As a person who has always been labeled a ‘ conspiracy theorist’ , readers of my columns will enjoy this latest one. One need not even have to read the scores of research publicized on this Amerikan empire’s military madness. The main point of contention is this:
Over half of our tax dollars goes down the rabbit hole of military spending;
We keep close to 1000 bases in almost 100 countries and have our WMDs poised to attack anywhere we deem necessary!
On top of that our occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq have cost us thousands of dead military personnel and tens of thousands of innocent civilians in those countries AKA Collateral Damage. The Congress keeps spending our money on these things regardless of who sits in the White House. With few exceptions from a handful of true blue progressive and libertarian politicians, the empire gets what this beast of war requires.
This writer can turn on to any (so called) news show on the boob tube and never see or hear any mention of what has been transpiring. Silence! All the shows that parrot either of our two sellout political parties simply will never discuss my aforementioned facts. Speaking of facts, when I attempt to bring up anything pertaining to this obscene spending and militaristic mindset… Silence!
It seems as if the majority of my fellow citizens just could not give a rat’s ass about it. Yet, those same people will lament how there is not enough money for whatever needs they think are important to them and their families. Let’s take a need that many of us feel is so overlooked: The need for comprehensive health care reform. Even most of the doctors I have interviewed tell me that, if a gun was placed at their heads and they had to choose between private insurance as it is or Medicare as it is, they would choose the latter… even if it was not what they really wanted. When one attempts to go deeper into the ‘ How ‘ of implementing a Medicare for All system, the argument always is that ‘ The government just doesn’t have the money to run that system properly’. Well, when over $ 600 Billion dollars (not even counting the black budgets) goes yearly for military spending, if even 25% of it was cut, that savings would more than be enough to jumpstart such a program. Actually, with that much money available we could have not only a complete Medicare for All , but also a complete Dental Care for All as well. Imagine all those folks you pass each and every day with holes in their mouths (where there used to be teeth) that could smile at you with a ‘Sea of shining white ‘. I am one of that army, by the way.
This writer remembers the Vietnam (so called) War era when I was in high school and college. Perhaps in its early stages, 1964 to maybe ’67, the empire was able to fool many of us, especially our parents. However, ’68 and ’69 revealed the utter catastrophe ofhundreds of thousands of our young men conscripted and imprisoned for one year in that quagmire.. if they did not return home sooner in a box! It may have begun with we students and returning vets, but soon after it was many of our parents’ generation who soon wanted and even demanded for the shit to end and the empire pulled back. The chaos at the ’68 Democratic Convention in Chicago was really mostly about Vietnam. Martin Luther King Jr. was murdered for a score of reasons, as was Robert F. Kennedy, but the focal point of it all was Vietnam. King’s 1967 speech at the Riverside Church in N.Y .C. was his ‘coming out party’ against this empire. RFK’s late announcement to run in ’68 was equally focused on Vietnam. Yet, when the ‘forces that be’ did their dual dastardly deeds within a few months, it did not deter the movement that was gaining steam… these events most likely sped that train up.
As terrible as those days were in the late 60s, at least there was hope that this insane empire be curbed and pulled back. Sadly, today it seems as if most of our 20 somethings and their parents do not even know what is going down. The Conspiracy of Silence is winning!
*
Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 300 of his work posted on sites like Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Counterpunch, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected])
It’s been clear all along since Russian electoral meddling accusations first surfaced in 2016.
Russiagate accusations are part of an elaborate Russophobic hoax to delegitimize Trump and vilify Moscow – dark forces in Washington behind it, media complicit with their agenda, providing a steady drumbeat of disinformation, Big Lies and fake news.
On Monday, House head of its probe into alleged Russian interference in America’s 2016 presidential election Michael Conaway said his panel “found no evidence (of Kremlin) collusion, coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.”
A 150-page report will be issued on Tuesday, providing details of the probe.
House and Senate investigations have been ongoing since January 2017, Mueller’s since last May.
Yet after months of work, countless witnesses interviewed. documents examined, and other efforts, no evidence of Russian US election meddling was found because there’s nothing to find no matter how long investigations continue.
According to Conaway, at most his panel found possible examples of “bad judgement, inappropriate meetings, and inappropriate judgment at taking meetings” – nothing else, no Russian meddling, no illegal behavior.
“We’re dealing in facts, and we found no evidence of collusion,” Conaway stressed.
In response, Trump tweeted as follows:
“THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HAS, AFTER A 14 MONTH LONG IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION, FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION OR COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION” – in caps for emphasis.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Devin Nunes issued a statement, saying:
“After more than a year, the committee has finished its Russia investigation and will now work on completing our report.”
“I’d like to thank Congressmen Trey Gowdy, Tom Rooney, and especially Mike Conaway for the excellent job they’ve done leading this investigation.”
“I’d also like to recognize the hard work undertaken by our other committee members as well as our staff.”
“Once the committee’s final report is issued, we hope our findings and recommendations will be useful for improving security and integrity for the 2018 midterm elections.”
The GOP-led House probe into alleged Russian electoral meddling is over.
Senate and Mueller witch-hunt efforts continue – despite no evidence of Russian electoral meddling in America or anywhere else.
Longstanding US tradition includes electoral and other meddling abroad, toppling sovereign governments, assassinating legitimate leaders, removing others by coups, a sinister agenda continuing worldwide.
Russia seeks cooperative relations with all other nations. America wants them subservient to US interests, wanting any not bending to its will replaced by pro-Western puppet rule.
Washington’s drive for global hegemony is humanity’s greatest threat. Too few Americans understand it.
Most knowing what’s going on aren’t actively involved in opposing it – why America gets away with mass murder and much more.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.
Featured image: Soldiers from the U.S. Army and the Israel Defense Force (IDF carry a litter with a mock patient during a mass casualty training as part of the combined missile defense exercise known as Juniper Cobra 18, Feb. 28, 2018. (U.S. Navy photo)
Last Sunday, the largest joint military exercise between the United States and Israel began with little fanfare. The war game, dubbed “Operation Juniper Cobra,” has been a regular occurrence for years, though it has consistently grown in size and scope. Now, however, this year’s 12-day exercise brings a portent of conflict unlike those of its predecessors.
Previous reports on the operation suggested that, like prior incarnations of the same exercise, the focus would be on improving Israeli defenses.
“Juniper Cobra 2018 is another step in improving the readiness of the IDF [Israeli Defense Forces] and the IAF [Israeli Air Force] in particular to enhance their operational capabilities in facing the threat posed by high-trajectory missiles,” Brig. Gen. Zvika Haimovitch, the IDF’s Aerial Defense Division head, told the Jerusalem Post.
However, this year’s “Juniper Cobra” is unique for several reasons. The Post reported on Thursday that the drill, set to end on March 15, was not only the largest joint U.S.-Israeli air defense exercise to ever happen but it was also simulating a battle “on three fronts.” In other words, Israel and the U.S. are jointly simulating a war with Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine – namely, the Gaza strip – simultaneously.
What makes this last part so concerning are Israel’s recent statements and other preparations for war with all three nations, making “Juniper Cobra” anything but a “routine” drill. It is instead yet another preparation for a massive regional conflict, suggesting that such a conflict could be only a matter of months away.
As MintPress recently reported, Israeli officials recently told a bipartisan pair of U.S. Senators that it needed “ammunition, ammunition, ammunition” for a war against Hezbollah in Lebanon — a war that will expressly target Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings. The alleged motive for the invasion is the presence of Iranian rocket factories. However, this allegation is based solely on the claims of an anonymous deputy serving in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and was first reported on by a Kuwaiti newspaper known to publish stories planted by the Israeli government.
In addition, Israel has been laying the groundwork for an invasion of Syria since last year and is largely responsible for the current conflict in Syria that has raged on for seven years. Israel’s current push to invade Syria is also based on flimsy evidence suggesting that Iran is establishing bases in Syria to target Israel.
Israel has also been preparing for a conflict on the embattled Gaza strip, which – owing to the effects of Israel’s illegal blockade and the devastation wrought by past wars – is set to be entirely uninhabitable by 2020. Reports have quoted officials of the Palestinian resistance group Hamas, which governs the Gaza strip, as saying that they place the chances of a new war with Israel in 2018 “at 95 percent” and that war games, like Operation Juniper Cobra, were likely to be used to plan or even initiate such a conflict. This concern was echoed by IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot, who stated that another Israeli invasion of Gaza, home to 1.8 million people, was “likely” to occur this year. Eizenkot ironically framed the imminent invasion as a way to “prevent a humanitarian collapse” in Gaza.
U.S. lights match, prepares troops
US and Israeli troops deploy a Patriot missile defense battery during the 2018 Juniper Cobra air defense exercise in March 2018. (Source: Israel Defense Forces)
Such a war is likely to be ignited by the unrest destined to follow the U.S.’ imminent move of its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The move, set to take place in May, led Hamas to call for a third intifada, or uprising, in response to the U.S.’ unilateral decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in defiance of the international consensus.
Beyond the fact that Israel is preparing to go to war with several countries simultaneously is the fact that U.S. ground troops are now “prepared to die for the Jewish state,” according to U.S. Third Air Force CommanderLt. Gen. Richard Clark.
“We are ready to commit to the defense of Israel and anytime we get involved in a kinetic fight there is always the risk that there will be casualties. But we accept that, as in every conflict we train for and enter, there is always that possibility,” Clark told the Post.
However, more troubling than the fact that U.S. troops stand ready to die at Israel’s behest was Clark’s assertion that Haimovitch would “probably” have the last word as to whether U.S. forces would join the IDF during war time. In other words, the IDF will decide whether or not U.S. troops become embroiled in the regional war for which Israel is preparing, not the United States. Indeed, Haimovitch buoyed Clark’s words, stating that:
“I am sure once the order comes we will find here U.S. troops on the ground to be part of our deployment and team to defend the state of Israel.”
Operation Juniper Cobra is not a routine exercise; it is a portent of a potentially devastating war for which Israel is actively preparing, a war likely to erupt within the coming months. In addition to overtly targeting civilians, these preparations for war — as Juniper Cobra shows — directly involve the United States military and give the war-bent Israeli government the power to decide whether or not American troops will be involved and to what extent. This is a devastating giveaway of national sovereignty by U.S. President Donald Trump.
While the potential involvement of the U.S. forces in such a war is being framed as limited in scope, there is no indication that such a war will be so in practice. Indeed, the U.S. is currently occupying 25 percent of Syria and the Trump administration has economically attacked Palestinians living in Gaza by withdrawing crucial aid, as well as Hezbollah by enforcing new sanctions against the group. Furthermore, Israel’s nuclear arsenal and the fact that Iran — and even Russia — could become involved in such a conflict means that it could quickly spiral out of control.
*
Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News who has written for several news organizations in both English and Spanish; her stories have been featured on ZeroHedge, the Anti-Media, and 21st Century Wire among others. She currently lives in Southern Chile.
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.
On the 29th anniversary of the founding of the World Wide Web, British computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee—the inventor of the internet as we know it and a long-time advocate of digital rights—penned an open letter to call for stricter regulations of the major tech corporations that aim to control the web.
“What was once a rich selection of blogs and websites has been compressed under the powerful weight of a few dominant platforms,” laments Berners-Lee, writing for the Guardian. “This concentration of power creates a new set of gatekeepers, allowing a handful of platforms to control which ideas and opinions are seen and shared.”
“The fact that power is concentrated among so few companies has made it possible to weaponize the web at scale,” he warns, pointing to how we have recently “seen conspiracy theories trend on social media platforms, fake Twitter and Facebook accounts stoke social tensions, external actors interfere in elections, and criminals steal troves of personal data.”
Although internet users across the globe have “looked to the platforms themselves for answers,” Berners-Lee reasons that a “legal or regulatory framework that accounts for social objectives may help ease those tensions.”
His call for stricter rules to preserve the open internet follow the United States’ rollback of federal net neutrality protections late last year—which Berners-Lee strongly opposed, calling Federal Communications Commission chairAjit Pai‘s master plan to gut nationwide safeguards that prevented internet service providers from putting a premium on certain content “one of the greatest threats to the web in America.”
Today, Berners-Lee runs the World Wide Web Foundation, which works to “advance the open web as a public good and a basic right.” In his piece for the Guardian, in addition to demanding more regulations, he also emphasizes the needs for closing the digital divide and facilitating more inclusive conversations about the internet’s future.
He notes that the United Nations declared internet access a basic human right in 2016, and while this year we’re reaching the point where more than halfof the global population is online, people who are female, poor, or living in rural regions—or some combination of those characteristics—are still much less likely to have internet access.
Berners-Lee also declares that “today’s powerful digital economy calls for strong standards that balance the interests of both companies and online citizens,” and emphasizes the importance of “consulting a diverse cross section of society in the process” of rethinking how the web works now.
Challenging “the myth that advertising is the only possible business model for online companies, and the myth that it’s too late to change the way platforms operate,” he concludes, “on both points, we need to be a little more creative.”
*
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
When the United Kingdom’s leftist opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn criticized the government for supporting a catastrophic Saudi war on Yemen and welcoming the Saudi crown prince to London, he was attacked by a pro-Saudi Conservative member of Parliament, who claimed the Labour Party chief is “so poorly informed on Saudi and Yemen.”
What this right-wing lawmaker failed to mention is that she previously received thousands of dollars in hospitality expenses from the Saudi regime, while on a luxury junket to meet the Saudi king.
Saudi Arabia’s authoritarian de facto leader Mohammed bin Salman took his first official trip to the U.K. on March 7. Prince Mohammed dined with Queen Elizabeth in Buckingham Palace and met with Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May on Downing Street.
During the Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) session in Parliament, Corbyn lambasted May’s government for supporting one of the world’s most repressive and extreme regimes as it accelerates a war on Yemen that has created the largest humanitarian crisis on Earth.
“A humanitarian disaster is now taking place in Yemen. Millions face starvation and 600,000 children have cholera because of the Saudi-led bombing campaign and the blockade,” Corbyn said. “Germany has suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia, but British arms sales have increased sharply and British military advisers are directing the war.”
“[May’s] government are colluding in what the United Nations says is evidence of war crimes. Will the Prime Minister use her meeting with the Crown Prince today to halt the arms supplies and demand an immediate ceasefire in Yemen?” the Labour chief asked.
Conservative Member of Parliament Helen Whatelyresponded by lashing out at the opposition leader on Twitter, writing,
“Jeremy Corbyn in #PMQs so poorly informed on Saudi and Yemen. He sees everything as an ideological battle rather than the more complicated reality. It’s frighteningly simplistic.”
Critics immediately pointed out that Whately had recently led a trip with fellow Tory lawmakers to meet with Saudi dictator King Salman. Their tens of thousands of dollars of expenses were paid by the absolute monarchy.
Middle East Eye exposed in 2017 that Whately had accepted more than USD $4,000 in hospitality costs for an opulent junket to Riyadh. She was the head of a delegation of eight members of Parliament from the Middle East Group of British Conservative Party.
Public records show that the Saudi Arabia Ministry of Foreign Affairs paid £3,187 for hotels, food, and transportation just for Helen Whately, during her brief trip in April of that year.
A report in Saudi state media said the participants in the meeting “reviewed relations of friendship between the two countries and different aspects of cooperation, particularly between the Shura Council and the British Parliament.”
Since the trip, Whately has repeatedly defended the Saudi regime, and denounced its progressive critics.
“I think you are referring to the cost of my visit to Saudi. I believe in doing what I can to be well informed about the subjects I speak on. It’s important to see for yourself and ask questions, as I have.”
After condemning Jeremy Corbyn for speaking out against Saudi Arabia, Helen Whately proceeded to retweet posts about International Women’s Day. The Conservative lawmaker tweeted nothing about the extreme oppression of women in Saudi Arabia.
Helen Whately’s junket to Riyadh was not the only one. A Parliament watchdog has noted there is a long pattern of more than a dozen Conservative members of Parliament going on luxurious, all-expense-paid trips to Saudi Arabia.
A spokesperson for the monitoring group Campaign Against Arms Trade, told Middle East Eye,
“The Saudi regime appears to be exchanging hospitality and perks for questions and influence. By accepting these donations and those perks, MPs risk sending a message of support to the regime and legitimising its terrible human rights abuses.”
At PMQs, Corbyn drew attention to these human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia.
“Despite much talk of reform, there has been a sharp increase in the arrest and detention of dissidents, torture of prisoners is common, human rights defenders are routinely sentenced to lengthy prison terms, and unfair trials and executions are widespread, as Amnesty International confirms,” the leftist Labour leader said.
He added,
“As she makes her arms sales pitch, will she also call on the Crown Prince to halt the shocking abuse of human rights in Saudi Arabia?”
Scientific organizations from Commonwealth nations around the world have come together for the first time to urge governments to act on climate change.
The “Consensus Statement on Climate Change“—issued Monday ahead of next month’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in the United Kingdom—is an unprecedented plea signed by the heads of 22 national academies and scientific societies that represent tens of thousands of scientists in Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand, Bangladesh, South Africa, the UK, Pakistan and more.
“The world’s climate is changing, and the impacts are already being observed.
— Australian Academy of Science (@Science_Academy) March 12, 2018
The scientists call on governments to limit warming to below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, a target established by the landmark Paris climate agreement.
“Meeting this target will require achieving net-zero global greenhouse gas emissions in the second half of the century followed by active decarbonization of the atmosphere,” the letter states.
Failure to meet this target could result in global catastrophe, the experts warn.
“Even if all countries meet their current commitments to greenhouse gas emission reductions, a global temperature rise of more than 3°C above pre-industrial levels is projected by 2100 according to current data,” they write. “This would lead to profound impacts affecting billions of people throughout the world.”
“This challenge needs to be addressed now, and the efforts required will bring enduring social, environmental and economic benefits and opportunities.”
The academies of the Commonwealth says it is prepared to provide active support and sound scientific advice to governments on issues relating to climate change.
Oxford geoscientist Alex Halliday, the vice president of The Royal Society of London, talks about the joint statement in the video below:
Washington demands Russian and Syrian forces halt efforts to liberate East Ghouta – held since 2013 by US-supported terrorists.
Over two-thirds of the enclave is free from their control, Trump administration and Pentagon officials in a frenzy over losing the last US-supported terrorist stronghold in Syria, a major blow to Washington’s imperial agenda.
According to Russian Chief of General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov, the US is planning a false flag CW attack, blamed on Syria, as a pretext to attack its forces in East Ghouta.
“According to reports, after the false flag attack, the US plans to accuse the Syrian government troops of using chemical weapons, and to provide the world community with the so-called ‘evidence’ of the alleged mass death of civilians at the hands of the Syrian government and ‘Russia supporting it,’ Gerasimov explained, adding:
The Pentagon then “plans to launch a missile strike on the government-held districts of Damascus.”
“We have reliable information about militants preparing to falsify a government chemical attack against civilians.”
“In several districts of Eastern Ghouta, a crowd was assembled with women, children and old people, brought from other regions, who were to represent the victims of the chemical incident.”
Al-Qaeda-linked White Helmets arrived on the scene to film the staged incident, satellite video transmitters in place to broadcast the video, Gerasimov explained, adding:
“This has been confirmed by the discovery of a laboratory for the production of chemical weapons in the village of Aftris, which was liberated from terrorists.”
Russian military personnel are in Damascus at Syrian Defense Ministry facilities. If they’re threatened or harmed, Gerasimov vowed retaliatory measures against US missiles and delivery systems.
During a Monday Security Council session on Syria, US envoy Nikki Haley threatened Russia and Syria, saying Washington will act on its own if the Security Council fails to halt fighting in East Ghouta.
“It is not the path we prefer, but it is a path we have demonstrated we will take, and we are prepared to take again,” she roared, adding:
“When the international community consistently fails to act, there are times when states are compelled to take their own action.”
Russian UN envoy Vasily Nebenzya responded, saying Damascus and Moscow have “every right to try and remove the threat to the safety of its citizens” – adding the enclave is a “hotbed of terrorism.”
Separately, US Defense Secretary Mattis threatened US military action against Syrian forces, saying he’s getting reports of chlorine gas use, falsely suggesting Syrian responsibility while admitting he has no evidence proving it.
Asked if he intends another attack on Syrian forces like last April against Shayrat airbase, he said
“I’m not going to strictly define it. We have made it very clear that it would be very unwise to use gas.”
He knows US-supported terrorists alone use CWs, Syria falsely blamed for earlier incidents.
If Gerasimov is right, another major incident appears imminent. The Trump administration seems bent on escalating aggression in Syria.
Conflict resolution remains unattainable because Washington, NATO, Israel and their rogue partners reject it.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.
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.
While it is certainly true that the Jewish people have relatively deep roots in the land that is today known as Palestine and Israel, this area has been a crossroads since the origins of the human species. In fact the oldest known Homo sapiens fossil outside of Africa was recently found in modern-day Israel, dated at approximately 180,000 years old. Neanderthal bones have also been found in the Levant.
In historical times the Palestine region or parts of it have been controlled by numerous different peoples and regional powers, including the Canaanites, Amorites, Ancient Egyptians, Israelites, Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, ancient Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and Muslims. The Levant has been a mixing pot for the people of three continents for thousands of years.
A Zionist movement arose in the late 1800s in Europe as a concept for Jews from around the world to return the land of their historical roots. The origin of the word Zion is uncertain; it is first mentioned in the Old Testament as the name of a Canaanite, not Jewish, fortress, and its usage predates the Jews. A gathering of Zionists in Switzerland in 1897 chose Palestine as the location for their proposed Jewish State, even though the population of Palestine at that time was 96% Muslim and Christian. An exploratory group of Jews visited Palestine at that time and reported that, “The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man.” The Zionists understood from the beginning that force would be necessary to remove those people in Palestine for whom it was already a homeland.
Palestine at the time was a province of Ottoman Syria, a region of the Ottoman Empire. Zionists inquired with the Ottoman Turks about the possibilities of creating a Jewish homeland; the Turks responded that immigrants of any group were welcome but that the land was already occupied and a restrictive race- and/or religion-based state was out of the question.
The Zionists turned to the British, who were amenable to the concept for several reasons, one of which was that in 1916 they were in danger of losing WW I. In the battle of Somme initiated in July of that year Britain suffered 57,000 casualties on the first day of fighting, an astounding number of dead young men. The Zionists suggested that they and their Jewish friends in high places could induce the United States to enter into the war on the side of the British. American career Foreign Service Officer Evan M. Wilson, who had served as Minister-Consul General in Jerusalem, described this arrangement in his book Decision on Palestine. He wrote that the Balfour declaration “was given to the Jews largely for the purpose of enlisting Jewish support in the war and of forestalling a similar promise by the Central Powers (Germany and the Ottoman Turks).”
In addition, Britain was still deeply involved in growing opium in its “crown jewel colony” of India to sell to the Chinese (whom the British had conspired to get addicted to the drug almost two centuries before by mixing opium with tobacco) and was dependent upon the revenues thereof, and therefore needed all the protection it could muster for the empire’s access route through the Suez Canal. It perceived a Jewish state in the area to be more friendly to its imperial holdings than the surround Arab Muslims.
A third reason that Britain embraced the idea of Jews displacing Palestinians was that fundamentalist Christians held the belief that the “Second Coming of Christ” would not occur until “the Jews were back in Jerusalem.” In fact Arthur Balfour, a primary author of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which gave British government support to a Jewish State in Palestine, was just such a fundamentalist believer.
Thus Britain supported the creation of a Jewish state on Palestinian land in order to maintain its global empire (a primary cause of WW I), protect its lucrative opium market in China, and to attempt to induce the ‘seconding coming’ of Jesus. The enormous violence and cruelty inflicted on the Palestinians ever since has been perpetuated in the name of the Prince of Peace and the gods of capitalism.
The Third Palestinian Congress in Haifa in 1920 decried the British government’s plans to support the Zionist project, and rejected the declaration as a violation of international law and of the rights of the indigenous population. Wilson sent a commission to Palestine to investigate the situation in person. After spending two months in the area interviewing all sections of the population, the commissioners stated that the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine could be accomplished only with “the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” pointing out that subjecting Palestinians “to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle of self-determination and of the peoples’ rights.”
The report stated that meetings with Jewish representatives made it clear that “the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine,” It concluded that armed force would be required to accomplish this, and urged the Peace Conference to dismiss the Zionist proposals. The commission recommended that “the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.” The report was in fact suppressed, and when Britain obtained a “mandate” from the League of Nations it included the Balfour Declaration support for a Jewish homeland in existing Palestine.
From this point on Jewish immigration to Palestine increased rapidly. When the newly created United Nations approved a partition plan in 1947, dividing land between Palestinian and Jews, the Jewish population had grown from 4% in 1917 to 30%. But, because the United Nations has always been largely controlled by western powers, the Jews were given 55% of the land. The Zionists accepted this partition plan, while the Arab/ Muslim community did not, as they were losing a considerable portion of what had been their homeland to Western imperial power. In internal discussions in 1938 David Ben-Gurion (first prime minister of Israel) stated that “after we become a strong force….we shall abolish partition and expand into the whole of Palestine.”
The passing of the partition resolution in November 1947 triggered the violence that State Department analysts had predicted and for which Zionists had been preparing. There were at least 33 massacres of Palestinian villages, half of them before a single Arab army joined the conflict. Zionist forces were better equipped and had more men under arms than their opponents, and by the end of Israel’s “War of Independence” over 750,000 Palestinian men, women, and children were ruthlessly expelled and over 500 Palestinian villages were destroyed. The Palestinians call this the Nabka: the Catastrophe. As Israeli historian Tom Segev writes,
“Israel was born of terror, war, and revolution, and its creation required a measure of fanaticism and cruelty.”
One of the better-documented massacres occurred in a small, neutral Palestinian village called Deir Yassin in April 1948 – before any Arab armies had joined the war. Richard Catling, British assistant inspector general for the criminal investigation division, reported on “sexual atrocities” committed by Zionist forces. “Many young school girls were raped and later slaughtered,” he reported. “Old women were also molested.” The Red Cross representative who found the bodies at Deir Yassin arrived in time to see some of the killing in action. He wrote in his diary that Zionist militia members were still entering houses with guns and knives when he arrived. He saw one young Jewish woman carrying a blood-covered dagger and saw another stab an old couple in their doorway. The representative wrote that the scene reminded him of S.S. troops he had seen in Athens.
The Deir Yassin attack was perpetrated by two Zionist militias and coordinated with the main Zionist forces, whose elite unit participated in part of the operation. The heads of the two militias, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, later became Prime Ministers of Israel.
Begin, head of the Irgun militia, sent the following message to his troops about their victory at Deir Yassin: “Accept my congratulations on this splendid act of conquest. Convey my regards to all the commanders and soldiers…..Tell the soldiers: you have made history in Israel with your attack and your conquest. Continue thus until victory. As in Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest.”
The Jewish mystical book, the Kabala, teaches that non-Jews are the embodiment of Satan, and that the world was created solely for the sake of Jews. Rabbi Kook, who achieved saintly status among his followers in Israel and the U.S., stated: “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews… is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”
Unfortunately for Zionist objectives they have not to date been able to rid Palestine of the Palestinians. Of the approximately 12 million Palestinians in the world today, 3 million live in the West Bank, 2 million live in the Gaza strip, and almost two million live in Israel.
To say that Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens by the Israeli Jews would be considerable understatement. Every aspect of Palestinian life is controlled by the Israelis in a repressive and often violent manner. There are at least 7500 Israeli soldiers in the West Bank, for example, and at least 98 checkpoints, where Palestinians may be stopped for hours or even days. Soldiers regularly raid all Palestinian property; when I was teaching at an Palestinian elementary school in Hebron in February of 2018 it was raided by dozens of soldiers, who fired tear gas into the school yard. There are over 600 Palestinian children under the age of 18 in Israeli prisons, along with approximately 6000 Palestinian adults.
Since 1967 Israel has confiscated 73% of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. The Israeli government encourages and subsidizes the construction of Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories. Between 1967 and 1999 Israel established 200 settlements in the territories, including East Jerusalem. These colonial outposts are built on hundreds of square kilometers of land confiscated from Palestinians and require an large military presence around them for defense. Settlement building is illegal under international law; the fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the transfer of civilian populations of the occupying power into occupied territory. A network of large, well-maintained roads connect every Jewish settlement to Israel proper, roads upon which Palestinians may not travel, nor even walk across. All these roads are built on ‘expropriated’ Palestinian land, and carve up the West Bank into isolated segments.
Also since 1967 Israel has demolished over 48,000 homes in Palestine, leaving several hundred thousand Palestinians homeless. Palestinians wishing to build homes on their own land are subject to a lengthy and costly permit application process, and are almost invariably refused. The Israeli military then uses the lack of permits to justify destroying homes. Also since 1967 Israeli has torn out over 800,000 trees in Palestine, most of them olive and other food producing trees. The objective of this on-going cruelty is to drive the Palestinians out of Palestine, in fact Israel has proposed that Jordan would make a fine home for them.
Clearly Israel is something more than an apartheid state, a word coined in South Africa meaning “separateness.” Israel Zionists want exclusiveness—exclusively Jews in Israel and Palestine. This exclusivity is in itself a myth, as it has been proven that genetically there is no such thing as pure genetic race of Jews, and in fact Mediterranean Jews match Palestinian DNA at 100% (and all Homo sapiens have 99.9% the same DNA). From a religious perspective Jews are as divided among themselves as are any religious groups. In the name of this mythology of being a specially anointed people the Israelis in general Zionists in particular have committed on-going crimes and continuing brutality and cruelty against their own brothers and sisters, the Palestinian people.
Featured image: Britain’s Margaret Thatcher with Turkey’s Turgut Özal.
On February 21, a notice was released in Turkey’s Official Gazette (Resmi Gazete) stating that bids will be collected for Turkey’s state-owned fourteen sugar plants. According to Directorate of Privatization Administration’s (OIB) announcement, sugar plants in the provinces of Afyon, Alpullu, Bor, Burdur, Çorum, Elbistan, Erzincan, Erzurum, Ilgın, Kastamonu, Kırşehir, Muş, Turhal and Yozgat will be privatized. The Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi (AKP – Justice and Development Party) government, which has looted and made benefits of public-enterprises available to both national and international capital, seeks new privatization opportunities.
The introduction of neoliberal policies and privatization to Turkey began long before the AKP government.
Military Junta and Privatization
On 12 September 1980, the Turkish Military plotted a coup, which was supported by the U.S. administration. There were popular left-wing and working-class movements in Turkey before the coup. Although the military junta said that their main aim was suppression of a so-called “anarchic” situation, the government presented a free-market oriented economic construction package – known as January 1980 Package – in 24th of January 1980, just several months before the military takeover. The January 1980 Package was mainly focused on implementation of neoliberal economic reforms such as allowance and encouragement of foreign investment, the abolition of price controls and subsidies to state economic enterprises, and Turkey’s integration into international capital. The economic reform package was advised by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The Military Junta saw left-wing movements, which had popular strength in Turkish society, as a threat to neoliberal transformation. At the time, the Confederation of Progressive Trade Unions of Turkey (DİSK) was a militant trade union and well-organized in the working-class movement.
The person behind the January 1980 Package,Turgut Özal, founded a right-wing political party called Motherland Party (ANAP). He had personally met with Britain’s Thatcher and is often compared with her because of his neoliberal policies. However, in a political environment where most of the trade-unions and left-wing movements were heavily suppressed, it became easier to implement the neoliberal reforms. As a result, Turkey entered into an era of integration into international capital and implementation of neoliberal policies including privatization of public enterprises.
Despite the fact that privatization in Turkey did not start with the AKP government, anti-labour and anti-popular policies have always been a key element for them. Most of the public enterprises and state-run firms were privatized in the last 16 years. According to information published by OİB in 2017, the AKP government privatized 10 ports, 81 power plants, 40 facilities, 3,483 premises, 3 ships, 36 mine sites and public shares of 94 companies.
Most of the privatized sectors were strategic parts of the Turkish economy. In 2005, the country’s main state-owned petroleum refinery TÜPRAŞ was sold to a joint venture of Turkey’s Koç group and Shell group of Netherlands. Privatization of the main firm in Turkey’s telecommunication sector, Türk Telekom, also took place in the same year. 55 per cent of Türk Telekom was sold to Lebanon’s Oger Telecom.
TEKEL workers during a strike. [Photo source: Evren Özesen]
One of Turkey’s most significant workers’ resistances also took place in 2009. Turkish tobacco and alcoholic beverages company, also known as TEKEL, was bought by British American Tobacco (BAT). Prior to the company’s privatization, approximately 10,000 workers received their notice of contract termination. Workers went on protests in the capital Ankara and faced police attacks. The 78 days-long resistance brought many achievements to Turkey’s working class and marked a historic phase.
First Reactions
The sugar beet industry played a crucial role in the country’s industrialization during the early republic years by building infrastructure in rural areas as well as providing employment opportunities to local people. If privatization takes place, many workers are expected to become internal migrants as their livelihood standards will fall dramatically.
Are we going to see another historical resistance? It is too early to say, but workers and opposition parties reacted with anger against the government’s decision to privatize Turkey’s sugar plants.
The Republican People’s Party (CHP) Deputy Chair Veli Ağbaba has said that the decision to privatize sugar plants came after President Recep Erdoğan’s meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on February 15 and that Turkey’s sugar factories are going to be sold in order to meet Cargill’s (a U.S.-based multinational company) demands. The company has been operating in agricultural product field in Turkey since 1986.
During the demonstration against the privatization of Apullu Sugar Factory, Lüleburgaz (a district of Kırklareli Province in the Marmara region) Mayor Emin Halebaksaid that if the government wants to sell Apullu Sugar Factory then he wants to buy the plant and give it back to people. Apullu is the oldest sugar factory in Turkey.
However, the state of emergency (OHAL) in Turkey, which was declared after the failed coup attempt in 2016, is an important tool in the hands of the AKP government against workers and possible resistance. Last year at a meeting with foreign investors, Erdoğan confessed the anti-labour nature of the state of emergency, saying that his government is taking advantage of OHAL and intervening in workplaces to ban possible strikes. Recently, a strike of 130,000 workers at 179 factories across the metal sector in Turkey was banned by the government on the grounds of being “prejudicial to national security.”
Fight Against Privatization
The fight against privatization of sugar factories is not just an economic demand but also a political issue. AKP and particularly Erdoğan called themselves “native and national” several times as if their opponents are not natives of Turkey and do not belong to the country. Yet, they are the ones that sell public property to foreign investors for the sake of a few moneybags and multinational companies.
Ironically, their so-called “native and national” values end when capitalists command them to do so.
At this stage, it is not clear if the AKP government is going to give up its goal of privatizing the country’s sugar factories but it seems like they are quite determined to do so. Turkey’s highly oppressed working-class movement is the only political force that can stop it.
History is calling the working-class to take the stage, once again.
*
Kubilay Cenk studies at the University of Plymouth, focussing on international relations and politics.
This article was first crossposted on Global Research in April 2014.
“GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use…There is no reason GM foods should be approved safe for consumption, we just don’t know enough about them. We could easily feed the planet through organic, GMO-free methods, so there is absolutely no reason we need GM foods around… the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable…Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease. “
Over the past few years, a number of countries have completely banned GMOs and the pesticides that go along with them, and they are doing so for a reason. The latest country to consider a complete ban is Russia after top government scientists recommended at least a 10-year ban.
The truth is, we don’t know enough about GMOs to deem them safe for human consumption. Believe it or not the very first commercial sale of them was only twenty years ago. There is no possible way that our health authorities can test all possible combinations on a large enough population, over a long enough period of time to be able to say with absolute certainty that they are harmless.
There are a multitude of credible scientific studies that clearly demonstrate why GMOs should not be consumed, and more are emerging every year. There are also a number of scientists all around the world who oppose them.
By slipping it into our food without our knowledge, without any indication that there are genetically modified organisms in our food, we are now unwittingly part of a massive experiment. The FDA has said that genetically modified organisms are not much different from regular food, so they’ll be treated in the same way. The problem is this, geneticists follow the inheritance of genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to take this organism, and move it horizontally into a totally unrelated species. Now David Suzuki doesn’t normally mate with a carrot and exchange genes, what biotechnology allows us to do is to switch genes from one to the other without regard to the biological constraints. It’s very very bad science, we assume that the principals governing the inheritance of genes vertically, applies when you move genes laterally or horizontally. There’s absolutely no reason to make that conclusion – Geneticist David Suzuki
If anybody ever tells you that we know with one hundred percent certainty that GMOs are totally safe to eat, they haven’t done their research. There is no reason GM foods should be approved safe for consumption, we just don’t know enough about them. We could easily feed the planet through organic, GMO-free methods, so there is absolutely no reason we need GM foods around.
Below I’ve presented just a bit of information to get you started on your research.
1. Multiple Toxins From GMOs Detected In Maternal and Fetal Blood
Research from Canada (the first of its kind) has successfully identified the presence of pesticides -associated with genetically modified foods in maternal, fetal and non-pregnant women’s blood. They also found the presence of Monsanto’s Bt toxin. The study was published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology in 2011.(1) You can read the FULL study here.
Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed, particularly those using the placental transfer approach. Thus, our present results will provide baseline data for future studies exploring a new area of research relating to nutrition, toxicology and reproduction in women. Today, obstetric-gynecological disorders that are associated with environmental chemicals are not known. Thus, knowing the actual concentration of genetically modified foods in humans constitutes a cornerstone in the advancement of research in this area.” (1)
The study used blood samples from thirty pregnant women and thirty non-pregnant women. The study also pointed out that the fetus is considered to be highly susceptible to the adverse affects of xenobiotics (foreign chemical substance found within an organism that is not naturally produced.) This is why the study emphasizes that knowing more about GMOs is crucial, because environmental agents could disrupt the biological events that are required to ensure normal growth and development.
2. DNA From Genetically Modified Crops Can Be Transferred Into Humans Who Eat Them
In a new study published in the peer reviewed Public Library of Science (PLOS), researchers emphasize that there is sufficient evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments carry complete genes that can enter into the human circulation system through an unknown mechanism.(2)
In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The study was based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies. PLOS is an open access, well respected peer-reviewed scientific journal that covers primary research from disciplines within science and medicine. It’s great to see this study published in it, confirming what many have been suspected for years.
Our bloodstream is considered to be an environment well separated from the outside world and the digestive tract. According to the standard paradigm large macromolecules consumed with food cannot pass directly to the circulatory system. During digestion proteins and DNA are thought to be degraded into small constituents, amino acids and nucleic acids, respectively, and then absorbed by a complex active process and distributed to various parts of the body through the circulation system. Here, based on the analysis of over 1000 human samples from four independent studies, we report evidence that meal-derived DNA fragments which are large enough to carry complete genes can avoid degradation and through an unknown mechanism enter the human circulation system. In one of the blood samples the relative concentration of plant DNA is higher than the human DNA. The plant DNA concentration shows a surprisingly precise log-normal distribution in the plasma samples while non-plasma (cord blood) control sample was found to be free of plant DNA. (2)
This still doesn’t mean that GMOs can enter into our cells, but given the fact GMOs have been linked to cancer (later in this article) it is safe to assume it is indeed a possibility. The bottom line is that we don’t know, and this study demonstrates another cause for concern.
3. New Study Links GMOs To Gluten Disorders That Affect 18 Million Americans
This study was recently released by the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and uses data from the US department of Agriculture, US Environmental Protection Agency, medical journal reviews as well as other independent research. (3)(4) The authors relate GM foods to five conditions that may either trigger or exacerbate gluten-related disorders, including the autoimmune disorder, Celiac Disease:
Intestinal permeability
Imbalanced gut bacteria
Immune activation and allergic response
Impaired digestion
Damage to the intestinal wall
The Institute for Responsible technology is a world leader in educating policy makers and the public about GMO foods and crops. The institute reports and investigates on the impact GM foods can have on health, environment, agriculture and more.
4. Study Links Genetically Modified Corn to Rat Tumors
In November 2012, The Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology published a paper titled ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize’ by Gilles-Eric Seralini and his team of researchers at France’s Caen University. (5)
It was a very significant study, which obviously looks bad for the big biotech companies like Monsanto, being the first and only long-term study under controlled conditions examining the possible effects of a diet of GMO maize treated with Monsanto roundup herbicide.
This study has since been retracted, which is odd, because the journal it was published in is a very well known, reputable peer reviewed scientific journal. In order for a study to be published here it has to go through a rigorous review process.
It’s also important to note that hundreds of scientists from around the world have condemned the retraction of the study. This study was done by experts, and a correlation between GMOs and these tumors can’t be denied, something happened.
The multiple criticisms of the study have also been answered by the team of researchers that conducted the study. You can read them and find out more about the study here.
GM Crop Production is Lowering US Yields and Increasing Pesticide Use
5. Glyphosate Induces Human Breast Cancer Cells Growth via Estrogen Receptors
A study is published in the US National Library of Medicine (4) and will soon be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology. Several recent studies showed glyphosate’s potential to be an endocrine disruptor. Endocrine disruptors are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause developmental disorders, birth defects and cancer tumors. (6)
Glyphosate exerted proliferative effects only in human hormone-dependent breast cancer. We found that glyphosate exhibited a weaker estrogenic activity than estradiol.
Furthermore, this study demonstrated the additive estrogenic effects of glyphosate and genisein which implied that the use of contaminated soybean products as dietary supplements may pose a risk of breast cancer because of their potential additive estrogenicity. (6)
Researchers also determined that Monsanto’s roundup is considered an “xenoestrogen,” which is a foreign estrogen that mimics real estrogen in our bodies. This can cause a number of problems that include an increased risk of various cancers, early onset of puberty, thyroid issues, infertility and more.
6. Glyphosate Linked To Birth Defects
A group of scientists put together a comprehensive review of existing data that shows how European regulators have known that Monsanto’s glyphosate causes a number of birth malformations since at least 2002. Regulators misled the public about glyphosate’s safety, and in Germany the Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety told the European Commission that there was no evidence to suggest that glyphosate causes birth defects. (7)
Our examination of the evidence leads us to the conclusion that the current approval of glyphosate and Roundup is deeply flawed and unreliable. In this report, we examine the industry studies and regulatory documents that led to the approval of glyphosate. We show that industry and regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s and 1990s that glyphosate causes malformation – but that this information was not made public. We demonstrate how EU regulators reasoned their way from clear evidence of glyphosate’s teratogenicity in industry’s own studies to a conclusion that minimized these findings in the EU Commission’s final review report. (7)
Here is a summary of the report:
Multiple peer-reviewed scientific literature documenting serious health hazards posed by glyphosate
Industry (including Monsanto) has known since the 1980s that glyphosate causes malformations in experimental animals at high doses
Industry has known since 1993 that these effects could also occur at lower and mid doses
The German government has known since at least 1998 that glyphosate causes malformations
The EU Commission’s expert scientific review panel knew in 1999 that glyphosate causes malformations
The EU Commission has known since 2002 that glyphosate causes malformations. This was the year DG SANCO division published its final review report, laying out the basis for the current approval of glyphosate
Another study published by the American Chemical Society, from the university of Buenos Aires, Argentina also showed that Glyphosate can cause abnormalities.(8)
The direct effect of glyphosate on early mechanisms of morphogenesis in vertebrate embryos opens concerns about the clinical findings from human offspring in populations exposed to glyphosate in agricultural fields (8)
7. Study Links Glyphosate To Autism, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s
When you ingest Glyphosate, you are in essence altering the chemistry of your body. It’s completely unnatural and the body doesn’t resonate with it. P450 (CYP) is the gene pathway disrupted when the body takes in Glyphosate. P450 creates enzymes that assist with the formation of molecules in cells, as well as breaking them down.
CYP enzymes are abundant and have many important functions. They are responsible for detoxifying xenobiotics from the body, things like the various chemicals found in pesticides, drugs and carcinogens. Glyphosate inhibits the CYP enzymes. The CYP pathway is critical for normal, natural functioning of multiple biological systems within our bodies. Because humans that’ve been exposed to glyphosate have a drop in amino acid tryptophan levels, they do not have the necessary active signalling of the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is associated with weight gain, depression and Alzheimer’s disease. (9)
8. Chronically Ill Humans Have Higher Glyphosate Levels Than Healthy Humans
A new study out of Germany concludes that Glyphosate residue could reach humans and animals through feed and can be excreted in urine. It outlines how presence of glyphosate in urine and its accumulation in animal tissues is alarming even at low concentrations. (10)
To this day, Monsanto continues to advertise its Roundup products as environmentally friendly and claims that neither animals nor humans are affected by this toxin.
Environmentalists, veterinarians, medical doctors and scientists however, have raised increasing alarms about the danger of glyphosate in the animal and human food chain as well as the environment. The fact that glyphosate has been found in animals and humans is of great concern. In search for the causes of serious diseases amongst entire herds of animals in northern Germany, especially cattle, glyphosate has repeatedly been detected in the urine, feces, milk and feed of the animals. Even more alarming, glyphosate was detected in the urine of the farmers. (10)
9. Studies Link GMO Animal Feed to Severe Stomach Inflammation and Enlarged Uteri in Pigs
A study by scientist Judy Carman, PhD that was recently published in the peer-reviewed journal Organic Systems outlines the effects of a diet mixed with GMO feed for pigs, and how it is a cause for concern when it comes to health. (11) Scientists randomized and fed isowean pigs either a mixed GM soy and GM corn (maize) diet for approximately 23 weeks (nothing out of the ordinary for most pigs in the United States), which is unfortunately the normal lifespan of a commercial pig from weaning to slaughter. Equal numbers of male and female pigs were present in each group. The GM diet was associated with gastric and uterine differences in pigs. GM pigs had uteri that were 25% heavier than non-GM fed pigs. GM-fed pigs had a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation with a rate of 32% compared to 125 of non-GM fed pigs.
The study concluded that pigs fed a GMO diet exhibited a heavier uteri and a higher rate of severe stomach inflammation than pigs who weren’t fed a GMO diet. Because the use of GMO feed for livestock and humans is so widespread, this is definitely another cause for concern when it comes to GMO consumption. Humans have a similar gastrointestinal tract to pigs, and these GM crops are consumed widely by people, especially in the United States.
10. GMO risk assessment is based on very little scientific evidence in the sense that the testing methods recommended are not adequate to ensure safety. (12)(13)(14)
Deficiencies have been revealed numerous times with regards to testing GM foods.
The first guidelines were originally designed to regulate the introduction of GM microbes and plants into the environment with no attention being paid to food safety concerns. However, they have been widely cited as adding authoritative scientific support to food safety assessment. Additionally, the Statement of Policy released by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States, presumptively recognizing the GM foods as GRAS (generally recognized as safe), was prepared while there were critical guidelines prepared by the International Life Sciences Institute Europe and FAO/WHO recommend that safety evaluation should be based on the concept of substantial equivalence, considering parameters such as molecular characterization, phenotypic characteristics, key nutrients, toxicants and allergens. Since 2003, official standards for food safety assessment have been published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission of FAO/WHO. Published reviews with around 25 peer-reviewed studies have found that despite the guidelines, the risk assessment of GM foods has not followed a defined prototype.(12) (15)
The risk assessment of genetically modified (GM) crops for human nutrition and health has not been systematic. Evaluations for each GM crop or trait have been conducted using different feeding periods, animal models and parameters. The most common results is that GM and conventional sources include similar nutritional performance and growth in animals. However, adverse microscopic and molecular effects of some GM foods in different organs or tissues have been reported. While there are currently no standardized methods to evaluate the safety of GM foods, attempts towards harmonization are on the way. More scientific effort is necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods. (12) (15)
So, if anybody ever tells you that GMOs are completely safe for consumption, it’s not true. We just don’t know enough about them to make such a definitive statement. A lot of evidence actually points to the contrary.
Relevant to today’s suppression of dissent is this article by Joachim Hagopian which was first published on Global Research in January 2015.
With 2014 fresh in our rear view mirror, an honest examination of events and developments of what’s been happening in America to whistleblowers and journalists since 9/11 under the Bush-Obama regime seems a worthwhile review, however disturbing ands foreboding. By definition a whistleblower is an individual who reports an employer’s misconduct. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (WPA) is a law that protectsfederal government employees in the United States from retaliatory action for voluntarily disclosing information about dishonest or illegal activities occurring within a government organization. Yet despite these supposed legal protections in place, those who have gone public disclosing illicit and immoral behavior by the federal government have been consistently singled out for discrimination and excessive punishment.
