Torture to Continue with Haspel as CIA Director

May 10th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Torture and related wrongdoing is longstanding CIA policy – ongoing throughout most of the agency’s existence, begun long before Gina Haspel’s involvement, continuing today no matter who heads Langley.

Earlier CIA mind control experiments were conducted, McGill University’s Ewen Cameron was involved.

Using his psychiatric patients, he kept them asleep in isolation for weeks, administering electroshocks and psychedelic LSD and PCP angel dust cocktails – using them as unwitting guinea pigs, violating core medical ethics and the rule of law.

CIA human experiments began in the early 1950s, including sensory-deprivation experiments – developing unlawful interrogation methods amounting to torture.

In his book titled “A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation from the Cold War to the War on Terror,” Alfred McCoy discussed a half-century of Langley effort to develop torture techniques – no matter how heinous, immoral or illegal.

He also showed that torture-gotten information is worthless. Victims say anything interrogators want to stop the pain.

Yet torture remains official US policy, the CIA its chief practitioner, operating from secret global black sites.

What began decades earlier continues – out of sight and mind, despite banned by international, constitutional and US statute laws.

Gina Haspel is a career intelligence officer, the first woman nominated to head the CIA. Her gender fools no one familiar with her involvement in running a Thailand agency black site notorious for using torture during interrogations.

Post-9/11, she was instrumental in launching global black site torture prisons. Reportedly she was involved in destroying incriminating videotapes, showing torture at the facility she ran along with others.

Like all CIA operatives involved in torture, including top agency officials, she remains unaccountable for high crimes, rewarded instead of being prosecuted.

During her Senate confirmation hearing, she repeatedly lied by evasion and deception. She lied saying she has a strong “moral compass.” Morality, ethics and respect for rule of law principles are incompatible with longstanding CIA practices.

Her answers to questions were scripted, ducking ones on the illegality and immorality of torture, saying she believes in the agency’s work.

Ahead of her confirmation hearing, Langley selectively declassified parts of her record, an attempt to portray her positively.

A document obtained by an ACLU lawsuit showed her direct involvement in torturing Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri.

Trump supports use of torture, falsely believing it works, unconcerned about its illegality. During Wednesday Senate testimony, Haspel raised more questions than she answered.

Confirming her as CIA director will show Senate support for what free societies abhor – what’s longstanding Langley practice, sure to continue on her watch.

Ahead of her hearing, former CIA analyst/longstanding critic of its heinous practices Ray McGovern said

“(t)he mind boggles” at the prospect of Haspel running the agency, adding:

“It is no secret that (she) oversaw detainee torture…(She) drafted a cable ordering the destruction of dozens of videotapes of torture sessions.”

She lied to her “superiors, Congress, and two presidents.” She’s an unindicted criminal rewarded for her crimes – heading for likely confirmation to continue them as CIA director.

McGovern attended her Senate hearing – forcefully removed for demanding she answer questions about her involvement in agency black site torture.

CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou said she was personally involved in torture because she “enjoyed it” – nicknamed “Bloody Gina” by CIA colleagues, he explained.

A 33-year agency official involved with torture for much of her tenure, she lied saying:

“I can offer you my personal commitment, clearly and without reservation, that under my leadership, CIA will not restart such a detention and interrogation program.”

Torturers have no credibility. Involvement in the practice throughout nearly its entire existence shows the CIA will continue what it spent decades developing under Haspel and future directors.

She appears headed for confirmation. At least two undemocratic Dem senators indicated support – likely others along with most or all Republicans.

*

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

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

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

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

Trump made the decision despite massive efforts by the European allies of the US to convince him to stay in the landmark agreement. The nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) came out of years of negotiations between Iran and six world powers, namely the US, Russia, China, Germany, France and Britain in July 2015.

Press TV has talked to Richard Becker, a member of the ANSWER Coalition, as well as Jim Walsh, a member of the Security Studies Program at MIT, to get their opinion on the issue.

Becker believes the Trump administration’s ultimate objective is “regime change” in Iran rather than simply ending the nuclear deal.

He also noted the US strategy of sanctions is intended to destroy Iran’s economy and inflict maximum suffering upon the people in an attempt to create “discontent” in the country.

“And so you have the US pulling out of the agreement but I think that is part of a larger strategy that they hope would create disappointment and discontent within Iran particularly because many people in Iran were very hopeful in 2015 that the end of sanctions – if they were to really end- would mean a relief for Iran and for the Iranian economy which has been suffering greatly under the sanctions which were engineered not by the Republicans but in fact by Hillary Clinton back in 2010 when she was the secretary of state,” Becker said.

Trump said Tuesday that he would reinstate US nuclear sanctions on Iran and impose “the highest level” of economic bans on the Islamic Republic.

Becker further maintained that the “extraterritoriality” of the sanctions regime is a “great problem” for other signatories of the JCPOA, adding that the US would have to confront banks and companies to make a choice on whether they want to continue their trade with Iran.

Meanwhile, Jim Walsh, the other panelist on the program, opined that Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal was a “mistake,” arguing that he has no “Plan B” or “follow-on strategy”.

“My sense is there was not a lot of strategy, he was just determined to do this … He has not thought about what they are going to do next. There is no Plan B, there is no follow-on strategy and now we are just going to see what happens,” he stated.

The analyst also asserted that the problem with sanctions is that they are aimed at “private industry” not the governments.

Therefore, he said, other signatories to the JCPOA cannot force their private entities to invest in Iran if they do not want to take the risk.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

The fear and fury that have gripped the Alt-Media Community since Trump’s announcement yesterday that he was pulling out of the Iran deal are totally misplaced and triggered by a lack of understanding over what the most likely consequences of this move will be.

Confusion, Nothing But Confusion

From a cursory glance at social media, it looks like the entire Alt-Media Community is suffering from severe bouts of fear and fury in equal measure after Trump’s predicted announcement that he’ll be pulling the US out of the Iranian nuclear deal, with people truly terrified about what will come next. Some, utterly shocked by the disappointment that this move brings, have expressed themselves in insincere and slightly snarky ways by pretending to feel sorry for the US’ international reputation while nevertheless consoling one another with wishful thinking about how the deal that many of them lauded nearly three years ago apparently wasn’t even all that much in Iran’s interests.

Others, however, are more nuanced, having warned from the beginning that this would happen because of an old scenario plan by the Brookings Institute that called for a deal to be offered to Iran and then broken in order to manufacture widespread public consent for a forthcoming war against the Islamic Republic. That analysis has its merits in principle, but it exaggerates the influence that the masses have over the US and other Western “deep states” (permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) and is therefore impractical. While the manipulation of public opinion is important, it isn’t the ultimate determinant over whether a war goes ahead or not.

The Cold, Hard Truth

In any case, the US and its allies are already in a state of Hybrid War against Iran that has gone largely unnoticed by most observers because it oscillates between Color Revolution and Unconventional Warfare pressure like was originally observed by the author in his July 2016 analysis about “The US-Saudi Plan To Prompt An Iranian Pullback From Syria”. That piece was published a full year after he correctly predicted immediately after the nuclear deal was signed that a forthcoming Republican President would scrap it in his Sputnik article about “How The Next US President Could Spoil The Iran Deal For Everyone”, which in hindsight has proven prescient in arguing why Trump doesn’t believe that the agreement works in America’s interests.

Accordingly, that’s why the author celebrated Trump’s victory and declared that “Iranians Should Be Thankful For Trump” because at least he’s sincere enough to let them know that the US was never really their “friend”. It was thought that this revelation would give a boost to the “principalist/conservative” faction of the Iranian “deep state” that’s continuously vying with their “reformist/moderate” rivals for influence, but it ultimately didn’t matter during last year’s elections. Now that Trump withdrew from the deal, though, it might make all the difference when it comes to Iran’s grand strategy since it’s clear that the US and its regional allies are pulling out all the stops to prevent Iran from entrenching its Resistance influence west of its borders.

From Bad News To Good News

On the surface, that realization coupled with the recognition of the low-intensity Hybrid War being waged against the Islamic Republic sound like bad news to the casual observer, as do the consequences of more American sanctions against the country and any foreign company accused (without evidence) of supposedly aiding its nuclear (energy) program. Any dreams of a “détente” between the US and Iran as envisioned by the Obama-era “deep state” are now irreversibly shattered, but that in and of itself could be seen as a positive development for both sides, especially the Iranian one because it opens up a wealth of new strategic opportunities.

Here are the most important reasons why the US’ withdrawal from the Iranian deal should be celebrated and not scorned:

Iran No Longer Has Any Illusions About American Sincerity Or Weakness:

The Alt-Media dogma that America was behaving sincerely towards Iran and acting from a position of weakness is totally discredited because it’s now clear that the US was insincere about its intentions the entire time and that it felt powerful enough to unilaterally withdraw from the deal in spite of the rest of the rest of the world’s condemnation (except “Israel” and the Gulf States).

The Rest Of The World Still Respects The Deal:

Although American companies such as Boeing will lose out on billions of dollars’ worth of deals (which they could simply make up through future military contracts, some of which might be paid by the billions in seized Iranian funds that the US still holds), this just means that others can take their place, though provided that they have the courage to resist the US’ expected sanctions threats against them.

Iran Is More Reliant On Russia Than Ever:

On one hand, Russia represents an irreplaceable “pressure valve” for Iran through their new free trade agreement which will provide unparalleled relief during these challenging times, but on the other, any forthcoming “New Détente” between the US and Russia could see Moscow “managing” Tehran as the “good cop” of this “duo” (like during the mid-2000s pre-New Cold War era) and “encouraging” various “compromises”.

The Islamic Republic Will Reorient Its Strategic Focus Eastward:

Faced with increasing pressure along its western flank (possibly due in part to Russia “convincing” Syria to seek the “phased withdrawal” of the IRGC and Hezbollah as part of Moscow’s “balancing” strategy), Iran will have no choice but to reconceptualize its role in Eurasia by pivoting eastward towards Pakistan and Central Asia as it seeks to reorient its grand strategy.

The Golden Ring Might Finally Be Created:

The five multipolar Great Powers of Eurasia – Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey – could deepen their comprehensive integrational connectivity as a result of Tehran’s eastern pivot and Beijing’s New Silk Roads in order to “circle the wagons” out of collective self-interest and thus lay the tangible foundation for building the fabled “Golden Ring” of supercontinental stability.

*

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Featured image is from Russia News Now.

John Bolton makes the weakest possible case for Trump’s decision to renege on the nuclear deal with Iran:

He decided that this deal actually undermines the security of the American people he swore to protect and, accordingly, ended U.S. participation in it. This action reversed an ill-advised and dangerous policy and set us on a new course that will address the aggressive and hostile behavior of our enemies, while enhancing our ties with partners and allies.

Iran’s nuclear program and the restrictions placed upon it by the JCPOA are notably absent from Bolton’s op-ed, because there is no credible argument to be made that the deal wasn’t doing exactly what it was supposed to do. Like other critics of the deal, Bolton focuses on everything except what the deal does because he cannot dispute the tremendous success it has had in limiting Iran’s nuclear program and establishing the most rigorous verification measures in the world. He refers to the agreement’s “abysmal record,” but he never identifies a single flaw in the agreement that the president has repeatedly denounced as the worst in the world. The deal’s record as a nonproliferation agreement has been outstanding, and that is why Bolton is desperate to change the subject to talk about anything but that.

Bolton claims that Trump’s decision “enhances” ties with “partners and allies,” but this is also risible. As far as the vast majority of our allies and other governments around the world is concerned, Bolton’s statement is absolutely untrue. The only relationship that Bolton can cite to support his claim is the one with Israel, and even this is misleading. Bolton conveniently leaves out the fact that most Israeli national security professionals are opposed to U.S. withdrawal from the agreement because they recognize the value it has for Israeli security, and instead he spends a large portion of his op-ed justifying another ill-conceived Trump decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. U.S. ties with our major European allies are already coming under significant strain as a result of Trump’s initial decision, and those ties will become increasingly strained if the administration forces the issue and tries to penalize European companies for doing business with Iran.

He calls the agreement the “failed nuclear deal,” but in terms of the only thing it was ever meant to do–restricting Iran’s nuclear program–it has been extraordinarily successful and Iran’s compliance has been verified ten times in a row. When Bolton says that the deal has “failed,” he is measuring it against an unreasonable and dishonest standard that no agreement could ever meet. The fixation of the deal’s opponents on Iran’s other, non-nuclear behavior is telling. It shows that they refuse to judge the deal on the merits and instead look for any excuse to blame the agreement for anything that Iran does that they dislike. This is akin to blaming Cold War arms control treaties for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and it is every bit as ridiculous. All of this confirms once again how pathetically weak the arguments against the deal have always been, and it is why no one except for ideologues and Trump loyalists take them seriously.

Why Are They Still in Prison?

May 10th, 2018 by J. B. Gerald

Featured image: Herman Bell

On April 27th, 2018 Herman Bell went home to his friends and family. Eligible for parole after 25 years he served 45 years, as a model prisoner. His 8th application for parole was granted by the New York State Parole Board Feb. 18, 2018 but the announcement was followed with extreme attempts by the New York Police Department’s Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association to make sure Bell never left prison. The police union (PBA), The Daily News, The New York Post, even Mayor de Blasio, Governor Cuomo, and several State Senators all tried to pressure the Parole Board to reverse its decision. The PBA and widow of one of the victim officers attempted a court challenge. After he was publicly labeled the killer of two NYPD police Bell was so ‘put down’ and dehumanized in a speech by the PBA union boss it put Bell’s safety at risk.

The sentence given Herman Bell by the judge was not a life sentence but 25 years to life which intentionally included the possibility of parole. With irregularities in the evidence presented parole was a necessary inclusion. Police and politicians don’t have the legal right to take over the judge’s decision by excluding parole or the Parole Board’s decision to grant it. Bell is just one of many U.S. elders who have served too many years as U.S. political prisoners. Some of these were involved in police shootings. Some shot back in self defense. Some were framed by the FBI’s COINTELPRO program. Some were at war against an illegal government policy to stop the Black momentum for change by any means possible, and they were fighting for their lives, their children, their communities. By pressuring courts and parole boards against their release the police continue a war against the American left and the former Black Panthers which was initiated in the 1960’s. A policy of illegal treatment of Blacks in particular rose from an NYPD and FBI alliance as part of J. Edgar Hoover‘s FBI policy – to neutralize Panther organizers and allies and community leaders. It spread throughout the country.

There remains reasonable doubt Herman Bell or his co-defendants were even present at the shooting of two New York City police. There’s evidence of police ‘buying’ witnesses. Bell’s first trial was declared a mistrial. His second trial was provably replete with perjured evidence, evidence illegally withheld from the defense, and possibilities of incorrect identification. It became clear that the essential police witness was tortured by police to provide false evidence. All appeals of the illegally obtained conviction were denied. After years in prison Bell apologized for committing the crime he was charged with. This provided the Parole Board with some proof of his remorse and rehabilitation and is likely to have led to his parole.

Concurrent FBI practices against Black leaders since the mid 1960s included the murder of Martin Luther King Jr.. Extensive works by attorney William Pepper have provided strong evidence proving an assassination by police agents and the Southern Mafia under the direction and in the pay of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, with the backup of a ten person U.S. army death squad. Fred Hampton was simply murdered in his bed by Chicago police. These are among many, not only leaders but increasingly the unarmed innocent people of color or simply poor people, walking down the street or stopped for a traffic violation.

While the NYC police union was outraged at the parole of a “cop killer” NYPD killed yet another unarmed Black civilian, Saheed Vassell, known to his neighbourhood as helpful, friendly but mentally ill. One witness to the killing said it looked like a standard professional hit. Vessell was unarmed. Probably the team of plainclothes police shot not to disable but to kill.

An insight into the the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association’s lobbying against Bell’s release was revealed by Natasha Lennard’s April 25 article in The Intercept which notes that The New York Post’s headline of 367,000 letters of protest to the Parole Board were the product of only 6000 complaints made on the PBA website which could automatically generate up to 67 letters per complaint, protesting the release of all those convicted of killing police. The Intercept article also notes that CBS New York found 86% of those it polled, favouring the Parole Board’s decision to free Bell.

With respect for the honest police officers, Wikipedia notes 23 NYPD members were killed outright during the destruction of three buildings at the World Trade Center in 2001. 343 New York City firemen were killed outright of 412 emergency workers in all. Many more are dying from the effects. Over fifty thousand emergency responders who worked to clean up the hazard afterward show the rates of cancer and related illnesses beyond accurate measure. If one adds the casualties both of military and of civilian populations killed by wars resulting from the “terrorist attack” hundreds of thousands have died. Who believes the guilty have been arrested?

Ferdinando Imposimato 2016.jpg

This is Italy’s Judge Ferdinando Imposito (image on the left), Honorary President of the Italian Supreme Court, former legal consultant to the United Nations, and fearless opponent of Mafia in Italy- he’s speaking in Incontrovertible, a 911 documentary by Tony Rooke (a Killing Auntie Film):

“The 9/11 attacks were a global state terror operation permitted by the administration of the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq. To put it briefly the 9/11 events were an instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries.”

Of police casualties at the World Trade Centre, Judge Imposito says:

“They are policemen. They are members [of] security. I am to tell you that we need the truth. Because without truth it is impossible to improve. this problem we have now we have had for many years but it is not finished….. You have to know that a lot of soldiers, a lot of policemen, a lot of members of security, have been killed. This problem has not been solved.”

Instead of outrage at thirty and forty year old grievances swaddled in lies and false testimonies, the New York’s Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association should mourn all its officers who have died in the line of duty but address those still being lost to the unsolved problem of 9/11.

Aside from Herman Bell, there’s an aging group of political prisoners from the 20th Century, who lifetimes ago were alienated into violence, or framed under the FBI’s COINTELPRO program, who were given sentences impossible to survive and survived anyway but are denied parole and a return to their communities and families. They were judged and sentenced by courts under adverse circumstances. As I understand it the primary reason for refusing them parole is that parole boards don’t consider them remorseful. They haven’t changed their political beliefs which under the U.S. Constitution they’re allowed to have. They’ve given the years of their lives in faithfulness to their beliefs. In the court of history who will call them criminals?

The political prisoners force us to recognize the injustices of our system. To not be concerned with them is to lie to yourself. Eligible for parole or not, and innocent or guilty as charged, these years later it becomes a greater injustice to keep them in prison. The society lacks their resistance, their concern for their communities, everything that COINTELPRO policies stripped from America so the country could gradually slip into fascism, racism, white supremacy, and empire. Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Rap Brown – Imam Jamil Abdullah al-Amin, Jalil Muntaqim, Jaan Laaman, Tom Manning, David Gilbert, Judith Clark, Sundiata Acoli, Dr. Mutulu Shakur, Robert Seth Hayes, Ruchell Cinque Magee, Russell Maroon Shoats, each of the remaining MOVE 9, and there are others, are admired for their endurance and refusals to compromise with injustice. They’re simply men and women on the other side of power. Many are victims of the establishment’s hate crimes. Many have fought for the country’s promises of social justice and equality. Why are they still in prison?

*

This article was originally published on Night’s Lantern.

So he’s finally done it. Having spent the past three years denouncing the Iran nuclear deal as “horrible,” “disastrous,” and “insane,” Donald Trump arrived in the Diplomatic Room of the White House on Tuesday afternoon to formally announce that “the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal” and would “begin reinstituting U.S. nuclear sanctions on the Iranian regime.”

“This will make America much safer,” the president declaimed, jabbing his fingers at the assembled reporters.

Guess who’s celebrating the president’s decision to violate a nuclear nonproliferation agreement signed by the United States less than three years ago? His new national security adviser, John Bolton,former paid speaker for an Iranian ex-terror group who has long been obsessed with “regime change” in Tehran; the crown prince — and de facto ruler — of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, who claims Iran’s supreme leader “makes Hitler look good”; and the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, who constantly compares the Islamic Republic to the so-called Islamic State.

Don’t be fooled: This disastrous and unilateral decision by Trump won’t improve U.S. security. Or Israeli security, for that matter. Even card-carrying hawks who hate the Islamic Republic think Trump is mad to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the nuclear deal is officially known.

Because guess who won’t be celebrating? The entire U.S. military establishment: Defense Secretary James Mattis, who says he has read the text of the nuclear agreement three times and considers it to be “pretty robust”; Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, who says, “Iran is adhering to its JCPOA obligations” and a U.S. decision to quit the deal “would have an impact on others’ willingness to sign agreements”; the head of U.S. Strategic Command, Gen. John Hyten, who says, “Iran is in compliance with JCPOA” and argues “it’s our job to live up to the terms of that agreement”; and the head of U.S. Central Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, who says the nuclear deal is “in our interest” because it “addresses one of the principle threats that we deal with from Iran.”

Those are just the generals who are still in uniform. In March, a statement signed by 100 U.S. national security veterans from across the political spectrum said the nuclear agreement “enhances U.S. and regional security” and “ditching it would serve no national security purpose.” Fifty of the 100 signatories were retired U.S. military officers, including leading Republicans such as retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to George H.W. Bush, and retired Gen. Michael Hayden, who served as director of both the NSA and the CIA under George W. Bush.

Then there’s retired Gen. Colin Powell, national security adviser to Ronald Reagan and secretary of state under George W. Bush, who has called the JCPOA “a pretty good deal.” And Trump’s own former national security adviser, soon-to-be-retired Gen. H.R. McMaster, who was “working closely with two key senators to prevent Trump from destroying the Iran deal” prior to being fired and replaced with Bolton in March.

Guess who else isn’t celebrating? The Israeli security establishment. Netanyahu may claim to possess thousands of “secret nuclear files” that show the JCPOA was “built on lies,” but Israel’s generals and spymasters disagree, including: the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, who says the deal “with all its faults is working”; the chair of the Israeli Space Agency and award-winning military scientist, Isaac Ben-Israel, who says “the agreement is not bad at all, it’s even good for Israel” because “it averts an atom bomb for 15 years”; the former director of the spy agency Mossad, Efraim Halevy, who says the JCPOA provides a “credible answer to the Iranian military threat, at least for a decade, if not longer”; the former chief of domestic security agency Shin Bet, Carmi Gillon, who says the nuclear agreement has helped “make the region, and the world, a safer place”; the former head of Israeli military intelligence, Amos Yadlin, who says “tearing up the deal would create a dangerous void”; and former Israeli prime minister — and the country’s most decorated soldier — Ehud Barak, who says withdrawing from the deal would be a “mistake.”

So let’s be clear: On the one side, we have a dizzying array of serving and retired generals and spy chiefs from both the United States and Israel, none of whom are friends or fans of Iran, yet all of whom agree that the Islamic Republic is complying with the stringent terms of the JCPOA, and that the United States should stay in the deal because it bolsters U.S., regional, and global security.

And on the other side? A former property developer and reality TV star; a chicken hawk who wants to bomb everyone; a 32-year-old Gulf prince who can’t win a war against rebels from the poorest Arab country; and an allegedly corrupt politician who has been claiming Iran is “three to five years” away from a nuclear weapons capability since … 1992.

This isn’t about security or protecting American — or Israeli — cities from Iranian missiles. Trump & Co. aren’t trying to avoid war with Iran. They want war with Iran.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Starting this Wednesday, Net Neutrality supporters will raise the alarm in defense of an open internet. 

Since December of last year — when the Federal Communications Commission voted to strip internet users of their Net Neutrality protections — millions of advocates of every political stripe have been organizing to nullify the ruling and restore the safeguards we expect every time we go online.

This week and next, we’re joining with organizations and online companies calling on the Senate to pass a “resolution of disapproval.” If both chambers pass it and the president signs it, the resolution would reinstate the Net Neutrality protections we won in 2015. These baseline open-internet rules prevent companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from interfering with our rights to connect and communicate.

But how did we get to where we are today, and what can people do to stop the Trump administration and big phone and cable companies from killing Net Neutrality?Here’s the rundown.

How did we lose Net Neutrality?

We won Net Neutrality protections in 2015 after a decade-long battle to determine whether internet users or the companies that sell online access would control the internet.

2015 FCC ruling created the legal foundation for real Net Neutrality, giving internet users the right to choose what they do, where they go and who they connect with online.

This victory was an unprecedented win for the public interest against the forces of an immensely powerful corporate lobby that had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lawyers, PR firms, lobbyists and campaign contributions in a failed bid to take over the internet.

But in 2017 the Trump administration put in place a new FCC chairman — former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai — who from day one declared his intention to do the bidding of phone and cable companies and repeal the historic 2015 rules.

On Dec. 14, 2017, Pai’s FCC voted along party lines to dismantle Net Neutrality protections, abdicating the agency’s legal authority to safeguard internet users, and clearing the way for internet providers to block or throttle online content.

Pai pushed through this ruling despite the flood of support from tens of millions of people who favored keeping the Net Neutrality protections.

He even defied the wishes of his own political base. Poll after poll after poll after poll shows large majorities of Republican voters in opposition to repealing Net Neutrality protections.

Pai continues to declare that his decision was based on proof that Net Neutrality rules had hobbled investment and innovation — and yet he’s failed to produce a shred of evidence to support these claims. That’s because none exists.

How do we plan to win it back?

From the day of the 2017 vote to repeal Net Neutrality, open-internet advocates have fought to restore our rights.

Free Press and our allies are taking the FCC to court — challenging its reversal on the proper definition of broadband, its flawed justifications for tossing out the rules, and the many process fouls that plagued the FCC’s 2017 proceeding.

Since then we’ve worked tirelessly to build our case against the legal, factual and moral failings that the FCC majority used to prop up its unjustified decision.

The suit has been assigned to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, with oral arguments expected to occur by the end of the year. We’re confident that the judges reviewing the Trump FCC’s wrongheaded decision will rule against its conclusions and the way Pai conducted the proceeding.

Meanwhile, members of the House and Senate have introduced a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which would overturn the FCC decision and restore the Net Neutrality rules. The resolution — led in the Senate by Sen. Ed Markey (D–Massachusetts) and in the House by Rep. Mike Doyle (D–Pennsylvania) — has gained hundreds of co-sponsors.

Throughout the year, members of Team Internet — a campaign run by Free Press Action Fund, Demand Progress and Fight for the Future — have been rallying outside the local offices of lawmakers to gain support for the resolution.

In addition, more than 30 states are weighing legislation to restore the Net Neutrality rules. The governors of Hawaii, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont have signed executive orders prohibiting their states from doing any business with internet providers that violate Net Neutrality.

The mayors of more than 110 cities, representing more than 25 million people, have signed a similar pledge.

What can I do?

In early May, the three groups leading Team Internet — which are also behind the organizing hub BattlefortheNet.com — announced “Red Alert for Net Neutrality,” actions designed to drive constituent calls and emails to lawmakers ahead of the Senate vote. The groups are launching the days of action in the expectation that the Senate will soon vote on Markey’s resolution reinstating the open-internet safeguards.

Beginning on May 9 and continuing every day until the Senate votes, internet activists, major web companies, online forums and small businesses will “go red” for Net Neutrality, displaying banners on their websites and via social media, and urging everyone to tell their senators to vote for the resolution.

You can get involved by visiting BattlefortheNet.com or Free Press, or by joining Team Internet.

All 49 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, as well as Republican Susan Collins, have announced their support for the resolution, meaning that, at most, just one more vote is needed to ensure passage in the Senate. If the measure passes there, activists will ramp up the fight in the House, where about 160 reps have signed on to a companion bill.

Congress has the opportunity to unwind the Trump FCC’s terrible and unpopular decision. You can get your lawmakers to speak up for real Net Neutrality — and to stand on the right side of history — by calling on them to vote for the resolution of disapproval.

Tens of millions of people have joined the fight for Net Neutrality. If we don’t raise the alarm now we could lose the one principle that keeps the internet open and available to everyone.

Today, a pair of declarations representing close to 500 organizations and 140 leading economists respectively were submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) calling on countries and the process to address fossil fuel production and financing as a critical way of increasing ambition and meeting our shared climate goals.

The Lofoten Declaration and the Not A Penny More Declaration are a call to stop letting fossil fuels, and the governments and money that enable them, off the hook. Despite decades of negotiations and agreements, and being the biggest driver of the climate crisis, fossil fuels aren’t even mentioned in the Paris Agreement.

It is time for this to change: if we are going to avert the worst of global climate change we must address fossil fuel demand AND supply. We know that there is more carbon in already producing reserves to take us beyond 1.5 or even 2 degrees. We cannot continue to allow governments and industry to expand and finance new fossil fuel production that only digs us deeper into the hole we are trying to get out of.

Screen Shot 2018-05-08 at 8.45.33 PM

The Declarations affirm that it is the urgent responsibility and moral obligation of wealthy fossil fuel producers as well as public and private investors and development institutions to lead in “stopping exploration and expansion of fossil fuel projects and managing the decline of existing production in line with what is necessary to achieve the Paris climate goals.”

These submissions to the UNFCCC’s “Talanoa Dialogue” add to growing calls for action on ending fossil fuels within the UN process and beyond. Outside of these walls, movements around the world are standing up to fossil fuel infrastructure and expansion. From First Nations and allies in British Columbia standing up to the Kinder Morgan tar sands pipeline to civil society and frontline communities in Argentina demanding a different development pathway to avoid the dangerous exploitation of massive shale oil and gas reserves, the resistance is global.

Some countries and institutions are also showing leadership and introducing policies that begin to tackle this problem at its source. On Saturday, panelists from New Zealand, France, and the World Bank addresseda packed room here at the latest round of climate talks in Bonn to share stories about how and why they are making moves to stop approving and financing fossil fuel expansion. These First Movers are setting important precedents that pave the way for even more ambitious actions to begin a managed decline and just transition towards a zero-carbon economy.

Screen Shot 2018-05-08 at 2.12.05 PM

In order for this list of First Movers to grow, more political and financial decision makers must see the writing on the wall and say no to the fossil fuel industry. As Lofoten Declaration signatory Secretary General Martel of the Pacific Island Development Forum importantly notes,

“the only reason why fossil fuel exploration continues is because of powerful people with vested interests and the political influence that they wield. The Lofoten Declaration is sending the message that there is no future for fossil fuels in a planet experiencing the current level of climate change. It stands to reason that fossil fuel exploration, and eventually production, must come to an end if we are to fulfill the commitments of the Paris Agreement which almost all countries in the world have now ratified.”

We look forward to these powerful Declarations joining the many other calls heard in the Talanoa Dialogue for the need to address fossil fuel supply. The role of fossil fuel production in the climate crisis must be confronted head on, and the UNFCCC is no exception.

78-year-old CIA whistleblower Ray McGovern had his arm dislocated by Capitol Hill police as he was brutally dragged out of the confirmation hearing for Trump CIA Chief nominee Gina Haspel today.

Watch the video:

.

The Israeli Defense Force says it has identified “unusual movements of Iranian forces in Syria” and has responded by ordering the opening of shelters along the Golan Heights – its border area with Syria – and ordering its troops to be on “heightened alert” for an attack.

According to Reuters, Israel has instructed local authorities in the border region to “unlock and ready [bomb] shelters”.

.

The Israeli Air Force, which has conducted many of Israel’s attacks against Iranian forces in Syria, warned that “any aggression against Israel will be met with a severe response.”

The news arrived just minutes before President Donald Trump announced his decision to pull the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – otherwise known as the Iran deal. During the announcement, he referenced a presentation given by Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu outlining Iran’s efforts to secretly build up a nuclear arms program. Critics of the presentation said that Netanyahu didn’t tell the international community anything new.

Shortly after Trump spoke, Netanyahu said the deal gave Iran billions of dollars to fund its efforts to spread terror across the region. Iran has long been criticized for its partnership with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and for funding militias in Syria and Iraq, as well as the Houthi rebels fighting the Saudi Arabia-backed establishment in Yemen.

Since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War seven years ago, Israeli forces have launched more than 100 attacks on Iranian forces working with the Syrian regime to fight off rebels and ISIS.

Last month, a senior Israeli military official admitted to the New York Times that an Israeli drone had killed 14 people, half of whom were Iranian, during an attack on Syria’s T4 air base, which is located about halfway between Palmyra and Homs.

Defense stocks are rallying as investors assume – correctly – that the risk of an all-out military conflict between longtime enemies Israel and Iran – a conflict that could push the world into World War III – has never been higher.

The news arrived just minutes before President Donald Trump announced his decision to pull the US out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – otherwise known as the Iran deal. During the announcement, he referenced a presentation given by Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu outlining Iran’s efforts to secretly build up a nuclear arms program. Critics of the presentation said that Netanyahu didn’t tell the international community anything new.

Shortly after Trump spoke, Netanyahu said the deal gave Iran billions of dollars to fund its efforts to spread terror across the region. Iran has long been criticized for its partnership with Lebanon’s Hezbollah and for funding militias in Syria and Iraq, as well as the Houthi rebels fighting the Saudi Arabia-backed establishment in Yemen.

Map

Since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War seven years ago, Israeli forces have launched more than 100 attacks on Iranian forces working with the Syrian regime to fight off rebels and ISIS.

Last month, a senior Israeli military official admitted to the New York Times that an Israeli drone had killed 14 people, half of whom were Iranian, during an attack on Syria’s T4 air base, which is located about halfway between Palmyra and Homs.

Defense stocks are rallying as investors assume – correctly – that the risk of an all-out military conflict between longtime enemies Israel and Iran – a conflict that could push the world into World War III – has never been higher.

North

The decision by the Trump administration to breach the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—better known as the Iranian nuclear agreement—moves the United States once again into a dangerous situation in which the United States might directly or indirectly be involved in yet another military confrontation.

The Trump administration feels fairly confident that the U.S. public will follow it down a path to war with Iran. We must demonstrate to him and all of the officials in government and beyond that the people will not tolerate more bloodshed, and more destruction of cities, cultures and peoples to advance the narrow and misguided policies of a state that has centered war as its first option.

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) has spoken out forcefully in opposition to U.S. war policies over the first year of its existence. With almost no money, no full-time staff, no permanent office, we have, nevertheless, become a driving force in the efforts to re-build the broader anti-war, anti-imperialist movement in the United States.

We are now mobilizing toward the National Assembly for Black Liberation taking place May 18-20 in Durham, North Carolina. This will be a strategic space for BAP in that Black activists from around the country will gather there as part of the effort to re-build a national Black left network. One of the resolutions that will be debated at this gathering is one submitted by BAP asking the movement commit itself to centering anti-militarism and anti-imperialism once again and build the Black Alliance for Peace.

We are attempting to raise $3,000 to provide partial support for the participation of a dozen BAP members to cover gas, van rental, hotel, food and registration.

We go to the people when we have these kinds of requests and so we are coming to you once again, hoping you can give generously to this effort. Please donate here today so we can meet our goal by May 12.

Help us build a movement that will take power from the warmongers. We know there will be no peace without justice and that we are going to have to fight for justice—help us.

On May 8th, Syria’s Government bannered, “6th batch of terrorists leave southern Damascus for northern Syria” and reported that “During the past five days, 218 buses carrying … terrorists with their families exited from the three towns to Jarablos and Idleb under the supervision of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent.” Jarablos (or “Jarabulus”) is a town or “District” in the Aleppo Governate; and Idleb (or “Idlib”) is the capital District in the adjoining Governate of Idlib, which Governate is immediately to the west of Aleppo Governate; and both Jarabulus and Idlib border on Turkey to the north. Those two towns in Syria’s far northwest are where captured jihadists are now being sent.

The Government is doing that because at this final stage in the 7-year-long war, it wants civilian deaths and additional destruction of buildings to be kept to a minimum, and so is offering jihadists the option of surviving instead of being forced to fight to the death (which would then require Syria’s Government to destroy the entire area that’s occupied by the terrorists); this way, these final clean-up operations against the terrorists won’t necessarily require bombing whole neighborhoods — surrenders thus become likelier, so as to end the war as soon as possible, and to keep destruction and civilian casualties at a minimum. 

On May 7th, the Syrian Government headlined “Preparations for evacuating fifth batch of terrorists from Yalda, Babila and Beit Sahem towns started”, and reported that,

“more than 60 buses entered Beit Sahem town to transport terrorists who reject the settlement [offered by the Government] along with their families from the towns to Jarablos in coincidence with the continuation of the military operation carried out by the army on the northern parts of al-Hajar al-Aswad paving the way for declaring the area of southern Damascus free of terrorism.”

Thousands of conquered jihadists (or “terrorists”) that the U.S. and its allies had been arming and assisting to overthrow and replace Syria’s elected Government, are surrendering in large numbers now, and are being loaded by Syria’s army onto buses and sent northward, mainly to the town of Jarabulus (such as the instances here and here and here and here and here and here) — that being one of the few towns where opposition to Syria’s elected President, Bashar al-Assad, has been favored by a majority of the population, and where Al Qaeda (which in Syria is called al-Nusra and other names) and ISIS (which also is called by additional names) have been more popular than Syria’s secular elected President, Assad. The entire Governate of Idlib is the most pro-jihadist Governate in all of Syria.

