In a “Russia Insight” TV interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin that was uploaded to youtube with English subtitles on March 10th, NBC’s Megyn Kelly asked him why America’s ABMs wouldn’t be able to knock out Russia’s new missiles. He answered (16:40): “We have created a set of new strategic weapons that do not follow ballistic trajectories, and the anti-missile defence systems are powerless against them. This means that the U.S. taxpayers’ money has been wasted.”

A ballistic missile — the types of missiles at which an ABM or anti-ballistic missile is directed — is not just any type of missile, but instead is a missile with a certain type of trajectory, which goes above the Earth’s atmosphere and then comes down largely using the force of gravity instead of continuously under propulsion and strict control. Putin is saying that Russia’s new missiles, which are designed so as not to be adhering to the flight-paths that ballistic missiles do, can’t be hit by anti-ballistic missiles.

Putin referred to Russia’s largest new missile as “Voyevoda.” The missile’s manufacturer posts online about it, “33 launches in all were conducted, 97.4% of them successful.”

She then asked him whether these weapons will be used only if Russia comes under a nuclear attack, or against any attack; he answered it would be either a nuclear attack “or a conventional attack on the Russian Federation, given that it jeopardizes the state’s existence.” He implied that if an ally of Russia gets attacked, Russia will respond only with non-nuclear forces.

Then, he volunteered to say, in response to a question about what the issues would be that Russia would want formal negotiations with the U.S., that,

“today, when we are acquiring weapons that can easily breach all anti-ballistic missile systems, we no longer consider the reduction of ballistic missiles and warheads to be important.”

She asked whether the new weapons he was referring to could be “part of the discussion,“ and he said they “should, of course, be included in the grand total.”

This interview continued with non-nuclear matters, such as the accusations that he had interfered in America’s 2016 Presidential contest, or tried to. His answers were very direct, but viewers who support the ongoing Russiagate investigations will probably not believe his answers.

As regards the weapons-issues, there is posted online a brilliant technical description of the types of engineering issues that the Russians have been developing for decades, in which they’ve led the world and in which their lead has been widening, and which were behind what Putin was speaking about in his March 1st speech. Though that technical description was a reader-comment, instead of an article, it was article-length, and makes the issues clear; and the article that it was commenting upon was itself brilliant: and it links to an earlier brilliant article by Andrei Martyanov; so, all three of those together enable a pretty clear understanding of what’s involved in Russia’s biggest strategic-weapons breakthroughs.

*

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

Truth and Lies of the Syrian Conflict

March 11th, 2018 by Michael Welch

“If it isn’t already clear, UNICEF is participating in war propaganda against Syria, reporting and endorsing one very exaggerated and not substantiated side of the story, disappearing another very real side.”

– Eva Bartlett [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

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 Ghoutta while completely ignoring the carnage meted out by rebel factions in the area.

While such respected agencies, as well as supposedly independent media outlets like Democracy Now may fall short of actually endorsing war, the distorted coverage and one-sided humanitarian narratives they relay play into the hands of the military interventionists.

This week’s installment of the Global Research News Hour returns its gaze to Syria and attempts to provide a fuller picture of what’s happening on the ground and why.

First up is Eva Bartlett. She has visited Syria frequently over the last several years, interviewing numerous people in all parts of Syria. She can attest to the important stories that are being deliberately weeded out of the corporate press. In her conversation with the Global Research News Hour (transcribed below) she details missing reporting about terrorist activities in the country. She also corrects the record on the meme of her being on Russia’s payroll, while disclosing areas where the objectivity of UN and other humanitarian agencies are compromised.

We next hear from Damascus-based journalist Tom Duggan. He speaks about the shelling of schools, hospitals and other non-military targets by militants in East Ghouta and the suffering that has resulted. He also elaborates on the way Western sanctions against Syria have contributed to the humanitarian disaster in the city.

Finally, Patrick Henningsen returns to the program. The geopolitical analyst has been to Syria in the last year. He addresses the actual reasons for U.S. interest in the overthrow and undermining of President Assad. He also gets into Washington’s ‘Plan B’ for Syria and interprets Turkish operations in Afrin, Israeli involvement near Damascus, and Kurdish activity within the north of Syria within that context.

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine. She is a recipient of the International Journalism Award for International Reporting, Mexican Press Club, 2017. She blogs at ingaza.wordpress.com

Tom Duggan is a British journalist who has been based in Damascus since 2013. He uploads his on the ground reports on his facebook page and his youtube channel.

Patrick Henningsen is a writer, global affairs analyst and the founder of 21stcenturywire.com. He appears as a regular guest commentator on RT News International and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast. His work has appeared in a number of international publications including The Guardian, UK Column, Consortium News and also on channels like Al Jazeera English, ITN, Edge Media (SKY 200 UK) and US syndicated radio show Coast to Coast AM.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Transcript- Eva Bartlett Interview, March 6, 2018

Global Research: The portrait of Syria we see in the mainstream, and even a lot of alternative media, is very much at odds with the realities we’ve seen presented on this program over the last couple of years. The conflict continues to be presented as a civil war in which the Assad regime is brutalizing the population and using chemical weapons against them while somehow managing to prevail in internationally monitored elections.

To help understand the success with which western anti-Assad powers has waged this campaign against Syria, the Global Research News Hour got hold of Eva Bartlett. Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine.

She’s a recipient of the international journalism reward for international reporting from the Mexican Press Club in 2017. Bartlett maintains that the major press have based their assertions about the Syrian conflict on unreliable and partisan sources.

Eva Bartlett: There was a series of activists, including American Bilul Abdul Kareem, who pretends to be a neutral and independent journalist and is solely embedded in terrorist-held areas including Al Qaeda, who has met the Saudi terrorist Abdullah Muhaysini., and who basically praises their tactics including suicide bombings; so media has presented people like himself, and others in Aleppo that were in terrorist-held areas like the child Bana al-Abed .

The media was presenting them as neutral, independent voices depicting what was happening on the ground in Aleppo, and as I’ve made a point of mentioning it many, many times already in interviews and writings, the media did not mention the 1.5 million people in greater Aleppo, nor the over 4000 doctors in greater Aleppo, nor the fact that hospitals in greater Aleppo were being attacked by..and um.. people were being killed and injured in these attacks by terrorist factions in Aleppo’s east.

So, even in the lead-up in 2016, Aleppo was one of the most propagandized cities in Syria.

Global Research: A recurring theme presented by the press and human rights organizations was the spectre of the Syrian government withdrawing food and medical aid from the suffering citizens in east Aleppo and the town of Madaya. Bartlett, to return to Madaya last summer, claims that it was the rebel factions in control and not the Syrian government, that was responsible for depriving the citizens of these supplies.

Eva Bartlett: When I went there in June in 2017, civilians there told me, just like in East Aleppo, and just like I’m positive we’re going to be hearing of Eastern Ghouta when it’s finally liberated, there was food that entered, the Syrian government allowed food, it sent food in, and it also allowed aid agencies to send food in. But we didn’t have – “we” this is the civilians, this is them, me paraphrasing them, did not have access to the food because the terrorist factions, the militants, they took food, and if they sold it to us, they sold it at prices we could not afford.