In fact, more American citizens have been indicted for allegedly violating the Espionage Act of 1917 under the current president than all other previous presidents combined. Though the law was designed to punish WWI German spies, and rarely used since for indicting those selling secrets to the enemy or efforts to undermine the American way of life, it is completely obsolete. Yet it is being misused by Obama for purely political purposes to shut down the truth. The Obama administration has also turned down more Freedom of Information Act requests than any other prior presidency with each year the denial rate rising. 2013 was 57% more than the year before, with over half the total requests rejected. Of course Obama’s mantra excuse is always using the “national security” card. He has also jailed more whistleblowers and journalists than any other president. By his over the top, punitive methods, Obama has declared war on the first amendment right to a free press in America, threatening, harassing, indicting and imprisoning those brave enough to speak the truth, accusing them of treason when the president through his administration has repeatedly violated the very Constitution that he has sworn to protect and uphold as the so called leader of the free world. His malevolent attack on free speech is even more incriminating and inexcusable as a Harvard educated lawyer who once taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.
With their war policies both domestic and abroad one and the same, Obama has carried the totalitarian torch handed him by the Bush-Cheney administration making the United States the world’s worst human rights violator. But then they’re all cast from the same psychopathic mold as mere public front men simply following orders from their oligarch puppet masters who own and control them along with virtually everything else on this planet.
The man who after the Bush nightmare exploited Americans’ desperate need for hope and change campaigned on false promises that his administration would be far more open and transparent than his war criminal predecessor, pledging to be the most open and honest in US history. Instead Obama has only proven to be the most guarded, vindictive and secretive president in US history. With three quarters of Obama’s two term reign of terror completed, let’s look at the lives of a handful of Americans who have bravely spoken out since 9/11, some known and some lesser known. At great danger to themselves these individuals have exercised their legal rights under the Whistleblower Act and/or First Amendment and paid dearly for only doing the right thing. Their courage to expose government waste, corruption, fraud and its diabolical wrongdoing has been met with blatant retribution and extreme punishment that has systematically resulted in their unlawful firing, false imprisonment, character and career assassination and indeed even their political assassination and murder, all for standing up to injustice and wrongdoing for the greater good of Americans and humanity. These brave and honest individuals working in our government and in journalism should be heralded as our national heroes for their bold truth speaking, not silenced, harmed and/or destroyed by our own criminally treasonous rogue government.
The two biggest whistleblowers deservedly receiving the most national and international attention during the last couple years are ex-NSA analyst Edward Snowden, currently a fugitive forced on the run hiding out in Russia, and ex-US Army private Bradley now Chelsea Manning, currently serving three and a half decades of hard time in federal prison. In June 2013 Snowden released documents proving the government leaders to be liars – from Obama’s national security advisor and known perjurer James Clapper to now former National Security Agency (NSA) Director General Alexander (in clear violation of both his sworn oath upholding both the Constitution and his onetime West Point honor code).
Through the Snowden revelations Americans and in fact the entire world have come to realize the US government has been routinely conducting invasive, unlawful surveillance on every single aspect of our not so private lives, brazenly and blatantly violating Fourth Amendment search and seizure laws for decades now. Mr. Snowden pointed out what many of us already suspected, that Big Brother is watching our every move, or minimally has free unlimited access. Despite the reactive government and its controlled Mainstream Media propaganda machine claiming the NSA whistleblower is a traitor as the eighth American charged with violating the Espionage Act who weakened national security and placed Americans in danger, then not delivering a shred of forthcoming evidence, public opinion has neither been swayed nor convinced that he’s the villain. Even the New York Times has followed suit with the majority of Americans beginning 2014 with a favorable New Year op-ed article upgrading its view of Edward Snowden:
When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government…
Considering the enormous value of the information he has revealed, and the abuses he has exposed, Mr. Snowden deserves better than a life of permanent exile, fear and flight.
Of course Private Manning working as an intelligence specialist in Iraq saw numerous atrocities and crimes against humanity the US Empire was perpetrating in our name in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In good conscience in 2010 he leaked thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaksbelieving like Daniel Ellsberg four decades earlier that it might force the United States to end its war crimes, perhaps the wars themselves because the American people have the right to know what atrocities are being committed in their name. Rather than protection under the Whistleblower’s Act, like Snowden he too was slammed with treasonous charges and convicted of violating the Espionage Act with the same bogus worn out cries/lies that he also compromised national security and endangered fellow Americans. And also identical to the Snowden outcries, a Pentagon general who conducted a near yearlong investigation of the effects the leaks maintained that not one single death ever resulted from Manning’s releases.
There is something really grotesquely wrong and inverse from the way it naturally should be in America when a whistleblower performing acts of goodwill demonstrating moral conscience to save lives is maltreated with the treasonous tag of traitor and imprisoned for the next thirty five years. Rather than own responsibility for violating international laws and correcting the grave problem as any government operating with any moral compass would do, US government tyranny has it committing yet another grave injustice by in effect destroying the whistleblower’s life, confining Manning for what will likely be most of her remaining life. Private Manning should have won the Nobel Peace Prize for his moral courage and been lauded as a national hero and role model to be emulated in history books for generations to come, not cast away to rot for decades in a prison cell.
John Kiriakou was a CIA officer turned whistleblower who busted the Bush-Cheney-Obama torture practice wide open by contacting the New York Times and an ABC reporter. Though the systemic practice of enhanced interrogation torture that includes waterboarding was officially outlawed under Obama, in reality it only went further underground. That’s why Obama recently refused to prosecute the guilty members of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Alberto Gonzalez regime including the CIA and Special Ops personnel who actively violated international and national laws. But the good man Kiriakou who called the bad men out was the one who was arrested in early 2012 simply for telling the truth while the government for years persisted in its lying game. That’s why Obama throwing the book at John threw him into the slammer where he still remains, not for passing any classified material or even violating the three counts of espionage he initially was charged with that were dropped for lack of evidence. He has been locked up purely for the political purpose to set an example for those honest and courageous enough to tell the nasty heinous truth about what America the rogue state has been propagating with impunity around the world. In his arrogant exceptionalism, Obama continues to operate above the law, defying the Whistleblower Act of 1989 he also promised to uphold. As another heroic patriot, John Kiriakou should be a free man and recognized as the hero he is.
Meanwhile, the US military-national government should be treated as the treasonous killing machine it is and severely punished for its rampant destruction and violation of both international and domestic laws. But unfortunately since 9/11, the oppressors within the militarized Empire apparatus doing the dirty oligarch bidding of the New World Order no longer comply with our nation’s rule of law and instead appear engaged in global depopulation through war, growing complicity of ethnic cleansing in Gaza, Ukraine, Iraq, Syria and Rwanda, widespread globalimpoverishment, bio-warfare and neurotoxin poisoning. The police state killing increasing numbers of innocent, unarmed, law abiding US citizens reflects the overt war on America itself. With events from Ferguson, New York City and throughout America really, the powers-that-be have long been waging successful divide and conquer campaigns, pitting class against class, religion against religion, race against race, region against region, ideology against ideology, police state against citizen.
Though the FBI fails to even acknowledge much less tally each year’s unjustifiable homicides committed by law enforcement agencies across the nation, only “justifiable” ones are counted. From 1992 through 2012 (2012 being the latest account though in 2014 an exponential spike has no doubt occurred), while violent crime in the US has steadily declined, the so called justifiable killings of Americans by police has significantly increased. Plus as law enforcement becomes more militarized with surplus military weapons and equipment from war zones being distributed in recent years to local police departments around the country, the weapon of choice that the militarized police state is currently using to kill US citizens has shifted from officer handguns to automatic rifles. It’s getting so one cannot tell the difference between the police and the military as they have emerged in both appearance and function to be one and the same. They both fight wars, domestic and foreign.
Everything happening here in the United States is simultaneously recurring throughout the Western world. It all is going as planned by that one tenth of one percent that holds virtually the entire planet’s wealth and power along with its seven billion population hostage. In the US the top 20% of American household incomes own over half the country’s wealth (53.5%) and incredibly the top 1% alone more than 40% of all US wealth. With the world’s richest nation’s form of government no longer a democratic republic but an actual oligarchy serving the interests of the privileged financial elite, draconian laws have sprung up on every continent criminalizing free speech and free press. Each passing year more journalists are being jailed or killed throughout the globe. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) just revealed that 60 journalists were killed in action in 2014 while Reporters Without Borders counted the number at 66. CPJ maintains that 220 were imprisoned last year. It’s becoming more dangerous all the time to report the truth.
The Orwellian nightmare of a militarized global security-surveillance-police state means new national security laws are rapidly proliferating all over the world. This last year alone has seen tyrannical parliamentary acts from Australia to Spain being enacted with greater frequency. Clearly the globalists control every war, manufacturing and demonizing enemies at propagandist will. Oligarchs in the form of the international banking cabal have taken over every national government, own and control every transnational corporation, and control every national economy due to increasing dependence on a non-sustainable, bankrupt global economic system dictated and controlled by the cabal. They own and control virtually all global food production, distribution and supply as well as virtually all sources of information through fewer and fewer media outlets, with the agenda to next abolish net neutrality and eliminate the internet as the only viable independent news source for any semblance of truth and accurate information still left available. As highly alarming as this appallingly dark and austere NWO reality fast descending over every corner of the globe appears, unfortunately the worst is yet to come. We citizens of the world must fight back first with the truth by learning and disseminating it, and then with our collective will through nonviolent civil disobedience.
The increasingly probable assassination of investigative journalist Michael Hastings on June 18th, 2013 involved a high speed car crash caused by an incredibly high heat explosion that occurred prior to ending up “leaning” next to a tree in an LA police photo that shows the new model Mercedes Benz with absolutely no frontal collision damage at all, only a badly burned area confined to the driver’s seat where Michael was burned alive. Neighborhood witnesses describe what they heard as an enormously loud explosion at 4:30 in the morning sounding like “a bomb going off.” The unburned engine was strangely found at a right angle from the car lying 150-180 feet away, consistent with a powerful explosive catapulting it so far a distance from the vehicle. Also consistent with an explosion, there were no skid marks at the accident scene.
Within just a few hours after Hastings’ death, LAPD was rushing to make an open and shut case, calling it a simple accident while emphatically claiming no foul play was involved barely even after any investigation had begun. That kind of knee jerk response smacks of cover-up. Also Michael’s body went straight from the coroner’s office to the local crematory without the family’s consent against their wishes. With his body quickly cremated, any possibility of discovering signs of foul play were instantly and conveniently destroyed, raising only more suspicion.
On the very same day just a few hours before his death, the outspoken reporter was in contact with WikiLeaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson, eager to turn over his latest expose piece on the criminality of US intelligence agencies. Also on that very same day, Michael asked a friend to borrow her car indicating he knew something was not right with his own new model vehicle. Additionally, Hastings was in a rare state of anxiety all day long as he was busily emailing and contacting friends to inform them that the FBI was in fact investigating him and that he may need to lay low for a while. Though the FBI denied that he was ever under investigation, the truth was the FBI lied as he was being investigated right after his most recent Rolling Stone article came out in July 2012 featuring the highly controversial case of the only POW from the Afghanistan War Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl. A 22-page secret FBI report was the result.
Even more striking was a post on WikiLeaks of an internal email from the covert CIA contractor company Stratfor’s Vice President Fred Burton stating, “[CIA Director] Brennan is behind the witch hunts of investigative journalists learning information from inside the beltway sources.”Then Michael Hastings’ wife Elise Jordan confirmed in a CNN interview that former CIA Director Petraeus’ successor John Brennan and his efforts to seal off all leaks to the press was the very hot topic of Hastings’ next exposé. The biggest articles of Hastings’ career in journalism were most unflattering reports about the most powerful military leaders in America – Generals Stanley McCrystal and David Petraeus for Rolling Stone.
In fact, shortly after the McCrystal article was published, the military intelligence commander of Special Operations in Afghanistan’s own career was destroyed when Obama fired McCrystal for trash talking his Commander-in-Chief. There’s evidence that Hastings’ life was threatened while writing that article should his account of McCrystal not be anything more than a fluff n’ puff piece. Several years earlier it was General McCrystal who was the primary player (along with his boss my former West Point roommate the then CentCom commander General John Abizaid) in covering up Pat Tillman’s suspicious death and probable murder since the famous pro football star turned patriotic Army Ranger was renouncing his role as a Bush-Cheney poster boy unwittingly being misused for recruitment for their illegal wars. Tillman was about to blow the lid off the US government’s international drug smuggling operation that had US soldiers guarding the opium fields in Afghanistan. The friendly fire that put three bullet holes in his forehead a la execution style obviously was anything but friendly. Nor was the autopsy doctor who balked for months from acquiescing to the official cover-up version.
Two years later another scathing Hastings article placed General Petraeus in a bad light uncovering the resounding failure of “King David’s War” (as Hastings named his Rolling Stone piece) in 2010 Afghanistan, exposing the general’s lies touting false progress over his second surge in as many wars after the inflated hype had crowned him the savior in Iraq. Hastings’ unfettered truth squarely embarrassed America’s most famous general with the rock star status and presidential ambitions to jump at the chance in 2011 of abandoning his own 37-year military career, his failed combat mission and lost cause war to become the next civilian in charge of the CIA. Hastings’ no-nonsense brand of truth telling journalism made powerful enemies and tragically he paid for it with his life.
Michael Hastings boldly pissed off the elite, exposing their lies in a nation run no different from the mafia, controlled by murdering thugs within a shadowy rogue government that made Hastings their “fair game” target. Silencing him by their brazen undercover method of remote hacking and exploding his automobile was the not-so-subtle message sent to all muckraking journalists who dare print the dirty lowdown truth about the fascist tyranny state since the 9/11 inside coup unleashing the forever war on terror. Even counterterrorism insider Richard Clarke copped the conclusion that it could well have been a hacking hit job. While a militarized police force operating freely with impunity in a security surveillance state is regularly killing off innocent unarmed Americans, a totalitarian federal government is resorting to assassination of its own targeted citizens deemed a threat to the state just to keep any would-be rabblerousers in line and/or neutralized by elimination.
Just two weeks prior to Hastings’ untimely demise, Obama had launched his aggressive assault on America’s free press with his shot across the bow confiscating phone records of Associated Press reporters, harassing a Fox journalist as well as internally hacking the computer belonging to former CBS reporter and investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. In her recent tell-all book Stonewalled, Attkisson chronicles Obama’s profound web of deceit and his aggressive, out for blood lust to destroy all truth tellers. Fresh on the heels of these events came Michael Hastings’ car blowing up. In today’s United States of America, an emboldened, in-our-face pattern of connecting the criminal dots has emerged. Those of us individuals courageous and daring enough to expose the dark ugly truth about what America the no longer free has chillingly degenerated into, are simply being taken out, exterminated by the totalitarian state that hypocritical US leaders like Obama have long accused of Russia and China.
Several months prior to Hastings death in February 2013, another controversial journalist-author and his family turned up suspiciously dead in northern California. Philip Marshall wrote the book published in 2012 called The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror,dissecting the false flag 9/11 event that launchedthe Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. Speculation abounds over Marshall’s affiliation back in the Iran Contra days of the 1980’s when controversial CIA pilot Barry Seal was transporting cocaine for the government and later had his pilot license revoked. It was then that fellow pilot Philip Marshall was hired to transport Seal back and forth from Florida to Louisiana. After delving into covert government activities and writing about them for thirty years, Philip Marshall’s third book was an expose linking the Saudi government to the 9/11 inside Bush-Cheney job. The former United Airlines captain makes the case that a US military stand down order was in effect on the day the planes flew into the towers after Washington and Saudi Arabia had been in cahoots for that last 18 months to ensure that with CIA assistance the wire-cutting, Saudi foreign nationals were allowed free access in and out of the US while being trained to fly planes at various flight school locations around the country – in Florida, Arizona and California. Two credible sources, former Senators Bob Kerrey and Bob Graham who headed two separate 9/11 investigations also came up with the same conclusion, that intelligence sources from the Saudi government worked hand in hand with the Bush administration in preparation to pull off the 9/11 attack.
An FBI special agent and attorney Coleen Rowley working out of the Minnesota field office had stumbled upon vital information regarding suspicious activity involving Saudi national Zacarias Moussaoui taking flying lessons. After attempting to alert FBI higher-ups in DC to no avail, she soon went public as a whistleblower testifying before a Senate committee over the inexplicable breakdown in intelligence communications that led directly to 9/11. Specifically she realized that FBI headquarters actually hampered the investigation that may have stopped the 9/11 attack. Of course if the reality from top on down was a planned inside attack, then the FBI would have orders to purposely sabotage any real probe exposing the perpetrators. Coleen wrote a scathing letter to the FBI Director Robert Mueller. Ms. Rowley was one of three women selected as 2002’s Time Magazine’s Persons of the Year for her blowing the whistle on the feds’ failure to do its job. Ever since she has been a strong advocate and activist for government oversight especially once she resigned from the FBI in 2004. Coleen Rowley is another unsung American hero.
Still another courageous woman who became an FBI whistleblower involving 9/11 is Sibel Edmonds. Fluent in both Farsi and Turkish languages, Ms. Edmonds was hired right after 9/11 as a translator of sensitive intelligence documents that confirmed the FBI knew prior to 9/11 of the plan to use airplanes to attack buildings on American soil. Sibel like Coleen is a hardworking activist dedicated to exposing the truth about government improprieties. Utilizing her international contacts, she runs the extremely informative alternative news website BoilingFrogs.com.
With FBI Agent Rowley also privy to the same plan to fly planes into New York City’s Twin Towers, Rowley informed top FBI officials of this terrorist plot even prior to 9/11. Between both Rowley and Edmonds’ testimony, proof exists that the government knew about the attack and chose not to intercept its execution on 9/11. Beyond a question of a doubt, this bit of critical evidence demonstrates at a minimum the federal government’s complicity and more than likely its preplanned inside false flag operation to murder thousands of Americans on that fateful September morning. Of course 9/11 became the contrived diabolical excuse used to justify US invasions and decade long occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq under totally fabricated pretense. Of course it also constitutes crimes against humanity on an unprecedented monstrously gargantuan scale – not only crimes against the American people, but especially against the Iraqi and Afghan citizens who have lost millions of their loved ones in their failed state nations, all compliments of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Right up to this very day wars that America egregiously brought to their homelands are still raging with no end in sight.
Returning to the man recognized as “the leading aviation expert on the 9/11 attack,” Mr. Philip Marshall’s book and his next writing project he had begun must have threatened those high enough in the government who systematically silence anyone bent on uncovering their sinister false flag operations. The neocon administration has too much at stake and too much to lose should the real truth about them be known. What especially makes this story even more tragic is that Marshall’s teenage son and daughter were also shot in the head in their “safe” gated community home. Unsurprisingly, the local police and coroner hastily wrote it off as just another family homicide-suicide by another mentally unstable father estranged from his ex-wife.
Meanwhile right after the tragedy, former NSA officer and outspoken investigative journalist Wayne Madsen (WayneMadsenReport.com) spent a week in California talking to Marshall’s fellow residents in Murphys. The homes are close enough for the next door neighbor to say she could hear Philip whistling inside his house. Yet the police claimed that the homes in the community are too far apart for any neighbors to hear the four gunshots, quickly denying that a silencer was used. Moreover, none of the Marshall family friends and neighbors believe it was a homicide-suicide. Many believe that Philip’s latest work was especially incriminating to the government and that the family was murdered to silence him. Madsen also learned from the local media sources that Calaveras County Sheriff Gary Kuntz is said to be stalling in handing over the critical toxicological report on the family’s bodies as well as the Gunshot Residue report from the bullets fired from Marshall’s 9mm Glock. After conducting his own investigation, Wayne Madsen concluded that he is “100% certain” that the Marshall family was assassinated by the government.
A piece in the Santa Barbara View mentioned that during the editing and pre-marketing phase of publishing his 9/11 book, Philip Marshall displayed signs of paranoia. When one is actually being targeted for extermination through intimidation and harassment, to fear for your life is clearly not a paranoid delusion. Yet skeptics readily buy in to the official spin that targeted assassination victims are simply unstable and deranged, going off the deep end in this case killing his own family, the family dog and himself. Of course professionals who murder for a living are skilled at setting it up so suicide is always the most plausible explanation. Government thugs who operate like the mafia wouldn’t have it any other way. Those who kill for a living and have every possible resource available to enable them to get away with their sins can always make a crime scene appear like a suicide. Criminal rogue elements within the US government have been doing it for a very long time. So another truth teller and his two innocent children must bite the dust so the actual perpetrators can go free, untouched by their own evildoing.
Of course the 33-year old Hastings and 54-year old Marshall are not the only American writers likely murdered for exposing the sinister truth about the US government. In his 1996 Dark Alliance, an expose series for the San Jose Mercury News, Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist Gary Webb singlehandedly uncovered the Iran Contra scandal during Reagan’s 1980’s that supplied crack cocaine to South Central Los Angeles, resulting in the crack epidemic still raging in America’s urban ghettos. Webb’s ongoing investigative work exposed the illicit, morally reprehensible Contra Cocaine scandal that the CIA was running a decade earlier exchanging money and guns for Latin American drugs to finance the Contra insurgency operations fighting against the democratically elected Nicaraguan Sandinista government. Of course the Contras weren’t the “freedom fighters” Reagan idolized at all but US funded drug cartel mercenaries consisting of death squad commandos trained and led by CIA and US Special Operations forces that brutally terrorized and massacred thousands of Nicaraguans during the eighties Contra War.
A decade after Webb’s tragic death, his harrowing story was cinematically portrayed in the 2014 film “Kill the Messenger.” The Sacramento coroner that performed Webb’s autopsy quickly ruled his death a suicide despite a passing reference to the unusual occurrence of a suicide involving two bullets to the head. One shot from behind went out through Webb’s jaw so the likely murderer ensured the hit was successfully finalized by sending the second .35 caliber bullet straight into his brain. Prior to his demise, Webb had received a number of death threats and witnessed men in flight leaving his home as he pulled into his driveway. Those who believe Webb did commit suicide cite that he was broke, jobless, down on his luck and soon to be evicted from his apartment. Oh, and his motorcycle was stolen the day before he shot himself twice. Feds once again have ways to arrange circumstances so their official suicide spin gets bought.
Two years after the newspaper articles, Gary Webb published his book Dark Alliance in 1998 and continued working on another book uncovering the CIA and its clandestine operations right up till his execution style murder. Of course the big three mainstream presstitutes, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post thoroughly trashed Webb’s controversial findings as unsubstantiated, amateurish journalism, making a mockery of both the veracity of his investigation and his unjustifiably maligned reputation. Eventually his editor at the Mercurysuccumbed to the national pressure from the oligarch owned and operated Big Media and canned him. Subsequently the San Jose editor was rewarded for discriminately distancing the paper’s parent company Knight Ridder from the forsaken media pariah Webb. Similar to Hastings’ fate, the CIA is believed responsible for killing the journalist who was bent on exposing the evil that US intelligence forces perpetrate by shooting him twice in the back of his head in December 2004 as fatal retribution.
Gary Webb’s unveiling news was predated more than a decade earlier by Senator John Kerry’s 1985 investigation uncovering the reality that the US government knew about the drug connection between the CIA and Contra funding. Webb’s much criticized accounting was vindicated by the CIA’s own Inspector General Frederick Hitz’ 1998 reports that clearly confirmed CIA’s active involvement. Webb’s work also paved the way to learning that President Reagan and top administration officials knew and actively supported the illegal drug for money and weapons starting in the early 1980’s, placing the CIA along with National Security Council point man Lt. Colonel Oliver North in charge of the drug smuggling operation headquartered in the White House basement. This sordid covert operation right under Reagan’s powdered white nose had CIA fingerprints all over it, led by none other than former CIA chief and then VP turned President George H.W. Bush himself.
The Massachusetts Congressman who appointed me to West Point, Edward Boland, sponsored the Boland Amendment that prohibited military assistance to the Contras until 1986. Yet despite this Congressional restriction, it failed to stop CIA man Bush from secretly and illegally funding the Contra War through the lucrative drug trade. The staging area for resupplying the Contra terrorists during the 1980’s became Ilopongo Air Force Base in El Salvador. It was there that many CIA flights picking up large shipments of cocaine were then flown for drop off to America.
Even a 27-year senior special FBI agent who headed the Los Angeles, Memphis and Dallas field offices, the late Ted Gunderson, ruled Gary Webb’s death a murder and the possibility of it being a suicide “impossible.” During the last several decades of his life, Gunderson’s snooping around for the truth exposing the pervasive criminality within his own rogue elements of the FBI and CIA more than likely led to his eventual death in July 2011. During the three decades since retiring from the FBI, Ted Gunderson investigated the JFK assassination, Marilyn Monroe’s likely murder, 9/11 as an inside job, chemtrails, the Iran-Conta scandal, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Illuminati and the NWO agenda, the Bush crime family, Satanism, child kidnapping and ritualistic abuse and sacrifice. As a longtime government whistleblower and bestselling author possessing impeccable FBI credentials and decades of expert investigative experience, Gunderson made many enemies within the government. Mr. Gunderson’s treating physician of many years, Dr. Edward Lucidi, also examined Ted’s body after his July 2011 death, and concluded that Gunderson had been periodically poisoned with arsenic that eventually triggered his bladder cancer that ultimately spread to kill him.
The longtime New World Order advocate and oligarch George Herbert Walker Bush has CIA links dating all the way back to the 1961 Bay of Pigs scandal. Though once a Skull and Bones secret society initiate at Yale like his father before him and his junior namesake after, graduation in 1948 meant moving with his wife and George Jr. to Texas where he became an even richer oil man. In the early 1960’s HW worked as a CIA recruiter for the Bay of Pigs operation. It was his involvement in the CIA training of Cuban exiles in guerilla warfare in preparation for the Bay of Pigs that H.W. met anti-Castro Cuban, naturalized American citizen, drug trafficker, career CIA employee and lifelong friend Felix Rodriguez (alias Max Gomez) who was responsible for Che Guevara’s capture and killing and would surface decades later in a key role in the Iran Contra affair. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover’s controversial JFK assassination memo dated November 29th, 1963, a mere seven days after the Kennedy murder, explicitly names the CIA’s “George H.W. Bush” for his direct JFK involvement placing him in Dallas at the time the ill-fated president was ambushed at Dealey Plaza. There is even a photo of Bush in front of the same book depository where the “lone gunman” patsy Lee Harvey Oswald allegedly fired from the second floor.
President Kennedy was indeed the most famous would-be whistleblower in-the-making during the 1000 days of his short-lived presidency. In reaction to the embarrassment of the botched Bay of Pigs scandal he inherited from the Eisenhower administration, Kennedy’s bold design included “splintering the CIA,” abolishing its covert operations and bringing home all of the US military advisors assigned to Vietnam. Thus, Kennedy intended to avoid further conflict in Southeast Asia that his successor turned into the longest running war in American history, that is, up until this century’s George W. Bush-Obama’s Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. After the October 1962 Missile Crisis was resolved when Premier Khrushchev dismantled Soviet missiles in Cuba, and then the Soviet construction of the Berlin wall separating Communist East Germany from West Germany, JFK sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union with the ultimate aim of ending the dangerous cold war. Both his stance on Vietnam and the cold war placed him in direct conflict with the shadowy power structure lurking all around him.
At the time of his murder, President John Kennedy was about to break with such powerful Council on Foreign Relations elitist globalists aka “wise men” as Dean Acheson, Averell Harriman (George HW’s Nazi financier father Prescott’s lifelong business partner) and JFK recently fired (over the Bay of Pigs fiasco) CIA Director Allen Dulles who were all longtime chief presidential advisors and additionally chief Vietnam War proponents/architects. Though surrounded and overwhelmingly outnumbered by his Vice President Johnson, Secretary of State Rusk and Defense Secretary McNamara who all backed the CFR advisors’ views along with his ultra-pro-war hawk Chiefs of Staff, against the rising tide Kennedy was determined to withdraw all troops from Southeast Asia.
But perhaps JFK’s final blow that determined his tragic fate came when he issued Executive Order 11110 in June 1963 returning the power to create money back over to the US Treasury with instructions “to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury.” This move would have usurped the power, profit and fraudulent Ponzi scheme that the banking cabal wields through the nonfederal privatized Federal Reserve. The Eastern Establishment of Wall Street Bankers bolstered by the pervasive governmental influence of the CFR would not tolerate such monumental loss of wealth and power from their longtime coffers. Thus, a number of JFK investigators have concluded that the deposed CIA Director Dulles played a leading role in the assassination and cover-up against the one man who perhaps would have been the greatest whistleblower in US history.
Of course once Kennedy was forcibly removed from power, Texan Lyndon Johnson became president, the Federal Reserve continued its theft controlling the flow of paper fiat money and all those CFR “wise guys” continued prodding LBJ into full scale escalation in Vietnam despite knowing in advance that the war was unwinnable per revelations from the Pentagon Papers released later by renowned whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg’s biggest regret was waiting until 1971 to go public. The sobering lesson of losing near 60,000 Americans and over three million Southeast Asians estimated dead because the elite wanted a war the US would lose by design was doomed to repeat itself indefinitely with more false flag crimes of the twenty-first century in the 9/11 disgraceful tragedy, then the preplanned Afghanistan and Iraq Wars where millions more continue dying in vain to this day because oligarchs always love profiteering forever from their self-made war on terror. As insiders aware of the demonic destruction and plundering of all earthly life at their hands, we must all become whistleblowers and stand up to this evil tide that has ruled over humanity for far too many centuries by the inhuman psychopaths in megalomaniacal control.
Finally, the legacy of the CFR Skull and Bones assassinations, criminal theft made legal and false flag wars continue to live on even today through the ongoing malevolence perpetrated by the Bush family. Prior to murderously pulling off the coup of the century with stolen fraudulent elections and the demonic 9/11 inside job, the silver spooned Skull and Bones lifer George W. Bush had already proven he was likely a psychopathic rapist. Meet Margie Schoedinger, a 38-year old married African American woman who filed rape charges against President George W. Bush in December 2002. Other than her hometown Fort Bend, Texas newspaper, not one other US media outlet even bothered to cover the plaintiff’s criminal lawsuit filed in the Harris County Civil Court against the standing US president. With so much attention focused on Monica Lewinsky’s illicit affair with his predecessor Clinton, and then violent acts of rape, torture and harassment allegedly committed on multiple occasions by then Texas Governor George W. Bush, to have a complete media blackout refusing to report such serious criminal offenses indicates the absolute power of the Bush cabal for controlling and completely shutting off the flow of important information in America. Then to ensure the demonic truth about Bush never sees the light of day, nine months later Margie Schoedinger was silenced, found dead from a gunshot wound to the head, her death ruled a suicide. Though women rarely commit suicide with guns, choosing drug overdose as their means, no further follow of either the repeated sexual assaults or the death was ever launched despite records showing that Bush made her life a living hell. Whether she did herself in or not, her killer was most likely the leader of the free world and with that kind of power, hardly anyone dared to notice.
There was no indication that Margie Schoedinger was mentally imbalanced, nor did she ever seek publicity. She had known Bush two decades earlier having dated Bush when still a minor. The peculiar, spectacular and horrifying circumstances of the rape charges and then more strange circumstances surrounding the victim’s death again drew virtually no response from the press. Only one single UK paper the New Nation serving the black community of London published an article about her alleged suicide. Back prior to the current cold war with Russia, its foreign news service Pravda also picked up and ran the story as well.
Records on file indicate that allegations that George Bush and FBI agents regularly harassed and threatened both Margie and her husband for months prior to her death. On the night of October 26th, 2000, three of Bush’s FBI henchmen apparently arrived at her home. When Margie contacted the Sugar Land police, the police arrived showing deference to the thug henchman and acted accusatory toward Margie and her husband. Then later the Sugar Land police lied, denying they had any record of said incident. Ms. Schoedinger made statements on record that Bush and company did more than just threaten to ruin and destroy her. In addition to allegedly committing sex crimes toward both Margie and her husband, on multiple occasions she allegedly had been drugged and gang raped. Apparently she was even hospitalized for having a miscarriage alleged to be Bush’s baby and was met at the hospital by FBI for further intimidation. Bush ensured that her academic degree was denied, her bank account deleted, her husband’s employment terminated, ultimately recommending that she was better off committing suicide. That this tragedy never was fully covered by the press, nor allegations ever followed up with any real investigation, nor any justice even remotely served, all this offers true testimony of how privilege, wealth and fame in America grants the diabolical elite the power to literally get away with rape and murder in destroying innocent victims’ lives. With his illegal wars based on lies, the untold suffering that the psychopathic Bush crime family has inflicted on this earth goes far beyond any measure in words.
For brevity sake, I presented the stories of just a few whistleblowers and journalists who have come forth with inside knowledge and expertise exposing government corruption, lies, misdeeds and injustice. Hundreds more have also paid the heavy price for speaking the truth. Too many have died, always obscured by more lies portending suicide as the cause of death. Recently an anonymous source volunteered that ex-Navy Seal Michael Calabrese was found floating vertically in the Chesapeake Bay waters, evidence he was a drowning victim whose body was purposely weighed down. The source claimed that Calabrese was his supervisor while they both installed demolition explosives and release switches inside the World Trade Center vending machines in both towers during the weeks leading up to 9/11. Calabrese was said to be writing his version of events as a would-be whistleblower but was silenced before his time like all the rest. Nearly a dozen have died mysteriously that had inside knowledge regarding the BP oil spill. The list goes on and on. Clearly, this government of ours will stop at nothing to ensure the evil truth stays hidden.
Though a number of whistleblowers and truth exposing journalists have made the ultimate sacrifice, it’s both fair and important to point out the fact that hundreds of honest and brave individuals have gone public with crucial need-to-know information and are still living amongst us alive and well. Jesselyn Radack is a Yale educated whistleblowing attorney who disclosed injustice when American Taliban John Walker Lindh was denied due process by the FBI during his interrogation. His family had already hired an attorney to represent him. As a young lawyer working in the State Department providing on call legal counsel to federal agencies in December 2001, Jesselyn Radack recommended that the FBI not proceed with questioning Lindh if he had an attorney. However, the overzealous FBI interrogators went ahead anyway without his attorney present. As the case moved forward, Ms. Radack later learned that transcripts of her consultation documents were missing from Lindh’s official file. When she inquired and ensured all the documentation was then included, she was suddenly asked to resign her position in the State Department. Ultimately in good conscience, she made the decision to go public contacting a New York Times reporter. With her career being derailed and threatened, she was then abruptly terminated from her next job at a private law firm. In the end through months of anguish and adversity, Jesselyn Radack’s ethical principles and resolve triumphed over the petty vengeful federal bureaucrats out to destroy her.
Ms. Radack has come full circle as she is now the National Security and Human Rights Director of the Government Accountability Project (GAP) in Washington DC. As a bestselling author and a regular contributor of op-ed articles to the New York Times, Wall Street Journal andWashington Post, Jesselyn is a formidable force for good, representing and protecting the rights of likeminded insiders determined to serve justice by making an honest difference. Seven of the eight national security employee whistleblowers who have been charged under Obama with violating the Espionage Act have been among her clients, including Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou and a former CIA analyst-NSA contractor turned whistleblower and activist colleague with Jesselyn at GAP Sir Thomas Drake.
A 10-year Air Force veteran in intelligence, Thomas Drake began working as a CIA analyst and NSA contractor for 12 years before joining the NSA fulltime. He observed enormous taxpayer dollars being wasted and proceeded to address his concerns through proper channels only to be ignored. Harassment followed as soon as he approached the Department of Defense and NSA Inspector Generals. Falsely accused of leaking classified documents during the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping scandal, as a last resort Thomas contacted a Baltimore Sun reporter who wrote a series of award winning articles on the waste no one in the government would do anything about. Drake was then raked over the coals, bogusly charged with breaking espionage laws. His home raided, computers confiscated and held for hours under interrogation, the Justice Department (DOJ) was out for his blood, threatening he would spend the rest of his life behind bars. Drake fought back, refusing “to plea bargain with the truth.” By this time Obama was in power. Thomas learned that the new president only paid lip service to vowing to protect whistleblowers when in April 2010 he was indicted on 10 counts, 5 under the Espionage Act. With only three other previous cases in US history, Thomas Drake would be the first of Obama’s eight charged with that archaic lynchpin. Despite no evidence of turning over classified documents, he was charged with “retention” of them. As an NSA employee, of course he would hold classified info, but he never leaked any. Again determined to make him an example for others, the government spent years trying to build a case against him but couldn’t because he never broke any laws.
After Jesselyn and her colleague at GAP authored an op-ed piece defending Drake, Thomas elected to have the Government Accounting Project formally represent him. With media advocacy pressuring the Justice Department without a valid case to back off, finally defeated by the court of public opinion, the feds tucked their tail between their legs and folded. Thomas Drake beat the rap and was finally a cleared, free man with the highest honor for a whistleblower bestowed upon him – the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling. Four days before scheduled trial, all counts were dropped. The heroic victor walked away copping to a misdemeanor “exceeding authorized use of a computer” and one year on probation. Talk about petty politics. The government was shamed into submission and defeat. Drake is an inspiration to all Americans for standing up to evil and righteously staring it down. In the end, he remains a champion of our Constitution. He and Radack make a great tag team for justice against tyranny.
Over many decades the oligarchs have been engaged in the systematic dumbing down and killing of the global population, utilizing the nonstop barrage of false disinformation and propaganda to induce fear and compliance, of course with Americans always the last to know. Alarms going off in recent years by concerned citizens admonishing their fellow humans to wake up before it’s too late have largely fallen on deaf ears. 24/7 state sponsored propaganda inducing a societal stupor and insular ignorance have effectively prevented the masses from heeding any warnings to detox off the modern opiate – diversionary media deception delivered through the likes of Kim Kardashian’s latest wardrobe malfunction, upcoming Super Bowl hype, the latest video game or hi-tech toy or big screen blockbuster smash em’ up pyrotechnics. These are the fascist state’s arsenal of tools being utilized to numb, saturate and desensitize humans to violence, death and suffering, lulling us all into a glazed over sleep while previously invisible shackles and chains one day soon will visually and irreversibly materialize. We suddenly will wake up only to find ourselves bound and gagged in total bondage and enslavement, with whatever illusion of liberty or freedom of choice we thought we had, vanished and stolen in the night while we slept.
It becomes incumbent upon us to realize the danger of passivity, complacency, ignorance and fear is not the answer. The individuals highlighted here have sacrificed their freedom and life to make a difference. Their courage and integrity should be celebrated and honored. Their grossly unjust hardship will not be in vain only if their truth and bravery inspire us to also seek and tell the truth. This presentation calls upon all of us to become whistleblowers fighting all our might for our lost freedoms. 2015 marks a New Year to make a positive difference by spreading the word as truth activists empowered to continue the noble work and accomplishments that these very brave and valiant souls have paved for us. If we all do our part as truth telling whistleblowers, the truth shall set us all free.
Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing.
Featured image: Vladimir Putin Painting by Siegfried Woldhek (2014)
“We did not reject our past. We said honestly: ‘The history of the Lubyanka in the twentieth century is our history…’ – Nikolai Patrushev, director of the FSB, Excerpt from an interview in Komsomolskaia Pravda, December 20, 2000.
Historically, the secret services of Russia have garnered an enduring reputation for ruthlessness.
Whether dealing with internal opponents (Think: Ivan The Terrible’s Oprichnina, the Tsarist Okhrana, Felix Dzerzhinsky’s Cheka and the NKVD terror orchestrated by the likes of Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov and Lavrenti Beria) or the external apparatus (Think: Viktor Abakumov’s SMERSH, the role of the KGB in smashing anti-Soviet movements in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, as well as the exploits of the GRU, Soviet military intelligence), the apparatus’ of espionage and counter-espionage have set unenviable standards in uncompromising brutality.
The extraordinarily repressive capacities of the gulag system was of course immortalised by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago and the Lubyanka has become synonymous with Bolshevik terror replete with a signature style of execution every bit as emblematic as revolutionary France’s guillotine: a bullet to the back of the head.
Yezhov’s name provided the label for the most brutal part of Stalinist terror in the 1930s, the Yezhovshchina. That term was the invention of a scared, scarred and cowed populace. But the protagonists of terror have not shirked from either publicly extolling the merits of the wielding of terror or in revealing the ruthless objectives of particular institutions created to promote the security of the state.
Thus it was Dzerzhinsky who declared during the early Bolshevik era that “we stand for organised terror”. And it was Stalin who coined the phrase Smert Shpionam, “Death to Spies”, from which the name SMERSH, a conglomerate of counter-espionage organisations within the Red Army, was derived.
And death has often been the lot of Russian and Soviet traitors: Major Pyotr Popov in 1960, Colonel Oleg Penkovsky in 1963 and Major-General Dmitri Polyakov in 1988 were officers of the GRU who were executed as agents acting in the service of foreign powers.
In Penkhovsky’s case, the legend persists that he was bound to a stretcher and incinerated while alive in a crematorium as a warning to potential traitors. All the evidence points to him having been shot, but the tale of his presumed fate is indicative of the perception of many in the West of a Russian predisposition to cruelty and even barbarity in dispensing ‘justice’ to those perceived as enemies of the state.
“Fear has large eyes” warns an old Russian proverb, and to many in the West, this is as true today as it was in Joseph Stalin’s time. Apart from presiding over numerous purges and the entrenchment of a repressive, totalitarian order, Stalin, who was Georgian, is claimed to have been influenced by Caucasian notions of honour and vengeance in the pursuit of his former rival Leon Trotsky. Not only was Trotsky assassinated by an agent of the NKVD in 1940, his family was destroyed by assassinations and persecutions inflicted by the Soviet state.
Some now seek to paint contemporary Russia with a similar brush. Under Vladimir Putin, who is often posited as a practitioner of the Russian brand of oriental despotism, they point to the deaths of dissenting journalists, political opponents and dissident former members of Russia’s security services. A case was made against two former FSB officials, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun for responsibility in the death of Alexander Litvinenko, a former colleague of the FSB who died from polonium poisoning in 2007.
Now, the same allegation is being made in regard to the suspected poisoning of Sergei Skripal, a former colonel in Russian military intelligence. Skirpal had been convicted of revealing the identities of Russia’s secret agents to MI6, Britain’s foreign intelligence service. In 2010, he was released into British hands as part of a ‘spy swap’ in Vienna.
At the time, Putin was quoted as declaring that
“traitors always end badly. Secret services live by their own laws and these laws are very well known to anyone who works for a secret service.”
But those who consider this a self-incriminating statement need to bear the following in mind. Skripal, who was officially pardoned by Russia’s then-President Dmitry Medvedev, did not suffer the fate of those who committed similar acts during the Soviet era. In fact, many would argue that he got off lightly with a thirteen-year sentence.
It begs the question: why would Russia attempt to kill Skripal at this time?
While many Western observers will pooh-pooh Andrei Lugovoi’s assertion that Skripal’s targeting is “another provocation by British intelligence agencies” aimed at demonising Russia, others will be more circumspect and reserve judgement because such a campaign of demonisation has been orchestrated in the West and promoted by the mainstream media for over a decade.
Further, the notion that Britain’s intelligence services cannot themselves be involved in the dark arts of murder and ‘black operations’ is simply not tenable. From the so-called ‘Lockhart Plot’ against Vladimir Lenin engineered by M1-1C the precursor to MI6 to complicity in the murder of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba and a plan to assassinate Irish Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, Britain’s intelligence services have been involved in homicidal conspiracies. Yet, the official narrative continues to uphold the pretence of an almost benign intelligence apparatus averse to plots involving assassinations.
While the aforementioned remarks of Nikolai Patrushev have been taken as evidence by Western analysts that the Russian intelligence service continues to embrace a draconian ethos, it is also worth recalling his comments about British intelligence which he insisted in 2008 has since the times of Queen Elizabeth I, “operated on the principle that the end justifies the means.”
There may be more to this episode than meets the eye.
Putin’s March 1st presentation of new Russian weapons has been greatly misunderstood as a declaration of strategic parity or triumphalism. There was a much more urgent need, namely, to prevent an imminent strike. This danger is not over yet, for a week later, on March, 7, President Putin emphasised his readiness to employ the nuclear weapons for retaliation purposes, even if it would end the world.
“Certainly, it would be a global disaster for humanity; a disaster for the entire world,” Putin said, “but, as a citizen of Russia and the head of the Russian state I must ask myself: Why would we want a world without Russia?”
This was a bold answer. A lesser man would probably reply hypocritically, dodging the brutal “yes, I shall destroy the world.” It means that the danger is still imminent, and that by these frank words President Putin wants to dissuade whoever intends to push him too far.
Why indeed, all of a sudden, did the Russian President decide now, of all times, to tell the world about these new weapons? It’s not that the Russians (or the Americans, for that matter) are accustomed to deliver hardware updates orbi et urbi. And 2002, the year the US withdrew from the ABM treaty, was consigned to history years ago. What was the reason, or at least the trigger?
Some observers bet it was a wily pre-election trick aimed at a domestic audience. This could be a consideration, but a minor one. The leading opponent of Mr Putin, the communist candidate Mr Grudinin, didn’t argue against Putin’s foreign policy or defence spending; the voters do approve of Putin’s foreign policy, anyway. Putin’s revelation made Russians proud, but they would vote Putin anyway.
The reason for Putin’s speech was a different and more urgent one: a terrible crescendo of threats had made Russia feel very vulnerable. Presumably their spy agencies convinced the Russian leader the threats were real.
The US establishment has been looking for a way to humiliate and punish Russia since Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians. The indictment alleged that “the Russian conspirators wanted to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy,” in the words of Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the Mueller’s inquiry. It did not matter that the indicted Russians weren’t officials of the Russian state; that their effort (if these existed at all) were puny: a few ads at the cost of about $100,000, a drop in the ocean compared to the vast amounts of money spent by both the Clinton and Trump campaigns. However, the US establishment called these minor actions of private Russian citizens an “act of war.”
On February 19, Glenn Greenwald summed up the US reactions in the piece called A Consensus Emerges: Russia Committed an “Act of War” on Par With Pearl Harbor and 9/11. He reminded us that Senators from both parties, such as Republican John McCain and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, have long described Russian meddling in 2016 as an “act of war.” Hillary Clinton described Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inbox as a “cyber 9/11.” Tom Friedman of the New York Times said on “Morning Joe” that Russian hacking “was a 9/11-scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor-scale event.”
After the indictment, this comparison became a common place rhetoric. “The Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty, complaining about President Donald Trump’s inaction, asked readers to “imagine how history would have judged Franklin D. Roosevelt in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, if he had taken to the radio airwaves to declare that Tokyo was ‘laughing their asses off.’ Or if George W. Bush had stood in the rubble of the World Trade Center with a bullhorn and launched a name-calling tirade against the Democrats.”
Greenwald concluded:
“If Russian election meddling is on par with the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks, then should the U.S. response be on par with its response to those attacks?”
In other words, the US politicians and media called to give Russia the same treatment the US gave to Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and to Afghanistan (invasion followed by 16 years of occupation).
In the search for escalation from fiery talk to fire, the Anglo-American establishment turned to the familiar device of alleged Syrian gas attacks. People have been trained to respond to such accusations (and alternatively, to keep mum while the US bombs Mosul and Raqqa, or prepares to nuke North Korea). Assad and Russia were accused of gassing the rebel stronghold of Eastern Ghouta, the West’s last chance to enforce regime change in Syria by virtue of its location near the capital.
The alleged gas chlorine attack was reported on February 25th, and it was immediately denied by the Russians and the Syrians. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that this anonymous ‘bogus report’ had been originated in the US in order to denigrate Syrian government and its troops, to accuse them of war crimes and to cause permanent breakup of Syria. The US and its allies, he said, were “simply exploiting baseless allegations of toxic weapons use by Damascus as a tool of anti-Syrian political engineering”.
The rebels said they were attacked by chlorine gas, as opposed to previous times when they claimed gas sarin was used. Chlorine gas is a tricky stuff; it is not deadly though unhealthy for inhaling. It is also quite difficult to monitor and verify, for chlorine is widely used for domestic purposes from cleaning bathrooms to purifying water and is not a banned substance (though the gas chlorine is forbidden). This difficulty to verify had made it an easy one to claim.
The situation in E. Ghouta was a replay of Aleppo; reports of wounded children, films produced by the White Helmets, and stubborn attempts by the rebels to prevent civilian exodus from the area. Whenever the rebels are pushed hard, they produce a story of suffering civilians and of gas attacks, hoping the US will force the Syrian government and their Russian allies to relent.
Undoubtedly civilians have suffered in the Syrian war; however, there is a way to end their suffering. The rebels could lay down their arms and join the political process, like everybody else. There are plenty of Americans unhappy with the Trump regime, but they do not shell Washington DC; they hope for a better and different outcome at the next elections. Their example can be emulated by the Syrian rebels, and then, the civilians won’t suffer.
If that’s too much to ask for, they can let the civilians leave; and fight to the bitter end. But no, they do not let the civilians out; instead, they produce reports of civilians suffering and wait for the Mounties to ride in and save them.
There was an extra angle. The rebels of E. Ghouta are trained and led by British and American intelligence officers, and they came under Russian fire. Perhaps it was a Russian payoff for the bombardment of oil field installations near Deir ez-Zor where the Russian private military company (called Wagner after their leader nickname’s) bore the brunt of and suffered many casualties. Thierry Meyssan, the well known French journalist resident in Damascus claimed that Russian ground troops also participated in the assault on Eastern Ghouta. It is possible that the Russians and the Americans are already fighting directly, though both sides are loth to admit their losses.