Here’s a breakdown of the regions (called “Governates”) of Syria, and showing each one’s support for Syria’s Government, versus their support for the U.S.-and-allied opposition to it (i.e., for the jihadists):

As can be seen there, only 9% of people polled in Idlib (“Idlip”) favored Assad, while 70% of them favored Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria).

Those figures are from a 2014 poll taken by the British polling firm Orb International, in order to assist the U.S. and its allies to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government. That poll was commissioned for a reason — NATO wanted this information:

On 31 May 2013, the non-mainstream news-site, World Tribune, had headlined “NATO data: Assad winning the war for Syrians’ hearts and minds”, and reported that:

After two years of civil war, support for the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad was said to have sharply increased.

NATO has been studying data that told of a sharp rise in support for Assad. The data, compiled by Western-sponsored activists and organizations, showed that a majority of Syrians were alarmed by the Al Qaida takeover of the Sunni revolt and preferred to return to Assad, Middle East Newsline reported.

“The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad,” a Western source familiar with the data said. “Assad is winning the war mostly because the people are cooperating with him against the rebels.”

The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent of Syrians support the Assad regime. Another 20 percent were deemed neutral and the remaining 10 percent expressed support for the rebels.

The sources said no formal polling was taken in Syria, racked by two years of civil war in which 90,000 people were reported killed. They said the data came from a range of activists and independent organizations that were working in Syria, particularly in relief efforts.

The data was relayed to NATO as the Western alliance has been divided over whether to intervene in Syria. Britain and France were said to have been preparing to send weapons to the rebels while the United States was focusing on protecting Syria’s southern neighbor Jordan.

A report to NATO said Syrians have undergone a change of heart over the last six months. The change was seen most in the majority Sunni community, which was long thought to have supported the revolt.

“The Sunnis have no love for Assad, but the great majority of the community is withdrawing from the revolt,” the source said. “What is left is the foreign fighters who are sponsored by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They are seen by the Sunnis as far worse than Assad.”

And, if this is the way that Sunnis felt about Assad, and about his opposition the ‘rebels’ (that the U.S. supported), then obviously Shia (including Alawite) Syrians were even more supportive of him, and so too were Christian Syrians.

So, this British polling firm became commissioned to obtain more-reliable figures, and those figures confirmed the earlier estimates.

*

On 12 April 2018, three days after U.S. and its allies alleged a Syrian chemical attack in Douma in East Ghouta, Russia’s Sputnik News bannered “E Ghouta Mop-up: Militants Surrender Another Haul of Israeli, European-Made Arms” and reported that,

“3,792 people, including 1,384 militants and members of their families, are being evacuated from Douma and taken to the town of Jarabulus in northeastern Aleppo, northern Syria on 85 buses.”

Then, on the night of April 13th, the U.S. and some allies launched a missile-invasion against Syria based on charging Syria’s Government as having been the alleged source of the alleged chemical attack that had allegedly occurred in Douma.

Now that the U.S. alliance has failed to conquer Syria, the U.S. is trying to break off the northern third of the country, and is trying to include, in that U.S.-allied area, as much of Syria’s oil-producing region, around Deir Ezzor, as possible, so as to steal from Syrians as much of Syria’s oil as possible — oil that until recently was being stolen instead by ISIS.

None of the news-reports indicate why Jarabulus and Idlib were chosen by Syria’s Government, as the places in which to concentrate the jihadists; but, presumably, a sympathetic population exists there, to receive them. Perhaps, since they’re on the border with Turkey — which, like the U.S., has been trying to overthrow Assad — Syria’s Government is also hoping to make the jihadists become Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s problem to deal with, and not only Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s problem. Maybe doing that would reduce some of Erdogan’s ardor for regime-change in Syria.

Most of Syria’s ‘rebels’ are not Syrians, but instead are jihadists from around the world, fundamentalist Sunnis who have been recruited, with funding provided mainly by the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia, and by the Thanis who own Qatar, and by the six royal families who own UAE. All of these royal families are themselves fundamentalist Sunnis, and virtually all jihadists except the ones that attack Israel are Sunnis. America’s Presidents lie about “radical Islamic terrorism” by saying that Shiite Iran is the “top state-sponsor of terrorism,” and even that Iran caused 9/11; but none of that is at all true. Israel gets attacked both by Sunni terrorists and by Shiite terrorists — and Shiite terrorism is exclusively against Israel. By contrast, Sunni terrorism is against U.S., EU, Japan, and virtually every non-Islamic country. Israel is allied with the Sauds, who hate Shiites and have hated them since 1744. And U.S.-allied ‘news’media hide all of these essential facts, from their respective publics, so as to redirect The West’s anti-terrorist anger against Iran as the villain, and away from the Sauds and their friends as the villains. This lie protects the fundamentalist Sunni Governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and America’s other Middle Eastern allies — the very countries that are behind the Islamic terrorism that plagues the U.S. and Europe. Syria is instead allied with Iran — not with the Sauds, who are Iran’s sworn enemies. The U.S. Government is allied with Sunni terrorists now, just as it was in 1979 when it worked with the Sauds to create Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

On 21 December 2015, the U.S.-allied British think-tank Center on Religion and Politics, issued a research-report “Ideology and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion”, and opened: “At least 65,000 militants in Syria share key parts of the ideology of ISIS, with 15 of its rivals ready to take its place if it is defeated. They reported:

Key Findings

Sixty per cent of major Syrian rebel groups are Islamist extremists

Our study of 48 rebel factions in Syria revealed that 33 per cent – nearly 100,000 fighters – have the same ideological objectives as ISIS. If you take into account Islamist groups (those who want a state governed by their interpretation of Islamic law), this figure jumps to 60 per cent.

Unless Assad goes, the Syrian war will go on and spread further

Despite the conflicting ideologies of the rebel groups, 90 per cent of the groups studied hold the defeat of Assad’s regime as a principal objective. Sixty-eight per cent seek the establishment of Islamic law in Syria. In contrast, only 38 per cent have the defeat of ISIS as a stated goal.

Nonetheless, they insisted on overthrowing Bashar al-Assad, based on the incredible claim: “Unless Assad goes, the Syrian war will go on and spread further.” They obviously think that the public — the readers of their report — are extremely stupid. Furthermore, their report ignored that all of these terrorist groups are fundamentalist-Sunni, and that all of the non-ISIS groups are led by Nusra — Syria’s Al Qaeda. The intent there to deceive is clear, but their report that “nearly 100,000 fighters have the same ideological objectives as ISIS” (which likewise is a fundamentalist-Sunni group) was probably true.

If the devil incarnate ruled the U.S. and its allies, then how would they be any different from this? What does “evil” even mean? Syria is trying to rid itself of jihadists, but the U.S. and its allies rely upon the jihadists as the U.S. alliance’s proxy-forces or “boots on the ground” to attain their goal of stealing Syria’s oil and so forth. That’s bad, but The West’s hypocrisy about these matters makes its evil even worse than that, like evil-squared — evil compounded by lies about itself.

*

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


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

Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than six years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and three years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes.

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Will a Torturer Become CIA Director?

May 10th, 2018 by Ray McGovern

The Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled on Wednesday to decide whether to recommend that Gina Haspel be confirmed as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The mind boggles.

It is no secret that Haspel oversaw detainee torture, including waterboarding, at a CIA “black site” base in Thailand. The nonprofit National Security Archive, housed at The George Washington University, reports that Haspel later drafted a cable ordering the destruction of dozens of videotapes of torture sessions, including some from before her arrival. Haspel also helped feed repeated lies about the supposed effectiveness of torture to CIA superiors, Congress, and two presidents.

So how does President Donald Trump think he can get this nomination approved? It is a sad story. Polling shows that most Americans, including Catholics, have been persuaded by Hollywood films and TV series, other media, and Trump himself that torture works.

“Absolutely, I feel it works,” Trump told ABC News in January 2017.

Given the utilitarian tone dominating the discussion, I will first address whether there is any evidence that torture “works,” and then comment on the tendency to equivocate—in what one might call a jesuitical way—about the morality of torture. I must, however, point out upfront that the civilized world has long since decided that torture is intrinsically evil: always wrong. It is also against international and domestic law, of course. But torture is not wrong because it is illegal. It is the other way around. Torture is illegal because it is just flat wrong—always.

Coercing False ‘Intelligence’

On Sept. 6, 2006, Gen. John Kimmons, then the Army deputy chief of staff for intelligence, chose to address this issue publicly at a Pentagon press conference just one hour before he knew that President George W. Bush would publicly extol the virtues of torture methods that became known as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Gen.l Kimmons said,

“No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years—hard years—tell us that.”

Here is the exception, however: Torture can “work” like a charm when interrogators are told to coerce false “intelligence” that can be used, for example, to start a war.

Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, has explained how his boss was

mousetrapped by CIA Director George Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin as Col. Wilkerson was putting the final touches on Secretary Powell’s misbegotten speech on Iraq to the UN Security Council on Feb 5, 2003. Mr. Tenet used information he knew was from torture to mislead Powell into claiming there was a “sinister nexus” between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

According to Col. Wilkerson, Tenet did not tell Powell that this “intelligence” came from a source, Abu Yahya al-Libi, who had been “rendered” to and waterboarded by Egyptian intelligence. The Defense Intelligence Agency had officially pronounced unreliable what al-Libi had said, but Tenet never told Powell. Al-Libi then recanted less than a year later, admitting that he fabricated the story about Saddam and al-Qaeda in order to stop the torture.

‘Intrinsic Evil’

Those of us who attended Jesuit institutions decades ago were taught that there was a moral category called “intrinsic evil”—actions that were always wrong, including rape, slavery and torture. Sadly, at my alma mater Fordham University, torture seems to have slipped out of that well-defined moral category into a “gray world.”

Image on the right: Controversy on Rose Hill.

In spring 2012, graduating seniors who were aware of Homeland Security Advisor (and later CIA head) John Brennan’s checkered career strongly opposed the decision by Fordham’s president, Joseph M. McShane, S.J., to invite Brennan, who graduated from Fordham College in 1977, to give the university commencement address on the Bronx campus and be awarded—of all things—a doctorate of humane letters, honoris causa. Brennan was already on record defending “extraordinary rendition,” secret prisons abroad and “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

Many Fordham students saw scandal in that the violent policies Brennan advocated were in stark contrast to the principles that Fordham University was supposed to stand for as a Catholic Jesuit University. Scott McDonald, a graduating senior, asked to meet with President McShane to discuss those concerns, but Brennan remained as commencement speaker. McDonald left the meeting wondering if the moral theologians at Fordham now considered torture a “gray area.”

Last year, Fordham again honored Brennan by appointing him distinguished fellow for global security at the school’s Center on National Security. And Brennan has endorsed the Haspel nomination.

I feel all this on a deep personal level. Not only have I been a proud Fordham Ram since 1953 but, more important, we have nine grandchildren, seven of whom have not yet chosen their college. It pains me greatly not to be able to recommend my alma mater.

*

Ray McGovern originally drafted this article at the request of the Jesuit weekly, America. It was circulated in-house but then nixed for publication.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Savior in inner-city Washington, D.C.. A Fordham alumnus, he spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, from the Kennedy administration to the first Bush administration. He holds a certificate in theological studies from Georgetown and is a graduate of Harvard Business School’s Advanced Management Program.

While President Donald Trump’s decision to pull the US out of the Iran nuclear deal has been negatively criticized by most of the international community it has brought good news for some. Weapons manufacturers.

The stock price of all of the top US weapons manufacturers shot up just as Trump announced he’s pulling his country out of the pact which lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran limiting its nuclear program.

Northrop Grumman’s stock price took the largest leap and the aerospace and defense technology company has maintained those gains, rising more than 12 points (3.8 percent) since Trump’s announcement.

Lockheed Martin is up 6.4 points (2 percent) while Raytheon’s price rose 5.3 points (2.55 percent). Boeing also gained more than three points, it was unable to maintain those advances however it is still up two points on its price before Trump said the US was exiting the 2015 deal.

The uptick wasn’t just limited to weapons manufacturers as oil rose more than three percent to hit its highest level since 2014.

The latest price surges are a continuation in rising share prices for weapons manufacturers since Trump entered office promising “historic increases” in military spending. Since January 1 Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Boeing are all up more than 20 points.

Those gains have been fuelled by large surges following several of Trump’s actions including his decision to attack Syrian government targets in April and his appointment of John Bolton as his national security adviser in March. Following the Syria strike Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and aerospace firm General Dynamics gained nearly $5 billion in market value despite the wider market slumping.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on War is Good for Business: US Weapons Manufacturers’ Share Prices Soar on NYSE as Trump Pulls Out of Iran Deal

Our position is straightforward. This is a bad deal [Iran Nuclear Deal]. Either fix it — or cancel it. This is Israel’s position. Binyamin Netanyahu (1949- ), Israel Prime minister, (comment made on Tues. Sept. 12, 2017).

“…You know that I am the best thing that could happen to Israel…and I’ll be that. Donald Trump (1946-), (in a speech to Jewish donors and supporters to his presidential campaignin Washington D.C., on Thurs., Dec. 3, 2015).

“When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous.” Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States, 1801-09, (in The Articles of Confederation, 1793).

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you super add the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.” Lord Acton (1834-1902), English historian, politician, and writer.

*

There are presently warmongering characters (Netanyahu, Erdogan, Trump, etc.) in charge in some countries, and they show no respect for international law, whatsoever. The most dangerous among them is, of course, the U.S. President Donald Trump.

It has become more and more obvious, for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see that Donald Trump’s drive to power is making the world a less secure place, possibly a very dangerous place. Trump is constantly poking the fires of war with his bullying foreign policy, a policy that seems to be framed by Israel’s Netanyahu.

This is a complete reversal of what Donald Trump said during the last American presidential campaign, considering that he ran as some sort of ‘peace candidate’. Indeed, on numerous occasions, Trump has denounced Republican President George W. Bush for having destabilized the Middle East, in making the “mistake” of attacking Iraq.

The most recent example is his reckless so-called unilateral ‘decision’ of Tuesday May 8, without any input from the U.S. Congress, to withdraw the United States from the Iran Nuclear agreement, a deal concluded between China, France, Germany, Russia, USA, plus the EU, and Iran, in 2015. Trump seems to be very anxious to return his country to a position of being able to raise aggressive sanctions against Iran, with even a possibility of a joint U.S.-Israel military war of aggression against that country, which has not attacked the United States in any way or form. Is this a means for him to pay his political debts to some of his rich donors? That is a fair question.

This could have been expected since Trump has surrounded himself with known Zionists, in the persons of his new National Security adviser John Bolton, a rabid neocon warmonger and one of the architects of George W. Bush’s 2003 illegal war against Iraq, Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and a close friend of Netanyahu, and Stephen Miller—the former being Trump’s special adviser and the latter being Trump’s speechwriter.

That may be one reason, among many others, why Donald Trump is considered by some observers to be the ‘most pro-Zionist’ American president, in U.S. history. It is not a coincidence that both Trump and Netanyahu are presently facing big political problems at home, and beating the drums of war could be a good way for both of them to change the public discourse. Indeed, the political technique of “Wag-the-Dog”, with the frequent active encouragement of corporate media, is quite alive in the United States, among unscrupulous politicians. American presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, among others, have all found it convenient to use it to deflect from their domestic political problems.

In general, it can be expected that when crooked politicians are facing a quagmire of their own making, and when they feel powerless and under attack, they will be tempted to spend unlimited amounts of public money and to sacrifice unlimited numbers of other people’s lives, in order to save face.

Conclusion

Sadly, it can be said that the warmongers are at it again. They will stir the pot to find pretexts for war, in any way they can, because they think that the more chaos they create, the more they stand to benefit personally, politically speaking.

History seems to repeat itself. And Donald Trump is true to himself in being autocratic and petty. His provocations are designed to please his rich Zionist donors, even if in doing so, he greatly increases the chances of war. He does not care, because he thinks that this is convenient for him at this juncture. Maybe he should study history a little more. He would discover that tyrants usually end up very badly.

*

This article was originally published on Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay’s blog.

International economist Dr. Rodrigue Tremblay is the author of the book “The Code for Global Ethics, Ten Humanist Principles” and of “The New American Empire”.

Please visit Dr. Tremblay’s site: http://www.thenewamericanempire.com.

This article was first published by Global Research in December 2009.

“Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear war.”

“Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO provide an essential political and military link between the European and the North American members of the Alliance. The Alliance will therefore maintain adequate nuclear forces in Europe.”

“Although technically owned by the U.S., nuclear bombs stored at NATO bases are designed to be delivered by planes from the host country.”

“The Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of State, should engage its appropriate counterparts among NATO Allies in reassessing and confirming the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance strategy and policy for the future.”

Is Italy capable of delivering a thermonuclear strike? Could the Belgians and the Dutch drop hydrogen bombs on enemy targets?…Germany’s air force couldn’t possibly be training to deliver bombs 13 times more powerful than the one that destroyed Hiroshima, could it?

The above is from the opening paragraph of a feature in Time magazine’s online edition of December 2, one entitled “What to Do About Europe’s Secret Nukes.”

In response to the rhetorical queries posed it adopts the deadly serious tone befitting the subject in stating, “It is Europe’s dirty secret that the list of nuclear-capable countries extends beyond those — Britain and France — who have built their own weapons. Nuclear bombs are stored on air-force bases in Italy, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands — and planes from each of those countries are capable of delivering them.”

The author of the article, Eben Harrell, who wrote an equally revealing piece for the same news site in June of 2008, cites the Federation of American Scientists as asserting that there are an estimated 200 American B61 thermonuclear gravity bombs stationed in the four NATO member states listed above. A fifth NATO nation that is home to the warheads, Turkey, is not dealt with in the news story. In the earlier Times article alluded to previously, author Harrell wrote that “The U.S. keeps an estimated 350 thermonuclear bombs in six NATO countries.” [1] They are three variations of the B61, “up to 10 [or 13] times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb” [2] – B61-3s, B61-4s and B61-10s – stationed on eight bases in Alliance states.

The writer reminded the magazine’s readers that “Under a NATO agreement struck during the Cold War, the bombs, which are technically owned by the U.S., can be transferred to the control of a host nation’s air force in times of conflict. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Dutch, Belgian, Italian and German pilots remain ready to engage in nuclear war.” [3]

The B61 is the Pentagon’s mainstay hydrogen weapon, a “lightweight bomb [that can] be delivered by…Air Force, Navy and NATO planes at very high altitudes and at speeds above Mach 2.”

Also, it “can be dropped at high speeds from altitudes as low as 50 feet. As many as 22 different varieties of aircraft can carry the B61 externally or internally. This weapon can be dropped either by free-fall or as parachute-retarded; it can be detonated either by air burst or ground burst.” [4]

The warplanes capable of transporting and using the bomb include new generation U.S. stealth aircraft such as the B-2 bomber and the F-35 Lightning II (multirole Joint Strike Fighter), capable of penetrating air defenses and delivering both conventional and nuclear payloads.

The Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike program, which “could encompass new generations of aircraft and armaments five times faster than anything in the current American arsenal,” including “the X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed to hit Mach 5 — roughly 3600 mph,” [5] could be configured for use in Europe also, as the U.S. possesses cruise missiles with nuclear warheads for deployment on planes and ships. But the warplanes mandated to deliver American nuclear weapons in Europe are those of its NATO allies, including German Tornados, variants of which were used in NATO’s 1999 air war against Yugoslavia and are currently deployed in Afghanistan.

There are assumed to be 130 U.S. nuclear warheads at the Ramstein and 20 at the Buechel airbases in Germany and 20 at the Kleine Brogel Air Base in Belgium. Additionally, there are reports of dozens more in Italy (at Aviano and Ghedi) and even more, the largest amount of American nuclear weapons outside the United States itself, in Turkey at the Incirlik airbase. [6]

Not only are the warheads stationed in NATO nations but are explicitly there as part of a sixty-year policy of the Alliance, in fact a major cornerstone of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. An article in this series written before the bloc’s sixtieth anniversary summit in France and Germany this past April, NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe [7], examined the inextricable link between the founding of NATO in 1949 and the deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons and delivery systems in Europe. One of the main purposes of founding the Alliance was exactly to allow for the basing and use of American nuclear arms on the continent.

Seven months after the creation of the bloc, the NATO Defense Doctrine of November 1949 called for insuring “the ability to carry out strategic bombing including the prompt delivery of the atomic bomb. This is primarily a US responsibility assisted as practicable by other nations.” [8]

The current NATO Handbook contains a section titled NATO’s Nuclear Forces in the New Security Environment which contains this excerpt:

“During the Cold War, NATO’s nuclear forces played a central role in the Alliance’s strategy of flexible response….[N]uclear weapons were integrated into the whole of NATO’s force structure, and the Alliance maintained a variety of targeting plans which could be executed at short notice. This role entailed high readiness levels and quick-reaction alert postures for significant parts of NATO’s nuclear forces.” [9]

At no time was the deployment and intended use of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe part of a nuclear deterrence strategy. The former Soviet Union was portrayed as having a conventional arms superiority in Europe and U.S. and NATO doctrine called for the first use of nuclear bombs. The latter were based in several NATO states on the continent as part of what was called a “nuclear sharing” or “nuclear burden sharing” arrangement: Although the bombs stored in Europe were American and under the control of the Pentagon, war plans called for their being loaded onto fellow NATO nation’s bombers for use against the Soviet Union and its (non-nuclear) Eastern European allies. The USSR itself, incidentally, didn’t successfully test its first atomic bomb until four months after NATO was formed.

With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, formed six years after NATO and in response to the inclusion of the Federal Republic of Germany in the bloc (and the U.S. moving nuclear weapons into the nation), and of the Soviet Union itself in 1991, the Pentagon withdrew the bulk of 7,000 warheads it had maintained in Europe, but still maintains hundreds of tactical nuclear bombs.

At the 1999 NATO fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington, D.C., during which the bloc was conducting its first war, the 78-day bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, and expanding to incorporate three former Warsaw Pact members (the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland), it also approved its new and still operative Strategic Concept which states in part:

“The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States; the independent nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies.

“A credible Alliance nuclear posture and the demonstration of Alliance solidarity…continue to require widespread participation by European Allies involved in collective defence planning in nuclear roles, in peacetime basing of nuclear forces on their territory and in command, control and consultation arrangements. Nuclear forces based in Europe and committed to NATO provide an essential political and military link between the European and the North American members of the Alliance. The Alliance will therefore maintain adequate nuclear forces in Europe.” [10]

The Time report of 2008 wrote of the ongoing policy that it is:

“A ‘burden-sharing’ agreement that has been at the heart of NATO military policy since its inception.

“Although technically owned by the U.S., nuclear bombs stored at NATO bases are designed to be delivered by planes from the host country.” [11]

It also discussed the Air Force Blue Ribbon Review of Nuclear Weapons Policies and Procedures released in February of 2008 which “recommended that American nuclear assets in Europe be consolidated, which analysts interpret as a recommendation to move the bombs to NATO bases under ‘U.S. wings,’ meaning American bases in Europe.” [12}

Both Time articles by Eben Harrell, that of last year and that of this month, emphasize that the basing of nuclear warheads on the territory of non-nuclear nations – and Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey are non-nuclear nations – is a gross violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT], whose first two Articles state, respectively:

“Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.”

“Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” [13]

The Time piece of December 2, then, points out that the continued presence of U.S. nuclear warheads in Europe is “more than an anachronism or historical oddity. They [the weapons] are a violation of the spirit of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)….”

“Because ‘nuclear burden-sharing,’ as the dispersion of B61s in Europe is called, was set up before the NPT came into force, it is technically legal. But as signatories to the NPT, the four European countries and the U.S. have pledged ‘not to receive the transfer…of nuclear weapons or control over such weapons directly, or indirectly.’ That, of course, is precisely what the long-standing NATO arrangement entails.” [14]

The author also mentioned the report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management, chaired by former U.S. Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, Phase I [15] of which was released in September and Phase II [16] in December of 2008. The second part of the report contains a section called Deterrence: The Special Case of NATO which states:

“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) represents a special case for deterrence, both because of history and the presence of nuclear weapons….[T]he presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe remains a pillar of NATO unity. The deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe is not a Service or regional combatant command issue — it is an Alliance issue. As long as NATO members rely on U.S. nuclear weapons for deterrence — and as long as they maintain their own dual-capable aircraft as part of that deterrence — no action should be taken to remove them without a thorough and deliberate process of consultation.

“The Department of Defense, in coordination with the Department of State, should engage its appropriate counterparts among NATO Allies in reassessing and confirming the role of nuclear weapons in Alliance strategy and policy for the future.

“The Department of Defense should ensure that the dual-capable F-35 remains on schedule. Further delays would result in increasing levels of political and strategic risk and reduced strategic options for both the United States and the Alliance.”

The F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter multirole warplane discussed earlier, which its manufacturer Lockheed Martin boasts “Provides the United States and allied governments with an affordable, stealthy 5TH generation fighter for the 21st century.” [17]

Far from the end of the Cold War signaling the elimination of the danger of a nuclear catastrophe in Europe, in many ways matters are now even more precarious. NATO’s expansion over the past decade has now brought it to Russia’s borders. Five full member states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Poland) and as many Partnership for Peace adjuncts (Azerbaijan, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine) directly adjoin Russian territory and for over five years NATO warplanes have conducted air patrols over the Baltic Sea region, a three minute flight from St. Petersburg. [18]

If launching the first unprovoked armed assault against a European nation since Hitler’s wars of 1939-1941 ten years ago and currently conducting the world’s longest and most large-scale war in South Asia were not reasons enough to demand the abolition of the world’s only military bloc, so-called global NATO, then the Alliance’s insistence on the right to station – and employ – nuclear weapons in Europe is certainly sufficient grounds for its consignment to the dark days of the Cold War and to oblivion.

Notes

1) Time, June 19, 2008
2) Ibid
3) Time, December 2, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1943799,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
4) Global Security
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm
5) Popular Mechanics, January 2007
6) Turkish Daily News, June 30, 2008
7) NATO’s Sixty Year Legacy: Threat Of Nuclear War In Europe
Stop NATO, March 31, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/natos-sixty-year-legacy-threat-of-nuclear-war-in-europe
8) www.nato.int/docu/stratdoc/eng/intro.pdf
9) http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2001/hb0206.htm
10) NATO, April 24, 1999
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_27433.htm
11) Time, June 19, 2008
12) Ibid
13) http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html
14) Time, December 2, 2009
15) http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/Phase_I_Report_Sept_10.pdf
16) www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/PhaseIIReportFinal.pdf
17) Lockheed Martin
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35
18) Baltic Sea: Flash Point For NATO-Russia Conflict

Stop NATO, February 27, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/baltic-sea-flash-point-for-nato-russia-conflict
Scandinavia And The Baltic Sea: NATO’s War Plans For The High North

Stop NATO, June 14, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/scandinavia-and-the-baltic-sea-natos-war-plans-for-the-high-north

 

 

A Passing Thought in the Age of Terror

May 10th, 2018 by Edward Curtin

Featured image: Sophie Scholl

“Those with no sides and no causes.  Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness.  Those who don’t like to make waves – or enemies.  Those for whom freedom, honor, truth, and principles are only literature.  Those who live small, mate small, die small.  It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control.  If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you.  But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe.  Safe?  From what?  Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does.  I choose my own way to burn.”

– Sophie Scholl, 21 years old, a member of the German White Rose resistance group, convicted of high treason for handing out anti-war literature at the University of Munich in Nazi Germany. She was executed by guillotine on February 22, 1943

One day, perhaps over morning coffee
As you drag yourself awake
Slowly, ruminating at the kitchen table
About nothing in particular, it appears
And cuts your breath: you know it can
Be different, life is yours to choose
Freely, if you wish, you can own
This disappearing act of yours
Before you vanish from yourself and those
For whom you say you live it.

But you feel it slipping past you,
Trickling out in trivial deeds
Repeated daily, the pillars of a normal life.
Sickening thought, this normalcy that grips you
By your throat and wrings you dry and dead.
Now in this quiet breath of solitude
Before the world arises into walking sleep
You are paralyzed by possibilities, nothing
Clear, just images that weave like dancing girls
Concealing and revealing wisps of dreams.

That is your burden now and hope
For tomorrow and the next day after that.
Begin with the smallest thing that owns you:
The need you have to think about another
Upon whom you can thrust your deepest doubts;
The stifling of a true response to a question.
Forget for once to blame your lie on love
For the other’s sensibilities.  Admit your faith
In lies which you have deftly built your life upon
And which will fall in time into a heap of hurts.

It is always best to begin with truth,
If you can find it and the trust enough
To let it come and smash your normalcy
To bits.  It will.  It hurts, at first.  Few
Like it, or you speaking it for that matter.
But it does matter greatly, it will burden you
With nothing much, the aperture to nothing more
Than everything that you can see as possible.
It’s tough to choose the terror of the truth
When trivia tranquilizes with such a soothing smile.

Then they are gone, the coffee and disturbing thoughts
As clocks alarm the others from their shady lives
To greet you, stunned and staring stupidly
Through space.

*

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely; is a frequent contributor to Global Research. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Passing Thought in the Age of Terror

40 members of the Tuareg minority that’s indigenous to the sparsely populated but geographically grand two-thirds of Mali were killed near the Nigerien border by what are suspected to be Fulani members of Daesh’s regional franchise of the so-called “Islamic State of the Greater Sahara” (ISGS), which is the same group that’s responsible for last year’s deadly ambush against American troops in the neighboring country. According to reports, this mass murder was allegedly in response to the terrorists’ latest setbacks in the region at the hands of former ethnic Tuareg rebels who have been fighting on the government’s side since a 2015 peace deal, and one analysis suggests that this shocking act was designed to provoke the minorities into breaking their deal with the state and returning to their insurgency.

As a brief backgrounder, the Tuareg are an historically nomadic people spread throughout the Greater Sahara region but concentrated mostly in modern-day Mali and Niger, the latter of which experienced several separatist struggles since independence. Following the NATO War on Libya, many Tuareg fighters returned to their Malian homeland to escape the racist genocide against black Africans in the former Jamahiriya that was being carried out by Western-backed terrorist gangs, bringing their military expertise and lots of heavy firepower back with them in order to start a large-scale rebellion. They almost succeeded in carving out the unilaterally proclaimed independent state of so-called “Azawad” but were stopped after their tactical Islamist allies of the Al Qaeda-linked “Ansar Dine” backstabbed them and were then exploited as the pretext for a 2013 French-led military intervention.

Mali has since been a Mideast-like failed state from that time onwards, though the densely populated southwestern part of the country is comparatively more stable than its lawless northeast, where ethnic and land tensions between Tuaregs and Fulanis still simmer. The overarching geostrategic significance of the latest slaughter is that it proves that the conflict between these two groups and their most militantly active organizations is heating up and has the very dangerous potential of spilling across the border into the ultra-fragile state of Niger. This in turn could prompt more robust action by the French-led G5 Sahel regional counter-terrorist bloc that would likely also see some sort of “Lead From Behind” involvement by the US as well, with the end result being that West Africa begins to rival the post-Daesh Mideast as the world’s next terrorist hotspot.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

For Economic Truth Turn to Michael Hudson

May 10th, 2018 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Readers ask me how they can learn economics, what books to read, what university economics departments to trust. I receive so many requests that it is impossible to reply individually. Here is my answer.

There is only one way to learn economics, and that is to read Michael Hudson’s books. It is not an easy task. You will need a glossary of terms. In some of Hudson’s books, if memory serves, he provides a glossary, and his recent book “J Is for Junk Economics” defines the classical economic terms that he uses. You will also need patience, because Hudson sometimes forgets in his explanations that the rest of us don’t know what he knows.

The economics taught today is known as neoliberal. This economics differs fundamentally from classical economics that Hudson represents. For example, classical economics stresses taxing economic rent instead of labor and real investment, while neo-liberal economics does the opposite.

An economic rent is unearned income that accrues to an owner from an increase in value that he did nothing to produce. For example, a new road is built at public expense that opens land to development and raises its value, or a transportation system is constructed in a city that raises the value of nearby properties. These increases in values are economic rents. Classical economists would tax away the increase in values in order to pay for the road or transportation system.

Neoliberal economists redefined all income as earned. This enables the financial system to capitalize economic rents into mortgages that pay interest. The higher property values created by the road or transportation system boost the mortgage value of the properties. The financialization of the economy is the process of drawing income away from the purchases of goods and services into interest and fees to financial entities such as banks. Indebtedness and debt accumulate, drawing more income into their service until there is no purchasing power left to drive the economy.

For example, formerly in the US lenders would provide a home mortgage whose service required up to 25% of the family’s monthly income. That left 75% of the family’s income for other purchases. Today lenders will provide mortgages that eat up half of the monthly income in mortgage service, leaving only 50% of family income for other purchases. In other words, a financialized economy is one that diverts purchasing power away from productive enterprise into debt service.

Hudson shows that international trade and foreign debt also comprise a financialization process, only this time a country’s entire resources are capitalized into a mortgage. The West sells a country a development plan and a loan to pay for it. When the debt cannot be serviced, the country is forced to impose austerity on the population by cutbacks in education, health care, public support systems, and government employment and also to privatize public assets such as mineral rights, land, water systems and ports in order to raise the capital with which to pay off the loan. Effectively, the country passes into foreign ownership. This now happens even to European Community members such as Greece and Portugal.

Another defect of neoliberal economics is the doctrine’s denial that resources are finite and their exhaustion a heavy cost not born by those who exploit the resources. Many local and regional civilizations have collapsed from exhaustion of the surrounding resources. Entire books have been written about this, but it is not part of neoliberal economics. Supplement study of Hudson with study of ecological economists such as Herman Daly.

The neglect of external costs is a crippling failure of neoliberal economics. An external cost is a cost imposed on a party that does not share in the income from the activity that creates the cost. I recently wrote about the external costs of real estate speculators. Fracking, mining, oil and gas exploration, pipelines, industries, manufacturing, waste disposal, and so on have heavy external costs associated with the activities.

Neoliberal economists treat external costs as a non-problem, because they theorize that the costs can be compensated, but they seldom are. Oil spills result in companies having to pay cleanup costs and compensation to those who suffered economically from the oil spill, but most external costs go unaddressed. If external costs had to be compensated, in many cases the costs would exceed the value of the projects. How, for example, do you compensate for a polluted river? If you think that is hard, how would the short-sighted destroyers of the Amazon rain forest go about compensating the rest of the world for the destruction of species and for the destructive climate changes that they are setting in motion? Herman Daly has pointed out that as Gross Domestic Product accounting does not take account of external costs and resource exhaustion, we have no idea if the value of output is greater than all of the costs associated with its production. The Soviet economy collapsed, because the value of outputs was less than the value of inputs.

Supply-side economics, with which I am associated, is not an alternative theory to neoliberal economics. Supply-side economics is a successful correction to neoliberal macroeconomic management. Keynesian demand management resulted in stagflation and worsening Phillips Curve trade-offs between employment and inflation. Supply-side economics cured stagflation by reversing the economic policy mix. I have told this story many times. You can find a concise explanation in my short book, “The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalsim.” This book also offers insights into other failures of neoliberal economics and for that reason would serve as a background introduction to Hudson’s books.

I can make some suggestions, but the order in which you read Michael Hudson is up to you. “J is for Junk Economics” is a way to get information in short passages that will make you familiar with the terms of classical economic analysis. “Killing the Host” and “The Bubble and Beyond” will explain how an economy run to maximize debt is an economy that is self-destructing. “Super Imperialism” and “Trade, Development and Foreign Debt” will show you how dominant countries concentrate world economic power in their hands. “Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East” is the story of how ancient economies dying from excessive debt renewed their lease on life via debt forgiveness.

Once you learn Hudson, you will know real economics, not the junk economics marketed by Nobel prize winners in economics, university economic departments, and Wall Street economists. Neoliberal economics is a shield for financialization, resource exhaustion, external costs, and capitalist exploitation.

Neoliberal economics is the world’s reigning economics. Russia is suffering much more from neoliberal economics than from Washington’s economic sanctions. China herself is overrun with US trained neoliberal economists whose policy advice is almost certain to put China on the same path to failure as all other neoliberal economies.

It is probably impossible to change anything for two main reasons. One is that so many greed-driven private economic activities are protected by neoliberal economics. So many exploitative institutions and laws are in place that to overturn them would require a more thorough revolution than Lenin’s. The other is that economists have their entire human capital invested in neoliberal economics. There is scant chance that they are going to start over with study of the classical economists.

Neoliberal economics is an essential part of The Matrix, the false reality in which Americans and Europeans live. Neoliberal economics permits an endless number of economic lies. For example, the US is said to be in a long economic recovery that began in June 2009, but the labor force participation rate has fallen continuously throughout the period of alleged recovery. In previous recoveries the participation rate has risen as people enter the work force to take advantage of the new jobs.