And when I went to Madaya, I saw above a bomb factory the terrorists were using to manufacture mortars and missiles to fire on the Syrian army and on any civilians below them, because this was in a hillside town, um, above that factory was a storage room which, one, at least one storage room, where they had kept the food and aid supplies that came in to Madaya.

And there was media, there was Russian media, Murad Gazdiev with RT, and of course Syrian journalists who our media completely dismisses, who went to Madaya in 2016 and who saw and took photos and video of food aid entering Madaya and who spoke with civilians who were protesting the presence of these terrorists stealing their food, but western media completely dismissed them and ran with this narrative that the Syrian government was starving Madaya.

And they said the same thing occurred in Aleppo, and when journalists finally went there…Syrians, independent journalists, Russian media, unfortunately the only western media that I’m aware of that actually deigned to tell the truth was surprisingly Reuters, and they have a clip interviewing civilians saying the terrorists stole our food. And they show storage of food boxes.

Just yesterday, I believe it was, Ruptly which is affiliated with RT, reported on food aid going into Al Ghouta and even ICRC, the Red Cross spokesman said food aid has been sent in, but in April 2016, when all the media and reporters were relying on Medecins sans frontieres (Doctors without borders) MSF, said that the Syrians or the Russians had deliberately targeted and destroyed and reduced to rubble a hospital named Al Quds in the Sukari district of west Aleppo, and this was used to again vilify the Syrians and the Russians and to call for Intervention or a no-fly zone.

That hospital was not destroyed. I saw it with my own eyes, and before I saw it, months before I saw it in June 2017, a Syrian doctor I know saw it, and a French man named Pierre LaCourt saw it and documented it. So, there’s no way that it was destroyed and rebuilt. It was never destroyed but in that instance MSF relied on whatever nefarious Al Qaeda or whatever linked source that fed MSF this information, and I suspect the WHO has relied on this information as well.

And the United Nations is, in my opinion, deliberately participating in war propaganda. Because I recently wrote an article after I came across this statement issued on February 20th, and it was issued by UNICEF’s Regional Director of Middle East and North Africa, and the statement was one of outrage, and it was called the war on Syria, on children in Syria: reports of mass casualties amongst children in Eastern Ghouta and Damascus.

So that statement was essentially just blank lines and some words… no words could do justice to the children killed. Now, it did mention Damascus at the end, but obviously the implication was Eastern Ghouta because that statement then recycled in all the different Western media corporate outlets that were citing claims of 400,000 civilians trapped in Ghouta being espoused by the Syrian government.

None of these outlets first of all can cite, can provide sources for the number. Where did they get this 400000? It could be the case, or it could be inflated, as was the case in East Aleppo where even the United Nations said 250 to 300 thousand civilians trapped in East Aleppo, and it was half that number — if not less than half that number when we finally had access to East Aleppo.

So that’s question 1: where do you get this definitive statement of 400,000 civilians but moreover why corporate media, and this is a completely rhetorical question because I know, why are you not mentioning the presence of Ahrar al-Sham, Faylaq al-Rahman, al-Qaeda, and other terrorist factions in Eastern Ghouta?

And why are you not mentioning that some civilians have actually been able to flee, escaped at their own peril, being attacked with these terrorist factions bombing humanitarian quarters…as two children recently escaped from Eastern Ghouta…

Global Research: you should be able to have… easily access to those who make it to Damascus, you know?

Eva Bartlett: Well, the Syrians and the Russians, they have opened just like they did in Aleppo, they’ve opened humanitarian quarters and it’s the terrorist factions within who are not allowing civilians to leave. And since you asked for my own personal example: before Aleppo was liberated I met a father and a man and a woman who had numerous children who had tried a couple of times to escape their area of Aleppo, and they had been prevented by the terrorist factions and finally they and forty others one night while there was clashes between the terrorists and the Syrian Army, they were able to escape.

And then, later on, there’s a lot more documentation of people trying to flee and being prevented by these terrorist factions, and that is what’s happening in Ghouta. Also in Aleppo, in November when I was in Aleppo on one of the humanitarian quarters the Castello Road, it was shelled twice while I was standing there on the road and five more times after security had told me and the others that were there to leave. So this is… and it wasn’t the first time it happened. The week before, it was heavy shelling on various humanitarian quarters.

The media is portraying the Syrian government is showing no will whatsoever to guarantee the safety of civilians, and that’s completely not true. The Syrian government and Russians and all the Allies are working to ensure the most peaceful solution possible.

Global Research: And there’s one particular anecdote in particular I’d like you to bring up. There was a child who became somewhat iconic: Omran Daqneesh. You had a chance to talk to his father.

Eva Bartlett: Well, so, the official narrative coming out of corporate media was that Omran Daqneesh was the face of suffering, Syrian suffering, he was the poster child of suffering, and terrorist groups even used him for their cause, for their propaganda cause, and the story was that he was injured, perhaps gravely injured, and sat in this ambulance bleeding and looking terrified, and that he was injured in the Russian or Syrian airstrike.

But Mr.Daqneesh said there were no planes flying, there was no air strike, his son was not gravely injured, he was mildly injured, and he was himself was mildly injured.

There was some sort of explosion. It’s believed that it was one of the terrorist factions that fired some sort of explosives in their area, and that while he was rounding up members of the family in the dark to put them all together in one place, his boy Omran was snatched by someone and eventually ended up put in the ambulance by white helmets and photographed.

And so, if we’re to believe that these white helmets–so-called Syrian Civil Defense known more aptly as Al qaeda’s Rescuers–if we’re to believe that they had the well-being of Omran Daqneesh in mind, why did they sit him in an ambulance and not give him any medical care while they photographed him.

And, by the way, the man whose photo of Omran Daqneesh went viral, that man’s name was Mahmoud Raslan, and he has ties to, seems to be friends with Nour al-Din al-Zenki, who in summer of 2016 beheaded a Palestinian child, Abdullah Issa. And when Mahmoud Raslan was interviewed by western corporate media, he said he cried for children like Omran. And it’s supremely hypocritical because he took a grinning selfie with the child beheaders of Nour al-Din al-Zenki.

So in any case Omran Daqneesh’s father said his son had been exploited by the media, and he said they traded in our blood. And you know, I’m not, I won’t be surprised when similar stories come out of Ghouta when we find out the truth about certain stories were hearing about Ghouta.

Global Research: I think the public is generally primed to distrust certain narratives coming from the President Trump, or President Bush, or Obama, or even Prime Minister Trudeau. And, of course, they might be suspicious of the CNN, Washington Post, or Norwegian journalists from certain corporate outlets, but they’re not as inclined to be critical of Amnesty International, or the United Nations, or Democracy Now, so I’m wondering what you could possibly say, especially as somebody who’s been criticized for being conflicted, you know working for the Russians and such, what could you say to listeners that would shake their confidence in those entities? How are they compromised in terms of their ability to give us the straight goods on Syria?

Eva Bartlett: I would highly recommend that listeners look up the writings and interviews of Professor Francis Boyle, professor of international law. I myself interviewed him a month or two ago, and he himself was on the board, I might get this wrong, of MCUSA I believe it was, and in the lead-up to the first Iraq war, he was warning them not to publish this report based on what we now know is the fake incubator baby story issued by the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador who made up this ridiculous story of incubated babies being taken out of their incubators.

Professor Boyle said to Amnesty, I’m paraphrasing, that the report was seriously flawed, that he did not believe its accuracy, and that it would lead to the loss of lives and it would fuel the Western desire to go to war. And it did.