The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson was the first to “seriously consider” air strikes in Syria. He missed the fun of Libya (“we came, we saw, he died”) and now the redhead is eager to bomb anybody. However, his Parliament does not allow him to do so.
The ball was taken up by the Americans. Bloomberg editorialized:
“It’s time for another red line, one that the U.S. won’t back away from. Trump should tell Assad and his Russian backers that any more proved use of any chemical weapon, including chlorine, will be met with even greater retaliation than what happened in April.”
[This is a reference to Trump’s cruise missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat air base, allegedly in revenge for Syrian sarin gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun. Doubts about this “sarin gas attack” emerged right away, and Unz.com published it quickly. In June 2017, Seymour Hersh exposed the full story behind Shayrat: there was no “sarin attack”, and President Trump was told by his own intelligence officers to drop the case. He still insisted and attacked but warned the Russians in advance, and there were no Russian or Syrian casualties, and very little damage at the cost of $100 million to the US taxpayer. The US mainstream media was exuberant, and congratulated Trump with this example of Presidential behaviour.]
“Trump had no authority to order the attack on Syrian forces last year, and he still doesn’t have it now. There is no international mandate for U.S. forces to be in Syria, nor is there any authorization for military action against Syrian government forces or their allies. If Trump orders another illegal attack, the U.S. will be committing more acts of war against a government that poses no threat to us, has done nothing to us or our treaty allies, and is still fighting inside its own internationally recognized borders.”
But voices of those supporting the strikes and punishing Russians and Syrians sounded stronger.
“White House considers new military action against Syrian regime,” wrote The Washington Post on March, 5.
The newspaper added details who pushed for the attack (national security adviser H.R. McMaster) and who objected (Defense Secretary Jim Mattis).
“Other officials, particularly at the White House and the State Department, appear more open to renewed action against Assad,” said the report.
‘Allies’ is the keyword in the message. The threatened ally of Russia is Syria. Putin warned the Americans that their air strike on Syria may be answered with a strike upon their Carrier Strike Group (CSG) in the area. If you bomb Damascus, we shall send your CSGs in the Med and in the Gulf down to the sea bottom. We can incinerate your air bases in the area, too.
The sharply raised stakes were a game-changer. Who knows what will be the Russian response on this or other action of the Western allies? The warlike neocons say Russia is all talk, all bluff. Realists say that the US may suffer the humiliating and painful loss of its CSGs with thousands of lives at sea. The US President had enjoyed the previous strike of Syria with dozens of Tomahawks before returning to his beautiful chocolate cake. If the strike were revisited upon the striking SCGs – this is totally different matter. Did you say Pearl Harbour?
Even if this exchange would not lead to massive nuclear strikes of the mainland US and Russia and total world-destroying war, it would have a very high price tag. The Russians can even strike President Trump’s private club in Palm Beach, Fla as they naughtily presented on the mock video.
Apparently, President Trump discussed it now with the UK Prime Minister Theresa May. The Brits are for some reason more keen to push for war with Russia. Now they try their best to stop the rapprochement between the US and Russia. The peculiar story of poisoning their own ex-spy with a nerve gas adds spice to their effort, and the Russian Embassy UK Twitter troll twitted: “In today’s papers: pundits call on @Theresa_May to disrupt possible Russia-US thaw. No trust in Britain’s best friend and ally?”
The nuclear poker game just became more exciting. Are the Russians bluffing, or aren’t they? Will they play, or will they drop their cards, this is the question. There is no answer yet. Only history can answer it.
Meanwhile, judging by the tense calm in the Middle East and elsewhere, Putin’s game had been successful. The US missiles rested at their launching sites, and so did the Russian ones. The Russian-Syrian offensive in E. Ghouta proceeds unabated, while the US ground operations in Syria came to standstill, as the Kurds are too busy confronting the Turks. Perhaps we shall survive this almost-confrontation, as we have survived the 2011 almost-confrontation.
Numerous well funded, organized projects by and for Israel work to flood social media with pro-Israel propaganda, while blocking facts Israel dislikes.
The projects utilize Israeli soldiers, students, American teens and others, and range from infiltrating Wikipedia to influencing YouTube. Some operate out of Jewish Community Centers in the U.S.
Recently, YouTube suddenly shut down the If Americans Knew YouTube channel. This contained 70 videos providing facts-based information about Israel-Palestine.
People going to the channel saw a message telling them that the site had been terminated for “violating YouTube guidelines”—implying to the public that we were guilty of wrongdoing. And ensuring they didn’t learn about the information we were trying to disseminate.
Students at the Israeli military’s Computing and Cyber Defense Academy. Israel is also “scouring Jewish communities abroad for young computer prodigies willing to join its ranks.”
When we tried to access our channel, we found a message saying our account had been “permanently disabled.” We had received no warning and got no explanation.
After five days, we received a generic message saying YouTube had reviewed our content and determined it didn’t violate any guidelines. Our channel became live once more.
So why was it shut down in the first place? What happened and why?
As it turns out, Israel and Israeli institutions employ armies of Internet warriors—from Israeli soldiers to students—to spread propaganda online and try to get content banned that Israel doesn’t want seen.
Perhaps like our videos of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces.
What happened
A few days before the termination of our channel, we received a form email from YouTube, telling us we had gotten “one strike” for a short video about a Palestinian man killed by Israeli soldiers. The video was part of our series of videos to make Palestinian victims, usually ignored by US media, visible to Americans.
It takes three minutes to view the video and see that it contains nothing objectionable, unless revealing cruelty and oppression is objectionable:
YouTube’s email claimed we had somehow violated their long list of guidelines but did not tell us which one, or how. It simply stated:
“Your video ‘Ahmad Nasser Jarrar’ was flagged for review. Upon review, we’ve determined that it violates our guidelines. We’ve removed it from YouTube and assigned a Community Guidelines strike, or temporary penalty, to your account.”
Such a penalty is not public and does not terminate the channel.
Three days later, before we’d even had a chance to appeal this strike, YouTube suddenly took down our entire channel. This was done with no additional warnings or explanation.
This violated YouTube’s published policies.
YouTube policies say there is a “three-strike” system by which it warns people of alleged violations three times before terminating a channel. If a channel is eventually terminated, the policies state that YouTube will send an email “detailing the reason for the suspension.”
None of this happened in our case.
We submitted appeals on YouTube’s online form, but received no response. Attempts to find a phone number for YouTube and/or email addresses by which we could communicate with a human being were futile.
YouTube’s power to shut down content without explanation whenever it chooses was acutely apparent. While there are other excellent video hosting sites, YouTube is the largest one, with nearly ten times more views than its closest competitors. It is therefore enormously powerful in shaping which information is available to the public–and which is not.
We spent days working to upload our videos elsewhere, update links to the videos, etc. Finally, having received no response or even acknowledgment of our appeal from YouTube, we decided to write an article about the situation. We emailed YouTube’s press department a list of questions about its process. We have yet to receive any answers.
Finally that evening we received an email with good news:
“After a review of your account, we have confirmed that your YouTube account is not in violation of our Terms of Service. As such, we have unsuspended your account. This means your account is once again active and operational.”
Our channel was visible once more. And YouTube had now officially confirmed that our content doesn’t violate its guidelines.
Ultimately, the YouTube system seems to have worked, in our case. Inappropriate censorship was overruled, perhaps by saner or less biased heads. In fact, we felt that there might at least be one positive result of the situation—additional YouTube employees had viewed our videos and perhaps learned much about Israel-Palestine they had not previously known.
But the whole experience was a wakeup call that YouTube can censor information critical of powerful parties at any time, with no explanation or accountability.
Israeli soldiers paid to “Tweet, Share, Like and more”
Israel and partisans of Israel have long had a significant presence on the Internet, working to promote the Israel narrative and block facts about Palestine, the Israel lobby, and other subject matter they wish covered up.
Opinionated proponents of Israel post comments, flag content, accuse critics of “antisemitism,” and disseminate misinformation about Palestine and Palestine solidarity activists. Many of these actions are by individuals acting alone who work independently, voluntarily, and relentlessly.
In addition to these, however, a number of orchestrated, often well-funded projects sponsored by the Israeli government and others have come to light. These projects work to place pro-Israel content throughout the Internet, and to remove information Israel doesn’t wish people to know.
One such Israeli project targeting the Internet came to light when it was lauded in an article by Arutz Sheva, an Israeli news organization headquartered in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.
The report described a new project by Israel’s “New Media desk” that focused on YouTube and other social media sites. The article reported that Israeli soldiers were being employed to “Tweet, Share, Like and more.”
The article noted,
“It is well known nowadays that what happens on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube has great influence on events as they occur on the ground. The Internet, too, is a battleground.”
It was “comforting,” the article stated, to learn that the IDF was employing soldiers whose job was specifically to do battle on it.
Israeli students paid to promote Israel on social media
Screen shot from a video about student program to spread pro-Israel content on the Internet and social media.
Another project to do battle on the Internet was initiated in 2011 by the 300,000-strong National Union of Israeli Students (NUIS). The goal was “to deepen and expand hasbara [state propaganda] activities of students in the State of Israel.”
Under this program, Israeli students are paid $2,000 to work five hours per week to “lead the battle against hostile websites.”
An announcement for the program (translated here into English) noted that
“many students in Israel master the Internet and are proficient at using the Internet and social networking and various sites and are required to write and express themselves in English.”
Students can work from the comfort of their own homes, points out the announcement.
“Students work in four teams: Content, Wikipedia, Monitoring and New Media,” according to the program description. It details the responsibilities for each team:
The content team is responsible for creating original content in a news format.
The monitoring team is responsible for “monitoring efforts while reporting and removing anti-Semitic [sic] content from social networks in a variety of languages.” (The program conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism; see below.)
The New Media team is responsible for social media channels, “including Facebook accounts in English, French and Portuguese, Twitter, YouTube channels, and so on.”
The Wikipedia team is “responsible for writing new entries and translating them into languages that operate in the program, updating the values of current and relevant information, tracking and preventing bias in the program’s areas of activity.”
This program sometimes claims it is working against antisemitism, but it conflates antisemitism with criticism of the state of Israel. This is in line with an Israel-backed initiative to legally define “antisemitism” to include discussing negative facts about Israel and its treatment of Palestinians.
Campaign to infiltrate Wikipedia
The pro-Israel organization CAMERA infiltrated Wikipedia for a time. (Illustration by Electronic Intifada.)
Several years ago, another project came to light that targeted Wikipedia. While manipulating Wikipedia entries doesn’t directly impact YouTube, it provides a window into some of these efforts to manipulate online content.
“A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia.”
While it is common and appropriate for individuals to edit Wikipedia entries to add factual information and remove inaccurate statements, this project was the antithesis of such editing. As EI, reported, its purpose was “to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged.”
Author Ali Abunimah reported that a source had provided EI with a series of emails from members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) that showed the group “was engaged in what one activist termed a ‘war’ on Wikipedia.”
CAMERA called for volunteers to secretly work on editing Wikipedia entries. It emphasized the importance of keeping the project secret. Volunteers were schooled in ways to elude detection. After they signed up as editors, they were to “avoid editing Israel-related articles for a short period of time.”
They were also told to “avoid, for obvious reasons, picking a username that marks you as pro-Israel, or that lets people know your real name.”
CAMERA also warned them:
“Don’t forget to always log in… If you make changes while not logged in, Wikipedia will record your computer’s IP address.”
A Wikipedia editor known as Zeq helped in the effort, telling volunteers:
“Edit articles at random, make friends not enemies—we will need them later on. This is a marathon not a sprint.”
He emphasized the importance of secrecy: “You don’t want to be precived [sic] as a ‘CAMERA’ defender’ on wikipedia that is for sure.”
Zeq recommended that they work with and learn from an independent, pro-Israel Wikipedia editor known as Jayjg, but directed them to keep the project secret even from him.
When this all came to light, Wikipedia took measures against such manipulation of its system and the CAMERA program may have ended.
If it did, others stepped into the breach. In 2010 two Israeli groups began offering a course in “Zionist editing” of Wikipedia entries. The aim was “to make sure that information in the online encyclopedia reflects the worldview of Zionist groups.” A course organizer explained that the use of the word “occupied” in Wikipedia entries “was just the kind of problem she hoped a new team of editors could help fix.”
“The organizers’ aim was twofold: to affect Israeli public opinion by having people who share their ideological viewpoint take part in writing and editing for the Hebrew version, and to write in English so Israel’s image can be bolstered abroad.”
There was to be a prize for the “Best Zionist Editor”—the person who over the next four years incorporated the most “Zionist” changes in the encyclopedia. The winner would receive a trip in a hot-air balloon over Israel.
High tech millionaire Naftali Bennett, a right-wing minister close to the settler movement, describes the program:
“One Jerusalem-based Wikipedia editor, who doesn’t want to be named, said that publicising the initiative might not be such a good idea. ‘Going public in the past has had a bad effect,’ she says. ‘There is a war going on and unfortunately the way to fight it has to be underground.’”
Again in 2013, there was evidence of pro-Israel tampering with Wikipedia. Israel’s Ha’aretz reported that a social-media employee of NGO Monitor edited articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in an allegedly biased manner. “Draiman concealed the facts that he was an employee of NGO Monitor, often described as a right-wing group, and that he was using a second username, which is forbidden under Wikipedia’s rules,” according to the paper.
Such actions have had an impact. A website critical of Wikipedia said in 2014 that there were “almost ten times as many articles about murdered Israeli children as there are articles about murdered Palestinian children,” even though at least 10 times more Palestinian children had been killed.
The website also pointed out:
“While editors like Zeq (T–C–L) and CltFn (T–C–L) may get banned in the end, the articles theystarted remain.”
If YouTube reviewers and others use Wikipedia in their determination about whether content should be removed or not, these efforts to censor Wikipedia could adversely affect their decisions.
Social Media Missions for Israel
Title image from Forward article about the Act.IL campaign.
In 2017 yet another project to target Internet platforms was launched. Known as Act.il, the project uses a software application that “leverages the power of communities to support Israel through organized online activity.”
The software is a joint venture of three groups: Israel’s IDC University; the Israeli American Council, which works to “organize and activate” the half million Israeli-Americans who live in the U.S.; and another American group called the Maccabee Task Force, created to combat the international boycott of Israel, which it terms “an anti-Semitic movement.” Maccabee says it is “laser focused on one core mission—to ensure that those who seek to delegitimize Israel and demonize the Jewish people are confronted, combatted and defeated.”
In addition, the project is supported by Israel’s Strategic Affairs Ministry and Israel’s intelligence community. Its CEO is an eight-year veteran of Israeli army intelligence.
Israel’s Jerusalem Post reports that Act.IL is “a wide-ranging grassroots campaign app that lets individuals combat BDS in the palm of their hand” or, as we will see, from public computers in the US.
“Act.IL is more than just an app,” the Post article explains. “It is a campaign that taps into the collective knowledge of IDC students who together speak 35 languages, hail from 86 countries and have connections to the pro-Israel community all over the world.”
The article claims:
“A platform like Act.IL offers world Jewry an opportunity to fight for one thing the majority can rally behind: Israel.” (This ignores the fact that there are many Jewish individuals who oppose Israeli policies.)
Israel partisans around the world download the app, and then “in this virtual situation room of experts, they detect instances where Israel is being assailed online and they program the app to find missions that can be carried out with a push of a button.”
An organizer notes:
“When you work together, with the same goals and values, you can be incredibly powerful in the social media landscape.”
Some missions ask users to report videos. Israeli government officials say that the Act.il app “is more effective than official government requests at getting those videos removed from online platforms.”
The project is led by former Israeli intelligence officers and has close ties to American casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson. Another funder is the Paul R. Singer Foundation, funded by the Republican hedge fund billionaire.
The Forward calls Act.IL a new entry into the “online propaganda war” that “has thousands of mostly U.S.-based volunteers who can be directed from Israel into a social media swarm.”
According to the Forward, “Its work so far offers a startling glimpse of how it could shape the online conversations about Israel without ever showing its hand.”
The Forward reports:
“Act.il says that its app has 12,000 sign-ups so far, and 6,000 regular users. The users are located all over the world, though the majority of them appear to be in the United States. Users get ‘points’ for completed missions; top-ranked users complete five or six missions a day. Top users win prizes: a congratulatory letter from a government minister, or a doll of David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister.”
Photo of group that participated in Act.IL training
Act.IL’s CEO, a veteran Israeli army intelligence officer, said the Israeli military and its domestic intelligence service “‘request’ Act.il’s help in getting services like Facebook to remove specific videos that call for violence against Jews or Israelis.” This according to the Forward report.
The officer later tried to walk back his statement,
“saying that the Shin Bet [intelligence service] and the army don’t request help on specific videos but are in regular informal contact with Act.il. He said that Act.il’s staff is largely made up of former Israeli intelligence officers.”
Teens in American JCCs carry out missions assigned from Israel
New Jersey “Media Room,” a project of IAC New Jersey in partnership with Act.IL.
The project recruits Jewish teens and adults and sometimes operates out of local Jewish community centers, the Forward says. The paper describes one example:
“The dozen or so Israelis sitting around a conference table at a Jewish community center in Tenafly, New Jersey, on a recent Wednesday night didn’t look like the leading edge of a new Israeli government-linked crowdsourced online propaganda campaign.
“Tapping on laptops, the group of high school students and adult mentors completed social media ‘missions’ assigned out of a headquarters in Herzliya, Israel.”
In addition to the Tenafly “media room” another operates in Boston in cooperation with the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston. There are also regular Act.il advocacy-training sessions at The Frisch School, a Jewish day school in Paramas, New Jersey. Other media rooms are reportedly in the works, with one in Manhattan, hosted by The Paul R. Singer Foundation, scheduled to open soon.
The Forward reports:
“In November, the Boston media room created a mission for the app that asked users to email a Boston-area church to complain about a screening there of a documentary that is critical of Israel. The proposed text of the email likens the screening of the film to the white supremacist riot in Charlottesville, Virginia, and calls the film’s narrator, Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters, a ‘well-known anti-Semite.’”
According to the Forward, Act.il also produces “pro-Israel web content that carries no logo. It distributes that content to other pro-Israel groups, including the Adelson-funded Jewish fraternity Alpha Epsilon Pi and The Israel Project, which push them out on their own social media feeds.”
The Forward predicts: “Initiatives in cyberspace seem likely to increase.”
Screenshot from video promoting the project, posted on the Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston website.
Israeli media report that the Israeli military “has begun scouring Jewish communities abroad for young computer prodigies” to recruit for its ranks.
An Israeli official described the process:
“Our first order of business is to search Jewish communities abroad for teens who could qualify, Our representatives will then travel to the communities and begin the screening process there.”
Israeli Government Ministry backs secret online campaigns
Israel’s Strategic Affairs Ministry, which is behind this and similar projects, has mobilized substantial resources for online activities.
Israel’s Ynet news reports that the Ministry’s director “sees it as a war for all intents and purposes. ‘The delegitimization against the State of Israel can be curbed and contained through public diplomacy and soft tools,’ she says. ‘In order to win, however, we must use tricks and craftiness.’”
The director, General Sima Vaknin-Gil, told a forum of Israeli tech developers at a forum:
An Israeli report in December stated that the ministry has acquired a budget of roughly $70 million to “stand at the forefront of the battle against delegitimization, adopting methods from the fields of intelligence and technology. There is a reason why ministry officials define it as ‘a war on consciousness terrorism.’” [‘Delegitimization’ is a common Israeli term for criticism of Israel. See here for a discussion of the term.]
“The Strategic Affairs Ministry’s leaders see themselves as the heads of a commando unit, gathering and disseminating information about ‘supporters of the delegitimization of Israel’—and they prefer their actions be kept secret.”
The article reports that the Ministry includes a job role entitled “Senior official—new-media realm,” responsible for surveillance and activities “in the digital realm.”
This individual head is responsible for analyzing social media and formulating a social media campaign against sites and activists who are deemed a threat to Israel.
Among the job’s responsibilities are:
“Analysis of the world of social media, in terms of content, technology and network structure, emphasizing centers of gravity and focuses of influence, methods, messages, organizations, sites and key activists, studying their characteristics, areas, realms and key patterns of activities of the rival campaign and formulating a strategy for an awareness campaign against them in this realm and managing crises on social media. That is, surveilling of activities mainly in the digital arena.”
Officials at the ministry are charged with “construction and promotion of creative and suitable programs for new media.”
The unit works to keep its activities secret from the public. For example, a program to train young Israelis for activities on social media was exempted from publishing a public bid for funding. Similarly, the ministry’s special unit against delegitimization, “Hama’aracha” (The Battle), is excluded from Israel’s Freedom of Information Law.
Its activities reportedly include a “24/7 operations room monitoring all the delegitimization activities against Israel: Protests, conferences, publications calling for an anti-Israel boycott and international bodies’ boycott initiatives. The operations room will transfer the information to the relevant people to provide a proper response to these activities, whether through a counter-protest or through moves to thwart the initiative behind the scenes.”
Other programs include a 22-million-shekel project to work among labor unions and professional associations abroad “to root out the ability of BDS entities to influence the unions,” and a 16-million-shekel program focused on student activities throughout the world.
Israel’s UNIT 8200
Photo from article about Unit 8200 on Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre website.
Another Israeli entity that plays a role in covert Internet activity is the Israeli military’s legendary high-tech spy branch, Unit 8200. This unit is composed of thousands of “cyber warriors” primarily 18 to 21 years of age; some even younger. A number of its graduates have gone on to top positions at tech companies operating in the U.S., such as Check Point Software (where the spouse of the Jewish Voice for Peace head is employed as a solutions architect).
In 2015 Israel’s Foreign Ministry announced plans “to establish a special command to combat anti-Israel incitement on social media.” The command would operate under the foreign ministry’s hasbara [propaganda] department and would especially recruit from graduates of Unit 8200.
An article in the Jewish Press about the new command reports that Unit 8200 “has developed a great reputation for effectiveness in intelligence gathering, including operating a massive global spy network. Several alumni of 8200 have gone on to establish leading Israeli IT companies, including Check Point, ICQ, Palo Alto Networks, NICE, AudioCodes, Gilat, Leadspace, EZchip, Onavo, Singular and CyberArk.”
Numerous Israeli tech companies, many of them headed by former military intelligence officers, assist in these online spying efforts, sometimes receiving Israeli government funding “for digital initiatives aimed at gathering intelligence on activist groups and countering their efforts.”
According to the ministry’s statement, among the Command’s activities is “finding videos with inflammatory content and issuing complaints to the relevant websites.”
To be clear, this is an occupying military working covertly to achieve censorship of reporting on its atrocities.
YouTube & Google officials meet with Israeli Minister
YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki speaking to the Israel Collaboration Network’s Israeli Women in Tech Group on August 25, 2016.
Major Internet companies have reportedly been cooperating in this effort.
In 2015 Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely announced that she had visited Silicon Valley and met with YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki and Google’s Director of Public Policy (it is unclear whether this was was Jennifer Oztzistzki or Juniper Downs; Hotovely’s announcementreferred to “Jennifer Downs”).
“At the end of the meeting,” Israeli media reported, “it was agreed that Google would strengthen bilateral relations with the Foreign Ministry and build a collaborative work apparatus.”
Another Israeli news report about the meeting states:
“…it was agreed that the companies would strengthen ties with the Foreign Ministry and build a regular mechanism of control to prevent the distribution of those incendiary materials on the network.”
Google, which owns YouTube, denied the Foreign Ministry’s report. The Ministry accordingly “clarified” its statement somewhat, but continued to say that Israeli officials would be in “regular contact with Google’s employees in Israel who deal with the problematic materials.”
Such officials often have close ties to Israel. For example, Facebook’s Head of Policy in Israel, Jordana Cutler, had previously been employed for many years by the Israeli government. (More about Facebook can be found here.)
The Linkedin page for Facebook’s Jordana Cutler
The meetings seem to have had a significant effect.
In 2016 Fortune magazine reported: “Facebook, Google, and YouTube are complying with up to 95% of Israeli requests to delete content that the government says incites Palestinian violence, Israel’s Justice Minister said on Monday.”
More recently, the Israeli Ministry of Justice said that its cyber unit handled 2,241 cases of online content and succeeded in getting 70 percent of it removed.
According to a 2017 report, Google, in its capacity as the operator of Youtube, announced that it was updating the steps it was already taking on this score.
Among other things, Google said it would increase the number of members of the “Trusted Flagger program,” which enables certain organizations and government agencies to report content. It also said it would “increase support for NGOs and organizations working to present a ‘corrective voice.’”
Given the record of infiltration and orchestrated activities described above—many financed by a combination of certain influential billionaires and the Israeli government itself—it’s hard to imagine that Israeli organizations and partisans are not thoroughly embedded in this program. In fact, one of the NGOs already working with YouTube as a “trusted flagger” is the Anti-Defamation League, whose mission includes ‘standing up for Israel.’
Anti-Defamation League celebrates Israel at 2017 New York City parade.
A leaked secret January 2017 ADL strategy paper detailed how to counter the pro-Palestine movement. Among its many strategies were some focused on the importance of efforts in cyber space.
The paper was produced in collaboration with the Reut Institute, an Israeli think tank, and included an endorsement by Sima Vaknin-Gil, who stated that
“the correlation between the Ministry’s mode of operation and what comes out of this document is very high, and has already proven effective… ”
The document’s executive summary noted:
“Cyberspace, broadly defined, stands out as a crucially important arena (for monitoring and counter and pro-active strategies) which requires more resources and attention due to its current influence, rapid growth and growing complexity.”
The paper called for “a mix of policy advocacy and industry engagement with corporations such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter in a manner consistent with the ADL Center for Technology and Society and its Anti-Cyberhate Working Group.”
An illustration in the ADL-Reut working paper on improving Israel advocacy. It noted: “While the pro-Israel network increasingly is active in this domain, much more can be done.”
The paper also recommended: “‘Bottom-up efforts’ of crowd-sourcing to enhance the adaptive capacity of the pro-Israel network.”
At the same time, it urged:
“Strengthening pro-Israel organizations that mobilize and coordinate a network of ‘nodes’ e.g. Jewish Community Public Affairs (JCPA) and its network of Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRCs) in the USA; Hillel, which is present in nearly five hundred locations in the U.S. and globally; the Israel Action Network (IAN) that reaches nearly 160 federations in the U.S.; or the Jewish Congress (WJC) that represents dozens of Jewish communities around the world.”
The detailed, 32-page document reported that in recent years “a massive investment of resources and talent” had been directed against the pro-Palestine movement. One of the results, the paper said, was to create a “world-wide pro-Israel network.” It was this network that the report wished to mobilize. One of the paper’s concerns was that since Israel’s 2014 attack on Gaza “a growing number of Jews have become more critical of Israel.”
The document recommended a degree of stealth, noting: “high-visibility response by the pro-Israel side can be counterproductive.”
What this means
Nevertheless, despite all these forces arrayed against information about Palestine reaching the American public, our channel is back up on YouTube. In fact, we’ve just uploaded a new video:
This one is about the death of a nine-year-old boy. [Perhaps the Israeli government would consider this incitement to Palestinians to rebel against occupation; we see it as incitement to the world in general, and Americans in particular, to care.]
In other words, Israel’s efforts at censorship don’t always succeed.
But sometimes they do, and other YouTube users have not always been so fortunate. For example, YouTube has terminated several Palestinian news organizations.
One was the al-Quds network, which, according to a report in Middle East Eye, “relies on young reporters and volunteers using phones and other digital devices to cover local news across the Palestinian territories.” They would often report Israeli soldiers committing various human rights violations.
Its YouTube channel was terminated in 2011, and its editor says they had to “to create a new channel from scratch.” By 2017 its new channel had gained almost 10 million views before it was suddenly suspended without warning again last October. It now, however, appears to have a YouTube channel in operation.
According to the MEE report, YouTube also suspended the Filisten al-Youm TV channel last August, and in 2013, apparently following complaints by the Anti-Defamation League, YouTube closed down Iran’s PressTV channel. (A Press TV YouTube channel now also appears to be available again.)
Palestinian social media users risk even greater consequences.
The Israeli government has arrested Palestinians for videos, poems, and other posts it dislikes. A 2016 report estimated that “more than 150 arrests took place between October and February 2016 based on Facebook posts expressing opinions on the uprising. A recent video posted on social media led to the imprisonment of a 16 year old girl, her mother and cousin.
In addition, Palestinian access to social media is somewhat controlled by Israel. As a Huffington Post article reports, ”Palestinians’ digital rights and access to the Internet are compromised in very basic ways, because Israel controls the infrastructure and services of Palestinian telecommunication companies in the West Bank.”
While the situation has greatly improved in recent years – the Israeli government finally announced in 2016 that it would allow Palestinians in the West Bank to access 3G wireless networks, making this one of the last regions in the world with such access after years of Israeli restrictions – it is important to remember the enormous power Israel wields over this largely captive population.
While Israel is able to organize entire campaigns to filter and flood social media, its immense control over Palestinians impedes their access to the same media.
Given these facts, it is extremely important for people to search out information for themselves, go directly to our websites and others, subscribe to diverse email lists, and not rely on social media for information. [Please subscribe to our news posts here.]
Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and others are private companies. In the end, they have the power to censor information, and they periodically do so. For a few days, we felt acutely what that was like. If Facebook had joined the ban, as has happened with others, we would have been even more cut off from what is essentially today’s “public square.”
The Internet and social media give us far more access to information and tools for communication and activism than ever before, but they, too, can be controlled—and they are.
“Scientists Outside History” was published in the September 1996 issue of Natural History, the popular educational journal of the American Museum of Natural History. Authored by me, “Scientists Outside History” was based on research I undertook in Iraq between 1989 and 1996. The article’s subheading: “Faced with international embargo, Iraq’s most progressive community finds itself abandoned.”
Reviewing my early files on Iraq, along with this article, I found readers’ correspondence (that was the pre-digital era) which Natural History’s editor had forwarded to me. Most of these letters were from outraged readers, many of them scientists or teachers, berating and excoriating me for seeing any merits in what they viewed as the ‘vicious and tyrannical Saddam regime’. (Praise Iraq’s earlier four millennia, but not the 20th century.) How dare I claim “Iraq’s scientists and doctors had enjoyed strong government backing, enabling them to pursue their international studies”? (p. 15)
Those indignant respondents didn’t object that international scientific and medical journals were freely available in Iraq up to 1990. Nor did they challenge my report of how that embargo went far beyond its mandate to include cultural and medical exchange, that even by 1996 (it would continue for another six years) it ensured Iraqis no longer received international journals, that Iraqi students were barred from post graduate studies (in U.S., Canada, and perhaps elsewhere) in fields such as physics, and that invitations to international conferences could not be extended to Iraqis. As I wrote at the time, this exclusion “proved as severe as any weapon of mass destruction”.
It was the noted sculptor, Mohammed Hikmat Ghani (image on the right), one of many Iraqi artists who, sponsored by his government, frequently traveled abroad to meet his peers, pointed out to me in 1991, that (as a result of that vicious embargo) “Iraq is now outside history”.
Visiting Iraq earlier this year, fourteen years into its American-designed and supervised democracy, I found that, as much as during the embargo, perhaps more so today Iraq is indeed outside history. It has been plundered of both its human and historical resources.
During my 1989 tour of the resplendent Iraq National Museum, it was Mohammed Ghani who informed me how the government had secreted away and protected the entire museum’s holdings during the eight year Iraq-Iran war. That collection was returned intact and complete following the 1988 cease fire:– the same treasure which, overseen by U.S. occupation troops in 2003, was ransacked and pillaged. (This was during the early months of the American invasion.)
One need not invoke ancient eras of past millennia to acknowledge Iraq’s contributions to civilization. Modern Iraq, before that embargo, was replete with industrious, well trained, talented men and women dedicated to their arts and sciences, their efforts generously encouraged and published by the government. They advanced more by personal merit than by party membership then.
The world famous architect Zaha Hadid, one of a large community of Iraqi artists and scientists, may have settled in Europe, but the foundation of her energy and imagination can be traced to her childhood within Iraq; there was early recognition of her mathematical genius and the influence of scientists in her own family.
Although not without difficulty, one can find many examples of outstanding 20th century treatises by Iraqi engineers (e.g. Ahmed Sousa and Aliya Sousa), medical specialists, linguists and artists produced within Iraq prior to the sanction regime. That exhaustive embargo targeted Iraq’s intelligentsia as much as its Baathist leadership.
You may ask: Why bring this up now? The embargo ended in 2003; Saddam is gone. Liberated from international isolation and dictatorship, Iraq’s an oil rich nation free to interact on the global stage.
In fact Iraq is still culturally marginalized, and intellectually much weakened. Many teachers, scholars and other talent who represent the high standards of the 20th century and could bridge the three decade-long wasteland created by embargo and war, have departed. Either they have been snapped up by foreign nations who recognize their abilities and fine training. Or as refugees, they’re obliged to accept jobs that do not advance or nourish their talent and imagination.
I was reminded of just how widespread the destruction of modern Iraqi civilization is today by a recent FB post from an Iraqi colleague residing abroad. Now middle aged and without economic security as a non-citizen in a nearby Arab country, following the work of theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, he recalls his own research in photon quantum physics as a young engineer. He scans world scientific developments today realizing that Iraq, 30-60 years ago, was well placed to be in the forefront of scientific discoveries, on the cusp of frontiers in medical research, physics, and archaeology. In response to his posting, colleagues in his network recalled their own attenuated and derailed careers. Many of these women and men are now exiles, snapped up by foreign companies and European and American universities, engineering institutes and hospitals, all well aware of the high standard of Iraq’s education (both before and during the Baath era). Tens of thousands of these experts are forced to take up work inferior to their level of training and without institutional support for publication and international dialogue.
When did you last see a citation of research authored by an Iraqi scientist? When have you last heard an Iraqi scientific presentation at an international conference? Their absence is indicative of their continued isolation and of their government’s cultural poverty and mismanaged resources.
Inside Iraq today the main concern of citizens (and government) is security. The streets of Baghdad are channels cutting through walled in lanes. There’s no civic landscape. No conferences take place here; few foreign professional colleagues visit; the government’s resources are consumed by a military budget for tanks and trucks, foreign anti-terror devices, and arming check posts. (I was unable to revisit the ancient site of Ctesiphon because of military skirmishes there, but I did return to the reopened Iraq National Museum where a few retrieved items from the looted collection were on display.)
Just as there are no conferences and few gatherings of musicians or writers or researchers, there are no open playgrounds, no public football matches, no concerts, and little inter-city travel. Children and families are confined to their homes watching the world pass through television, youtube, and whatsapp.
With corruption gripping all levels of government, whatever resources are available are allocated to cronies and their families; merit is an alien concept now. Even the Ministry of Health, once the pride of Iraq, is today incapable of designing and carrying out essential research to assess the nation’s basic health needs.
In response to the arrival of so many highly trained Iraqis in the West over the past 30 years, surely Americans and others could make an effort to visit Iraq and start a new dialogue with their peers there.
*
BN Aziz has recently returned from a two week visit in Iraq. Swimming up the Tigris: Real Life Encounters with Iraq, based on her work in Iraq between 1989 and 2003, is published by University of Florida Press, 2007.
If you haven’t yet read Adults in the Room by Yanis Varoufakis, |1| order it from your bookseller. It has all the ingredients of a political thriller – suspense, plot twists and turns, betrayals and more. But what is interesting about the book is that it gives the author’s version of events that have influenced and are still having repercussions on the international situation – in particular in Europe, but also beyond, because the disappointment caused by the capitulation of Greece’s radical-Left government has left its mark on everyone’s mind.
The series of articles I am devoting to Varoufakis’s book is meant as a guide for readers on the Left who are not satisfied with the dominant narrative put forward by the mainstream media and the governments of the Troika… and who are not satisfied by the former Greek Finance Minister’s version either. In counterpoint to Varoufakis’s narrative, I point out events that he keeps silent about and I express an opinion that differs from his as to what should have been done and what he in fact did. My narrative does not substitute for his, but should be read in parallel.
*
It’s essential to take the time to analyze the policies put in practice by Varoufakis and the Syriza government, because it was the first government of the radical Left to be elected in Europe in the 21st century. Understanding its weaknesses and learning from the way its members handled the problems it faced is vitally important if there is to be any chance of avoiding another fiasco. In other European countries, a majority of voters could put a government of the Left into power with the promise of emerging from the long night of neoliberalism. They are admittedly not numerous, but those countries do exist. Even where the chances of being elected are very limited, it is fundamental that a coherent set of measures be taken by a government that is as faithful to the people as the politicians currently in office are to big capital.
My criticism of Varoufakis’s choices is specific and uncompromising. Still, Varoufakis has made the effort to tell us what he considers to be the truth. And he took risks in doing so. Had he not written the book, many important facts would have remained unknown. Alexis Tsipras cannot be expected to give a serious account of his version of events. It would be impossible for him to give an account of his actions and to justify them. If ever he writes a book of his own, it will doubtless be the work of a ghost writer and be full of clichés and platitudes.
And a distinction needs to be made between Tsipras and Varoufakis: the former signed the Third Memorandum of Understanding and had it adopted by the Greek Parliament, whereas the latter opposed the MoU, resigned from the government on 6 July 2015 and as an MP voted against it on 15 July.
The main purpose of our critique of the policies implemented by Greece’s government in 2015 is not to determine the respective responsibilities of Tsipras or Varoufakis as individuals. What is fundamental is to conduct an analysis of the politico-economic orientation that was put into practice in order to determine the causes of its failure, to see what could have been attempted in its place and to draw conclusions as to what a government of the radical Left can do in a country in the periphery of the Euro Zone.
In this part, we will discuss the advisers Yanis Varoufakis brought in to make up his team. It must be acknowledged that, from the time he selected his principal advisers, Varoufakis called on people who were not at all disposed to see to it that Syriza’s promises were kept (and that is an understatement) and to implement alternative policies in order to free Greece from the grip of the Troika.
Yanis Varoufakis’s advisers as Minister
In his book, Varoufakis describes his team of direct advisers and the ones he called in from farther afield. The choices made in putting the team together were fatally flawed. The thinking that influenced them partly explains the failure that was ahead. It was not the determining factor, but it played a role.
In appointing the Alternate Minister of Finance in charge of treasury supervision, a vitally important position, Varoufakis tells us that he consulted Alekos Papadopoulos, who had been Finance Minister in the 1990s and was a PASOK member. Varoufakis explains that he had worked with Papadopoulos in writing the economic platform presented by George Papandreou in the 2004 election, won by the conservative New Democracy party. Syriza, who were running in an election for the first time, won six PM seats with 3.3% of the vote. Karamanlis’s New Democracy had 45.4% of the vote and PASOK, led by Papandreou, had 40.5%.
Varoufakis writes: “While Alekos remained an opponent of Syriza, he was personally supportive and promised to come up with a name. The same night he texted me the name of Dimitris Mardas.” |2| Varoufakis contacted Mardas directly and offered him the position of Alternate Minister of Finance.
Dimitris Mardas
What needs to be known is that on 17 January 2015, eight days before Syriza’s election victory, Mardas published a particularly aggressive article against Syriza MP Rachel Makri under the title “Rachel Makri vs. Kim Jong Un and Amin Dada.” The article ended with the very eloquent question (underlined by the author) “Are these the people we want to be governing us?” Ten days later Mardas, thanks to Varoufakis, had become Alternate Finance Minister. Varoufakis explains in his book that after one month as Minister, he realised that he had made the wrong choice. Note that Mardas, who supported the capitulation in July of 2015, was elected Syriza MP in September 2015. Papadopoulos also backed the third Memorandum of Understanding of July 2015. |3|
Varoufakis explains that the second choice he had to make involved who would be president of the Council of Economic Advisers. He realised that the position had been filled on his behalf by the vice-Prime Minister, Dragasakis. The latter had chosen George Chouliarakis, an economist around thirty years old who had taught at the University of Manchester before being seconded to the Central Bank of Greece. Chouliarakis played a damaging role from the start of Varoufakis’s tenure, and yet Varoufakis kept him in place to the end. His name will come up several times in the narrative of events.
Then Varoufakis added Elena Panaritis (image below) to his team, because she was familiar with the language and modus operandi of the Troika. Panaritis, as a PASOK MP, had voted in favour of the first Memorandum of Understanding in 2010. Before that, she had worked in Washington, mostly at the World Bank – where, Varoufakis tells us, she built up an excellent network of connections with the Washington-based institutions. That included former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers, whom she introduced to Varoufakis. Panaritis, in the 1990s, worked for the World Bank in Peru, where she collaborated with the corrupt and dictatorial neoliberal regime of Alberto Fujimori. As Varoufakis tells it, “[…] when I met her again a few days before the election I did not hesitate for a moment to ask her to join my team, for there is no better person to fight the devil than one who has served him and, through that experience, become his sworn enemy.” |4| Later events would show that not only had she not become his sworn enemy, she continued to collaborate with him.
From the start, Panaritis’s appointment as Economic Adviser to the Finance Minister provoked reactions from Syriza members, and Alexis Tsipras tried to convince Varoufakis to get rid of her. But he eventually became quite comfortable with her. Later, in May 2015, when Varoufakis, with Tsipras’s approval, had Panaritis appointed as Greece’s representative to the IMF, there was so much resistance within Syriza and in the Parliament that she finally gave up the post on 1 June 2015. |5|
Varoufakis also appointed Glenn Kim, a specialist in financial markets and in particular the sovereign-debt market, to his team. In 2012, Kim had taken part in implementing the restructuring of Greece’s debt, notably as a consultant to the German authorities. When Varoufakis got in touch with Kim, he told him he was working as a consultant for the government of Iceland, helping end the capital controls that had been in force since 2008. That was quite acceptable to Varoufakis, who wrongly wanted to avoid resorting to controls on movements of capital at all costs, when in fact he would have done well to learn from the positive results the measure had produced in Iceland.
Varoufakis writes: “A cynic might say that professionals like Glenn were in it for the money and for their own career purposes. Possibly. But having people such as Glenn on my side, who knew where all the skeletons were buried, was a priceless weapon.” We should point out that Glenn Kim continued to advise Tsipras after the capitulation of July 2015. |6|
Varoufakis seems proud of having accepted the services of the Lazard bank and of its director, Frenchman Matthieu Pigasse. |7| In exchange for tens of million of euros in commissions, Banque Lazard had collaborated in the Troika’s restructuring of Greece’s debt in 2012. According to Varoufakis, Matthieu Pigasse and Daniel Cohen (a professor at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris and an adviser to Lazard |8|) “won me over with a frank account of their complicity, an equally frank apology and an offer to help get Greece back on its feet by providing their considerable services pro bono. With these illustrious defectors on our side, our technical strength was bolstered no end.” |9|
Among the members of the international team Varoufakis brought in was James Galbraith, who provided constant support and spent several periods in Athens during the first six months of 2015. Among the people Varoufakis mentions as having worked closely with him, James Galbraith is the only one worthy of trust, even if he did go along with the far too conciliatory attitude taken towards the creditors. James Galbraith is an American neo-Keynesian economist, close to the Democratic Party and familiar with international politics. In 2009, he was in close contact with the George Papandreou government. Galbraith worked mainly on a Plan B, in great secrecy. He tells the story himself in his book Welcome to the Poisoned Chalice: The Destruction of Greece and the Future of Europe. |10| Of all the team members Varoufakis mentions, Galbraith is the only one of whom it can be said that he could actually provide constructive aid to the Greek authorities. Yet, along with Varoufakis, he defended an approach that was excessively moderate and not commensurate with the challenges that needed to be met – a fact he himself admits in part. |11| Daniel Munevar, a collaborator of Galbraith, actively supported Varoufakis in the negotiations with the creditors beginning in March 2015, but Varoufakis does not mention his name. |12|
Image on the right below is James Galbraith
Varoufakis prefers to talk about the foreign personalities who are directly connected to the establishment: “Besides Norman [Lamont], my overseas supporters included Columbia University economist Jeff Sachs, who played a central role as adviser and advocate, the aforementioned Thomas Mayer of Deutsche Bank fame, Larry Summers and Jamie Galbraith[…].” |13|
…in other words, with the exception of Galbraith, exactly the type of personalities alliances should not have been made with if a solution favourable to the people of Greece was to be promoted. Here are a few examples.
Larry Summers, Jeffrey Sachs et al: Varoufakis continued making choices that were incompatible with Syriza’s platform
There are certain stains on the career of Lawrence “Larry” Summers that by rights should be indelible… and should have ruled out any collaboration. Yet Varoufakis systematically favoured that collaboration and expresses satisfaction with it. He declares in the introduction to his book that “Things were proceeding better than I had hoped, with broad agreement on everything that mattered. It was no mean feat to secure the support of the formidable Larry Summers […]” |14|
Certain major aspects of Summers’s past deserve to be discussed.
In December 1991, while chief economist of the World Bank, Summers wrote in an internal memo: “The under-populated countries of Africa are largely under-polluted. Their air quality is unnecessarily good compared to Los Angeles or Mexico (…) There needs to be greater migration of pollutant industries towards the least developed countries (…) and greater concern about a factor increasing the risk of prostate cancer in a country where people live long enough to get the disease, than in a country where 200 children per thousand die before the age of five.” |15| He even went so far as to add, still in 1991: “There are no limits on the planet’s capacity for absorption likely to hold us back in the foreseeable future. The danger of an apocalypse due to global warming or anything else is non-existent. The idea that the world is heading into the abyss is profoundly wrong. The idea that we should place limits on growth because of natural limitations is a serious error; indeed, the social cost of such an error would be enormous if ever it were to be acted upon.” |16|
Later, having become Undersecretary of the US Treasury under Clinton in 1995, Summers used all his influence with his mentor, then Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, toward repealing the law that separated commercial banks from investment banks in 1999 and replacing it by a law that was dictated by the bankers. |17|
In 1998, with Alan Greenspan, Executive Director of the Federal Reserve Bank, and Robert Rubin, Summers had also succeeded in convincing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to remove all controls on the Over-the-Counter (OTC) derivatives market. The door was then wide open for the acceleration of the banking and financial deregulation that led to the crisis in 2007-2008 in the US, which had repercussions in Greece in 2009-2010.
We should add that in 2000, as Secretary of the Treasury, Summers pressured the president of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, to remove Joseph Stiglitz, who had succeeded him as chief economist and who was highly critical of the neoliberal policies Summers and Rubin were putting into practice all over the planet, wherever financial fires were breaking out. After the arrival of the Republican president George W. Bush he continued his career, becoming president of Harvard University in 2001. But put himself in a particularly uncomfortable position in February 2005 when he provoked the ire of the academic community following a discussion at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). |18| Questioned about the reasons why few women hold high positions in science and engineering, he said that women intrinsically have a lower aptitude for sciences than men, ruling out social and family origin and discrimination as possible explanations. The result was a huge controversy, |19| both within and outside the university. Summers apologised, but pressure from a majority of professors and students of Harvard forced him to resign in 2006.
In 2009, Summers became a member of president-elect Barack Obama’s transition team and served as Director of the National Economic Council. In September 2010, Summers left Obama’s team and resumed his career at Harvard, but continued to play a backstage role in politics in Washington and elsewhere. Varoufakis tells how he asked Elena Panaritis to put him in touch with Summers in 2015 in order to gain influence with Obama and the IMF.
Varoufakis asked Jeffrey Sachs (image on the left), also a specialist in dealing influence in the back rooms of Washington, to collaborate closely, which Sachs agreed to do, travelling to Athens, Brussels, London, and Washington several times in 2015 to reinforce Varoufakis’s team. Sachs, like Lawrence Summers, is linked to the US Democratic Party and is presented by the dominant media as being favourable to a “soft” solution to debt crises, taking the interests of the poor into account. |20| Yet Sachs has been an adviser to neoliberal governments that have applied Shock Therapy policies in their countries: Bolivia (1985), Poland (1989) and Russia (1991). In her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, |21| Naomi Klein makes an implacable denunciation of Jeffrey Sachs and the policies he recommended in collaboration with the IMF, the World Bank and the local ruling classes.
Varoufakis also mentions the unfailing support he received from Lord Norman Lamont, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Conservative government of John Major between 1990 and 1993. “My friendship with true-blue Tory and Eurosceptic Lord Lamont of Lerwick, the chancellor who had ensured that Britain dropped out of the European Monetary System, thus guaranteeing that the UK would not join the euro, was at odds with my image as a loony-left extremist.” Varoufakis makes much of the importance of his collaboration with Norman Lamont: “Throughout my 162 days in office Norman proved a pillar of strength, advising me on the final draft of my reform, debt and fiscal proposals to the EU and the IMF.” |22|
Among the other foreign experts Varoufakis called on and who took part in working out the proposals he made to the creditors were Willem Buiter, who joined the Citigroup bank in 2010 as chief economist, and Thomas Mayer, ex-chief economist of Deutsche Bank.