In April the unemployment rate is claimed to have fallen to 3.9 percent, but the participation rate fell also. Neoliberal economists explain away the contradiction by claiming that the falling participation rate is due to the retirement of the baby boom generation, but BLS jobs statistics indicate that those 55 and older account for a large percentage of the new jobs during the alleged recovery. This is the age class of people forced into the part time jobs available by the absence of interest income on their retirement savings. What is really happening is that the unemployment rate does not include discouraged workers, who have given up searching for jobs as there are none to be found. The true measure of the unemployment rate is the decline in the labor force participation rate, not a 3.9 percent rate concocted by not counting those millions of Americans who cannot find jobs. If the unemployment rate really was 3.9 percent, there would be labor shortages and rising wages, but wages are stagnant. These anomalies pass without comment from neoliberal economists.

The long expansion since June 2009 might simply be a statistical artifact due to the under-measurement of inflation, which inflates the GDP figure. Inflation is under-estimated, because goods and services that rise in price are taken out of the index and less costly substitutes are put in their place and because price increases are explained away as quality improvements. In other words, statistical manipulation produces the favorable picture required by The Matrix.

Since the financial collapse caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall and by financial deregulation, the Federal Reserve has robbed tens of millions of American savers by driving real interest rates down to zero for the sole purpose of saving the “banks too big to fail” that financial deregulation created. A handful of banks has been provided with free money—in addition to the money that the Federal Reserve created in order to take the banks’ bad derivative investments off their hands—to put on deposit with the Fed from which to collect interest payments and with which to speculate and to drive up stock prices.

In other words, for a decade the economic policy of the United States has been run for the benefit of a few highly concentrated financial interests at the expense of the American people. The economic policy of the United States has been used to create economic rents for the mega-rich.

Neoliberal economists point out that during the 1950s the labor force participation rate was much lower than today and, thereby, they imply that the higher rates prior to the current “recovery” are an anomaly. Neoliberal economists have no historical knowledge as the past is of no interest to them. They do not even know the history of economic thought. Whether from ignorance or intentional deception, neoliberal economists ignore that the lower labor force participation rates of the 1950s reflect a time when married women were at home, not in the work force. In those halcyon days, one earner was all it took to sustain a family. I remember the days when the function of a married woman was to provide household services for the family.

But capitalists were not content to exploit only one member of a family. They wanted more, and by using economic policy to suppress pay while fomenting inflation, they drove married women into the work force, imposing huge external costs on the family, child-raising, relations between spouses, and on the children themselves. The divorce rate has exploded to 50 percent and single-parent households are common in America.

In effect, unleashed Capitalism has destroyed America. Privatization is now eating away Europe. Russia is on the same track as a result of its neoliberal brainwashing by American economists. China’s love of success and money could doom this rising Asian giant as well if the government opens China to foreign finance capital and privatizes public assets that end up in foreign hands.

*

This article was originally published on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Has Europe Rebelled?

May 10th, 2018 by Oriental Review

Washington’s current foreign-policy practice is a bit reminiscent of the golden era of the Ottoman Sublime Porte, in the sense that any visit by a leader of a vassal state is seen as nothing more than an opportunity for a public demonstration of his willingness to serve the great sultan or, in the modern context, to do the bidding of the master of the White House.

The visitor must also wear a big grin and speak passionately about how happy he is to have been given the opportunity to kiss the Sultan’s slippers. Or, to put it in the language of today, to be impressed with the leadership of the US and personally inspired by the energy of the American president. The Washington establishment can’t wrap its head around any other configuration, and therefore in the present era of America’s ebbing hegemony, the ideal visitors to the White House are the presidents of Ukraine or the Baltic countries. The other heads of states that come to Washington, including EU leaders and even some African presidents, act like insolent upstarts, who — from the standpoint of imperial tradition — do not stand to attention, tend to offer their flattery without fervor or exuberance, and, most importantly, do not race off to fulfill the wishes of the leaders of the empire.

Reception ceremony of the Conte de Saint Priest at the Ottoman Porte Antoine de Favray 1767

Reception ceremony of the Conte de Saint Priest at the Ottoman Porte by Antoine de Favray 1767

The meeting between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and US President Donald Trump on April 27, 2018 served only to confirm that Washington does not need allies who have their own national interests: all allies must be guided by the concept of the unipolar hegemony of the US. Anyone who is uncomfortable with this is relegated to the circle of those who are seen as unfriendly to the White House. The Washington Post makes it clear that Germany falls into this latter camp: “Angela Merkel is becoming Europe’s weakest link.

That article points out how serious the differences are between the two countries’ ruling factions. Both Germany’s political elite, and as well as the German population as a whole, are characterized very disparagingly:

“German passivity is deeply ingrained. Berlin’s political class lacks strategic thinking, hates risk and has little spunk. It hides behind its ignominious past to justify pacifism when it comes to hard questions about defense and security issues.”

The general decrepitude of the Bundeswehr and its equipment are criticized and mocked in the discussion of Germany’s refusal to take part in the missile attack on Syria carried out by the US, Britain, and France. And then the article even alleges that Germany’s Syrian policy has actually abetted the wrong side by granting asylum to almost a million refugees fleeing that country, thus supposedly allowing Bashar al-Assad to continue fighting.

In this context it becomes quite obvious that the specific issues that Merkel brought to the table in Washington were merely secondary concerns to her American partner. Germany’s Madam Chancellor had to traverse a distance of 10,000 kilometers to be granted a 20-minute conversation, from which it was clear that Trump had not altered his negative attitude toward questions so vital to the Germans as customs duties on steel and aluminum (set at 25% and 10%), Nord Stream 2, a loosening of the Russian sanctions for major German manufacturers, or the nuclear deal with Iran.

U.S. President Donald Trump, with German Chancellor Angela Merkel prior to a group photo

Angela Merkel had a difficult choice to make. Either Berlin declares war on all of Washington’s opponents, or it is dismissed once and for all as the “weakest link,” with all the ensuing consequences. But the first option would be a blow to Germany’s national interests. It is not just its international trade that would take the hit, but also its energy projects and German public opinion. She was given to understand that otherwise Germany would fail to meet the White House’s criteria for the role of America’s main partner in Europe.

Angela Merkel did not seem overly impressed. She sees the constraints that exist for her. The historical memory of the greatest defeat of the twentieth century still lingers. Hence the high level of wariness when it comes to invitations to join NATO’s military escapades. Nor has anyone there forgotten the 1980s, when Germany lived in intense fear of the USSR’s SS-20 missiles that could have incinerated that country in the blink of an eye. Germans have no desire to meekly toe the line of yet another US president, which could end up taking them back to those days.

Apparently this is why the head of the German government seemed to have armored herself with the mantra of “don’t give anything to Trump” during the negotiations in Washington.

If you look at things pragmatically, Trump needed to get a few concessions from Merkel. First of all, he needed the consent of the German chancellor to at least bring back the sanctions and hopefully to even agree to a war against Iran, because for the current Washington administration, a dissolution of the “Iran deal” and a subsequent war with Tehran is the biggest item on its foreign-policy agenda. Second, Trump had to “squeeze” Merkel on the issue of increasing Germany’s financial contributions NATO’s budget. According to the White House, Germany should be contributing 2% of its annual GDP to the alliance’s budget (or in other words, to the backlog of product orders for the US military-industrial complex). As Trump expressed it so poetically, “NATO is wonderful, but it helps Europe more than it helps us, and why are we paying the vast majority of the costs?” Third, the US needed to ensure that European leaders, and especially Merkel, capitulate in the tariff wars between the US and the EU, and, in a best-case scenario, to also secure the EU’s assistance in the trade war with China that Trump recently kicked off.

Based on the results of the meeting, Washington received a polite refusal on all three points. Five years ago it would have been difficult to imagine this kind of situation, but now this is objectively the real-world state of affairs, and it is something that neither the political analysts in the US nor a significant faction of the European media class (which still views the European Union as a “big Puerto Rico”) can get used to. The significance of Puerto Rico is that it is a place outside the US borders, but that is in effect controlled from Washington, although it has no power to influence American policy. Incidentally, Washington’s official discourse in regard to the European Union has already undergone a radical transformation and, according to Trump himself, it seems that the EU was “formed to take advantage of the United States,” although prior to that the EU was painted in the official Western narrative exclusively in terms of its “ideals of freedom,” “protection of democracy,” and some kind of “pan-European destiny and values.”

Macron-to-visit-US-as-Europe-pressures-Trump-on-Iran-deal

The essence of today’s transatlantic relationship can be seen in the contacts between Washington and Paris. Despite the White House’s high hopes for France to prove its loyalty to the alliance, its leaders have been just as firm as Germany’s in standing up for their own interests. This mindset was evident in the stance taken by President Emmanuel Macron, who was quoted by Bloomberg as saying

“we won’t talk about anything while there’s a gun pointed at our head.”

European leaders insist that any discussions take place with everyone on an equal footing, which Washington cannot indulge as a matter of principle. Even lower-level European officials are using their economic power to threaten the US. French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire claimed,

“One thing I learned from my week in the U.S. with President Macron: The Americans will only respect a show of strength.”

Needless to say, one does not speak to a real global hegemon in such terms.

No matter what the outcome of all the diplomatic and economic conflicts between the two shores of the Atlantic, it is already safe to say that Europe has broken free of Washington’s grip, and future relations between the US and the EU will become increasingly tense. We shall soon see whether Europe will take advantage of its current opportunity to reclaim the economic and political freedom that it lost at some point.

*

All images in this article are from OR.

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad has been elected Prime Minister of Malaysia.

This article and video was first published  in May 2015

The New World Order is a big threat to sovereign states, speakers at an international conference say.

The anti-war initiative, Perdana Global Peace Foundation, has a single goal of putting an end to war.

Founded by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the Foundation encourages dialogues between different nations, people and organisations to foster and energise global peace.

Its sister foundation, the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War aims to undertake all necessary measures to criminalise war and energise peace. It also found former US President George Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, guilty of war crimes.

The recent activity by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation was a one-day international conference titled the New World Order, Recipe for War or Peace.

The keynote address was delivered by Dr Mahathir who warned that Malaysia might lose its independence if the government falls prey to the ploys of the US to increase its global hegemony through economic means.

 

Dr. Mahathir pointed out that the Transpacific Partnership or TPPA is a New World Order strategy by a powerful pact of people led by the US to dominate the world economy.

Dr Mahathir said globalisation and borderless trade are being used to establish a “one world government”.

Referring to the Free Trade Agreement as a regulated trade deal, he said countries that sign on the deal would be subjected to more rules and regulations than ever before.

Dr Mahathir also pointed out that disputes arising from these trade deals mean corporations could sue sovereign states at investor arbitration tribunals, in secrecy.

The New World Order refers to the emergence of a totalitarian world government.

Other prominent speakers at the conference also said that a secretive power elite led by the United States wants to replace sovereign nation states through regime change.

Prominent academic and author Dr Michel Chossudovsky warned that the so-called war on terrrorism is a front to propagate America’s global hegemony and create a New World Order.

Dr Chossudovsky said terrorism is made in the US and that terrorists are not the product of the Muslim world.

According to him, the US global war on terrorism was used to enact anti-terrorism laws that demonised Muslims in the Western world and created Islamophobia.

Elaborating on his argument, Dr Chossudovsky said that NATO was responsible for recruiting members of the Islamic state while Israel is funding “global jihad elements inside Syria.

Dr Chossudovsky, who is also the founder of the Centre for Research and Globalisation, further emphasised that the global war on terrorism is a fabrication, a big lie and a crime against humanity.

Echoing Dr Chussodovsky’s arguments, Malaysia’s prominent political scientist, Islamic reformist and activist Dr Chandra Muzaffar said that the US has always manipulated religion to further its global hegemony on sovereign states.

For example, he said the Arab spring was brought about by Colonel Muammar Muhammad Gaddafi’s resistance to US dominance.

But Dr Thomas Barnett who has worked in the US national security services since the end of the Cold War refuted the arguments put forth by the conference speakers as mere allegations and that people prefer to believe in conspiracy theories.

Touching on the subject of economic hegemony through free trade agreements, Dr Barnett said that it’s only normal that countries that sign on to international trade deals are subjected to some international treaties and business protocols that they must follow.

He also says that trade partners with the US have accrued many benefits and that the US has gone out of its way over the last 40 years to encourage peaceful development.

Barnett also pointed out that for the first time in Asian history there is an increasingly prosperous and powerful China, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Japan.

Brushing aside Barnett’s argument, Dr Mahathir in his speech warned governments to be cautious, saying that those who refuse to conform are subjected to economic sanctions.

He also said that the one world government wants to undermine all other governments and would not hesitate to invade and occupy sovereign states to achieve its agenda.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on America’s Drive towards Global Hegemony, Economic Warfare and Regime Change. Malaysia’s PM Tun Dr. Mahathir

Volumes II and III of Marx’s Capital describe how debt grows exponentially, burdening the economy with carrying charges. This overhead is subjecting today’s Western finance-capitalist economies to austerity, shrinking living standards and capital investment while increasing their cost of living and doing business. That is the main reason why they are losing their export markets and becoming de-industrialized.

What policies are best suited for China to avoid this neo-rentier disease while raising living standards in a fair and efficient low-cost economy? The most pressing policy challenge is to keep down the cost of housing. Rising housing prices mean larger and larger debts extracting interest out of the economy. The strongest way to prevent this is to tax away the rise in land prices, collecting the rental value for the government instead of letting it be pledged to the banks as mortgage interest.

The same logic applies to public collection of natural resource and monopoly rents. Failure to tax them away will enable banks to create debt against these rents, building financial and other rentier charges into the pricing of basic needs.

U.S. and European business schools are part of the problem, not part of the solution. They teach the tactics of asset stripping and how to replace industrial engineering with financial engineering, as if financialization creates wealth faster than the debt burden. Having rapidly pulled ahead over the past three decades, China must remain free of rentier ideology that imagines wealth to be created by debt-leveraged inflation of real-estate and financial asset prices.

Image result for das kapital

Western capitalism has not turned out the way that Marx expected. He was optimistic in forecasting that industrial capitalists would gain control of government to free economies from unnecessary costs of production in the form of rent and interest that increase the cost of living (and hence, the break-even wage level). Along with most other economists of his day, he expected rentier income and the ownership of land, natural resources and banking to be taken out of the hands of the hereditary aristocracies that had held them since Europe’s feudal epoch. Socialism was seen as the logical extension of classical political economy, whose main policy was to abolish rent paid to landlords and interest paid to banks and bondholders.

A century ago there was an almost universal belief in mixed economies. Governments were expected to tax away land rent and natural resource rent, regulate monopolies to bring prices in line with actual cost value, and create basic infrastructure with money created by their own treasury or central bank. Socializing land rent was the core of Physiocracy and the economics of Adam Smith, whose logic was refined by Alfred Marshall, Simon Patten and other bourgeois economists of the late 19th century. That was the path that European and American capitalism seemed to be following in the decades leading up to World War I. That logic sought to use the government to support industry instead of the landlord and financial classes.

China is progressing along this “mixed economy” road to socialism, but Western economies are suffering from a resurgence of the pre-capitalist rentier classes. Their slogan of “small government” means a shift in planning to finance, real estate and monopolies. This economic philosophy is reversing the logic of industrial capitalism, replacing public investment and subsidy with privatization and rent extraction. The Western economies’ tax shift favoring finance and real estate is a case in point. It reverses John Stuart Mill’s “Ricardian socialism” based on public collection of the land’s rental value and the “unearned increment” of rising land prices.

Defining economic rent as the unnecessary margin of prices over intrinsic cost value, classical economists through Marx described rentiers as being economically parasitic, not productive. Rentiers do not “earn” their land rent, interest or monopoly rent, because it has no basis in real cost-value (ultimately reducible to labor costs). The political, fiscal and regulatory reforms that followed from this value and rent theory were an important factor leading to Marx’s value theory and historical materialism. The political thrust of this theory explains why it is no longer being taught.

By the late 19th century the rentiers fought back, sponsoring reaction against the socialist implications of classical value and rent theory. In America, John Bates Clark denied that economic rent was unearned. He redefined it as payment for the landlords’ labor and enterprise, not as accruing “in their sleep,” as J. S. Mill had characterized it. Interest was depicted as payment for the “service” of lending productively, not as exploitation. Everyone’s income and wealth was held to represent payment for their contribution to production. The thrust of this approach was epitomized by Milton Friedman’s Chicago School claim that “there is no such thing as a free lunch” – in contrast to classical economics saying that feudalism’s legacy of privatized land ownership, bank credit and monopolies was all about how to get a free lunch, by exploitation.

The other major reaction against classical and Marxist theory was English and Austrian “utility” theory. Focusing on consumer psychology instead of production costs, it claimed that there is no difference between value and price. A price is whatever consumers “choose” to pay for commodities, based on the “utility” that these provide – defined by circular reasoning as being equal to the price they pay. Producers are assumed to invest and produce goods to “satisfy consumer demand,” as if consumers are the driving force of economies, not capitalists, property owners or financial managers.

Using junk-psychology, interest was portrayed as what bankers or bondholders “abstain” from consuming, lending their self-denial of spending to “impatient” consumers and “credit-worthy” entrepreneurs. This view opposed the idea of interest as a predatory charge levied by hereditary wealth and the privatized monopoly right to create bank credit. Marx quipped that in this view, the Rothschilds must be Europe’s most self-depriving and abstaining family, not as suffering from wealth-addiction.

These theories that all income is earned and that consumers (the bourgeois term for wage-earners) instead of capitalists determine economic policy were a reaction against the classical value and rent theory that paved the way for Marx’s analysis. After analyzing industrial business cycles in terms of under-consumption or over-production in Volume I of Capital, Volume III dealt with the precapitalist financial problem inherited from feudalism and the earlier “ancient” mode of production: the tendency of an economy’s debts to grow by the “purely mathematical law” of compound interest.

Any rate of interest may be thought of as a doubling time. What doubles is not real growth, but the parasitic financial burden on this growth. The more the debt burden grows, the less income is left for spending on goods and services. More than any of his contemporaries, Marx emphasized the tendency for debt to grow exponentially, at compound interest, extracting more and more income from the economy at large as debts double and redouble, beyond the ability of debtors to pay. This slows investment in new means of production, because it shrinks domestic markets for output.

Marx explained that the credit system is external to the means of production. It existed in ancient times, feudal Europe, and has survived industrial capitalism to exist even in socialist economies. At issue in all these economic systems is how to prevent the growth of debt and its interest charge from shrinking economies. Marx believed that the natural thrust of industrial capitalism was to replace private banking and money creation with public money and credit. He distinguished interest-bearing debt under industrial capitalism as, for the first time, a means of financing capital investment. It thus was potentially productive by funding capital to produce a profit that was sufficient to pay off the debt.

Industrial banking was expected to finance industrial capital formation, as was occurring in Germany in Marx’s day. Marx’s examples of industrial balance sheets accordingly assumed debt. In contrast to Ricardo’s analysis of capitalism’s Armageddon resulting from rising land-rent, Marx expected capitalism to free itself from political dominance by the landlord class, as well as from the precapitalist legacy of usury.

This kind of classical free market viewed capitalism’s historical role as being to free the economy from the overhead of unproductive “usury” debt, along with the problem of absentee landownership and private ownership of monopolies – what Lenin called the economy’s “commanding heights” in the form of basic infrastructure. Governments would make industries competitive by providing basic needs freely or at least at much lower public prices than privatized economies could match.

This reform program of industrial capitalism was beginning to occur in Germany and the United States, but Marx recognized that such evolution would not be smooth and automatic. Managing economies in the interest of the wage earners who formed the majority of the population would require revolution where reactionary interests fought to prevent society from going beyond the “bourgeois socialism” that stopped short of nationalizing the land, monopolies and banking.

World War I untracked even this path of “bourgeois socialism.” Rentier forces fought to prevent reform, and banks focused on lending against collateral already in place, not on financing new means of production. The result of this return to pre-industrial bank credit is that some 80 percent of bank lending in the United States and Britain now takes the form of real estate mortgages. The effect is to turn the land’s rental yield into interest.

That rent-into-interest transformation gives bankers a strong motive to oppose taxing land rent, knowing that they will end up with whatever the tax collector relinquishes. Most of the remaining bank lending is concentrated in loans for corporate takeovers, mergers and acquisitions, and consumer loans. Corporate capital investment in today’s West is not financed by bank credit, but almost entirely out of retained corporate earnings, and secondarily out of stock issues.

The stock market itself has become extractive. Corporate earnings are used for stock buybacks and higher dividend payouts, not for new tangible investment. This financial strategy was made explicit by Harvard Business School Professor Michael Jensen, who advocated that salaries and bonuses for corporate managers should be based on how much they can increase the price of their companies’ stock, not on how much they increased or production and/or business size. Some 92 percent of corporate profits in recent years have been spent on stock buyback programs and dividend payouts. That leaves only about 8 percent available to be re-invested in new means of production and hiring. Corporate America’s financial managers are turning financialized companies into debt-ridden corporate shells.

A major advantage of a government as chief banker and credit creator is that when debts come to outstrip the means to pay, the government can write down the debt. That is how China’s banks have operated. It is a prerequisite for saving companies from bankruptcy and preventing their ownership from being transferred to foreigners, raiders or vultures.

Classical tax and banking policies were expected to streamline industrial economies, lowering their cost structures as governments replaced landlords as owner of the land and natural resources (as in China today) and creating their own money and credit. But despite Marx’s understanding that this would have been the most logical way for industrial capitalism to evolve, finance capitalism has failed to fund capital formation. Finance capitalism has hijacked industrial capitalism, and neoliberalism is its anti-classical ideology.

The result of today’s alliance of the Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sector with natural resource and infrastructure monopolies has been to reverse that the 20th century’s reforms promoting progressive taxation of wealth and income. Industrial capitalism in the West has been detoured along the road to rent-extracting privatization, austerity and debt serfdom.

The result is a double-crisis: austerity stemming from debt deflation, while public health, communications, information technology, transportation and other basic infrastructure are privatized by corporate monopolies that raise prices charged to labor and industry. The debt crisis spans government debt (state and local as well as national), corporate debt, real estate mortgage debt and personal debt, causing austerity that shrinks the “real” economy as its assets and income are stripped away to service the exponentially growing debt overhead. The economy polarizes as income and wealth ownership are shifted to the neo-rentier alliance headed by the financial sector.

This veritable counter-revolution has inverted the classical concept of free markets. Instead of advocating a public role to lower the cost structure of business and labor, the neoliberal ideal excludes public infrastructure and government ownership of natural monopolies, not to speak of industrial production. Led by bank lobbyists, neoliberalism even opposes public regulation of finance and monopolies to keep their prices in line with socially necessary cost of production.

To defend this economic counter-revolution, the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures now used throughout the world were inspired by opposition to progressive taxation and public ownership of land and banks. These statistical measures depicting finance, insurance and real estate as the leaders of wealth creation, not the creators merely of debt and rentier overhead.

What is China’s “Real” GDP and “real wealth creation”?

Rejection of classical value theory’s focus on economic rent – the excess of market price over intrinsic labor cost – underlies the post-classical concept of GDP. Classical rent theory warned against the FIRE sector siphoning off nominal growth in wealth and income. The economics of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.S. Mill and Marx share in common the view that this rentier revenue should be treated as an overhead charge and, as such, subtracted from national income and product because it is not production-related. Being extraneous to the production process, this rentier overhead is responsible for today’s debt deflation and economically extractive privatization that is imposing austerity and shrinking markets from North America to Europe.

The West’s debt crisis is aggravated by privatizing monopolies (on credit) that historically have belonged to the public sector. Instead of recognizing the virtues of a mixed economy, Frederick Hayek and his followers from Ayn Rand to Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, the Chicago School and libertarian Republicans have claimed that any public ownership or regulation is, ipso facto, a step toward totalitarian politics.

Following this ideology, Alan Greenspan aborted economic regulation and decriminalized financial fraud. He believed that in principle, the massive bank fraud, junk-mortgage lending and corporate raiding that led up to the 2008 crisis was more efficient than regulating such activities or prosecuting fraudsters.

This is the neoliberal ideology taught in U.S. and European business schools. It assumes that whatever increases financial wealth most quickly is the most efficient for society as a whole. It also assumes that bankers will find honest dealing to be more in their economic self-interest than fraud, because customers would shun fraudulent bankers. But along with the mathematics of compound interest, the inherent dynamic of finance capitalism is to establish a monopoly and capture government regulatory agencies, the justice system, central bank and Treasury to prevent any alternative policy and the prosecution of fraud.

The aim is to get rich by purely financial means – by increasing stock-market prices, not by tangible capital formation. That is the opposite of the industrial logic of expanding the economy and its markets. Instead of creating a more productive economy and raising living standards, finance capitalism is imposing austerity by diverting wage income and also corporate income to pay rising debt service, health insurance and payments to privatized monopolies. Progressive income and wealth taxation has been reversed, siphoning off wages to subsidize privatization by the rentier class.

This combination of debt overgrowth and regressive fiscal policy has produced two results. First, combining debt deflation with fiscal deflation leaves only about a third of wage income available to be spent on the products of labor. Paying interest, rents and taxes – and monopoly prices – shrinks the domestic market for goods and services.
Second, adding debt service, monopoly prices and a tax shift to the cost of living and doing business renders neo-rentier economies high-cost. That is why the U.S. economy has been deindustrialized and its Midwest turned into a Rust Belt.

How Marx’s economic schema explains the West’s neo-rentier problem

In Volume I of Capital, Marx described the dynamics and “law of motion” of industrial capitalism and its periodic crises. The basic internal contradiction that capitalism has to solve is the inability of wage earners to be paid enough to buy the commodities they produce. This has been called overproduction or underconsumption, but Marx believed that the problem was in principle only temporary, not permanent.

Volumes II and III of Marx’s Capital described a pre-capitalist form of crisis, independent of the industrial economy: Debt grows exponentially, burdening the economy and finally bringing its expansion to an end with a financial crash. That descent into bankruptcy, foreclosure and the transfer of property from debtors to creditors is the dynamic of Western finance capitalism. Subjecting economies to austerity, economic shrinkage, emigration, shorter life spans and hence depopulation, it is at the root of the 2008 debt legacy and the fate of the Baltic states, Ireland, Greece and the rest of southern Europe, as it was earlier the financial dynamic of Third World countries in the 1960s through 1990s under IMF austerity programs. When public policy is turned over to creditors, they use their power for is asset stripping, insisting that all debts must be paid without regard for how this destroys the economy at large.

China has managed to avoid this dynamic. But to the extent that it sends its students to study in U.S. and European business schools, they are taught the tactics of asset stripping instead of capital formation – how to be extractive, not productive. They are taught that privatization is more desirable than public ownership, and that financialization creates wealth faster than it creates a debt burden. The product of such education therefore is not knowledge but ignorance and a distortion of good policy analysis. Baltic austerity is applauded as the “Baltic Miracle,” not as demographic collapse and economic shrinkage.

The experience of post-Soviet economies when neoliberals were given a free hand after 1991 provides an object lesson. Much the same fate has befallen Greece, along with the rising indebtedness of other economies to foreign bondholders and to their own rentier class operating out of capital-flight centers. Economies are obliged to suspend democratic government policy in favor of emergency creditor control.

The slow economic crash and debt deflation of these economies is depicted as a result of “market choice.” It turns out to be a “choice” for economic stagnation. All this is rationalized by the economic theory taught in Western economics departments and business schools. Such education is an indoctrination in stupidity – the kind of tunnel vision that Thorstein Veblen called the “trained incapacity” to understand how economies really work.

Most private fortunes in the West have stemmed from housing and other real estate financed by debt. Until the 2008 crisis the magnitude of this property wealth was expanded largely by asset-price inflation, aggravated by the reluctance of governments to do what Adams Smith, John Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall and nearly all 19th-century classical economists recommended: to keep land rent out of private hands, and to make the rise in land’s rental value serve as the tax base.

Failure to tax the land leaves its rental value “free” to be pledged as interest to banks – which make larger and larger loans by lending against rising debt ratios. This “easy credit” raises the price of obtaining home ownership. Sellers celebrate the result as “wealth creation,” and the mainstream media depict the middle class as growing richer by higher prices for the homes its members have bought. But the debt-financed rise in housing prices ultimately creates wealth mainly for banks and their bondholders.

Americans now have to pay up to 43 percent of their income for mortgage debt service, federally guaranteed. This imposes such high costs for home ownership that it is pricing the products of U.S. labor out of world markets. The pretense is that using bank credit (that is, homebuyers’ mortgage debt) to inflate the price of housing makes U.S. workers and the middle class prosperous by enabling them to sell their homes to a new generation of buyers at higher and higher prices each generation. This certainly does not make the buyers more prosperous. It diverts their income away from buying the products of labor to pay interest to banks for housing prices inflated on bank credit.

Consumer spending throughout most of the world aims above all at achieving status. In the West this status rests largely on one’s home and neighborhood, its schools, transportation and other public investment. Land-price gains resulting from public investment in transportation, parks and schools, other urban amenities and infrastructure, and from re-zoning land use. In the West this rising rental value is turned into a cost, falling on homebuyers, who must borrow more from the banks. The result is that public spending ultimately enriches the banks – at the tax collector’s expense.

Debt is the great threat to modern China’s development. Burdening economies with a rentier overhead imposes the quasi-feudal charges from which classical 19th-century economists hoped to free industrial capitalism. The best protection against this rentier burden is simple: first, tax away the land’s rising rental valuation to prevent it from being paid out for bank loans; and second, keep control of banks in public hands. Credit is necessary, but should be directed productively and debts written down when paying them threatens to create financial Armageddon.

Marx’s views on the broad dynamics of economic history

Plato and Aristotle described a grand pattern of history. In their minds, this pattern was eternally recurrent. Looking over three centuries of Greek experience, Aristotle found a perpetual triangular sequence of democracy turning into oligarchy, whose members made themselves into a hereditary aristocracy – and then some families sought to take the demos into their own camp by sponsoring democracy, which in turn led to wealthy families replacing it with an oligarchy, and so on.

The medieval Islamic philosopher Ibn Khaldun saw history as a rise and fall. Societies rose to prosperity and power when leaders mobilized the ethic of mutual aid to gain broad support as a communal spirit raised all members. But prosperity tended to breed selfishness, especially in ruling dynasties, which Ibn Khaldun thought had a life cycle of only about 120 years. By the 19th century, Scottish Enlightenment philosophers elaborated this rise-and-fall theory, applying it to regimes whose success bred arrogance and oligarchy.

Marx saw the long sweep of history as following a steady upward secular trend, from the ancient slavery-and-usury mode of production through feudalism to industrial capitalism. And not only Marx but nearly all 19th-century classical economists assumed that socialism in one form or another would be the stage following industrial capitalism in this upward technological and economic trajectory.

Instead, Western industrial capitalism turned into finance capitalism. In Aristotelian terms the shift was from proto-democracy to oligarchy. Instead of freeing industrial capitalism from landlords, natural resource owners and monopolists, Western banks and bondholders joined forces with them, seeing them as major customers for as much interest-bearing credit as would absorb the economic rent that governments would refrain from taxing. Their success has enabled banks and bondholders to replace landlords as the major rentier class. Antithetical to socialism, this retrogression towards feudal rentier privilege let real estate, financial interests and monopolists exploit the economy by creating an expanding debt wedge.

Marx’s Theories of Surplus Value (German Mehrwert), his history of classical political economy, poked fun at David Ricardo’s warning of economic Armageddon if economies let landlords siphon off of all industrial profits to pay land rent. Profits and hence capital investment would grind to a halt. But as matters have turned out, Ricardo’s rentier Armageddon is being created by his own banking class. Corporate profits are being devoured by interest payments for corporate takeover debts and related financial charges to reward bondholders and raiders, and by financial engineering using stock buybacks and higher dividend payouts to create “capital” gains at the expense of tangible capital formation. Profits also are reduced by firms having to pay higher wages to cover the cost of debt-financed housing, education and other basic expenses for workers.

This financial dynamic has hijacked industrial capitalism. It is leading economies to polarize and ultimately collapse under the weight of their debt burden. That is the inherent dynamic of finance capitalism. The debt overhead leads to a financial crisis that becomes an opportunity to impose emergency rule to replace democratic lawmaking. So contrary to Hayek’s anti-government “free enterprise” warnings, “slippery slope” to totalitarianism is not by socialist reforms limiting the rentier class’s extraction of economic rent and interest, but just the opposite: the failure of society to check the rentier extraction of income vesting a hereditary autocracy whose financial and rent-seeking business plan impoverishes the economy at large.

Greece’s debt crisis has all but abolished its democracy as foreign creditors have taken control, superseding the authority of elected officials. From New York City’s bankruptcy to Puerto Rico’s insolvency and Third World debtors subjected to IMF “austerity programs,” national bankruptcies shift control to centralized financial planners in what Naomi Klein has called Crisis Capitalism. Planning ends up centralized not in the hands of elected government but in financial centers, which become the de facto government.

England and America set their economic path on this road under Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan by 1980. They were followed by even more pro-financial privatization leaders in Tony Blair’s New Labour Party and Bill Clinton’s New Democrats seeking to roll back a century of classical reforms and policies that gradually were moving capitalism toward socialism. Instead, these countries are suffering a rollback to neofeudalism, whose neo-rentier economic and political ideology has become mainstream throughout the West. Despite seeing that this policy has led to North America and Europe losing their former economic lead, the financial power elite is simply taking its money and running.

So we are brought back to the question of what this means for China’s educational policy and also how it depicts economic statistics to distinguish between wealth and overhead. The great advantage of such a distinction is to help steer economic growth along productive lines favoring tangible capital formation instead of policies to get rich by taking on more and more debt and by prying property away from the public domain.

If China’s main social objective is to increase real output to raise living standards for its population – while minimizing unproductive overhead and economic inequality – then it is time to consider developing its own accounting format to trace its progress (or shortcomings) along these lines. Measuring how its income and wealth are being obtained would track how the economy is moving closer toward what Marx called socialism.

Of special importance, such an accounting format would revive Marx’s classical distinction between earned and unearned income. Its statistics would show how much of the rise in wealth (and expenditure) in China – or any other nation – is a result of new tangible capital formation as compared to higher rents, lending and interest, or the stock market.

These statistics would isolate income and fortunes obtained by zero-sum transfer payments such as the rising rental value of land sites, natural resources and basic infrastructure monopolies. National accounts also would trace overhead charges for interest and related financial charges, as well as the economy’s evolving credit and debt structure. That would enable China to measure the economic effects of the banking privileges and other property rights given to some people.

That is not the aim of Western national income statistics. In fact, applying the accounting structure described above would track how Western economies are polarizing as a result of their higher economic rent and interest payments crowding out spending on actual goods and services. This kind of contrast would help explain global trends in pricing and competitiveness. Distinguishing the FIRE sector from the rest of the economy would enable China to compare its economic cost trends and overhead relative to those of other nations. I believe that these statistics would show that its progress toward socialism also will explain the remarkable economic advantage it has obtained. If China does indeed make this change, it will help people both in and out of China see even more clearly what your government is doing on behalf of the majority of its people. This may help other governments – including my own – learn from your example and praise it instead of fearing it.

*

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Creating Wealth” Through Debt: The West’s Finance-Capitalist Road

Malaysia Elections: Tun Mahathir Next Prime Minister of Malaysia.

May 9th, 2018 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

LATEST

Dear friends,

Tun will be sworn in tomorrow.

The morning paper.

Not all results are in but the party has reached a simple majority.
God bless for your support.

now official, Mahathir will be the next Prime Minister of Malaysia

Unofficial results of Malaysia’s general election point to a victory of the opposition led by Tun Mahathir Mohamad.

First reports confirmed that “The opposition is gaining ground in the ruling party’s eastern stronghold of Sarawak state, and TV networks report that the heads of a Chinese party and an Indian party within the Malay-dominated ruling coalition lost their seats in regions that are also vote banks for it.” (ABC, May 9, 2018)

Tun Mahathir Mohamad stated late on Wednesday (local time) that based on unofficial tallies, the opposition coalition has won the election.

” Tun Mahathir feels his Party has won with a simple majority so far, with more results due in. However the Election Commission has requested for more time. Hope there is no foul play”

Mahathir requested that citizens remain silent for at least 12 hours until the Election Commission announces the official results. He also warned Prime Minister Najib Razak as well as election officials against taking any action to frustrate the result.

The independent news portal Malaysiakini’s unofficial count showed Najib’s Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition had gained 60 out of the country’s 222 parliament seats.Mahathir’s Pakatan Harapan pact had won 73 seats, the figures showed. (SCMP, May 9, 2018)

According to Mahathir at a press conference

“We will need 112 seats and we would win. It would seem we have practically achieved that figure,”

There have been numerous reports of vote rigging and fraud:

See below

The Election Commission has demanded for more time before confirming the results of the vote.

The possibility of political foul play by the outgoing (corrupt) Prime Minister Najib Razak cannot be excluded.

Najib is fully aware that his defeat could  lead to a criminal indictment on charges of financial fraud and corruption.