And Amnesty refused to listen to him, and I’ve read other accounts of Amnesty essentially shilling for war. When you look at the makeup of Amnesty, at one point, I don’t know if she’s still affiliated with Amnesty, but Suzanne Nossel, I might be wrong about this, but I think she was affiliated with the US state department.

I do have on my blog a page, it needs updating, but it was devoted to the different humanitarian actors or fake human rights groups that essentially shill for war. And Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and a number of others like of Avaaz which is an online campaign that often does petitions, and often, their petitions have to do with calling for no fly zones in places like Syria. These are effectively serving as a human face for intervention in the country that’s being warred upon. I mean, I can send you that link, that might be the most, the easiest thing.

But it is, for example, the leader, the head of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Ross, has knowingly put out photos and videos of other places and purported they were Aleppo. And he took one video from Eastern Gaza, from a district called Shujaiya, and he said this is Aleppo under Assad’s bombs. And, for somebody who is the head of Human Rights Watch to put out a video with that statement… that is not… if that is just simple negligence, then that shows how much credit we should give any reports coming from that body, but I think it’s more than negligence. I’m positive that it was intentional. He’s done that since.

What I wanted to say though, with regards to the UN, this statement of outrage that I mentioned, it did not, I looked for other statements of outrage perhaps pertaining to the terrorist shelling of Damascus, which is happening on a daily basis, and you have tens of people being killed over the last many weeks, and they’re targeting, like, just yesterday or the day before, they targeted a hospital and injured a number of people.

They’re targeting civilians in densely inhabited areas, like in the old city of Damascus, and I have yet to come across any sort of outrage by the United Nations on this on this deliberate targeting of the civilians, nor have they issued any sort of statement of outrage that I have found about Turkey’s bombing, illegal bombing, of Syria and the area of Afrin in the Northwest, nor have they issued any sort of outrage that I could find of the illegal U.S.-led Coalition bombing of civilians, infrastructure, and killing of thousands of civilians in Syria and the massive destruction of the areas of Syrian infrastructure.

So, the last point I just want to make about the UN is that they are serial censors of Syrian voices, particularly Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Bashar al-Ja’afari. He routinely has his mic cut or is not allowed to speak, unless he really forces them to allow him to speak, or he is assigned translators who, for example, some weeks ago when he mentioned 1,000 shells on Damascus, the translator in question translated that to 20 shells, and that’s a significant difference.

Global Research: The heads of the UNICEF … there is a former head, Anthony Lake, who had, who is a former National Security adviser in the Clinton Administration. That speaks to conflicts that’s not coming through, I mean, people are accusing you of being a Russian agent or Assad apologist, but, here you have some real conflicts that there’s no full disclosure about. Do you have a comment that you’d like to introduce in that regard?

Eva Bartlett: I do. First of all I just want to address the whole Russian agent notion. So, if listeners go to rt.com/op-ed/authors, you’ll find me. I’m an author in their opinion section, so it’s not a blog as certain outlets like channel 4 news or Snopes have insisted. It’s simply an opinion section to which there are, last time I checked, 30 contributors. My contribution, my last one, was on Palestine, on Palestinian political prisoners, and it was in December. So it’s not like I’m a regular contributor, or even if I were, there’s nothing wrong with that.

But I also contribute to Mint Press News, which has no affiliation with Russia whatsoever, and, as I made a point in a recent panel in Derry, Northern Ireland, I said RT does not censor me. I’m allowed to write what I see, what I feel, what I think, and if I tried to do this for CBC, or if the Guardian deigned to publish me, which I would not write for at this point in my life, but if I tried to, I guarantee they would change my wording, they would slash my articles, they would not represent the full of what I wanted to say. So, I’m actually very honored to write for RT, but that I also contribute to Mint Press, to SOTT.Net, and a variety of other sites that pay a pittance, to be honest, and I also contribute periodically to Global Research.

But, more importantly, back to UNICEF. So, when I was writing this article that was published in Mint Press over the UN’s fake outrage and not even mentioning the illegal Saudi war in Yemen, no outrage for Yemenis, I was curious, I came across an article, I forget the name of the author, but it’s on Telusur, the website Telusur, and it outlines how Anthony Lake, as you mentioned, was National Security advisor to President Clinton, and at one point was elected to be director of the CIA.

According to this particular article on Telusur, it said Lake played a significant role in mass starvation in Somalia 2010-12 by under-budgeting food aid, budgeting 10 cents a day per person to feed a million internally displaced persons, and that Lake publicly admitted he knew about, and did nothing to prevent, the genocide in Rwanda, something he “regretted.”

So that’s a scary admission, if the head of UNICEF, the body that’s supposed to have the welfare, the well-being, of civilians in conflict zones in mind, and he knowingly under-budgeted their food aid knowing, just like the Israelis do, knowing that this will not be enough for the recipients to exist on. That’s very telling about that particular branch of the UN.

But then, you have when I was writing about Madaya in 2016, I looked at another body of United Nations, the OCHA, the Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, and when the Madaya media buzz was going on, OCHA was almost exclusively tweeting about terrorist-occupied areas of Zabadani and Madaya, and they weren’t mentioning the terrorists.

They were just putting forth the same rhetoric about the Syrian government starving people in Madaya, and as I pointed out in an article I wrote it that time, they mentioned only passingly the two villages of Foua and Kafraya, which are to this day besieged and to this day being bombed and starved, and they merit no outrage whatsoever for OCHA or for the UN, and OCHA can barely bring themselves to tweet about Foua and Kafraya.

Even though these two villages have been under siege, full siege, from March 2015 and partial siege years prior by terrorist factions, and fully surrounded and being sniped and bombed on a daily basis, the UN did not, and we know why, why the UN did not find these villages worthy of merit, of mentioning, it’s because it doesn’t fit this neatly packaged humanitarian intervention agenda propaganda.

So where, anywhere that terrorists are occupying, the UN, sorry, the United Nations, these human rights groups, the corporate media, Democracy Now, they will conveniently omit the presence of the terrorists, they will conveniently omit the fact that the terrorist factions in these areas are firing upon civilians in the areas outside of the besieged area, they will omit the fact that terrorists are hoarding the food and medical aid that come in, and any effort the Syrian government and Russian allies are making towards providing a peaceful resolution in these areas.

Global Research: You just heard a conversation with the award-winning Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett. Her articles on Syria and Palestine can be found on the site ingaza.wordpress.com.

Transcript- Tom Duggan Interview,March 7, 2018

Global Research: Tom Duggan is a British journalist who has resided in Damascus since 2013. Mr. Duggan has been intensely critical of the one-sided Western coverage of the Syrian conflict. What follows in an excerpt of a conversation the Global Research News Hour had with him on Wednesday March 7th. He relates the carnage enacted on Damascus hospitals and schools from the East Ghoutta-based rebels. He spoke of the attacks on humanitarian corridors by the rebels, and of the damage from the sanctions imposed on the country. We apologize in advance for the poor quality of the recording.