According to Varoufakis’s narrative, these individuals played more than a trivial role. Referring to the nth plan he proposed to the creditors in May 2015, he writes: “By the time I landed in Athens, the Plan of Greece had been finalized. Jeff Sachs had beautifully edited the draft I had sent him a couple of days before; Norman Lamont had added some important vignettes; the people from Lazard had refined the debt-swap proposal, and Larry Summers had provided his endorsement.” |23|
Spyros Sagias, another example of a defender of the dominant order who was a member of the close circle around Tsipras and Varoufakis
Varoufakis explains that he had a close relationship with Spyros Sagias, who became legal adviser to Prime Minister Tsipras and whom he had met a few days before the elections. Tsipras’s choice of Sagias says a great deal about his priorities in choosing his entourage as head of government. He wanted, as much as possible, to secure the services of individuals who could build bridges with the establishment, with corporate leaders, and with the creditors. Sagias had advised the government of the Socialist Simitis in the 1990s at a time when it was undertaking a major program of privatisations.
Varoufakis describes Sagias as follows: “Sagias was not a politician but, as he introduced himself half-jokingly, a systemic lawyer. […] There was hardly a large-scale business deal involving private interests and the public sector that Sagias and his successful practice had not been involved in: privatizations, large-scale construction projects, mergers, all were within his ambit. He had even provided legal counsel to Cosco, the Chinese conglomerate that had acquired part of the port of Piraeus and was eager to take over the whole of it, a privatization that Syriza vehemently opposed.” He adds: “When Pappas informed me that Sagias was destined to become our cabinet secretary, I was surprised but also pleased: at least we would have a legal eagle on the team, a counsellor who knew how to author legislation and moreover where all the skeletons of the ancien régime were buried. […] I decided I liked Sagias. He knew that he was tainted by decades of consorting with the oligarchy and did not care to hide it […].” |24|
Sagias, as Varoufakis shows later in the book, supported the successive choices that led to the final capitulation.
We should add that under the Tsipras I government, he also assisted Cosco in acquiring the parts of the port of Piraeus that the Chinese company still did not own. |25| As a matter of fact it was Sagias’s law firm that had drawn up the first agreement with Cosco in 2008. After leaving his position as cabinet secretary, Sagias returned to actively running his commercial law firm, |26| serving as official counsel to major foreign interests and promoting further privatisations. In 2016 he represented the Emir of Qatar, who wished to acquire the Greek island of Oxeia in the Zakynthos region, which is part of a Natura nature protection area. Sagias also counselled Cosco in 2016-2017 during a dispute with workers at the port of Piraeus when an early-retirement (or disguised firing) plan for more than a hundred workers nearing retirement age was being concocted.
In Part Five we will discuss the events of January-February 2015: the days leading up to Syriza’s expected victory on 25 January, the creation of the Tsipras government, Syriza’s platform, Yanis Varoufakis’s becoming Finance Minister and the negotiations that led to the disastrous agreement of 20 February 2015.
*
Translated by Snake Arbusto in collaboration with Christine Pagnoulle.
Dr. Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. Eric Toussaint is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Notes
|1| Yanis Varoufakis, Adults in the Room: My Battle With Europe’s Deep Establishment (London: The Bodley Head, 2017)
|2| Yanis Varoufakis, Adults in the Room, Chapter 5
|6| Whereas under Varoufakis Kim received modest compensation, in August 2015 he presented an invoice for €375,000 for the period prior to July 2015. That made waves and provided fodder for the campaign to discredit Varoufakis launched by Greece’s mainstream press. GRReporter, “A Korean adviser of Varoufakis claims a fee of €375,000,” 9 August 2015, consulted 12 November 2017
|7| Lazard is a worldwide financial counselling and asset-management firm. Created as a French-American house in 1848, Lazard is now listed on the New York Stock Exchange and is present in 43 cities in 27 countries. One of its directors who is well known in France is Matthieu Pigasse. Under his leadership the bank has advised several governments in the areas of debt and asset management (read privatisations): Ecuador in 2008-2009 foe debt, Greece in 2012 and 2015, and Venezuela in 2012-2013. Pigasse has direct interests in the Paris daily Le Monde, the Huffington Post and the magazine Les Inrockuptibles. In late 2017, Matthieu Pigasse and Lazard allied with the corrupt and repressive regime of Congo’s president Denis Sassou-Nguesso to provide aid in its dealing with creditors (in French).
|8| A specialist in sovereign debt, Daniel Cohen is an adviser to Lazard, in which capacity he advised Greece’s Prime Minister George Papandreou and Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa in renegotiating their countries’ debt. He participated with the World Bank in the Heavily Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) Initiative. He is an editorialist for the daily Le Monde. Cohen has also been an adviser to François Fillon, who was Prime Minister under Nicolas Sarkoy from 2010 to 2012. He then threw his support to François Hollande, president of France from 2012 to 2017.
|9| Varoufakis, op.cit., Chapter 5
|10| James K. Galbraith, Welcome to the Poisoned Chalice: The Destruction of Greece and the Future of Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016)
|12| Daniel Munevar is a post-Keynesian economist originally from Bogotá, Colombia. Between March and July of 2015, he worked as Yanis Varoufakis’s assistant while the latter was Finance Minister, advising him on budget policy and debt sustainability. Before that, he was an adviser to Colombia’s Ministry of Finance. In 2009-2010, he was a CADTM staff member in Belgium, then, after returning to Latin America, he co-ordinated the CADTM network in Latin America from 2011 to 2014. He is an important figure in the study of public debt in Latin America. He has published a number of articles and studies. He participated with Éric Toussaint, Pierre Gottiniaux and Antonio Sanabria in compiling World Debt Figures 2015. Since 2017 he had worked for the UNCTAD in Geneva. Daniel Munevar refers to his participation in Varoufakis’s team in “Why I’ve Changed My Mind About Grexit,” CADTM, 24 July 2015. In the book mentioned earlier, James Galbraith stresses the importance of the assistance he received from Daniel Munevar.
|13| Varoufakis, op.cit., Chapter 5
|14| Varoufakis, op.cit., Introduction
|15| Excerpts were published in The Economist (8 February 1992) and the Financial Times (10 February 1992) under the title “Save the Planet from the Economists.”
|16| Lawrence Summers, interview with Kirsten Garrett on the occasion of the annual assembly of the World Bank and IMF in Bangkok in 1991, “Background Briefing,” Australian Broadcasting Company, second programme.
|17| The law adopted under the leadership of Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers is known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999. This law was adopted by the US Congress, dominated by a Republican majority, and promulgated by the Clinton administration on 12 November 1999. It allows commercial banks and investment banks to merge and establish universal banking services, that is, those of a retail bank, an investment bank and an insurance company. The adoption of this law came after an intensive lobbying campaign by banks to allow the merger of Citibank and the insurance firm Travelers Group to form the conglomerate Citigroup, one of the world’s largest financial services groups. The new law in essence abrogated the Glass Steagall Act or Banking Act, in place since 1933, which declared that the professions of commercial banking and investment banking are incompatible and avoided major banking crises in the USA until the one that broke out in 2007-2008.
|18| Financial Times, 26-27 February 2005.
|19| The controversy was also fed by disapproval of Summers’s attack on Cornel West, a progressive black academician, professor of Religion and African-American Studies at Princeton University. Summers, an outspoken pro-Zionist, called West an anti-Semite because of his support for students who demanded a boycott of Israel for its denial of Palestinians’ rights. See the Financial Times of 26-27 February 2005. Cornel West had been an enthusiastic supporter of Obama and was critical of the latter’s association with Summers and Rubin. See www.democracynow.org/2008/11…
|20| In 2005 Sachs published a book entitled The End of Poverty: How We Can Make it Happen in Our Lifetime, which was very well received by the establishment. In 2007-2008 the CADTM participated in the making and distribution of the documentary film The End of Poverty? (See in French), which makes the opposite demonstration from Sachs’s. The film, by Philippe Diaz, was selected for the Critics’ Week at the Cannes Festival in 2008 (it features interviews with Joseph Stiglitz, Susan George, Amartya Sen, Éric Toussaint and John Perkins). Sachs published a new, mainstream book in 2015 on sustainable development. An example of the sort of promotional comment that can be found in the press: “Economist Jeffrey Sachs, Special Adviser to the UN Secretary General, is among the most influential figures in the field of sustainable development. An inspirer of the eight Millennium Development Goals in place from 2000 to 2015, Sachs’s brilliance is respected in all milieux.” (Les Echos, 11 June 2015, trans. CADTM)
|21| Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (New York: Picador Press 2007)
|22| Varoufakis, op.cit., Chapter 5
|23| Varoufakis, op.cit., Chapter 15
|24| Adéa Guillot and Cécile Ducourtieux of the daily Le Monde wrote of Sagias “Long close to the PASOK, he took part in many negotiations of public contracts and regularly advises foreign investors looking to establish themselves in Greece.” Le Monde, 21 May 2015, “Qui sont les protagonistes de la crise de la dette grecque” (Who are the Protagonists of the Greek Debt Crisis?), trans. CADTM
|25| I will return to the subject of the role Varoufakis himself played in pursuing the privatisation of the port of Piraeus and his relations with Cosco.
The year 2017 was a record-breaking year for extreme weather and environmental catastrophes since records started to be kept in the 19th century. The Arctic experienced temperatures up to 70 degree F above normal.
Many countries were baked in unusual heatwaves killing thousands. Incidents of droughts, extreme typhoons in the Pacific and hurricanes in the Atlantic, flash floods, and wildfires erupted daily in international news headlines. As recent as 2014, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), following an analysis of NASA satellite footage of carbon dioxide movement around the planet, concluded that our warming planet has entered “unchartered territory at frightening speed.”
But 2017 was also the year when the statistical figures came in for 2016. The WMO reported that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rose at record speed. Currently it is at its highest level in 800,000 years. If anyone held any doubt that climate change is unreal or a conspiratorial hoax, a fiction or fantasy, 2017 should have been a wake up call to the most obstinate denialist. Scientists have warned about our current days of climate for several decades. For those who jumped on the bandwagon years ago when atmospheric and geological scientists voiced serious concerns about global warming and its dire consequences, it was a year with no huge surprises, except for the rapid acceleration of warming trends.
It is time that people, and more crucially our entire species, accept the fact that climate change is the single most important threat to humanity’s survival. Certainly, a nuclear confrontation with North Korea or Russia is a horrifying scenario that could eliminate tens or even hundreds of millions of people. However, it is within humanity’s means to avoid nuclear war. On the other hand it is highly improbable whether we can do much to deter climate change. Natural forces are far beyond our technological know-how and methods to control powerful planetary forces regardless of how many efforts are made to advance geoengineering or a dramatic shift to renewable energies. Perhaps it will slow the pace of global warming a little, but it too has its own destructive feedback loops. The Earth’s history is a long story of numerous species birthing, evolving and eventually going extinct.
There is no manifest destiny for our species. There is no divine promise that humanity may not in the future follow in the footsteps of the dinosaurs. Our lives are not transcendent to Nature nor the multitude of other natural forces, animals, plants, microbes and other life forms and molecules upon which our existence depends. This is a simple truth we must learn. And it must be adapted to quickly and without further delay.
In a July issue of New York Magazine, journalist David Wallace-Wells published a worst case, doomsday scenario of climate change’s impact upon human society and the environment before the end of this century. His essay, “The Uninhabitable Earth,” was based upon many private interviews with unnamed scientists who were willing to voice their deeper concerns about catastrophic events and eroding conditions humanity will face unless a concerted global response to reduce greenhouse gases is not launched immediately. Aside from several of Wallace-Wells’ factual errors, this was the first featured article to appear in a mainstream publication that focused on climate change’s darker side. It became the most read article in New York Magazine‘s history. However, earlier in 2003, Cambridge University astrophysicist and philosopher Martin Rees released his influential Our Final Hour warning that the pace of humanity’s destructive activities presents a 50:50 chance for our civilization to survive past the end of the 21st century.
Carcinogenic and unhealthy foods and high levels of deadly toxic chemicals in common everyday products are only minor risks compared to many other postmodern technologies impacting our lives. Climate change, combined with the genetic engineering of new viruses, synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, and the environmental rape of the planet for its last remaining natural resources, according to Rees, is a recipe for certain disaster and will likely end in the extinction of our species. While many scientists and most of the general public who acknowledge the facts about anthropogenic climate change continue to hold enormous faith on human ingenuity and modern technology to prevent global warming’s “end game,” Rees and a distinguished, multi-disciplinary consortium of scientists at the Cambridge Center for the Study of Existential Risks acknowledge a darker side behind our over-reliance upon technological solutions–nuclear power, geoengineering, genetic manipulation of nature, etc.
Rees’s 50:50 survival prediction has largely been ignored after its publication over a decade ago. Nobody wants to accept that our survival is predicated upon a flip of a coin. Today, his predictions are being reevaluated and his supporters are increasing. And this is why Wallace-Wells’ New York Magazine‘s article is so relevant. There are more than ample reasons to fear the consequences of climate change on our health, food security, our livelihoods, well-being, and the survival of future generations, including our children. Extinction is forever, whether it be in a hundred, as the more pessimistic scientists suggest, or a thousand years or more. It is only a matter of time before killer heat waves become the norm, chemical-based industrial agriculture collapses, national economies are devastated, new plagues and health epidemics emerge, and climate and resource conflicts and wars increase. All of these have been previously predicted over the years, and each is already starting to cast its shadow over the planet. Fear combined with hope is a powerful motivating factor to embrace change in personal habits and lifestyle. Therefore, it is critical for humanity to become anxious and afraid, to become intensely fearful without descending into paralysis. We condemn ourselves only by our failure to wake up while clinging to faux optimism, and by refusing to take upon ourselves the appropriate actions when confronted with an immediate emergency.
Climate science poses certain obstacles difficult for the average person to accept. Perhaps most evident is that the science and predictions appear too abstract. They often seem foreign, impersonal and distance. A Yale University survey found that although 60 percent of Americans believe global warming will adversely affect other people, only about 35 percent believed they would be personally harmed. The calving of an enormous ice sheet in Antarctica or rapid Himalayan glacier melt do not set off alarm bells that threaten our cozy lives in American and European cities and suburbs. The events are too distant. We know that sea levels are rising. Everyone in Miami is aware of this fact because flooded areas in the city are now commonplace. The citizens of the Maldives and Solomon Islands certainly know this because their nations are already sinking under rising sea levels. But to imagine one’s home or condominium along the coast being partially submerged permanently in the Atlantic Ocean is a time too far off to think about.
Consequently, real estate developers continue their frenzy to build more residences up and down the Florida coast, and people continue to flock to the Sunshine State to purchase a sunny place to retire. It is almost obscene to imagine that four of the top ten cities witnessing the largest influx of migrants within the United States are also the most compromised by more immediate climate change and extreme weather conditions: Houston (No. 1), Miami (No. 2), Phoenix (No. 7) and Orlando (No. 10). In August 2017, Hurricane Harvey submerged over 100,000 homes throughout the greater Houston metropolitan area. While the storm itself cannot be attributed to humanity’s contribution to global warming, the hurricane’s intensity and power is certainly related. Rising sea levels and warmer sea surface off the Texas coast — 7.2 degrees F above average making it the hottest spot of ocean surface in the world — are the two major factors that made Harvey so catastrophic and deadly. And similar extreme tropic storms are only going to increase as the Earth gets warmer. As the planet’s surface heats further and sea levels rise, climatic events become increasingly more extreme. Consequently our lives become more stressed, miserable, insecure and uncertain.
The British philosopher poet G.K. Chesterton wrote,
“It isn’t that they cannot find the solution. It is that they cannot see the problem.”
Individually, nobody can initiate the kind of grand massive change in collective humanity’s relationship to the environment now demanded. However, each of us can make determined and immediate changes in our personal lives and repair our personal rapport with the earth, nature, the ecology around our homes, neighborhoods and towns. No honor is gained by sitting and waiting for government to take concerted action to lessen greenhouse gas emissions and overhaul the federal regulatory system to hold private industries and polluters accountable. The corruption of Washington is beyond reform because government has itself become a private enterprise. Likewise, Americans are waking up to the realization that their votes are useless. Those who need to change the most–elected officials and legislators, corporate CEOs and Chairmen, professional institutions– will not find the solutions until it is too late. In the meantime, they refuse to see the problem. And this is clearly evident by the fact that the fossil fuel industry is expanding rather than receding.
Although a popular awareness of climate change is growing rapidly, most people still have difficulty connecting the dots between dramatic climate-related crises and calamities happening in far off regions of the planet and the impact these very same events have upon their personal lives. Unless the threats the Earth faces are understood and perceived as a threat to our personal wellbeing and that of our immediate families, loved ones and friends, the constructive, necessary change so direly needed will not unfold. Nevertheless, we must begin with ourselves because each of us possesses in her or his power the capacity to live in harmony with life and the greater whole of Nature. And then we must become examples of a conscientious, ecological lifestyle to those we meet.
*
In August 2017, the 900-plus foot tanker Christophe de Margerie set sail from Russia’s North Sea to South Korea. The cruise’s novelty was that for the first time in recorded history a sailing vessel crossed the Arctic’s Northern Sea Route without the need for icebreakers. The ship traveled freely, unencumbered across the broken, melting ice fields. This small incident regarding a tanker carrying natural gas half way around the world may seem incidental and insignificant, barely newsworthy. But for climatologists and Arctic ecologists it was an unexpected and disturbing event. It was another indication that the planet is racing faster towards an ice free Arctic. It was also a warning that global warming is accelerating beyond expectations. Back in 2013, the University of California was predicting that ships would be incapable of traveling freely across the North Pole before 2050. However, the Christophe’s passage over the Arctic’s southern frontier in under seven days holds a record. And this voyage would have never been possible without the acceleration of anthropogenic climate change.
As the Russian vessel made its way across the crown of the planet, at the opposite pole another surprising event occurred. On July 12, 2017, an iceberg, approximately 2,200 square miles or roughly the size of the state of Delaware, broke free from the Larsen C ice sheet in Western Antarctica. This was the third gigantic Antarctic ice sheet to collapse since 1995, and the largest to date. Glaciologists were startled because the speed of the sheet’s disintegration was miscalculated. Although the break, commonly known as “calving,” had been predicted several years prior, it was the suddenness that was disturbing. A week later, glaciologists’ predictions were proven wrong a second time. It had not been a clean split as calculated earlier. Instead, like a stone hitting an automobile windshield, the break triggered a network of fissures indicating that the entire ice sheet was quickly fragmenting and more sheets would be calving in the near future. Antarctica is often viewed as the last place on Earth that will be touched by global warming due to human activity. However, 2016 observed a record low of sea ice, according to the University of Washington, and 2020 is now targeted as the turnaround point when the degradation of the southern polar ice sheets will be directly the result of human activity. Already, atmospheric temperatures in the Antarctic have been rising annually by 4-6 C. As warming seasons lengthen, ice sheets melt and calf faster and eventually the shelves thin further and disappear.
*
For the twenty-first century, these two geological events, and many others, are indicative of the greatest threat to humanity: global warming and climate change. For the first time in human history, our species has entered an era of extraordinary and anxious uncertainty. Many are bewildered when they hear about the loss of an Antarctic ice sheet, prolonged droughts, temperatures reaching above 50 degree Celsius, flash floods, and uncontrollable wildfires. What does it mean when we hear that 2016 was the third year in a row to set a new record for average global temperatures? Is this simply a fluke? An aberration in the usual climate patterns we have become accustomed to? Will it continue or end?
The international scientific community is nearly unanimous in confirming that global warming is accelerating and human activity is its primary driving force. There is also near unanimous certainty the course we are following to reach catastrophic benchmarks is inevitable and completely outside our civilization’s control. Those scientists who resist the international consensus are far and few between. The majority of dissenters lack a professional background in the Earth, Space and atmospheric sciences, climatology, glaciology and other disciplines directly associated with measuring and observing changes in the atmosphere and the Earth’s geology. For several decades, scientists have been running simulated climate models repeatedly to determine whether increased warming is anthropogenic or caused by human activity. And repeatedly whenever human-generated greenhouse gases–CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, dust, etc.– are removed from their equations, they are unable to account for the sudden rise in the Earth’s temperature as the result of natural phenomena alone. Already the Earth is warmer than it has been for the last 120,000 years. However, when these same models introduce greenhouse gases into their equations, they accurately correlate with the actual temperature trends being witnessed. Long-term, 90% of planetary warming is linked to the actions of our species. The remaining 10%, according to Konrad Steffen, director of the Swiss Polar Institute, is “unexplained.”
It is not uncommon for climatologists to underestimate the swiftness of climate-related events. The statistical and computational models to portend timelines for certain climate tipping points, although highly sophisticated, are unable to account for all variables and trends, particularly unforeseeable catastrophes such as mammoth biomass emissions from wildfires and other natural and human calamities. For example, researchers could not predictably calculate the explosion of BP’s Deep Horizon facility that discharged up to 520,000 tons of methane into the atmosphere, the equivalent of burning upwards to 3.1 million barrels of crude oil. Consequently dire findings are either found wanting or too sober as new observations upgrade earlier forecasts. Very soon the Arctic region will be ice free throughout the year. Conservatively the Arctic will lose all its ice during the warmest months before 2030. We still don’t know precisely many of the long-term consequences to the polar region and the planet’s biosystems once this tipping point is reached. However, there are approximately four million people living along the Arctic Circle, including hundreds of thousands of indigenous people. Very likely, most of the coastal communities will be forced to migrate in the near future as shorelines dependent upon ice, freezing temperatures and colder seasons start to crumble and disappear. Acceleration is also exasperated by the thawing permafrost and tundra, and the massive release of methane and nitrous oxide, in the Arctic North. In point of fact, the polar North is collapsing.
The loss of the Arctic’s albedo, the white world of ice that reflects the Sun’s radiation back into space, has already passed its tipping point. For as long as humans have been on the third planet from the Sun, we will never return to a time when polar bears and seals thrived on frozen ocean surfaces. We can no longer prevent the Western Antarctic ice sheets, including the Larsen and Ross sheets, from slipping away into the dark oceanic waters. The rush of fresh water from melting glaciers in Greenland are beyond our technological means to prevent the disruption in the Atlantic Ocean’s conveyor belt. Based upon satellite data feeds, the Greenland sheets, according to David Barber at the University of Manitoba, are now melting six hundred times faster than the current modeling trends suggest.
Similarly, due to many complex and unknown factors, it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain exactly how high the oceans will rise if all Antarctic ice melts. For example, one of the largest Antarctic ice sheets rests on solid ground below sea level. On the one hand, this makes the sheet far more unstable and geologists continue to try to determine its global impact following its last breath. Nevertheless the loss of the Ross ice sheet in West Antarctica alone could raise sea levels 10-13 feet (3-4 meters). In 2014, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the University of California at Irvine determined that the loss of the West Antarctic sheet is unstoppable. The circulation of the ocean’s warmer waters beneath the ice continues to thin and melt the shelf. No technology nor even a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions can prevent it. As if a warhead missile had already been launched, we can only sit and wait to experience the consequences befalling us upon impact.
For many years, scientists were not terribly concerned about a rapid melt of Antarctic ice sheets. The southern pole has always been thought to be the last place on earth to experience global warming. For the past 40 years, winter ice has actually increased–until recently. In 2016, University of Washington researchers noted a perfect storm of conditions that, if repeated annually, will increase Antarctic ice melts and possibly trend towards declining ice buildup during the winter months. One of the causes the university scientists identified was a change in El Nino patterns that are now reaching the Antarctic.
In May 2014, Climate Central provided a probable scenario of American land lost due to a 10 foot increase in sea levels. Approximately 28,800 square miles of land mass would disappear with rising waters and force the dislocation of over 12 million people, primarily along the US eastern seaboard. Twenty-seven cities in Florida would be most affected. The report determined that the cost of lost property would be upwards to $950 billion–a very conservative figure. The majority of the loss would be in the southern states but also a third in New York and New Jersey.
The complete loss of 5 million cubic miles of ice now blanketing the Earth, including large mountain glaciers, could raise sea levels by 216 feet. San Francisco Bay Area would be a cluster of small islands. Along with Los Angeles and San Diego, the American East Coast would vanish. Bye bye London, Venice, Netherlands and most of Denmark. From Bangladesh across Southeast Asia to the Cardamom Mountains in Cambodia, only small islets would remain. Mt Fuji would remain as a standing volcano bulging monolithically out of the Pacific. Four out of five Australians would be displaced and vast regions of Africa would be uninhabitable. Scientists are hopeful that a complete ice free planet is over a thousand years down the stretch. But without doubt humanity has entered uncharted territory on the geological map. Our technological tools and modeling systems, albeit highly sophisticated, are still incapable of the daunting task to establish precise timelines. Unpredictable events and catastrophes affecting feedback loops, such as wildfires, volcanic eruptions, oil fires or industrial plant explosions—such as the Arkema chemical plant explosion near Houston after Hurricane Harvey—and the numerical increase in extreme weather events cannot be accurately calculated into greenhouse gas simulations. Harvey’s rainfall is estimated to have been the worst in US history and the most devastating storm to hit Houston. Nineteen trillion gallons of water. For five days, the “capitol” of America’s fossil fuel industry was flooded with torrential rains and wave surges, shutting down and damaging oil refineries and chemical plants along Texas’ eastern coast. Over one million pounds of toxic pollutants and greenhouse gases were released. Such events fall outside the realm of computerized simulations and therefore not included in predictive climate models. For this reason, scientific conclusions are often far more conservative than the actual state of the planet. There is no precedent on the Earth’s 4.6 billion year geological timeline to serve as a reliable baseline to accurately calculate climate-related events in the Anthropocene Age.
*
There is ingrained in the cultural DNA of modern civilization a mythic delusion that is at best ignored and largely denied by people whose lives depend upon the emotional security in believing in economic and scientific advancement to cure our problems. This blind faith is simply a sign of our addiction to progress. It is a myth that underlies our neoliberal capitalist agenda that praises infinite progress and development. It is also a myth embedded in our major religions, particularly the Abrahamic traditions, which gave rise to the 18th century economist Adam Smith’s metaphor of the capitalist marketplace as the work of “the invisible hand of God.” This modern myth has been beautifully described and elaborated upon by ecological activist Derrick Jensen in his The Myth of Human Supremacy. And this dangerous idea, which depends upon being closed minded and blind to the non-human intelligences all around us, to the trillions of organisms, microbes, plants and animals upon which our lives and survival depend, is driving humanity towards its own annihilation.
There is a peculiar arrogance when sentimental environmentalists proclaim the Earth is sick and humanity must unite and collectively gather together and heal her. This view also perpetuates the myth of human supremacy over Nature and further reinforces the assumption shared by most members of the scientific community, private corporations, and among high governmental officials who have an unswerving faith in the potentials of human intelligence and ingenuity to override the forces of Nature. Regardless of how critical, or even desperate, a situation becomes, there dangles before us the faux promise that we can find the technology to solve it. But humanity is not a savior for the simple fact the Earth does not need saving, except from our own limited, awry perception and destructive actions. “Global warming,” writes Roy Scranton, author of Learning to Die in the Anthropocene, “is what is called a ‘wicked problem’: it doesn’t offer any clear solutions, only better or worse responses.” Regardless of the billions of tons of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases our culture pumps into the atmosphere, regardless of how acidic we turn the oceans, the Earth will tweak and re-tweak itself in order to return to a homeostatic state, with or without the numerous species now faced with extinction. It will continue to self-organize and reestablish stability. It may require many thousands of years after the Anthropocene has passed before she finds a new balance and bursts anew, albeit without us or the presence of countless other creatures extinguished by climate change. This was the overriding theme in Alan Weisman’s bestselling thought experiment, The World Without Us, later made into a PBS special, which portrayed a planet coming alive again after humanity destroyed itself. Earth will heal nicely, thank you, without our technological intervention and the hubris of the superiority complex unique to our species.
There are certain dominant characteristics that define psychopathic behavior. One is the inability to feel remorse over destructive behavior or for committing a crime that inflicts terrible suffering upon another. Another common psychopathic trait is to regard violent acts as permissible and perhaps even beneficial. Therefore, we destroy and kill thousands of species, live off a diet responsible for the butchering of billions of animals daily, mow over ecosystems for mining and development or to raise livestock and sow genetically engineered crops, survey and drill and drill some more for the Earth’s last drops of fossil fuels, all in the name of capitalist growth and expansion. At the same time, corporations and the global elite, the captains of industry, our governments, international banks, our educational institutions, and the corporate media whitewash these ecocidal actions as being virtuous and necessary in order for us to enjoy the comforts and ease of postmodern civilization has to offer. Perversely, we are being told it is better to sustain the artifacts of our modern culture than the Gaian life support necessary to live, breath and nourish us.
Such a view is pathologically dangerous. And it is indicative of the human psychology that today defines the Anthropocene Age.
*
Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.
Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including Poverty Inc and Deadly Deception.
At least one million women and 100,000 children are drug addicts in Afghanistan, said on Sunday (March 11) the head of the anti-drug department at the public health ministry of the Central Asian nation, Shahpor Yusuf, at an event at a drug rehabilitation center in Kabul to mark International Women’s Day (March 8).
“There are between 900,000 and million women and around 100,000 children who have turned to drugs,” said the Afghan official according to TOLO News. Yusuf added that the children were all below the age of 10.
According to Kabul, the rehabilitation centers in Afghanistan have the capacity to help only a small percentage of addicts. But the problem seems to be far from the number of drug rehabilitation centers in the country, which provides 93% of the world’s opium.
Marwa Musavi, an Afghan woman for treatment at the center, said that it is useless being there.
“When we leave here, again we will turn to drug as long as there are smugglers [and dealers]. They should be stopped. It is the reality.”
These numbers much likely indicate that last year’s statistics released by the Afghan government is underestimated, which reported that the total of addicts in the country is over three million.
At the same time, the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) published a letter in Persian, denouncing that more than sixteen years after US-led invasion promising making the Afghan women free, they continue to be killed “in a hell of Afghanistan, which is being set up by the United States and its Taliban, ISIL, Jihadists, and technocrats.”
RAWA stated that the Taliban and ISIS are not the only groups in Afghanistan hurting women. “US and NATO troops, and their armed forces in military operations, especially through air strikes in several provinces,” destroy homes, hospitals, schools killing civilians, including children.
C.I.A.’s Drug Smuggling Big Business
Friba, RAWA’s representative who does not mention her real name as the revolutionary women of Afghanistan work underground, says that the C.I.A. continues trafficking drug from her country. “Drugs were seen as the quickest and easiest way to earn money to fund C.I.A. proxies and paramilitary forces, in different countries.”
The C.I.A.’s direct involvement in drug smuggling goes back a long time, not only in Afghanistan but also all over the world as in the Iran-Contras scandal. The now dead governor of Kandahar province, Wali Karzai, one of Afghanistan’s biggest drug smugglers, had been for a long time on the C.I.A.’s payroll. Wali was Hamid Karzai’s brother, the former president of Afghanistan picked by the U.S. shortly after the occupation, in 2001.
This figure indicates the meteoric increasing of opium production in Afghanistan since the Washington regime invaded the Central Asian country:
Source: UN
According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the total area under opium poppy cultivation in Afghanistan was estimated at 328,000 hectares in 2017. it is worth remembering that United States’ society remains the world’s largest consumer of drugs.
“Thanks to its Goebbels-like lying machine of propaganda, the U.S. has been able to get away with much of its criminal activities, not just in the Afghan war, but in wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria, by lying to its people,” says Friba.
In May 2009 Malalaï Joya, a human rights activist, writer and former Parliamentary expelled from office for denouncing warlords in Afghanistan, granted an interview to the Brazilian paper O Tempo (Minas Gerais state), in which she denounced that the C.I.A. sponsors drug trade and exert direct control over the routes of the annual global drug industry.
The interview by Brazilian reporter Renata Medeiros was sent in full to this author.
Below, the passage in which Joya quotes the opium matter in Afghanistan, reinforcing Friba’s denunciations including those related to the international media:
Malalaï Joya: “The only sector in which Afghanistan has progressed beyond imagination in the recent years is drugs cultivation and trafficking, and now Afghanistan produces 93% of world opium which shows a 4,500% increase since 2001.
One of the hidden objectives of the war in Afghanistan was specifically to restore the CIA sponsored drug trade and exert direct control over the routes of the U$ 600 billion annual global drug industry. The Afghan narcotics economy is a designed project of the CIA, supported by US foreign policy. So it is very understandable to see that since October 2001, opium poppy cultivation has skyrocketed and there are reports that even US army is engaged in the drugs trafficking.
Drug mafia is in the hold of power and supported by the West. Recently even Western media reported that Wali Karzai, brother of Hamid Karzai, runs the largest network of drugs in eastern Afghanistan and it is a fact that high ranking officials are engaged in the dirty business.
The counter-narcotics efforts are also mere lies and dramas. A former warlord called Gen. Khodiedad is a minister of counter-narcotics and another former warlord and known drug trafficker called Gen. Daud is head of the anti-narcotics drive!!
These days Afghanistan is not the only top producer of opium in the world but also the largest producer of cannabis, another illegal crop from which marijuana is derived.
Opium poses one of the biggest dangers for future of Afghanistan.”
We remind you that Global Research operates exclusively through the support of its readers, and does not accept funding from public or private sources. We continue to run on a shoestring budget in order to maintain our independence. Therefore, please consider making a contribution to Global Research through a membership or a donation of your choice. (New members qualify for a free book offer!)
The team at Global Research thanks all our readers for their continued support — peace IS possible if we remain committed to the truth.
Below is an interview of Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos by Iran’s Quds newspaper on Russia’s military standpoint on the crisis in the Middle East.
Q: How extensive are the changes in Russia’s approach towards the Middle East in light of the defeat of ISIS?
Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos: Firstly, ISIS has not been totally defeated yet. There are ISIS pockets east of Palmyra, on the border of Iraq (in the Kurdish zone) and in the Golan, close to the occupied Golan Heights. Furthermore, since the illegal Turkish invasion of Afrin, ISIS has begun a fightback, mainly against the Kurds. Whilst it is extremely unlikely that ISIS will reemerge in Syria as the force it once was – because of the grievous losses it has incurred at the hands of the Syrian, Russian and Iranian militaries, together with Hezbollah – we must not be complacent about this abominable Wahhabist terrorist group, which stems from Saudi Arabia. We can only truly rejoice once every ISIS terrorist in Syria has either been liquidated or taken prisoner.
Due to ISIS being on the verge of a total defeat in Syria, which is largely on account of Russian firepower, ordinary people across the Middle East are increasingly looking to Russia as a safeguard against the menace of Wahhabism, which threatens the very existence of Muslims and Christians, alike, in the region. Russia prevented ISIS from achieving its goal in Syria of turning the country into a massive springboard upon which to conquer most, if not all, of the Arab world, including North Africa. Had ISIS succeeded, then the Middle East and North Africa could have been turned into a massive playground for sadists and perverts. But, alas, that was not to be because of Russia. Ordinary Arabs, Kurds, Iranians and other groups in the Middle East know that the US, UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been supporting ISIS – this will not be forgiven or forgotten by them. Conversely, those same people know who saved them from that scourge – Russia. So the Russians now have a wide appeal in the Arab world and in Iran. Russia is back in vogue in the Middle East. Russia has set a precedent in Syria for all Arabs to see: that Moscow will stand by its allies no matter what.
Q: To what extent were those changes brought about by the crisis in Russia’s relations with the West?
DMP: Russia was compelled to act in Syria because of the attempt by the West and its regional allies to overthrow the Syrian Government and replace it with a Wahhabist one (we must not forget that all of the terrorist groups in Syria are Wahhabist in nature – from ISIS to Al-Qaeda to FSA and so on and so on).
Moscow and Damascus have been close allies and friends for over half a century, and this relationship has been mutually beneficial, for it has given Syria tremendous security, while affording much influence and power to Russia to exert in the Middle East. Had Russia not militarily intervened in Syria – which was carried out legally as the Syrian Government asked the Russians for assistance – then it is very likely that Damascus would have fallen to the Wahhabist terrorist groups, which would have meant the annihilation of the Syrian people and the end of Russian influence and power in the Middle East.
That said, however, Russia also acted in Syria for humanitarian reasons – to prevent the Syrian people from apocalyptic destruction at the hands of Wahhabism. And Moscow has sent extraordinary amounts of food, water and medical supplies to meet the needs of those Syrians who have now been liberated from the terror of Wahhabist occupation.
Finally, Russia understands that the threat of Wahhabism in Syria is also a threat to Russia and other parts of the Soviet Union, most notably Central Asia, which is in Moscow’s sphere of influence. Neutralising Wahhabism in Syria has the double-effect of helping to neutralise Wahhabist activity and appeal in Russia and Central Asia.
The West has only itself to blame for its ever deteriorating relations with the Russians. It is the US and the UK who will not tolerate a strong Russia in the world and who will do anything, including targeting Moscow’s allies, such as Syria, in order to try and derail Russian resurgence. The world has become an exceptionally dangerous and unstable place because of the lengths which Washington and London will go to so as to maintain American global hegemony.
Q: What are Russia’s economic, political and security interests in the Middle East?
DMP: Like America, Russia has economic, political and security interests in the Middle East.
In economic terms, Moscow is looking to increase its defence exports to the region, gain further access to investment capital, intensify cooperation on oil prices, increase agricultural exports, especially wheat, and sell more metal, including iron ore. Further to that, Moscow may direct some of its Muslim regions, such as Tatarstan and Chechnya, to spearhead Russian economic expansion in the Middle East.
Politically speaking, the Kremlin understands that America will remain the dominant foreign force in the Middle East, as it was even during Soviet times. Nonetheless, there is every reason for the Russians to believe that they can renew Soviet-era friendships, principally with Palestine, Iraq and Yemen, while forging new inroads in countries which are well within Washington’s political orbit, such as Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Regarding the last point, whilst the Russians can make significant amounts of money through business dealings with the Turks, the Israelis and the Saudis, these three countries will remain steadfast in their commitment to America – nothing can break the alliance between America, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, which, incidentally, could soon come up against another alliance in the Middle East: Moscow-Damascus-Tehran. Alas, the Middle East will remain a most coveted region.
Finally, in terms of security, the Kremlin will want use its new leverage in the Middle East to try and keep Wahhabism in check. Wahhabism was behind the terrorist campaigns in Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia during the 1990s, and many Saudis went to those regions to fight, including the infamous Ibn al-Khattab. Whilst the North Caucasus is today a far more stable place than how it was during the 1990s and early 2000s, it remains quite fragile and could quickly again become Russia’s bleeding wound, threatening the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
Q: Do Russian activities in the Middle East represent a challenge to the West?
DMP: Yes, without a doubt. The Americans now have to look over their shoulder, so to speak. Like in Soviet times, Russia is again the second strongest foreign force in the Middle East. But, as I said earlier on, Russia will not usurp America’s position as they key outside power in the Middle East. The vast majority of Middle Eastern countries are in America’s sphere of influence, from Turkey to Israel to Jordan, to Iraq to Saudi Arabia to all other Gulf countries.
Q: What are the means and limits of Russian influence in the region?
DMP: The Kremlin’s means are military, economic and cultural (using its Orthodox faith and its Muslim regions to appeal to swathes of people in the Middle East).
Turning to limits, this is simple: economics. If the Russian economy remains stable, then Moscow will be able to continue with increasing its hand in the Middle East. But if the Russian should go into recession, then Russian plans in the Middle East will be severely curtailed. It is economics that helps to explain America’s stranglehold of the Middle East. Nothing can surpass the Dollar.
*
This article was originally published by Iran’s Quds newspaper.
Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
We remind you that Global Research operates exclusively through the support of its readers, and does not accept funding from public or private sources. We continue to run on a shoestring budget in order to maintain our independence. Therefore, please consider making a contribution to Global Research through a membership or a donation of your choice. (New members qualify for a free book offer!)
The team at Global Research thanks all our readers for their continued support — peace IS possible if we remain committed to the truth.
Syria’s battle strategy is working – the way East Aleppo was liberated from US-supported terrorists in December 2016.
These elements are clearly on the back foot in East Ghouta after holding its civilian population hostage since 2013, brutalizing them, preventing them from fleeing to safety in government controlled areas – supported by Washington and its imperial partners.
East Ghouta’s liberation is likely in the coming weeks, maybe sooner. Operations begun on February 18 freed 70% of the enclave.
Over the weekend, it was split in two, heading for three pockets of isolated US-supported terrorists. They’re not “rebels,” as falsely reported. They’re brutal cutthroat killers.
Early Monday morning, AMN news, a reliable source of information on the war, reported the following:
“Following the split of rebel-held areas across Damascus’ East Ghouta region into two along the Masraba-Arbeen axis on Sunday afternoon, the Syrian Army is now making an all-out assault to force a third isolation of militant-controlled territory.”
“Since midnight on Monday until right now, assault units of the Syrian Army’ veteran 4th Mechanized Division have been in the midst of a major battle with jihadist fighters near the district town of Harasta in what is now the northern East Ghouta pocket.”
According to AMN, Syrian forces are within 200 – 300 meters of dividing East Ghouta into three isolated pockets. Achieving it could come in hours.
Isolated/surrounded pockets of US-supported terrorists are weakened, more vulnerable to defeat – an inevitable outcome unless Washington intervenes against Syrian forces to save them, risking confrontation with Russia if undertaken.
Given US rage for dominance, anything is possible. Syria remains an unresolvable conflict because Washington and its rogue partners want endless war continued.
Turkish aggression in northern Syria against Kurdish YPG fighters complicates things further, including reported use of CWs, a YPG statement saying:
“(O)n March 8, 2016 at 15:00, shelling (occurred) with rockets that carry chemical material, which we believe to be yellow phosphorous chemical weapon, on Sheikh Maqsud neighborhood by the (Turkish-supported) Syrian armed opposition factions and battalions.”
In February, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) said Turkey fired shells on Kurdish fighters containing “toxic substances.”
On February 17, AP News said civilians in Kurdish-controlled Afrin “suffered breathing difficulties and other symptoms indicative of poison gas inhalation after an attack launched by Turkey on the” enclave.
On Sunday according to the Russian reconciliation center in Syria, 52 civilians fled East Ghouta captivity to government-controlled territory, the first successful exodus of significant numbers – many more likely to follow.
Russian General Vladimir Zolotukhin said they’ll “be provided with all the necessary assistance, including medical help.
For the first time, longtime civilian hostages are able to explain what they’ve endured, one now free saying:
“We lived in fear under the militants. There were very harsh conditions. They drove up food prices, introduced a strict regime. You could lose your head for the slightest fault.”
Another said
“(s)even years we have suffered. All of us in Misrab remained neutral. But we couldn’t leave from there, couldn’t do anything. They didn’t let us go, controlled us and pressured us.”
“We haven’t seen anything that was sent to us. No money, no dollars, they took everything away. They completely robbed us.”
These are the elements Washington and its rogue partners support.
Liberating East Ghouta from their control won’t end seven years of devastating war, especially with US plans to create a 60,000-strong terrorist army to continue combating government forces.
How Russia responds to this development will greatly influence the course of war ahead and whether resolution is possible.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.
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.
Jaysh al-Islam along with several US-backed Free Syrian Army (FSA) groups are preparing to launch a new military operation against the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies in the southern governorate of Daraa, the Syrian pro-opposition news outlet Enab Baladi reported on March 11.
The media outlet revealed that the attack’s goal will be to besiege the SAA and its allies in the city of Daraa and to cut off the Daraa-Damascus highway. The government-held towns of Mahajjah and Izra in northern Daraa will be a target of the US-backed FSA during the first phase of the attack, according to Enab Baladi.
Local sources reported that the FSA is already massing their forces around the Daraa-Damascus highway. Civilians have also begun to flee the area ahead of the upcoming attack.
Southern Syria, including Daraa governorate, is a part of a de-escalation agreement between Russia and the US. The agreement will likely collapse once the US-backed FSA launch its attack against the SAA there.
The US-backed FSA in Daraa governorate has received loads of weapons and ammo from the US, Jordan and Israel recently, according to Syrian pro-government sources. Due to this, it is possible that the attack will achieve some success just like the last attack of the FSA in Daraa which took place in February-June 2017.
Back then, the FSA received huge support from the US, which had supplied it with dozens of TOW ATGMs and Switchblade suicide drones. Jordan even went further and flew its unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) over the provincial capital to support the FSA.
The US-backed FSA will likely receive a similar level of support, if not higher in any upcoming attack especially from Jordan and Israel.
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.
No-one knows how many common dolphins die each year in fishing gear in the Northeast Atlantic. From strandings data, French and UK scientists have calculated that it’s thousands. These deaths have been recorded each year for the last 30 years. That’s three decades of inadequate action.
Uncertainties around the true magnitude of these incidental entanglements (bycatch) delays management decisions. Whilst the data on the number of common dolphin bycaught are relatively poor, we know enough to understand that it might be high enough to impact local populations.
The majority of entangled dolphins and porpoises asphyxiate. When they can’t surface to breathe, they will struggle and can sustain terrible injuries before they close their blowhole and suffocate. Getting caught in a net and being hauled on-board a fishing boat can cause internal and external injuries, such as amputation of limbs, skull fractures and broken teeth. Those who escape or are released from fishing gear can also suffer a variety of injuries from the fishing gear, high levels of stress and exhaustion all of which can lead to reduced long-term survival. Given these horrible facts and that we have the tools to prevent these deaths, why don’t we use them?
Firstly, the existing EC Common Fisheries Policy Regulation 812/2004, the main legislation requiring monitoring, mitigation and reporting of bycatch by EU Member States is not well implemented and it is not fit for purpose. The EU is currently revising and replacing this law and, frustratingly, has not taken the opportunity to improve the measures in order to tackle this well-known and preventable problem.
There was considerable concern about possible reductions in the existing bycatch measures in the European Parliament in recent votes, but also some efforts to remove some existing protections in some regions (including Spain, where bycatch levels are alarmingly high for common dolphins, bottlenose dolphins and Iberian porpoises), which is clearly very worrying. Whilst Member States should abide by EU law as a minimum (and many do not when it comes to bycatch), each can implement their own measures in addition to those implemented at a European level, but rarely do.
The fishing fleets operating in the offshore waters of the English Channel and the Bay of Biscay use different kinds of mobile and static fishing gear and come from many European countries, largely without bycatch monitoring on board. As a result, we have to use very limited existing data from bycatch observers on board just a few vessels, as well as strandings data (mainly on the French and UK coasts and some from the Irish coast), to speculate about the scale of the problem.
Only a small number of the dead dolphins who fall out of fishing gear before it is hauled aboard or are thrown overboard will make it ashore. Even fewer bodies will wash up from those entanglements that happen further offshore. Even of those who do wash ashore, will their bodies be found, reported and retrieved for post mortem, to understand and document the cause of death? Based on the bodies we do see, bycatch estimates are about 10 times higher than estimates produced by observer programmes. Bycatch is alarmingly underreported.
In many winters, such the winter of 2016/2017, when the winds brought large numbers of dead dolphins ashore there was public outcry about the common dolphin bycatch that is happening needlessly on our doorstep. More generally, bycatch and ‘ghost gear’ are getting increasing attention as the public understand the scale of it and the terrible injuries and losses that dolphins, porpoises, whales, seals, seabirds and other species can suffer as a result.
Only by working with fishermen can we find effective and immediate solutions. No-one wants to catch a dolphin in their gear. Equally, no-one wants to eat fish that may have resulted in a dolphin death. By working together, we can understand and provide the right incentives to eliminate bycatch.
Sea bass pair-trawling and the use of set-nets are known to result in a large number of common dolphins deaths and so there has been some effort within these fisheries to reduce bycatch in recent decades. Measures need to be tightened up on these parts of the fleet. Since 2015, there has been a ban on the pelagic trawl fishery for sea bass in the English Channel, Celtic Sea, Irish Sea and southern North Sea during February and March, due to poor sea bass stocks. However, high levels of common dolphin bycatch were still observed during these months in 2016 and 2017. Therefore, we need to understand in more detail which other parts of the fleet, particularly the offshore fleet such as pelagic freezer trawlers, high vertical opening trawlers and bottom set gill nets, might also have dolphin bycatch. As an absolute no-brainer, better monitoring is required on a wider range of the fleet, including vessels smaller than 15 metres, using on-board observations, but increasingly the use of video cameras (called remote electronic monitoring). Compulsory reporting of all bycatch incidents by fishermen should be an additional requirement, recognising that this data is necessary and can be used sensitively to inform future management. We need to shift the burden of proof.