At 3.40 am Tun Mahathir confirmed that a new Malaysian government would not be seeking revenge against Najib who was involved in the 1MDB financial scandal.

U.S. investigators say at least $4.5 billion was stolen from the fund by associates of Najib between 2009 and 2014, including $700 million that landed in Najib’s bank account. (ABC News, May 9, 2018)

Mahathir nonetheless confirmed that he will restore the rule of law. Inevitably, what that means is that even if the initiative is not taken explicitly by the new government, the rule of law will prevail and Najib will be be indicted.

And he knows it.  The question is whether he will in a way to block or manipulate the elections results.

The night is not over.

Malaysia is waiting in limbo for the publication of the official results by the Election  Commission.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Malaysia Elections: Tun Mahathir Next Prime Minister of Malaysia.
  • Tags: ,

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.

*     *     *

Video: The Art of War: The B61-12, America’s New “Nuclear Parcel Bomb”

By Manlio Dinucci, May 09, 2018

The program provides for the production of about 500 B61-12’s, beginning in 2020, for a cost of approximately 10 billion dollars. (This means that each bomb will cost twice what it would cost if it were built entirely of gold).

Trump’s Decision on Iran Deal Spells Disaster for the Middle East

By Dr. Cesar Chelala, May 09, 2018

President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the deal with Iran creates, unnecessarily, a new source of tension in a region besieged by conflicts. This move was heartily supported by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and opposed by all other governments that are part of the deal. Given the level of legal troubles that President Trump is facing now, his decision could be based to some extent in creating the conditions to fog his personal drama.

Israel Will Assassinate Syria’s Assad if He Allows Iran to Operate in Syria? Israeli Minister of Energy

By The New Arab, May 09, 2018

Yuval Steinitz made the warning to Israeli news website Ynet on Monday, amid a war of words between Tehran and Tel Aviv over suspected Israeli air raids in Syria targeting Iranian fighters.

Trump and Israeli Collusion

By Margaret Kimberley, May 09, 2018

He is the one true believer in Israeli’s right to reign supreme in its region and in command of American foreign policy. Other presidents may have said they were willing to move the embassy to Jerusalem but Trump is the one who will actually do it. Trump had resisted leaving the JCPOA agreement but finally stopped listening to aids, Congress, and European allies and completely succumbed — as he wanted to do all along.

America Planned to Break “Iran Nuclear Deal” Years Before Signing It

By Tony Cartalucci, May 09, 2018

The United States had never intended to allow Iran to rise as a counterbalancing regional power in the Middle East or Central Asia nor escape from under the constant threat of US military intervention or the crippling sanctions it has targeted the nation with for decades.

John Bolton Has Advocated the “Libyan Model” for North Korea’s Denuclearization. Is Pyongyang Surrendering its Deterrence Capabilities?

By Andrew Korybko, May 09, 2018

While he was indeed speaking about the technical aspect of this example in having the North African country completely surrender all of its nuclear-related capabilities, others are interpreting it differently and almost as a Freudian slip given that it was precisely because of Tripoli’s sincere adherence to this model that it was defenseless in deterring the NATO-led war that ultimately led to its destruction in 2011.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The US-Israel Alliance Is a Threat to World Peace

La Truman – superportaerei lunga oltre 300 metri, dotata di due reattori nucleari – può lanciare all’attacco, a ondate successive, 90 caccia ed elicotteri. Il suo gruppo d’attacco, integrato da 4 cacciatorpediniere già nel Mediterraneo e da alcuni sottomarini, può lanciare oltre 1.000 missili da crociera.

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on VIDEO – L’Arte della Guerra – Flotta Usa con 1000 missili nel Mediterraneo

A distribuição estratégica do grupo naval do porta-aviões USS Harry S. Truman, interveio ao mesmo tempo que o bombardeio tripartido da Síria. Esta armada, incluindo uma fragata alemã, acaba de entrar no Mediterrâneo com poder de fogo incomparável. Segundo a NATO, foi enviado para enfrentar a influência russa.

O porta-aviões americano, Harry S. Truman, que partiu da maior base naval do mundo em Norfolk, Virgina, entrou no Mediterrâneo, com o seu grupo de ataque. [1] Esse grupo é composto pelo lança mísseis Normandy e pelos contratorpedeiros lança mísseis Arleigh Burke, Bulkeley, Forrest Sherman e Farragut, em breve mais duas, o Jasone e The Sullivans. Está agregada ao grupo de ataque do Truman, a fragata alemã Hessen. A frota, com 8.000 homens a bordo, tem um enorme poder de fogo.

Estão assim consideravelmente reforçadas, as Forças Navais USA para a Europa e África, com quartel general em Nápoles-Capodichino e a base da Sexta Frota, em Gaetta, às ordens do mesmo almirante (presentemente James Foggo), que comanda a Força Conjunta Aliada, em Lago Patria.

Faz parte do robustecimento geral das forças americanas na Europa, às ordens do mesmo general (actualmente Curtis Scaparrotti) que desempenha o cargo de Comandante Supremo Aliado na Europa.Numa audiência no Congresso, Scaparrotti explica o motivo desse fortalecimento. [2] O que apresenta é um verdadeiro cenário de guerra: acusa a Rússia de dirigir “uma campanha de instabilidade para mudar a ordem internacional, fragmentar a NATO e minar a liderança USA em todo o mundo”.

Na Europa, depois da “anexação ilegal da Crimeia pela Rússia e da sua destabilização da Ucrânia Oriental”, os Estados Unidos, que introduzem mais de 60.000 militares nos países europeus da NATO, reforçaram essa introdução com uma brigada blindada e uma brigada aérea de combate e estabeleceram depósitos de armamentos posicionados previamente, para enviar mais brigadas blindadas. Ao mesmo tempo, duplicaram a colocação dos seus navios de guerra no mar Negro.

Para aumentar as suas Forças na Europa, os Estados Unidos gastaram mais de 16 biliões de dólares em cinco anos, ao mesmo tempo incitaram os aliados europeus a aumentar as suas despesas militares em 46 biliões de dólares em três anos, para fortalecer a NATO contra a Rússia.

Isto faz parte da estratégia lançada por Washington em 2014 com o golpe da Praça Maidan e o consequente ataque aos russos da Ucrânia: fazer da Europa a primeira linha de uma nova Guerra Fria para fortalecer a influência dos EUA sobre os aliados e impedir a cooperação euro-asiática. Os ministros dos Negócios Estrangeiros da NATO reafirmaram o seu consentimento em 27 de Abril, preparando uma nova expansão da NATO para leste contra a Rússia, através da admissão da Bósnia-Herzegovina, Macedónia, Geórgia e Ucrânia.

Esta estratégia requer uma preparação adequada da opinião pública. Para este fim, Scaparrotti acusa a Rússia de “usar a provocação política, espalhando desinformação e minando as instituições democráticas”, mesmo em Itália. Anuncia, em seguida, que “os USA e a NATO opõem-se à desinformação russa com uma informação verdadeira e transparente”. Seguindo o seu exemplo, a Comissão Europeia anuncia uma série de medidas contra as ‘fake news’, acusando a Russia de usar “desinformação na sua estratégia de guerra”.

É de esperar que a NATO e a União Europeia censurem o que é publicado aqui, decretando que a frota americana no Mediterrâneo é uma ‘fake news’ espalhada pela Rússia na sua “estratégia de guerra”.

Manlio Dinucci

Texto original em italiano :

Flotta Usa con 1000 missili nel Mediterraneo

Tradução : Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on VIDEO – A Arte da Guerra. A Frota USA com 1.000 mísseis no Mediterrâneo

Like so many others that watched the unfolding U.S.-led cruise missile strike on Syria in the early morning hours of April 14th, I was amazed by the brazen and ill-conceived nature of such an undertaking. Not only was the attack not based on any verifiable intelligence proving a chemical attack by Syrian governmental forces, the given reason for the justification of the attack, but it was extremely ill-advised from any military or political stand point. Was it imperial hubris on the part of the “leadership” of the sole “exceptional” nation, or a simple matter of poor military decision making that resulted in the approval of the strike?  A number of failures in executing the strike have come to light after the fact, not minor faults that have been magnified by Russian or Syrian government propaganda interests, but real and fundamental failures that have showcased real weaknesses in frontline U.S., French and U.K. tactical cooperation, as well as new weapon systems and their employment.

A number of analyses have appeared online over the past week that have showcased the utter failure of the French Navy’s performance in the strike and the inability of the sole VLS fired LACM in the French Navy arsenal, the MdCN , to launch reliably. Only one of three FREMM class multi-purpose frigates deployed was able to successfully fire cruise missiles within the agreed upon launch interval. The five Rafale carrier-borne strike aircraft taking part in the strike each carried 2 SCALP air-launched land attack cruise missiles, yet it was announced that only 9 SCALPs were fired against targets in Syria. Apparently, one missile malfunctioned and had to be dropped into the sea as not to present a danger to the returning aircraft upon landing.

Of even greater import than the obvious failure of the French Navy, was the official announcement by the Syrian military that they had recovered two U.S. cruise missiles that were relatively intact after the strikes were conducted. These two missiles were promptly delivered to the Russian military in Syria. This entire story may just be a propaganda or military psy-op. on the part of Russia, but if true, what could be the possible implications? If true, it would not be an extremely disastrous development for the U.S. if both of these cruise missiles were a more modern variant of the Tomahawk. This missile is based on technology developed in the 1970s and 1980s. The Tomahawk is a legacy U.S. weapon system. Although increasingly modernized over intervening decades, the Tomahawk is far from cutting edge as guided missiles are concerned. Such a development would definitely aid the Russian military and defense industry in not only furthering the development of Russian missile technology, but more importantly, in developing countermeasures to defeat U.S. guided munitions.

Very early after the strikes were conducted, the U.S. Air Force made it known that B1-B strategic bombers also took part in the strike. These bombers supposedly fired 19 Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missiles (JASSM) at targets in Syria. That is the official record.  It is acknowledged that each B1-B can carry 24 such missiles, so it is unclear how many bombers were employed in the April 14th strike, but at least one or more were utilized. The JASSM has been in development since the mid-1990s, and was not declared operational until February of this year. The Syria strike of April 14th would be the first documented use of this weapon system ever in warfare. The JASSM had a quite troubled developmental history, and like so many other U.S. weapons systems, ran considerably over budget. The JASSM is seen as the benchmark of the next generation of U.S. cruise missiles. Did one of these missiles fail and crash land in Syria? Does Russia now have a relatively intact JASSM missile to study and reverse-engineer? If so, this is without a doubt, the greatest U.S. military technology loss (not due to Chinese espionage at least) in almost a century. And the entire episode either stems from U.S. hubris and arrogance, or simple dereliction of duty in approving a missile strike operation that was likely to be marginally successful, and definitely not worth the risk.

The Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Missile (JASSM)/AGM-158A

The Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-Off Missile (JASSM) began development in 1995 with the aim of designing and fielding the next generation of precision, autonomous, guided cruise missile for the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy. The Tomahawk (TLAM) land attack cruise missile proved to be very successful in attacking targets in the first Gulf War of 1991. Between this conflict and the start of the JASSM program, at least 357 TLAMs were fired on Iraq, and an additional 13 were used to target Serbian forces in Bosnia. In total, the U.S. armed forces have fired no less than 2,413 TLAMs on targets in seven different countries over the past 27 years.

Image on the right: BGM-109C Block III Tomahawk land attack cruise missile. The missile is equipped with a solid propellant rocket booster and discarding two-piece canister to facilitate launch.

Combat Debut of Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile: Did U.S. Air Force Lose High Tech Missile in Syria?

With the passage of time, TLAMs have been increasingly employed to engage targets where a robust, modern air-defense network is not present. The TLAM is a sub-sonic cruise missile with minimal inherent stealth characteristics. In conjunction with more high tech and stealthy guided munitions that can bear the brunt of targeting and eliminating high value command and control and critical air defense network control elements, the TLAM still has a significant part to play in future U.S. military operations. The JASSM was developed to be just such a high tech and stealthy guided munition. If the weapons prove successful, JASSMs fired from aircraft outside of an adversary’s airspace, and well out on engagement range of air defenses, could overwhelm and destroy key air-defense network radar and command and control assets, as well as the most capable enemy surface-to-air missile (SAM) batteries.

Image on the left: JASSM being loaded into the internal bomb bay of a B-1B Lancer strategic bomber.

Combat Debut of Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile: Did U.S. Air Force Lose High Tech Missile in Syria?

Development of the JASSM was begun in 1995 by Lockheed Martin. Twelve years after the program had begun, the cruise missile had not achieved the level of success required, and an additional $68 million had to be allocated to help salvage the $3 billion program. The JASSM finally was able to pass the USAF Initial Operational Test and Evaluation program, and a contract was signed with Lockheed Martin in 2013 to provide the first batch of 2,000 missiles. A year later, the Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile Extended Range AG-158B (JASMM-ER) successfully passed testing and an order for a further 2,900 of these missiles was signed. The JASSM-ER extends the range of the base missile from 370 km. to 1,000 km. Both missiles are fitted with a 450kg. WDU-42/B penetrator warhead. The warhead is fitted with a penetrator fuse that can measure the density of the environment around it so it can determine when it has penetrated a hardened target. The JASSM is guided by an internal guidance system which is programmed prior to launch with targeting information. The missile’s flight path can be adjusted in flight via a jam-resistant GPS receiver. Once the missile enters its terminal targeting phase, it switches over to an infrared (IR) imaging seeker which is able to identify the target via parameters in its targeting memory. This targeting memory can be uploaded with up to eight different target identifications. Lockheed Martin claims accuracy within a three yard radius of target.

Image on the right: JASSM being successfully test fired from an F-15E Strike Eagle. The JASSM development parameters demanded that the next generation air launched cruise missile be compatible with multiple strike, maritime patrol and strategic bomber aircraft in the U.S. and NATO inventory.

Combat Debut of Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile: Did U.S. Air Force Lose High Tech Missile in Syria?

The JASSM has been purchased by the militaries of Poland, Finland and Australia. The missile was initially designed to be utilized by the U.S. B1-B strategic bomber; however, from the very start, it was envisioned that the missile be compatible with a broad spectrum of U.S. aerial platforms, including the F-16C/D, F-18C/D, F-15E, F-35 strike aircraft, as well as the B-2 and B-52 strategic bombers. The P-3 Poseidon may also be a candidate for use of a modified anti-ship cruise missile currently being developed using the JASSM-ER as its foundation. The Long Range Anti-Ship Missile AG-158C (LRASM) is currently being developed by Lockheed Martin as a next generation sea and air launched anti-ship cruise missile meant to defeat near-peer or peer naval targets. There is little doubt that the LRASM is being developed to counter the exceedingly modernized and capable warships developed by China and Russia over the past 25 years. The People’s Liberation Army Navy in particular, has been developing and commissioning extremely capable warships at a rate far exceeding any other navy in the world. As its attention continues to focus on militarization of the South China Sea and Chinese A2/AD, or access and area denial capability in this region, the U.S. Navy will have to develop a more viable means by which to engage and defeat exceedingly capable PLAN surface warfare platforms.

Image on the left: Computer generated rendition of a LRASM targeting a Russian Sovremenny Class destroyer.

Combat Debut of Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile: Did U.S. Air Force Lose High Tech Missile in Syria?

The AG-158 family of missiles have been developed as the benchmark of the next generation of cruise missiles for both the U.S. Air Force and Navy. Significant investment went into the development of this weapon system, and it goes without saying that the specifics behind its design and how it functions must remain unknown to any prospective adversaries, with Russia and China paramount among them. In light of the importance of keeping the specifics of this new technology secret, was it truly a good idea to use JASSM missiles in a pointless assault against Syrian government targets on April 14th? A simple and logical cost benefit analysis would conclude that it was not a wise decision.

It is quite obvious to anyone that has ever followed proxy conflicts, that all sides invested in the conflict will use such proxy wars as an advanced training ground for their own weapon systems. There is no doubt that Russia has been doing this in Syria for years now; however, they have been quite reserved in their willingness to use their most secretive and game-changing assets. The S-300 and S-400 systems have not been used, nor have the most state of the art electronic warfare (EW) systems. They have been deployed in Syria for sure, but Russia has wisely decided not to use these systems unless absolutely necessary. As soon as these weapons are used, the U.S., NATO and Israel will be able to gain very real data on how they work, especially from the standpoint of EW. Russia will only risk using these systems, and thus “showing their hand” if they have no other options.

Combat Debut of Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile: Did U.S. Air Force Lose High Tech Missile in Syria?

Satellite images of the Him Shinshar “Chemical Weapons storage facility” before and after the strike. Were JASMMs used to target these structures?

The Trump administration decided to approve a strike plan that included the employment of the JASSM, which had only become operational months before. Whether the decision was made to ensure that the Syrian air-defense network’s ability to interdict and defeat the attack would be minimized by using JASSM missiles is questionable. It was disclosed that only 19 of the missiles were used, accounting for 18% of the cruise missiles used. These were fired from two B-1B bombers. Each of these aircraft can carry 24 JASSMs each. The majority of missiles employed in the attack were the TLAM, fired from U.S. Navy destroyers and a Virginia Class attack submarine. Also, one target alone, the Barzah Research and Development Center, were allegedly saturated by 76 missiles. Use of the JASSM in such an attack would be pointless, as the cruise missile was designed to target and destroy targets with such effectiveness that only one missile would be necessary. This concept is referred to as Missile Mission Effectiveness (MME), and the JASSM was expected to have an MME value of one. What would be the point of targeting a handful of unhardened targets with multiple JASSMs? Two of the three main facilities said to have been targeted and destroyed in the attack was a munitions storage facility and “CW bunker” located in Him Shinshar near the city of Homs. It is impossible to tell from the satellite imagery provided by the U.S. as proof of the effectiveness of the attack, or if these were hardened targets or not. Even if they were, why target them with 19 missiles that each possess an MME = 1?

As it becomes clear with each passing day that there was no chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Syrian government on civilians in East Ghouta, the questionable judgement of using the JASSM in the April 14th strike becomes even more glaring. Why risk the possible recovery of a JASSM, whether largely intact or not, in perpetrating an attack that was not only unnecessary, but one based on a fabrication? Clearly the U.S. intelligence apparatus has greater information collecting means than just monitoring opposition linked Twitter accounts. Was the possible loss of a JASSM and its delivery to Russia worth “success” in a meaningless attack that would yield no real, material benefit? The answer is an unequivocal no.

The Russian M.O.D. was quick to verify claims made by the Syrian military that they had handed over two U.S. cruise missiles recovered largely intact, but they did not specify any details. Either this is simply a bluff, or Russia does in fact have these missiles now. Of added significance is the fact that the Russian M.O.D. has yet to specify what type of missiles were recovered, and I would bet that this information is not forthcoming. They will keep the U.S. leadership guessing and fearing that they are currently inspecting one of their newest and most advanced guided missiles, even if they are not. An intact TLAM would be of obvious benefit to the Russian defense industry, but an intact JASSM would be a windfall.  Decades of development and tens of billions of dollars could be thwarted in just a few short years, forcing the U.S. defense industry to work to improve upon and safeguard what they saw as the foundation of both air and sea launched cruise missiles guaranteeing U.S. power preeminence through the next fifty years.

*

Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Military Incompetence? Failed Performance of April 14th US-UK-France Missile Attack against Syria
  • Tags: , ,

Trump Breaks Landmark Iran Nuclear Deal

May 9th, 2018 by Jamie Merrill

Donald Trump has announced that the US will withdraw from the landmark Iran nuclear deal, in the most significant foreign policy move of his presidency so far.

In a blow to US allies who support the deal, Trump said:

“I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, and in a few moments I will sign a presidential memorandum to begin reinstating US nuclear sanctions on the Iranian regime.”

Speaking at the White House on Tuesday, he called the Iran deal “defective” and said that the US will be “instituting the highest levels of economic sanctions” against Iran.

Pulling out of the deal was a key Trump campaign promise and he has repeatedly threatened to withdraw from the accord, which was signed during Barack Obama’s presidency after five years of diplomatic efforts.

Trump used his White House speech to attack the Obama-era deal, saying it was failing to protect the US and its allies from the “lunacy of an Iranian nuclear bomb”.

He said that the “decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement” would allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon in a short period of time, and that failure to act would prompt a “nuclear arms race in the Middle East”.

He did not mention that Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear-armed state in the Middle East, with more than 100 warheads according to US researchers, although it neither confirms nor denies possessing atomic weapons.

The president said he made the decision after consulting with US allies, despite frantic diplomatic efforts from European allies to stick to the deal.

He added that America would “not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail” and will not allow “a regime that chants ‘Death to America'” access to nuclear weapons.

He also said that

“the United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises, I keep them.”

Following Trump’s speech, the US Treasury said that it would reimpose a wide array of Iran-related sanctions after the expiry of 90- and 180-day wind-down periods, including sanctions aimed at the country’s oil sector and transactions with its central bank.

In a statement on its website, the Treasury said sanctions relating to aircraft exports to Iran, the country’s metals trade and any efforts by Tehran to acquire US dollars will also be reimposed.

Iran activity in Syria?

Trump’s speech, in which he attacked Iran for its intervention in Yemen and Syria, came minutes after the Israeli military told its civilians in the Golan Heights to prepare their bomb shelters after troops allegedly noticed “irregularly activity of Iranian forces in Syria”.

The US leader started his speech by accusing “Iran and its proxies” of bombing American embassies, murdering hundreds of American service members and torturing American civilians, in comments that struck a similar tone to remarks by President George W Bush in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003.

He also accused the Iranian government of “plundering the wealth” of its people, and supporting terrorist groups including al-Qaeda.

The move to violate the deal and reinstate all sanctions on Tehran has come under fierce opposition from the international community.

Trump ignored warnings from Germany, France and the UK – all parties to the deal alongside Russia and China – that a US withdrawal will undo years of work that has kept nuclear weapons out of Iran’s hands.

It has already been met with dismay in Tehran and Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron said:

“France, Germany, and the UK regret the US decision to leave the JCPOA. The nuclear non-proliferation regime is at stake.”

Trump’s move comes despite a burst of last-minute diplomacy, including a visit by British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and a call from Macron.

European diplomats fear Trump’s move has no long-term strategy, and that the US president is pandering to Iran hawks in his administration.

The announcement means that the US is now on a path to abandoning the deal, which was enshrined in international law in a 2015 UN Security Council resolution.

The US will now be in breach of the agreement by reintroducing sanctions on Iran, and stands isolated among its allies.

‘A great loss to arms control’

The deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA), requires Iran to give up its stock of 20 percent enriched uranium, halt production and limit research of new nuclear centrifuges, and allow extensive international inspections of its nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA).

In announcing the withdrawal, Trump also ignored a warning from IAEA chief Yukiya Amano, who said that in Iran his agency had the world’s most robust nuclear verification regime. If the deal failed, it would be “a great loss,” he added.

Ben Rhodes, a former advisor to President Obama, said

Trump was “blowing up” the deal with “no plans for what comes next, no support from our closest European allies, Russia or China”.

Despite the US pull-out, diplomats in European capitals are hoping to stick with the deal in some form, but there are doubts over whether this is a practical option.

They could invoke a 100-day dispute mechanism inside the deal in an attempt to prevent its immediate collapse.

Trump, however, is now surrounded by fierce critics of the deal, including John Bolton, his new national security advisor, and any European move is likely to be met with displeasure in Washington.

Israel and Saudi Arabia, both key US allies in the region, have also lobbied hard against the deal, claiming security concerns and a sunset clause that allows Iran to restart nuclear enrichment once the deal ends in 2025. Both welcomed Trump’s announcement on Tuesday.

Other parties to the deal, including China, have pointed out that the IAEA has verified Iran’s compliance with the accord on no fewer than 10 occasions, and that the deal has put into place strict monitoring and verification measures on the Iran nuclear programme.

Some sanctions take effect after a 90-day “wind-down” period ending on 6 August, and the rest, most notably on the petroleum sector, after a 180-day “wind-down period” ending on 4 November.

Both deadlines are meant to give firms and other entities time in which to conclude trade and other business activities with or in Iran, the US Treasury Department said on Tuesday.

90-day and 180-day windows

The United States will reimpose sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of US dollars by the Iranian government, Iran’s trade in gold and precious metals, and on the direct and indirect sale, supply and transfer to or from Iran of graphite, raw or semi-finished metals, coal and industrial-related software.

When the 90-day period expires, sanctions also will be reapplied to the importation into the United States of carpets and foodstuffs made in Iran, and on certain related financial transactions.

On 4 November, sanctions will be reinstated on Iran’s energy sector and on the provision of insurance or underwriting services.

They also will be reapplied to petroleum-related transactions, including purchases of Iranian oil, petroleum products or petrochemical products, with the government-owned National Iranian Oil Company and other firms, and on Iran’s shipping and shipbuilding sectors.

Foreign financial institutions will face sanctions for transactions with the Central Bank of Iran or other Iranian financial institutions designated under legislation passed by Congress in 2012.

With the expiration of the 180-day period, the United States will reimpose sanctions “as appropriate” on individuals who were on US blacklists on 16 January 2016, the date when most sanctions on Iran were suspended under the nuclear deal.

Rouhani faces attack from hardliners

It will also bring political difficulties for Rouhani, a moderate cleric who pushed the deal as a way to boost the country’s economy.

He has staked much of his political credibility on the deal – which hasn’t brought Iran the economic benefits it had hoped for – and its collapse could give his hardline opponents more power, observers say.

Speaking before Trump’s speech, Iranian Revolutionary Guard deputy commander Hossein Salami issued a defiant statement, reported the Fars news agency.

“Our nation is not afraid of US sanctions or military attack.

“Our enemies including America, the Zionist regime and the allies in the region should know that Iran has prepared for the worst scenarios and threats.”

Trump’s decision is also likely to be closely monitored across the Middle East, where a number of regional powers are considering whether to push forward with their own civil nuclear programmes.

Also ahead of Trump’s speech, Jake Sullivan, a former chief foreign policy advisor to Hillary Clinton, said:

“The only reason POTUS has to walk away from the deal right now, is because it was negotiated by President Obama…that’s no reason for a commander-in-chief to play around with American national security.”

Summary

  • President Trump is withdrawing the U.S. from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran
  • Trump is reinstating sanctions on Iran, but didn’t explain how that will play out
  • The deal “should have never never been made,” the president says
  • Trump says the Iran deal negotiated by the Obama administration failed to protect America’s national security, but he didn’t give any examples
  • Iran’s ballistic missile program feature strongly in Trump’s remarks, even though this activity wasn’t covered under the original agreement
  • Trump cited Iran’s involvement in other regional conflicts, including Yemen and Syria
  • While his statement started out using the harshest possible language to describe the Iranian regime, he softened his tone to talk about the Iranian people
  • The president cited “evidence” from Israel to back his claims on Iran’s activity
  • Trump compared his actions today to the ongoing negotiations with North Korea to bring an end to that country’s nuclear program
  • Rouhani, commenting on Trump’s announcement, says Iran can achieve benefits of the JCPOA with five countries. He said that the country is prepared for enrichment IF NEEDED in three weeks
  • “The EU is determined to act in accordance with its security interests and to protect its economic investments” in Iran, EU foreign policy chief Mogherini said. The bloc signals it won’t shy away from a showdown with Trump
  • Former US President Barack Obama called Trump’s decision “so misguided.”
  • UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres calls on other nations to preserve Iran deal.

Update 6: UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said that he is “deeply concerned by today’s announcement that the US will be withdrawing” from the Iran deal.

Guterres said controversies relating to the agreement should be resolved within its mechanism for handling disagreements, and that “issues not directly related to the JCPOA should be addressed without prejudice to preserving the agreement.”

He also called on the deal’s remaining partners to work together to preserve the accord.

Read the full statement below:

I am deeply concerned by today’s announcement that the United States will be withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and will begin reinstating US sanctions.

I have consistently reiterated that the JCPOA represents a major achievement in nuclear non-proliferation and diplomacy and has contributed to regional and international peace and security.

It is essential that all concerns regarding the implementation of the Plan be addressed through the mechanisms established in the JCPOA. Issues not directly related to the JCPOA should be addressed without prejudice to preserving the agreement and its accomplishments.

I call on other JCPOA participants to abide fully by their respective commitments under the JCPOA and on all other Member States to support this agreement.

* * *

Update 5: Former President Barack Obama has issued a statement about President Trump’s decision to pull out of the 2015 JCPOA, one of his signature foreign policy accomplishments.

And as one might expect, he’s not happy.

Obama slammed the decision as “so misguided” and said that “walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America’s closest allies, and an agreement that our country’s leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated.”

*  *  *

Update 4: Iranian President Rouhani appeared State TV blasting Trump, saying that

“Iran complies with its commitments, US has never complied.”

Furthermore, Rouhani added that from now on, “JCPOA is between Iran and 5 counties only.”

Rouhani confirmed that currency controls and reforms are being undertaken to be ready for the decision, and added thatTehran is ready to resume its nuclear enrichment work within 3 weeks after holding talks with the European members of the deal.

Nancy Pelosi backs Rouhani:

Today is a sad day for America’s global leadership.  The Trump Administration’s dangerous & impulsive action is no substitute for real global leadership.

Saudi Arabia welcomed President Donald Trump’s decision on Tuesday to withdraw the United States from the international nuclear agreement with Iran and to reimpose economic sanctions on Tehran.

“Iran used economic gains from the lifting of sanctions to continue its activities to destablise the region, particularly by developing ballistic missiles and supporting terrorist groups in the region,” according to a statement carried on Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television.

Sunni Muslim Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally, has been at loggerheads with Shi’ite Iran for decades, and the countries have fought a long-running proxy war in the Middle East.

*  *  *

Update 3: US Treasury announces that it will begin the process of implementing 90- and 180-day wind-down periods for activities involving Iran that were consistent with sanctions relief. At the end of that period, all applicable sanctions will come back into effect.

Today President Donald J. Trump announced his decision to cease the United States’ participation in the JCPOA and begin reimposing U.S. nuclear-related sanctions on the Iranian regime. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) is taking immediate action to implement the President’s decision. Sanctions will be reimposed subject to certain 90 day and 180 day wind-down periods. At the conclusion of the wind-down periods, the applicable sanctions will come back into full effect. This includes actions under both our primary and secondary sanctions authorities. OFAC posted today to its website frequently asked questions (FAQs) that provide guidance on the sanctions that are to be re-imposed and the relevant wind-down periods.

Below is a statement from Secretary of the Treasury Steven T. Mnuchin in response to the President’s decision:

“President Trump has been consistent and clear that this Administration is resolved to addressing the totality of Iran’s destabilizing activities. We will continue to work with our allies to build an agreement that is truly in the best interest of our long-term national security. The United States will cut off the IRGC’s access to capital to fund Iranian malign activity, including its status as the world’s largest state sponsor of terror, its use of ballistic missiles against our allies, its support for the brutal Assad regime in Syria, its human rights violations against its own people, and its abuses of the international financial system.”

OFAC updated its website today to provide guidance, including new FAQs

The Treasury Department’s FAQ on sanctions is very blunt:

Q: Will the United States resume efforts to reduce Iran’s crude oil sales?

A: Yes.

However, it appears it is very unclear just what sanction-specifics are…

*  *  *

Update 2: After initially spiking, oil is now rapidly fading the entire move.

Meanwhile, at least Israel is delighted by the development:

  • NETANYAHU SAYS DEAL GAVE IRAN BILLIONS TO FUND TERROR
  • NETANYAHU  CALLS ON INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO STOP THE BAD DEAL

Statement from House Speaker Paul Ryan:

“From the beginning, the Obama-era Iran Deal was deeply flawed. Iran’s hostile actions since its signing have only reaffirmed that it remains dedicated to sowing instability in the region. The president’s announcement today is a strong statement that we can and must do better. I have always believed the best course of action is to fix the deficiencies in the agreement. It is unfortunate that we could not reach an understanding with our European partners on a way to do that, but I am grateful to them for working with the United States toward that goal. The president is right to insist that we hold Iran accountable both today and for the long-term. There will now be an implementation period for applying sanctions on Iran. During that time, it is my hope that the United States will continue to work with our allies to achieve consensus on addressing a range of destabilizing Iranian behavior—both nuclear and non-nuclear.”

The full White House fact sheet on ending the “Unacceptable” Iran deal can be found here, some excerpts below:

The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.

President Donald J. Trump

PROTECTING AMERICA FROM A BAD DEAL: President Donald J. Trump is terminating the United States’ participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran and re-imposing sanctions lifted under the deal.

  • President Trump is terminating United States participation in the JCPOA, as it failed to protect America’s national security interests.
  • The JCPOA enriched the Iranian regime and enabled its malign behavior, while at best delaying its ability to pursue nuclear weapons and allowing it to preserve nuclear research and development.
  • The President has directed his Administration to immediately begin the process of re-imposing sanctions related to the JCPOA.
  • The re-imposed sanctions will target critical sectors of Iran’s economy, such as its energy, petrochemical, and financial sectors.
    • Those doing business in Iran will be provided a period of time to allow them to wind down operations in or business involving Iran.
  • Those who fail to wind down such activities with Iran by the end of the period will risk severe consequences.
  • United States withdrawal from the JCPOA will pressure the Iranian regime to alter its course of malign activities and ensure that Iranian bad acts are no longer rewarded.  As a result, both Iran and its regional proxies will be put on notice.  As importantly, this step will help ensure global funds stop flowing towards illicit terrorist and nuclear activities.

IRAN’S BAD FAITH AND BAD ACTIONS: Iran negotiated the JCPOA in bad faith, and the deal gave the Iranian regime too much in exchange for too little.

  • Intelligence recently released by Israel provides compelling details about Iran’s past secret efforts to develop nuclear weapons, which it lied about for years.
    • The intelligence further demonstrates that the Iranian regime did not come clean about its nuclear weapons activity, and that it entered the JCPOA in bad faith.
  • The JCPOA failed to deal with the threat of Iran’s missile program and did not include a strong enough mechanism for inspections and verification.
  • The JCPOA foolishly gave the Iranian regime a windfall of cash and access to the international financial system for trade and investment.
    • Instead of using the money from the JCPOA to support the Iranian people at home, the regime has instead funded a military buildup and continues to fund its terrorist proxies, such as Hizballah and Hamas.
    • Iran violated the laws and regulations of European countries to counterfeit the currency of its neighbor, Yemen, to support the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Quds Force’s destabilizing activities.

More here

Shortly after Trump’s announcement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued the following statement:

* * *

Update: President Trump has confirmed the US withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal and will be instituting the highest level of sanctions against Iran, adding that any nation that aids Iran will also be sanctioned.

  • TRUMP WARNS OF BIGGER PROBLEMS THAN EVER IF IRAN PURSUES NUKES
  • TRUMP SAYS IRAN’S LEADERS WILL `WANT TO MAKE’ NEW NUCLEAR DEAL

Trump stated that he has decided against continuing to waive sanctions as laid out in the 2015 JCPOA pact, i.e. Nuclear Deal, between the United States, Iran, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Russia and China. The deal provided Tehran billions in sanctions relief in exchange for curbing its nuclear program.

International inspectors and the deal’s signatories, including U.S. officials, have said Iran continues to comply with the terms of the agreement, but Trump has long derided the Obama-era accord as the “worst deal ever negotiated.” Trump had kept the deal alive by waiving sanctions several times since taking office. However, when the president last renewed the waivers in January, he warned he would not do so again unless European allies agreed to “fix” the nuclear deal.

At the end of April, as the waiver deadline approached, Europeans engaged in a flurry of activity to convince Trump to remain in the pact. French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson all visited the United States to make their case; however the deal’s international critics were also active, and none more so than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who last week  delivered a speech in which he declared “Iran lied” about its nuclear intentions.

Meanwhile, supporters of the deal say the United States withdrawing gives Iran an excuse to restart its nuclear program, effectively killing the pact; at the same time it permits Israel to launch a preemptive attack claiming Iran will now resume building nukes.

Not surprisingly, both France and Germany have warned the end of the deal could mean a Middle East war.

Still, experts have said Iran is likely to stay in the deal even without the United States if it can continue getting benefits from the accord by being able to do business with European companies. Although with Trump escalating sanctions against Iran, this remains to be seen.

In a sign that Iran is not ready to walk away from the deal, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Tuesday ahead of Trump’s announcement that Iran wants to keep “working with the world and constructive engagement with the world” adding that “It is possible that we will face some problems for two or three months, but we will pass through this.”

And it seems CNN was once again ‘fake news’ as WTI prices spike on the Trump confirmation.

Gold also spiked, but is fading lower now.

*  *  *

While President Trump is expected to announce that he will not continue sanctions relief for Iran, a major step toward ending the 2015 nuclear pact he calls the “worst deal ever,” this morning’s barrage of fake news has left markets and onlookers confused and looking for clarification.

As The Hill reports, the announcement follows weeks of furious lobbying by European allies who sought to convince Trump to remain in the deal.