Tom Duggan: East Ghoutta over a period of the last 7 years has shelled Damascus repeatedly, to a cost of 1500 children killed so far, over the last 7 year(s). Thirty two thousand people are maimed, loss of limbs. And around about 25,000 killed (inaudible) approximately. So, the Syrian government turned its attention, offered the East Ghoutta people amnesty to surrender or take them to Idlib, and they immediately started shelling Damascus. In the first day, the first month there was over a thousand shells rather in Damascus. Yesterday there was 270 plus shells blasting Damascus. And I spent yesterday watching doctors put a young girl’s – a 17-year old girl’s brains back inside her skull, and she died late in the last hour. And that’s the reality.

GR: I understand there had been a ceasefire, at least between 9 and 2 in the afternoon?

TD: Ceasefire on between the UN that was brokered by the Russians and the Syrian army with the terrorists, and that ceasefire lasts from nine o’clock in the morning to two o’clock in the afternoon. What happened yesterday is that terrorists shelled Damascus at eleven o’clock. They attacked the schools in Damascus (inaudible). And then they attacked Jeremana.

GR: They talk about people in cages…the militants are putting people in cages and using them as armed – as human shields. Can you comment on that?

TD: They did that two year(s) ago in Jobar. The same group that’s in East Ghoutta is from Jobar. They put Allawine, Christian, and other ethnic groups that (inaudible) in cages and put them on the rooftops and on the streets, so that the Syrian government wouldn’t fire on them.

I watched a child die yesterday! I was standing there watching them put her brains back in her head! And it’s not a pleasant site. I watched a policeman come in with a hole in his leg! I’ve seen women who didn’t know her daughter had died. And she was given (inaudible) All she wanted to know is if her daughter was okay and they couldn’t tell her anything because she had a big hole in her back.

They target schools! They target hospitals! When I was in Aleppo, we discovered the headquarters of every terrorist group was in a school! They surround themselves with human shields which are children!

It’s not ethical! Nobody wants to report what happened in Damascus. Nobody wants to report what happened in Aleppo. It’s all one-sided! I’m sitting here. I can tell you now I’ve seen people blown up in front of me! And nobody reported it. I’ve seen a car bomb go off, 19 soldiers were killed. That wasn’t reported. I’ve seen children in the streets lose their legs, and it’s not reported!

GR: Could you comment on how the sanctions have added to the crisis that you’re facing now?

TD: Sanctions are killing kids. I lost a child called Jules not long ago. He had what you’d call water on the brain, which is hydrocephalus. Not (inaudible) sexual disease but hydrocephalus, which is water on the brain. They couldn’t get the equipment in for the operation to be performed in Syria. He had to have a stint which the tube that runs up the (inaudible) into his brains to drain it off. The stint didn’t work. The child died within 17 days. We had him scheduled for a hospital in Malaysia to do the operation… aged four, and he came down with chicken pox because his immune system was so low, and he died. And there was nothing we could do about it. Absolutely nothing.

They, in Aleppo, they machine-gunned all the extra equipment before they left. They left all the medical equipment out in the streets, all the medicines in the sun. They devastated on the the medicines and bandages, in other words urinated on them so they couldn’t be used. You can’t get spare parts in for scanners, you can’t get spare parts in for X-Ray machines so they’re cannibalizing all the equipment that’s broken to keep the equipment running.

GR: I was just wondering because we’re running near the end of our time. Do you have any urgent messages that you wish to convey to our listeners before we close?

TD: Yeah! Yeah. Stop supporting sanctions, do your best you can to stop sanctions so we can get medical supplies and medical equipment. Stop listening to the mainstream media and start reading the facts. Start understanding who the White Helmets are. Start understanding that Al-Nusra is previous to Al-Qaeda. And Al Qaeda kills people in Bali, Australia. Killed people in Paris. Killed people in London. And also they killed people in New York. The Twin Towers was an Al-Qaeda attack. So how can the West support an organization that is attacking them, attacking Syria, and helping them to attack Syria, when Syria has never attacked the U.S., never attacked the U.K., never attacked Paris. That’s my message. You’re supporting the wrong people!

GR: Tom Duggan is a British journalist based in Damascus, His reports can be seen on the ‘Tom Duggan’ facebook page and Youtube channel.

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . 

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

  1. https://www.globalresearch.ca/un-feigns-outrage-over-ghouta-while-terrorist-rockets-rain-down-on-damascus/5630378

Trust in China Remains Top; Trust in U.S. Plunges

March 10th, 2018 by Eric Zuesse

The 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer survey, which is the latest in the annual Edelman series taken in 28 countries, shows that the people of China have the highest trust in their country’s institutions, and that the people of U.S. recorded an all-time-record loss of trust as compared to the prior year: a stunning 37% loss of trust — that’s comparing 2017’s 52% of Americans trusting America’s institutions, down to 43% of Americans trusting them, a 9% slide, which Edelman referred to by saying, “Trust decline in the U.S. is the steepest ever measured.” 

That 9% was the average loss for each one of the four institutions measured; and, so, Edelman’s Technical Appendix explained:

“We then added these changes together across the four institutions, yielding a value of -37. This shows that in the U.S., the four main institutions lost a combined 37 percentage points.” 

For comparison this year, against that -37%, the second-biggest loss of trust was the -21% in Italy. Tied for the third-biggest and fourth-biggest loss were Brazil and South Africa, both at -17%. Tied for fifth-biggest and sixth-biggest loss were Colombia and India, both at -13%. However India still remained one of the four highest-trust nations, having been #1 in trust in the 2017 survey, down now to the #3 position this year. Last year, China was #3; so, China and India switched positions between 2017 and 2018. The -37% for America simply outclasses all those other declines; and so this trust-plunge in America is major news.

At the very bottom of trust in institutions is Russia, which displays 36% trust in its institutions. Second-lowest is Japan, which displays 37% trust. The two lowest in 2017 were Russia, at 34% and Poland at 35%. Russia was at the very bottom both years because one of the four “Institutions” is NGOs, and “Trust in NGOs” ranged worldwide in 2018 from a top of 71% in Mexico, down to a bottom of 25% in Russia, and this Russian bottom is a stunning 12 points below the second-from-bottom, Germany, which is at 37%. By contrast, for example, “Trust in Government” was 44% in Russia, and is only 33% in the United States. Trust in Government is the highest in China: 84%. (That’s the highest-trusted of the four Institutions there; the lowest of the four Institutions there is NGOs: 61%.) So: whereas the plunge across-the-board is record-shattering in U.S., the sheer lowness of trust in that one institution, NGOs, is (and has been) record-shattering in Russia, and perhaps these are the two main take-aways (or main findings) in this Edelman study.

The four “Institutions” surveyed are: NGOs, Business, Government, and Media. 

The page “Trust Crash in U.S.” shows that, in the “General Population,” Americans’ trust in NGOs plunged 9 points from 58% to 49%; trust in Business plunged 10 points; trust in Government plunged 14 points; and trust in Media plunged 5 points. However, amongst America’s “Informed Public,” these figures are even drastically worse that that: down 22 points on NGOs, 20 points on Business, 30 points on Government, and 22 points on Media. Looking further into those figures: what has happened in the U.S. is that, whereas in 2017, America’s Informed Public had enormously higher trust in each of these four Institutions than did the General Population, now the Informed Public (which in all nations typically displays much higher trust than do the General Population) plunged down not only to below where the General Population’s trust-level had been in 2017, but even to below that, and is now almost as low as is that of the General Population. That’s  a stunning plunge amongst the elite. So, Edelman’s reports noted for “Informed Public”: “23-point decrease: fell from 6th to last [28th] place,” meaning that the average decline on the four Institutions was 23%.