But we do not need to wait to collect more data in order to act. We can implement some measures that would reduce the number of dolphin deaths with immediate effect. New approaches, for example as implemented in New Zealand, include searching for dolphins and not deploying fishing gear when dolphins are seen from the fishing boat and moving the fishing vessel away a predetermined distance. Other simple changes to fishing practices such as fishing only during daylight hours and fishing in waters over a certain depth have been shown to prevent common dolphin bycatch in Galicia, Northwest Spain.
In some cases, technology can help to reduce bycatch. There has been some testing of ‘trapdoors’ in the fishing nets, thus providing a dolphin who swims into the net with the opportunity to escape. However, there are welfare concerns associated with injuries that might be sustained in the process of making it through the trapdoor. Limited use of pingers on some trawlers has shown that these may be successful in reducing common dolphin bycatch and warrant further investigation.
A sensible next step would include deployment of a multi-pronged approach to reducing bycatch – such as requiring electronic bycatch monitoring as well as reporting bycatch incidents, moving away when dolphins are spotted and not operating at night. The application of pingers should be trialled (including testing for effectiveness) for dolphins who might be missed during a scan from the bridge of the boat or approach the vessel during fishing operations.
ASCOBANS, a United Nations body that champions protection of dolphins in the Baltic, Northeast Atlantic, Irish and North Seas, is developing a common dolphin species action plan. If it has robust recommendations, wide country support across Europe and funding behind it, this might provide an opportunity to reduce bycatch alongside other threats that common dolphins face. But there also needs to be communication and collaboration between all countries who fish in this region as some countries, like Ireland and Spain, are not members of ASCOBANS, but fish heavily in the region covered by ASCOBANS.
WDC are doing all we can to eliminate common dolphin bycatch and we are working closely with scientists, governments and NGO colleagues in a number of European countries to this end. In the UK, following our campaign last year supported by more than 75,000 of you, a Bycatch Strategy is being developed and we look forward to collaborating with other stakeholders to improve the monitoring and mitigation of bycatch, for common dolphins and for other marine species that are incidentally bycaught. We hope to be able to report positive news on the Strategy’s development and implementation before the end of 2018.
But we need your help again! If you haven’t already done so, please support the campaign to eliminate common dolphin bycatch throughout Europe by signing this petition set up by our colleagues at Blue Planet Society.
*
Sarah Dolman is Policy Manager and End Bycatch Programme Lead at WDC. Follow Sarah on Twitter @dolmansarahj.
As we mentioned in our report last week “What You Are NOT being Told About Russian Spy Sergei Skripal” – it should not be forgotten that Skripal is a traitor who sold the identities of dozens of Russian agents abroad to the UK, in exchange for hard cash. This may very well have caused the deaths of some of those Russian agents operating in conflict zones. Skripal is also a known double agent – or double traitor. Without doubt, Skripal had enemies, probably quite a few.
There are many permutations as to who his attempted murderer may be.
Accusations and speculation are rife, with little hard evidence being made public other than some basic details. Russia is disputing their involvement.
U.K. Home Secretary Amber Rudd said,
“That forensic analysis has revealed the presence of a nerve agent and the incident is therefore being treated as attempted murder.”
While Britain has not accused any Russian state actors of involvement in the poisoning, Britain’s foreign minister, Boris Johnson, last Tuesday called Russia “a malign and disruptive force” and threatened new sanctions on Russia, if the Kremlin were found to have been responsible.
Johnson’s comment drew a Russian rebuttal. Earlier government-linked media and politicians in Russia took a defensive stance, claiming in advance that the Russian state had nothing to do with the crime.
The Russian embassy’s claim that Skripal was a “British spy working for MI6” rather than a Russian spy is based on the fact that he was a double agent working simultaneously for both the Russian and British intelligence services.
Here is a short bio of Skripal compiled by Reuters:
Who is Sergei Skripal – the Russian ex-spy poisoned in London, U.K.? BY REUTERS
While the Russian Embassy’s claim about the double agent is not completely wrong, it is inaccurate to imply that Skripal was not a Russian spy, and even now there are questions surrounding Skripal’s allegiances.
Valery Morozov, another former Russian intelligence officer who now lives in exile in Britain, said Skripal was still working with Russian military intelligence.
“You have a Russian military intelligence officer working in the Russian diplomatic service, living after retirement in the U.K. working in cybersecurity and every month going to the [Russian] embassy to meet military intelligence officers,” Morozov told Channel 4 News.
Deepening the mystery of Skripal’s loyalties, the Telegraph newspaper claims it has obtained information that the poisoned spy was a close confidant of Christopher Steele, the British ex-spy who compiled the so-called “Trump dossier.”
Steele raised the stakes in the USA by stating that Donald Trump was vulnerable to Kremlin blackmail. Steel is a former MI6 officer who then had to disappear into hiding. He was lambasted in a highly politicized memo by the House Intelligence Committee’s Republican chair, and been referred for a criminal probe by two top Republican senators. Both the US and Russian presidents now consider him an enemy.
And there is Vladimir Putin’s infamous reaction to the 2010 exchange of a group of captured Russian “illegals” – undercover spies – living in the United States for a group of Russian intelligence agents accused of working for the West, including Skripal. Putin, who was then prime minister, said:
“Traitors will kick the bucket. Trust me. These people betrayed their friends, their brothers in arms. Whatever they got in exchange for it, those 30 pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on them.”
Putin was referring to the enemies that traitors like Skripal would have created.
In the meantime, the Home Secretary Amber Rudd revealed yesterday that the investigation now involved more than 250 counter terrorism police officers and more worryingly, that Britain is to raise the case with its Nato allies.
“Some big questions arise, as to how do you stand up to a clandestine and sinister attack deliberately done to play havoc in our society?”
This firm line appeared to be backed by the security ministerBen Wallace, who mentioned Britain’s “powerful allies” as he said the Government was ready to respond with “the full force of the United Kingdom’s resources”
“There are lots of things that the United Kingdom can do,” Mr Wallace threatened. “It is a powerful country with a powerful economy, powerful allies, powerful military and powerful other capabilities – and we shall look at all those.”
On Monday, hours before it became clear that Mr Skripal had even been poisoned, Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson was telling MPs:
“Vladimir Putin has made it quite clear that he has hostile intent towards this country. We have to wake up to that threat and we have to respond to it.”
Since his appointment, Williamson as Defence Secretary has been provoking Russia. He was relentlessly mocked for famously saying in January that Russia wants to “Damage (Britain’s) economy, rip its infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths” as well wanting to “create total chaos within the country.”
Russia has vehemently denied involvement in the nerve agent attack and accused British politicians of engaging in “pure propaganda”.
British security officials, however, have said the specific chemical used would have been difficult to obtain and could only have come from a state run or state-licensed laboratory.
Nerve agents including Sarin and VX are manufactured by the British Government in Porton Down, just 8 miles from where Sergei Skripal was attacked and is the largest stock of deadly nerve agents and gases anywhere in Europe.
Craig Murray, ex British ambassador even hints at something more sinister: “nor in this murky world should we overlook the fact that he must have known interesting things about his MI6 handlers. “Litvinenko II” is rather too pat and obvious, and could be a false flag set-up.”
The Times reports that “Theresa May is on the verge of publicly blaming Russia for the attempted murder of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and ordering expulsions and sanctions against President Putin’s regime.”
One other fact that the mainstream press have not mentioned is that even after prosecutors had convicted Skripal of high treason in their own country, the Russian state gave him a full state pardon, placed him on a spy swap list and was willingly freed. Hardly the actions of a state that already had him in prison for the highest of crimes and wanting him silenced. And as Time reports the “if the obvious suspects in the case are the Russian intelligence services, it would suggest a major break from the rules they are taught to follow.“
It’s still possible, of course, that Skripal did something to provoke retaliation from Moscow. The GRU (foreign military intelligence agency of Russia), of which Skripal reached the rank of Colonel, was recently implicated in the hacking of the U.S. elections in 2016. If Skripal was tapping his old sources to get fresh intelligence, rather than enjoying his retirement in silence, he could have turned himself into an target. But then, that’s what double agents do isn’t it. There’s an old saying in Britain – “if you live by the sword” – and Skripal lived on a double edged version of it.
One thing is for sure, Britain is playing an extremely high stakes and dangerous geo-political game – for what? A foreign traitor, despised by his own, passed on by America to be re-homed as part of a spy swap, with no perceptible allegiance to Britain.
But, as more details emerge from last week’s stunning announcement that North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump have agreed to discuss North Korea’s denuclearization before May, South Korean news agency DongA reports that the North Korean leader may release American detainees as a “gift,” and that he would like to establish diplomatic relations with the placement of a U.S. embassy in Pyongyang.
Now, the international community ‘s interest is when and how Kim Jong – un’ s declaration goes. Some have speculated that Kim Jong-un promised President Trump that he would release American detainees in North Korea and stop developing intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). However, a key official of the passport authority said, “The suspension of the ICBM development is included in the denuclearization process naturally, but it is not a promise.” The release of the detained American is a kind of gift as Kim Jong– “He said.
***
“The ultimate goal of Kim Jong Eun is to establish normal diplomatic relations with the North-US peace treaty. It also includes placing the US embassy in Pyongyang.”
President Trump surprised the world last week with the announcement that he had agreed to talk directly with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in a historic meeting. Both Russia and Sweden have offered to host the talks – while North Korea is reportedly sending foreign minister Ri Yong Ho to Stockholm ahead of the Trump-Kim talks.
South Korean special envoy Chunt Eui-yong announced last week that North Korea has signaled its willingness to abandon its nuclear program “if regime security can be guaranteed.”
North and South Korea have had a contentious relationship for decades – which thawed during the 2018 Winter Olympics. The fact that South Korea is effectively brokering the North Korean meeting is notable in itself, as it could also set the stage for the reunification of the two Koreas.
Of course, as President Trump tweeted yesterday, the domestic news media is playing down the progress apparently being made, and any Trump involvement:
“North Korea has not conducted a Missile Test since November 28, 2017 and has promised not to do so through our meetings. I believe they will honor that commitment!
In the first hours after hearing that North Korea’s leader wanted to meet with me to talk denuclearization and that missile launches will end, the press was startled & amazed. They couldn’t believe it. But by the following morning the news became FAKE. They said so what, who cares!“
Ahead of the summit between Trump and Kim Jong-Un, CIA Director Mike Pompeo told Fox News Sunday that the United States will make “no concessions” before the denuclearization talks, and that Kim must stand by the concessions he’s offered – including ceasing nuclear and missile testing, allowing U.S. – South Korean military exercises, and leaving denuclearization on the table.
CIA Director Mike Pompeo tells @johnrobertsFox the U.S. will make "no concessions" during negotiations with North Korea. Watch the full interview at 2P/7P ET on @FoxNews Channel. pic.twitter.com/SP7xLqBMmu
As we wrote earlier, Pompeo justified Trump’s decision by suggesting that the US leverage over North Korea has never been greater: “Never before have we had the North Koreans in a position where their economy was at such risk, and where their leadership was under such pressure that they would begin conversations on the terms that Kim Jong Un has conceded to” and added that the discussions with North Korea, should they occur, “will play out over time.”
Pompeo also said that sanctions on North Korea will continue, especially as they are having an impact on North Korea’s economy and have brought Kim to the negotiating table, according to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
“Now we have a situation where the president is using diplomacy but we’re not removing the maximum pressure campaign,” Mnuchin said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “The president is going to sit down and see if he can cut a deal.”
As a refresher, here’s Trump’s view on North Korea from 1999 – in which he said “first I’d negotiate,” before preemptively striking Pyongyang. “The biggest problem this world has is nuclear proliferation,” said Trump.
With word of a Kim’s prisoner release “gift” and his desire to establish a U.S. embassy in Pyongyang, one wonders exactly who the new ambassador would be?
On March 11, 2006, President Slobodan Milosevic died in a NATO prison. No one has been held accountable for his death. In the 12 years since the end of his lonely struggle to defend himself and his country against the false charges invented by the NATO powers, the only country to demand a public inquiry into the circumstances of his death came from Russia when Foreign Minister, Serge Lavrov, stated that Russia did not accept the Hague tribunal’s denial of responsibility and demanded that an impartial and international investigation be conducted. Instead, The NATO tribunal made its own investigation, known as the Parker Report, and as expected, exonerated itself from all blame.
But his death cannot lie unexamined, the many questions unanswered, those responsible unpunished. The world cannot continue to accept the substitution of war and brutality for peace and diplomacy. It cannot continue to tolerate governments that have contempt for peace, for humanity, the sovereignty of nations, the self-determination of peoples, and the rule of law.
The death of Slobodan Milosevic was clearly the only way out of the dilemma the NATO powers had put themselves in by charging him before the Hague tribunal. The propaganda against him was of an unprecedented scale. The trial was played in the press as one of the world’s great dramas, as world theatre in which an evil man would be made to answer for his crimes. But of course, there had been no crimes, except those of the NATO alliance, and the attempt to fabricate a case against him collapsed into farce.
The trial was necessary from NATO’s point of view in order to justify the aggression against Yugoslavia and the putsch by the DOS forces in Belgrade supported by NATO, by which democracy in Yugoslavia was finally destroyed and Serbia reduced to a NATO protectorate under a Quisling regime. His illegal arrest, by NATO forces in Belgrade, his illegal detention in Belgrade Central Prison, his illegal rendition to the former Gestapo prison at Scheveningen, near The Hague, and the show trial that followed, were all part of the drama played out for the world public, and it could only have one of two endings, the conviction, or the death, of President Milosevic.
Since the conviction of President Milosevic was clearly not possible after all the evidence was heard, his death became the only way out for the NATO powers. His acquittal would have brought down the entire structure of the propaganda framework of the NATO war machine and the western interests that use it as their armed fist.
NATO clearly did not expect President Milosevic to defend himself, nor with such courage and determination. The media coverage of the beginning of the trial was constant and front page. It was promised that it would be the trial of the century. Yet soon after it began the media coverage stopped and the trial was buried in the back pages. Things had gone terribly wrong for Nato right at the start. The key to the problem is the following statement of President Milosevic made to the judges of the Tribunal during the trial:
“This is a political trial. What is at issue here is not at all whether I committed a crime. What is at issue is that certain intentions are ascribed to me from which consequences are later derived that are beyond the expertise of any conceivable lawyer. The point here is that the truth about the events in the former Yugoslavia has to be told here. It is that which is at issue, not the procedural questions, because I’m not sitting here because I was accused of a specific crime. I’m sitting here because I am accused of conducting a policy against the interests of this or another party.”
The prosecution, that is the United States and its allies, had not expected a real defence of any kind. This is clear from the inept indictments, confused charges, and the complete failure to bring any evidence that could withstand even basic scrutiny. The prosecution case fell apart as soon as it began. But once started, it had to continue. Nato was locked into a box of its own making. If they dropped the charges, or if he was acquitted, the political and geostrategic ramifications were enormous. Nato would have to explain the real reasons for the aggression against Yugoslavia. Its leaders themselves would face war crimes charges. The loss of prestige cannot be calculated. President Milosevic would once again be a popular political figure in the Balkans. The only way out for NATO was to end the trial but without releasing Milosevic or admitting the truth about the war. This logic required his death in prison and the abandonment of the trial.
The Parker Report contains facts indicating that, at a minimum, the Nato Tribunal engaged in conduct that was criminal regarding his treatment and that conduct resulted in his death. The Tribunal was told time and again that he was gravely ill with heart problems that needed proper investigation, treatment and complete rest before engaging in a trial. However, the Tribunal continually ignored the advice of the doctors and pushed him to keep going with the trial, knowing full well that the stress of the trial would certainly kill him.
The Tribunal refused prescribed medical treatment in Russia seemingly for political reasons and once again put the Tribunal’s interests, whatever they are, ahead of Milosevic’s health. In other words they deliberately withheld necessary medical treatment that could have lead to his death. This is a form of homicide and is manslaughter in the common law jurisdictions.
However, there are several unexplained facts contained in the Parker Report that need further investigation before ruling out poison or drugs designed to harm his health: the presence of the drugs rifampicin and droperidol in his system being the two key ones. No proper investigation was conducted as to how these drugs could have been introduced into his body. No consideration was given to their effect. Their presence combined with the unexplained long delay in getting his body to a medical facility for tests raises serious questions that need to be answered but which until today remain unanswered.
The Parker Report, despite its illogical conclusions, exonerating the Nato tribunal from blame, provides the basis for a call for a public inquiry into the death of President Milosevic. This is reinforced by the fact that the Commandant of the UN prison where President Milosevic was held, a Mr. McFadden, was, according to documents exposed by Wikileaks, supplying information to the US authorities about Milosevic throughout his detention and trial, and is further reinforced by the fact that Milosevic wrote a letter to the Russian Embassy a few days before his death stating that he believed he was being poisoned. Unfortunately he died before the letter could be delivered in time for a response.
All these facts taken together demand that a public international inquiry be held into the entirety of the circumstances of the death of President Milosevic, not only for his sake and the sake of his widow Mira Markovic and his son, but for the sake of all of us who face the constant aggressive actions and propaganda of the NATO powers. Justice requires it. International peace and security demand it.
*
This article was originally published on Izvestia in March of 2015.
So far, Trump announced tariffs on imported solar panels and modules, washing machines and parts, steel and aluminum fall far short of waging one.
At the same time, his rage to reduce America’s trade deficit with China could launch a bilateral one hurting both countries.
Countless numbers of US corporations moving production and other facilities to China caused the growing trade gap between both countries.
Companies seek a comparative advantage by producing goods or services where production and other costs are cheaper – a lower opportunity cost of doing business.
The Trump administration would be delighted if foreign companies produced more from US plants than elsewhere.
China is attractive for foreign companies to invest in, cheap labor a key incentive.
While America prioritizes militarism and warmaking, China focuses heavily economic growth domestically and through foreign markets, taking advantage of its increasing technological expertise in numerous industrial, high-tech and other sectors.
The nation is an economic powerhouse already matching America on a purchase price basis – heading toward becoming the world’s dominant economic power.
On Sunday, China’s Minister of Commerce Zhong Shan stressed the importance of resolving bilateral trade disputes cooperatively to benefit both countries, adding trade war will harm them and the global economy.
Trump’s announced tariffs target China more than other nations. Foreign Minister Wang Yi promised a “justified and necessary response.”
Prior to his announced steel and aluminum tariffs, Trump tweeted:
“China has been asked to develop a plan for the year of a One Billion Dollar reduction in their massive Trade Deficit with the United States.”
“Our relationship with China has been a very good one, and we look forward to seeing what ideas they come back with. We must act soon!”
Separately, he tweeted:
“The US is acting swiftly on Intellectual Property theft. We cannot allow this to happen as it has for many years” – aiming his remark at China without naming it.
Beijing doesn’t decide which US and other foreign companies move production and other facilities to China. It’s a private enterprise decision.
Companies operating from its territory can export goods and services wherever markets can be developed.
According to China’s Global Times, the country “must retaliate against US tariffs that forcibly interfere with Sino-US trade and violate World Trade Organization rules. China must show it won’t be bullied,” adding:
“Beijing must never consider stabilizing relations with Washington by compromising on trade.”
“We would only become increasingly passive. China and the US must resolve the issue through cooperation and both sides should try.”
“If the US cannot adjust its own industrial structure to reduce its trade deficit and orders the world to follow its words, China and the rest of the world will have no choice but to meet the challenge head-on.”
Canada and Mexico will be exempt from Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs if NAFTA differences between them and Washington are successfully resolved in ongoing talks.
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin said NATO countries will be exempt if their military spending increases to levels Washington demands – a way to boost sales for US arms makers, unrelated to any global threats.
Countries bending to Washington’s will may be exempt from steel and aluminum tariffs, including China.
According to Mnuchin, Trump will consider national security in deciding which countries are excluded from tariffs.
Imposing them is more for political than economic reasons. As of now, it’s unclear how this will shake out.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored “star” recruit.
A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone warfare, “homeland defense” and cyber warfare.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called “Red to Blue” program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats—in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call “spy vs. spy.”
The 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which includes a vast swathe of the US-Mexico border along the Rio Grande, features a contest for the Democratic nomination between Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, who subsequently served as an adviser for US interventions in South Sudan and Libya, and Jay Hulings. The latter’s website describes him as a former national security aide on Capitol Hill and federal prosecutor, whose father and mother were both career undercover CIA agents. The incumbent Republican congressman, Will Hurd, is himself a former CIA agent, so any voter in that district will have his or her choice of intelligence agency loyalists in both the Democratic primary and the general election.
CNN’s “State of the Union” program on March 4 included a profile of Jones as one of many female candidates seeking nomination as a Democrat in Tuesday’s primary in Texas. The network described her discreetly as a “career civil servant.” However, the Jones for Congress website positively shouts about her role as a spy, noting that after graduating from college, “Gina entered the US Air Force as an intelligence officer, where she deployed to Iraq and served under the US military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy” (the last phrase signaling to those interested in such matters that Jones is gay).
According to her campaign biography, Ortiz Jones was subsequently detailed to a position as “senior advisor for trade enforcement,” a post President Obama created by executive order in 2012. She would later be invited to serve as a director for investment at the Office of the US Trade Representative, where she led the portfolio that reviewed foreign investments to ensure they did not pose national security risks. With that background, if she fails to win election, she can surely enlist in the trade war efforts of the Trump administration.
How this article was prepared
The House of Representatives is currently controlled by the Republicans, with a majority of 238 compared to 193 Democrats. There are four vacancies, one previously held by the Democrats. To reach a majority of 218 seats in the next Congress, the Democrats must have a net gain of 24 seats.
The DCCC has designated 102 seats as priority or competitive, including 22 seats where the incumbents are not running again (five Democrats and 17 Republicans), and 80 seats where Republican incumbents could be defeated for reelection in the event that polls predicting a sizeable swing to the Democrats in November prove accurate.
The World Socialist Web Site has reviewed Federal Election Commission reports filed by all the Democratic candidates in these 102 competitive districts, focusing on those candidates who reported by the latest filing date, December 31, 2017, that they had raised at least $100,000 for their campaigns, giving them a financial war chest sufficient to run in a competitive primary contest. In addition, there a few cases where a candidate had less than the $100,000 cutoff, but was unchallenged for the nomination, or where last-minute retirement or resignation has led to late entry of high-profile candidates without an FEC report on file. These have also been included.
The total of such candidates for the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts is 221. Each has a website that gives biographical details, which we have collected and reviewed for this report. It is notable that those candidates with a record in the military-intelligence apparatus, as well as civilian work for the State Department, Pentagon or National Security Council, do not hide their involvement, particularly in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They clearly regard working as a CIA agent in Baghdad, an Army special ops assassin in Afghanistan, or a planner for drone missile warfare in the White House or Pentagon as a star on their résumé, rather than something to conceal.
One quarter of all the Democratic challengers in competitive House districts have military-intelligence, State Department or NSC backgrounds. This is by far the largest subcategory of Democratic candidates. National security operatives (57) outnumber state and local government officials (45), lawyers (35), corporate executives, businessmen and wealthy individuals (30) and other professionals (19) among the candidates for Democratic congressional nominations.
Of the 102 primary elections to choose the Democratic nominees in these competitive districts, 44 involve candidates with a military-intelligence or State Department background, with 11 districts having two such candidates, and one district having three. In the majority of contests, the military-intelligence candidates seem likely to win the Democratic nomination, and, if the Democrats win in the general election, would enter Congress as new members of the House of Representatives.
There are some regional differences. In the Northeast, 21 of the 31 seats targeted by the Democrats have military-intelligence candidates. This area, not the South or Midwest, has the highest proportion of military-intelligence candidates seeking Democratic nominations.
In the West, only 7 of the 23 targeted seats have military-intelligence candidates, while in a half dozen seats the leading candidates are self-funded millionaires, mainly from the IT industry. There has been a wave of Republican retirements in California and wealthy people are bidding for these seats.
The military-intelligence candidates are disproportionately favored by the party apparatus, encouraged to run in districts that are the most likely takeover targets. Military-intelligence candidates account for 10 of the 22 districts selected for the most high-profile attention as part of the “red-to-blue” program, or nearly half. In some cases, military-intelligence candidates have amassed huge campaign war chests that effectively shut out any potential rivals, an indication that the financial backers of the Democratic Party have lined up behind them.
In a sad commentary on the parlous state of the U.S. media, a letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from four United States Senators dated March 8 calling for opening arms control talks with the Kremlin ASAP is nowhere to be found in mainstream newspapers a day after its release on the Senate home page of one of the authors, Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Nothing in the New York Times. Nothing in the Washington Post. And so, it is left to alternative media to bring to the attention of its readership a major development in domestic politics, a significant change in what its own senior politicians are saying should be done about Russia that was brought to our attention by …..the Russian mainstream media including the agency RIA Novosti, RBK, Tass within hours of initial posting.
What we have is, first, a genuine man bites dog story. Two of the senators who penned the letter, Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), have in recent months been among the most vociferous promoters of the unproven allegations of Trump collusion with the Russians. Now they are putting aside for the moment their attacks on Trump and members of his entourage who dared shake hands or share a joke with a Russian ambassador. They are openly calling upon the Secretary of State to send U.S. personnel to negotiate with Putin’s minions over our survival on this planet.
The authors were in a tough spot explaining their new marching orders for State. And they have done their best to impose consistency on what is patently a new policy direction holding great promise for sanity to be restored in U.S.-Russian relations.
First, they cover their backsides by the lengthy recitation of Russia’s bad deeds, including alleged election meddling in the 2016 presidential election, violation of international law in Ukraine and the like.
Secondly, they make the proposed arms talks look like a walk down the Rose Garden, with the Russians being told what to do from a position of strength. The objective is focused on inserting two of Russia’s latest weapons systems described by Vladimir Putin in his March 1 speech into the framework of the START treaty as it comes up for renewal. That and to resolve issues over alleged Russian violation of the Intermediate Range Missiles convention.
However, buried in this mumbo jumbo is that reference to Putin’s speech and the new weapons systems he described, which actually numbered six among them several never heard about before inside the Beltway and looking pretty ominous. So, one may conclude that Putin’s intended “shock and awe” speech did have some effect in DC, even if so far no one is saying so, and even if so far, our leading newspapers have called time out till they can decide how to deal with the unwelcome news.
Wittingly or not, the Gang of Four has just opened a breach in the wall of contempt and loathing for Putin and Russia that has been building in Washington for months if not years now. The immediate task is for word of this development to go out to the broad public and for the relics of our once formidable arms negotiations teams to be brought out of mothballs to face Russian counterparts who have been waiting keenly for this moment.
Democratic Fissures
The unusual way in which the letter was made public — and the evident uncertainty on the part of the mainstream media as to how to play it — reflects widening fissures among Democrats.
Even among the most rabid fans of Hillary Clinton (and haters of President Trump) there is a growing sense that, for example, Congressman Adam “trust-me-the-Russians-hacked-our election” Schiff (D-Calif.) may not be able to deliver anything beyond the “trust me.” And many are beginning to question whether the sainted Special Counsel, Robert Mueller may not be able to come up with much more than click-bait farms in St. Petersburg and dirt to put dubious characters like Paul Manafort in jail on charges unrelated to Russiagate. (After all, Mueller has already been at it a very long time.)
And what would that mean for the re-election prospects of candidates like the superannuated Democratic-machine product Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), whose prospects are already waning?
Not to be ruled out is the possibility that the four senators may also be motivated by a new appreciation of the dangers of blaming everything on Russia, with the possible result of U.S.-Russia relations falling into a state of complete disrepair. The key question is whether President Putin can be de-demonized. That will depend on the mainstream media, which, alas, is not accustomed to reassessing and silencing the bellicose drums — even in the face of new realities like the petering out of Russiagate and Putin’s entirely credible declaration of strategic parity.
Gang of Four Letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson
The Honorable Rex W. Tillerson
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
Washington, DC
Dear Secretary Tillerson:
We write to urge the State Department to convene the next U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue as soon as possible.
A U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue is more urgent following President Putin’s public address on March 1st when he referred to several new nuclear weapons Russia is reportedly developing including a cruise missile and a nuclear underwater drone, which are not currently limited by the New START treaty, and would be destabilizing if deployed. There is no doubt we have significant disagreements with Russia, including Russia’s brazen interference in the 2016 U.S. elections; continued violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF); invasion of Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea; and destabilizing actions in Syria. However, it is due to these policy rifts, not in spite of them, that the United States should urgently engage with Russia to avoid miscalculation and reduce the likelihood of conflict.
First, we encourage the administration to propose alternative solutions to address Russia’s violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov admitted to the existence of this ground launched cruise missile (GLCM), but contended that the system was INF Treaty compliant.
Senior officials from the United States and Russia have said that the INF Treaty plays an “important role in the existing system of international security.” As such, we urge the State Department to resolve Russia’s violation through existing INF Treaty provisions or new mutually acceptable means.
Second, we urge the United States to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). The Trump administration’s own 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) references Russia’s robust nuclear modernization program as a main justification behind the U.S. need to recapitalize its three legs of the nuclear triad. An extension of New START would verifiably lock-in the Treaty’s Central Limits – and with it – the reductions in strategic forces Russia has made.
The New START Treaty, which entered into force in 2011, provides transparency and predictability into the size and location of Russia’s strategic nuclear delivery systems, warheads, and facilities. New START’s robust verification architecture involves thousands of data exchanges and regular on-site inspections.The United States confirmed in February that Russia met New START’s Central Treaty Limits and it stated that “implementation of the New START Treaty enhances the safety and security of the United States.” These same Central Treaty Limits could also govern two of the new types of nuclear weapons referenced by President Putin on March 1st – a case the United States can argue through the Treaty’s Biannual Consultative Commission (BCC).
Lastly, as the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review notes, Russia maintains a numerical advantage to the United States in the number of non-strategic nuclear weapons. The Senate, in its Resolution of Ratification on New START in 2010, took stock of this imbalance and called upon the United States to commence negotiations that would “secure and reduce tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner.” Attempts by the Obama administration to negotiate an agreement on this class of weapons met resistance from Russia. However, even absent the political space for a formal agreement or binding treaty with Russia, we urge the State Department to discuss ways to enhance transparency on non-strategic nuclear weapons.
Extending New START, resolving Russia’s INF violation, and enhancing transparency measures relating to non-strategic nuclear weapons will also help quiet growing calls from many countries that the United States is not upholding its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations. The Treaty’s three mutually reinforcing pillars: non-proliferation, peaceful uses of the atom, and disarmament can only be advanced through U.S. leadership on all three.
There is no guarantee that we can make progress with Russia on these issues. However, even at the height of Cold War tensions, the United States and the Soviet Union were able to engage on matters of strategic stability. Leaders from both countries believed, as we should today, that the incredible destructive force of nuclear weapons is reason enough to make any and all efforts to lessen the chance that they can never be used again.
Sincerely,
Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.),
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.),
Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.),
Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont)
*
Gilbert Doctorow is an independent political analyst based in Brussels. His latest book, Does the United States Have a Future?was published in October 2017. Both paperback and e-book versions are available for purchase on www.amazon.com and all affiliated Amazon websites worldwide.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served in Army and CIA intelligence analysis for 30 years and, after retiring, co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
We remind you that Global Research operates exclusively through the support of its readers, and does not accept funding from public or private sources. We continue to run on a shoestring budget in order to maintain our independence. Therefore, please consider making a contribution to Global Research through a membership or a donation of your choice. (New members qualify for a free book offer!)
The team at Global Research thanks all our readers for their continued support — peace IS possible if we remain committed to the truth.
There is evidence that Milosevic was assassinated. He was poisoned in The Hague prison (managed under the auspices of the UN Tribunal). There was no investigation into the underlying causes of his death.
**
Eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague has concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
More than eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague has concluded that former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia where the worst atrocities associated with the break-up of Yugoslavia took place.
Buried in a footnote deep in the fourth volume of the judgment against Bosnian-Serb General Ratko Mladic the judges unanimously conclude that “The evidence received by the trial chamber did not show that Slobodan Milosevic, Jovica Stanisic, Franko Simatovic, Zeljko Raznatovic, or Vojislav Seselj participated in the realization of the common criminal objective” to establish an ethnically-homogeneous Bosnian-Serb entity through the commission of crimes alleged in the indictment.[1]
This is an important admission because practically the entire Western press corps and virtually every political leader in every Western country has spent the last 25 years telling us that Slobodan Milosevic was a genocidal monster cut from the same cloth as Adolf Hitler. We were told that he was the “Butcher of the Balkans,” but there was never any evidence to support those accusations. We were lied to in order to justify economic sanctions and NATO military aggression against the people of Serbia – just like they lied to us to justify the Iraq war.
This is the second successive trial chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to conclude that Slobodan Milosevic was not guilty of the most serious crimes he was accused of.
Last year, the Radovan Karadzic trial chamber also concluded that “the Chamber is not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan” to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory.[2]
The Tribunal has done nothing to publicize these findings despite the fact that Slobodan Milosevic was accused of 66 counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity by the Tribunal.
Milosevic died in the Tribunal’s custody before the conclusion of his own trial. He was found dead in his cell after suffering a heart attack in the UN Detention Unit two weeks after the Tribunal denied his request for provisional release so that he could have heart surgery that would have saved his life.[3]
Dr. Leo Bokeria, the coronary specialist who would have overseen Milosevic’s treatment at the Bakulev Medical Center, said: “If Milosevic was taken to any specialized Russian hospital, the more so to such a stationary medical institution as ours, he would have been subjected to coronographic examination, two stents would be made, and he would have lived for many long years to come. A person has died in our contemporary epoch, when all the methods to treat him were available and the proposals of our country and the reputation of our medicine were ignored. As a result, they did what they wanted to do.”[4]
Less than 72 hours before his death, Milosevic’s lawyer delivered a letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which Milosevic expressed fear that he was being poisoned.[5]
The Tribunal’s inquiry into Milosevic’s death confirmed that Rifampicin (an unprescribed drug that would have compromised the efficacy of his high blood pressure medication) was found in one of his blood tests, but that that he was not informed of the results until months later “because of the difficult legal position in which Dr. Falke (the Tribunal’s chief medical officer) found himself by virtue of the Dutch legal provisions concerning medical confidentiality.”[6]
There are no Dutch legal provisions that prohibit a doctor from telling a patient the result of their own blood test, and U.S. diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks show that the Tribunal had zero regard for medical confidentiality laws when they gave detailed information about Slobodan Milosevic’s health and medical records to personnel at the US embassy in The Hague without his consent.[7]
Milosevic’s trial had been going badly for the prosecution. It was glaringly obvious to any fair-minded observer that he was innocent of the crimes he was accused of. James Bissett, Canada’s former ambassador to Yugoslavia, said Milosevic’s trial “had taken on all the characteristics of a Stalinist show trial.” George Kenny, who manned the U.S. State Department’s Yugoslavia desk, also denounced the Milosevic trial proceedings as “inherently unfair, amounting to little more than a political show trial”.[8]
The trial was a public relations disaster for the Tribunal. Midway through the Prosecution’s case, the London Times published an article smearing Slobodan Milosevic’s wife and lamenting the fact that “One of the ironies of Slobodan’s trial is that it has bolstered his popularity. Hours of airtime, courtesy of the televised trial, have made many Serbs fall in love with him again.”[9]
While the trial enhanced Milosevic’s favorability, it destroyed the Tribunal’s credibility with the Serbian public. The Serbian public had been watching the trial on television, and when the Serbian Human Rights Ministry conducted a public opinion poll three years into the trial it found that “three quarters of Serbian citizens believe that The Hague Tribunal is a political rather than a legal institution.”[10]
Tim Judah, a well-known anti-Milosevic journalist and author, was dismayed as he watched the trial unfold. He wrote that “the trial of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague is going horribly wrong, turning him in the eyes of the public from a villain charged with war crimes into a Serbian hero.”[11]
By late 2005, Milosevic’s detractors wanted the live broadcasts of the trial yanked off the air because it was not having the political effect that they had hoped it would. Political analyst Daniel Cveticanin wrote, “It seems that the coverage benefits more those it was supposed to expose than the Serbian public. [The] freedom-loving and democratic intentions of the live coverage have not produced [the] planned effects.”[12]
Milosevic’s supporters, on the other hand, were emphatic. They wanted the live broadcasts to continue because they knew he was innocent and they wanted the public to see that for themselves.[13]
Slobodan Milosevic’s exoneration, by the same Tribunal that killed him eleven years ago, is cold comfort for the people of Serbia. The Serbian people endured years of economic sanctions and a NATO bombing campaign against their country because of the unfounded allegations against their president.
Although the Tribunal eventually admitted that it didn’t have evidence against Slobodan Milosevic, its disreputable behavior should make you think twice before accepting any of its other findings.
*
Notes
[1] ICTY, Mladic Judgment, Vol. IV, 22 November 2017, Pg. 2090, Footnote 15357
[8] “Milosevic trial delayed as witnesses refuse to testify,” The Irish Times, September 18, 2004
[9] “Listening to Lady Macbeth,” Sunday Times (London), January 5, 2003
[10] “Public Opinion Firmly Against Hague,” B92 News (Belgrade), August 2, 2004
[11] Tim Judah, “Serbia Backs Milosevic in Trial by TV – Alarm as Former President Gains the Upper Hand in War Crimes Tribunal,” The Observer (London), March 3, 2002
[12] “Debate Opens in Serbia Over Live Coverage of Milosevic War Crimes Trial,” Associated Press Worldstream, September 22, 2005
[13] “Serbian NGO Opposes Decision to Drop Live Broadcast of Milosevic Trial,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, October 8, 2003; Source: FoNet news agency, Belgrade, in Serbian 1300 gmt 8 Oct 03; See Also: “Serbia: Milosevic Sympathisers Protest Inadequate Coverage of Trial,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, June 10, 2002; Source: RTS TV, Belgrade, in Serbo-Croat 1730 gmt 10 Jun 02
In the previous article I explained how the invention of the nuclear device altered the balance of power after WWII and during the cold war era. In this second article I intend to explain why nuclear-armed powers decrease the likelihood of a nuclear apocalypse, as counterintuitive as it seems.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, the power that had hitherto counterbalanced the US ceased to exist. The world order changed again, this time becoming unipolar, bringing in its wake 30 years of death and destruction to practically every corner of the globe, particularly to the Middle East, Europe and Asia. With the end of a balance of power, the prospect of an American century (PNAC), so cherished by the neoconservatives and other fanatics of American exceptionalism, became real (see parts 2, 3 and 4 of an earlier series). For policymakers in Washington, the world was transformed into a battlefield, and the quest for global hegemony was the new (unrealistic) goal to be achieved.
What has happened over the last thirty years is still fresh in everybody’s minds, with the United States ready to invade and bomb dozens of countries, in particular Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Serbia, Syria and Libya. Further chaos was wrought on the globe through the Arab Spring, armed coups and color revolutions. Every means was used to spread the influence of the United States across the globe, from the financial terrorism of bodies like Wall Street and the IMF, to the real terrorism of battalions of neo-Nazi extremists in Ukraine or fanatical Islamists in Syria and Libya. Washington’s actions have placed continuous pressure on those it deems its mortal enemies, particularly over the last 10 years. Iran and North Korea have been living under this pressure for decades. China and Russia, thanks to economic growth and military power, have been able to put to a halt the attempts of American neoconservatives and liberal interventionists to alter the balance of power in the world. Until only recently, Washington did not even recognize any peer competitors. But we could suggest that since Crimea returned to being part of the Russian Federation in 2014, the America’s unipolar moment has been fading.
The focus of this analysis therefore concerns the current state of international relations that is passing into a new phase. Rather than focusing on the two Eurasian powers (as has been done in the past), attention is brought to the entirely new multipolar world order together with the need to take into account the existence of nuclear weapons. This is a new situation never seen before: multiple world powers contending with the famous doctrine of MAD. In fact, if we look at the world since the introduction of nuclear weapons, we recognize three distinct periods. The first one goes from 1945 to 1949; the second from 1949 to 1989; and the third from 1989 to 2014. Undoubtedly the greatest danger existed during the first phase, even if history has managed to hide it well. The US intended during that time to eliminate the USSR while it still enjoyed a monopoly on nuclear weapons. Fortunately, the Soviet acquisition of its own nuclear weapons took this option away from the United States. It was only after the disappearance of the world’s other balancing power that the remaining hegemonic power felt free to do as it wished, acting like a bull in a China shop and unleashing conflagrations around the globe.
The new era before us opens up many risks, with the rivalry between Russia and the United States escalating and with Beijing and Washington at loggerheads in Southeast Asia. But it could also be the beginning of an era of absolute strategic parity. The major point is that we have never seen a similar situation in history, where contending powers have the ability annihilate each other in the space of a few minutes, probably bringing humanity to extinction in the process. Such a destructive scenario is improbable precisely because of its destructiveness. If it is not to be outright excluded as a possibility, then it ought to be considered highly unlikely. The famous One Percent ruling over and controlling much of our lives would have a hard time thriving with five to six billion less human beings on the planet. The prospect of Armageddon cannot be contemplated by countries whose primary objective is survival. Trump, Putin and Xi Jinping must ensure the survival of their societies at any cost, and the use of nuclear weapons against other nuclear powers does not cohere with the natural instinct for survival.
In recent years, the impetus for a multipolar order must be attributed to Washington’s continuous quest for global hegemony, spreading wars and terror across the globe in the process. Given that national survival is the priority of states, it is easy to see why counterweights to American domination have arisen in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Small countries have seen the need to rely on more powerful countries like Russia and China to help protect them from the playground bully. Recent developments in the Middle East, Europe and Asia have had something to do with the confrontation between Washington and Beijing or Moscow and its regional allies. In the Middle East, Iran is targeted as well as other countries within Tehran’s orbit. In Europe, countries that are politically close to Moscow are frowned upon. And in Asia, Washington’s priority seems to be to undo any alliances Beijing has managed to create with its neighbours. The delusive quest for global hegemony, combined with continuous US military failures, has led to the emergence of a multipolar reality, with two new poles now opposing Washington. Twenty years after the end of the bipolar era, the unipolar era has also come to an end.
The tension has continued to build up in recent years, with Moscow and Beijing responding with various countermeasures, especially in the field of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons and anti-ballistic missile systems. The efforts of Beijing and Moscow have been notable in the creation of nuclear systems able to overcome any recent missile-defence systems. Likewise, US nuclear deterrence is being questioned in the recently released US nuclear doctrine. Trump wants to spend nearly $1 trillion over 10 years to upgrade and replace many of the essential elements of the US nuclear package, ranging from ICBMs and strategic bombers through to nuclear submarines. Even Beijing plans to create stealth bombers that can deflower America’s virgin skies and devastate the country. In the experimental field are included such things as the Russian nuclear-powered underwater drone, as well as other systems as yet unknown to the public. Another important note is to assess a country’s defence capabilities against a nuclear attack. This is a military program that Russia, the United States and China have worked hard on, given the importance of advancing technologically with anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems. The primary objective of governments is the defence of their country. In a context where other nations are armed with nuclear devices, ABM systems become a priority to impede foreign aggressions with nuclear weapons. Fortunately for the human race, the ability to stop a nuclear attack is not the sole reserve of any one nation, and it will be difficult to change certain balances of power in the short term. Acquiring a fully functional missile shield as the ABM intend to be is understandably on the bucket lists of Moscow, Beijing and Washington. Contrary to what one would think, it is precisely because ABM systems are unable to stop nuclear strikes that a nuclear war is highly improbable.
The multipolar world order exists in an environment that contains nuclear weapons, representing an unprecedented situation for humanity, one that could entail a new balance between powers. The same reason that led NATO not to participate directly in the Ukrainian crisis of 2014 also led Washington to be reluctant to arm its Islamist proxies on the ground in Syria with particularly effective weapons like surface-to-air missiles. The reason was to avoid entering into a direct conflict with Moscow in both Ukraine and Syria. The prospect of such a clash raises fears of an escalation that could easily get out of hand and become nuclear.
Such a prospect of a clash between powers that could lead to an escalation that is unacceptable highlights what has been discussed thus far. In a multipolar world order, instability is a constant factor, the actions of one’s opponents being unpredictable. But when nuclear weapons are a factor, uncertainty is replaced with certainty, such that a decapitating strike by Washington on Moscow or Beijing would certainly entail a nuclear response by the latter. With such certainties, the likelihood of direct or indirect contact between peer competitors becomes highly unlikely. Even when involving smaller countries, confrontation can advance only to a certain level, becoming untenable once it threatens the involvement of bigger, nuclear-armed powers. The recent shooting down of an Israeli aircraft, and the exchange of missiles between Israel and Syria, shows how a regional clash, even if limited, is ruled out by the danger of Russia and America becoming involved. The same situation obtains in Asia, with tensions being present between Pakistan and India, India and China, and the DPRK and the United States. Mutually assured destruction is certainly an effective means of keeping a lid on things and maintaining regional balances.
The next fifty years are likely to continue under a multipolar world order, with the four possible poles of Beijing, Moscow, New Delhi and Washington. These four great powers, with strong nationalistic sentiments, reminds one of the situation in the early twentieth century. Normally we would be in a World War I scenario, with powers struggling with each other for dominance. But because of the likely escalation of confrontation between powers into nuclear warfare and Armageddon, the contemporary world order seems to promise a return to political realism and the balance between powers.
We are facing an unprecedented situation for humanity, one where a stability lasting several decades may be achievable. The greatest danger comes from placing too much stock in ABM systems, which beguiles the foolhardy with the delusion that a decapitating strike may be possible thanks to a magic shield that protects the aggressor from any nuclear retaliation. As long as the principle of MAD remains intact, we will avoid a global catastrophe. Which is fortunate for humanity.
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.
Amid heightened tension with Russia, U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Edward J. Markey (D-MA) today urged Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to begin a new round of strategic talks with Russia without delay.
“A U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue is more urgent following President Putin’s public address on March 1st when he referred to several new nuclear weapons Russia is reportedly developing including a cruise missile and a nuclear underwater drone, which are not currently limited by the New START treaty, and would be destabilizing if deployed,” the Senators wrote. “There is no doubt we have significant disagreements with Russia, including Russia’s brazen interference in the 2016 U.S. elections; continued violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF); invasion of Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea; and destabilizing actions in Syria.
“However, it is due to these policy rifts, not in spite of them, that the United States should urgently engage with Russia to avoid miscalculation and reduce the likelihood of conflict,” the Senators continued.
In their letter to Tillerson, the Senators urged the administration to address Russia’s violation of the INF; to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, commonly known as New START; and to work to enhance transparency on non-nuclear weapons. All of these steps are intended to lessen the chance that nuclear weapons will ever be used again.
The full text of the letter follows below.
March 08, 2018
The Honorable Rex W. Tillerson
Secretary of State
U. S. Department of State
Washington, DC
Dear Secretary Tillerson:
We write to urge the State Department to convene the next U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue as soon as possible.
A U.S.-Russia Strategic Dialogue is more urgent following President Putin’s public address on March 1st when he referred to several new nuclear weapons Russia is reportedly developing including a cruise missile and a nuclear underwater drone, which are not currently limited by the New START treaty, and would be destabilizing if deployed. There is no doubt we have significant disagreements with Russia, including Russia’s brazen interference in the 2016 U.S. elections; continued violation of the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF); invasion of Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea; and destabilizing actions in Syria. However, it is due to these policy rifts, not in spite of them, that the United States should urgently engage with Russia to avoid miscalculation and reduce the likelihood of conflict.
First, we encourage the administration to propose alternative solutions to address Russia’s violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov admitted to the existence of this ground launched cruise missile (GLCM), but contended that the system was INF Treaty compliant.
Senior officials from the United States and Russia have said that the INF Treaty plays an “important role in the existing system of international security.” As such, we urge the State Department to resolve Russia’s violation through existing INF Treaty provisions or new mutually acceptable means.
Second, we urge the United States to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). The Trump administration’s own 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) references Russia’s robust nuclear modernization program as a main justification behind the U.S. need to recapitalize its three legs of the nuclear triad. An extension of New START would verifiably lock-in the Treaty’s Central Limits – and with it – the reductions in strategic forces Russia has made.
The New START Treaty, which entered into force in 2011, provides transparency and predictability into the size and location of Russia’s strategic nuclear delivery systems, warheads, and facilities. New START’s robust verification architecture involves thousands of data exchanges and regular on-site inspections. The United States confirmed in February that Russia met New START’s Central Treaty Limits and it stated that “implementation of the New START Treaty enhances the safety and security of the United States.” These same Central Treaty Limits could also govern two of the new types of nuclear weapons referenced by President Putin on March 1st – a case the United States can argue through the Treaty’s Biannual Consultative Commission (BCC).
Lastly, as the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review notes, Russia maintains a numerical advantage to the United States in the number of non-strategic nuclear weapons. The Senate, in its Resolution of Ratification on New START in 2010, took stock of this imbalance and called upon the United States to commence negotiations that would “secure and reduce tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner.” Attempts by the Obama administration to negotiate an agreement on this class of weapons met resistance from Russia. However, even absent the political space for a formal agreement or binding treaty with Russia, we urge the State Department to discuss ways to enhance transparency on non-strategic nuclear weapons.