That should not be surprising since The EU has the most to lose if the deal is scuppered..

Infographic: Iran Deal: The EU Has The Most To Lose | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

But each one left the U.S. pessimistic about the deal’s future.

As we detailed earlier, while expectations are for Trump to withdraw from the deal, his speech will be all about the nuance: how will the president frame the US exit, and whether Iran will be allowed to continue its oil exports after the US is no longer a participant in the JCPOA.

One preview of what Trump’s speech may look like comes from Citi’s head of commodity research, Ed Morse, who in a Bloomberg interview this morning said that President Trump will likely give European governments “a chance to step up what they’ve already offered in terms of tightening sanctions”on Iran.

The tighter sanctions would relate to issues left out of the 2015 nuclear accord, such as Iran’s development of ballistic missiles, terrorist financing, Hezbollah, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp.

“The president’s going to say something that he’s going to move in a certain direction, that he’s ready to re-impose sanctions” predicted Morse, who added that Trump will “come out strong, and say the Europeans are stepping up to the table and we’ve got to do more.”

Morse also said that it’s possible OPEC will meet and decide to increase output to fill gap left by Iran, although with the price of Brent surging to the revised Saudi target of $80, it is unlikely that OPEC will interfere with the recent favorable equilibrium.

Finally, with everyone throwing their 2 cents on what the price impact of today’s deal collapse could be, Morse said that the Iranian political risk in oil price is about $5/bbl, however the recently bearish analysts said that any sell-off would be “a lot more” than that.

So, will he? Or won’t he? (Trump is due to speak at 1400ET)

The new B61-12 nuclear bomb – which the US is preparing to send to Italy, Germany, Belgium, Holland and probably other European countries – is now in its final stages of development.

This was announced by General Jack Weinstein, deputy chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force, responsible for nuclear operations, speaking on May 1 at a symposium of the Air Force Association in Washington, in front of a select audience of senior officers and military industry executives.

“The program is doing extremely well,” the general noted with satisfaction, specifying that “we have already conducted 26 engineering, development, and guided flight tests of the B61-12.”

The program provides for the production of about 500 B61-12’s, beginning in 2020, for a cost of approximately 10 billion dollars. (This means that each bomb will cost twice what it would cost if it were built entirely of gold).

Source: PandoraTV

The many components of the B61-12 are designed in the Sandia National Laboratories of Los Alamos, Albuquerque and Livermore (in New Mexico and California), and produced in a series of plants in Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The bomb is tested (without nuclear charge) in the Tonopah Test Range in Nevada.

The B61-12 has entirely new “qualities” compared to the current B61 deployed in Italy and other European countries – a nuclear warhead with four selectable power options; a flight system that guides it with precision onto the target; the ability to penetrate into the subsoil, even through reinforced concrete, and explode at depth.

The greater precision and the penetrating ability make the new bomb suitable for attacking command-center bunkers , so as to “decapitate” the enemy country. A 50 kt B61-12 (equivalent to 50 thousand tons of TNT, three times the Hiroshima bomb) that explodes underground has the same destructive potential as a nuclear bomb of over one megaton (one million tons of TNT) that explodes on the surface.

The B61-12 can be dropped from the US F-16C/D fighters deployed in Aviano, and from the Italian PA-200 Tornados deployed in Ghedi. But the new F-35A fighters are needed to exploit all the capabilities of the B61-12 (especially its guidance system). This involves the solution of other technical problems, which are added to the numerous problems that occurred with the F-35 program, in which Italy participates as a second-level partner.

The complex software of the fighter, which has been modified over 30 times so far, requires still further updates. Modification of the 12 F-35’s will cost Italy approximately 400 million Euros, which must be added to the still unassessed sums (estimated at 13-16 billion Euros) for the purchase of 90 fighters and their continuous modernization. This money will be State-funded (i.e. using our money), while the money from the production of the F-35 will end up in the coffers of the military industries.

The B61-12 nuclear bomb and the F-35 fighter, which Italy receives from the US, are therefore part of a single “parcel bomb” that will blow up in our faces. Italy will be exposed to further dangers as a forward base for the US nuclear strategy against Russia and other countries.

There is only one way to avoid this:

  • by asking the US, on the basis of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, to remove all nuclear weapons from our territory;
  • by refusing to provide pilots and nuclear attack fighter-bombers to the Pentagon in the framework of NATO;
  • by exiting the NATO Planning Group;
  • by adhering to the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Is there anyone, in the political world, willing to stop practising ostrich politics?

*

This article was originally published on Il Manifesto.

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

The United States is so far doing virtually no trade with Iran anyway. In 2017 total US exports to Iran were just 138 million dollars, and total imports a mere 63 million dollars, figures entirely insignificant to the US economy. By contrast, for the EU as a whole imports and exports to Iran were each a very much more substantial 8 billion dollars in 2017 and projected to rise to over 10 billion dollars in 2018.

There is one very significant US deal in the pipeline, for sale of Boeing aircraft, worth $18 billion dollars. It will now be cancelled.

Which brings us to the crux of the argument. Can America make its will hold? Airbus also has orders from Iran of over US$20 billion, and it is assumed those orders will be stopped too, because Airbus planes contain parts and technology licensed from the US. It is possible, but unlikely, that the US could grant a waiver to Airbus – highly unlikely because Boeing would be furious.

Now even a $20 billion order is probably in itself not quite big enough for Airbus to redevelop aircraft to be built without the US parts or technology (which constitute about 8% of the cost of an airbus). But the loss of a $20 billion order on such capricious grounds is certainly big enough for Airbus to look to future long term R & D to develop aircraft not vulnerable to US content blocking. And if Iran were to dangle the Boeing order towards Airbus too, a $38 billion order is certainly big enough for Airbus to think about what adaptations may be possible on a timescale of years not decades.

Read across from aircraft to many other industries. In seeking to impose unilateral sanctions against the express wishes of its “old” European allies, the USA is betting that it has sufficient global economic power, in alliance with its “new” Israeli and Saudi allies, to force the Europeans to bend to its will. This is plainly a very rash act of global geopolitics. It is perhaps an even more rash economic gamble.

We are yet to see the detail, but by all precedent Trump’s Iran sanctions will also sanction third country companies which trade with Iran, at the least through attacking their transactions through US financial institutions and by sanctioning their US affiliates. But at a time when US share of the world economy and world trade is steadily shrinking, this encouragement to European and Asian companies to firewall and minimise contact with the US is most unlikely to be long term beneficial to the US. In particular, in a period where it is already obvious that the years of the US dollar’s undisputed dominance as the world currency of reference are drawing to a close, the incentive to employ non-US linked means of financial transaction will add to an already highly significant global trend.

In short, if the US fails to prevent Europe and Asia’s burgeoning trade with Iran – and I think they will fail – this moment will be seen by historians as a key marker in US decline as a world power.

I have chosen not to focus on the more startling short term dangers of war in the Middle East, and the folly of encouraging Saudi Arabia and Israel in their promotion of sustained violence against Iranian interests throughout the region, as I have very written extensively on that subject. But the feeling of empowerment Trump will have given to his fellow sociopaths Netanyahu and Mohammed Bin Salman bodes very ill indeed for the world at present.

I shall be most surprised if we do not see increased US/Israeli/Saudi sponsored jihadist attacks in Syria, and in Lebanon following Hezbollah’s new national electoral victory. Hezbollah’s democratic advance has stunned and infuriated the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia but been reported very sparsely in the MSM, as it very much goes against the neo-con narrative. It does not alter the positions of President or Prime Minister, constitutionally allocated by religion, but it does increase Hezbollah’s power in the Lebanese state, and thus Iranian influence.

Iran is a difficult country to predict. I hope they will stick to the agreement and wait to see how Europe is able to adapt, before taking any rash decisions. They face, however, not only the provocation of Trump but the probability of a renewed wave of anti-Shia violence from Pakistan to Lebanon, designed to provoke Iran into reaction. These will be a tense few weeks. I do not think even Netanyahu is crazy enough to launch an early air strike on Iran itself, but I would not willingly bet my life on it.

The problem is, with Russia committed to holding a military balance in the Middle East, all of us are betting our lives on it.

Press Freedom in Britain: Getting Darker

May 9th, 2018 by Katharine Quarmby

Britain leads the way in Europe – but not in a good way. It has a worse record on press freedom than all other European nation states except Italy, trailing others such as Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. 

In the 2018 World Press Freedom Index, an annual report, by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), Britain was judged to have been in 40th place. This compared to Norway and Sweden at the top of the index, with the UK coming in below Trinidad and Tobago and only just ahead of Taiwan. The United States is also trailing, to the dismay of American media organisations, coming in at 45 on the list (with North Korea in bottom place, at 180).

Britain’s ranking, from the World Press Freedom Index 2018

RSF has drawn attention to several issues that may have contributed to Britain’s place in the ranking. It says: “A continued heavy-handed approach towards the press (often in the name of national security) has resulted in the UK keeping its status as one of the worst-ranked Western European countries in the World Press Freedom Index.”

It points, in particular, to online threats against journalists, many of them women, proposed changes to the Official Secrets Act, repeated attempts to impose state-backed press regulation – and a legal action by the law firm, Appleby, against the Guardian and the BBC, for work on the Paradise Papers. The UK is the only place where such proceedings have started in the wake of international revelations over tax avoidance.

The UK’s poor ranking has drawn reactions from freedom of expression organisations.

“It’s depressing that the UK has maintained its recent low ranking in the world press freedom index”, said Jodie Ginsberg, Chief Executive of Index on Censorship, a body campaigning for freedom of expression. She added: “The environment for press freedom is declining globally and we need to see leaders speak out more in its defence. Instead we see the likes of Donald Trump smearing anyone who criticises him as a peddler of ‘fake news’. This does little to promote the central value of press freedom, as a cornerstone of democracy, around the world – and in fact emboldens those in positions of power everywhere to suppress further journalists and journalism.”

So what does this mean for us, as journalists working in the public interest? As Index on Censorship says, about its project to map media freedom, journalists and media workers are confronting relentless pressure simply for doing their job.

A straw poll of journalists in the Bureau itself demonstrates that restrictions on press freedom have impacted on work and reduced our capacity to tell stories that matter, both in the UK and abroad.

My own work has been affected, in the UK and in Iran, where family members live. One of my books, Hear My Cry, on “honour” violence affecting a British-Yemen citizen, has had to be published elsewhere in the EU, as potential publishers here were concerned about the weak safeguards for public interest journalism here under the Defamation Act.

Image on the right: Quarmby family photograph, of the journalist and birth father in Iran in 2007

When I visited family in Iran in 2007, under the Ahmadinejad regime, I travelled to the country on a tourist visa, rather than a journalist visa, as I knew that I could then meet family members and friends without a minder present. As my Iranian birth father, like many other naval officers, had been imprisoned after the Revolution (pictured, but blurred for safety, below) it would have been risky for him to meet me if I was under constant surveillance. When I returned to the UK, I did write and broadcast on my experiences in Iran. But I am aware that it would be problematic to go back now, as the current regime targets journalists – and their families, if they have Iranian connections. I would be putting myself and my Iranian birth family at risk. Iran was ranked at 164 on this year’s press freedom list.

The Bureau itself, with other organisations supporting freedom of expression, currently has a case at the European Court of Human Rights, about which our managing editor, Rachel Oldroyd,has written. The Bureau brought the case in 2014, with the aim of forcing the government to provide adequate protections and safeguards for journalists’ privileged communications. Without these protections, we argued, the government’s actions were a direct threat to a free press and indirectly would have a chilling effect on whistleblowers seeking to expose wrongdoing. In November 2017 the arguments were made in a rare aural hearing at the court, combined with two other cases brought by a group of human rights organisations including Amnesty International, Privacy International and Liberty. The case is currently being considered.

Bureau managing editor Rachel Oldroyd, with Rosa Curling from Leigh Day and counsel Conor McCarthy, of Monckton Chambers, at the ECHR

Jessica Purkiss, one of the Bureau’s foreign affairs reporters, has also faced difficulties. She says:

“While reporting on issues in Palestine I was deported by the Israeli authorities. Israel controls the borders to Palestine so entrance depends on their approval. The security personnel were clear to tell me that I was not being deported for being a journalist but for taking a photo of a Palestinian protest – something that was not illegal to my knowledge – which they had obtained by going through my computer. After a night in a detention cell, I was escorted onto a plane back to the UK and my passport withheld until I landed on British soil. I have been banned from Israel, and therefore from visiting Palestine, for ten years.”

She has also faced problems in Palestine:

“During my time in Palestine I wrote a story about the poor treatment of teenagers arrested by the Palestinian Authority. I received a call from their press office informing me that if I didn’t provide the names and addresses of the children, I could face charges of withholding evidence.”

Israel was ranked at 87 on this year’s list and Palestine at 134.

Meirion Jones, our investigations editor, has also encountered difficulties in his long career in journalism.

Just this week one of the British fraudsters who sold fake bomb detectors to Iraq was given two more years prison time under proceeds of crime legislation because he wouldn’t surrender some of the millions of pounds he made from his crime.

The fraud, which probably cost the lives of 2,000 Iraqis who were blown up after the detectors failed to detect explosives, was uncovered by a team led by the Bureau’s Investigations Editor Meirion Jones when he was at BBC Newsnight (pictured above with a fake detector). But Jones believes a major reason that the fraudsters set up business in the UK was because the libel laws made it so difficult to expose them: “One of the bogus bomb detector makers hired extremely expensive lawyers to threaten to sue us for libel if we said the detectors were fake”, he said.

He also did the original investigation into the paedophile Jimmy Savile (image on the left):

“Savile was protected for years by British libel law and lawyers, including the late George Carman QC. Many in the British press knew or suspected Savile was a paedophile for decades but were too afraid of being sued for millions to tell the truth – we need a US First Amendment style law which guarantees freedom of the press.”

Our Afghan expert, Payenda Sargand, faced an uncomfortable experience in Dubai.

“I was detained for taking the photo of a plain commercial building in Dubai in 2003. The police detained me and confiscated my camera after they spotted me getting ready to take a photo of Emirates Towers [a building complex in Dubai]. I explained to them that I was a journalist and I had not yet even taken a picture of the towers. Their argument was that it was illegal to take pictures of the complex. They took me to a police station and kept me for over eight hours, under a freezing air conditioner. Their behaviour was unprofessional and rude. I have tried to find out more about this ever since. I believe the only reason for my detention was to do with the fact that I am Afghan. It didn’t matter that I was a journalist.”

The United Arab Emirates is 128 on the World Ranking.

Another Bureau journalist, whose experience is anonymised to protect the source, had problems in Vietnam (ranked this year at 175).

“While trying to partner on a sensitive subject I was assigned a press minder. On the one day I tried to report on my own I received an anonymous text message, warning me that the police would be waiting for me if I travelled to meet my source. In fear for my source I cancelled the meeting and managed to get the story another way.”

Most chillingly, of course, is the fact that journalists die every year because of their work in war-zones, unmasking corruption and speaking truth to power, most recently the Cypriot journalist, Daphne Caruana Galizia. Journalism is not a crime – but reading the World Press Freedom Index this year, you would be forgiven for thinking that it is all too often seen as one.

*

Katharine Quarmby has years of experience as a journalist and writer, specialising in investigative and campaigning journalism.

Chinese President Xi Jinping held a meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Dalian, China on Monday and Tuesday.

The two leaders, along with several officials from each country, held a luncheon and discussed pressing issues on China-North Korea relations.

According to China’s Xinhua News Agency, the leaders’ discussion focused on regional peaceeconomic development and strategies for realizing long-lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Xi said he “speaks highly” of the two country’s growing relations.

The meeting was the second in less than two months; late last March the two leaders held a meeting in Beijing, preceding the upcoming landmark intra-Korea summit between Kim and his South Korean counterpart, Moon Jae-in.

Following the meeting, Xi said that “both China and the DPRK (North Korea, or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) are socialist countries, and their bilateral relations are of major strategic significance,” as quoted by Xinhua.

Kim also praised his relationship with Xi as having a “comradely trust” and said that he looks forward to continuing to work together.

Kim also reportedly briefed Xi on the latest developments and decisions in the Workers Party of Korea (WPK), North Korea’s ruling party. Xi said after the meeting that the most recent congress of the WPK’s Central Committee had developed a strategy of focusing on “socialist economic construction,” and raising people’s livelihood.

The latest meeting precedes an expected meeting between Kim and U.S. President Donald Trump in the coming weeks, the outcome of which could have major consequences for the region, and potentially end the Korean War that has continued since 1953.

President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the deal with Iran creates, unnecessarily, a new source of tension in a region besieged by conflicts. This move was heartily supported by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and opposed by all other governments that are part of the deal. Given the level of legal troubles that President Trump is facing now, his decision could be based to some extent in creating the conditions to fog his personal drama.

For several decades, relations between the U.S. and Iran and between Iran and the West have been shrouded in misconceptions and prejudices. They have done nothing to achieve a peaceful relationship with that country, and only led to a permanent state of distrust that can lead to war at any moment. In this situation, some basic facts need to be restated.

The present conflicting relations can be traced to a large extent to 19 August 1953, when both the United Kingdom and the US orchestrated a coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. The reason: Mossadegh was trying to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), a British corporation, to change the terms of that company’s access to Iranian oil.

Following the refusal of AIOC to cooperate with the Iranian government, the Iranian parliament voted almost unanimously to nationalize AIOC and expel its representatives from Iran. The anti-government coup that ensued led to the formation of a military government under General Fazlollah Zahedi. That government then allowed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to rule the country as an absolute and ruthless monarch.

60 years after the coup, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) finally admitted that it had been involved in both its planning and the execution of the coup that caused 300 to 800, mostly civilian, casualties. That fateful coup and the US behavior towards Arab governments throughout the region are behind the anti-American sentiment not only in Iran but throughout the Middle East.

I wonder how we, in the United States, would have reacted if China and Russia, for example, would have plotted to overthrow a democratic American government, leaving a chaotic situation in its wake. In addition, while Iran has not invaded another country in centuries, both the US and Israel, Iran’s enemies, have led brutal wars against other countries and peoples.

US interference in Iranian affairs didn’t end there. In September 1980, Saddam Hussein started a war against Iran that had devastating consequences for both countries. The war was characterized by Iraq’s indiscriminate ballistic-missile attacks and extensive use of chemical weapons.

The war resulted in at least half a million and probably twice as many troops killed on both sides, and in at least half a million men who became permanently disabled. The US actively supported Saddam Hussein in his war efforts with billions of dollars in credits, advanced technology, weaponry, military intelligence, and Special Operations training.

Pentagon officials in Baghdad planned day-by-day bombing strikes for the Iraqi Air Force. According to the US former ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, Iraq used this data to target Iranian positions with chemical weapons. Despite the brutality of these attacks, Iran didn’t respond in kind.

In 1984, Iran presented a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council condemning Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons, based on the Geneva Protocol of 1925. The US instructed its delegate at the UN to lobby friendly representatives to support a motion to abstain on the vote on the use of chemical weapons by Iraq. Given these facts, can we be surprised that Iranians have a deep resentment against the US?

However, rather than following a policy of appeasement, President Donald Trump nixed the agreement with Iran that goes contrary to the US’s own political and economic interests in the region. And they have a faithful ally in Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Where do these actions lead us to?

*

Dr. Cesar Chelala is a winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award and a national journalism award from Argentina. He has written extensively on Iranian issues.

Featured image: Yuval Steinitz

Israel will assassinate Syrian President Bashar al-Assad if he continues to allow close ally Iran to operate in Syria, the Israeli energy minister has warned.

Yuval Steinitz made the warning to Israeli news website Ynet on Monday, amid a war of words between Tehran and Tel Aviv over suspected Israeli air raids in Syria targeting Iranian fighters.

“If Assad allows Iran to turn Syria into a military base against us and attack us on Syrian soil, he must know that will mean his end,” Steinitz said.

“He will not remain ruler of Syria. It’s unacceptable that Assad sits quietly in his palace, rebuilding his regime while allowing Syria to be turned into a base for attacks on Israel,”

“Assad should realise his actions will bear a price,” he added.

The minister’s comments come come days after a senior Iranian official warned that his country will retaliate against Israeli “aggression” in Syria.

“We are in Syria at the request of the Syrian government,” said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, president of Iran’s parliamentary foreign affairs committee.

“The aggression of the Zionist entity on our advisers in Syria guarantees us the right of response,” said Boroujerdi.

Last week, missile strikes on central Syria killed 26 pro-regime fighters, most of them Iranians, in a raid that bore the hallmarks of an Israeli operation.

They were the latest in a series of such attacks that come amid heightened tensions after Damascus and Tehran accused Israel on April 9 of conducting deadly strikes against a military base in central Syria.

Iran is a staunch supporter of Assad and provides both financial and military support for his regime.

Iran has sent military advisers, as well as fighters recruited from Afghanistan and Pakistan, to work with Assad’s forces.

They are known in Iran as “defenders of the shrines” in reference to Shia holy sites in Syria.


160119-DirtyWarCover-Print.jpg

The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change and Resistance

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-8-4
Year: 2016
Author: Tim Anderson
Pages: 240

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel Will Assassinate Syria’s Assad if He Allows Iran to Operate in Syria? Israeli Minister of Energy
  • Tags: , ,

The Family-Party-State Nexus in Nicaragua

May 9th, 2018 by Trevor Evans

In 1979 a popular uprising led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) overthrew the U.S.-backed Somoza-family dictatorship which had ruled Nicaragua since the 1930s, and in 1984 the Sandinistas and their presidential candidate, Daniel Ortega, decisively won the country’s first free elections in decades. The Sandinistas introduced a major programme of land redistribution and a significant expansion of public health care and education services. However, initial gains were undermined under the impact of an armed opposition (‘the contra’) organized and promoted by the U.S., a collapse of international raw material prices in the early 1980s, and Sandinista policy errors, including an over-ambitious programme of large-scale investments.

In 1990, a war weary population voted for a broad coalition led by Violetta Chamorro, the widow of a distinguished journalist murdered on Somoza’s orders. Chamorro’s government pursued a policy of national reconciliation but, in order to obtain much needed finance, was required to adopt exceptionally austere economic policies by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Following a resumption of economic growth in the mid-1990s, elections in 1996 were won by a right-wing populist, Arnoldo Aleman, who was subsequently convicted to 10 years’ jail for corruption, and Aleman was followed in 2001 by his former vice-President, Enrique Bolaños, a fiercely anti-Sandinista business leader.

Following the Sandinista’s electoral defeat in 1990, many activists left the party as a result of dissatisfaction with Ortega’s leadership and the lack of internal party democracy. Some formed the small breakaway Movement for Sandinista Renovation (MRS), while others became involved in local development projects and in building an independent women’s movement. In 2006, however, the fractious liberal and conservative parties were unable to agree on a joint candidate for the presidential elections and this made it possible for Ortega, who had stood at every election since the 1980s, to win with a minority of the vote.

Despite a constitutional prohibition on consecutive terms in office, the electoral commission allowed Ortega to stand for the presidency again in 2011, and he was elected for a further term. The Sandinista dominated National Assembly subsequently agreed a constitutional change to allow consecutive terms, and in 2016 Ortega stood for the presidency yet again, this time with his wife, Rosario Murillo, as vice-presidential candidate. Shortly before the election, the main opposition candidates were disenfranchised, leaving Ortega and Murillo with a sure victory.

The Family-Party-State Nexus

Since resuming the presidency in 2007, Ortega has governed through a close alliance with Nicaragua’s principal business groups. COSEP, the main private business organization, had a highly conflictual relation with the Sandinista government in the 1980s but has enjoyed very close relations with the current government. The American Chamber of Commerce, which includes the major U.S. companies in the country, has also worked closely with the government, although after a heavily contested election in early 2018 the head of Cargill’s Nicaraguan subsidiary became president after campaigning for a more independent path. The government has also been able to count on the support of the leaders of the main unions, which are affiliated to the FSLN.

Ortega has tried to ensure that no political force emerges on the left and the breakaway MRS was unable to register for the elections in 2016. There are numerous right-wing parties, but they are small and in many cases little more than the personal fiefdoms of their leaders. Among the larger groups, the Partido Liberal Constitucionalista (PLC), which won the elections in 1996, has since the early 2000s provided political support for Ortega, initially under a ‘pact’ which allowed its leader, Aleman, to serve his jail sentence for corruption on his rural estate.

The other main right-wing grouping, the Partido Liberal Independiente (PLI), was the leading force in an electoral front which could have provided the most serious opposition to Ortega at the elections in 2016. However, this was effectively undermined a few months before the election when the country’s supreme court, which is dominated by Sandinista appointees, handed control of the party to a minority group. The party’s original candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency were prevented from running and its 28 representatives in the national assembly had to relinquish their seats. The PLI’s long-time leader – a banker – has since retired and former members of the party have established two new political organizations: Cuidadanos por la Libertad (CxL), which obtained legal recognition in May 2017, took part in the municipal elections later in the year; the Frente Amplio por la Democracia (FAD), by contrast, argues that current elections are a farce and it is concentrating on building a new movement from the base up.

At the general election in 2016, when the FSLN principal candidates, Daniel Ortega and Rosaria Murillo obtained 72% of the vote, the turnout was reportedly low as many people, including FSLN supporters, apparently considered the result to be a foregone conclusion. In the vote for the National Assembly, the FSLN obtained 70 out of 91 seats, with 14 seats going to Ortega’s tamed opposition, the PLC.

Ortega himself makes relatively few public appearances and there are unofficial reports that he is in poor health. Murillo, who was already playing an important role in coordinating the work of different government ministries, has come to play an increasing role in managing the day to day government of the country. Virtually all ministerial announcements are now made by Murillo, usually during a regular mid-day radio broadcast, and the mayors of the FSLN controlled municipalities are required to attend regular meetings with her in Managua. She has also build a strong base of support in the Sandinista youth movement, which has an important presence in the universities.

At the local elections in 2017, the FSLN won in 135 municipalities, while the PLC won in 11 and the new CxL in 6. However, as at the previous municipal elections in 2012, there were widespread allegations of irregularities and, in 2017, the extent of support for different parties was obscured because only figures for the share of the vote were published. In the most populated part of the country along the Pacific, the FSLN won strongly, but turnout was reportedly low; in central rural areas, where the contra had had a social base in the 1980s, the PLC and the CxL secured their best results; in the sparsely populated Caribbean area, there was also support for the local indigenous based party, but here the election was marred by violence between rival groups’ supporters.1 Reportedly, there was also discontent among long-time members of the FSLN at Rosario Murilla’s introduction of a centralized procedure for selecting candidates which, it was alleged, favoured her younger supporters.2

The OAS and the USA

In response to the allegations of electoral irregularity, the secretary general of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, met with Ortega in February 2017. To the disappointment of Ortega’s critics, Almagro agreed to allow Ortega four years to rectify shortcomings in the country’s electoral system. Ortega is under strong international pressure to respond to the OAS but, having unexpectedly lost the elections in 1990, he appears intent on making the very minimum of concessions necessary to appease external critics so as to ensure that, at the elections due in 2021, either he or his designated successor will win.

Perhaps predictably the United States government and its ambassador in Nicaragua have been at the forefront of criticisms of Nicaragua’s onetime leftist president and his regime. The U.S. authorities have drawn attention to what they describe as ‘significant irregularities’ at the national and local elections in Nicaragua since 2011 and, in the aftermath of the national elections in 2016, members of the U.S. Congress from both main parties initiated the Nicaragua Investment Conditionality Act, which would require U.S. representatives at the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank to vote against approving any loans for Nicaragua. This was passed by the House of Representatives in October 2017 and requires Senate approval to become law. Meanwhile, the U.S. Agency for International Aid, which had been providing some $10-million a year in development assistance, included a mere $200,000 for Nicaragua in its budget for 2017/18, and nothing at all for subsequent years.3

In a more pointed move, in December 2017 the U.S. deployed the Global Magnitsky Act to impose a ban on Robert Rivas, the president of Nicaragua’s electoral commission, from using banking services in the USA. Until then, the Act had only been used against Russian and Venezuelan government officials. Rivas had, inexplicably, accumulated numerous luxury properties in Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Paris. He has been a close ally of Ortega and, although his functions have since been officially transferred to his deputy, he has been allowed to retain his title as head of the electoral commission.

Nicaragua’s police and army were re-founded after the Revolution in 1979 and for long enjoyed an unusually high reputation for their probity. However, over the last ten years the number of complaints, particularly about the police, has been rising.4 Perhaps more seriously, there are also fears that the independence of the two institutions is being eroded. The police and the army both had established procedures whereby the top official would serve one term in office and then pass to retirement. In both institutions, however, the rules regarding retirement have been overridden, and subsequently changed by the National Assembly, and the current office-holders are serving their third consecutive terms. This, it is feared, has reduced their independence and gives at least an impression that they are beholden to Ortega.

The most important media in Nicaragua are television and radio, and these are largely in the hands of two groups which, between them, control 10 television channels. One group is owned by a Mexican businessman, Angel Gonzalez, whose channels are dominated by popular entertainment and avoid political controversy; the other group is controlled by the Ortega family, and transmits what has been described as a mixture of official propaganda, yellow journalism and mass entertainment. The one exception is channel 12, which is host to Nicaragua’s one critically informative current affairs programme.

Strong Economic Growth but Rising Inequality

Nicaragua, with a population of 6.2 million in 2017, has the second lowest per capita income in the Americas. Its economy has grown strongly in recent years, although output fell in 2009 as a result of the deep recession in the U.S. and other major markets. Between 2010 and 2017 economic growth averaged just under 5 per cent a year, the third highest in Latin America after Panama and the Dominican Republic.5

The economy remains dependent on primary commodity exports, the most important of which are coffee, beef, gold and sugar. In addition, there has been a significant growth of production in export processing zones since the 1990s, primarily involving textile products and, more recently, the assembly of electrical harnesses for cars produced in Mexico. There is, however, still a large sector of subsistence farmers particularly in the more mountainous areas in the north of the country, and in the towns there is a very large commercial sector, much of it based on informal labour.

Nicaragua’s export revenues increased strongly up to 2014, although since then growth has slowed due to weaker world prices. In 2017 exports of goods amounted to $4.1-billion but imports at $6.6-billion were considerably larger. The deficit has been covered in part by family remittances which have increased considerably in recent years. Because of the employment situation in Nicaragua many families have at least one member who has gone abroad to work, principally to the United States or neighbouring Costa Rica, and in 2017 remittances amounted to $1.4-billion.

Nicaragua has also received substantial foreign direct investment in recent years, attracted by low wage levels and the relative security compared with neighbouring Honduras and El Salvador. Net direct investment amounted to $816-million in 2017, with the inflows directed principally to manufacturing industry, telecommunications, commerce and energy. The largest source in 2016 was Panama (22%), followed by the United States (13%) and Mexico (12%).

Until recently, Nicaragua benefitted from oil provided on very favourable terms by Venezuela. This was organized through a company called Alba de Nicaragua SA, or Albanisa, which is 51% owned by Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, and 49% by Nicaragua’s state-owned petrol company, Petronic. Under the terms of the deal agreed with Venezuela, Nicaragua was supposed to pay half the cost of the imported oil; the other half was effectively a long-term low-interest credit which provided Albanisa and a web of subsidiaries with funds to invest in a wide range of projects in Nicaragua.6 Between 2008 and 2014 Nicaragua is estimated to have benefited from some $3.5-billion in this way but, controversially, although a public debt, this major source of external finance was not registered in the government’s official figures.

As the economic situation in Venezuela deteriorated, the supply of oil declined and none was received in 2017. There were plans for Venezuela to build a major new refinery in the country but these have been abandoned. Nicaragua has since had to purchase oil on the international market and social expenditures financed with revenues from the Venezuelan oil have had to be reduced. At the same time, Nicaragua – strongly pressed by the International Monetary Fund – has begun to include the amounts owed to Venezuelan in the country’s official debt figures.

Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and Wang Jing of HKND Group.

In 2013, Nicaragua’s parliament granted a Chinese investor, Wang Jing, a 100-year concession to build and run an inter-oceanic canal through Nicaragua, a mega project that would be able to accommodate even larger ships than the Panama Canal, and which was viewed as a means of fast-tracking the country’s economic development. The $50-billion project was strongly opposed by environmentalists and also gave rise to a significant opposition movement among peasants whose land would have been compulsorily purchased and whose demonstrations were harshly restricted by the police. Work on the canal has been delayed amidst reports that Wang made large losses when the Chinese stock market crashed in 2015-16. From being a centre-piece of the government’s development plans, the canal was not even mentioned by Ortega in his address at the start of the new presidential term in 2017, and it seems unlikely that it will ever be built.

In recent years there has been considerable investment in communications and infrastructure. This is particularly notable in the condition of many roads. The main routes are being widened and resurfaced while the network of all-weather roads in rural areas is being steadily expanded. There has also been a notable expansion in access to electricity, especially in rural areas. According to official figures, coverage increased from around 70% of households in 2010 to 94% in 2017. The state-owned distribution company was privatized in 2000, but sold again in 2014 to a company which is registered in Spain, but which is widely believed to be linked to the government.

The supply of water has remained in the public sector and here too there has been investment in expanding its reach. But while some 90 per cent of households now have access to drinking water in urban areas, the figure is little more than 30 per cent in rural areas. There is a programme for building low income housing, but housing construction has been declining since 2015. According to the Association of Housebuilders, around half of the new homes built in 2017 were for low income households, but this amounted to a mere 2,500 units. There has, however, been investment in public spaces in many towns, providing play grounds together with seating and widely-used free access to the internet.

Sustained economic growth has led to a rise in the number of people in work. The official figure for the rate of unemployment fell to a low of 3.5% for men and 3.8% for women in 2017, but this presents a rather misleading picture, since workers without a formal job have little option but to seek an income from some type of informal employment. Even according to official figures, informal employment accounted for 42 per cent of the workforce in 2017.

The number of people who are formally employed and enrolled in the social security system has increased, from 534,881 in 2010 to 914,196 in 2017. This provides workers with a pension on retirement, but membership growth has slowed, and coverage is very uneven. While some 75 per cent of workers employed in the supply of electricity and water are insured, the figure is only around 45 per cent for workers in manufacturing industry and under 10 per cent in agriculture. The social security system is, in any case, seriously under-funded and, as the IMF has repeatedly warned, it will face a crunch which will place a further financial demand on the central government in 2019.

The employment situation has contributed to poor peasants in central regions of the country pressing toward the Caribbean in search of land to farm, a process exacerbated by the growth of large scale investments in capitalist agriculture, which have displaced many small farmers. This migration of ladino farmers has led to serious confrontations, some resulting in fatalities, with members of indigenous groups who, under the Nicaraguan constitution, are guaranteed exclusive rights to farm the land in Nicaragua’s autonomous Caribbean regions.

The limited employment opportunities in Nicaragua explain why so many workers seek work in other countries. Many of these migrant workers are unskilled, but skilled workers, including university graduates, have also been obliged to look for work abroad, and it is estimated that some 20 per cent of the population lives abroad. The remittances which they have sent back to their families have played a decisive role in maintaining living standards in the country.

On returning to office in 2007, the Ortega government launched an anti-poverty programme entitled Zero Hunger. This provided the poorest households with some basic agricultural support and, crucially, corrugated zinc sheets which enabled them to waterproof the roofs of their shacks. However, as the financial resources from Venezuela have declined, the Zero Hunger programme has been wound down, and subsidized electricity prices for low income households and for pensioners, which were also financed with Venezuelan resources, are to be phased out between 2018 and 2022. According to independent annual surveys carried out between 2009 and 2015, the proportion of the population living in poverty registered a limited decline, from 44.7 to 39.0 per cent, and those in extreme poverty from 9.7 to 7.6 per cent, with the most significant declines registered in rural areas.7

After resuming the presidency in 2007, the Ortega government raised the official minimum wage significantly. However, for the great majority of workers, wage rises lagged behind inflation and it is only since 2010 that real wages have begun to register a rise. According to official figures, between 2010 and 2017 real wages for workers in formal employment increased by about 10 per cent when converted into dollars, or just over 1 per cent a year. By 2017, the average wage was equal to around $340 a month. In the financial sector and the mines, the figure was somewhat higher, at just over $500 a month, but in the manufacturing sector the average was equal to just $230, while the average for agricultural workers was a mere $130. For the government, low wage costs have clearly been an important part of their strategy for attracting foreign investment.

Nicaragua also has a prosperous commercial middle class and a very wealthy upper class. According to CEPAL figures, the top 10 per cent receives some 33 per cent of national income and, together with the next 10 per cent, almost 50 per cent of national income.8 This group includes traditional land-owning families, many of which have also branched out into commerce or industry; it also includes newly rich traders who have profited from the boom in commerce. According to the CEPAL report, while inequality declined slightly in the period from 2002 to 2008, as in virtually the whole of Latin America, Nicaragua was the only country where inequality increased between 2008 and 2014 (more recent figures are not available for Nicaragua). According to an Oxfam study published in 2015, there were 210 multi-millionaires in Nicaragua, each with net assets of over $30-million.9 Nicaragua’s wealthiest businessman, Carlos Pellas, is estimated to have accumulated a fortune of $2.4-billion, one of the largest in Central America, but some Sandinista leaders have also acquired wealth more recently, albeit on a lesser scale.