Furthermore: “U.S. Trust in Media Diverges Along Voting Lines” so that whereas 27% of Republicans trust the Media, 61% of Democrats do. This is the biggest type of partisan divide shown.

“Government Most Broken in the U.S.”: Whereas only 4% of Americans consider NGOs “broken,” and 7% consider Business “broken,” and 21% consider Media “broken,” 59% consider Government “broken.” In China, these figures are: 24% consider NGOs “broken,” 38% consider Business “broken,” 12% consider Media “broken,” and 10% consider Government “broken.” Though Russians place NGOs in the sewer, Americans place NGOs on a pedestal. That says a lot.

“Media Now Least Trusted Institution” amongst all 28 surveyed nations. However, trust in the media is above 60% in three nations: China (71%), Indonesia (68%), and India (61%). 7 nations have less than a third of the population trusting their media: Turkey (30%), Australia (31%), Japan, Sweden and UK (32%), and France and Ireland (33%).

Digging deeper into the “Media” issue: there has been, amongst the 28 nations, a movement away from online news (called “Platforms” by Edelman) toward traditional sources of news (called “Journalism” by Edelman): “While Trust in Platforms Declines, Trust in Journalism Rebounds”: trust in “Journalism” rose from 54% then, up to 59% now, and trust in “Platforms” sank from 53% then, to 51% now. This supports the view that the global campaign by “Journalism” (print and broadcast media) attacking “fake news” as being a product of “Platforms” (social media, search engines, and news aps) and not at all of themselves (such as the newspapers and TV that trumpeted “Saddam’s WMD” etc. and yet still are trusted as if they hadn’t been the ones spreading that pathologically fake ‘news’) has succeeded. In other words: ’news’ that is print or broadcast and thus can’t provide to its audience easy access to its sources being merely a click or two away, is more trusted than is online news, which can (and some of which sites actually do) provide such ability for the audience to check its allegations easily for themselves (merely by clicking onto a link).

In other words: the public evidently don’t want to be empowered to verify allegations, but instead want ’news’ that they either can’t verify for themselves or would need to physically do their own personal investigation (not just by means of a click online) in order to decide whether or not to trust the purported ’news’. This shows that the billionaires, who control all of the traditional sources of ‘news’, will likely continue to control the ‘news’, perhaps even more in the future, than now. And it shows that the public, worldwide (at least in these 28 nations), want them to continue controlling the ‘news’. Independent online news-sites will thus likely be easy to crush. They aren’t even being called “Journalism,” no matter how much better than such “Journalism” the best of them might actually happen to be.

“Trust in Platforms Decreased in 21 of 28 Countries” and there was the “Steepest decline in U.S.” So: especially Americans are increasingly trusting and getting their ‘news’ from the Establishment (which generally crave every invasion that the government is considering).

“Uncertainty Over Real vs. Fake News”: 63% worldwide agree with “The average person does not know how to tell good journalism from rumor or falsehoods.” People are passive about that; they accept this personal incompetence that they attribute to themselves. The vast majority of people don’t know that all ‘news’ media that don’t require all reporters to link to any source that they’re using that’s online, should be distrusted and simply avoided, not relied upon (such as is increasingly being done). If there aren’t links provided to all reasonably questionable allegations, and if no quotations are provided of titles or key allegations that can conveniently be web-searched to find and evaluate its source, then that ‘news’ medium can’t reasonably be trusted — but it is instead trusted the most. Since there’s more trust in the non-verifiable print and broadcast ‘news’ media than in the verifiable online ones that do provide clickable links to their online sources, most of the public are satisfied to trust media on the basis of sheer ‘authority’, not on the basis of the reader’s open-mindedness and critical evaluation of every allegation.

“Voices of Authority Regain Credibility”: Out of 11 types of “spokespersons” cited in ‘news’ reports, what’s most distrusted are “A person like yourself” (now rated “at all-time low”) and an “Employee.” What’s most trusted of all is a “Journalist” (presumably here print or broadcast) and what’s second-most-trusted is a “CEO” — these two (the mega-corporates) are trusted considerably more than, for examples, a “Technical expert,” or than an “Academic expert.” So: the mega-corporates don’t even need to cite their own selected and paid ‘experts’, and can just cut their costs, while retaining the loyalty of their (and even growing) following. That makes dictatorship so easy to do — even while cutting costs.

“Employers Trusted Around the World”: this ranged from a low of 57% in Japan and South Korea, to highs of 90% in Indonesia, 86% in India, 83% in Colombia, and 82% in China. Obviously, CEOs are exceptionally high-status around the world. Employees, by contrast, are at or near the bottom.

“Trust in Government” is the highest in China (84%), UAE (77%), Indonesia (73%), India (70%), and Singapore (65%). It is the lowest in South Africa (14%), Brazil (18%), Colombia (24%), Poland (25%), Italy (27%), Mexico (28%), and France and U.S. (33%). Here is that complete list, from the top, all the way down to the bottom: 84% China, 77% UAE, 73% Indonesia, 70% India, 65% Singapore, 54% Netherlands, 51% Turkey, 46% Sweden, 46% Malaysia, 46% Hong Kong, 46% Canada, 45% South Korea, 44% Russia, 43% Germany, 41% Argentina, 37% Japan, 36% UK, 35% Ireland, 35% Australia, 34% Spain, 33% U.S., 33% France, 28% Mexico, 27% Italy, 25% Poland, 24% Colombia, 18% Brazil, 14% South Africa. Since UAE is the very opposite of being a “democracy”, that cannot reasonably be considered to be possibly a rank-ordering of these nations according to the extent they’re a democracy. However, it might possibly be a rank-ordering of the extent to which the public are satisfied with their government; and, so, the complete list is shown here on that factor.

“Trust in Media” national rankings are quite similar to the national rankings on “Trust in Government,” except that Turkey ranks at the very bottom, 28th on this, at only 30%, whereas Turkey ranks 7th (51%) on “Trust in Government.”

“Trust in Business” is topped by Indonesia (78%), India and China (74%), Mexico (70%), UAE (68%), Colombia (64%), and Netherlands (60%). At the bottom on this are Hong Kong and South Korea (36%), Ireland (40%), Russia (41%), and Japan (42%). Canada and U.S. are in the middle: respectively #14 (49%) and 15 (48%).

“Trust Declines in Nine Country Brands” (defined by “company headquartered in”) and by far the most decline of all (6% down, from 55% to 50%) was for U.S. products and services. The most-trusted brands shown (all rated 65% to 68%) are #1 Canada (same as last year) Switzerland (down 1% from last year but still #2), and Sweden (down 3% from being tied last year with Canada). The most-distrusted brands shown were India and Mexico (32%), Brazil (34%), China (36%), South Korea (43%) and U.S. (50%). Consequently, for example, any corporation that moves from U.S. to Canada, would, as of now, rise from being a 50%-rated national brand to being a 68%-rated national brand. Of course, such a trick would be more effective for a relatively new corporation, not for one that has already become widely known to be a U.S. brand.