Extending New START, resolving Russia’s INF violation, and enhancing transparency measures relating to non-strategic nuclear weapons will also help quiet growing calls from many countries that the United States is not upholding its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations. The Treaty’s three mutually reinforcing pillars: non-proliferation, peaceful uses of the atom, and disarmament can only be advanced through U.S. leadership on all three.
There is no guarantee that we can make progress with Russia on these issues. However, even at the height of Cold War tensions, the United States and the Soviet Union were able to engage on matters of strategic stability. Leaders from both countries believed, as we should today, that the incredible destructive force of nuclear weapons is reason enough to make any and all efforts to lessen the chance that they can never be used again.
We urge the United States and Canadian governments to immediately remove their illegal* sanctions against Venezuela and to support efforts at mediation between the government of Venezuela and the nonviolent segments of the political opposition.
We, the undersigned organizations and individuals in the US and Canada, support hemispheric relations based on respect for the sovereignty of all peoples of the Americas. We are deeply concerned by the use of illegal sanctions, whose effect falls most heavily on the poorest and most marginal sectors of society, to coerce political and economic change in a sister democracy.
Polls in Venezuela show that the large majority of Venezuelans oppose sanctions, regardless of their opinion of the Maduro government. Sanctions merely complicate efforts by the Vatican, Dominican Republic, and other international actors to mediate a resolution to the deep polarization in Venezuela. Moreover, sanctions undermine efforts of the democratically elected government and Constituent Assembly to address critical economic issues and determine their own political destiny.
Despite the high-minded rhetoric of officials in Washington and Ottawa, it is not a genuine concern for democracy, human rights, and social justice that drives the belligerent interventionist posture towards Caracas. From President Obama’s admittedly untrue presidential decree that Venezuela represents a national security threat to the United States, to UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s declaration that Venezuela is “an increasingly violent narco-state” that threatens the world, the use of hyperbole in diplomatic situations seldom contributes to peaceful solutions on the world stage.
It is no secret that Venezuela, unlike Mexico, Honduras, Colombia, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, is targeted for regime change by the US precisely because of Venezuela’s leadership in resisting US hegemony and the imposition of the neoliberal model in Latin America. And of course, Venezuela holds the largest oil reserves in the world, attracting more unwanted attention from Washington.
The US and Canada tried and failed to use the Organization of American States (OAS) to build a bloc to hypocritically evoke the Democratic Charter against Venezuela. Recently, Luis Almagro, the rogue Secretary General of the OAS, went so far as to publicly support the swearing in of a parallel Supreme Court unconstitutionally appointed by opposition legislators and allowed them to use the OAS headquarters in Washington DC for their ceremony – without the approval of any OAS member state. Almagro has thereby delegitimized the OAS, emboldened the most extreme and violent elements of the Venezuelan opposition, and side-lined efforts at mediation.
The US-Canadian sanctions represent a cynical use of coercive economic power to attack a nation that is already dealing with hyperinflation and shortages of basic commodities. While said to be in the name of advancing democracy and freedom, the sanctions violate the Venezuelan peoples’ basic human right to sovereignty, as outlined in the UN and OAS Charters.
We call on the political leaders of the United States and Canada to reject overheated rhetoric and to contribute to the search for real solutions to Venezuela’s political and economic problems. We urge the US and Canadian governments to rescind their sanctions and support the mediation efforts pursued by the Chancellor of the Dominican Republic Miguel Vargas, the President of Dominican Republic Danilo Medina, former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Vatican, and supported by a growing number of Latin American nations.
Note
*Chapter 4 Article 19 of the OAS Charter states:
No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.
Signers:
UNITED STATES
Noam Chomsky
Danny Glover, Citizen-Artist
Estela Vazquez, Executive Vice President, 1199 SEIU
Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, Archdiocese of Detroit
Jill Stein, Green Party
Peter Knowlton, General President, United Electrical Workers
Dr. Alfred de Zayas, former Chief, Petitions Dept, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Medea Benjamin, co-founder, Code Pink
Dan Kovalik, Counsel, United Steelworkers Union
Clarence Thomas, ILWU Local10 (retired)
Natasha Lycia Ora Bannan, President, National Lawyers Guild
Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice
James Early, Articulation of Afro Descendants in Latin America and the Caribbean
Gloria La Riva, coordinator, Cuba and Venezuela Solidarity Committee
Karen Bernal, Chair, Progressive Caucus, California Democratic Party
Kevin Zeese, Margaret Flowers, co-directors, Popular Resistance
Chris Bender, Administrator, SEIU 1000, retired
Mary Hanson Harrison, President Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, US Section
Alfred L. Marder, President, US Peace Council
Tamie Dramer, Executive Boardmember, California Democratic Party
Greg Wilpert, journalist
School of Americas Watch (SOAW) Coordinating Collective
Gerry Condon, President, Board of Directors, Veterans for Peace
Tiana Ocasio, President, Connecticut Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
Leah Bolger, Coordinator, World Beyond War
Alexander Main, Senior Assoc for Intl Policy, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Kevin Martin, President, Peace Action and Peace Action Education Fund
Dr. Robert W. McChesney, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Berthony Dupont, Director, Haiti Liberté Newspaper
Dr. Frederick B. Mills, Department of Philosophy, Bowie State University
Marsha Rummel, Adlerperson, City of Madison Common Council, District 6
Monica Moorehead, Workers World Party
Kim Ives, Journalist, Haiti Liberté
Cindy Sheehan, Cindy’s Soapbox
Claudia Lucero, Executive Director, Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America
William Camacaro, Venezuela activist
Baltimore Phil Berrigan Memorial Chapter Veterans For Peace
David W. Campbell, Secretary-Treasurer, USW Local 675 (Carson, CA)
Alice Bush, retired Northwest Indiana Division Director SEIU Local 73
Teresa Gutierrez, Co-Director International Action Center
Claire Deroche, NY Interfaith Campaign Against Torture
Eva Golinger, journalist and writer
The Cross Border Network (Kansas City)
Antonia Domingo, Pittsburgh Labor Council for Latin American Advancement
David Swanson, Director of World Beyond War
Matt Meyer, National Co-chair, Fellowship of Reconciliation
Rev. Daniel Dale, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), CLRN Board of Directors
Daniel Chavez, Transnational Institute
Kathleen Desautels, SP (8th Day Center for Justice*)
Michael Eisenscher, National Coord. Emeritus, U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW)
Dr. Paul Dordal, Director, Christian Network for Liberation and Equality
Dr. Douglas Friedman, Director International Studies, College of Charleston
Fr. Charles Dahm, Archdiocesan Director of Domestic Violence Outreach
Blase Bonpane, Director, Office of the Americas
Larry Birns, Director, Council on Hemispheric Affairs
Task Force on the Americas
Dr. Sharat G. Lin, former president, San Jose Peace and Justice Center
Stansfield Smith, Chicago ALBA Solidarity
Alicia Jrapko, U.S. coordinator, International Committee for Peace, Justice and Dignity
National Network on Cuba
Diana Bohn, Co-coordinator, Nicaragua Center for Community Action
Joe Jamison, Queens NY Peace Council
Jerry Harris, National Secretary, Global Studies Association of North America
MLK Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
Charlie Hardy, author, Cowboy in Caracas
Dan Shea, National Board, Veterans For Peace
Houston Peace and Justice Center
Dr. Christy Thornton, Fellow, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University
Code Pink Houston
Workers Solidarity Action Network.org
Rochester Committee on Latin America
Patricio Zamorano, Academic and International Affairs Analyst
Cliff Smith, business manager, Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, Local 36
Michael Bass, Convener, School of the Americas Watch-Oakland/East Bay
Joe Lombardo, Marilyn Levin, Co-Coordinators of United National Antiwar Committee
Dr. Jeb Sprague-Silgado, University of California Santa Barbara
Portland Central America Solidarity Committee (PCASC)
Dr. Pamela Palmater, Mi’kmaq lawyer Chair in Indigenous Governance Ryerson University
Lee Gloster, Steward IBT 364, Trustee, N. Central IN Labor Chapter, Northern Indiana Area Labor Federation
Celeste Howard, Secretary, WILPF, Portland Branch (Oregon)
Mario Galván, Sacramento Action for Latin America
Hector Gerardo, Executive Director, 1 Freedom for All
Jorge Marin, Venezuela Solidarity Committee
Ricardo Vaz, writer and editor of Investig’Action
Dr. T.M. Scruggs, University of Iowa, Professor Emeritus
Dr. Mike Davis, Dept. of Creative Writing, Univ. of CA, Riverside; editor of the New Left Review
Dr. Lee Artz, Dept of Media Studies; Director, Center for Global Studies, Purdue University Northwest
Dr. Arturo Escobar, Dept. of Anthropology University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Cheri Honkala, Director, Poor Peoples Economic Human Rights Campaign
Suren Moodliar, Coordinator, Encuentro5 (Boston)
Dr. Jack Rasmus, Economics Dept., St. Mary’s College, Moraga, California
Alice Slater, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Rich Whitney, Co-chair, Green Party Peace Action Committee
David Bacon, independent photojournalist
Dr. Kim Scipes, Department of Sociology, Purdue University Northwest
Jeff Mackler, National Secretary, Socialist Action
Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES)
Henry Lowendorf, Co-chair, Greater New Haven Peace Council
Judith Bello, Ed Kinane (founders), Upstate Drone Action
Dr. Daniel Whitesell, Lecturer in the Dept. of Spanish & Portuguese, UCLA
Dr. William I. Robinson, Sociology and Global and International Studies, UC-Santa Barbara
Emmanuel Rozental, Vilma Almendra, Pueblos en Camino, Abya Yala
Ben Manski, President, Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution
Frank Pratka, Baltimore-Matanzas Association/Maryland-Cuba Friendship Coalition
Dr. Hilbourne Watson, Emeritus, Department of International Relations, Bucknell University
Dr. Minqi Li, Economics Department, University of Utah
Christina Schiavoni, PhD researcher, Boston
Dr. Robert E. Birt, Department of Philosophy, Bowie State University
Topanga Peace Alliance
Judy Somberg, Susan Scott, Esq., Co-chairs, National Lawyers Guild Task Force on the Americas
Audrey Bomse, Esq., Co-chair, National Lawyers Guild Palestine Subcommittee
Daniel Chavez, Transnational Institute
Barby Ulmer, Board President, Our Developing World
Barbara Larcom, Coordinator, Casa Baltimore/Limay; President, Nicaraguan Cultural Alliance
Nick Egnatz, Veterans for Peace
Dr. Marc Becker, Latin American Studies, Truman State University
Dr. John H. Sinnigen, Professor Emeritus, University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC)
Dr. Dale Johnson, Professor Emeritus, Sociology, Rutgers University
Sulutasen Amador, Co-coordinator, Chukson Water Protectors
Mara Cohen, Communications Hub, Trade Justice Alliance
Dorotea Manuela, Co-Chair Rosa Parks Human Right Committee
Efia Nwangaza, Malcom X Center – WMXP Community Radio
Dr. Chris Chase-Dunn, Sociology, University of California-Riverside
Dr. Nick Nesbitt, Comparative Literature, Princeton
Timeka Drew, coordinator, Global Climate Convergence
Jack Gilroy, Friends of Franz & Ben www.bensalmon.org
Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists, Social Justice Committee
Victor Wallis, Professor, Liberal Arts, Berkeley College of Music
CANADA
Jerry Dias, President, UNIFOR
Mike Palecek, National President, Canadian Union of Postal Workers
Harvey Bischof, President, Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation
Mark Hancock National President of the Canadian Union of Public Employees
Stephanie Smith, President of the British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union
Linda McQuaig, journalist and author, Toronto
Robyn Benson, National President, Public Service Alliance of Canada
Raul Burbano, Program Director, Common Frontiers
Miguel Figueroa, President, Canadian Peace Congress
Heide Trampus, Coordinator, Worker to Worker, Canada-Cuba Labour Solidarity Network
Rights Action (U.S. and Canada)
Joe Emersberger, writer, UNIFOR member
Nino Pagliccia, Jorge Arancibia, Marta Palominos, Frente para la Defensa de los Pueblos Hugo Chavez
Fire This Time Movement for Social Justice Venezuela Solidarity Campaign – Vancouver
The Hamilton Coalition To Stop The War
Vancouver Communities in Solidarity with Cuba (VCSC)
Maude Barlow, Chairperson, Council of Canadians
Canadian Network on Cuba
Mobilization Against War and Occupation (MAWO) – Vancouver
Dr. William Carroll, University of Victoria, Canada
Dr. Leo Panitch, Professor Emeritus, York University, Toronto
Canada-Philippines Solidarity for Human Rights (CPSHR)
Alma Weinstein, Bolivarian Circle Louis Riel Toronto
Maria Elena Mesa, Coord, Sunday Poetry and Festival Internacional de Poesia Patria Grande, Toronto
Dr. Radhika Desai, University of Manitoba
Andrew Dekany, LL.M, Lawyer
OTHER
Dr. Grazia Ietto-Gillies, Emeritus professor of Applied Economics, London South Bank University; expert for UNCTAD [United Nations Transnational Corporations and Management Division]; co-founder of the World Economics Association
Sergio Romero Cuevas, former Mexican Ambassador to Haiti
Observatorio de Derechos Humanos de los Pueblos, Oaxaca, Mexico
*
This article was originally published by Rabble.ca.
This article from our archives, first published by Natural News and Global Research in February 2015 addresses the ongoing debate on the dangers of water fluoridation.
**
Adding to the evidence that backs many U.S. communities’ decisions to end water fluoridation, a recent study has found that fluoride within our water supply may be fueling thyroid issues experienced by millions of Americans, leading to depression and more.
After analyzing 98% of GP practices in England, the study found specifically that rates of hypothyroidism (an underactive thyroid) were 30% more likely in areas that fluoridated their water. In the study, it equated to approximately 15,000 needlessly suffering from the ailment.
As mentioned, hypothyroidism is an issue that affects millions – often without anyone knowing it. It’s an issue that can lead to depression, weight gain, fatigue, aching muscles, weakness, and much more. While there are a number of causes of hypothyroidism, as well as numerous hypothyroidism natural treatments, this recent study suggests that limiting fluoride ingestion is one many should consider.
“Findings We found that higher levels of fluoride in drinking water provide a useful contribution for predicting prevalence of hypothyroidism. We found that practices located in the West Midlands (a wholly fluoridated area) are nearly twice as likely to report high hypothyroidism prevalence in comparison to Greater Manchester (non-fluoridated area)”
Professor Stephen Peckham, of the University’s Centre for Health Service Studies (CHSS), said that research was ‘observational,’ and thus no definitive conclusions should be drawn about cause and effect. He also notes how other sources of fluoride were not taken into account, such as toothpaste, food, or other drinks.
In the end, professor Peckham does say that a switch to other approaches to protecting tooth health should be considered.
You can Prevent Fluoridate Ingestion, and Prevent Any Potential Damage
In the guise of protecting and strengthening our teeth, the U.S. government has been adding fluoride to public water supplies for decades. But due to health toxicity and health concerns, many communities have voted to end fluoridation locally. However, if your city hasn’t made the shift yet, don’t worry; you can still avoid ingesting this substance.
While helping to end water fluoridation is the most official way to end fluoride consumption, there are numerous measures you can take to not only avoid fluoride, but reverse the damage it might have done.
Start by investing in a high quality water filtration system that removes fluoride. The filter will note if it filters our fluoride or not, but if you don’t want to look, you can’t go wrong with a reverse osmosis system. Just be sure to add in some apple cider vinegar or Himalayan sea salt to re-mineralize the water.
Additionally, you can utilize selenium, tamarind, and especially iodine to combat fluoride exposure, A compound in the spice turmeric has even been found to attenuate neurotoxicity induced by fluoride, meaning that the spice turmeric can prevent and even reverse damage from exposure to toxic fluoride.
Tell us what you think about water fluoridation – have you fought for your right to drink clean water?
Published in 2010 by Signs of the Times, first posted on GR on June 27, 2013
By Press Core
In 1975, during the Church Committee hearings, the existence of a secret assassination weapon came to light. The CIA had developed a poison that caused the victim to have an immediate heart attack. This poison could be frozen into the shape of a dart and then fired at high speed from a pistol. The gun was capable of shooting the icy projectile with enough speed that the dart would go right through the clothes of the target and leave just a tiny red mark. Once in the body the poison would melt and be absorbed into the blood and cause a heart attack! The poison was developed to be undetectable by modern autopsy procedures.
In 1931, Cornelius Rhoads, a pathologist from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, purposely infects human test subjects in Puerto Rico with cancer cells; 13 of them died. Though a Puerto Rican doctor later discovers that Rhoads purposely covered up some of the details of his experiment and Rhoads himself gives a written testimony stating he believes that all Puerto Ricans should be killed, he later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Fort Detrick Maryland (origin of the HIV/AIDS virus, the Avian Flu virus and the Swine Flu / A-H1N1 virus), Utah and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, where he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.
The answer to the question – Can you give a person cancer – is yes. After nearly 80 years of research and development there is now a way to simulate a real heart attack and to give a healthy person cancer. Both have been used as a means of assassination. Only a very skilled pathologist, who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish an assassination induced heart attack or cancer from the real thing.
Is death by heart attack, burst aneurysm, of cerebral hemorrhage a “natural cause”? Not if government agencies have found a way to influence your heart rate, blood pressure, or vascular dilatation. Neurological research has found that the brain has specific frequencies for each voluntary movement called preparatory sets. By firing at your chest with a microwave beam containing the ELF signals given off by the heart, this organ can be put into a chaotic state, the so-called heart attack. In this way, high profile leaders of political parties who are prone to heart attacks can be killed off before they cause any trouble. Jack Ruby died of cancer a few weeks after his conviction for murder had been overruled in appeals court and he was ordered to stand trial outside of Dallas – thus allowing him to speak freely if he so desired. There was little hesitancy in Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald in order to prevent him from talking, so there is no reason to suspect that any more consideration would have been shown Jack Ruby if he had posed a threat to people in the US government who had conspired to murder the president of the United States – John F Kennedy.
Matt Simmons, an oil industry expert, was assassinated for turning whistle blower over the Obama administration coverup of the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Investment banker Matt Simmons, who died suddenly, was an energy industry insider and presidential adviser whose profile soared when he wrote that Saudi Arabia is running out of oil and world production is peaking. Simmons, 67, died at his vacation home in Maine. An autopsy by the state medical examiner’s office concluded Monday that he died from accidental drowning “with heart disease as a contributing factor.”
His 2005 best-selling book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, brought him a wider audience. The book argued that Saudi Arabia vastly overstated the size of its oil reserves and that the world was on the verge of a severe oil shortage as the largest oil fields become depleted. This revelation is backed up by Iran. Iran knows the Middle East oil supply is quickly drying up and for that reason it is now focusing on building nuclear reactors. Once the oil runs out Iran will be the only country in the Middle East that will be energy self-sufficient. All of the other Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia will become Third World impoverished states.
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was also assassinated. He was found dead in the detention center at The Hague tribunal. Mr Milosevic faced charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his alleged central role in the wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo during the 1990s. He also faced genocide charges over the 1992-95 Bosnia war, in which 100,000 people died.
Milosevic wrote a letter one day before his death claiming he was being poisoned to death in jail. An autopsy verified his claim as it showed that Milosevic’s body contained a drug that rendered his usual medication for high blood pressure and his heart condition ineffective, causing the heart attack that led to his death.
Former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson told reporters that he saw documents in 1992 that discussed assassinating Milosevic by means of a staged car accident, where the driver would be blinded by a flash of light and remote controlled brake failure enacted to cause the crash. This exact same technique was utilized for real in the murder of Princess Diana.
If Milosevic was murdered, who would ultimately be responsible? NATO.
Why NATO?
Because, though the ICTY (or ‘Hague Tribunal’) presents itself to the world as a UN body, NATO officials have themselves made clear, in public, that it really belongs to NATO. NATO appointed the prosecutors, and the judges who ruled out investigating any war crimes accusations against NATO. It follows that Slobodan Milosevic, who was a prisoner of the Hague Tribunal’s Scheveningen prison when he died, was a prisoner of NATO. NATO had both motive and opportunity to kill him.
In March 2002, Milosevic presented the NATO controlled Hague tribunal with FBI documents proving that both the United States government and NATO provided financial and military support for Al-Qaeda to aid the Kosovo Liberation Army in its war against Serbia. This didn’t go down too well at the Pentagon and the White House, who at the time were trying to sell a war on terror and gearing up to justify invading Iraq.
During Milosevic’s trial for war crimes NATO alleged that the Serbs had committed a massacre of Albanian civilians in the Kosovo town of Racak. Evidence presented in the court showed that NATO’s claim was a hoax. This is especially embarrassing because the allegation of a massacre at Racak was the excuse that NATO used to begin bombing the Serbs on 24 March 1999 (the carpet bombing were done by the United States Air Force -authorized by then president Bill and Hillary Clinton). Then NATO claimed that the Serbs had supposedly been murdering 100,000 Albanian civilians. However, NATO’s own forensics reported that they could not find even one body of an Albanian civilian murdered by Milosevic’s forces. The failure to find any bodies eventually led to NATO’s absurd claim that the Serbs had supposedly covered up the genocide by moving the many thousands of bodies in freezer trucks deep into Serbia (while Bill Clinton was carpet bombing the place) without leaving a single trace of evidence. But the Hague tribunal showed these accusations to be entirely fraudulent as well.
Milosevic made several speeches in which he discussed how a group of shadowy internationalists had caused the chaos in the Balkans because it was the next step on the road to a “new world order.”
During a February 2000 Serbian Congressional speech, Milosevic stated,
“Small Serbia and people in it have demonstrated that resistance is possible. Applied at a broader level, it was organized primarily as a moral and political rebellion against tyranny, hegemony, monopolism, generating hatred, fear and new forms of violence and revenge against champions of freedom among nations and people, such a resistance would stop the escalation of modern time inquisition. Uranium bombs, computer manipulations, drug-addicted young assassins and bribed of blackmailed domestic thugs, promoted to the allies of the new world order, these are the instruments of inquisition which have surpassed, in their cruelty and cynicism, all previous forms of revengeful violence committed against the mankind in the past.”
Evidence linking Milosevic to genocides like Srebrenica, in which 7,000 Muslims died, was proven to be fraudulent. In fact, Srebrenica was a ‘UN safe zone’, yet just like Rwanda, UN peacekeepers deliberately withdrew and allowed the massacre to unfold, then blamed Milosevic. Milosevic’s exposure of UN involvement in the Srebrenica massacre was another reason why tribunal transcripts were heavily edited and censored by NATO, and another contributing factor for NATO to murder him while he was in their custody.NATO’s Hague Tribunal was clearly a kangaroo court whose sole purpose was to convince ordinary people all over the world that NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia was justified. Since NATO failed to show this in its own court (a total absence of evidence did make this difficult), there is indeed a powerful NATO motive to murder Milosevic – to prevent his acquittal. In this way, NATO can continue to claim that Milosevic was guilty, and nobody would begin to look into the mountain of evidence that showed that it was NATO leaders (particularly US president Bill Clinton) who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Yugoslavia.
So many people have been done in by cancer at a convenient time in history that it is now time to ask the question “who is assassinating people by giving their target cancer or inducing a massive heart attack”? Who ordered the hits and why?
Mr. Charles Senseney, a CIA weapon developer at Fort Detrick, Maryland, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in September 1975 where he described an umbrella poison dart gun he had made. He said it was always used in crowds with the umbrella open, firing through the webing so it would not attract attention. Since it was silent, no one in the crowd could hear it and the assassin merely would fold up the umbrella and saunter away with the crowd.
Video footage of the assassination of John F Kennedy shows this umbrella gun being used in Dealey Plaza. Video evidence of the events of November 22, 1963 shows that the first shot fired on the fateful day had always seemed to have had a paralytic effect on Kennedy. His fists were clenched and his head, shoulders and arms seemed to stiffen. An autopsy revealed that there was a small entrance wound in his neck but no evidence of a bullet path through his neck and no bullet was ever recovered that matched that small size.
Charles Senseney testified that his Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick had received assignments from the CIA to develop exotic weaponry. One of the weapons was a hand-held dart gun that could shoot a poison dart into a guard dog to put it out of action for several hours. The dart and the poison left no trace so that examination would not reveal that the dogs had been put out of action. The CIA ordered about 50 of these weapons and used them operationally.
Senseney said that the darts could have been used to kill human beings and he could not rule out the possibility that this had been done by the CIA.A special type of poison developed for the CIA induces a heart attack and leaves no trace of any external influence unless an autopsy is conducted to check for this particular poison. The CIA revealed this poison in various accounts in the early 1970s. The CIA even revealed the weapon that fired those darts that induces a heart attack at a congressional hearing.
The dart from this secret CIA weapon can penetrate clothing and leave nothing but a tiny red dot on the skin. On penetration of the deadly dart, the individual targeted for assassination may feel as if bitten by a mosquito, or they may not feel anything at all. The poisonous dart completely disintegrates upon entering the target. The lethal poison then rapidly enters the bloodstream causing a heart attack. Once the damage is done, the poison denatures quickly, so that an autopsy is very unlikely to detect that the heart attack resulted from anything other than natural causes.
A former CIA agent disclosed that the darts were made of a frozen form of the liquid poison. She disclosed that the dart would melt within the target and would only leave a very tiny red dot at the entry point – the same type of small entrance wound that was found during the autopsy of John F Kennedy.For over 50 years assassinations have been carried out so skillfully as to leave the impression that the victims died from natural causes. Details of some of the techniques used to achieve this were brought to light in 1961 when professional KGB assassin Bogdan Stashinskiy defected to the West and revealed that he had successfully performed two such missions. In 1957 he killed Ukrainian emigré writer Lev Rebet in Munich with a poison vapor gun which left the victim dead of an apparent heart attack. In 1959, the same type of weapon was used on Ukrainian emigré leader Stepan Bandera, although Bandera’s death was never fully accepted as having been from natural causes.
Among the witnesses, important people and conspirators who might have been eliminated by induced heart attack and cancer are: Jack Rudy (died of a stroke due to an undiagnosed form of aggressive cancer, just weeks after he agreed to testify before Congress about the JFK assassination), Clay Shaw, J. Edgar Hoover, Earlene Roberts (Oswald’s land-lady), Marlyn Monroe, Slobodan Milosevic, Kenneth Lay (former CEO of ENRON – the largest political campaign contributor of George W Bush and Dick Cheney), Matt Simmons, Mark Pittman (a reporter who predicted the financial crisis and exposed Federal Reserve misdoings. Pittman fought to open the Federal Reserve to more scrutiny), Elizabeth Edwards (suddenly diagnosed with cancer while her husband was campaigning against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States.
During a campaign speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in May 2007, Edwards called the War on Terrorism a slogan that was created for political reasons and that it wasn’t a plan to make the United States safe. He went further to compare it to a bumper sticker and that it had damaged the US’s alliances and standing in the world.), … enter here the names of every politically outspoken person, whistle blower or witness who died unexpectedly of a heart attack or who quickly died of an incurable cancer.
Relevant article selected from the GR archive, first published on Global Research and Ronda Hauben’s blogsite in September 2013.
Some Background
The story of the Korean War is a story not often told. Yet sixty years after the agreement to end the military hostilities on July 27, 1953, there is not yet a peace treaty to end the war.
This article on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Armistice Agreement is intended as a contribution to the body of research and study needed to find the underlying cause of the bottleneck impeding the negotiation of a peace treaty so a breakthrough can be made.
Korea, which had been one nation for over 1000 years, had been forcibly divided at the end of WWII. By the UN legitimating an election in the South of Korea in May 1948 which was boycotted by many Koreans and from which all North Koreans and many South Koreans were excluded, a formal structural division was created which continues until today. (1) The significant aspect of the UN supported election was that it led to an official government structure for only the southern part of Korea, thus solidifying the division of Korea. The government structure created in the South by the election was a repressive government structure. One view of the military conflict that became known as the Korean War was that it was a civil war that was trying to restore Korea as one country.
The US Government response to the fighting which broke out in June 1950 in Korea was to perpetuate support for the repressive government that the US and UN had put in place as the Republic of Korea (more commonly known as South Korea). This is the context in which the United Nations Security Council resolutions of June and July 1950 authorizing UN participation in the Korean War took place.
The question that led me to begin this study was:
What Was the Role of the UN in the Korean War and What Should be the Role of the UN in Bringing an End to the War?
It is important to take into account that before any action was taken on the part of the UN on June 27, 1950 authorizing intervention in the Korean War, the US had decided and began to send military support to the South Korean side of the conflict. The independent journalist, I.F. Stone in his book, “The Hidden History of the Korean War,” describes this US action as forcing the UN Security Council to support the US Government action in Korea.(2)
Stone writes:
“When Truman ‘ordered the United States air and sea forces to give the Korean Government troops cover and support’ he was in effect imposing military sanctions before they had been authorized by the Security Council. The Council had to vote sanctions or put itself in the position of opposing the action taken by the United States. For governments dependent on American bounty and themselves fearful of Soviet expansion, that was too much to expect, though again Yugoslavia had the courage to vote ‘No,’ an act of principle for which it got no credit from the Soviet bloc while antagonizing the United States to which it owed its Council seat.”
By acting before the Security Council could act, the US was in violation of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter which requires a Security Council action under Chapter VII before there is any armed intervention into the internal affairs of another nation unless the arms are used in self-defense. (See Article 51 of the UN Charter. The US armed intervention in Korea was clearly not an act of self defense for the US.) Also the actions of the UN have come to be referred to as the actions of the “United Nations Command”(UNC), but this designation is not to be found in the June and July 1950 Security Council resolutions authorizing participation in the Korean War. (3) What is the significance of the US using the UN in these ways?
The current US military command in South Korea claims to wear three hats: Command of US troops in South Korea, Combined Forces Command (US and South Korean troops), and “United Nations Command” with responsibilities with respect to the Armistice. The United Nations, however, has no role in the oversight or decision making processes of the “United Nations Command”. The US Government is in control of the “United Nations Command”. The use by the US of the designation “United Nations Command”, however, creates and perpetuates the misconception that the UN is in control of the actions and decisions taken by the US under the “United Nations Command”.
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (more commonly referred to as North Korea) has called for disbanding the “United Nations Command”(UN Command). At a press conference held at the United Nations on June 21, 2013, the North Korean Ambassador to the UN, Ambassador Sin Son Ho argued that the actions of the US Government using the designation “United Nations Command” are not under any form of control by the United Nations. (4) Since the UN has no role in the decision making process of what the US does under the title of the “United Nations Command”, North Korea contends the US should cease its claim that it is acting as the “United Nations Command”.
II-UN Authorized “Unified Command”
Looking at the Security Council resolutions related to Korea that were passed in June and July 1950, it is clear that the content of these resolutions supports North Korea’s argument. During this period the UN Security Council passed four resolutions. They are
SC 82 (V)-S/1501 on June 25 1950
SC 83 (V)-S/1511 on June 27 1950
SC 84 (V)-S/1588 on July 7, 1950
SC 85 (V)-S/1657 July 31, 1950
None of these resolutions refers to a “United Nations Command” or gives the United States permission to call itself the United Nations Command.
The last two of these resolutions refer to a “Unified Command”. SC Resolution 84 of July 7, 1950 is the first Security Council resolution to refer to the creation of a “Unified Command.” The language of the resolution says that the Security Council, “Recommends that all members providing forces and other assistance pursuant to the aforesaid Security Council resolution make such forces and other assistance available to a Unified Command under the United States of America.”
The resolution states that the Security Council requests the United States to designate the commander of such forces, and it authorizes the “Unified Command” at its discretion to use the United Nations flag “concurrently with the flags of the various nations participating.”
SC Resolution 84 also made the request that “the United States…provide the Security Council with reports as appropriate on the course of action taken under the Unified Command.”
In subsequent action by the Security Council during this period, the members of the Security Council, were careful to refer to the US command of the Korean War forces related to the United Nations as the “Unified Command.”
Therefore, when reviewing the action by the US to designate itself as the “United Nations Command,” the question is raised as to how, why and by whom the designation ”United Nations Command” was substituted for the Security Council designation of a “Unified Command”.
SC Resolution 84 was passed on July 7 using the designation “Unified Command”. The following day, on July 8, the US President Harry Truman appointed General Douglas MacArthur to head this Command. A Memo referring to this appointment, states that with this appointment, General MacArthur was designated as the Commander of the “Unified Command”.(5)
In the period immediately following the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 84, US Ambassador Warren Austin refers to the US government command as the “Unified Command”.
For example, “A Letter to the UN Secretary General from Warren Austin, US Ambassador to the UN”, on July 12, says:
“(…)I have the honor to inform you that the President of the United States, in response to the Security Council resolution of 7 July 1950, has on 8 July designated General Douglas MacArthur as the Commanding General of the military forces which the Members of the United Nations place under the Unified Command of the United States pursuant to the United Nations effort to assist the Republic of Korea.”
Similarly the “Unified Command” was the designation used in a letter dated 24 July 1950 transmitting the first Report from General MacArthur to the Security Council. The Report is titled, “First Report to the Security Council by the United States Government on the course of action taken under the Unified Command (USG)”.
III-US Substitutes “United Nations Command” as Camouflage
It appears that it was in a US Government communique dated July 25 that the designation “UN Command” was first officially used in a US Government communication to the UN. This document was titled, “Communique Number 135 of the Far East Command S/1629 25 July 1950”. It states:
“The United Nations Command with Headquarters in Tokyo was officially established today with General Douglas MacArthur as Commander-in-Chief. The announcement was made in General Order No. 1, General Headquarters, United Nations Command. The order reads:”
“1. In response to the resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations of July 7, 1950, the President of the United States has designated the undersigned Commander-in-Chief of the Military Forces this date the United Nations Command. Pursuant thereto, there is established this date the United Nations Command, with General Headquarters in Tokyo, Japan.”
According to this communiqué dated July 25, 1950, it is the President of the United States not the United Nations that was responsible for creating the designation “United Nations Command”, as a replacement for the UN authorized “Unified Command.” The communiqué alleges that this was done to fulfill the obligations of SC Resolution 84 of July 7. It is evident, however, from reading the resolution of July 7 that there is no reference in that resolution to a “United Nations Command”.
Why did the US government substitute the designation “United Nations Command” for the Security Council designation “Unified Command” after initially referring to the designation of “Unified Command”, language which was actually provided for in the Security Council resolution of July 7?
There are accounts that are helpful in understanding what was going on behind the scenes at the time that can give clues to solve this puzzle. One such account is provided by an article by James W Houck titled, “The Command and Control of United Nation Forces In the Era of Peace Enforcement.”(6) At the time he wrote this article in the early 1990s, Houck was Force Judge Advocate for the Commander of the US Naval Forces Central Command in Bahrain.
Houck writes that UN Secretary General Trygve Lie and some of the countries on the Security Council, namely the UK, France and Norway were in favor of creating a structure to provide for a United Nations role in the Korean operations.
Houck describes how, “During the negotiations preceding authorization of the unified command, Secretary General Trygve Lie had proposed a ‘committee as coordination of assistance for Korea’ consisting of troop contributing states and the Republic of Korea.” (7)
While the explicit purpose of the committee, Secretary General Lie explained, was, “to stimulate and coordinate offers of assistance, its deeper purpose was to keep the United Nations ‘in the picture’,” as Lie himself writes in his recollections of his seven year term as UN Secretary General. He explains that his purpose was, “to promote continuing United Nations participation in and supervision of the military security action in Korea of a more intimate and undistracted character than the Security Council could be expected to provide.”(8)
The US, however, was opposed to the idea of such a supervisory committee and had the power to turn it down. This effectively left the US in control of the decisions regarding what was to be done in the UN authorized operations of the Korean War.
“From the start of the Korean conflict,” Houck explains, “the United States exercised both political control and strategic direction over the operation.”(9) Though the Security Council authorized the US intervention in the Korean War, the Security Council failed to fulfill its obligation under the UN Charter to act as the political authority for military actions taken under the authority of the UN Security Council.(10) Implicit in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter is that it is the Security Council that can exercise force not that it can cede its authority to others.
Instead of the United Nations fulfilling its charter obligations, however, as Houck documents, “The United Nations, did not interfere at all in the purely military aspects of the operation and even in political matters it confined itself to making recommendations.”.
Corroborating Houck’s account, a military historian, James Schnabel in his account of the first year of the Korean War, describes why the US government was opposed to the Committee favored by Trygve Lie and several Security Council members. Schnabel explains that the response of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was to oppose such a project. They were hostile to the potential of such a committee to try to control military operations.
“The Joint Chiefs of Staff,” Schnabel writes, “wanted a command arrangement in which the United States, as executive agent for the United Nations, would direct the Korean operation, with no positive contact between the field commander and the United Nations.”(11)
Though the US Government had turned down the political oversight committee proposed by the Secretary General, there was, according to Schnabel, a recognition that the unilateral political and military control the US Government exercised over the “Unified Command” was problematic. The Chiefs of Staff directed MacArthur “to avoid any appearance of unilateral American action in Korea.”
As Schnabel writes,”For worldwide political reasons,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff, directed that, “it is important to emphasize repeatedly the fact our operations are in support of the United Nations Security Council.”
According to Schnabel, “this led General MacArthur to identify himself whenever practicable as Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command (CINCUNC), and whenever justified, would emphasize in his communiqués the activities of forces of other member nations.”
Noting that the State Department proposed to the Secretary of Defense that reports be sent to the Security Council each week, Schnabel writes, “These would keep world attention on the fact that the United States was fighting in Korea for the United Nations, not itself.”But these reports were not required and were not a mechanism for UN supervision over the US activities or decision making processes.
Decisions on the operations of MacArthur’s command were made by the US Government, writes Schnabel. The United Nations at no time in the Korean War sought to interfere in the control of operations which were the responsibility of the United States. As MacArthur later testified to a Senate investigating committee, “ …my connections with the United Nations was largely nominal…everything I did came from our own Chiefs of Staff….The controls over me were exactly the same as though the forces under me were all Americans. All of my communications were to the American high command here.” (12)
IV-“United Nations Command” as Achilles Heel
UN Secretary General Trygve Lie, however, points out that the insistence on unilateral control of the conduct of the War waged in Korea by the US had its Achilles heel. Lie wrote, “As the Korean War developed, Washington complained, and had reason to complain, that the United States was carrying too much of a burden; but its unwillingness, in those early days, when the pattern of the police action was being set, to accord the United Nations a larger measure of direction and thereby participation no doubt contributed to the tendency of the Members to let Washington assume most of the responsibility for the fighting.”(13)
So an interesting anomaly emerges. The UN resolution authorizing military action in Korea spoke about a “Unified Command” and the original resolution the UN Secretary General proposed included a mechanism for the UN to supervise the military action. This control was rejected by the US government, and it appears, the UN never pressed to exert its supervision over the conduct of the Korean War. This control was thus ceded to the US government.
While the US government had total control over the Korean campaign it was waging, it appears that it also needed a means to camouflage the unilateral nature of this operation. The designation “United Nations Command”, which the US government assigned to its operation, replaced the designation of the “Unified Command” described in Security Council Resolution 84. This change of name provided the camouflage to hide the unilateral nature of the US command and control and of its conduct of the war against North Korea.
The US Government needed the appearance that its unilateral actions were on behalf of and under the United Nations. This was provided by changing the designation of the Command from the “Unified Command” to the “United Nations Command”. The change of name helped to create the needed misleading appearance. Similarly, the reports that the US Government voluntarily submitted to the UN Security Council were titled, “Reports of the United Nations Command”. This made it appear that the US was conducting the war on behalf of the UN and under its supervision.
This misleading designation continues to exist today over 60 years after it was created, thereby continuing to give the world the false impression that the campaign waged by the US in Korea was and continues to be a United Nations operation and that even today the UN has a presence on the Korean Peninsula
While the UN did not participate in the decision making process of the military campaign carried out in its name, it played a role then and continues to play a role by allowing the US Government to appropriate the United Nations name as a camouflage cover for the actions of the US Government What is the UN responsibility in such a matter for what was done, and for what continues to be done in its name? That is the essence of the question raised by North Korea’s call that the “United Nations Command” be dissolved.
V-Conclusion
The research represented in this paper presents a curious, but significant irony. The UN authorized Member States to intervene in the Korean War, to form the “Unified Command”, to use the UN flag along with the flags of the member states participating in the “Unified Command”, and it authorized the US to appoint a Commander in Chief for the “Unified Command”.
According to the obligation required under the UN Charter, and to the original efforts of Trygve Lie, with support from three Security Council members, namely, the UK, France, and Norway, there was an effort to set up a political entity that would oversee the Korean War operation for the Security Council.
The US, however, rejected the proposal and succeeded in controlling the political and the strategic direction for the Korean War. After rejecting the UN proposal for UN supervision over US actions and decisions, the US put itself forward as the “United Nations Command”. thus assuming the cloak of the United Nations, by referring to itself as the United Nations. This mechanism served as a means to misrepresent the US Government’s unilateral actions and decision making processes in the Korean War.
Recently several UN Secretary Generals, including Secretary General Boutros Boutros Gali, Secretary General Kofi Annan, and Secretary General Ban Ki-moon have acknowledged that the US was in charge of the Command structure of the Korean War activity taken under the authority of the “Unified Command”, and that the United Nations had no role in overseeing the actions undertaken in the name of the UN. The statement is made that the UN “never had any role in the command of any armed forces deployed in the Korean peninsula”.
The difficulty raised by such a claim, however, is that it evades the salient fact that the Security Council authorized the US to assume this role in violation of the obligations implicit in the UN Charter that the UN exercise supervision over the political, and strategic decision making processes of an action approved under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
Therefore, there is some truth to the statements of Boutros Boutros Ghali, Kofi Annan, and Ban Ki-moon that the UN had no role in the command of the military activity carried out under its name in Korea. Specifically as the Spokesperson for Ban Ki-moon stated recently,“The UN did not at any time have any role in the command of the forces that operated in Korea in 1950-1953.”(14)
But what this leaves out is that the UN authorized the US to designate the Commander of the “Unified Command”. Then, however, under pressure from the US, the UN failed to exercise its obligation to supervise the actions of the “Unified Command”.
Subsequently, the UN continues to evade fulfilling its obligations by continuing to allow the US to claim that it is the “United Nations Command” in Korea and in failing to provide its political supervision over what the US has done and continues to do in Korea in the name of the UN.
The DPRK proposal is that the US cease to call itself the “United Nations Command”. It is important to include a recognition of how the US Government activity represents a continuing violation of the UN Charter.
Recently, in response to a question, the Spokesperson for Ban Ki moon said that the issues of the Korean Armistice are issues that do not concern the United Nations as the United Nations is not a party to the Armistice.(15) Why then has the United Nations allowed the US to continue to use the designation, “United Nations Command” to misrepresent itself as acting under the control of the UN in the Armistice?
Unless the UN takes responsibility for allowing the US to claim the authority of the United Nations in its continuing actions as part of the Armistice, the UN is continuing to allow actions in violation of the UN Charter. If there is a “United Nations Command” that is part of the Korean Armistice Agreement, such a command must be under the political and strategic direction of the UN Security Council. Otherwise the authority of the UN Charter is being treated as a charade to justify US Government unilateral activity under the camouflage of the UN name. It is as if the UN is but a set of words to hide the illegal acts of one of the Great Powers.
VI- Epilogue
There is another significant aspect of the conduct of the US government with respect to its initiating and intervening into the Korean War. This has to do with the role played by the US Government in bypassing not only the requirements of the UN Charter, but also the requirement of the US Constitution.
The UN Charter specifies that all military action taken to intervene in another country requires a resolution of the Security Council under Chapter 7. Yet the US government made the decision and began to act on that decision to intervene in the Korean conflict before there was any such action by the UN Security Council. This represented a violation by the US Government of the UN Charter. (16)
Similarly, the US Executive Branch violated the provision of the US Constitution requiring that no decision to go to war can be made without a Congressional Declaration of War. There was no such declaration with respect to the US Government waging war on the Korean peninsula.
There is a provision in the UN Charter, Article 43(3) which states that member states participating in military actions under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter are obliged to have such actions “subject to the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes,”
In his article “The Korean War: On what Legal Basis Did Truman Act?” Louis Fisher who is a specialist in Constitutional Law, points to the constitutional violation represented by Truman’s sending US troops to the Korean War.
Truman used as an illegitimate excuse that the act had been authorized by the UN Security Council. Fisher’s article describes the extensive debate in the US Congress before joining the UN to consider if it was appropriate for the US government to claim that a Security Council resolution justified bypassing US Constitutional obligations.
In his appearance before the House Committee on Foreign Relations then Under Secretary of State Dean Acheson explained that “only after the President receives the approval of Congress is he ‘bound to furnish that contingent of troops to the Security Council’.” (17)
Not only did Truman commit troops and aid to South Korea before the Security Council called it a military action, but more importantly, no action of the Security Council authorizes the US government to violate the US Constitution. For the US government to wage war, the US Constitution requires that the US Congress make the decision that authorizes that war.
Though other artifices were employed to evade US Constitutional obligation, such as calling the Korean War a “police action”, US Courts rejected such subterfuges. (18)
Responding to these subterfuges, Vito Marcantonio, the American Congressman from NY for the American Labor Party said, “When we agreed to the United Nations Charter we never agreed to supplant our Constitution with the United Nations Charter. The power to declare and make war is vested in the representations of the people, in the Congress of the United States. (19)
Commenting on this same situation, Justice Felix Frankfurter argued, “Illegality cannot attain legitimacy through practice. Presidential acts of war, including Truman’s initiative in Korea can never be accepted as constitutional or as a legal substitute for Congressional approval.” (20)
Notes
(1)See for example: Jay Hauben, “Is the UN Role in Korea 1947-1953 the Model Being Repeated Today”
(2) IF Stone, “The Hidden History of the Korean War,” New York, 1952, p. 75.
By August 1 1950 the Soviet Union had returned to the Security Council ending its 6 month boycott and so there were no further UN resolutions authorized by the Security Council supporting UN participation in the Korean War.
(3)See for example: Ronda Hauben, “US Misrepresents its Role in Korean War and in Armistice Agreement as UN Command”, taz blogs, June 26, 2013
See Memo, JCS for Secy. Defense, 9 Jul. 50, sub: Designation of a United Nations Unified Comdr. By the United States.
(6) James W. Houck, “The Command and Control of United Nations Forces in the Era of ‘Peace Enforcement’,” Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, vol 4, No 1, 1993.
(7) see Houck, p. 13 f/n 51.
(8) Trygve Lie, “In the Cause of Peace”, New York, p. 334
(9)Houck, p. 12.
“None of the resolutions (referring to the June and July SC resolutions-ed),” writes Houck, provided for Security Council control over the ensuing operation despite the fact that it would be conducted under Security Council authorization.”
(10)See Articles 42, 44, 46 and 48 of the UN Charter. These articles authorize the Security Council to use force. There is no article in Chapter 7 of the UN Charter which authorizes the Security Council to cede political decision making to a member state to carry out a Chapter 7 action.
(11) Schnabel, p. 103, Rad, WAR 85743, DA to CINCFE, 12 Jul 50
(12)Schnabel, p. 104, f/n 10. See MacArthur Hearings, p. 10.
(13)Lie, p.334.
(14) Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, June 21, 2013.
Relevant to recent developments pertaining to the US-Israel alliance is this article first published on GR in May 2014.
Weir’s fascinating history focuses on how the State of Israel came into existence through a cynical using of the United States and how it was defended from American critics who saw the support for Israel as violating US principles and damaging US interests.
The significance of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the British “gentleman’s agreement” between the British government and Lord Rothschild that pledged British support for a Jewish homeland, has not been understood by many for the quid pro quo that it represented. The agreement, which occurred when it appeared that Germany was winning WW I, was that Zionists would work to get the United States involved in the war if Britain would deliver Palestine as a Jewish homeland. The reason for the American involvement in the war and the American contribution to the arrangement have not been widely understood: the Balfour Declaration (as well as the later British Mandate) were drafted in both Britain and the US, including by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
Germany had no inkling of this deal until the post-war 1919 Paris Peace Conference, which Zionists attended to ensure that Britain would come through with its part of the agreement.
Even before Britain washed its hands of Palestine, Zionists recognized that they needed the support of the United States for Israel to survive and thrive, so the U.S. became the focus of propaganda and political pressure. Harry Truman, the US President who recognized the State of Israel immediately after it declared itself a state, had received a then-staggering $2 million from a Zionist donor during what had appeared to be a losing presidential campaign. State Department leaders were against supporting Israel because it damaged U.S. relations with Arab countries and, more importantly, violated important American principles of self-determination and justice. Elected leaders, vulnerable to political pressure and access to campaign funding, were not able to maintain such America-first integrity.