The Beginning of the End?

The Nicaraguan government faced a difficult economic outlook for 2018, with the threat a U.S. initiated limit on its access to international financial institutions, together with the need to adjust to the end of financial support from Venezuela. In the face of these challenges, growth projections for 2018 and 2019 have been reduced by both the IMF and the Nicaraguan central bank. In April 2018, Ortega was then confronted with the most serious political challenge to his rule since returning to office in 2007.

The government announced that, in order to address the Social Security System’s large deficit, pensions would be cut by 5 per cent and pension contributions would be increased for both workers and employers. A demonstration in Managua by pensioners against the reduction in their pensions was supported by students from the city’s public universities, but the student demonstrators were confronted by riot police and members of the Sandinista youth organization. Over the next three days the scale of the street confrontations increased, spreading to several other cities, and resulting in the death of over 40 people and many more injured.

After four days, Daniel Ortega appeared on television, flanked by his wife and the chiefs of the police and army, and he decried what he described as the manipulation of innocent students by political opponents with ulterior motives. But his failure to condemn the deaths led to yet further criticism, and in a second broadcast on the same day he announced the pension reforms would be cancelled and that the government would enter a dialogue with the country’s business organization on how to reform the pension system. The business organizations, which until then had enjoyed close relations with the government, said they would not enter negotiations until police violence against demonstrators was ended, and supported calls for a major peaceful demonstration the following day. It also insisted that any negotiations should include all sectors of Nicaraguan society.

On Monday, 23 April, tens of thousands joined a peaceful march in Managua and there were large demonstrations in many other cities. The authorities did not attempt to intervene and the demonstrations remained peaceful. The demands of the demonstrators had by now, however, gone beyond the issue of mere pension reform and broadened to include expressions of deep dissatisfaction with the Ortega family regime. In the absence of any serious political opposition, however, it was not clear what the alternative might be.

*

Trevor Evans teaches at the Institute for International Political Economy, Berlin School of Economics and Law.

Notes

1. Elecciones municipales 2017. Nicaraguas, tres escenarios diferentes, Envio, December 2017.

2. Observadores del eclipse institucional, Envio, September 2017.

3. Preocupa deterioro de relación con EE.UU., La Prensa, 23 March 2018.

4. See Centro Nicaraguense de Derechos Humanos (CENIDH), Informe Annual 2016, 2017.

5. The source for figures, if not otherwise given, is Banco Central de Nicaragua, Anuario Estadístico 2017, April 2018, available from www.bcn.gov.ni.

6. For details, see the series of articles on confidencial.com.ni by Iván Olivares, ‘La ‘alcancía’ de Albanisa’ (9 April 2016), ‘Una ‘pulpería’ de negocios’ (11 April 2016), and ‘La deuda: de Caruna a Albanisa’ (13 April 2016), and Enrique Saenz, ALBANISA, Confidential, 27 September 2017.

7. Fideg, Encuesta de hogares para medir la pobreza en Nicaragua. Informe de resultados 2015.

8. CEPAL, Panorama Social de América Latina, 2017.

9. Oxfam, Desigualdad Extrema y Secuestro de la Democracia en América Latina y el Caribe, 2015.

All images in this article are from the author.

Trump and Israeli Collusion

May 9th, 2018 by Margaret Kimberley

Donald Trump’s decision to exit from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement on Iranian nuclear capability is in keeping with his doctrine of joining Israel at the hip of the United States. Fealty to the state of Israel is a constant in United States foreign policy. Every president who has served since that country was founded has given it carte blanche to do anything it wants but Trump goes further than anyone else.

Most of the acquiescing is done out of cynicism and the need to placate influential supporters who can and do choose who may hold elective office, including the presidency. But Donald Trump is different. He is the one true believer in Israeli’s right to reign supreme in its region and in command of American foreign policy. Other presidents may have said they were willing to move the embassy to Jerusalem but Trump is the one who will actually do it. Trump had resisted leaving the JCPOA agreement but finally stopped listening to aids, Congress, and European allies and completely succumbed — as he wanted to do all along.

“Perhaps “Russiagate’ should be changed to ‘Israelgate.’”

Trump’s love for Israel makes him committed to opposing both Iran and his predecessor’s legacy at every turn. It is therefore not surprising that an Israeli security firm, Black Cube , spied on two Obama administration officials and the head of an Iranian advocacy group in hopes of discrediting them and the agreement.

Black Cube was most recently in the news as the spy agency hired by former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein to investigate women who accused him of sexual assault. The firm is surely an arm of the Israeli government’s Mossad security agency. In fact, its founders are all former Mossad agents and that is its claim to fame.

Ben Rhodes and Colin Kahl were both negotiators to the JCPOA agreement that Donald Trump hates so much. Trita Parsi is president of the National Iranian American Council. It will be interesting to see if any Democrats will speak up about the Black Cube/Israeli government spying on Kahl, Rhodes, Parsi and their families. A case can certainly be made that an official investigation should be undertaken. Robert Mueller claims that his mandate allows him to go far beyond the question of collusion between Trump and the Russian government. If he can indict former campaign manager Paul Manafort and charge him with acts that have nothing to do with Russia he can surely do the same regarding Black Cube.

“It will be interesting to see if any Democrats will speak up about the Black Cube/Israeli government spying.”

One of the alleged smoking guns in the Russiagate saga is actually connected to the Israeli government. Former national security adviser Michael Flynn lied about contacting the Russian ambassador to the United Nations. But the communication happened at the behest of Israel who wanted to secure Russian support for Israel in a Security Council vote. Perhaps the well known moniker should be changed to Israelgate.

Israel is not alone in making desperate attempts to hold the empire together. France, the United States and the United Kingdom outdo one another making false claims about chemical weapons in Syria and they all worked together to destroy Libya. The neocon plan for a new American century has been in the works for years as secular Arab nations fall to NATO invasions and interventions and always with Israel’s help.

Ultimately Israel wants to instigate an American attack on Iran and a Trump presidency is their best chance to make that happen. Benjamin Netanyahu’s periodic public relations campaigns against Iran are meant to ratchet up the political pressure. Israel and the other nations who worked for Syrian regime change have failed. President Assad is firmly in place. He is resolved to free his country from Israeli and U.S. backed terrorists and Vladimir Putin is committed to helping him.

“Israel and the other nations who worked for Syrian regime change have failed.”

Israel wants to scuttle as much as it can and get Trump to do their dirty work. Democrats may not be true lovers of Israel but they are craven and unlikely to rock the boat. The story of collusion is the same. Saudi Arabian crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman slaughters Yemenis but his friendship with the United States gives him and his public relations juggernaut cover. Congress and the corporate media always roll out the red carpet for the killer prince.

One needn’t know history to figure out who is a friend of the United States government and who is a foe. But the ruling elite can’t be allowed to make that decision for everyone else. In fact we should know that the friends of the empire are the enemies of the people. There are plenty of other enemies who work with American presidents to undermine national sovereignty and human rights all over the world. Israel is just the most blatant and most successful of them all.

*

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well here. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at [email protected].

Featured image is a White House photo.

War Codes in Trump’s Iran Proclamation

May 9th, 2018 by Daniel McAdams

Today President Trump announced that he was canceling US participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JPCOA) otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. The president’s assertions were ludicrous and factually incorrect, but the neocons who were no doubt behind the speech have never been all that wedded to the truth. It became obvious fairly on that Trump’s rationale was not to be taken seriously, when he cited last week’s comical stage performance by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Iran Lied” about its nuclear program. 

Netanyahu’s fairy tale required us to believe that the Iranians were storing their most sensitive national security (paper) documents and compact discs in an unguarded desert hut, which the crack Israeli team of intelligence operatives were able to discover and remove by the truckload right under the noses of what they claim is among the most totalitarian “regimes” on earth.

And even if one believes that fairy tale, one is required to suspend logic and reason and conclude that evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons technology but had halted the program by 2003 is actually proof that Iran is currently pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities — despite repeated inspections that have concluded otherwise. Really, it’s something a child could see through. Which is perhaps why the neocons were so successful at packaging it for Trump’s consumption.

Likewise Trump’s claim that Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism…for among other things fighting actual terrorists (al-Qaeda and ISIS) in Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government!

Only in the twisted world of the neocons can one country arming al-Qaeda and ISIS (the US) be “anti-terrorist” and another country killing al-Qaeda and ISIS (Iran) be “pro-terrorist.”

But all that aside, there is something potentially earth-shattering in what at first appears to be just bluster and blunder by President Trump. With neocons in charge of the words coming out of his mouth we should not believe it was an accident.

When President Trump uttered this line:

“Iran remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and provides assistance to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, al-Qaida, and other terrorist networks,”

he was signaling his official determination that Iran is one of the “associated forces” that is fair game for US bombs as outlined in the post-9/11 authorization for the use of military force.

In short, Trump’s sentence indicates, in our convoluted and post-Constitutional current reality, that President Trump believes he has all the authority he needs to initiate an attack on Iran.

Forget all the other speculation on Trump’s speech. This is the only thing to really focus on.

*

Featured image is from the author.


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

The so-called “Iran Nuclear Deal,” officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed on 2015 now under threat by a backtracking US – was billed at the time of its signing as a historic agreement that provided a path forward towards peace between the US and Iran.

The BBC in an October 2017 article titled, “Iran nuclear deal: Key details,” would even go as far as claiming:

The 2015 nuclear deal struck between Iran and six world powers – the US, UK, Russia, France, China, and Germany – was the signature foreign policy achievement of Barack Obama’s presidency.

The initial framework lifted crippling economic sanctions on Iran in return for limitations to the country’s controversial nuclear energy programme, which international powers feared Iran would use to create a nuclear weapon.

But while the agreement has been hailed as a “signature foreign policy achievement,” it was, before even its inception – not a vehicle towards peace – but a cynical ploy to justify future war.

The United States had never intended to allow Iran to rise as a counterbalancing regional power in the Middle East or Central Asia nor escape from under the constant threat of US military intervention or the crippling sanctions it has targeted the nation with for decades.

The enduring presence of US military forces in Afghanistan transcending now three presidencies and nearly two decades was one of two bookends placed around the rise of Iran.

The other has been a war waged in the Middle East by the US and its allies against Iraq beginning in 2003 and spreading to Syria and Yemen by 2011.

Despite the numerous proxy wars Washington is waging against Tehran, US policymakers had determined years ago the necessity to justify a wider and more direct confrontation with Tehran itself.

A Conspiracy to Offer Then Sabotage an Iran Peace Deal is Stated US Policy 

Far from conjecture, plans by US policymakers have been documented and are available freely to the public from among the various corporate-financier funded policy think tanks that produce US foreign and domestic policy.

Prominent among these is the Brookings Institution whose corporate-financier sponsors include arms manufacturers Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon, energy giants Exxon Mobil, BP, Aramco, and Chevron, and financiers including Bank of America, Citi, and numerous advisers and trustees provided by Goldman Sachs.

In their 2009 paper, “Which Path to Persia?: Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF), Brookings policymakers would first admit the complications of US-led military aggression against Iran (emphasis added):

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. 

The paper then lays out how the US could appear to the world as a peacemaker and depict Iran’s betrayal of a “very good deal” as the pretext for an otherwise reluctant US military response (emphasis added):

The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offerone so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

And from 2009 onward, this is precisely what the United States set out to achieve. First with US President Barack Obama’s signing of the 2015 JCPOA, up to and including current US President Donald Trump’s attempts to backtrack from it based on fabricated claims Iran failed to honor the agreement.

America’s Clumsy Warmongering 

Perhaps unbeknownst to Brookings policymakers in 2009 was the eventuality of Western propaganda unraveling in the face of growing opposition in the form of both national and alternative media organizations.

Today, attempts to cite “chemical weapons attacks” and recycle 2003 “weapons of mass destruction” narratives to fan the flames of America’s multiple and perpetual global conflicts are failing to persuade increasingly skeptical audiences.

The “game” – as Brookings policymakers called their attempts to covertly provoke war with Iran in their 2009 paper – they had hoped to hide from public view, is now exposed – dissected and displayed by independent analysts and national media organizations with unprecedented reach into global audiences once solely dominated by Western propaganda.

This has forced the West to proceed out in the open, with increasingly desperate public ploys to sell this exposed agenda.

During Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s April 30th press conference regarding “evidence” that Iran was still pursuing a nuclear weapons program, his presentation had barely concluded before it was picked apart and exposed as little more than a poorly conceived charade designed to undermine the “Iran nuclear deal.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s presentation was so anemic that even Israel’s Haaretz newspaper featured editorials with headlines like, “Netanyahu and His Lonely War on the Iran Nuclear Deal.”

Yet despite the lack of public support, the momentum toward war with Iran is of titanic dimensions. It is a war that has been engineered for years, spanning multiple US presidencies. It involves peripheral conflicts including the wars in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria used to stage US troops and equipment ahead of a future war with Iran itself.

The entire “Iran Nuclear Deal” was conceived, promoted, and then intentionally sabotaged at the cost of years of propaganda and public displays as well as both public and behind-the-scenes diplomatic maneuvering.

The supporting, arming, and training of Persian Gulf state armies in preparation for conflict with Iran has also been ongoing for years.

That the US currently lacks a legitimate pretext to not only betray the JCPOA, but to pursue further sanctions, provocations, and eventually war with Iran will not stop the US from trying – or having a sufficiently self-demonized Israel try on Washington’s behalf.

Managing America’s Dangerously Derailed Agenda

Israel’s growing role in provoking both Iran and Syria is a signal of US desperation. Brookings and other analysts both for and against US aggression toward Iran note that Israel itself is incapable of toppling the governments residing in either Damascus or Tehran. Israel’s role instead is to provoke a conflict and retaliation – or even stage what appears to be Syrian or Iranian retaliation – to then draw in the United States who may be capable of toppling either or both governments.

Russia’s presence in Syria from 2015 onward has greatly complicated even this plan – which was written out in great detail in Brookings’ 2009 policy paper. Brookings policymakers seemed to have laid out a plan that was clearly put in motion – but a plan that never considered the possibility of Russia intervening directly in the Middle East and placing itself between both Syria and Iran and nearly two decades of US regime change across the region.

America’s clumsy warmongering represents an agenda with massive momentum that has jumped the proverbial tracks and through its mass and speed alone continues traveling forward.

For Syria, Iran, and all other nations sure to be targeted next should either or both nations fall to US military aggression and global hegemony – managing America’s derailed agenda and minimizing the damage it causes while gradually grinding it to a halt will require patience, persistence, and unfortunately many years more of conflict, chaos, and loss of life.

That the US is pursuing a similar agenda through similar means in Eastern Europe vis-a-vis Russia and in Asia Pacific vis-a-vis China will jeopardize global peace and stability for years to come.

Preventing the US from sparking a wider conflict in the Middle East or through more patient and persistent means achieve its goals by partitioning territory and perpetuating bloodshed – will be key to undermining its efforts in Eastern Europe and Asia Pacific, as well as transitioning away from a Washington-dominated unipolar world order, toward a greater balance of global multipolar power.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Trump Withdraws from Iran Nuclear Deal

May 9th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

There’s nothing “horrible” about the JCPOA deal, plenty awful about Trump pulling out.

His deplorable action came as expected – added proof that Washington can never be trusted.

Dealing with whatever regime is in power is hazardous, a lesson learned repeatedly over time, Tuesday the latest example – a day that will live in infamy like many others in US history.

World geopolitical conditions are now more precarious and hazardous than before – more unstable, risking US-led naked aggression against Iran, depending on how events unfold.

Trump’s withdrawal had nothing to do with “prevent(ing) an Iranian nuclear bomb,” as he falsely claimed – everything to do with escalating political and economic war on the Islamic Republic by reimposing nuclear-related sanctions, new ones to come, notably targeting its energy, petrochemical and financial sectors.

Trump lied saying the JCPOA “allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium and over time reach the brink of a nuclear breakout.”

He lied again claiming

“we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie.”

In its annual assessments of Iran, Washington’s intelligence community cites no evidence of a military component in Tehran’s nuclear program – or anything suggest it seeks one.

Ten IAEA inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities affirmed full JCPOA compliance, the Islamic Republic fully cooperative with agency monitors.

US and Israeli accusations about the deal giving Iran billions of dollars for terrorist related activities is a bald-faced lie.

So was Trump saying withdrawal protects America from a bad deal. Just the opposite is true.

So-called “malign” Iranian behavior refers to helping Assad combat US-supported terrorists in Syria, along with its diplomatic relations with predominantly Shia Iraq, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and other regional governments – legitimate behavior, nothing “malign” about it.

Trump saying he’ll impose the highest level of sanctions on Iran is bad news for world peace and stability if EU nations and their enterprises observe them.

P5+1 nations vowing to stick with the JCPOA despite Trump’s withdrawal is meaningless unless they publicly reject new US sanctions on Iran, refusing to observe them, along with enterprises in their countries continuing normal business activities with the Islamic Republic.

The same goes for at least most other key nations in Europe and the world community – what’s highly unlikely to happen.

Rejecting Trump’s action and others to come against Iran is the only way to neutralize illegal US sanctions, rendering them ineffective, maintaining the JCPOA as an international treaty.

Following Trump’s Tuesday announcement, Britain, France, Germany, and EU political chief Mogherini expressed strong support for the JCPOA, saying nothing about refusing to observe new US sanctions surely coming.

What’s most important they’ve been silent on so far, appearing to want things both ways – sticking with the JCPOA while letting Washington kill it by signaling likely compliance with reimposed US nuclear related sanctions and more surely to come by the Trump administration and Congress.

The lesson for Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, other sovereign independent nations, and rest of the world community is clear.

Dealing with Washington diplomatically is fruitless, counterproductive, and hazardous to nations pursuing this course with a nation bent on world conquest and dominance – wars of aggression, color revolutions, political assassinations, and double-dealing its favored strategies.

Trump is the latest in a long line of US leaders pursuing its destructive imperial agenda – begun during the earliest days of the republic, continuing today with super-weapons in the hands of warlords willing to use them against any nation challenging its hegemonic aims.

Today is the 73rd anniversary of Soviet Russia’s Great Patriotic War triumph over Nazi Germany – over 25 million of its soldiers and civilians lost in the epic struggle.

Another global war could doom us all, things ominously heading in this direction if forceful enough action isn’t taken to prevent it.

Trump’s disgraceful JCPOA withdrawal represents a shot across the bow for what’s likely to come – a threat to world peace too great to ignore.

*

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

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

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

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

Featured image is from The Intercept.

After the tragedy of 9/11, the question of the U.S. military response to win the “War on Terror” in the Middle East and beyond was publicly discussed and justified by the elite in Washington. After the occupation of Afghanistan in 2001; the warmongers in the Bush administration -based on the fake documents- argued that if we don’t take out Saddam now, we will face the “Mushroom Cloud” later. They were confident that fearful Americans will support their military aggression. On March 19, 2003, the U.S. launched its “Shock and Awe” bombing campaign and killed innocent Iraqi civilians, occupied that country but was not able to show any trace of WMD or an active nuclear program in Iraq.

Prior to the Iraq war, millions in the U.S. and around the world courageously took to the street and opposed the invasion of Iraq; but at the same time, the majority of American people silently stayed home and hoped the “terrorists” would be defeated soon by the U.S. military might. The invasion of Iraq simply failed. The war on terror created chaos and Iraq became the cradle of new terrorist groups. The U.S. invasion of Iraq did not “FREE” Iraqis, but it opened the eyes of millions in the U.S. and around the world to the barbaric nature of the U.S. military and its ruthless generals on the field and the hypocrite politicians/warmongers in the White House and Congress. The glory of “Operation Enduring Freedom” was tarred with the horrifying and torturous pictures of the abusive American soldiers and their Iraqi victims in the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Meanwhile in the U.S., in the absence of a massive antiwar movement, an antiwar sentiment started to grow. Public opinion turned against all wars as it did during the Vietnam War.

The antiwar sentiment among the working people who were concerned about their own problems; job security, healthcare and decent schools for their children forced the U.S. to adopt new ways of military intervention. A “don’t tell” strategy which is hidden from the public was adopted and practiced by Pentagon. The ongoing drone strikes against “enemies” in Northern Pakistan or Somalia by the order of President Drone Obama became normal and daily operations.

In March 2011, Mrs. Clinton as the Secretary of State told NATO allies that the U.S. mission in Libya is “to enforce the no-fly zone and protect civilians”. She convinced the Obama administration to bomb Libya back to the dark ages from the air without the need of having American boots on the ground except for a few CIA operatives and military advisors. In Syria, the administration unable to conduct a direct military intervention for regime change supported all kinds of shady anti-Assad “rebel” groups with close ties to the remnants of Al-Qaeda terrorist groups.

From the start the Trump administration left the military decisions to the military men in Pentagon. Mr. Trump, the new commander in chief, surrounded himself with the generals and proudly ceded the decision-making of America’s wars to them. Indeed the generals and the Pentagon took this opportunity and secretly expanded their military involvement in Yemen. The generals plainly told the lawmakers that you have no authority to question the Commander in Chief’s determination and U.S. involvement in the conflict! The excellent article “Pentagon to Congress: You Can’t Stop Us from Fueling Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen” by Project on Government Oversight (POGO) points out “The Pentagon’s claim that Congress lacks the power to limit U.S. involvement in the Yemeni civil war is an even more serious encroachment on Congress’s constitutional authority over the military.” Timothy Guzman on the Global Research site (April 19, 2017) wrote:

“Trump’s Defense Secretary James ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis signaled to Saudi Arabia that the U.S. is seriously considering a deeper role into the Saudi-Yemen conflict that has devastated the poorest country in the Middle East since the war began in 2015. Mattis made his first trip to Saudi Arabia as the Defense Secretary and of course, mentioned Iran’s ‘alleged role’ by supplying missiles to the Houthis and how innocent people were being killed.”

Now in 2018, the U.S. Special Forces are operating secretively on the ground in Yemen and turning the Saudis’ war into an American war. The NYT Editorial board on May 3, 2018, informed its readers that

“In the latest expansion of America’s secret wars, about a dozen Army commandos have been on Saudi Arabia’s border with Yemen since late last year, according to an exclusive report by The Times. The commandos are helping to locate and destroy missiles and launch sites used by indigenous Houthi rebels in Yemen to attack Saudi cities.”

Today in Yemen, General Mad Dog Mattis’ dream in conducting a perfect War Crime has come true. This new condition gives the warmongers in the military and General Mattis the opportunity to set the stage confronting Iran militarily without authorization from Congress.

“At Mattis’s request,” writes Dexter Filkins in New Yorker “theatre commanders in Yemen and Somalia are now empowered to launch some strikes without permission from the White House.”

In the same lengthy article describing General Mattis, back in 2003 in Iraq, he also wrote:

“In a Marine base in Falluja, I saw a poster on the wall quoting Mattis’s advice on how to succeed in Iraq: ‘Be polite, be professional, but always have a plan to kill everyone you meet.’”

Apparently, the U.N. report of the death of 10,000 people in Yemen since 2015 is not enough for the generals and Pentagon. They are not concerned about Mark Lowcock -the head of the UN office for the coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)- warning that people in war-torn Yemen are facing a situation that “looks like the Apocalypse”.

On the contrary, for the warmongers who are obsessed with turning Iran back to the situation pre-1979 revolution, a strong foothold in Yemen is an ideal military plan. On Saturday (5/5/2018) Al Jazeera reported that

“The UAE has occupied the airport and seaport of Socotra island, despite the Yemeni government’s presence there. What the UAE is doing in Socotra is an act of aggression, the official told Al Jazeera.”

The escalation of war secretly in Yemen makes the prospect of a catastrophic regional war more real and imminent. With the recent victory toward a peaceful Korean peninsula; gaining political ground by Hezbollah in national elections in Lebanon and the defeat of anti-Assad groups backed by the U.S. in Syria leaves Yemen the last battleground for war against Iran. Therefore Yemen should be the main focus of peace activists around the world not only to respond to the dire humanitarian crisis but also to end the overt and covert military operations and relentless bombing of none military targets, residential areas, schools and hospitals by the powerful military forces in that country.

As President Trump in justification to withdraw from JCPOA agreement (Iran Deal) gave an even more distorted history of Iran Nuclear program than Mr. Netanyahu disastrous presentation a few days ago, the world once again witnessed the isolated and weak U.S. administration. In short Mr. Trump’s announcement was a diplomatic fluff! It was an isolated act that would not deter E.U. of continuing economic relation with Iran. Talk of more sanctions would not make the U.S. stronger in the Middle East. The U.S. can only rely on its military might to confront Iran and an occupied Yemen is a preferable scenario.

It is imperative for the democratic minded people and peace activists to expose the secret and unauthorized U.S. military operations in Yemen which could become the springboard for a global war.

U.S. OUT OF YEMEN NOW!

*

Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author.

Actors Allegedly Paid to Support New Orleans Power Plant

May 9th, 2018 by Tsvetana Paraskova

Actors have been hired and paid to sit through public hearings for a proposed power plant in New Orleans, The Lens reports, citing interviews with some of the actors and screenshots of Facebook messages about the acting gig.

According to the website, some 50 people with bright orange T-shirts turned up at the City Hall last October at a public hearing on Entergy’s proposed power plant in New Orleans. At least four people were hired actors, and one actor said that he recognized up to 15 others who work in the local film industry.

Each of the actors was paid $60 per meeting for meetings between October and February, according to Facebook messages provided to The Lens. There were also ‘speaking roles’ for the actors that paid $200.

Three of the actors agreed to talk to The Lens and provide evidence that there were being paid in cash to show support for the power plant. Actors were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, told not to speak to media, and were told not to tell anyone that they were being paid to go to the public hearings.

The practice to hire paid support for something to make it look authentic, known as astroturfing, is not technically illegal.

“They paid us to sit through the meeting and clap every time someone said something against wind and solar power,” Keith Keough, who heard about the acting job through a friend, told The Lens, adding that he thought he would be shooting a commercial.

“I’m not political,” Keough said. “I needed the money for a hotel room at that point.”

In March this year, the New Orleans City Council voted to approve construction of the New Orleans Power Station, a 128-megawatt unit composed of seven natural gas-fired reciprocating engines. The plant is scheduled to come online in January 2020 and is estimated to cost around US$210 million to build, including transmission and other project-related costs and contingency.

Referring to the report that actors were paid to support the power plant, Entergy said in a statement to Newsweek:

“The recent allegations that some supporters of the New Orleans Power Station may have been paid to attend or speak at certain public meetings are troubling and run counter to the values of our company.”

“While we reiterate that Entergy did not pay, nor did we authorize any other person or entity to pay supporters to attend or speak at Council meetings, we recognize that our interactions with our stakeholders must always be based on honesty and integrity.”

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

It was foolhardy to expect positive change under his leadership. Whoever heard of a billionaire good guy, amassing wealth the old-fashioned way.

So far in office, he exceeded the recklessness and indifference to lawful governance of his predecessors domestically and geopolitically.

He matched Star Trek, going beyond where earlier administrations went before, exceeding the ruthlessness and indifference to the general welfare of his predecessors.

Instead of draining the swamp, he filled it with neocon warmakers, crooked billionaires and Wall Street predators.

His making America great again scam is only for the privileged few, no others. He broke every lofty promise made, showing contempt for world peace, rule of law principles, democratic values and ordinary people everywhere.

The myth of an anti-establishment candidate vanished straightaway after he took office.

As commander-in-chief of the nation’s military, he continued US wars of aggression he inherited, escalated them with likely new countries in mind to attack.

Instead of improving relations with Russia, China, Iran and other sovereign independent countries, they’re more dismal than ever.

At 2:00 PM Tuesday in Washington, he’s expected to announce US withdrawal from Iran nuclear, according to the NYT, citing unnamed European diplomats.

One said there’s a “very small” chance for America remaining in the JCPOA. It’s “pretty obvious” he’ll reimpose nuclear-related sanctions, an attempt to kill it.

Replacing Tillerson at State with Pompeo and McMaster as national security advisor with Bolton (two militant Iranophobes) signaled his imminent move – the latest black mark on his deplorable record.

Washington targets Venezuela for regime change because of its sovereign independent social democracy, anathema to US policymakers.

On Monday, Mike Pence announced new (illegal) US sanctions on three more Venezuelans – turning truth on its head calling them “narcotics kingpins.”

Twenty companies associated with the targeted individuals in Venezuela and Panama were also sanctioned. Washington uses illegally imposed sanctions as weapons of economic war – against nations and individuals refusing to bow to its will.

Right-wing extremist Pence also called for postponing Venezuela’s May 20 presidential election, outrageously saying

“(t)here will be no real election in Venezuela on May 20, and the world knows it,” adding:

“It will be a fake election with a fake outcome. Suspend this sham election. Hold real elections. Give the people of Venezuela real choices – because the Venezuelan people deserve to live in democracy once again.”

Democracy in America is pure fantasy. Venezuelans have the real thing, the world’s most open, free and fair process, shaming US money-controlled elections – one party rule with two right wings, at war on humanity, including against its own citizens.

Venezuela’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement, saying

Washington “launched erratic maneuvers, typical of the arrogance and despair of imperialist politics, after having failed once and again in the face of the will of a free and independent people.”

Last week during a pre-election rally, Maduro said

“(s)o they’re not going to recognize” him as Venezuela’s legitimate president if reelected as expected, adding “(w)hat the hell do I care what Europe and Washington say?”

He’s running against Chavista turncoat Henri Falcon and businessman/evangelical pastor Javier Bertucci – linked to the Panama Papers tax haven scandal by an International Consortium of Investigative Journalists probe into his affairs.

The Trump administration vowed not to recognize election results if Maduro wins as expected – maybe planning another coup d’etat attempt to depose him with neocon extremists Bolton and Pompeo in charge of geopolitical policymaking.

*

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump’s White House default on the politically vital Iran deal, that was so painstakingly negotiated in conjunction with Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China in order to preserve world peace, has been done on the instructions of, and for the sole benefit, of the state of Israel. And to the specific detriment of Europe and the Middle East.

Israel, of course, will not be content merely in the abrogation of the Iran deal.  The second stage of their strategy is to persuade the US to attack Iran with the consequent loss of American military lives, and others, that such an attack will inevitably entail.

Israel itself is already a powerful, albeit undeclared, nuclear power with up to 400 undisclosed nuclear warheads concealed in subterranean arsenals in the Negev desert and in sites between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.  There may also possibly be chemical or biological WMD because Israel is not a party to either the Chemical or Biological Weapons Conventions that have been subscribed to by the rest of the world.

The detrimental and far-reaching impact of this US-Israeli decision to renege on the internationally agreed nuclear deal with Iran are incalculable. The immediate effect will be to drive a wedge between Europe and the US and this will affect, inter alia, NATO defence systems including American cruise missiles based in Germany and elsewhere.

It is clear that this momentous decision is the worst, by any yardstick, that this US President has made to date. It is clearly the inevitable result of the position of POTUS being held by a profit-seeking, commercial property developer and his family, instead of an experienced leader, politician and diplomat with a proven track record in government.

All we know now, for sure, is that the future for world peace is highly uncertain.

*

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

The new US National Security Advisor John Bolton controversially advocated the so-called “Libyan model” for North Korea’s denuclearization.

While he was indeed speaking about the technical aspect of this example in having the North African country completely surrender all of its nuclear-related capabilities, others are interpreting it differently and almost as a Freudian slip given that it was precisely because of Tripoli’s sincere adherence to this model that it was defenseless in deterring the NATO-led war that ultimately led to its destruction in 2011. On the surface, it makes one question why any country, let alone North Korea (whose media specifically said right after the beginning of the NATO campaign that Libya should have kept its nuclear program), would ever follow that model, but then again there’s a lot speculatively going on behind the scenes that the public isn’t privy to.

The entire denuclearization process is such a sensitive one and full of face-saving moves by all sides that it’s unlikely that Bolton would recklessly jeopardize the process by speaking as boldly as he did without he and his “deep state” handlers being certain that it wouldn’t offend Kim to the point of pulling out of the talks for reasons of national dignity. The opposite is actually happening, and he’s instead welcoming American and other experts to observe the decommissioning of his country’s mountainous nuclear test site later this month and even invite the media to report on the entire process. Furthermore, all of this is going ahead despite a South Korean presidential advisor saying last week that North Korea wants “American investment…sponsors, and multinational consortiums” coming to the country, which the man predicted could eventually lead to McDonalds and even a Trump Tower opening up in the former so-called “Hermit Kingdom”.

Again, despite the obvious sensitivity of this issue and North Korea’s history of strongly responding to those types of remarks, the denuclearization process is continuing unabated. It’s all the more remarkable then that a South Korean official quoted Kim as saying that

“if we meet often and build trust with the United States, and if an end to the war and nonaggression are promised, why would we live in difficulty with nuclear weapons?”

For all intents and purposes, North Korea has reversed its previous position and is now willingly – and one could even say, eagerly – doing exactly what Libya once did, especially in regard to surrendering its tangible deterrence capacities in exchange for simple promises that don’t remove the regional threat posed by American forces.

It can only be conjectured at this point why Pyongyang is doing this and whether it’s related to the reported collapse of its mountainous nuclear test site that some rumors allege might have been destroyed by a new type of American weapon, but conventional analyses point to China’s active participation in the latest UNSC sanctions regime against North Korea as being one of the prime catalysts for Kim’s nuclear backtracking. The communist country might fear that it’ll eventually collapse without the sanctions relief that only denuclearization can provide at this point, and that its future will be much brighter if it embraces its pivotal transit role in facilitating the construction of a multimodal Russian-Chinese “Korean Corridor” and courts international expertise to develop its prospective $6-10 trillion rare earth mineral deposits.

Therefore, it’s because of these strategic reasons – both due to international pressure & its own prerogative as well as a mix of fact & speculation – why North Korea is surprisingly following in Libya’s footsteps, though it remains to be seen whether this risky gamble will ultimately lead to a different outcome.

*

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.

Russia’s 21st-century grand strategy is all about becoming the supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia through the skillful diplomatic management of the hemisphere’s multiple conflicts, though the greatest danger to this vision comes not from the US’ Hybrid Wars, but from Russia itself if its diplomatic and expert community representatives don’t rise to the occasion in properly explaining this strategy to the masses.

Russia seems to have become one of the favorite topics nowadays of anyone who’s even remotely interested in international politics, and apparently everyone has an opinion about the country’s grand strategy. Those inclined to believe the Western Mainstream Media usually hold one of two contradictory positions in mistakenly believing that Russia is either hell-bent on militarily conquering the world or is just a few years from an all-out collapse as a result of systemic mismanagement at home. On the other hand, many followers of Alt-Media wrongly think that Russia has a self-appointed mission to save the world from American-led unipolarity in all of its manifestations and that the 5-D chess grandmaster President Putin is flawlessly winning victory after victory. All three trains of thought unfortunately fail to account for the reality of Russia’s grand strategy, which can best be summarized as endeavoring to become the 21st-century’s supreme “balancing” force in Afro-Eurasia through the skillful diplomatic management of the hemisphere’s conflicts.

From The “Ummah Pivot” To The “Golden Ring”

This ambitious vision owes its origins to the “progressive” faction of the Russian “deep state” (its permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies) that courageously decided to throw off the Soviet shackles of the past and initiate game-changing rapprochements with non-traditional partners such as Turkey, Saudi ArabiaAzerbaijan, and Pakistan in what can colloquially be called the “Ummah Pivot”.  These foreign policy pioneers “filled in the (geographic) gap” that their predecessors left unattended to after they “bookended” Eurasia with their own post-Cold War rapprochements with Germany in the West and China in the East, so it makes sense that the time would eventually come for Russia to look South towards the Muslim-majority countries lining that part of the Eurasian Rimland. As all of this has been happening, China unveiled its One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity that provides the infrastructural basis for connecting these disparate geopolitical nodes together and building the structural foundation for the emerging Multipolar World Order.

Russia Iran Azerbaijan summit

Iran, Russia and Azerbaijan summit in Tehran in 2017

Having been rebuffed in Western Eurasia by the EU’s anti-Russian sanctions that Brussels was pressured by the US into implementing, Moscow “rebalanced” its hitherto European focus and diversified its diplomatic efforts through the “Ummah Pivot”, which has seen the creation of two new trilateral partnerships. The first one centers on Syria and concerns Russia, Turkey, and Iran, while the second one is all about Afghanistan and involves Russia, Pakistan, and China. The combined geostrategic potential of these five multipolar Great Powers “circling the wagons” to protect the Eurasian supercontinental core is the “Golden Ring”, which represents the ultimate integrational objective of the 21st-century and would symbolize the institutional union of many of the Eastern Hemisphere’s most important continental powers. Of the highest strategic significance, the fulfillment of the Golden Circle would allow its members to trade with one another via forthcoming overland Silk Road routes that crucially avoid the US Navy’s dominance along the Eurasian Rimland.