“Polarization of Trust” contrasts the “6 markets with extreme trust losses” (which are topped by U.S.) versus the “6 markets with extreme trust gains.” The latter group are #1 China +27%, #2 UAE +24%, #3 South Korea +23%, #4 Sweden +20%, #5 Malaysia +19%, and #6 Poland +17%. Those latter 6 are becoming places where headquartering a corporation there is adding significantly to the brand-value of that corporation’s products and services. 

*

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

For those interested in the military implications of the recent revelations by Vladimir Putin about new Russian weapon systems I would recommend the excellent article entitled “The Implications of Russia’s New Weapon Systems” by Andrei Martyanov who offers a superb analysis of what these new weapons mean for the USA and, especially, the US Navy. What I want to do here is something a little different and look at some of the more political consequences of these latest revelations.

The first two of the five stages of grief: denial and anger

Right now, the AngloZionists are undergoing something very similar to the first two of the Five Stages of the Kübler-Ross Grief model: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. Mostly this manifests itself in criticisms of the quality of the videos presented by Putin and by simple incantations about “these weapons only exist on paper”. This is absolutely normal and will not last too long. That kind of denial is a normal coping mechanism whose primary function is to “soften the blow”, but not something one can base any actual policy or strategy on. However, it is worth looking into why exactly these revelations triggered such a powerful reaction as things are a little more complicated than might first appear.

First, a stunning revelation of sorts: the deployment of these weapons systems does not fundamentally change the nuclear balance between Russia and the USA, at least not in terms of first strike stability (for a detailed discussion see here).

Yes, it is true that the US nuclear arsenal is becoming increasingly antiquated, especially when compared with the Russian one and, yes, it is true that in an entire family of technologies the Russians are now clearly many years ahead of the USA. But no, this does not mean that Russia could get away with a first strike against the USA (neither could, for that matter, the USA could get away with a first strike against Russia). Both countries possess more than enough nuclear warhead delivery capabilities even if their forces were to be reduced by a full 90% in any putative disarming (counterforce) strike.

The point of Putin’s warning was not at all to threaten the West or to suggest that Russia could prosecute a successful nuclear war, far from it! First and foremost, his speech was a much-needed case of public psychotherapy. You could say that his intention was to force the Empire to eventually enter the next, more constructive, three stages of grief: bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

Bringing a sense of reality to a deeply delusional Empire

The leaders of the Empire, along with their brainwashed ideological drones, live in a world completely detached from reality. This is why Martyanov writes that the USA “still continues to reside in her bubble which insulates her from any outside voices of reason and peace” and that Putin’s speech aimed at “coercing America’s elites into, if not peace, at least into some form of sanity, given that they are currently completely detached from the geopolitical, military and economic realities of a newly emerging world ”. Martyanov explains that:

American power elites, the majority of whom have never served a day in uniform nor ever attended serious military academic institutions and whose expertise on serious military-technological and geopolitical issues is limited to a couple of seminars on nuclear weapons and, in the best case scenario, the efforts of the Congressional Research Service are simply not qualified to grasp the complexity, the nature, and application of military force. They simply have no reference points. Yet, being a product of the American pop-military culture, also known as military porn and propaganda, these people—this collection of lawyers, political “scientists”, sociologists and journalists who dominate the American strategic kitchen which cooks non-stop delusional geopolitical and military doctrines, can understand one thing for sure, and that is when their poor dears get a bulls-eye on their backs or foreheads.

The fact that in the real world these elites have had a bulls-eye on their backs for decades doesn’t change the fact that they also managed to convince themselves that they could remove that bulls-eye by means of withdrawing from the ABM treaty and by surrounding Russia with anti-missile launchers. The fact that some (many? most?) US politicians realized, at least in the back of their minds, that their ABM systems would never truly protect the USA from a Russian counter-strike did not really matter because there were some uniquely US American psychological factors which made the notion of an ABM system irresistibly attractive:

1) An ABM system promised the USA impunity: impunity is, along with military superiority, one of the great American myths (as discussed here). From Reagan with this “weapons which kill weapons” to the current crisis in Korea, US Americans have always strived for impunity for their actions abroad: let all countries drown in an ocean of fire, murder and mayhem as long as our “homeland” remains the untouchable sacrosanct citadel. Since WWII US Americans have killed many millions of people abroad, but when 9/11 came (nevermind that it was obviously a false flag) the country went into something like clinical shock from the loss of about 3’000 innocent civilians. Soviet, and then later, Russian nuclear weapons promised to deliver many tens of millions of deaths if the USSR/Russia was attacked and that is why spinning the fairy tale about an ABM “shield” was so appealing even if it was technologically speaking either a pipe-dream (Reagan’s “Star Wars”) or an extremely limited system capable of stopping maybe a few missiles at most (the current ABM system in Europe). Again, facts don’t matter at all, at least not in American politics or in the US collective psyche.

2) An ABM system promised a huge financial bonanza for the fantastically corrupt US Military-Industrial Complex for which millions of US Americans work and which made many of them fantastically rich. Frankly, I suspect that many (most?) folks involved in the ABM programs fully realized that this was a waste of time, but as long as they were getting their bank accounts filled with money, they simply did not care: hey, they pay me – I will take it!

3) The US military culture never had much of an emphasis on personal courage or self-sacrifice (for obvious reasons). The various variations of the ABM fairy tale make it possible for US Americans to believe that the next war would be mostly fought by pressing buttons and relying on computers. And if real bombs start falling, let them fall somewhere else, preferably on some remote brown people who, well, ain’t quite as precious to God and humanity as us, the White “indispensable nation”.

Add to this a quasi-religious belief (a dogma, really) in the myth of American technological superiority and you understand that the Russian leaders began to realize that their US counterparts were gradually forgetting that they did have a bulls-eye painted on their backs. So what Putin did is simply paint a few more, different ones, just to make sure that US leaders come back to reality.

The goal of Putin’s speech was also to prove both Obama (“the Russian economy is in tatters”) and McCain (“Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country”) wrong. The Russian message to the US ruling elites was simple: no, not only are we not lagging behind you technologically, in many ways we are decades ahead of you, in spite of sanctions, your attempts to isolate us, the dramatic drop in energy prices or your attempts at limiting our access to world markets (the successful development of this new generation of weapons systems is a clear indicator of the real state of fundamental research in Russia in such spheres are advanced alloys, nanotechnology, super-computing, etc.).

To the warmongers at the Pentagon, the message was equally clear and tough: we spend less than 10% of what you can spend on defense global aggression; we will match your quantitative advantage with our qualitative superiority. Simply put, you fight with dollars, we will fight with brains. US propagandists, who love to speak about how Russia always uses huge numbers of unskilled soldiers and dumb but brutal weapons now have to deal with a paradigm which they are completely unfamiliar with: a Russian soldier is much better trained, much better equipped, much better commanded and their morale and willpower is almost infinitely higher than the one of the typical US serviceman. For a military culture used to mantrically repeat that everything about it is “the best in the world” or even “the best in history” this kind of new reality will come as a very painful shock and most will respond to it by going into deep denial. To those who believed in the (historically completely false) narrative about the USA and Reagan bankrupting the USSR by means of a successful arms race, it must feel very strange to have sort of “traded places” with the bad old USSR and being in the situation of having to face military-spending induced bankruptcy.