Weir documented various little-known Zionist efforts to support the creation of their state. The activities — basically bribes, lies, subterfuge, threats and violence– included:
Zionist leaders’ “mixed reaction” to Nazism, with some seeing that the convergent goals would benefit a Jewish state that required a Jewish population;
Secret American Zionist clubs (including the elite Parushim with Felix Frankfurter) which pledged to work for Israel behind the scenes;
Creating the myth that a refuge was needed for Jews (including falsifying anti-Semitism in Germany and Poland and, more importantly, sabotaging western countries’ efforts to open their doors to Jewish refugees after WW II in order to ensure that Jews had few choices of refuge outside of Israel); and
Zionists’ role in the creation of Christian Zionism and the Scofield Reference Bible.
Weir ends her short history of Israel’s creation by documenting some key examples of how Israel-firsters were able to destroy the careers — if not the lives — of prominent Americans in government, journalism and academia who warned of the loss of American credibility in supporting a state that was based on religious discrimination.
Weir keeps her book focused on the early history of Israel, ignoring highly significant later events, particularly those concerning Senator William Fulbright: his uncovering of Jewish charity fraud that recycled charitable donations into US propaganda, his attempts, with JFK, to force the main Zionist organization to register as an agent of a foreign government and the loss of Fulbright’s Senate seat to the then-unheard of Dale Bumpers.
The main messages from Weir’s history are that the Jewish community has not legitimately needed a homeland- refuge from anti-Semitism and that Americans must take back their country by insisting that their elected officials place the interests of the United States before those of Israel.
O discurso do presidente russo Putin sobre o estado da nação, dedicado a questões internas e internacionais, suscitou na Itália escasso interesse político-midiático e algum comentário irônico. No entanto, deveria ser escutado com extrema atenção.
Evitando rodeios diplomáticos de palavras, Putin põe as cartas na mesa. Denuncia que nos últimos 15 anos os Estados Unidos alimentaram a corrida aos armamentos nucleares, buscando conquistar uma clara vantagem estratégica sobre a Rússia. Isto é confirmado pela própria Federação de Cientistas Americanos: por meio de tecnologias revolucionárias, os EUA triplicaram a capacidade destrutiva dos seus mísseis balísticos de ataque nuclear.
Ao mesmo tempo – sublinha Putin – os EUA, saindo do Tratado Antimísseis Balísticos (ABM, na sigla em inglês) implantaram um sistema global de “defesa de mísseis” para neutralizar a capacidade russa de responder a um primeiro ataque nuclear.
Sobre o rastro da expansão da Otan para o Leste, os EUA instalaram sítios de mísseis na Romênia e na Polônia, enquanto outros sistemas de lançamento (de mísseis não só interceptores mas também de ataque nuclear) encontram-se sobre 18 navios de guerra deslocados para áreas vizinhas ao território russo.
Por diversas vezes a Rússia advertiu os Estados Unidos e os países europeus membros da Otan que, em resposta a tal posicionamento, adotaria contramedidas. “Nionguém, porém, escutava”, adverte Putin.
Passa então à linguagem da força, a única evidentemente que compreendem em Washington. Depois de recordar que após a queda da URSS a Rússia havia perdido 44,6% do seu potencial militar e que os EUA e seus aliados estavam convictos de que esta não poderia mais reconstruir-se, Putin mostra em dois telões os novos tipos de armas estratégicas desenvolvidas pela Rússia.
Um míssil de cruzeiro lançado do ar, com ogivas nucleares, com raio de ação praticamente ilimitado sendo alimentado com energia nuclear, uma rota imprevisível e capacidade de penetrar através de qualquer defesa antimísseis. Os mísseis Kinzhal e Avangard com velocidade hipersônica (mais de dez vezes a do som).
O míssil balístico intercontinental Sarmat de 200 toneladas sobre plataformas móveis, com raio de 18 mil quilômetros, armado com mais de 10 ogivas nucleares que manobram a velocidade hipersônica para escapar dos mísseis interceptores.
Um drone submarino mais veloz do que um torpedo que, alimentado com energia nuclear, percorre distâncias intercontinentais com grande profundidade golpeando portos e fortificações costeiras com uma ogiva nuclear de grande potência.
Putin revela as características de tais armas porque sabe que os Estados Unidos estão desenvolvendo armas análogas e quer advertir que a Rússia agora está em seu nível ou até mesmo num nível superior.
Isto confirma que a corrida aos armamentos nucleares ocorre não em torno da quantidade, mas cada vez mais da qualidade das armas, nomeadamente do tipo de vetores e da capacidade ofensiva das ogivas nucleares.
Confirma ao mesmo tempo o crescente perigo que corremos ao termos em nosso solo armas nucleares e instalações estratégicas dos EUA, como o MUOS (Sistema Objetivo do Usuário Móvel, sigla em inglês) e o JTAGS (Estação Tática Conjunta de Solo, sigla em inglês) na Sicília.
O ministro russo do exterior Lavrov denuncia que “países europeus não nucleares membros da Otan, violando o Tratado de Não Proliferação, são treinados pelos EUA para o emprego de armas nucleares táticas contra a Rússia”.
A advertência é clara, também para a Itália. Mas nenhum dos principais partidos levou em consideração, cancelando da campanha eleitoral, com uma espécie de acordo tácito, qualquer referência à Otan e às armas nucleares. Como se isto não tivesse nada a ver com o nosso futuro e a nossa própria vida.
Le Vif magazine said these funds were controlled by the inner circle of ousted and killed Muammar Gaddafi.
Over 16 billion euros were located in four accounts opened for the Libyan Investment Authority and Libyan Foreign Investment Company.
Belgium discovered the disappearance of a significant part of these funds in the fall of 2017, when an investigation into money laundering sought to seize the 16 billion euros.
“It turned out that on the four accounts just over 5 billion euros remained.” Le Vif added.
According to the Belgian Ministry of Finance, Belgium did not take any decision to unfreeze these assets.
The investigation into billions of Gaddafi assets held in Belgium discovered big, regular outflows of stock dividends, bond income, and interest payments, the paper suggests.
Legal documents, bank statements, emails and dozens of interviews point to a loophole in the sanctions regime, reported by Sputnik citing Le Vif.
In a written appeal, the religious systematically take apart the version of the conflict touted by governments, NGOs and international news organizations. In Ghouta east, jihadists attack the capital and use civilians as human shields. The Syrian government and people have a duty to defend themselves from external attacks. The conflict alone has undermined the coexistence between Christians and Muslims in the country.
“We, the people who live in Syria, we are really exhausted and exasperated by this global indignation that issues blanket condemnations of people who defend their lives and their land”. Because the victims of a bloody war now in its seventh year, are not only hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, but also the truth and information too often enslaved by the interests of foreign governments and powers. These are the harsh words contained in a written appeal issued by the Syrian Trappist sisters, who have first-hand experience of the tragedy of the conflict.
In recent weeks, international bodies, Western chancelleries and large news networks have launched a frontal attack on the Damascus government and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, accusing them of deliberately targeting civilians trapped in Ghouta East, a rebel enclave in the suburbs of the capital. However, the religious say, it is from that area “that the attacks against the civilians who live in the part controlled by the government began, and not vice versa”. Moreover, those in the area “who did not support the jihadists, were put in iron cages: men, women, hung outdoors and used as human shields”.
The religious do not spare the neighbouring countries that have favoured the entry of “mercenaries” to fuel the conflict and the governments in the West who have trafficked with the jihadists to get oil below cost. “Today to tell Syria, the Syrian government, not to defend its nation – the nuns emphasize – is against all justice”. And those who speak of “the Churches’ partisan reverence of ” Assad, they conclude, “reveal that they do not know Syria, because Christians and Muslims live together in this land. This war alone is to blame for wounding this cohabitation in many parts of the country”.
Below, we publish the testimony of the Trappist sisters sent to AsiaNews.
When will they silence their weapons? And when will they silence so much partisan journalism? We, the people who actually live in Syria, we are really exhausted, nauseated by this global indignation that issues blanket condemnations of those who defend their lives and their land.
We have gone to Damascus several times in these months; we went after the rebel bombs had massacred a school, we were there a few days ago, the day after they had dropped 90 others from the Goutha, on the governmental part of the city. We have heard the stories of the children, the fear of leaving home and going to school, the terror of having to see their classmates still being ripped apart mid-air, or they themselves being ripped apart … children who cannot sleep at night, for fear that a missile will crash through their roof. Fear, tears, blood, death. Are not these children worthy of our attention too?
Why did the public not bat an eyelid, why was no one indignant, why were no humanitarian or other appeals launched for these innocent people? And why only when the Syrian government intervenes, arousing the gratitude of Syrian citizens because at last they feel defended from so much horror (which we have seen with our own eyes and of which we hear), are we indignant about the ferocity of the war?
Of course, even when the Syrian army bombs there are women, children, civilians, wounded or dead. And we pray for them too. Not only the civilians: we also pray for the jihadists, because every man who chooses evil is a lost child, is a mystery hidden in the heart of God. And it is to God that we must leave judgment, He who does not want the death of the sinner, but that the sinner be converted and live.
But this does not mean that you do not call things by their name. And you can not confuse those who attack with those who defend themselves.
The attacks on civilians in Damascus, began from the Goutha area into the government-controlled part, and not vice versa. The same Goutha where – must we really remind people? – civilians who did not support the jihadists were put in iron cages: men, women, exposed outdoors and used as human shields. Goutha: the district where today the civilians who want to escape, and take refuge in the government-area, who dare to take advantage of the truce granted, are targeted by rebel snipers …
Why this blindness on the part of the West? How is it possible for those who inform the public, even in the ecclesial context, to be so one-sided?
War is bad, oh yes, yes it is so bad! You do not need to tell the Syrian people this, a people who have seen the war rob them of their home for seven years now … But we cannot be scandalized by the brutality of the war and keep quiet about who the wanted war and still wants war today, or keep quiet about the governments that have poured their powerful weapons, their military intelligence into Syria in recent years… not to mention the mercenaries deliberately allowed to enter Syria passing through neighbouring countries (many who went on to join Isis, the West should at least recognise these initials and what they mean).
We cannot keep quiet about the governments that have earned and gained from this war. Just look at what has happened to the most important Syrian oil wells. But this is just a mere detail, there is [something] much more important at stake here.
War is bad. But we have not yet reached the goal, where the wolf and the lamb will dwell together, and for those who believe, we must remember that the Church does not condemn legitimate defence; and even if she certainly does not wish for a recourse to arms and war, faith does not condemn those who defend their country, their family, not even their lives. You can choose non-violence, until you die. But it is a personal choice, which can only be brought to bear on the life of those who choose it, we cannot certainly ask a whole nation, an entire people for this.
No one, man or woman, who has a minimum of true humanity can wish for war. But today to say to Syria, to the Syrian government, not to defend its nation is against all justice: too often it is the only a way to facilitate the task of those who want to plunder the country, massacre its people, as happened in these long years in which truces have been used above all to re-arm the rebels, and the humanitarian corridors to allow new weapons and new mercenaries to enter … and how can we forget what atrocities have happened in these years in the areas controlled by the jihadists? violence, summary executions, rapes … the stories we have heard from those who finally managed to escape?
Recently an article was brought to our attention: so many words spent on a single thesis, namely that all the Churches of the East are mere servants of power … for convenience … Some beautiful sentences to that effect, such as reverence bishops and Christians to the Syrian Satrap … a way to delegitimize any appeal by the Syrian Church that reveals the other side of the coin, the one the mass media ignores.
Beyond any useless defence and polemics, let’s make a simple reasoning, starting with a consideration. And that is that Christ – who knows well the heart of man, that is, knows that good and evil cohabit in each of us, wants his to be leaven in the dough, that is the presence that little by little, from the inside, makes a situation grow and orients it towards truth and goodness. It supports where support is needed, it changes where change is needed. With courage, without duplicity, but from within. Jesus did not support the sons of thunder, who invoked a fire of punishment.
Of course Syrian politics suffers from corruption (as in all the countries of the world) and there is sin in the Church (as in all the churches, as the Pope has so often complained)
But, appealing to the common sense of all, even non-believers: what is the real alternative that the West invokes for Syria? The Islamic State, Sharia? This in the name of freedom and democracy of the Syrian people? Don’t make us laugh, actually, don’t make us cry.
But if you think that in any case it is never legitimate to compromise, then for consistency we remind you, just to give one small example, that you would not have gas “without compromising with the strong powers”, given that most companies have bought cheap oil from ISIS, across the bridge of Turkey: so when you drive a few kilometers, you do it thanks to the death of someone from whom this oil was stolen, consuming the diesel oil that was supposed to heat the house of some child in Syria..
If you really want to bring democracy to the world, make sure of your freedom from the satrapies of the West, and worry about your consistency, before intervening in that of others.
Last but not least, one should at least suspect the fact that if a Christian or a Muslim denounces the atrocities of jihadist groups it meets with a media silence, he finds only a rare echo in marginal agencies, while those who criticize the Syrian government gain the front pages of the big media. Does anyone remember an interview or an intervention by a Syrian bishop on some important newspaper in the West? One can disagree, obviously, but true information supposes different points of view.
Moreover, those who speak of an interested reverence of the Syrian Church towards President Assad as a defense of the short-sighted interests of Christians, proves that they do not know Syria, because in this land Christians and Muslims live together. It was only this war that hurt cohabitation in many parts, but in areas secured by the army (unlike those controlled by “others”), we still live together. With deep wounds to be tended, today unfortunately also with great difficulty to forgive, but still together. And good is good for everyone: I am witness to the many works of charity, relief, development run by Christians and Muslims together.
Of course, those who live here know this, even in the midst of so many contradictions, not those who write from behind a desk with many stereotypes of opposition between Christians and Muslims.
“Deliver us Lord from the war … and deliver us from bad journalism …”.
With all due respect to journalists who really try to understand situations, and really inform us. But they will certainly not take us to task for what we write.
*
Featured image is from AsiaNews.
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.
In Chile, as in 0ther Latin American countries, there are numerous racists. It is equally fair to say that, like all countries with a similar history, the fraction of those who are appalled by the persistence of slavery in their lifetimes well exceeds the proportion of racists. And when well-meaning people, who seek to expose what they perceive to be human trafficking, are accused of racism by those who do not understand a situation or want to sow confusion, this is a grave injustice.
Haiti has been at the forefront of Chilean news since mid-February, when a video of the nighttime disembarkation of about 140 Haitians, published by Santiago’s RD Herald and disseminated by various other sources, went viral. The video was shot and narrated by an airport employee even as he received messages on his work radio, which were audible. What caught the imagination of many Chileans was not the number of Haitians or their skin color, about which much has been made since, but the details of this curious airport arrival, which many Chileans have interpreted as a case of human trafficking.
In this video, a large group of Haitians descend single file from a Boeing 737 at Comodoro Arturo Merino Benitez International Airport, also called Santiago International Airport, and are led to four waiting buses as the narrator observes,
“This plane just arrived at 21:00 full of Haitian immigrants. They are all stepping down, many with the typical yellow envelope…. It is a charter aircraft. It only carries a license plate, no logo that says which airline it belongs to….”
He explains that the Haitians being put on the buses are about to be transported to places where they will be “subjected to heavy work at very low cost. There are between 135 and 145 Haitian passengers doing this; this is every day, all days.”
However one might spin the video evidence, some facts cannot be denied. First, every Haitian who stepped off of the airplane did indeed have in hand a yellow envelope: “sobre amarillo,” as this scandal is called, identical to those of his neighbors, front and back. Secondly, the volume of Haitian migration to Chile has been astounding. According to Chile’s Investigative Police (Policía de Investigaciones, PDI), between 2016 and 2017 the number of arriving Haitians climbed from 47,027 to 111,746: a 138 percent increase in one year! This hemorrhage from Haiti is all the more remarkable when one considers that the country’s population is only about 10 million and about 80 percent of the travelers are young men between 18 and 30 years old. Finally, such flights are quite frequent. Three carriers regularly deliver Haitians to Santiago: Latin American Wings (LAW), ONE, and COPA. The plane shown in the video was from LAW.
According to official documents, LAW carried 14,000 Haitians to Chile in the 10 months from January to October 2016 alone! It transported another 55,000 Haitians to Chile in 2017 from Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It had already brought four loads of Haitians to Santiago in 2018. A former executive of the company confided to journalist Gonzalo Cifuentes of BioBioChile that the airline, which was founded in 2016, had decided that its “business was no longer vacation, but ethnic.” Since the Haitian passengers were required to buy round-trip tickets to justify their status as tourists, the LAW flights made a profit of about $40,000 each, despite leaving Santiago on every return trip essentially empty.
Attempts to rationalize the unmarked planes and yellow envelopes have painted an unintended picture of a human trafficking business on an unprecedented massive scale. Possibly the best explanation has come from Fre Foundation Executive Director, Jose Maria del Pino, who told journalist Consuelo Ferrer Duran of Emol that a series of “travel agencies” have sprouted that specialize in migration.
“What comes in the yellow envelope is all the documentation for the trip, plus the cash that is required of any tourist entering the country” who lacks a bank account or credit card, del Pino explained.
The planes are unmarked because the agencies hire charter flights. The passengers buy an air package for which payment plus interest are due as remittances after they arrive in Chile. Enforcers in Chile and Haiti make sure the payments get made.
“We have information on migrants who have told us directly that their families are being threatened in Port-au-Prince. In exchange for this, they have to pay remittances and the money they have been given to remove the threat that weighs on their families,” del Pino added.
The notoriety of the sobre amarillo affair has forced officers at Santiago International airport to check more closely the documents from supposed Haitian tourists on flights from LAW, ONE, and COPA airlines. LAW flights were suspended for 15 days, starting Tuesday, March 6, 2018; three days later, the airline shut down its operations. According to an article in La Tercera,on Friday, March 2, out of a total of about 230 passengers, entry was denied to 90 passengers from ONE, 62 from LAW, and 17 from COPA, after they were found to carry invalid reservations to the same hotel.
The unfortunate migrants were kept in one room from early Friday morning until Tuesday afternoon, March 2-6, without food or a bath, after which they were put on return flights to Port-au-Prince. While it is true that those Haitians were treated more poorly than animals during their 90 hours in the airport terminal room, one must also consider that they were probably spared a worse fate with their traffickers for much longer. Since they had no hotel reservations, where would they have stayed? How would they have been forced to support themselves? What will happen to them and their families in Haiti when they cannot pay their traffickers?
People of Haitian ancestry, and all those who want to punish the sordid practice of human trafficking, would do well to make common cause with the Chileans who are clamoring for an investigation into sobre amarillo. Haitian and Dominican human traffickers have previously been exposed and imprisoned in Chile, but instead of slowing down, the traffic of Haitians has been expanded and formalized. The sobre amarillo affair probably involves highly placed Haitians who want to increase the intake of government remittances as they discard their potentially troublesome population of educated and unemployed young men. An investigation into sobre amarillo might also expose Chilean business owners who order and exploit the cheap Haitian labor, as well as Chilean officials who, for years, have ignored the incongruities in this massive influx of supposed Haitian tourists. These employers and officials are probably racist, but that is a distraction and not the point.
Haitian brothers and sisters: quit jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. As dire as conditions might be in Haiti, it is vastly worse to be enslaved by human traffickers in a country where one does not fluently speak the language and has no citizenship rights or family members. There is no El Dorado. There is nowhere better to go. The time has come to fight in place for your birthright.
In a shocking display of relative independence from the post-Operation Mockingbird control of the media by the Central Intelligence Agency, a recent article in The New York Times broke with current conventional pack journalism and covered the long history of CIA meddling in foreign elections.
A February 17, 2018, article, titled, “Russia Isn’t the Only One Meddling in Elections. We Do It, Too,” authored by Scott Shane – who covered the perestroika and glasnost for The Baltimore Sun in Moscow from 1988 to 1991 during the final few years of the Soviet Union – reported the US has interfered in foreign elections for decades. However, a couple of old US intelligence hands were quoted in the article as saying the US meddling was for altruistic purposes. The CIA veterans charged that Russia interferes in foreign elections for purely malevolent purposes. The belief that American interference in global elections was to promote liberal democracy could not be further from the truth.
The CIA never meddled in foreign elections for purposes of extending democratic traditions to other nations. The chief purpose was to disenfranchise leftist and progressive voters and political parties, ensure the veneer of “democracy” in totalitarian countries, and protect the interests of the US military bases and US multinational corporations.
In double-talk that is reminiscent of the Cold War years, the CIA considers its election interference to fall under the category of “influence operations,” while the same agency accuses Russia of “election meddling.” In truth, there is no difference between the two categories. Election interference represents intelligence service “tradecraft” and it has been practiced by many intelligence agencies, including those of Israel, France, Britain, China, India, and others.
On the rare occasions when the CIA’s efforts to rig an election failed – as they did in Guatemala in 1950 and Chile in 1970 – the agency simply organized bloody military coups to replace with military juntas the democratically-elected presidents who defeated CIA-supported candidates at the polls.
In 1954, the CIA’s Operation PBSUCCESS overthrew the Guatemalan government of President Jacobo Arbenz, who was elected in 1950 on a platform of agrarian reform that would improve the lives of Guatemala’s peasants, many of whom suffered under the indentured servitude of the US-owned United Fruit Company. United Fruit maintained industrial-level plantations across the country. Working with the CIA, United Fruit did its best to ensure defeat for Arbenz in the 1950 election. When that tactic failed, United Fruit, the CIA, and US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles devised a plan to overthrow Arbenz in a military coup. Guatemala became a stereotypical American-influenced “banana republic.”
The Chilean junta that replaced Socialist President Salvador Allende, who was elected in 1970 despite massive CIA interference, transformed Chile into a testbed for the vulture capitalism devised by the “Chicago Boys” – a group of Chilean economists who studied under the neo-conservative economist Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago. Friedman called the massive free market laissez-faire policies instituted by the regime of General Augusto Pinochet the “Miracle of Chile.” The economic policies, which a US Senate Intelligence Committee investigation concluded were crafted with the help of the CIA, saw the elimination of trade tariffs, the mass sell-off of state-owned enterprises, cutting of taxes, privatization of the state-run pension system, and de-regulation of industry.
In 1990, CIA election meddling in Nicaragua ensured a win for the opposition over the ruling Sandinista-led government. This type of meddling was repeated in the 2000 Serbian election, which saw President Slobodan Milosevic ejected from power. The ouster of Milosevic saw the first demonstrated cooperation in election meddling between the CIA and international hedge fund tycoon George Soros’s Open Society Institute cadres. In 2009, the CIA attempted to defeat Afghan President Hamid Karzai for re-election. Although Karzai was re-elected, he bitterly complained about the CIA’s interference in the election.
MS-NBC constantly features as a contributing expert on Russia the former US ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul. However, McFaul never mentions how he funneled CIA cash – some $6.8 million in total – via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its two branches, the International Republican Institute of the Republican Party and the National Democratic Institute of the Democratic Party, to Russian opposition leaders like Aleksei Navalny. Nor does the US media mention that the CIA and State Department funneled some $5 billion into Ukraine in order to bring about a pro-US government in that country.
McFaul hosted Russian opposition party meetings at the US embassy and ignored warnings that Navalny’s coalition included several neo-Nazi nationalists, who oppose immigrants hailing from south of the Russian border. Although he has been called by some Western journalists the “Russian Erin Brokovich” (an American environmental activist), Navalny is more like the “Russian David Duke.” Duke is the former leader of the American racist group, the Ku Klux Klan.
Declassified CIA files are replete with examples of agency interference in foreign elections, including state elections in India and West Germany and provincial elections in Australia, Canada, and Japan. In the 1950s, the CIA provided massive support to the West German Christian Democrats, which were led by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. The CIA also did its best to suppress support for the West German Social Democrats and the far-right nationalist German Party in Berlin, Hesse, and Bavaria.
In 1967, Indian Foreign Minister M. C. Chagla charged that the CIA “meddled” in India’s election, mainly through financial donations to parties in opposition to the ruling Indian Congress party. The CIA particularly targeted Communist parties in West Bengal and Kerala states.
Former Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker of the Conservative Party charged in 1967 that CIA funds were used to bolster the Liberal Party, which contributed to Diefenbaker’s electoral losses in two general elections held between May 1962 and June 1963. Diefenbaker’s successor, Prime Minister Lester Pearson of the Liberal Party, discovered that the CIA funneled cash to the pro-Liberal Canadian Union of Students in 1965 and 1966.
The CIA did everything possible to defeat for re-election the New Zealand Labor Party government of Prime Minister David Lange. The CIA provided propaganda support to the opposition National Party, which was opposed to Lange’s policy of denying entry to New Zealand waters of US nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered warships. The CIA ensured that pro-American media in New Zealand harped on about New Zealand record-high 6 percent unemployment, the nation’s foreign debt being half of its gross domestic product, and $1 billion budget deficit. The CIA also attempted to suppress traditional Maori support for Labor in the August 15, 1987 election, a cynical use of race-based politics to alter an election outcome.
Between 1965 and 1967, the CIA station in Brazil, working in conjunction with the AFL/CIO union in the United States and its international arm, the American Institute of Free Labor Development (AIFLD), were discovered to be interfering in union elections in Brazil. The Sao Paulo office of the AIFLD, which was nothing more than a CIA front, made cash payments to Brazilian officials to corrupt union elections in the Brazilian petroleum sector. An itemized list of CIA bribes to Brazilian officials was discovered by a Sao Paulo union official: “Bonus to Jose Abud for collaboration – $156.25; Special payment to Dt. Jorge M. Filho of Labor Ministry – $875.00; Trip for Mr. Glaimbore Guimasaes, our informer at Fegundes St. – $56.25; Photocopies of books and documents of Petroleum Federation – $100.00; Assistance to Guedes and Eufrasio to defeat Luis Furtado of the Suzano Union – $140.64.”
Prior to the September 4, 1964 Chilean presidential election, the leftist Popular Action Front opposition discovered that US chargé d’affaires Joseph Jova was assisting the Christian Democratic Party candidate. Christian Democrat Eduardo Frei Montalva, with the CIA’s help, defeated Allende.
A CIA memo dated October 3, 1955, describes CIA support for the pro-Western. Masjumi Party in the Indonesian election, the nation’s first since independence. CIA director Allen Dulles appeared to be hopeful about the chances of a Masjumi victory due to Indonesia’s “large percentage of illiterates.” In the 1984 El Salvador presidential election, the CIA supported Christian Democrat Jose Napoleon Duarte over the more extreme-right winger, Roberto d’Aubisson. Republican US Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina charged that the CIA “meddled” in the election on behalf of Duarte. It was even discovered that the “invisible ink” used on the fingers of those who had voted was supplied from the CIA.
If the United States truly wants to halt foreign interference in elections, it must be the first to advocate and adhere to such a policy. Just as with the nuclear test-ban treaty, the convention to abolish biological and chemical weapons, and the treaty to prohibit weapons in outer space, the United States should call for an international treaty to ban election interference in all of its forms – the use of cyber-attacks, propaganda, social media manipulation, and funding of foreign political parties. Without such a commitment, US protestations about election meddling will continue to be a case of “do as I say, not as I do.”
*
Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club.
After Wayne Madsen’s comprehensive catalog of imperialist interventions , executed without the slightest hint of subtlety, to undermine and “change” displeasing regimes in every corner of the world, going back decades, the topic seemed all but exhausted. But that turned out not to be correct. A very important piece of that mosaic needs to be added. As this is being written, the provocatively and misnamed and foreign sponsored Free Russia Forum is gearing up to leave its mark on Russia’s forthcoming presidential election.
As alert readers are probably guessing by now, contrary to its deceptive billing the Free Russia Forum is anything but an “independent” discussion group. It is, rather, a political project, a creature one could say, of the State Department. It was created in 2014 and meets twice a year in the Lithuanian capital, just across from the Russian border, to serve as a tool for interference in Russia’s internal affairs.
But good guys do not interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries, just as gentlemen do not read each other’s mail, right? Yeah, right.
The Vilnius gatherings (which have been going on for several years) are a biennial convention of the most militant specimens of Russia’s “non-system” opposition, under the chairmanship of the former chess champion Garry Kasparov. Officially, participants include “representatives of think tanks, academia, writers, politicians, civil society activists, philosophers and artists, for thoughts-provoking and off-the-record discussions on Russia”. That, however, is just the façade.
It turns out that the political common denominator of the Forum’s sponsors and managers is that the offensive struggle for the demise of Putin’s regime should be conducted by all available means and not necessarily considering the opinion of Russia’s citizens. Over the years the participants’ elitist consensus has been that engaging in the political education of the dull populace is pointless. According to these political mandarins with a deeply patronizing attachment to the welfare of the Russian people, the masses are too “demoralized” to be capable of absorbing the “right information” which they need to make correct decisions. According to their glum assessment (which may not be incorrect) in Russia even the battle for internet supremacy has been lost, notwithstanding the initial optimistic expectations on that front.
It should be noted that, anticipating possible criticisms, Forum chairman Garry Kasparov has claimed that “regime change” in Russia should not excite any fear of the country’s disintegration. However, addressing participants at the last Forum held in December 2017, Kasparov also noted nonchalantly that the population “must pay a price” for its support for Putin. Nobody knows when, he said, but the regime will fall, although – as he pointed out revealingly – for that to occur foreign pressure will be required. There is no other methodology, he frankly admitted, because as things stand the pro-Western opposition is incapable of winning elections at the presidential or any other level. No sooner did Kasparov appeal for a boycott of Russia’s March 18 2018 elections than the financial and economic sanctions against the Russian Federation were intensified, as if by some magic feat of coordination. At the December 2017 Forum meeting in Vilnius Kasparov suggested that even the North Korean ballistic missiles were launched specifically at the behest of Vladimir Putin. His sponsors must have been well pleased.
A few words are in order about the handlers. It is indicative that the rhetoric of the December 2017 Forum took a decidedly more radical turn after Kasparov’s closed-door meeting with officials at Lithuania’s foreign ministry. According to “informed sources,” such a turn was coordinated by Kasparov with his NATO “colleagues.”
Free Russia Forum’s chief handler is Howard Solomon, US deputy ambassador in Lithuania. A Russian-speaking expert he served as chief of the political section at the US embassy in Moscow. Part of his duties was to maintain contact with leaders of the Russian opposition. After the unsuccessful anti-Putin “orange revolution” attempt on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow in 2012, the Russian government undertook measures to limit contacts between domestic opposition figures and foreign officials, and with Western diplomats in particular. Under the circumstances it was seen fit to transfer Solomon to Lithuania, where he set up shop to continue his anti-Putin activities. Observant readers will note a pattern here. In the late 1990s the Soros and Western intelligence supported Otpor movement in Serbia was receiving logistical support from neighboring Hungary, under the watchful eye and management of US ambassador William Montgomery. It is also noteworthy that soon after Solomon’s transfer to new “diplomatic” duties in Vilnius, the first Free Russia Forum meeting took place in Lithuania’s capital, in March of 2016.
In addition to the manager-in-chief Howard Solomon, the Forum is also endowed with an “art director” in the person of Jason Smart (just how well he lives up to his surname, we will see if he manages to knock out Putin). The relatively youthful Smart is presented in social networks as a “political consultant currently working in the countries of the former Soviet Union.” In fact, his narrow focus of expertise is what could frankly be called “character assassination.” Smart is at present stationed in Kiev, where he oversees the local “NGO” called For a Free Ukraine. It is generally assumed that he exerts a key influence on the Forum’s agenda. That deduction is supported by the fact that his ideas are given detailed consideration in the Forum’s panel discussions and that later they regularly pop up in various resolutions voted by the Russian opposition.
Unfortunately for them, quite a few opposition intellectuals who were initially co-opted by the Forum to serve as its window dressing took its formal commitments at face value, assuming naïvely that its mission was to conduct unstructured debates about the problems Russia is facing, including genuine issues from the fields of domestic policy, socio-economic development, and foreign affairs. They were soon disabused of their misconception. After four consecutive annual Forum meetings no serious analysis or political action program with specific recommendations has emerged. Perhaps because no such thing was ever contemplated by the promoters of Free Russia Forum’s real agenda.
Instead, event participants, some of whom could boast solid reputations, seem to have been recruited for the sole purpose of camouflaging the organization’s subversive purpose and were drawn into discussing issues laid down by Mr. Smart. According to that “character assassination specialist,” personally targeted sanctions are a particularly effective instrument of pressure against Putin. Just intensify them and fine-tune them a bit more, so goes the Smart rationale, and the sanctioned targets will do NATO’s job for it and get rid of Putin. Just another reason why “anti-regime dissidents” are encouraged to coordinate closely with their Western handlers to make the sanctions more severe and effective.
For the most part, Vilnius Forum participants share Smart’s view that collecting compromising information about Putin’s circle and specifically targeting vulnerable and influential individuals on the so-called “Putin list” is a smart strategy and key component of the final solution of their regime change problem.
In principle, that list is open-ended and consists of twelve categories of high officials of the Russian Federation. In theory, the list can continue to be expanded and could ultimately include hundreds of officials and their families.
Incidentally, some non-Russians have also ended up on that ominous list of Putin fans, including Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and, curiously, also Ukrainian journalist Anatoli Shariy, EU parliamentarian from Latvia Tatiana Zhdanok, former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, renowned film-maker Oliver Stone, German journalist Alexander Rahr, US Russia expert Dmitri Simes, and even the patriarch of American foreign policy, Henry Kissinger himself.
The Forum’s sponsors have performed a clever shift of emphasis. The ostensible topic of “Free Russia” was swiftly reconfigured to refer to the overthrow of the Russian government, with a parallel and not so subtle program of Russia’s disintegration, Kasparov’s sly denials on this score notwithstanding. President Putin is slated by the Forum to be indicted and (as reflected in off-the-record conversations) preferably physically removed. Hence it is no wonder, in light of the organization’s genuine, subversive agenda, that Free Russia Forum participants have never expressed the least interest in formulating sustainable economic, social, cultural, or other policies that they envision for the benefit of the country whose future is supposedly the subject of their grave concern.
Instead, at its December 2017 meeting Messrs Solomon’s and Smart’s brainchild, following the script handed down from above, adopted a resolution calling on the international community to boycott the 2018 World Cup soccer championship due to take place in Russia. Incidentally, a call was also issued for the boycott of Russia’s presidential elections slated to take place in March 2018.
Against this “policy” backdrop, formerly Russian and currently Ukrainian journalist Ayder Muzhdabaev expressed surprise, and some bitterness, that Russia’s liberal media have largely ignored the Forum and its sessions. His assessment was that Russia’s liberal journalists and their audience are living in a “virtual reality.” While probably correct as far as it goes, with regard to the specific question Muzhdabaev raises that is a highly debatable conclusion. A more likely explanation is that foreign puppeteers have botched the job, turning their toy into an overly servile and rigidly structured component of their political arsenal. Its agenda has turned out to be intellectually dilettantish and insufficiently attractive even to the most avidly pro-Western element of the Russian opposition. Solomon and Smart would therefore do well to go back to the drawing board and re-do their Russian homework, starting with a Russia 101 course to get a better handle on the mentality of their target population and the real, as opposed to the virtual, concerns and needs even of those Russians who do not necessarily agree in every respect with their current government.
Giving a platform to Kasparov’s comrade-in-arms Sergey Davidis, who insisted that under the new dispensation Russia’s enormously popular and influential television hosts Dmitri Kiselev and Vladimir Soloviov should be put on trial, or to discredited politician Ilya Ponomaryov, who advocates returning Crimea and the dismemberment of the Russian Federation, does little to enhance the image of this gathering and the motley crew of which it is composed.
President Putin has little to fear from a hare-brained scheme such as the Free Russian Forum. But its immediate handlers Solomon and Smart, as well as their superiors – if they are smart – ought to seriously consider what might lie in store should such an inadequate set of individuals as they have apparently assembled by some fortuitous circumstances actually manage to seize the helm of a nuclear-armed superpower such as Russia.
Setting aside the important issue of interference in other countries’ internal affairs and its permissibility under international legal standards, one of the major front-line organizations tasked with preparing the ground for regime change in Russia is clearly incapable of undertaking any effective or responsible action. Since it was set up four years ago, instead of following its putative mission of “the formation of a smart alternative to Putin’s regime,” in the hands of its arrogant but incompetent handlers the Forum has degenerated into a pathetic sounding-board for foreign agendas, experimentally elaborated by NATO bureaucrats and associated color revolution operatives. That is where the State Department is wasting its funds and organizational resources.
Finally, the last and perhaps most important questions: how is the implementation of dilettantish yet in-your-face abrasive projects such as this likely to be reflected in relations between two superpowers, Russia and the United States? Does it facilitate mutual trust and the creation of a constructive atmosphere conducive to finding solutions for global problems?
When Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins announced his resignation on February 26th, he found a final way to avoid further requests, from Peel Councillors and residents, for evidence that Hydrofluorosilicic Acid has been shown to be safe for ingestion by those living in cities using the chemical to fluoridate their water.
Peel Council had also requested that the Province assume the responsibility (and thus any liability) for fluoridation in Ontario. Over a year has passed with only one assurance that a response from the Health Ministry was “pending”. Meanwhile, the poisonous chemical continues to be added to Peel’s tap water, as Dr. Hoskins slips out the back door with the file still open on his desk.
Liesa Cianchino, Chair of the Concerned Residents of Peel to End Fluoridation, filed a lawsuit in 2014 against the Region and Province over the fluoridation issue. She has waited patiently, putting her action on hold while Peel Council assembled a committee to study the issue, paid “experts” to inform them and finally, as one Councilor concluded, did nothing but “pass the buck” to the Province.
Ms Cianchino’s attempts to meet with Dr. Hoskins herself were unsuccessful, prompting her to contact the Office of the Ontario Ombudsman who is now involved. A citizen should not have to investigate why Peel’s requests were not answered promptly by the Health Minister.
It is time for Peel Council to act responsibly by suspending fluoridation. If the Province wishes to assume liability for any harms resulting from the addition of a cumulative poison to Ontario’s water supplies, let them do that on their own.
*
David Green is co-owner of Rocky Ridge Drinking Water Limited.
For three bewildering days, London is getting a glimpse of what it will feel like to live in post-Brexit, or shrinking, Britain.
In scenes similar to Pyongyang or Bishek, the Great Leader’s portrait has appeared on billboards all over the capital. Neo-liberals in the media had been duly primed and groomed to welcome his arrival.
Media outlets from The Times and The Daily Telegraph to the Foreign Office’s web page are all in lockstep on this one. They all cry: “All hail the king, the bold young reformer, the human dynamo!”
This, of course, is not our great leader. We have long since abandoned faith in them. Their task is to lead foreigners down the steps of Memory Lane to the Churchill War Rooms, from where the British wartime leader directed the forces of the Empire. It is now a museum under Whitehall.
The fanfare is for the arrival of Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, to whom BAE Systems (BAE) is desperate to sell its next batch of Typhoon fighters. Without orders from the Saudi Royal Air Force, the lights in its factories in Lancashire would have long since gone out.
MBS is the 32-year-old who will decide on which stock market Aramco, the world’s biggest oil company, will stage its initial share offering. If Aramco achieves its valuation of $2 trillion, the sale of five per cent of its shares would be worth $100 billion – a fat prize for the London Stock Exchange.
I don’t know which is worse: the MBS roadshow or the band of carpet baggers queueing up to feed at the trough.
The mass genuflection taking place in London is hardly the Paradise Lost of Edwardian Britain that Brexiteers like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove dream about when they have achieved their aim of amputating the country from Europe.
At the turn of the 20th Century, Britain sent its Indiana Joneses or Gertrude Bells, to map, climb and conquer the disintegrating shards of the Ottoman Empire. Bell chose the emirs Britain would deal with. People like her and TE Lawrence created countries like Iraq, although she quickly tired of her role.
“You may rely upon one thing,” she said. “I’ll never engage in creating kings again; it’s too great a strain.”
Bell promoted Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud, an emir who had captured the Nejd region, and he eventually became the founder of the Saudi kingdom.
Today the traffic between the two kingdoms is mostly the other way. When the “wali al amr” (literally the “lord of all our affairs”), the owner of all the land, oil, assets and the people of Saudi Arabia, comes to London, it is to inspect his assets and to dangle contracts in front of his tradesmen and hawkers – which is what the British have become.
The jaws of a crocodile
Even they might wince at the salary that this young man will pay himself when he becomes king – if he has not do so already.
A source close to the Saudi royal court tells me that that the king’s allowance per month is currently running at 3 billion riyal, which is $800 million. No, you have not misread that. Eight hundred million dollars. In one month.
The prime minister of the United Kingdom is paid £150,402 a year, excluding the value of her flat in Downing Street and other official residences. The president of the United States of America takes $400,000 a year plus other allowances. But the Saudi king pays himself 2,000 times that sum – in one month.
This small fact is just one indicator of the trouble we are storing up for ourselves when we build our polices, strategic industries and regional strategies on the sands of relationships with despots such as these.
Other warning lights are flashing. The prince, hailed as a “bold economic reformer”, is putting proven economic reformers such asAmr Dabbagh in prison on alleged corruption charges, then torturing them until they cough up their assets.
Dabbagh, who was head of the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority (SAGIA), was credited with moving the kingdom from 64th to 11th on the World Bank’s list of business competitive nations in 2010.
There is no way of testing the corruption claims against Dabbagh, because there is no due process, no lawyers, no courts, no hearings and no presentation of evidence. The committee set up to lead this purge was created outside the purview of the Saudi legal system, such as it is.
Will the nightmare that Dabbagh has been subjected to encourage foreign investors to place themselves and their assets in the jaws of a crocodile called MBS? I am not sure they will. The crown prince’s mood could change at any time.
What he is doing is a recipe for capital flight. Foreign workers are already leaving in droves, leaving thousands of menial jobs unfilled.
Adverts have appeared in London ahead of bin Salman’s visit (supplied) (Source: MEE)
The prince, who is hailed as a social reformer, has executed more prisoners than ever before. According to the British human rights campaign group Reprieve, 133 executions have taken place since MBS became crown prince compared to 67 in the eight months before.
Ali Shihabi, founder of the Arabia Foundation who was put up to defend the regime on the BBC World Service’s Newshour that I participated in, saw no problem in this. He said that those executed were drug ringleaders. He claimed no one had been executed on political charges.
In January 2016, 47 people were executed in one day. Several of these were juveniles. One, Ali al Ribh, was convicted of taking part in demonstrations calling for political reform, when he was 17 years old.
As we have seen time and again, Britain cares little for human rights. It is the stability argument that plays strongest with its foreign policy elite.
Here again, the gap between image and reality is dangerously wide. I will not write here about Yemen or what happened to Lebanon’s prime minister Saad al-Hariri.
The grievances of Jordan
A better place to gauge the regional instability emanating from Riyadh is Jordan, which is another longstanding British military ally.
No one in Amman will speak on the record about the damage MBS is currently doing to their kingdom. But plenty of informed sources in official circles will speak off the record about their grave concerns.
One of them told me:
“Saudi has not paid us a penny in two years. Jordan used to get between $1 billion and $1.5 billion. Today we do not get a dime. It’s not just us. Even the money they were going to give us for investment has not come. No oil aid. Zero.”
Another said:
“We are now about 10th on Riyadh’s list of priorities.”
A third added:
“The relationship with Saudi Arabia changed considerably politically and financially. Politically, Mohammed bin Salman and his father were never very close to the Hashemites. King Salman does not have any affinity to the Hashemites that his other brothers might have had. So on the political front there is no affinity, no empathy.
“There is a feeling that Jordan and others should be either with them or against them. So we were not completely with them on Iran, on Qatar, on Syria. We did what we could and I don’t think we should have gone further. But to them that was not enough.”
Jordan has other grievances with Riyadh, apart from money and foreign policy. Seen from the perspective of the Hashemite royal family, the House of Saud is once against trying to displace their role as custodian of the Muslim holy places in Jerusalem. It took Mecca and Medina away from them during the early 20th century. Now it is trying to do the same with Jerusalem.
Bin Salman’s attempts to bully Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, into swapping East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestinian for Abu Dis, a suburb on the outskirts of the city, have also not gone down well in Amman. There is not a Palestinian leader on the planet who could accept this.
Another well-placed Jordanian observer said:
“For us, these matters are not bargaining chips. They are matters of national security.”
But the Hashemite kingdom is trapped. It cannot roll over and become Riyadh’s Bahrain. But nor can it confront its unstable southern neighbour overtly. Jordan is going through a real financial crisis. It depends, for example, on the remittances of those 500,000 Jordanians working in Saudi.
Feelings in Amman are running high. They are but a snapshot of the mayhem that bin Salman is creating among Britain’s Arab allies. In a meeting attended by the Egyptian TV host, Lamiss Elhadidy, bin Salman described Turkey and Iran as forming part of a “triangle of evil”.
The language of war
Whatever you think of either power, this is not the language of a future leader who can play a stabilising role regionally. He is challenging both the foremost Sunni state in the region and the Shia one at the same time. It is the language of war.
Jordan, whose special forces have been at the forefront of the fight against the Islamic State (IS) group in Syria and Iraq, can not be described as a country promoting or funding the Jihadis, as indeed Saudi did. It regularly attempts to disrupt the work of, or imprison, its political Islamists, too.
So when May gets up in the Commons and says the relationship with Saudi is in the British national interest, how does she define that interest?
Does she really understand what is happening around Saudi Arabia? Does she care?
Under this leadership, Saudi is a source of regional instability. Unless it changes, the kingdom under this prince-turned-king could easily become the next state in the Middle East to unravel.
This is the fire that Britain is playing with, by endorsing this man so fully and so cravenly.
*
David Hearst is editor-in-chief of Middle East Eye. He was chief foreign leader writer of The Guardian, former Associate Foreign Editor, European Editor, Moscow Bureau Chief, European Correspondent, and Ireland Correspondent. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he was education correspondent.
The United States of America spends something like $80 billion annually on intelligence gathering and analysis. When the CIA was founded by the National Security Act in 1947 the intention was to create a mechanism that would warn about an imminent threat. The memory of Pearl Harbor in 1941, when Japan attacked the U.S. naval base was still fresh, and the legislation was popularized by the slogan “no more Pearl Harbors.”
In spite of the dedication of considerable resources and manpower, there have been some major intelligence failures in the past seventy years, starting with the inability to anticipate the breakout of the Korean War and including the embrace of false intelligence on Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. But the most recent failure is perhaps more consequential than either Korea or Iraq.
On March 1st, Russian President Vladimir Putinspoke before his country’s Federal Assembly plus a large group of both local and foreign journalists, outlining his plans for the economy and also dealing with other domestic issues should he be reelected later this month. The final third of the presentation was on national defense and, in its substance, was clearly directed at a global audience, particularly the United States.
He explained
“During all these years since the unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty [in 2001] we have been working intensively on advanced equipment and arms, which allowed us to make a breakthrough in developing new models of strategic weapons.”
He was referring to the RS-28 Sarmat ballistic missile, which has almost unlimited range and ultra-high speed, enabling it to employ trajectories including strikes coming over the South Pole that can defeat existing American Anti-Ballistic Defense systems. Russia has also produced and deployed a hypersonic glider weapon system Avangard.
But the real game changer is the Russian ability to negate America’s ability to project power through its navy. The already deployed air-launched Kinzhal anti-ship missile has a range of 2000 kilometers and a hyper-sonic speed that makes it nearly impossible to intercept. The development has made America’s thirteen aircraft carrier groups obsolete. President Putin made clear that Russia now has an overwhelming military advantage in cruise and ballistic missiles that are capable of penetrating U.S. defenses.
The new reality may or may not impel policymakers in Washington to approach Moscow and seek a new round of negotiations for arms control, but the real shock deriving from the Putin announcement is the failure of the intelligence community to anticipate the developments and advise their significance. Some of the new systems were hardly secret, with development of the Sarmat, for example, known to western governments for a number of years.
There will no doubt be a blame game in Washington over the inability to learn of Russia’s arms programs, but the questions that probably will not be asked relates to the intelligence agencies themselves and their capabilities, or lack thereof. It is no secret that organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) have seen their basic missions change since 2001. An organization that used to pride itself on its ability to conduct classic espionage operations involving recruiting and running spies suddenly heard from policymakers that those skills were no longer in demand. Many officers who were made redundant or forced to retire were precisely those individuals who had cut their teeth on running operations directed against the old Soviet Union. They had the language and cultural skills necessary to collect information on Russia. With their departure, those capabilities also largely vanished.
Instead of spying, American intelligence agencies working mostly against what was broadly described as “terrorism,” used technology to locate potential targets and kill them. The CIA’s Clandestine Services, once the haven of its spies, became under President Barack Obama, a largely paramilitary operation focused on military solutions rather than espionage. This process was accelerated under Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan, who worked assiduously to reduce the influence of the former spies within the Agency. Brennan reportedly had once wanted to become a spy but was kicked out of the training program as “unsuitable.”