Peripheral Problems

Nevertheless, the supercontinental maritime periphery is still very important because of China’s dependence on sea routes for trading with Africa, whose future is intertwined with the People’s Republic because the latter absolutely needs the continent to become robust enough of a developed market to purchase the country’s overproduced goods. Beijing’s greatest competitors in the Afro-Pacific space are Washington and its “Lead From Behind” coalition of the “Quad”, which have unveiled the so-called “Asia-Africa Growth Corridor” (AAGC) to counter the New Silk Road. Making everything all the more tense, China and the other four Golden Circle Great Powers need to prepare themselves for responding to externally provoked identity conflicts in the Silk Road’s geostrategic transit states (Hybrid Wars), and while the Eurasia Core can more or less count on multilateral solutions to these challenges via the SCO or any other related structure, Africa has no such security options.

China is therefore compelled to build up the military capacities of its Silk Road partners there and potentially even deploy its aircraft carriers along the coast in the worst-case scenario to “Lead From Behind” in assisting the locals in their counter-Hybrid War campaigns, but it’s interestingly at this point where Russia could play a pivotal role in restoring stability to Africa. Moscow is already experimenting with a new policy of using “mercenaries” to support the internationally recognized but fledgling government of the Central African Republic in its quest to reclaim the civil war-torn country from the myriad bands of militants that are occupying the vast majority of it, and the success of Russia’s version of its own “Lead From Behind” strategy would be the “proof of concept” needed to convince the rest of Africa and China that Moscow could provide much-needed security services in protecting their Silk Road projects.

The African Angle

As was explained in the hyperlinked analysis above, Russia’s involvement in African conflict resolution processes could expand from the initial military phase to a secondary diplomatic one in making Moscow a key player in any forthcoming political settlements there, provided of course that its national companies can be guaranteed privileged access to the said nation’s marketplace and resources. This win-win tradeoff could appeal to African elites and their Chinese partners alike, both of which don’t have the combat or diplomatic experience that Russia has earned through its anti-terrorist campaign in Syria and attendant Astana peace process to handle the coming Hybrid War challenges ahead. So long as Russia exercises prudence and avoids getting caught in any potential quagmires, then it can continue to “do more with less” in “cleaning up” the many messes that are predicted to be made all across Africa in the coming future.

Together with the military dimension of this “balancing” strategy comes its traditional diplomatic one, which Russia is already practicing to a degree with China’s Indo-Japanese rivals. The reinforcement and betterment of bilateral relations with each of these American-aligned Great Powers is to both Russia and even China’s advantage because it could allow Moscow to exercise “moderating” influence on each of them in the event that the US succeeds in getting them to provoke a crisis with Beijing. Taking it even further, though, Russia should explore opportunities to become a full-fledged member of the AAGC in order to “piggyback” off of these two much more entrepreneurial countries’ progress in Africa, especially when considering that China isn’t helping Russia gain access to this marketplace (though that could change if it becomes Beijing’s strategic security partner in the continent). “Balancing” between the two economic “blocs” would be to Russia’s premier advantage, and it could even yield benefits for its underdeveloped Far East and Arctic regions.

Strategic Review

Reviewing the grand strategy that’s been expounded upon thus far, Europe’s rejection of Russia as a result of American pressure motivated Moscow to commence the “Ummah Pivot” in solidifying the Eurasian Core through two interlinked trilateral partnerships that collectively form the basis of the Golden Ring Great Power nexus. By leveraging its centralized position in Eurasia, Russia aims to become the irreplaceable transit state for most continental connectivity ventures as well as the neutral “balancer” for constructively resolving the Hybrid War chaos that the US has wrought all across the landmass, thereby flexing both economic and diplomatic muscle through this strategy. Moving beyond the Eurasian Core and into the Rimland, Russia’s multi-vectored relationships with India and Japan can skillfully be put to use to acquire a market presence in Africa that would complement its unofficial military one via “mercenaries” and thereby allow it have a chance at “balancing” that continent’s affairs too.

No Narrative, No Chance

For as nifty as this approach may sound, there’s a lot of risk inherent in it, particularly when it comes to American-encouraged Hybrid Wars in the Eurasian Heartland and divide-and-rule infowar operations designed to break the Golden Ring, but these can still be managed on the state-to-state level with enough multilateral coordination and trust. More difficult to handle, however, are the consequences of Russia’s soft power “shortcomings” in traditionally “failing” to properly explain its “balancing” strategy to the masses, thereby leading to discontent and confusion that in turn provides a fertile environment for devious US-backed NGO operations aimed at sowing discord between the society and their elites. Russia assuredly communicates its “balancing” intentions to each of its “deep state” counterparts, just as it has a history of doing, but the Russian Federation hasn’t been able to match the USSR when it comes to getting its message across to average folks in each of those countries.

Armenia protests

Armenian protests, Velvet Revolution, April 2018

Armenia is a perfect example of what went wrong with Russia’s soft power strategy and deserves to be concisely analyzed as a case study. Russia’s “military diplomacy” of preserving the regional balance of power by selling arms to both Armenia and its neighboring foe Azerbaijan is a sound strategy in the geopolitical sense but a risky one when it comes to Russia’s image in the minds of each of its partners’ populations. Azerbaijanis don’t mind much since Russia was regarded as previously being closer to their enemy until recently, but the Armenians were understandably upset when they learned that their CSTO mutual defense ally was arming their adversary. Even if the majority of its citizens wouldn’t ever “come around” to seeing Russia’s side of this situation, Moscow could have at least invested enough soft power resources and effort in trying to explain its grand strategic intentions in this situation, but it didn’t and this in turn fueled Pashinyan’s “protest” movement against the ruling Armenian authorities.

It’s not just Armenia either, but many of Russia’s traditional partners are uneasy over its newfound “balancing” relations with their historic rivals. The Serbian, Syrian, Iranian, and Indian publics would rather that Russia didn’t cooperate so closely with Croatia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, but seeing as how it already is, the “least” that Moscow could do, many of them feel, is try to explain to them why this is occurring even if they don’t ultimately end up agreeing with it. Unfortunately, that’s not happening, at all, and the consequences of this soft power “ineptitude” is that people are losing trust in Russia. Instead of having a chance to consider it as being a skillful player on the “19th-Century Great Power Chessboard” in “balancing” everything and therefore counteracting the destabilizing effects of American foreign policy, the country is coming off as overly “self-interested”, “untrustworthy”, and superficially “no different from the US”.

Global Risks

Russian strategists and policymakers are indeed adhering to a Neo-Realist paradigm of International Relations, but their country’s grand interest in maintaining stability in Afro-Eurasia and consequently securing the New Silk Roads that are expected to form the foundation of the emerging Multipolar World Order fully overlap with each of its partners’, though all of them should accept that each party must “compromise” on something or another in order to reach the Moscow-mediated “deals” for bringing this win-win future about. This “inconvenient” reality might not be popular among their publics but it’s nevertheless what has to happen in order for Russia’s model to succeed, though the actual problem arises when people aren’t made aware of any of this by their leaders and then all of a sudden hear on the news or come across rumors (whether true or not) that their country might be on the verge of “sacrificing” something dear to them.

Had the proper “preconditioning” and “perception management” been implemented prior to this happening, then the potential for the US or other hostile third parties to exploit this sentiment in stirring unrest like they did in Armenia after Russia’s repeated weapons deals with Azerbaijan would be a lot less because there’d at least be a “constructive” narrative already available to counter the newly created destructive one that’s been weaponized by Moscow’s foes. Regrettably, because Russia prefers to deal mostly with its partners’ “deep states” when it comes to these issues and tends to “neglect” public opinion in those countries, this soft power vulnerability is now present all across Afro-Eurasia and waiting to be exploited by the US, which wields considerably stronger sway in “winning hearts and minds” on the local level, even if it has to rely on indirect (NGO) means to do so. Russia’s partners, especially those with nominally “democratic” systems, are therefore at risk of being “blackmailed” by demagogic mobs.

Concluding Thoughts

It can’t be stressed how important it is for Russia’s grand strategic vision of “balancing” Afro-Eurasian affairs to be clearly expressed by its diplomatic and expert community representatives in order to prevent the US from weaponizing “public pressure” against it inside of each of its partners’ societies. Sensitive issues such as arms shipments to both Armenia and Azerbaijan or cooperating with Turkey in northern Syria need to be discussed at the local level and not just with each traditional partner’s “deep state” so as to retain public trust in Moscow’s international measures by making at least some degree of effort in trying to explain these policies to the masses. The lack of any narrative whatsoever from the Russian side in these regards leads to an informational void that is quickly filled by the US and its unipolar allies, which endangers the long-term sustainability of Moscow’s “balancing” efforts because of the risk that its partners might cave to externally manipulated “public pressure” (Color Revolutions).

For as ambitious as it sounds, it’s certainly possible for Russia to pull off its strategy in repairing the damage that the US made all across the hemisphere (especially in its non-European quarters), but only so long as there are equal measures of “deep state” and public trust in its initiatives. Nobody, let alone average folks, should ever be under any false impressions about Russia’s motives in doing this, which are first and foremost to secure its own interests but also overlap with the primary ones of each of its many partners when it comes to the general goal of advancing multipolarity, but false expectations about Moscow’s “commitment” to them will only lead to a sense of disappointment with time which will inevitably be capitalized upon by its American adversary. Along the same lines, having no understanding whatsoever of what Russia is up to is equally dangerous because it could also result in the same disruptive outcome.

Therefore, Russia needs to prioritize its soft power outreaches and must urgently make attempts through its diplomatic and expert community representatives to communicate its “balancing” intentions beyond its partners’ “deep states” and directly to their people. Regular citizens must be made aware of Russia’s global vision so as not to be as easily manipulated by America through the exploitation of the existing narrative void and/or their false hopes that wishfully arise from it, though it must nevertheless be accepted that not everyone will agree with Moscow’s “balancing” means regardless of its intentions. That’s perfectly alright because the importance is in making the narrative known so that subsequent soft power efforts can be invested in promoting it among the public, which is why the first step must immediately be undertaken in making people aware of this message to begin with so that follow-up plans can be implemented for advancing it in the future and strengthening this grand strategic vision at all levels of Afro-Eurasian society.

*

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.

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

America’s Word Is Worthless

May 9th, 2018 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

We can now dismiss all hope that Trump’s campaign promises to pull out of Syria, normalize relations with Russia and stop the offshoring of American jobs will ever become US policies. By dishonoring the US government’s word and pulling out of the Iran nuclear non-proliferation agreement, an agreement signed by the US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and Iran, President Trump has revealed that his regime is totally in the hands of the Zionist warmongers.

It was already evident, but America’s renewal alone in the world of the fabricated conflict with Iran is proof that US foreign policy is in the hands of Israel. All you have to do is to watch Nikki Haley, US Ambassador to the UN, groveling at the feet of AIPAC, to watch US Secretary of State Pompeo groveling at the feet of Netanyahu, to see the glee all over the face of neoconservative Israeli agent John Bolton, the National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, from his realization that his conflict agenda with Iran has prevailed. Indeed the entire Trump regime are such dedicated grovelers at Israel’s feet that the Trump regime comes across as a barbaric tribe groveling before the King of Kings.

Washington’s major European vassals said that they will stick to the agreement. We will see if they can withstand the pressures and the sums of money that will be thrown at them to change their minds.

This means a new test for Russia. Can the Russian government stand the destabilization of Iran any more than it can the destabilization of Syria? Can Russia again muster the determination to protect her southern flank?

One wonders if Trump’s ill-considered decision has finally taught Putin, Lavrov and the Atlanticist Integrationists who have for so long resisted reality that the agreements that they so desperately want to make with Washington are completely worthless before they even make them.

Will Russia finally wake up and stop inviting more dangerous situations by her extraordinary indecisiveness? If Putin doesn’t put his foot down, he is going to get us all killed.

*

This article was originally published on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Weber Shandwick.


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

In what can only be considered a staggering loss for western influence in Lebanon, Hizbullah doubled its seats in the new Lebanese parliament as a result of the first election in nine years…and its own, far too obvious, attempt to influence the result.

The desperation of Saad Hariri’s western backers had been shown by his image shadowing the many candidate’s campaign poster images whom he hoped would be part of his own new coalition, one that would have resulted in additional influence for him and the western backers he met with two weeks ago in Paris. This was exemplified by the vote-buying scandal- ignored by western media- designed to negate Hizbullah’s continued rise in influence.

In a political blunder of geopolitical importance, during the days leading up to this past Sunday’s Parliamentary election this supposedly secret vote buying (for as much as $2000 per vote) was anything but a secret in the minds of Lebanese voters as they went to the polls. The disgust of voters for this attempt to thwart their first move towards democracy after almost a decade served up a defeat that could see Hariri relegated to the dustbin of politics since many of the candidates he counted on were thrashed, losing more than a third of their existing seats, while Hizbullah doubled their seats to twenty-four and many their coalition partners also made strong gains. This means that, as predicted, the Hizbullah coalition will not only be a block to remaining western influence in the Parliament, this coalition will also now set the agenda and with their new majority have the ability to strongly influence the election of the three most important leaders: the President, Speaker of Parliament and Prime Minister- who will not likely be Hariri.

Trouble for Hariri began early on election morning when, by 2 PM, voter turn out was well below expectations at a paltry 24.7%. This led to impassioned television pleas from current president Michel Aoun asking Lebanon to get out and vote. In a subsequent tweet he wrote,

“I reiterate the call, if change and a new approach are what you want, you must exercise your right. You should not miss the opportunity given by the new law which grants everyone permission to access parliament.”

Processions of cars adorned with political party banners and flags began roaming the streets with bullhorns begging voters to come out, and their candidates began soliciting votes in front of the polling stations despite both being a violation of campaign rule 78. Kataeb Party leader and MP Sami Gemayel after casting his vote in Metn, told reporters afterwards that he was shocked at “candidates breaking the media blackout rule.” President of the Election Observation Committee, Judge Nadim Abdel Malek, next released a statement warning any media outlet that had breached the electoral silence in today’s vote that they will be referred to the Publications Court.

Hizbullah Election Support Workers in Beirut District 1

As has been the case in the lead up to the election, Hizbullah was playing it cool and by the rules. Their supporters are impassioned, well organized, pro- Lebanon down to their core and vote. Thus, the ongoing reports of low turn-out favoured their likely success. Hizbullah did not participate in election trickery, which is consistent with its eighteen-year rise in power that, among other factors has been bolstered by a consistent adherence to ethics as demanded by their Shia doctrine and its abhorrence of corruption. This doctrine has been the proper reflection of the demonstrative corruption and divisiveness of Hariri and the other non-Shia parties. After the widespread vote-buying scandal, voters were left with only two choices, don’t vote or vote against continued corruption. Neither choice favoured Hariri, hence the low turn-out and that his party, the Future Movement Party, went down in defeat.

Election Day Begins- Democracy Wins!

There were no serious incidents reported and problems were limited to long lines, accidentally switched ballot boxes, a lack of privacy in voting booths, lack of handicap access and help for the elderly, complaints that ballot cards were too large and that several politicians were violating Rule 78.  Popular Bloc leader Myriam Skaff held a news conference saying that Lebanese Forces Party supporters struck her car with bats and criticized the Internal Security Forces for not intervening when her car was attacked while she was in it, before the Lebanese army finally intervened. Al-Jadeed TV reported that the Lebanese Army pulled a man from his car after he tried to drive through a roadblock in Choueifat.

Chief Observer of the European Union’s Election Observation Mission Elena Valenciano said that the mission and its 131 observers across Lebanon had a “very positive” impression of the voting process in 98 percent of cases observed.

“The management of the voting process is happening normally and professionally,” Valenciano said.

Her comment, of course, failed to mention the voter fraud so much in everyone else’s minds. Free Patriotic Movement leader, parliamentary candidate and current foreign minister Gebran Bassil more accurately addressed this problem, stating, that there was a “financial brutality”  that was “focused on buying votes and the consciences of citizens, which is dangerous.” Bassil said his party was “clean.”

The Electoral Supervisory Committee released a statement denouncing violations of a government-ordered media blackout on electoral campaigns.

“Despite releasing continued statements and warnings during its direct observation of the media, it appears that some outlets are still violating the electoral media blackout and are not adhering to Article 78 of the electoral law,” the statement reads.

Article 78 prevents news outlets from reporting on campaigns during Election Day.

Despite low turn out, some district voting district locations were packed until closing time. Baalbeck-Hermel was given an additional 73 ballot boxes for multiple municipalities after the original allotted boxes filled up by 3:30 p.m. This led to Hezbollah Deputy head Sheikh Naim Qassem contacting the Interior Ministry overextending voting hours beyond original 7 p.m. closing time. This was denied for correct constitutional reasons, however, the compromise was to allow anyone still in line to enter the polling area before 7 PM and then vote after the doors were closed. This lead to the official close of the vote being at 8:08 PM.

At 10.32pm the Lebanese Interior Ministry revised its final turnout count in the election to 46.88. This was a disappointing turnout after nine years of anticipation and down from the previous election’s total of 55%.

What the Election Means for Lebanon

On Monday, the group’s leader Hassan Nasrallah spoke of a big political and electoral victory for the “Resistance,” saying that Hezbollah proved wrong any doubts about the support that it enjoys within its base.

The group’s Shia bloc of total Shia candidates emerged stronger than before. Shia dissent against Hezbollah and its allies in the Amal Movement in the south was so minimal that opposing candidates lists failed to reach the election threshold.

Besides increasing Shia representation in full, Hezbollah was able to expand its base in parliament, picking up seats for Sunni and Christian allies in Beirut and the Western Beqaa Valley.

“Hezbollah is the biggest winner in this election,” Kassem Kassir, author of the book Hezbollah between 1982 and 2016, told Middle East Eye.

He added that the party and its direct allies will end up with a 50 MP bloc of the 128, not including the past coalition loyalty President Michel Aoun’s lawmakers.

Prime Minister Saad Hariri’s Future Movement lost seats in several districts where it was previously unchallenged. His party shed a third of its previous share of parliament – down to 29 MPs.

In Tripoli, the Future Movement lost five of the district’s 11 seats to Sunni rivals and ex-prime minister Najib Mikati picked up four while Faisal Karameh, a former minister and the heir of a political dynasty in the north, was able to make it into parliament. Meanwhile, former justice minister Ashraf Rifi was soundly defeated in his hometown of Tripoli,  ending his quest to challenge Hariri for Sunni leadership.

The Nine Color Coded Parties and the Candidates for Beirut District 1

The right-wing Christian group, the Lebanese Forces (LF), is expected to expand its presence in the parliament from eight to 15 MPs, making it a major force in Christian politics. LF staunchly opposes Hezbollah and calls its weapons illegitimate, which is the height of political hypocrisy since this group operated as a brutal militia in the 1975-1990 civil war and was banned during the Syrian control of Lebanon until 2005.

With Aoun in the presidential palace, his Free Patriotic Party (FPM) looked to at least maintain its large bloc in parliament in support of the presidency. However, the FPM is set to lose a few of its 27 seats. Gebran Bassil, the foreign minister, Aoun’s son-in-law and FPM president, made it into parliament after two unsuccessful attempts in 2005 and 2009. Still, the FPM dropped seats in Mount Lebanon and the North, mostly because of proportional representation, and now it has to deal with stronger opposition from Geagea, who was vying for the presidency himself.

Independent candidates across Lebanon tried to challenge established political parties on Sunday, but they were almost completely unsuccessful which was a huge disappointment for the growing youth movement across Lebanon that detests sectarianism, patronage and corruption and largely due to the vote-buying scandal stayed home instead of vote. Nadia Shaarawi, the manager of the polling station, said that young people had largely stayed away.

“The young people don’t want to vote,” she said. “I know from my nieces and nephews, they are not happy with any politicians.”

Their message was only heard in the mostly Christian Beirut 1 district, where journalist Paula Yacoubian, one of the seventy independent candidates with the Kolomna Watani Party, made it to parliament as the only successful woman candidate of the eighty-six offerings.

Thumbs Up! For the First Election in Nine Years.

After the election had closed and the final tally was in, on Monday the interior minister Machnouk has hailed the election a “democratic festival”. At a press conference, Machnouk said all problems were swiftly addressed when brought to the attention of the ministry, which was substantially accurate.

Hizbullah leader, Hassan Nasrallah also dubbed the election an “accomplishment,” praising the government and President Aoun for its success.

The future of Lebanon is now firmly in the hands of those new parliamentarians who are sincere in their desire to see Lebanon prosper and bring their a new kind of future. One based on inclusion and peace. As they head off to change Lebanon, this election will keep in their minds, and in the minds of the western troika one lesson, a lesson that is sure to rise again in the next election and hopefully in new elections across the world…cheaters never prosper!

*

Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 150 in-depth articles over the past seven years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis that has led to multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, KXL Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out and many more. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author.

Withdrawal Symptoms: Trump and the Iran Nuclear Deal

May 9th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Hot on the heels of the Benjamin Netanyahu “nuclear archive” show supposedly revealing Iranian perfidy, US President Donald Trump added succour to the Israeli cause by promising to withdraw from the Iran Nuclear deal, more lengthily known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The JCPOA originally comprised various undertakings and actions on the part of the Obama administration: the rescinding of various executive orders imposing nuclear sanctions on Tehran (Executive Orders 13574, 13590, 13622 and 13645) and specific sections of Executive Order 13628.  To this laundry list were added persons and entities deemed Specially Designated Nationals and Foreign Sanction Evaders who were specifically de-listed.

Such measures caused discomfort to Congress, not least because of the JCPOA’s designation as a non-legally binding political agreement.  Doing so side-stepped the need for Congressional approval, though a rebuff came in the form of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, requiring the president to submit any nuclear agreement with Tehran to review by the legislators.  An oversight mechanism was thereby introduced.

Trump remained true to his vulgar form, calling the agreement “a horrible, one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made”.  Iran deserved special mention as being “the leading sponsor of state terror.  It exports dangerous missiles, fuels conflicts across the Middle East, and supports terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, and al Qaeda.” 

He also spoke in tones suggesting an alternate, disassociated reality.  Iran had been permitted “to continue enriching uranium and, over time, reach the brink of a nuclear breakout.”  Nor did the deal prove expansive enough, avoiding “other malign behaviour, including its sinister activities in Syria, Yemen, and other places around the world.”

The good offices of the US Treasury, along with other agencies, have been mobilised by Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum, with a promise that sanctions will be re-imposed on those industries exempted in the 2015 deal, specifically aircraft exports, precious metals, the purchase of US banknotes and the oil sector. 

As the US Department of Treasury explained,

“As soon as administratively feasible, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) expects to revoke, or amend, as appropriate, general and specific licenses issued in connection with the JCPOA.”  

Applicable sanctions will come into effect at the end of 90-day and 180-day wind down periods.

At times, the language from the department is colourfully off in its child-like morality.  

“The US government will continue to make aggressive use of its authorities to target Iran’s malign behaviour.”  

The president’s distinct vernacular is proving catching, and the bureaucrats are succumbing.

The Iran obsession has taken hold in the White House, and the hard talkers have evidently taken up residence beside Trump’s ear.  National Security Adviser John Bolton has been stumping the view that European companies doing business with Iran ought to cease within six months or face US sanctions. 

The president, explained Bolton in a press briefing, had made “a firm statement of American resolve to prevent not only Iran from getting nuclear weapons, but a ballistic missile delivery capability.  It limits its continuing support of terrorism and its causing instability and turmoil in the Middle East.”

Through his briefing, Bolton’s answers betrayed the carceral mentality that characterises his approach to international diplomacy, or whatever passes for it. Never give the other side an inch.  Dictate stances and refuse to abide by your own obligations. The “fundamentally flawed” agreement, he asserted, “does not prevent Iran from developing deliverable nuclear weapons. It allows Iran to continue technologies like uranium enrichment, reprocessing of plutonium.” The underlying sentiment here is that Iran should have nothing to do with anything remotely resembling the atom.

Washington’s allies had been attempting to reel Trump back with respective, and evidently ineffectual visits by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron. Macron’s warning to members of the US congress was fitted as part of a broader program of restraint: be aware of withdrawing from collectively hammered out agreements on security.

As with the climate change regime, those states left with the shambles of a clumsy US exit will stay the course. Federica Mogherini of the EU expressed the need to “preserve” the arrangements.  A joint statement from the UK, Germany and France emphasised “our continuing commitment to the JCPOA.”  The leaders noted the assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Tehran “continues to abide by the restrictions set out by the JCPOA, in line with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.  The world is a safer place as a result.”

This point of compliance has sailed over the heads of Trump’s circle of ravenous hawks, suggesting that such abidance is the problem.  The European angle on this has always been accommodating to the verification results of the IAEA.  As an official in the German Federal Foreign Office noted last year,

“We have no indication of Iran violating its JCPOA commitments.”

In Tehran, a proposal involving restoring enrichment capabilities clipped by the JCPOA is doing the rounds.

“I have ordered the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran,” explained Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, “to be ready for action if needed so that if necessary we can resume our enrichment on an industrial level without any limitations.”  

In a note of mild reassurance, Rouhani claimed that the agreement would still remain in place provided its “goals in cooperation with other members of the deal” could be achieved.

Hard line reactionary types the world over will be excited by Trump’s latest take on Iran.  The cards for war are being readied.  The obscurantist regime in Riyadh cheered with welcome that an arch rival had been railroaded.  Likewise that other fear monger, Israel.  Their desire has an obscene angle to it: to discourage Iran from non-proliferation, thereby setting up the premise for an attack that would confirm their fears.  Doing so will, in these demonic calculations, finally settle long, dog-eared scores.

*

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]


Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” 

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102
Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling)
PDF Edition:  $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)

Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.

Reviews

“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.”
John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.”
-Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction.
Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute   

WWIII Scenario

Revisiting “Love Serenade” in Australia

May 9th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Revisiting “Love Serenade” in Australia
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Confronting Global Agribusiness: Natural Farming Is the Future
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Greening of China’s Energy System Outpaces Its Further Blackening: A 2017 update

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Lebanese parliamentary elections didn’t turn out the way Washington and Israel wanted.

The May 6 general election was the first in nine years. Results were as follows:

Hezbollah and its allies won a 67-seat majority of parliament’s 128 seats – equally divided between Muslims and Christians.

The right-wing Christian Lebanese Forces was the biggest winner in Sunday elections, nearly doubling its number of parliamentary seats from 8 to 15.

Hezbollah has 13. Its allies made significant gains, including the Shiite Amal Movement and President Michel Aoun’s Christian Free Patriotic Movement.

The Hezbollah-linked broadsheet Al-Akbhar headlined “The Slap,” featuring a dour-looking Prime Minister Saad Hariri. Iran’s Tasnim news agency headlined “Lebanese election result puts an end to Hariri’s monopoly among Sunnis.”

His Future Movement alliance lost a third of its seats, yet remains the largest parliamentary Sunni bloc. He’ll likely remain prime minister, considerably weakened post-election.

For the first time, a proportionally representative system was in place, replacing the winner-take-all one, permitting more independent candidates to participate. Turnout was low at 49%.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi issued a statement, saying

“Lebanon is an independent country…Iran respects (the) vote of the Lebanese people…We are ready to work with…the government elected by the majority.”

Islamophobe Israeli minister Naftali Bennett tweeted:

“Hezbollah = Lebanon…Israel will not differentiate between the sovereign State of Lebanon and Hezbollah, and will view Lebanon as responsible for any action from within its territory.”

Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah called parliamentary results a “political and moral victory” for the resistance.

In a televised address, he said the electoral “mission is accomplished,” giving Hezbollah and its allies power to veto legislation they consider unacceptable.

A unity cabinet is likely to be formed, including Hezbollah. It’s falsely designated a terrorist organization by the State Department, at the behest of Israel, its tail too often wagging the US dog on regional issues.

 

Under Lebanon’s confessional system, the president must be a Maronite Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim, and the parliament speaker a Shia Muslim.

Western favorite Hariri will likely remain prime minister, but the balance of power now favors Hezbollah and its allies.

*

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

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

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

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

Toward A Red-Green Vision for Toronto

Transit is a critical issue for many people in Toronto, as in all major urban areas. More is at stake than reducing traffic congestion and gridlock. Transit and general mobility are intimately related to larger issues in capitalist society: how goods and services are produced and delivered; the location of and nature of jobs; where and how we live and travel; issues of class, inequality and oppression related to race, age, gender, and sexuality; climate justice; and the very shape and nature of our democratic institutions.

Free transit opens the door to a broader transformation of urban life and the current social system. Our ‘Red-Green’ vision is socialist, based on the working class, environmentally just, internationalist, and transformative.

Promises and Challenges of Free Transit

Our free transit model makes public transit a right of all people, which would dramatically increase its use. While serving the vast majority of Torontonians and strengthening the public sector’s role in meeting their needs, it would also address the special mobility requirements of the least mobile and most public transit-dependent: people with disabilities, people living in poverty, older and younger members of our community, and people with precarious, off-hour jobs and heavy domestic workloads, especially often women and people of colour.

Demanding Free Transit Poses Key Questions:

  • How can Free Transit help transform our car-dominated transit system?
  • How would it be financed?
  • How would it challenge government austerity and fight for good green jobs?
  • How much would Free Transit support global climate justice?
  • How can transit users and transit workers together push for Free Transit?
  • Could Free Transit networks be generous public spaces realizing the full diversity of our city?

Mobility in the city

Mobility is more than the ability of people to travel where they want or need to go. People who have to take transit to precarious jobs, juggle two or more jobs, and/or balance household and work tasks have different transit needs than the wealthy. For many people, a reduced need to travel could be as important as the right to move around the city.

A socially just system of mobility means planning and reordering the location of work, home, and recreation. It means changing the structure of work, including fighting against precarious work, and involves reorganizing gendered patterns of living and working. In other words, mobility systems should qualitatively improve workers’ everyday lives while reducing environmental degradation.

Building a Compact City

‘Transit-oriented development’ means combatting sprawl by intensifying residential development, along with providing walkable, street-oriented, mixed-use built environments. This can produce the population densities that make mass public transit feasible.

As neutral or positive as this seems, it has problems. Intensification in Toronto is mostly in the form of private real estate development, usually of high-rise condominiums. This leads to increasing land costs that threaten low-rent apartments, cheaper shops and industrial spaces. All these displace working-class people move to the suburbs, reinforcing sprawl. Our approach calls for compact, land-saving and energy-efficient building. This would require public land ownership and social housing that is collectively or co-operatively owned and managed.

Public Space in the City

Even publicly owned transit networks can be socially-divided and far less than really public in practice. New lines sometimes cater to privileged elites (such as the original UP Express train link from Union Station to the airport), are built and maintained via “public-private partnerships” (Toronto’s new LRT network), or bypass areas where working-class people, especially people of colour and/or on social assistance, live.

Transit must not reinforce current patterns of segregated living. It must also fully accommodate people with disabilities and special needs while allowing everyone to travel without the fear of being scrutinized by transit authorities or harassed by other transit users. In sum, free transit should provide a completely public space, where people have the right to engage with one another and feel comfortable doing so, in the spirit of the world’s most congenial public places.

The Scale of Our City

Free transit – and complementary industrial strategies – would require greater integration of neighbourhood and commuter transit, and of those with national rail networks. This would strengthen transit at all levels. Current regional commuting flows (such as GO Transit) are often out of joint with travel at smaller, neighbourhood or municipal scales; they actually encourage individual, short-term car trips and undercut necessary city densities.

We need to integrate what remains of Canada’s passenger rail grid with inter- and intra-regional and local transit networks while also co-ordinating transit with much improved cycling and walking infrastructure. Transit integration is particularly important in inner and outer suburbs with high levels of car dependency. Current forms of regional integration are business-dominated, undemocratic and underfunded. Ontario’s Metrolinx agency is particular invested in privatizing public transit in the greater Toronto area (GTA).

The RER (Regional Express Rail) network, of which GO is a component, will bring surface transit stations into the city. This is what remains of the rather short-sighted and opportunistic promises of what the then Toronto mayoralty candidate John Tory called “SmartTrack”. It will add a small number of new surface transit stops to the east and western parts of Toronto.

Free Transit flash-mob in downtown Toronto.

Addressing the Twin Crises: Environment and the Economy

Free transit would necessitate shifting away from private transport, which creates about a quarter of global carbon emissions. That shift would make a major contribution to reducing greenhouse gas pollution, which in turn would have benefits around the world. Public mass transit produces 5–10% of the greenhouse gas levels of autos and consumes much less land than cars do.

The recent economic crisis, although seen by business and governments as helpful for entrenching unpopular austerity measures, provides an opportunity for ecological and economic reconstruction. A Red-Green economic development strategy, with mass public transit as a key component, can build on workers’ and environmentalists’ fights against plant closures, such as Toronto’s Green Work Alliance in the 1990s, the Greater London (England) Council experiments in the 1980s, and new initiatives in the United States, such as the facilitation by the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) of transit users’ movements in cities across the country as well as Canada, the Blue-Green Campaign in Richmond, California and European movements, such as Barcelona en comu, in Spain/Catalonia.

The investment necessary for free transit is a major opportunity to promote social and ecological development. The public sector could become a strategic lynchpin for developing urban infrastructure, in the process creating green jobs and implementing an industrial strategy centred on retrofitting ailing manufacturing plants, generating new forms of sustainable energy, building non-profit housing on government-assembled land, land trusts or co-operatives, and providing new forms of public service.

Changing Car Use

Toronto needs to radically decrease the dependence on private vehicles that has been structured into our living and working lives since the mid-20th century. On its own, Free Transit would not end car dependence. Doing that would require not only dramatic increases in transit capacities but also measures to transform the way we use cars today.

Such changes will need to be carefully thought through. They need to recognize that many working-class people cannot easily shed their dependence on cars. They should not be penalized if switching modes of transportation is not an immediate option.

Solutions will include intensifying and expanding transit in currently transit-poor areas of the city and in newer suburbs while at the same time making residential, commercial or industrial development contingent on transit access. There should be limits on car usage and parking as priority is given to pedestrians, cyclists and transit on many routes.

Public Ownership and Democratic Planning

Free transit can only happen if transit is fully public in both ownership and operation – it is not compatible with private-sector logic. But public-sector bureaucracies and even unionized workers may think that this demand threatens the financial viability of public transit. Achieving it will require a strong alliance among public transit workers and their unions, transit users and all supporters of robust and expanded public transit. The goal is not to make public managers more powerful, but to democratize planning and administration by empowering transit workers and users.

Free Transit is in the medium- and long-term interest of transit workers. It would end fare policing, a major source of tensions between transit workers and users; lead to increased transit employment; and raise transit workers’ importance and prestige in users’ lives.

Democratic planning should be introduced at all scales, from local neighbourhoods to higher levels of co-ordination and planning. Regional and inter-regional transit needs can also be articulated from below, by creating regional democratic planning bodies that are mandated to improve transit – not to take resources from transit-dependent but underserved areas (such as inner suburbs) or transit-dense districts (such as downtown).

Paying for Free Transit

Current budgetary practice makes it difficult to pay for Free Transit. In Toronto, massive public funding would be needed to replace the current 70% of operating costs paid by fares and to take on the capital costs of building new transit capacity.

The Ontario government would have to reverse its Harris-era downloading of operating support to municipalities with limited taxing ability. Both Ontario and federal governments need to provide the funding that is recognized around the world as essential for any successful transit system, free or not. Even free public transit can be cheaper than the costs of building road and other car-related infrastructure. Ending state subsidies (such as building highways at public expense) to privatized transport and land development would, of course, challenge vested interests in the construction, development, finance, media and auto-related industries.

Increasing federal and provincial funding of mass public transit with stable and generous formulas, while ending the hidden subsidies to these vested interests, would make it possible to fund free transit without increasing municipal taxes. This would not preclude a new tax structure to support the transformation of our city, such as new taxes on gas, carbon and parking, and certain kinds of tolls, congestion fees and luxury taxes. A national urban transit plan, co-ordinated across all levels of government is needed, much like the current highway system. New financing could come through restoring the 1% reduction of the HST made by Harper and higher gas taxes. A national capital levy of 2% for public transit and climate change initiatives could also be raised.

Eliminating fares would get rid of the cost of collecting them. It would eliminate Presto, and all of the other enormous apparatus used to collect and police fare collection.

As part of a progressive taxation system, we should all be prepared to be taxed for a basic public service like free transit, recognizing that this will leave us far better off than having to pay increasingly expensive transit fares or go into debt to finance car travel, which is in effect a socially regressive tax on mobility. Occasional transit users – motorists and cyclists for instance – will benefit from transit-friendly taxation in other ways, too.

A genuinely accessible and usable public transportation network is essential to creating a sustainable, breathable and livable city for us all.