Nothing will change in the Empire of Illusions (at least for the foreseeable future)

Speaking of bankruptcy. The recent revelations have confirmed what the Russians have been warning about for years: all the immense sums of money spent by the USA in ABM defenses have been completely wasted. Russia did find and deploy an asymmetrical response which makes the entire US ABM program completely useless and obsolete. Furthermore, as Martyanov also points out, the current force structure of the US surface fleet has also been made basically obsolete and useless, at least against Russia (but you can be sure that China is following close behind). Potentially, this state of affairs should have immense, tectonic repercussions: immense amounts US taxpayer money has been completely wasted, the US nuclear and naval strategies have been completely misguided, intelligence has failed (either on the acquisition or the analytical level), US politicians have made disastrous decisions and this is all a total “cluster-bleep” which should trigger God knows how many investigations, resignations, and numerous sanctions, administrative or even criminal ones. But, of course, absolutely nothing of this, nothing at all, will happen. Not a single head will roll…

In the “Empire of Illusions,” facts simply don’t matter at all. In fact, I predict that the now self-evidently useless ABM program will proceed as if nothing had happened. And, in a way, that is true. The zombified US general public won’t be told what is going on, those who will understand will be marginalized and powerless to make any changes, as for the corrupt parasites who have been making millions and billions from this total waste of taxpayer money, they have way too much at stake to throw in the towel. In fact, since the USA is now run by Neocons, we can very easily predict what they will do. They will do what Neocons always do: double down. So, after it has become public knowledge that the entire US ABM deployment is useless and outdated, expect a further injection in cash into it by “patriotic” “Congresspersons” (<<== my attempt at being politically correct!), surrounded by flags who will explain to the lobotomized public that they are “taking a firm stance” against “the Russian dictator” and that the proud US of A shall not cave in to the “Russian nuclear blackmail”. These colors don’t run! United we stand! Etc. etc. etc.

As for the USN, this won’t even be a topic. So some Russian guy (I mean Martyanov) wrote some stuff for the Unz Review. Who cares? That is just more “Russian propaganda” of course. It will be dismissed even before it is actually parsed and inevitably the reassuring conclusion will be, as always, “we are #1”, “Britannia America rules the waves” and all the rest of the usual jingoistic nonsense US admirals have been feeding the public for decades. Also, keep in mind that the smart folks in the USN, and there are plenty of those, knew what was going on all along, but they either had no influence or kept their silence for obvious career reasons.

The reality is that what Martyanov calls “the American myth of technological superiority” is so deeply ingrained in the US collective psyche that it has become part of the national identity and it cannot, ever, be successfully challenged. Even if Putin decided that videos and speeches simply aren’t enough and decided to make a live firing demonstration, the flag-waving zombies in the media, government and public will find a way to deny it all, pretend it did not happen, or put a mysterious smile on their faces and reply something along the lines of “yeah, cute, but if you only knew about the super-weapons we are not showing you!!” (as one drone actually wrote, “ there has to be weaponry up the USA’s sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack.”). So, for the foreseeable future, expect the collective denial to continue.

“When your head is in the sand, your ass is in the air”

And yet, reality exists. No matter how US propagandists have tried to spin it, deny it, obfuscate it or dismiss it, something very fundamental has changed for the United States. One such element of reality which, with time, will start to slowly seep into the minds of the people of the USA is that their beloved “homeland” and they themselves are now personally and directly at risk. Indeed, for the first time in history, the United States is now targeted by powerful conventional weapons which can reach any target inside the United States. Not only that but unlike the bad old ICBMs, the launches of the weapons systems, which can now strike anywhere in the United States, the cruise missiles, are extremely hard to detect and can give the US little or no warning time. We already knew about the Russian cruise missiles 3M-54 Kalibr and the KH-101/102 with ranges of 2600km and 5500km (or more). Vladimir Putin has now announced that Russia also has nuclear-powered cruise missiles whose range is essentially infinite. Keep in mind that these missiles are very hard to detect since their launch does not generate a strong thermal signal, they fly most of their trajectory at subsonic speeds (only accelerating at the end), their thermal signature is therefore very low, their shape results a very low radar cross-section and they can fly very low (nap of the earth) flight courses which further conceals them. Best of all, however, is that they can be launched from what externally appears to be a regular commercial container. Please take a look at this short propaganda video showing how such missiles could be concealed, deployed and used:

What Putin has now officially added to this arsenal are cruise missiles with an infinite range which could, in theory, destroy a command post in, say, the US Midwest, while being fired from the southern Indian Ocean or from the Tasman Sea. Even better, the launching platform does not need to be a Russian Navy ship at all but could be any commercial (cargo, fishing, etc.) ship, even a cruise ship. Russian heavy transport aircraft could also deliver such “containers” to any location in, say, Africa or even Antarctica and strike downtown Omaha from there with either a conventional or a nuclear warhead. That is also a fundamental game changer.

Conversely, you can think of the new nuclear-powered torpedo as a kind of “underwater cruise missile” with similar capabilities against surface ships or coastal installations. Except that this “underwater cruise missile” could “fly” under the polar ice cap. Needless to say, all of these cruise missiles can, if needed, be armed with nuclear warheads.

But it is not only the US mainland which is now targetable. All US military installations worldwide can now be attacked leaving the US very little or no reaction time.

It is not an exaggeration to say that this is truly a radical change, even a revolution, in modern warfare. I hate to admit it, but this is also an undesirable development from the point of view of first-strike stability as this places a good segment of the US nuclear triad in danger, along with almost all vital US military and conventional sites. Having said that, the entire blame for this situation is to be placed upon the arrogant and irresponsible policies of the United States since its disastrous US withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002. Furthermore, I am confident that the Russians will gladly sit down with the Americans and explore reasonable any means to come to a mutual agreement to restore first-strike stability between these two countries. Nobody, besides the corrupt leaders of the US MIC, of course, needs any kind of arms race between Russia and the USA or the immense costs associated with such an endeavor. But since this arms race will probably continue (as said above, Neocons always double down), Russia has a huge advantage in this race for two key reasons

1) Unlike Russia, the USA will, for absolutely idiotic prestige reasons, categorically refuse to scale down its useless ABM and carrier centered naval procurement programs and all the monies allocated to actually trying to counter these Russian capabilities will be spent on top, not instead of, these useless and obsolete programs. Russia, in contrast, will spend her money on programs which actually make a real difference.

2) The USA is now dramatically lagging behind in many key areas all of which have long development cycles. Frankly, I can’t even begin to imagine how the US is going to extricate itself from such design-disasters as the littoral combat ship (LCS) or, even the worst of them all, the F-35. Just like Russia in the 1990s, the USA is nowadays ruled by corrupt incompetent cowards who simply don’t have what it takes to embark upon a real, meaningful, military reform and, as a result of that, the US armed forces are suffering from problems which are only going to get much worse before they get better again. For the time being the difference between Putin’s Russia and Trump’s USA is as simple as it is stark: Russia spends her money on defense, the USA spends its money on enriching corrupt politicians and businessmen. With that set of parameters, the USA doesn’t stand a chance in any arms race, irrespective of the talent and patriotism of US engineers or soldiers.

Russia and the USA are already at war and Russia is winning

Russia and the USA have been at war since at least 2014 (I have been warning about this year, after year, after year). So far, this war has been about 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic. But this could very well change, and very suddenly. Russia has therefore embarked on an immense effort to prepare against both a conventional and a nuclear attack by the AngloZionist Empire. Here are some of the measures which have been taken in this context: (partial, non-exhaustive list!)

