitting twats to determine the fate of an individual?  It is evident that branding, marketing and selling can only be done in a context of controlled hypocrisy.  Companies long happy to use celebrities as fronts for promoting products and the image of a television network have become obsessed with the idea of sensitivity.   

While Roseanne Barr’s tweet describing former President Barack Obama’s senior advisor Valerie Jarrett in simian terms (“Muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj”) was stingingly rude, the hammer option adopted towards her by the ABC was manic.  Was the Roseanne Barr slated to return in her show meant to have been reformed, one more economical in her rattled, and rattling opinions?  

The sense among the writers and producers was to fall in line.  People were all meant to be horrified at this new creation, this new Barr.  Executive producer David Caplan claimed to be helpless before the implications of the tweet.

 “I really wasn’t sure what to do because I didn’t feel like there was really any response to it.  It was so far over the line and so loathsome that I suspected there might not be any coming back from it.”

Caplan recounted Barr during season 10 of the program.  She was found to be “reasonable with the writers.”  Despite disagreements regarding her political beliefs, she proved “reasonable to work with at that point.”

This suggests a bit of hand washing on Caplan’s part in anticipation of future employment: Barr’s tweet had nothing to do with work matters, and certainly nothing to with the scripting of the show.  Keep new freaky marginalised, isolated, for fear of being contaminated.

This stomach turning sanctimony can be found in the idea that the ABC network is magically tolerant (family values and all that), and that Barr was somehow out of step.  Take Hal Boedeker, who happily marches to a tune that is not only discordant but silly. 

In the Orlando Sentinel, the righteous Boedeker made the following observation held down by the assumptions of pure fantasy:

“Disney sends the message that it welcomes all. Barr violated the Disney philosophy with her racist tweet about former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett.” 

As if it made any difference whatsoever,

“Barr also had a history of bashing others with tweets, and she trafficked in conspiracy theories.”

What makes such mind addled assessments even more unearthly is the remark that Barr’s conspiracy theories do not cut it in the world of fantasy. (What runs for fantastic these days?)  “Disney deals in fairy tales, not conspiracy theories.”  A good reading of the text, subtext and inner meaning of many a fairy tale repudiates such a view.  In-between readers such as academics keen to secure their next grant constitute, it could be said, a conspiracy of interpretation, finding a spectral hook upon which to hang upon the next questionable interpretation.

Image on the right: Valerie Jarrett and Roseanne Barr 

True to corporate form, the production vultures at the ABC are trying to find ways to move beyond RB for what is enthusiastically being proclaimed a salvation.  Spin-offs are being sought, though they must be emphatic on one point: the absence of the protagonist that made it to begin with.  In the manner that resembles something of a theft, Barr, according to The Hollywood Reporter, “would not be able to financially benefit from any new incarnation of the series.” (Legal minds, ready yourselves.)  

The point about Barr is that she never changed, which might well be the problem.  To understand the market and the nature of one’s employer is to understand how hypocrisies and cant might change at any given moment in time.  The fury directed against her is the misplaced anger of the trend follower with the attention span of a light lured moth. 

Treating Barr in such a manner is also bound to encourage others to come out with their scything swipes.  An example is provided by Jonathan S. Tobin in The National Review, who has asked for “an amnesty for speech offenses.” If Barr can be sent to the television’s salt mines for a racist tweet “why shouldn’t Samantha Bee lose hers for a presumably scripted line on her show in which she called Ivanka Trump a cunt and implied that she could get her father to change her mind about an issue by wearing something tight and low cut?”

Ironically enough, in the age of Trump, where the ad hominem remark has been given a whole new lease of life, becoming total, normal and unstoppable, mechanisms of control and punishment are finding their bearings.  Trust broadcasting to be one of them in their righteous corrections.

Those familiar enough with Barr would have taken her comment as deserving of a chastising, disturbed rebuke, a point she would have been more than capable of accepting.  But debate before the lynch mob is nigh impossible.  The noose speaks volumes, and expression can gradually slide into a dull, controlled oblivion.

*

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