So, has America learned that its intelligence agencies are doing all the wrong things and that the national defense strategy is unsustainable because the Russian-American relationship is now on a new footing? Possibly, but it is perhaps more likely that Washington will avoid asking the hard questions.
*
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest.
This hitherto unprecedented move in the post-war relations between the US and the ASEAN-member state is clearly intended as a signal towards China, with whom Vietnam is involved in a contentious dispute over the South China Sea and the attendant energy resources underneath its waters. Hanoi no longer regards Washington as an enemy, but an unofficial ally because of the Pentagon’s willingness to help the country boost its naval military capacities in order to offset China’s advantages in this field. While not much of substance has been achieved on this front, the future is indeed very promising, and it’s likely that Vietnam could play some role – however informal – in the so-called “Quad” between the US, Japan, Australia, and India in “containing China”.
The country boasts a highly strategic location and has both maritime and mainland borders with China, which makes it ideal for the “Quad” to include in its framework to the point of de-facto becoming the “Quint” if Vietnam is fully integrated into this developing military integrational platform. Beijing already feels uneasy about New Delhi’s creeping role in its backyard, which some Indian commentators claim is “payback” for what China is doing in South Asia, so getting to the point where the US, Japan, and also Australia are regulars in this space as well would definitely put the People’s Republic on the strategic defensive. The risk, however, is that China will more assertively defend its maritime claims in the region in the face of foreign provocations from the “Quint”, which might lead to a tense standoff one of these days.
In fact, a so-called “controlled escalation scenario” might be exactly what the “Quad” is hoping to achieve in generating a low-intensity crisis as a means of “justifying” the incorporation of Vietnam into this multilateral military partnership, though this could of course spiral out of control real fast and lead to a dangerous situation. It’s too early to tell at this point if that’s exactly what’s being planned for the coming future, but nevertheless, the takeaway is that Vietnam’s interest in deepening its naval cooperation with the US serves as a means of doing so with the whole “Quad” as well, and that could have unpredictable consequences for the bloc’s relations with China.
*
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.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US economy added 313,000 jobs in the 28 days of February, causing a big jump in the Dow Jones average. Where does BLS find these jobs?
The BLS finds 61,000 in construction, which, if correct, suggests in view of falling new and existing home sales, that those building at this stage are going to experience financial difficulties.
Manufacturing conjured up 31,000, but in high tech areas such as computer and electronic products only 1,100 jobs were created. Communications equipment actually lost 100 jobs and electronic instruments lost 800 jobs.
50,300 jobs were created in retail trade, allegedly. This is inconsistent with store closings and what seem to be round-the-clock sales at online retailers. Is February the month people purchase cars, garden supplies, and clothing? The BLS seems to think so.
According to the BLS, 50,000 jobs were cleared in professional and business services, of which about three-fifths were in administrative and waste services, almost all of which were in temporary help services. In other words, we are not talking about employment for architects and engineers.
Waitresses and bartenders did not supply the usual out-sized number of new jobs, adding only 11,500 new jobs.
Local government added 31,000 jobs, almost all of which were in education.
As my long-term readers know, my analyses of the monthly payroll jobs reports are a tradition on this site. I am doing less of them, as I am sure it bores you to hear again the same conclusion that we are being lied to about job creation. The jobs, of course, are not the higher paid jobs we were promised by globalists in exchange for moving offshore American industrial and manufacturing jobs. That promise was never anything more than a lie, even though it was the repeated assurance from Ivy League economists and Washington policymakers. The lie protected itself by wrapping itself in the holy grail of “free trade.” Any economist or financial media presstitute who dared to point out that jobs offshoring is the antithesis of free trade was kaput. The economists were well paid for serving the jobs offshoring corporations.
As I explained yesterday, the economic information we are fed is false. It is intended to give us a non-existent, fake reality picture of the economy.
For almost a decade the economic policy of the US, Europe, UK, Canada, Japan has been directed to the support of the financial speculation that caused the 2008 worldwide economic crisis. Nothing has been done for the populations of the countries who experienced the crisis. Indeed, many of these populations, such as the Greeks, have had their living standards forced down in order to protect the big banks. This proves beyond all doubt that in the “Great Western Democracies,” economic policy only serves the hyper-rich and the hyper-powerful. Citizens simply do not count. They are as nothing.
To give you a break from my analysis, I offer you below the analysis of my sometime co-author Dave Kranzler, an experienced Wall Street participant who went good.
***
313k Jobs Added? Nice Try But It’s Fake News
by Dave Kranzler
March 9, 2018: The census bureau does the data-gathering and the Bureau of Labor Statistics feeds the questionable data sample through its statistical sausage grinder and spits out some type of grotesque scatological substance. You know an economic report is pure absurdity when the report exceeds Wall Street’s rose-colored estimate by 53%. That has to be, by far, an all-time record-high “beat.”
If you sift through some of the foul-smelling data, it turns out 365k of the alleged jobs were part-time, which means the labor market lost 52k full-time jobs. But alas, I loathe paying any credence to complete fiction by dissecting the “let’s pretend” report.
The numbers make no sense. Why? Because the alleged data does not fit the reality of the real economy. Retail sales, auto sales, home sales and restaurant sales have been declining for the past couple of months. So who would be doing the hiring? Someone pointed out that Coinbase has hired 500 people. But the retail industry has been laying off thousands this year. Given the latest industrial production and auto sales numbers, I highly doubt factories are doing anything with their workforce except reducing it.
And if the job market is “so strong,” how comes wages are flat? In fact, adjusted for real inflation, real wages are declining. If the job market was robust, wages would be soaring. Speaking of which, IF the labor market was what the Government wants us to believe it is, the FOMC would tripping all over itself to hike the Fed Funds rate. And the rate-hikes would be in chunks of 50-75 basis points – not the occasional 0.25% rise.
The Housing Market Is Starting To Fall Apart
Last week I summarized January existing home sales, which were released on Wednesday, Feb 21st. Existing home sales dropped 3.2% from December and nearly 5% from January 2017. Those statistics are based on the SAAR (Seasonally Adjusted Annualized Rate) calculus. Larry Yun, the National Association of Realtors chief salesman, continues to propagate the “low inventory” propaganda.
But in truth, the economics of buying a home has changed dramatically for the first-time and move-up buyer demographic plus flipper/investors. As I detailed a couple of issues back, based on the fact that most first-time buyers “buy” into the highest possible monthly payment for which they can qualify, the price that a first-time, or even a move-up buyer, can afford to pay has dropped roughly 10% with the rise in mortgage rates that has occurred since September 2017. The game has changed. That 10% decline results from a less than 1% rise in mortgage rates.
That same calculus applies to flipper/investors. Investors looking to buy a rental home pay a higher rate of interest than owner-occupied buyers. Most investors would need the amount of rent they can charge to increase by the amount their mortgage payment increases from higher rates. Or they need to use a much higher down payment to make the investment purchase. The new math thereby removes a significant amount of “demand” from investors.
It also occurred to me that flippers still holding homes purchased just 3-4 months ago are likely underwater on their “largesse.” Most flippers look for homes in the price-range that caters to first-timers (under $500k). This is the most “liquid” segment of the housing market in terms of the supply of buyers. Any flipper that closed on a home purchase in the late summer or early fall that needed to be “spruced up” is likely still holding that home. In addition to the purchase cost, the flipper has also incurred renovation and financing costs. Perhaps in a few markets prices have held up. But in most markets, the price first-time buyers can pay without significantly increasing the amount of the down payment has dropped roughly 10%. Using this math, any flipper holding a home closed prior to October is likely sitting on a losing trade.
Similar to 2007/2008, many of these homes will be sold at a loss or the flipper will “jingle mail” the keys to the bank, in which case the bank will likely dump the home. I know in some areas of metro-Denver, pre-foreclosure listings are rising. Some flippers might turn into rental landlords. This will increase the supply of rental homes which, in turn, will put pressure on rental rates.
New home sales – The plunge in January new home sales was worse than existing homes. New home sales dropped 7.8% from December. This follows December’s 9.3% plunge from November. The December/January sequence was the biggest two-month drop in new home sales since August 2013. Back then, mortgage rates had spiked up from 3.35% in June to 4.5% by the end of August. The Fed at that time was still buying $40 billion worth of mortgages every month. With QE over and an alleged balance sheet reduction program in place, plus the Fed posturing as if it will continue nudging the Fed Funds rate higher, it’s likely that new home sales will not rebound like they did after August 2013, when mortgage rates headed back down starting in early September 2013.
Contrary to the Larry Yun false narrative, the supply of new homes jumped to 6.1 months from 5.5 months in December. How does this fit the Yun propaganda that falling sales is a function of low inventory? The average price of a new home is $382k (the median is $323k). New home prices will have to fall significantly in order for sales to stop trending lower. What happens if the Fed really does continue hiking rates and mortgage rates hit 5%?
January “Pending” Home Sales – The NAR’s “pending home sales index,” which is based on contract signings, was released this past Wednesday. It plunged to its lowest level since October 2014. The index dropped 4.7% vs. an expected 0.5% rise from the optimist zombies on Wall St. It’s the biggest 1-month percentage decline in the index since May 2010. On a year-over-year comparison basis, the index is down 1.7%. December’s pending home sales index was revised down from the original headline report.
Years ago when the US still had an honest, or semi-honest, financial press, you could have read this story in the Wall Street Journal. But not today. You have to read it here on my site or on Kranzler’s site.
*
This article was originally published on Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.
“For behind the sense of insecurity in the face of danger, behind the sense of discouragement and depression, there always lurks the basic fear of death, a fear which undergoes most complex elaborations and manifests itself in many indirect ways….No one is free of the fear of death.” – Gregory Zilboorg, psychanalyst
“An anxiety is a lack that causes pain; a game is a lack that causes pleasure.” – John Fowles, writer
“What we play is life.” – Louis Amstrong
In his moving essay revealing his existential anxiety and panic attack, NBA star Kevin Love has touched a nerve that underlies not just sports and male experience, but life itself. He is right to say, “This is an everyone thing.” In doing so, he has performed a public service far beyond getting men and boys to open up about their fears and feelings. He has, as befits his surname, opened many people to a consideration of the marriage of love and death, and why all efforts to divorce them result in the diminishment of life’s passion and intensity.
Commenting on the unavoidable but often denied link between love and death, the important American psychologist Rollo May said this in Love and Will:
To love means to open ourselves to the negative as well as the positive – to grief, sorrow and disappointment as well as to joy, fulfillment, and an intensity of consciousness we did not know was possible before.
So it is fitting that in telling us of his conversations with a therapist, the one personal experience Kevin tells us about is the death of his Grandma Carol, who meant so much to him and was like another parent when he was growing up. Busy with his basketball career, he didn’t see her when she was dying.
“I felt terrible that I hadn’t been in better touch with her in her last years,” he writes.
Deeply pained at losing her and guilty about his behavior, he shared this with no one, bottling it up as he had learned since boyhood (Be strong, be a man), and like the athlete that he is, perhaps thought that if he did not dwell on this loss, the next game would be a win and he could somehow move on. But this never works for long, as Love learned when panic burst into his consciousness and took him down during a game last November. “It came out of nowhere,” he says, having learned, however, that nowhere is somewhere, even when a surprise.
Substitute sportswriter for athlete, as Richard Ford does in his dazzling novel, The Sportswriter,whose main character Frank Bascombe, a sportswriter haunted by the death of his young son from Reye’s syndrome but trying to lose himself in the ordinariness of sportswriting, says,
“Since after all, it is one thing to write sports, but another thing entirely to live a life,” and we have Love’s cautionary tale.
For sports (shopping for women) is the perfect metaphor for the modern American male’s flight from authenticity. As the etymology of the word sport attests (from old French, desporter to divert, literally “to carry away”), sports are a diversion from something. Let’s call it “real life,” the place from where, as Ernest Hemingway so aptly put it in the title to his short story, “The Winner Takes Nothing.” Trophies are handed out at post-season dinners, but as the American philosopher William James said, “The skull will grin in at the banquet.”
Although sports can inspire one to think deeply, for most people, athletes and spectators alike, sports are a diversion from existential matters involving relationships, fears, deep feelings, life’s meaning, love and loss, death, etc. While surely fun, entertaining, and lucrative for professionals, sports are also absurd since they involve movements through time and space toward unnecessary and fictitious goals where someone wins (lives) and someone losses (dies) in a game of unreality. In sports we play to overcome artificial and superfluous obstacles for fun and money – and for deeper reasons we may not realize.
Take golf, for example (my apologies to golfers). Why does anyone care who can hit a little white ball with a stick in the fewest strokes down stretches of green grass into a hole in the ground? Many do. They spend enormous amounts of time and money trekking after those little white balls. They care primarily because it’s fun, and fun is good. Such fun is utterly meaningless in the larger scheme of things, but many find it relaxing from the “stress” of everyday life – a relaxing distraction. And of course distractions can be good in moderation. It is not sports that are the problem, but the obsession with them.
I knew a woman who felt her husband was overly obsessed with sports, and although she was wrong, she used to say to him, “With you it’s balls, balls, balls.” To which he would respond, also erroneously, “And with you it’s malls, malls, malls.” But their humorous exchange catches a widespread truth about men and women in American society where there are plenty of obsessively distracted people of both sexes.
Sports only matter because they don’t. And it is in that gap between mattering and not where panic, anxiety, and depression can appear “out of nowhere.” Another athlete, the Nobel Prize winning French author Albert Camus, a soccer goalie in his youth and a lifelong fan, phrased this experience differently when he said,
“At any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face.”
Athletes ride intense emotional roller coasters. You win, you lose, you’re up, you’re down – like “real life,” just faster and with a much quicker turn-around time. While Kevin is right to say that “everyone is going through something that we can’t see,” athletes live at a different pace and intensity, and the resulting highs bring deep lows as well. One day you’re dead; the next day you are resurrected, as long as there is another game or season. Some days you are in purgatory and wonder if all the aches and pains you endure are worth the cost.
This is true for the spectators also, absent the physical pains. Many fans are fanatics for a reason. The intensity of sports, its unpredictability, its “never over till its over” drama makes it the perfect distraction from more important matters. It has an extraordinary power to energize and deflate, but all in a land of make-believe that often blinds its devotees from trying to understand “something that we can’t see” in their own lives.
But a fan’s life can last until actual death, while an athlete has a limited amount of time to perform. One day when your playing days are over your confrontation with “reality” happens, either consciously or out of the blue. For many former athletes, men particularly, because women have come late to the games, the rest of their lives are lived in a desperate reliving of the past among “the fraternity of missing men,” as Don DeLillo says in his incredible novel, Underworld. It is a place where “desperation” speaks.
A few years ago there was a short Grantland documentary, “The Finish Line,” about Steve Nash. An uncanny player, Nash was battling injuries and age, and the documentary shows him pondering whether or not to retire or continue his rehabilitation and attempt a comeback. In the opening scene Nash goes out with his dog into the shadowy pre-dawn where he muses on his dilemma. His words are hypnotic.
“I feel,” he said, “that there’s something that I can’t quite put my finger on that – I don’t know – I feel that it’s blocking me or I can see it out of the corner of my mind’s eye, or it’s like this dark presence ….is it the truth that I’m done?”
Hobbled by a nerve injury that severely limited his movement, he played a few more games and retired within a year. He had brought an infectious joy to his playing, but he left without fulfilling his dream of winning an NBA championship. Of his retirement he said,
“It’s bittersweet. I already miss the game deeply, but I’m also really excited to learn to do something else.”
Unlike many athletes, Nash was moving on; his “dark presence” wasn’t a final death but a step on the road to a hard rebirth. It was a Dylanesque restless farewell: “And though the line is cut/It ain’t quite the end/I‘ll just bid farewell till we meet again.”
I think it safe to say that behind every panic attack, at the deepest level, lies what William James called “the worm at the core,” by which he meant death, the fear of it, the anxiety it engenders that rumbles beneath the placid surface of everyday life and breaks the surface here and there when least expected. Sometimes it happens during “little deaths,” what the French call La petitemort in reference to the sensation of sexual orgasm, but which happen throughout life in so many guises such as losing a game, missing a shot, or failing an exam. It can happen anywhere and any time, even in moments of great success, such as hoisting a trophy above one’s head after being named the Most Valuable Player.
A few years ago my friends and I were playing in basketball tournaments for men over fifty and we qualified for the Senior Olympics at the University of Pittsburgh. We acquired a sponsor, a local funeral home that made warm-up jerseys for us. Being used to dealing with bodies at rest, these comedians knew we were a bunch of aging hoopsters intent on keeping our bodies in motion for as long as we could. So they had shirts made with that up-beat and adolescent cliché printed on the front, “Basketball is Life.” Lest we forgot, and being in the trade of taking bodies at rest to the underworld, on the back they had printed “Leave the Rest to Us: Flynn and Dagnoli Funeral Home.”
Kevin Love’s essay, “Everybody Is Going Through Something” is like that shirt. He reminds us that at the back of everyone’s face there are matters that deserve scrutiny even when we can’t see back there.
He deserves a Most Valuable Person award for making a hole in a denial that is an “everyone thing.”
*
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/.
March 11th, 2018 by Macedonian International News Agency
The US used Russia to prevent Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovich from using his military against rioters in Kiev, and then ‘cheated’ Moscow by supporting an armed coup, President Vladimir Putin said.
The accusation refers to events that happened in February 2014, when Ukraine was gripped by violent anti-government protests. Yanukovich and three leaders of the opposition forces signed a power-sharing deal, which effectively amounted to a capitulation of the president.
The deal was enforced by three European nations: Germany, France and Poland. The accord lasted only a few days, however, as protestors – led by far-right nationalists and nazi supporters – violated its terms and advanced unopposed by demoralized security forces. This forced Yanukovich to flee for his life.
“Here is something not publicly known,” Putin revealed in an interview. “At this very moment, our American partners called us and asked to do everything – and that’s almost a quote – to ensure that Yanukovich didn’t use the army, so that the opposition could clear the squares and governmental buildings on its own terms and go on towards the implementation of the agreement.”
The Russian president said Moscow agreed to this request, only to see the situation escalate the next day into a full-fledged armed coup.
“They could have at least called us, do something, say a word! They could have said, ‘It was a case of agents stepping out of line, but we will fix it and turn everything into the bounds of the law,’” he said.
“Not a word! On the contrary, there was full support of those who committed this coup,” Putin recalled. “This is what they did with their own hands. How can they not support the current leadership now? They put themselves into a corner.”
After he was asked whether this was the first time Moscow had been cheated by Washington, Putin said this instance was “the first when the cheating was done so rudely and insolently.” It was the first time that the US had broken a promise this quickly, and would not even bother to explain their actions through proper channels, the president added.
“They should have understood that all this was happening near our borders. There are many people who identify themselves as Russians or consider themselves closely connected with Russia,” Putin said. “[Ukraine] is a country with which we have centuries-old special relations. We had an integrated production, energy and transport system. How can one not consider all those things?”
After the armed coup, the leadership of Ukraine chose to sever as many ties with Russia as it could, even though it hurt their own country. The painful break-up was justified by Kiev’s ambition to become part of NATO and the European Union – two goals that don’t seem much closer, four years after the ousting of Yanukovich. It did, however, cause significant damage to Ukraine’s economy, forcing millions of Ukrainians to seek low-paid jobs in countries like Russia, Poland and the Czech Republic.
“If they did it a little different, Ukraine would have benefited much more. Our co-operation links would not have been broken. Entire industries in Ukraine would have still existed,” Putin said. “All this destruction was done for what? For a ‘civilizational choice?’ Was that a choice of poverty or an opportunity to work illegally in European countries under the guise of a tourist visa?”
The remarks feature in a 90-minute documentary by journalist Vladimir Solovyov called ‘World Order 2018,’ which is based on interviews with Putin and a number of foreign dignitaries. The film is intended to show how the Russian leadership perceives the country’s place in the world today.
We thank readers who have contributed to Global Research. If you have the means to make a small or large donation in support of our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will be much appreciated.
We likewise encourage you to re-post this selection of articles. Share through social media and discuss with your colleagues and friends. We also ask you to visit our Asia-Pacific Research site for analysis with regional focus.
The Syrian crisis is once again making headlines. In particular, humanitarian agencies like UNICEF, AVAAZ, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are blaming Syrian and Russian airstrikes for civilian deaths in East Ghouta while completely ignoring the carnage meted out by rebel factions in the area.
From Cambodia to Thailand American and European media companies have launched a campaign of disinformation aimed at reversing Washington’s waning influence in the region vis-à-vis not only Beijing, but the growing strength of nations the US and Europe once saw as mere geopolitical pawns.
What is “Western civilization”? Why might it end soon? What can be done to prevent that?
These are the questions that face both the U.S. and Russia in the current standoff. The stakes could not be higher. Relationships between the two nations are the most important geopolitical issue, and the most volatile, facing the world today.
Despite the ban on GM cops, in 2005, biologist Pushpa Bhargava noted that unapproved varieties of several GM crops were being sold to farmers. In 2008, Arun Shrivasatava wrote that illegal GM okra had been planted in India and poor farmers had been offered lucrative deals to plant ‘special seed’ of all sorts of vegetables.
CNN posted the images: men who appeared to be sold at auction in Libya for $400. The grainy undercover video appears to show smugglers selling off a dozen men outside of the capital city Tripoli.
The Jerusalem Post reported that Juniper Cobra, a joint air defense exercise with U.S. and IDF forces which was announced by the U.S. Department of Defense last month involving simulated missile attacks directed against Israel from multiple fronts has begun. The report ‘U.S. and IDF Troops, In Major Joint Drill, Simulating Battle on 3 Fronts’ clarifies who and what is involved in the joint-exercise.
According to research scientist Stephanie Seneff, PhD, autism – which she calls “the most pressing disease in the world today” – could affect 50 percent of the children born in the United States by the year 2025. And, although many in the corporately-controlled scientific community roll their eyes at such a warning, Dr. Seneff believes that glyphosate has a lot to do with the problem.
To arrive at her chilling prediction, Dr. Seneff reports that she merely extended the exponential curve that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has employed in their research on rates of autism spectrum disorder over the past three decades. In 2014, the CDC released data on the prevalence of autism in the United States, reporting that the condition affects one in 68 children.
Dr. Seneff maintains that skyrocketing autism rates are linked with glyphosate, the toxic herbicide in Monsanto’s Roundup. In addition to autism, Dr. Seneff reports that glyphosate has been linked to a plethora of diseases and conditions, including ADHD, food allergies, asthma, leaky gut, IBD, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, heart disease and cancer. Glyphosate’s effect on human health, says Dr. Seneff, is nothing short of “devastating.”
Don’t miss the next NaturalHealth365 Talk Hour, when Jonathan Landsman and Dr. Seneff expose the ugly truth about glyphosate – like you’ve never heard before and why the chemical companies desperately want to hide this truth.
Glyphosate is a “sleeper” toxin that is much more dangerous than originally believed
Glyphosate, which has been classified as a “probable carcinogen” by the World Health Organization (WHO), was originally developed as a heavy metal chelation agent, intended to clear pipes. It was then patented as an anti-microbial agent – before eventually being employed as a weed-killer.
Pervasively used in agriculture, glyphosate is routinely sprayed on wheat, soy, corn, canola oil, beets, peanuts and legumes to increase yields. In fact, all food that is not organically grown ends up getting sprayed with glyphosate at some point.
And, important to note, because glyphosate is absorbed by every cell of the plant, it can’t be rinsed off or removed. Plus, equally disturbing, some scientists believe that the effects of glyphosate can combine with other toxins to increase harm exponentially. For example, Dr. Seneff warns that glyphosate disrupts hormones, interferes with the metabolism of cholesterol, impairs the liver’s ability to detoxify the body and disturbs the vital balance of the gut microbiome.
To make matters worse, glyphosate causes red blood cells to maintain low levels of vitamin C – leading to atherosclerosis and heart disease. It also causes fatty liver disease by disrupting fructose metabolism, as well as disrupting sulfate synthesis.
By interfering with a specific pathway used by beneficial microorganisms in the intestinal tract, glyphosate can cause deficiencies in amino acids and affect the function of neurotransmitters. These can include serotonin, dopamine and melatonin – chemicals needed for stable mood and a better night’s sleep.
Dr. Seneff urges everyone to remove glyphosate from the diet and detoxify the body
When it comes to minimizing the harm from glyphosate, eating a certified organic diet is probably the most significant action you can take. (Merely being labeled “non-GMO” or “natural” is not enough. And, when dining out, look for “organic” and “grass-fed” options).
She also recommends a diet higher in cholesterol (compared to the very low recommendation of the American Heart Association), noting that if cholesterol is supplied naturally by food, the liver doesn’t have to produce as much of it. (This can actually lead to lower, not higher, serum levels of cholesterol, Dr. Seneff reports.)
Nutrient-rich foods such as wild-caught seafood and organic eggs are ideal for glyphosate detox, says Dr. Seneff. You should also strive to eat healthy amounts of probiotic foods – such as yogurt with live cultures, sauerkraut juice and other naturally-fermented foods.
Cruciferous vegetables – such as Brussels sprouts – can supply much-needed dietary sulfur, and bone broth made from grass-fed cows can help restore depleted minerals.
Another wise choice is to consume as many greens, herbs and spices as possible such as, onions, garlic, parsley, basil, cilantro and dandelion greens.
To assist with a glyphosate detox, an experienced integrative healthcare provider may also recommend sulfur-containing supplements, such as alpha-lipoic acid and MSN (methylsulfonymethane).
Featured image: Coffins of dead U.S. soldiers arriving at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware in 2006. (U.S. government photo)
Last Sunday’s Oscar Awards were interrupted by an incongruous propaganda exercise featuring a Native American actor and Vietnam vet, featuring a montage of clips from Hollywood war movies.
The actor, Wes Studi, said that he “fought for freedom” in Vietnam. But anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of that war, including for instance the millions of viewers who watched Ken Burns and Lynn Novick’s Vietnam War documentary, knows that it was the Vietnamese who were fighting for freedom – while Studi and his comrades were fighting, killing and dying, often bravely and for misguided reasons, to deny the people of Vietnam that freedom.
Studi introduced the Hollywood movies he was showcasing, including “American Sniper,” “The Hurt Locker” and “Zero Dark Thirty,” with the words,
“Let’s take a moment to pay tribute to these powerful films that shine a great spotlight on those who have fought for freedom around the world.”
To pretend to a worldwide TV audience in 2018 that the U.S. war machine is “fighting for freedom” in the countries it attacks or invades was an absurdity that could only add insult to injury for millions of survivors of U.S. coups, invasions, bombing campaigns and hostile military occupations all over the world.
Wes Studi’s role in this Orwellian presentation made it even more incongruous, as his own Cherokee people are themselves survivors of American ethnic cleansing and forced displacement on the Trail of Tears from North Carolina, where they had lived for hundreds or maybe thousands of years, to Oklahoma where Studi was born.
Unlike the delegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention who broke out in chants of “no more war” at displays of militarism, the great and the good of Hollywood seemed nonplussed by this strange interlude. Few of them applauded it, but none protested either.
From Dunkirk to Iraq and Syria
Perhaps the aging white men who still run the “Academy” were driven to this exhibition of militarism by the fact that two of the films nominated for Oscars were war movies. But they were both films about the U.K. in the early years of the Second World War – stories of British people resisting German aggression, not of Americans committing it.
Like most cinematic paeans to the U.K.’s “finest hour,” both these films are rooted in Winston Churchill’s own account of the Second World War and his role in it. Churchill was roundly sent packing by British voters in 1945, before the war was even over, as British troops and their families instead voted for the “land fit for heroes” promised by the Labour Party, a land where the rich would share the sacrifices of the poor, in peace as in war, with a National Health Service and social justice for all.
Churchill reportedly consoled his cabinet at its final meeting, telling them,
“Never fear, gentlemen, history will be kind to us – for I shall write it.”
And so he did, cementing his own place in history and drowning out more critical accounts of the U.K.’s role in the war by serious historians likeA.J.P. Taylorin the U.K. andD.F. Fleming in the U.S.
If the Military Industrial Complex and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences are trying to connect these Churchillian epics with America’s current wars, they should be careful what they wish for. Many people around the world need little prompting to identify the German Stukas and Heinkels bombing Dunkirk and London with the U.S. and allied F-16s bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and the British troops huddled on the beach at Dunkirk with the destitute refugees stumbling ashore on Lesbos and Lampedusa.
Externalizing the Violence of War
In the past 16 years, the U.S. has invaded, occupied and dropped 200,000 bombs and missiles on seven countries, but it has lost only 6,939 American troops killed and 50,000 wounded in these wars. To put this in the context of U.S. military history, 58,000 U.S. troops were killed in Vietnam, 54,000 in Korea, 405,000 in the Second World War and 116,000 in the First World War.
But low U.S. casualties do not mean that our current wars are less violent than previous wars. Our post-2001 wars have probably killed between 2 and 5 million people. The use of massive aerial and artillery bombardment has reduced cities like Fallujah, Ramadi, Sirte, Kobane, Mosul and Raqqa to rubble, and our wars have plunged entire societies into endless violence and chaos.
At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as “shock and awe.” (Source: Consortiumnews)
But by bombing and firing from a distance with very powerful weapons, the U.S. has wreaked all this slaughter and destruction at an extraordinary low rate of U.S. casualties. The U.S.’s technological war-making has not reduced the violence and horror of war, but it has “externalized” it, at least temporarily.
But do these low casualty rates represent a kind of “new normal” that the U.S. can replicate whenever it attacks or invades other countries? Can it keep waging war around the world and remain so uniquely immune from the horrors it unleashes on others?
Or are the low U.S. casualty rates in these wars against relatively weak military forces and lightly armed resistance fighters giving Americans a false picture of war, one that is enthusiastically embellished by Hollywood and the corporate media?
Even when the U.S. was losing 900-1,000 troops killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan each year from 2004 to 2007, there was much more public debate and vocal opposition to war than there is now, but those were still historically very low casualty rates.
U.S. military leaders are more realistic than their civilian counterparts. General Dunford, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has told Congress that the U.S. plan for war on North Korea is for a ground invasion of Korea, effectively a Second Korean War. The Pentagon must have an estimate of the number of U.S. troops who are likely to be killed and wounded under its plan, and Americans should insist that it makes that estimate public before U.S. leaders decide to launch such a war.
The other country that the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia keep threatening to attack or invade is Iran. President Obama admitted from the outset that Iran was the ultimate strategic target of the CIA’s proxy war in Syria.
Israeli and Saudi leaders openly threaten war on Iran, but expect the U.S. to fight Iran on their behalf. American politicians play along with this dangerous game, which could get thousands of their constituents killed. This would flip the traditional U.S. doctrine of proxy war on its head, effectively turning the U.S. military into a proxy force fighting for the ill-defined interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Iran is nearly 4 times the size of Iraq, with more than double its population. It has a 500,000 strong military and its decades of independence and isolation from the West have forced it to develop its own weapons industry, supplemented by some advanced Russian and Chinese weapons.
In an article about the prospect of a U.S. war on Iran, U.S. Army Major Danny Sjursen dismissed American politicians’ fears of Iran as “alarmism” and called his boss, Defense Secretary Mattis, “obsessed” with Iran. Sjursen believes that the “fiercely nationalistic” Iranians would mount a determined and effective resistance to foreign occupation, and concludes, “Make no mistake, U.S.military occupation of the Islamic Republic would make the occupation of Iraq, for once, actually look like the ‘cakewalk’ it was billed to be.”
Is This America’s “Phony War”?
Invading North Korea or Iran could make the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look in hindsight like the German invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland must have looked to German troops on the Eastern front a few years later. Only 18,000 German troops were killed in the invasion of Czechoslovakia and 16,000 in the invasion of Poland. But the larger war that they led to killed 7 million Germans and wounded 7 million more.
After the deprivations of the First World War reduced Germany to a state of near starvation and drove the German Navy to mutiny, Adolf Hitler was determined, like America’s leaders today, to maintain an illusion of peace and prosperity on the home front. The newly conquered people of the thousand-year Reich could suffer, but not Germans in the homeland.
Hitler succeeded in maintaining the standard of living in Germany at about its pre-war level for the first two years of the war, and even began cutting military spending in 1940 to boost the civilian economy. Germany only embraced a total war economy when its previously all-conquering forces hit a brick wall of resistance in the Soviet Union. Could Americans be living through a similar “phony war”, one miscalculation away from a similar shock at the brutal reality of the wars we have unleashed on the world?
How would the American public react if far greater numbers of Americans were killed in Korea or Iran – or Venezuela? Or even in Syria if the U.S. and its allies follow through on their plan to illegally occupy Syria east of the Euphrates?
And where are our political leaders and jingoistic media leading us with their ever-escalating anti-Russian and anti-Chinese propaganda? How far will they take their nuclear brinksmanship? Would American politicians even know before it was too late if they crossed a point of no return in their dismantling of Cold War nuclear treaties and escalating tensions with Russia and China?
Obama’s doctrine of covert and proxy war was a response to the public reaction to what were in fact historically low U.S. casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Obama waged war on the quiet, not war on the cheap. Under cover of his dovish image, he successfully minimized the public reaction to his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, his proxy wars in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen, his global expansion of special operations and drone strikes and a massive bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria.
Syria, after six years of U.S.-manufactured war. (Source: VENEZUELAPHOTO: PRENSA LATINA | [email protected] \SANA)
How many Americans know that the bombing campaign Obama launched in Iraq and Syria in 2014 has been the heaviest U.S. bombing campaign anywhere in the world since Vietnam? Over 105,000 bombs and missiles, as well as indiscriminate U.S., French and Iraqi rockets and artillery, have blasted thousands of homes in Mosul, Raqqa, Fallujah, Ramadi and dozens of smaller towns and villages. As well as killing thousands of Islamic State fighters, they have probably killed at least 100,000 civilians, a systematic war crime that has passed almost without comment in the Western media.
“…And It Is Late”
How will the American public react if Trump launches new wars against North Korea or Iran, and the U.S. casualty rate returns to a more historically “normal” level – maybe 10,000 Americans killed each year, as during the peak years of the American War in Vietnam, or even 100,000 per year, as in U.S. combat in the Second World War? Or what if one of our many wars finally escalates into a nuclear war, with a higher U.S. casualty rate than any previous war in our history?
In his classic 1994 book, Century of War, the late Gabriel Kolko presciently explained,
“Those who argue that war and preparation for it is not necessary to capitalism’s existence or prosperity miss the point entirely: it simply has not functioned in any other way in the past and there is nothing in the present to warrant the assumption that the coming decades will be any different…”
Kolko concluded,
“But there are no easy solutions to the problems of irresponsible, deluded leaders and the classes they represent, or the hesitation of people to reverse the world’s folly before they are themselves subjected to its grievous consequences. So much remains to be done – and it is late.”
America’s deluded leaders know nothing of diplomacy beyond bullying and brinksmanship. As they brainwash themselves and the public with the illusion of war without casualties, they will keep killing, destroying and risking our future until we stop them – or until they stop us and everything else.
The critical question today is whether the American public can muster the political will to pull our country back from the brink of an even greater military disaster than the ones we have already unleashed on millions of our neighbors.
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.
The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a weapons lab that might not even exist anymore. Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.
Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury, one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war.
Read this. It’s from a respected “unbiased”, liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet, and has no place in our media.
If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.
To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.
Usually we would entitle these pieces “fact checks”, but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.
Its agents pop over for murder and shopping…
FALSE: There’s no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The “public inquiry” was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which contravene British law regarding a fair trial.
…even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.
TRUE…sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here…is that WE let them. Oligarchs have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin’s government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That’s why you have wanted criminals like Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he’s down to his “last 270 million”.
Screenshot from The Guardian
When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe literally billions in tax, and our government lets them get away with it.
Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia’s own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous adversaries that it secretly envies.
FALSE: Russiagate is a farce, anyone with an open-mind can see that. The reference to Russians envying the west is childish and insulting. The 13, just thirteen, Russians who were indicted by Mueller have no connection to the Russian government, and allegedly campaigned for many candidates, and both for and against Trump. They are a PR firm, nothing more.
It bought a World Cup,
FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?
Regarding the second “neighbour”: Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been “invaded” by Russia many times…but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The “anti-terrorist operation” in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died. The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias…many of whom espouse outright fascism.
…bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.
MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory, al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria’s major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether or not he thinks this is a good thing.
Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists and US-backed mercenaries.
And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.
FALSE: America started the arms race when they pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Putin warned at the time it was a dangerous move. America then moved their AEGIS “defense shield” into Eastern Europe. Giving them the possibility of first-strike without retaliation. This is an untennable position for any country. Putin warned, at the time, that Russia would have to respond. They have responded. Mr Rice-Oxley should take this up with Bush and Cheney if he has a problem with it.
And before the whataboutists say, “America does some of that stuff too”, that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally awful it doesn’t mean that Russia isn’t.
MISLEADING: America doesn’t do “some of that stuff”. No, America aren’t “occasionally awful”. They do ALL of that stuff, and have been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure and count.
We are so used to American crimes we just don’t see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps. Would we ever hear the end of it?
Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has “invaded two neighbours”, the scale of destruction just does not compare.
Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin’s government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America’s human rights record.
The double-think employed here is literally insane.
Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not “whataboutism”. It’s a standard rhetorical appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn’t be fair, fine, but don’t expect other people not to point out your double standards.
As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself. Boycott the World Cup? That’ll teach them!
FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in Syria, they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain’s attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for years.
Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions….Of course, the vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.
TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley’s column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia so that people will support US-UK warmongering.
Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state
FALSE: Putin’s government has decreased poverty by over 66% in 17 years. They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.
Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?
MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum…something which requires explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don’t NEED to explain whyRussian power is like this, because he hasn’t yet established that it is.
I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic, social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.
MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as “rebirth” is an absurd joke. People sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.
At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.
TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin’s government in pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia’s health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?
The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.
PROJECTION:…he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been down, for decades. Poverty is increasing all the time, food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people, now live in poverty.
In that same time, as stated above, Russia’s poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.
What is to be done? I wouldn’t respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.
Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a “problem” so he can pitch us a “solution”.
There are only two weaknesses in this bully’s defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don’t bother with sanctions. Just say: “No thanks, we don’t want your business.”
FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.
What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.
He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I’m reading too much into this, then here…
The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.
Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, “envious” Russians aren’t equipped to make their own decisions. We need to step in. “Public opinion” turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.
Maybe it’s time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we’ve been hearing about how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context and some well placed memes.
Our response? Our defense of our “values”? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ – their existence was reported in the Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight face.
Russia is such a destabilising threat to “our democratic values”, such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine their elections and remove their popular head of state.
Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he’s doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.
It’s all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they’ll realise that before it’s too late. For all our sakes.
The British government is talking war with Russia over a mysterious incident that is claimed to have taken place on Sunday March 4, just a few kilometres from the secrecy shrouded British biological and chemical warfare research and development facility at Porton Down in Wiltshire. I say claimed since we have very little information confirming what exactly took place outside of government statements and we have seen no photographs of the alleged victims in their hospital beds to convince us that the alleged victims did fall ill and are being treated. However, let us assume that the incident as described did take place.
The mystery consists in the fact that the victims, former Russian colonel of military intelligence, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter, were not under any known threat from Russia. Skripal was charged and convicted in Russia in 2006 of being an asset of the British Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, and handing over secret information to the British. He was jailed, but in a spy swap in 2010 was pardoned and allowed to leave Russia for Vienna, then Britain, where he has been living ever since. Why he was pardoned is difficult to determine, unless it was necessary legally to effect the swap with the British. In any even the Russians had washed their hands of him but it seems the British had other uses for him, as their expendable man for a provocation against Russia.
The facts as the British government states them are that Skripal and his daughter, visiting from Russia, met for lunch in Salisbury, the town outside of which Porton Down is located. The purpose of the daughter’s visit is not known. According to ever changing media accounts witnesses in a restaurant reported that Skripal appeared to be agitated and angry and left in that state with his daughter following. Agitated and angry about what we do not know.
Half an hour later it is said that the two of them were found slumped over on a public bench. Some early media accounts state that it was thought they had taken too much fentanyl and were vomiting and that their illness may have been self-induced. But very quickly the British government claimed that they had been poisoned by some chemical or nerve agent and immediately cast the blame on Russia though the investigation had just begun. The incident was immediately taken out of the hands of the local police and handed over to the Counter-Terrorism Police, formerly known as Special Branch, though the government refused to call it a terrorist incident. A meeting of the British government high-level emergency committee, Cobra, was called. Why this was done for what appears to be an assault or attempted murder or a self-induced accident is a good question. But the answer lies in the immediate propaganda campaign mounted in the British press against Russia.
On Thursday the 8th of March the British government claimed that they had identified a “nerve agent” as the substance used. Yet the BBC quotes on the same day a woman physician who attended at the scene saying that she found Mrs. Skripal slumped unconscious on a bench vomiting and fitting. She had lost control of her bodily functions. The physician, who asked not to be named, told the BBC she moved the daughter into the recovery position and opened her airways as others tended to her father. The doctor stated that the she treated her for almost 30 minutes, saying there was no sign of any chemical agent on her face or body and that though she had been worried she would be affected by a nerve agent so far she “feels fine.”
Yet, the British media published on Thursday a photograph of a police officer who they say attended the scene and who they claim was made ill and placed in intensive care but is now stable and recovering. The two stories do not add up, as it would seem the doctor was in closer physical contact with the two victims than the police officer yet the doctor has suffered no symptoms at all.
The Guardian quoted Andrei Lugovoi, another former Russian agent, accused of Litvinenko’s murder by the British as stating that Skripal had been pardoned in Russia so no one from there is after him. ““I don’t rule out that this is another provocation by British. Whatever happens on British territory, they start yelling: ‘He was killed, he was hung, he was poisoned!’ and that Russiais to blame for everything. This is to their advantage.” Igor Sutyagin, yet another Russian traitor flown to Russia in 2010 in an exchange of spies-also said, “I don’t think that Mr. Skripal would be targeted, because he was pardoned.”
To add to the mystery the British government refuses to name the alleged nerve agent. To create more drama the British Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, stated that it was not Sarin or VX but something “very rare.” I think we can expect that they will choose the right dramatic moment to name something and state that only Russian labs can make it. That is their modus operandi. They certainly do not want to state that VX was involved since VX was developed in 1952 at Porton Down near the sight of the incident; for that would lead to necessary investigations into security at that facility and whether personnel there were involved. However, despite the fact that Porton Down is in the business of manufacturing chemical warfare agents including nerve agents and that logic would dictate that the Porton Down authorities would be barred from being investigators into a case in which they could be involved the British government immediately assigned Porton Down to identify the substance that might have been used.
That the Russians may be correct that this incident is another NATO arranged provocation must be seriously considered. Despite the fact there is no evidence whatsoever that Russia had anything to do with this incident, the British government was quick to label Russia as the villain of the piece and the mass media dutifully acted in lock step and put out the word. Boris Johnson called Russia a “malign and disruptive force’ and made threats about pulling the UK out of the World Cup to be held in Russia this year. The attempts by the NATO alliance to throw Russia out of the Olympics on trumped up doping charges were largely successful and now we see another attempt to disrupt a sports event that is important to world football fans and to Russia. Johnson added that Britain would act “robustly’ of Moscow is found to be involved.
The Russian embassy in London stated the allegations of Russian involvement are untrue and that the “script of yet another anti-Russian campaign has already been written.” It seems so and the script has some pages to run yet. One has to wonder what the role of the British intelligence services is in this for the BBC also reports that Skripal still kept the company of British intelligence agents. So one has to ask, for what reason? What was his continuing role as an asset of MI6? What was their role on that day?
But that line of inquiry will not be followed. All the British media are linking this incident to the case of Alexander Litvinenko, another Russian who was supposedly poisoned with radioactive tea. Evidence that cronies of his were involved were ignored in favour the line that Russia was behind it though no evidence has ever been put forward to support that claim. They are also making the claim that this “very rare” substance must be from a state military stockpile, so the statements to come from the British government can be predicted.
This incident has echoes of the case of Georgi Markov, the Bulgarian dissident killed in London in 1978 by a ricin pellet injected into his leg by means of an umbrella it was said, though it was no doubt done with an air pistol. That murder was quickly blamed on the KGB and Bulgarian government agents but there is evidence that in fact the murder was arranged by MI6 as was the murder of media magnate Robert Maxwell in 1991, who had documents relating to the Markov murder in his possession, according sources such as Richard Cottrell in his book Gladio and accounts by former British intelligence agent Gordon Logan.
The Skripal incident also brings to mind the death of Dr. David Kelly in 2003 whose mysterious death in woods near his home, was officially attributed to “suicide.” He is thought by many to have been assassinated by the British secret services and CIA to keep him from revealing secrets about the war in Iraq. He worked at Porton Down as head of microbiology.
He in turn is connected to other scientists at Porton Down who have died under questionable circumstances, for instance, Dr. Richard Holmes, whose body was found in the same woods as Dr. Kelly, in 2012, two days after going for a walk, and one month after resigning from Porton Down, and to Vladimir Pasechnik’s death in November 2001, another Russian defector, who allegedly died of a stroke. His death was not announced until a month later and by British intelligence. Dr. Kelly had been involved in his debriefing when he left Russia.
Sir Edward Leigh, a member of the Parliamentary Defence Committee, in the British Parliament stated, “the circumstantial evidence against Russia is very strong. Who else would have the motive and the means?” The answer to that of course is that the British government has the motive and the means. What would Russia benefit from harming a has-been like Skripal and causing all this fuss? None. What benefit does Britain have and NATO? The answer again is provided by Sir Richard who went on to state “The only way to preserve peace is through strength,” carefully echoing Trump’s foreign policy. He continued, “and if Russia is behind this, this is a brazen act of war, of humiliating our country and defence is the first duty and spending 2% of the budget on defence is not enough.” There is the motive right there. To justify an increase on defence spending and to hit Russia yet again with propaganda warfare to justify NATO’s continuing aggression against Russia.
Russia has volunteered to cooperate in the “investigation” but to what end? The script is already written, the drama will unfold, the consequences will flow and they will lead not to peace and cooperation but to more hostility and war.
*
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
On March 4, former Russian General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate official Sergey Skripal/turned double agent for Britain and his daughter Yulia were found unconscious at the Salisbury UK Maltings shopping center.
They’re hospitalized in critical condition, an investigation underway to determine the cause of their illness – believed to be poisoning by a toxic substance, a nerve agent, according to UK police.
In 2004, Skripal was prosecuted for treason, sentenced to 13 years in prison. In 2010, he and three other imprisoned Russian nationals were pardoned and released as part of a prisoner exchange arrangement with Washington – freeing 10 Russian citizens in America.
In 2011, Skripal moved to Britain. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova accused Western media of using his illness “to stoke the anti-Russia campaign,” adding:
“The situation has not become clear yet, but the usual theories have already gained momentum. (F)ake news stories are aimed at complicating Russia-UK relations. It is impossible to see any other reason behind them.”
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the Kremlin has no information on Skripal’s illness. No evidence suggests Russian involvement in the incident.
What possible benefit could Russia gain from his poisoning? Clearly Russophobes benefit hugely by blaming Moscow, an automatic knee-jerk reaction, especially by Western media scoundrels.
The incident is similar to the polonium-210 poisoning death of former Russian Federal Security Service/KGB official Alexander Litvinenko in 2006.
Moscow was automatically blamed despite no evidence suggesting it. At the time Maria Zakharova slammed the accusation, saying:
“We regret that the purely criminal case has been politicized and has marred the entire atmosphere of bilateral relations” – shown by lack of objectivity and bias.
Was the poisoning of Litvinenko and Skripal CIA false flags complicit with British intelligence to wrongfully blame Russia?
It makes no sense to imagine Moscow had anything to do with either incident. Yet irresponsible finger-pointing is relentless, notably by media scoundrels.
Neocon/CIA connected Washington Post editors asked if “Putin’s poison squad (is) back in Britain,” disgracefully saying:
“The poisoning could be a revenge assassination attempt, similar to those carried out in the past by Russia. If so, it would be another brazen crime by President Vladimir Putin that cannot be ignored.”
No evidence links Russia to poisonings in Britain or anywhere else – CIA and Mossad specialties, ignored by WaPo and other media scoundrels.
WaPo’s tirade continued, falsely accusing Putin of “dreaming (about) Russian grandeur…boasting wildly of new nuclear weapons delivery systems…a contingent of Russian mercenary fighters attack(ing) a base run by the United States and its Kurdish allies…on the heels of Russia’s attempts in 2016” to help Trump defeat Hillary.
These and similar comments by WaPo and other media scoundrels are totally detached from reality.
They reflect longstanding Russia bashing, a daily disinformation onslaught, propaganda war perhaps begging for something hot.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.