How To Get There

Free Transit Toronto proposes the following steps toward Free Transit:

  • Freeze all fares and embark on a plan to reduce them in a series of steps over 5 years.
  • Prioritize eliminating fares for seniors, people on social assistance, low incomes and the unemployed. Start with implementing the Fair Pass plan immediately, extending their coverage, and reducing them over a 3-year period. Eliminate fares immediately during non-peak hours.
  • Suspend fare collection during extreme weather alerts (cold and hot).
  • Maintain full public ownership of all transit services, stock and maintenance. No private contracts (such as P3s) that distort the goals of public transit.
  • Create neighbourhood-based, short-distance public transit to link people lacking access to the main urban network.
  • Electrify all RER trains and charge fares at the same level as the TTC.
  • Replace Metrolinx with a democratic planning body mandated to facilitate generous, just, integrated and transit-oriented mobilities.

In Toronto, the movement to defend and expand public mass transit includes the Fair Fare CoalitionScarborough Transit Action, and TTCRiders in the city of Toronto, as well as movements in Mississauga and Hamilton and around the world. Along with the city’s working-class movement and climate justice advocates, Free Transit Toronto can create a sorely needed critical pole of reference for Toronto and Canadian politics – and achieve Free Transit.

Download PDF flyer.

*

Free Transit Toronto is built around the idea that public transit should be considered a public service and, like the libraries and Medicare, should be funded by progressive tax revenues, not by fares. For more information see freetransittoronto.org, and @freetransitTO.

All images in this article are from FTT.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Two days of talks between Chinese and US delegations last week ended with diplomatic language alone, indicating failure to accomplish anything significant, both sides holding firm in their demands.

First quarter 2018 US trade deficit with China was the highest on record at $91.1 billion, up over $10 billion year-over-year.

The comment period on Trump’s announced $50 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods expires at end of May. They’re likely coming if some agreement between both countries isn’t achieved in the next few weeks.

“This ever-expanding trade deficit is like the ghost of Trump trade promises past that is haunting the US negotiators (in talks with Beijing officials), trying to remedy the debacle of our China trade policy and those trying to conclude a NAFTA replacement deal that ends the outsourcing incentives and thus could win broad support,” Global Trade Watch director Lori Wallach explained, adding:

“Expect ever-expanding trade deficits that eviscerate Trump’s grand trade reform promises unless the administration transforms our failed China trade policy and removes NAFTA’s job outsourcing incentives, adds strong labor and environmental standards, and thus achieves a NAFTA replacement that can get through Congress.”

Chinese and US negotiators are deeply divided. Washington demands Beijing cut the trade deficit at least $200 billion by end of 2020, along with halting state subsidies for companies under the “Made in China 2025” plan – and not retaliate against US exports to the country.

Beijing called on the Trump administration to halt its investigation of Chinese trade and industrial policies, along with lifting its restrictions on high-tech exports to the country.

A Chinese trade policy adviser called Washington “too demanding,” adding (bilateral disagreements) cannot be solved merely by China without coordination from the US.”

Talks will continue, including on the sidelines of later in the year international forums between Trump and Xi Jinping directly.

China is willing to allow increased imports of US goods, not reduce exports of its own to America. Nor will it halt subsidies to certain industries, longstanding practice by Washington to corporate favorites.

Both countries want trade war avoided. Beijing remains firm in its position, saying it won’t bow to US pressure.

“We will not offer concessions on anything we consider to be a core interest,” said one unnamed Chinese official, adding:

“There are too many issues that we may not be able to solve in one round. Both sides can continue the discussions in Beijing or in Washington. If the talks break down and the US side escalates (its) actions, we are also well prepared for it.”

“In the event of a trade war, China’s economy is going to be more resilient than America’s.”

Washington doesn’t negotiate. It demands, able to enforce its will on most countries, including EU ones, not easily on China, intending to go along with nothing harming its longterm growth strategy.

Compromise by both sides is likely, whether enough to satisfy both countries another matter entirely.

Long-term US policy calls for regime change in China, replacing its sovereign independence with pro-Western puppet governance, wanting a strategic opponent of its aim for global dominance eliminated.

The bilateral trade dispute is a side show to Washington’s greater imperial objectives – yet important enough to spark conflict between both countries if not resolved.

Mattis explained saying

“great power competition (is) the primary focus of US national security.”

Washington called Russia and China “revisionist power(s)” hostile to US interests. An eventual imperial showdown with both countries is likely, risking unthinkable global war.

*

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

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

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

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

Featured image is from Stansberry Churchouse.

Featured image: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (l) and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro meet today to sign accords, among them an agreement to start a bi-national initiated with Petros (Source: @NicolasMaduro)

Venezuela y Palestinian leaders agreed to start a binational bank between the two countries to be kickstarted with 20 million Venezuelan Petros.

Newly re-elected Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas landed in Caracas last night for a two-day diplomatic stay in Venezuela and already he and President Nicolas Maduro have signed an accord to create the binational bank to fund technological and industrial initiatives between the two countries.

During the same meeting Venezuelan minister of tourism Marlenys Contreras and Palestinian director general of international cooperation, Imad Zuhairi agreed to bilateral tourism and hotel projects.

Today’s session at the Miraflores Palace in Caracas also established an agreement to begin a Venezuela-Palestine business council to expand economic, banking, trade and financial cooperation among the countries.

Both countries already maintain several accords in the areas of education, trade, energy, agriculture, culture, communication, sports, defense, security and health since 2009.

Maduro told Abbas during their meeting

“the sovereign and free Venezuela is dedicated to the cause of a free, independent, sovereign and peaceful Palestine.”

The Palestinian president thanked Maduro for defending his country,

“I’d like to reiterate my thanks to the Venezuelan government and its people for their support of the Palestinian cause.”

Palestine’s president went on to thank Maduro for the education scholarships that have enabled many Palestinian students to study in the South American country.

“Dozens of engineers and doctors have graduated and others continue to study,” said Abbas.

Abbas thanked Venezuela for its help in establishing the ophthalmology hospital in Palestine named “Hugo Chavez”, after the deceased Venezuelan president.

The Palestinian head of state will continue his Latin American diplomatic tour to Cuba and Chile.


*

Featured image: Ancient Xidi Village in China

There is no time for long introductions. The world is, possibly heading for yet another catastrophe. This one, if we, human beings will not manage to prevent it, could become our final.

The West is flexing its muscle, antagonizing every single country that stands on its way to total domination of the Planet. Some countries, including Syria, are attacked directly and mercilessly. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people are dying.

Political and potentially military disaster is simultaneously ‘complemented’ by the ecological ruin. Mainly Western multi-national companies have been plundering the world, putting profit over people, even over the very survival of the human species.

‘Political correctness’ is diluting the sense of urgency, and there is plenty of hypocrisy at work:  while, at least in the West and Japan, people are encouraged to recycle, to turn off the lights in empty rooms and not to waste water, in other parts of our Planet, entire islands, nations and continents are being logged out by the Western corporations, or destroyed by unbridled mining. The governments of the West’s ‘client states’ are getting hopelessly corrupt in the process.

Western politicians see absolutely no urgency in all that is taking place around the world, or more precisely – they are paid not to see it.

So, are we now dealing with the thoroughly hopeless scenario? Did the world go mad? Is it ready to get sacrificed for the profit of the very few? Are people simply going to stand passively, watching what is happening around them, and die, as their world goes literally up in flames?

It appeared so, until few months ago.

Then, one of the oldest cultures on Earth, China, stood up and said

“No! There are different ways to go forward. We could all benefit from the progress, without cannibalizing, and fully destroying our Planet.”

China, led by President Xi, accelerated implementation of the concept of so-called Ecological Civilization, eventually engraving it into the constitution of the country.

A man who did tremendous work in China, working tirelessly on the Ecological Civilization concept in both China and in the United States, John Cobb Jr., has been, for years, a friend and close comrade of mine.

A 93-year-old Whiteheadian philosopher (and many believe, one of the most important living philosophers), one of the most acknowledged Christian progressive topologists, and self-proclaimed ‘supporter of Revolution’, John Cobb’s is a brave ‘alternative’ and optimistic voice coming from the United States.

Andre Vltchek and John Cobb Jr.

We first met on a bus from Pyongyang to DMZ, in DPRK, several years ago, and became close friends, presently working on a book and a film together.

In this difficult, extremely dangerous, but also somehow hopeful time for our planet, it is clear that John Cobb’s voice should be heard by many.

*

China’s Growing Commitment to Eco-Civ

I recalled our meeting in Claremont, when John expressed worries that China and its leadership could go ‘either way’, in regard to the “Ecological civilization”, possibly even against it. Inside China and her leadership, there were apparently voices defending ‘pure economic growth’ approach. Now the Chinese Parliament has written the goal of ecological civilization into the national constitution.

I wanted to know what does it mean, practically? Is there a reason to celebrate?

John replied via email:

“Something like fifteen years ago, the Chinese Communist Party wrote the goal of an ecological civilization into its constitution.  Although the formulation is remarkable, the motivation is not hard to understand.  The Party was responding to the distress of hundreds of millions of Chinese who longed for clean air and blue skies.  To maintain the popularity of the party, it had to assure the people that it shared their concerns.  Everyone agreed that lessening pollution was a good thing.

Nevertheless, the phrase meant more than just trying to minimize the ecological damage done by rapid economic growth.  It expressed an understanding that the natural world was constituted of ecologies rather than just a collection of individual things.  And it clearly indicated the desirability of human activity fitting into this natural world rather than replacing it.

Many who supported this goal, however, did not suppose that announcing it committed China to major changes in the present.  Many have argued that China’s first task was to modernize, meaning especially industrialize, and become a wealthy nation.  Then it would have the luxury of attending to the natural environment.  Few, if any, thought it meant that China would turn away from the goal of economic growth to pursue something different.

Communist Victory in Beijing, China

However, Chinese leaders did recognize that simply postponing the work for clear skies and a healthy environment would not work.  The nation needed to work on economic growth and a healthy natural environment simultaneously.  It began evaluating the success of provincial governments by their achievements in these two distinct realms.  Growth goals were set below what would be possible, so that it could be channeled in less environmentally harmful directions.  Experiments with ecovillages received encouragement.

The talk of moving toward an ecological civilization also encouraged reflection about “civilization” alongside “market.”  That supported those Chinese who were concerned that the narrow concern for wealth at all costs was not healthy for human society.  Marxism had always emphasized economic matters, but it was concerned to move society away from competition toward cooperation.  It was always concerned with the distribution of goods, so that the poor would be benefited, and workers would be empowered.  The idea of recovering traditional Chinese civilizational values gained in acceptance.

The extent to which the health of the natural environment and cultural goals gained status as policy goals bothered some party members.  For them China’s wealth and power were crucial.  An observer could not be sure that the extent to which the goal of ecological civilization was broadening the aims of government would continue.  Leadership is subject to change every five years.

However, the changes at the recent Party congress tended to strengthen commitment to ecological civilization.  President Xi, who has been central to the moves toward ecological civilization was given another five years.  He and others reiterated the goal and affirmed steps in its direction.  Now it seems likely that in the next five years he will not be a “lame-duck” president since the limitation to two terms has been removed.

To reinforce the Chinese commitment, the Parliament has written the goal of ecological civilization into the national constitution.  Since the national government is regularly guided by the Party, this may not seem to make much practical difference.  But the way it occurred does make clear that the nation, on the whole, is not resentful.  The Chinese people do not feel that the Party’s commitment is oppressive or foolish.  We can have considerable confidence that China as a nation in genuinely committed and that the people share a hope for becoming an ecological civilization.  Predicting the future is never safe, but as these matters go, we can have confidence that China is committed.  Given the likelihood that it will supersede the United States as the global leader, this can give us grounds for hope.”

John Cobb’s Role in China

John Cobb is a well-known figure in the PRC. His thoughts are having great impact on an influential group of Chinese leaders. But how would he, personally, summarize his involvement in the “Ecological Civilization” project? What impact did he have, personally, on what is happening in China, in this particular field?

“Through most of my life, the last thing I anticipated was to have a role in China.  As a Protestant theologian, any hope for influence went in quite different directions.  Although my theology is deeply shaped by the prophetic tradition of ancient Judaism, and I understand Marx also to have been deeply informed by that tradition, I did not expect Chinese Communists to recognize that kinship. Yet in the end, I consider that, through a remarkable sequence of chances, my role in China has been the most important part of my life.  I will first describe my trajectory, then the trajectory of China, and then the wholly “improbable” intersection.

In my studies at the University of Chicago in the late nineteen forties, made possible by the GI bill, I was introduced to Alfred North Whitehead.  Over the years, I was more and more impressed by the way his “philosophy of organism” answered my questions and provided me the holistic vision that I craved, one quite contrary to the mechanist and materialist thinking that dominated American education and culture.

In the late sixties, I was awakened to the fact that the dominant modern culture was leading the world to self-destruction, and my attachment to Whitehead, as one who offered a far more promising alternative, was confirmed and deepened.  Meanwhile interest in any alternative to mechanism was fading in American universities.  Together with David Griffin, I seized an opportunity in 1973 to create a center to keep Whitehead’s thought alive and display its relevance to the crises of our time.  This Center for Process Studies has sponsored conferences and lectures and publications displaying how Whitehead’s organic and processive thought provides a more promising pattern of thinking in many fields.  Ecological concerns played a large role throughout.  Although many individual scientists and professionals worked with us, the universities tightened their commitment to the modern vision we were trying to get beyond.  We sometimes called ourselves postmodernists, but when that term was given wide currency by French intellectual deconstruction of modernity, David Griffin began calling us “constructive postmodernists.”

Lotus lake and Chinese girl – ecological paradise

By the opening of the twentieth century, thoughtful Chinese saw that the Western colonial powers together with Japan were nibbling away at China and that classical Chinese culture was unable to compete with the West in science, technology, and military power. To maintain Chinese independence, China must modernize. It adopted the dominant Western form of modernity, bourgeois capitalism.  The suffering of the poor led many to seek a better form of modernity in Marxism, and during and after World War II the Marxists replaced bourgeois democracy with rule by the Communist Party.

Mao Tse Tung made a serious effort to end China’s class society in what was called then “Cultural Revolution.” This evoked so intense an opposition from the urban middle class, that it was a painful failure, never repeated.  When the Communist Party repudiated this Marxist goal, what was left was rule by the party and commitment to rapid modernization as the road to national wealth.

Chinese intellectuals were not comfortable with this total commitment to the modern in view of the deconstruction of the modern by French intellectuals.  Some of them followed the French in calling themselves postmodernists, but the French postmodernists gave little guidance in relation to China’s biggest problem with modernization — the pollution and degradation of the environment.  When they discovered that there was another form of “postmodernism” that made positive proposals for change and gave a great deal of attention to the natural world, many of them were interested.  One Chinese postmodernist, Zhihe Wang, came to Claremont to complete his studies, and it was his leadership that led to the intersection of developments in China with my life. He decided that he could be most effective living in the United States and frequently visiting China. His wife, Meijun Fan left a prestigious professorship in Beijing to work with him.  As a result of their effective introduction of “process thought” to China, thirty-five universities established centers focusing on the relevance of Whitehead’s thought to a wide range of topics, such as education, psychology, science and values, the legal system, and so forth.

Meanwhile, partly, I assume, to assuage the distress of many urbanites with the pollution of the air, the Communist Party wrote into its constitution the goal of becoming an “ecological civilization.”  Because of the reputation of the Chinese leadership in Claremont, they were encouraged to hold conferences on this topic here, primarily for Chinese scholars.  These gave me and other American constructive postmodernists an opportunity to participate in shaping the meaning of the initially rich and suggestive, but rather vague, term. This has probably been our major contribution.

There has been one very important shift in Chinese policy due to the commitment to “ecological civilization.”  As part of its goal of modernization, China planned to industrialize agriculture.  At many of the conferences here and at others in China, we argued that China could not build an ecological civilization on an industrial agriculture.  The Communist Party was persuaded to shift its policies from the continuing depopulation of rural China to the development of the thousands of villages that were slated for destruction.  Policies have changed, and in 2016 for the first time, more people moved from cities to countryside than from countryside to cities.  Development of villages has been emphasized along with the goal of ecological civilization in last fall’s crucial meetings of the Communist Party.  And the Chinese parliament has written the goal of ecological civilization into the national constitution.  It seems highly probable that this important shift in Chinese society will endure.

Obviously, the shift was primarily due to the work of many Chinese.  However, harsh criticism by Americans of the consequences of industrializing agriculture in the United States played a role.  Again, my voice was only one of many.  Partly, no doubt, because of my age, I am given far more credit than I deserve.  But I am very proud of whatever contribution I made to this shift that affects hundreds of millions of Chinese and gives some concrete meaning to “ecological civilization”.

Centralized Power

In many ways, China became the leader, when it comes to ecology, as well as combining traditional culture with modernity. It is determined to build the entire civilization around its ecological and cultural concerns. It appears that in the future, the ‘markets’ and financial considerations may play important but secondary role. Is it mainly possible because of the centralized/Communist nature of the Chinese political and economic system (including the central planning)?

“I have neither study nor experience qualifying me to address this question.  But I still have opinions; so, I’ll share them.

Clearly in China it has been the leadership of the central government that has set the course, done the planning, and implemented what it planned.  For those of us who believe the world needs urgently to move toward ecological civilization, this has worked well.  Prior to the meetings last fall, I remained unsure about whether everything depended on a particular leader who might be replaced.  That he emerged from the fall events with increased power was reassuring, especially because he strongly expressed determination to implement steps toward achieving the civilization China and the world needs.

There was still the possibility that representatives of other factions in the Communist Party, who sought to replace Xi, might treat him as a “lame duck.”  Now that the impossibility of a third term has been removed, that danger also is gone.  An extended period of leadership can probably make some policies so identified with the nation that they will continue even if a successor is not personally committed to the goal of ecological civilization.

All of this is to say that centralized power is currently working in a remarkably promising way not paralleled by other countries with less centralized political power.

Some European countries achieved a considerable move toward ecological civilization earlier than China.  That they are not currently leading may be because they are already farther along on the needed trajectory.  They have made significant desirable policy changes without centralized power.  In these countries, the public as whole is well informed and capable of making wise decisions.  Governments are sufficiently democratic that they express the public desires.  In some cases, commitment to sustainable practices and meeting the basic needs of all citizens has become the “common sense” of the people sufficiently that it is likely not to be radically abandoned by changing officials. It was impressive that, when Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Accords, there was very little interest in withdrawal in Europe, even though the reasons for withdrawal applied equally there.  Apparently, the corporate world in Europe has adjusted to new needs and expectations as it has not in the United States.

Even so, I have more confidence in endurance in China with its centralized control than in European countries more directly subject to popular opinion.  Thus far European countries have been fairly prosperous.  Pollution control has not led to unemployment or economic immiseration.  Thus, the level of commitment to ecological needs has not been seriously tested.

In contrast, the need to accept large numbers of refugees has been sufficient to weaken consensus on a range of issues.  It is not hard to imagine that corporations that have thus far been cooperative with good policies might take advantage of dissident public opinion to seek the kinds of changes that the United States is currently experiencing.  These corporations often control the media and thus can shape public opinion to support their ends.

Wuxi – medieval ecological village

As I compare China’s success in giving serious attention to the well-being of its natural environment and needy citizens with that of European countries, my reason for betting on China is that I have some confidence that it will maintain governmental control of finance and of corporations generally.  If it does this, it can also control the media.  Thus, it has a chance of making financial and industrial corporations serve the national good as perceived by people not in their service.  Less centralized governments are less able to control the financial and other corporations whose short-term interests may conflict with the common good.

Of course, the concentration of power in countries like China does not guarantee the continuation of governmental service of the common good.  There is an old adage in the West: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I think the Communist Party in China works hard to socialize its members to resist corruption.  I think it has been largely successful.

My hero, Jesus, asserted that no one can serve God and money.  If we understand that God’s desire is for the common good, we can translate, no one can serve both money and the common good.  I think that at the present time, the Chinese Communist Party is more successful in cultivating a commitment to the common good than are the churches in the West.  That may be more important than the question of how centralized the power may be.

Commitment to the Common Good

I wrote to John that during our recent encounter, he stated that one of the reasons why China succeeded in so many fields, is because it can count on many people in its leadership, who are truly concerned about the well-being of their country. This fully coincided with my own experience that I gained in the PRC. But how does John see the West? How different is it in the West? Is the Western leadership constructed on thoroughly different principles? He replied immediately:

“Near the end of my answer to the previous topic I made the statement that I believed the Chinese Communist Party was more successful in eliciting concern for the wellbeing of China and all its people than the Western churches were in eliciting commitment to the common good.  For many Christians, this is surprising.  Christians have tended to think that we need belief in God to ground our ethical commitments.

No one supposes that a theistic ethic is the only way that people can be socialized with respect to action.  Earthly rulers have often considered their will as the grounds of law and ethics.  The deepest commitment should be to the ruler and hence to advance the ruler’s wishes.  But from the Christian point of view, true ethics must transcend obedience to political power.  Might does not make right.

How to live can also be determined by tribal or national culture.  This often overlaps with obeying the ruler, but it can even conflict with that.  The interpreters of the culture may be identified as priests or as sages.

Philosophers have sometimes attempted to ground ethics in a purely rational way.  Kant developed a “categorical imperative.”  Whether that is truly free from particular cultural shaping is questionable, but many still think so.  Certainly, it may be supported in more than one culture.

For theists, none of these forms of ethics really work.  For some of them the alternative is belief that the Creator is also the giver of law, and rewards those who obey in a life after death if not here and now, and punishes those who disobey.

Other theists reject this legalism and emphasize that we owe our being and all that is good in our lives to the Creative and Redeeming God.  This God loves all people and seeks the good of all.  Our grateful response is to serve those whom God loves, namely, at least, all human beings, and especially those whose needs are greatest.

For many theists, right and wrong are so bound up with God that when they hear that Marx was an atheist, they assume he had no ethics.  So, for me to say that Marx’s followers do a better job of evoking commitment to the common good than do Western theists strikes some as implausible.  They think that if there is no God to serve, one will serve something less than God, and therefore less than the “common” good.  Many theists assume that if one does not serve God one is likely to look out only for one’s own good.  This assumption is foundational to the academic discipline of economics.

In fact, however, Marx derived from Hegel a sense of a movement in history that should be served.  It is a movement that works for a classless society in which the needs of all are met.  To work for that society is certainly a way of serving the common good.  I believe this sense of participating in a process that works for good is more convincing to many people than serving what has been more conventionally called “God”.  The percentage of Western people who take seriously belief in a God who calls us to serve the common good is probably less than the percentage of Chinese who understand themselves to work with the dialectic of history to overcome the class society that leaves so many abused and oppressed.

Neither Christianity nor Marxism has a history of great moral achievement.  Both need to be honest about their failures. I will comment on Western Christianity in the modern world.  Two Western developments have greatly weakened it.  One is the development of science on the basis of a metaphysics that systematically excludes any possible role for God.  The other is the development of capitalism which assumes and celebrates individual self-interest as the one all-controlling motivation.  Even faithful churchgoers are likely to be influenced by both of these developments.  Among the actual determinants of behavior, theism now plays a small role.

Among Americans, the “American exceptionalism” into which the school system socializes youth plays a larger role.  It can lead to heroic acts thought to be in the service of the nation, and even to great passion for the preservation or restoration of the natural beauty with which the nation is endowed.  But its primary function is to persuade Americans to accept much profoundly evil activity on the part of their country by assuring them that in the long run this will enable others to share in the great benefits of Americanism.

I am attributing to the American educational system the inculcation of American exceptionalism.  However, it officially eschews even this value.  Its goal is to be “value-free,” which means in practice, in the service of money.  The whole culture celebrates the value of being rich.  Economic theory is the national ideology.  That Americans are becoming increasingly nihilistic is the natural result of a nihilistic system of schooling.

Sadly, China is going all too far in copying this nihilistic schooling.  My view is that the commitment of the government to Marxism has not been allowed to shape the academic curriculum, but that it does provide some important values to supplement the curriculum.  And, alongside the general culture, in the Communist Party, a substantial number of people are socialized in Marxist thought and values. It is because Marx has more influence in China than Jesus has in the West, that the chances of China to lead the world toward salvation are better than the chances of the West to do so.

*

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are his tribute to “The Great October Socialist Revolution” a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the authors.

Selected Articles: Will Trump End the Iran Nuclear Deal?

May 8th, 2018 by Global Research News

US President Donald Trump is set to declare his decision on the Iran Nuclear Deal before the deadline on May 12. Should Trump decertify the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), he is not only compromising the possibility of dialogue with Iran but more so risking the world towards annihilation. 

Is the world ready for the turnaround? Will PM Benjamin Netanyahu achieve his goal behind his presentation of baseless claims on Iran’s nuclear arsenal?

Read our selection of articles below and share it far and wide. Let us fight against media disinformation and push towards a world of peace.

*     *     *

Iran Isn’t Violating the JCPOA Nuclear Agreement — America Is

By Darius Shahtahmasebi, May 04, 2018

The aim of this performance is to cast doubt on the efficacy of the Iranian nuclear accord signed in 2015, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which U.S. President Donald Trump has long intended to completely derail. Netanyahu, of course, is totally on board with this goal.

Trump “All but Decided to Withdraw” from Iran Deal as IAEA Refutes Netanyahu Speech

By Zero Hedge, May 03, 2018

Soon after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a televised address in which he unveiled a cache of 55,000 pages of documents and 183 CDs that he claimed comprised Iran’s alleged “atomic archive” of documents on its nuclear program, supposedly proving the existence of an illegal and ongoing secret program to “test and build nuclear weapons” called Project Amad, the UN’s atomic agency weighed in to directly negate the claims. 

Netanyahu’s Anti-Iranian Reality-TV Show

By Dr. Ludwig Watzal, May 01, 2018

With his newest anti-Iranian rant, Netanyahu wanted to impress another braggart of reality-TV, President Donald Trump. This time, Netanyahu got professional, speaking in English, using slides and pictures, not cartoons like in the United Nations where he had ridiculed himself. He even exposed two “monuments,” one showing shelves full of folders apparently containing documents about Iran’s secret nuclear program. Perhaps these files were just for decoration. He avoided revealing its contents.

Warning: Nuclear Deal With Iran Prelude to War, Not “Breakthrough”

By Tony Cartalucci, March 07, 2018

Hysteria now sweeps the headlines across the Western media regarding a “historical nuclear deal” that “Obama made” that vindicates the Nobel Peace Prize he was “prematurely awarded” so many years ago. For those aware of the ruse at play, such sentiments are to be inevitably and completely betrayed by what is sure to follow.

Israel Buys the US Congress: Sabotaging the US-Iran Peace Negotiations

By Prof. James Petras, March 02, 2018

Precisely because of the initial favorable response among the participants, the Israeli government escalated its propaganda war against Iran.  Its agents in the US Congress, the mass media and in the Executive branch moved to undermine the peace process.  What is at stake is Israel’s capacity to wage proxy wars using the US military and its NATO allies against any government challenging Israeli military supremacy in the Middle East, its violent annexation of Palestinian territory and its ability to attack any adversary with impunity.

Iran at a Dangerous Crossroads

By Peter Koenig, January 05, 2018

He addressed many issues from internal affairs, competing factions within the Islamic Revolution, to external relations – and the economy. He also referred to The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly called the Iran Nuclear Deal, the international agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, reached in Vienna, Austria, on 14 July 2015. The accord is barely two and half years old and already breached by one of the five main-sponsors, the United States of America.

*     *     *

Global Research is a small team that believes in the power of information and analysis to bring about far-reaching societal change including a world without war.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Will Trump End the Iran Nuclear Deal?

Pacco bomba nucleare dagli Usa

May 8th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

La nuova bomba nucleare B61-12 che gli Usa si preparano a inviare in Italia, Germania, Belgio, Olanda e probabilmente in altri paesi europei – è ormai in fase finale di realizzazione. Lo ha annunciato il generale Jack Weinstein, vice-capo di stato maggiore della U.S. Air Force, responsabile delle operazioni nucleari, intervenendo il 1° maggio a un simposio della Air Force Association a Washington di fronte a uno scelto uditorio di alti ufficiali e rappresentanti dellindustria bellica.

«Il programma sta andando estremamente bene», ha sottolineato con soddisfazione il generale, specificando che «abbiamo già effettuato 26 test di ingegneristica, sviluppo e volo guidato della B61-12». Il programma prevede la produzione, a iniziare dal 2020, di circa 500 B61-12, con una spesa di circa 10 miliardi di dollari (per cui ogni bomba viene a costare il doppio di quanto costerebbe se fosse costruita interamente in oro). I molti componenti della B61-12 vengono progettati nei laboratori nazionali Sandia di Los Alamos, Albuquerque e Livermore (in New Mexico e California), e prodotti in una serie di impianti in Missouri, Texas, South Carolina, Tennessee. La bomba viene testata (senza carica nucleare) nel Tonopah Test Range in Nevada.

La B61-12 ha «qualità» interamente nuove rispetto alla attuale B61 schierata in Italia e altri paesi europei: una testata nucleare a quattro opzioni di potenza selezionabili; un sistema di guida che la dirige con precisione sullobiettivo; la capacità di penetrare nel sottosuolo, anche attraverso cemento armato, esplodendo in profondità.

La maggiore precisione e la capacità penetrante rendono la nuova bomba adatta ad attaccare i bunker dei centri di comando, così da«decapitare»il paese nemico. Una B61-12 da 50 kt (equivalenti a 50 mila tonnellate di tritolo) che esplode sottoterra ha lo stesso potenziale distruttivo di una bomba nucleare da oltre un megaton (un milione di tonnellate di tritolo) che esplode in superficie.

La B61-12 può essere sganciata dai caccia statunitensi F-16C/D schierati ad Aviano, e dai Tornado italiani PA-200 schierati a Ghedi. Ma, per usare tutte le capacità della B61-12 (in particolare la guida di precisione), occorrono i nuovi caccia F-35A. Ciò comporta la soluzione di altri problemi tecnici, che si aggiungono ai numerosi verificatisi nel programma F-35, cui lItalia partecipa quale partner di secondo livello. Il complesso software del caccia, che è stato finora modificato oltre 30 volte, richiede ulteriori aggiornamenti. Per modificare 12 F-35 lItalia dovràspendere circa 400 milioni di euro, che si aggiungono alla spesa ancora inquantificata (stimata in 13-16 miliardi di euro)  per lacquisto di 90 caccia e il loro continuo ammodernamento. Soldi che escono dalle casse dello Stato (ossia dalle nostre), mentre quelli ricavati dai contratti per la produzione dellF-35 entrano nelle casse delle industrie militari.

La bomba nucleare B61-12 e il caccia F-35, che lItalia riceve dagli Usa, fanno quindi parte di un unico «pacco bomba» che ci scoppierà  tra le mani. LItalia sarà esposta a ulterori pericoli quale base avanzata della strategia nucleare degli Stati uniti contro la Russia e altri paesi. Non c’è che un modo per evitarlo: chiedere agli Usa, in base al Trattato di non-proliferazione, di rimuovere qualsiasi arma nucleare dal nostro territorio; rifiutare di fornire al Pentagono, nel quadro della Nato, piloti e aerei per lattacco nucleare; uscire dal Gruppo di pianificazione nucleare della Nato; aderire al Trattato Onu sulla proibizione delle armi nucleari.

C’è qualcuno, nel mondo politico, disposto a non fare la politica dello struzzo? 

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Pacco bomba nucleare dagli Usa

Antidepressants were once considered a short-term therapy to help people get over a troubled time. All that changed with the debut of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, drug ads on TV and the promotion of the “chemical imbalance” theory of depression. Though there is almost no evidence of the theory––that SSRI antidepressants correct deficits in brain levels of serotonin, a neurotransmitter––antidepressants became blockbusters for Pharma.

“By the mid-1990s, drug makers had convinced government regulators that when taken long-term, the medications sharply reduced the risk of relapse in people with chronic, recurrent depression,” says the New York Times.

Thanks to drug advertising and the unproven serotonin theory, the use of antidepressants has almost tripled. Only 13.4 million Americans took antidepressants in 1999–2000 ballooning to 34.4 million in 2013–4. In 2015 one in four U.S. women were on psychiatric drugs, usually antidepressants. More concerning, long-term use of antidepressants has doubled since 2010 and tripled since 2000 so that 15.5 million Americans have been taking the medications for at least five years. Yet few studies show the safety or efficacy antidepressants used long-term.

I have frequently reported on the side effects of SSRIs from birth defects associated with Paxil, including heart malformations, to sexual dysfunction and weight gain. The pills are also linked to serotonin syndrome when taken with migraine drugs and gastrointestinal bleeding when taken with aspirin.

One especially concerning side effect of SSRIs is bone-thinning and osteoporosis. Fracture events linked to SSRIs, especially from long-term use, have barely been researched or explored and are often dismissed by older patients as mere “aging.”

The wide use of SSRIs in the U.S. population does not just have health implications—it has political implications, too. By selling “depression” and its “cure,” Pharma siphons off legitimate, activist anger at a government system that keeps people poor, powerless, locked out of opportunity and saddled with debt. If they are unhappy, they have a personal problem says Pharma, treated with a pill––not a political problem.

Labeling bad and sad moods “depression” also transmits an unrealistic idea that people should be “more than happy” all the time and if they are not, they are “mentally ill.” Gone are the days when bad moods were attributed to problems with finance, romance, debt, jobs, housing, careers, family, marriages and health.

Pharma backlash

In April, the New York Times reported something the drug safety community has warned about for years: antidepressants can be very difficult to quit. In fact, the withdrawal from them––which Pharma calls a “discontinuation syndrome”––is similar to that of addictive drugs. Many patients are miffed that they were not warned by their doctors they may be “parked” on the drugs indefinitely, said the Times, thanks to side effects of dizziness, nausea, headache and brain zaps which do not go away quickly when they try to stop the drugs. Brian, a 29-year-old Chicagoan I interviewed who did not want his name used, told me he has remained on a SSRI antidepressant for years despite his wish to quit.

“Every time I try to stop, I get something that feels like an electrical current in my head and I can’t do it,” he says.

The article drew a huge backlash from psychiatrists from Pharma-funded medical schools.

“By amplifying the social media echo chamber, the article creates the unfortunate impression that most patients are forced to continue antidepressants out of fear of withdrawal rather than out of prevention of recurrence,” wrote 39 psychiatrists, terming depression “chronic” and “undertreated.”

At least 35 of the letter signers who want to see more not less SSRIs are affiliated with Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons which received $250 million from former Merck CEO Roy Vagelos and his wife Diana last year.

There was a similar Pharma-funded backlash in 2004 when the FDA added a black box warning label to SSRIs that said they are linked to suicide, especially in young people, threatening drug sales.

“The concerns about antidepressant use in children and adolescents have paradoxically resulted in a reduction in their use, and this has contributed to increased suicide rates,” said Charles Nemeroff who happened to have links to Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Wyeth-Ayerst, Pharmacia-Upjohn and five other drug makers.

Black box warnings create a barrier to treatment “by scaring young people and parents away from care,” said Mental Health America, reported to have accepted $3.8 million from pharmaceutical companies in 2005 the year after the black box warnings.

Doctors promoting SSRIs in medical articles have also been outed as taking money from Pharma. Doctor authors who had defended the use of antidepressants during pregnancy in a 2006 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) article had ties to antidepressant manufacturers. Lee Cohen, lead author of the antidepressants study, declared in a follow-up letter to JAMA that,

“We did not view those associations as relevant to this study,” and listed 76 other relationships the nine physician authors had with Pharma.

Yes, 76. Three years later another JAMA author was found to have undisclosed financial links to SSRI makers. Robert Robinson, who wrote about the drug Lexapro, had failed to report lecture fees he received from its manufacturer.

Martin Keller, former professor emeritus of psychiatry at Brown and lead author of a now discredited Paxil study, admitted that GSK had given him tens of thousands of dollars during and after the study.

Environmental concerns

Finally, with as much as a quarter of the population on SSRIs in some areas, there is an underreported concern about drugs in waterways and even drinking systems. A few years ago, the Southern Daily Echo News reported that fish were under the influence of Prozac and five times more likely to swim toward light than away from it, making them also more susceptible to predators.

Shrimp are also believed to be at risk.

Crustaceans are crucial to the food chain and if shrimps’ natural behaviour is being changed because of antidepressant levels in the sea this could seriously upset the natural balance of the ecosystem,” says Dr. Alex Ford, from the University of Portsmouth’s Institute of Marine Sciences.

Could those of us who do not want to take psychiatric drugs be unwittingly receiving SSRIs anyway, perhaps in drinking water?

“There’s no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they’re at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms,” said Mary Buzby, director of environmental technology for Merck.

Clearly, Pharma’s SSRI marketing spree which has millions of people on SSRIs for decades does not just threaten patients.

*

Martha Rosenberg is a freelance journalist and the author of the highly acclaimed “Born With A Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health,” published by Prometheus Books. Check her Facebook page.