In response to the conventional NATO threat from the West:

  • Putin has ordered the re-creation of the First Guards Tank Army. This Tank Army will include two Tank Divisions (the best ones in the Russian military – 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division and the 4th Guards Kantemirovskaya Tank Division), and a total of 500+ T-14 Armata tanks. This Tank Army will be supported by the 20th Guards Combined Arms Army (in progress). This will be what was called a “Shock Army” during WWII and the Cold War.
  • The deployment of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system (completed)
  • The doubling of the size of the Russian Airborne Forces from 36’000 to 72’000 (in progress).
  • Creation of a National Guard: which will include troops of the Interior Ministry (about 170’000 soldiers), personnel from the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the OMON riot police forces (about 40’000 soldiers), the SOBR rapid-reaction forces (about 5000+ soldiers), the Special Designation Center of the Operational Reaction Forces and Aviation of the Ministry of Internal Affairs including the Special Forces units “Zubr”, “Rys’” and “Iastreb” (about 700+ operators) for a total of about 250’000 soldiers which will probably reach the 300’000 men figure in the near future.
  • The procurement and deployment of advanced multi-role and air superiority fighters and interceptors (MiG-31BM, Su-30SM, Su-35S and, soon, the MiG-35 and Su-57).
  • Deployment of S-400 and S-500 air defense systems along with very long range radars.
  • The adoption of about 70% of new, modern, systems across all the armed forces.

In response to the ABM “encirclement” of Russia by the USA:

  • The deployment of the RS-28 Sarmat ICBM with hypersonic maneuverable reentry vehicles
  • The deployment of conventionally armed very long-range cruise missiles
  • The deployment of a nuclear powered cruise missile with a basically unlimited range
  • The deployment of a nuclear powered unmanned submersible with intercontinental range, very high speed, silent propulsion and capable of moving a great depths
  • The deployment of the Mach 10 hypersonic missile Kinzhal with a 2’000 kilometer range
  • The deployment of a new strategic missile Avangard capable of Mach 20 velocities

This list is far from being exhaustive, there is much more missing from it including new submarines, (air-independent propulsion, conventional diesel-electric, nuclear attack and SSBNs), strike aircraft, new armored vehicles of various types, new advanced (high tech) individual soldier equipment, new artillery systems, etc. etc. etc. But by far the most important element in the Russian readiness to confront and, if needed, repel any western aggression is the morale, discipline, training, and resolve of Russian soldiers (so powerfully illustrated in several recent examples in Syria). Let’s just say that in comparison US and EU servicemen (or their commanders, for that matter) are not exactly an impressive lot and leave it at that.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

The reality is, of course, that nobody in Russia plans for a war, needs a war or wants a war. In fact, Russia as a country needs many more years of (even relative) peace. First, because time is obviously on Russia’s side and that the military balance with the USA is very rapidly shifting in Russia’s favor. But no less important is the fact that, unlike the USA which strives for conflicts, wars, and chaos, Russia badly needs peace to deal with her still very numerous internal problems which have been neglected for all too long. The problem is that the entire US political system and economy are completely dependent on a permanent state of war. That, combined with an imperial hubris boosted by an increasingly vocal russophobia is a potent and potentially dangerous mix leaving Russia no other options than “bare her fangs” and engage in some saber rattling of her own. So will Putin’s speech be enough to wake up the Empire’s ruling elites from their delusional slumber?

Probably not. In fact, in the short term, it might have the opposite effect.

Remember when the Russian’s deflected Obama’s planned attack on Syria? The US reaction was to trigger the Maidan. Sadly, I expect something very similar will happen soon, most likely in the form of a full-scale Ukronazi attack against the Donbass this Spring or during the World Cup this summer. Of course, regardless of the actual outcome of such an attack (already discussed here), this will not in any way affect the actual correlation of forces between Russia and the Empire. But it will feel good (Neocons love revenge in all its forms). We can also expect further provocations in Syria (already discussed here). Hence and for the foreseeable future, the Russians will have to continue on their current, admittedly frustrating and even painful course, and maintain a relatively passive and evasive posture which the Empire and its sycophants will predictably interpret as a sign of weakness. Let them. As long as in the real world the actual power (soft or hard) of the Empire continues to decline, as long as the US MIC continues to churn out fantastically expensive but militarily useless weapon systems, as long as US politicians are busy blaming everything on “Russian interference” while doing nothing to reform their own, collapsing economy and infrastructure, as long as the USA continues to use the printing press as a substitute for actual wealth and as long as the internal socio-political tensions in the USA continue to heat up – then Putin’s plan is working.

Russia needs to continue to walk a very narrow path: to act in a sufficiently evasive manner as to avoid provoking a direct military confrontation with the USA while, at the same time, sending clear enough signals to prevent the US Americans from interpreting Russia’s evasiveness as a sign of weakness and then doing something really stupid. The Russian end-goal is simple and obvious: to achieve a gradual and peaceful disintegration of the AngloZionist Empire combined with a gradual and peaceful replacement of a unipolar world ruled by one hegemon, by a multipolar world jointly administered by sovereign nations respectful of international law. Therefore, any catastrophic or violent outcomes are highly undesirable and must be avoided if at all possible. Patience and focus will be far more important in this war for the future of our planet than quick-fix reactions and hype. The “patient” needs to be returned to reality one step at a time. Putin’s March 1st speech will go down in history as such a step, but many more such steps will be needed before the patient finally wakes up.

*

This article was written for The Unz Review.

Featured image is from The Unz Review.

According to the US media (in chorus) it was president Trump who took the decision (without prior consultation with his Cabinet, national security and intelligence advisors) to meet face to face North Korean leader Kim Jong-un at a US-DPRK Summit.

According to reports, this decision was taken spontaneously by president Trump following discussions in the Oval Office with a South Korean delegation headed by ROK National Security Advisor Chung Eui-yong on March 8:

In a stunning turn of events, Trump personally intervened in a security briefing intended for his top deputies, inviting the South Korean officials into the Oval Office, where he agreed on the spot to a historic but exceedingly risky summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. (WP, March 9, 2018)

Trump announced his decision on the driveway outside the West Wing of the White House to the media, which was immediately broadcast live on TV networks Worldwide.

Sanctions would remain in place. The underlying focus would be to demand that the DPRK abandon its nuclear weapons program. According to White House sources, President Trump would require  “concrete steps and concrete actions” by North Korea prior to the conduct of the proposed summit.

On Friday March 9, Trump announced that a deal with North Korea was “very much in the making”. In the words of Rex Tillerson, it was Trump that took the decision:

“In terms of the decision to engage with President Trump and Kim Jong Un, that’s a decision the president took himself, ... He’s expressed it openly before about his willingness to meet with Kim Jong Un, so now I think it’s a question of agreeing on the timing of that first meeting between the two of them and a location.” (quoted in the WSJ, March 9, 2018)

The Inter-Korean Peace Talks

North-South inter-Korean peace talks were initiated on January 9th, pursued throughout the Winter Olympics. What was revealed were the public statements of South Korea’s president Moon, the major events surrounding the Olympics including the inauguration ceremonies pointing to ties of friendship and solidarity between the two Koreas.

Several media described the inter-Korean dialogue as a “slap in the face” to Washington, which had attempted to sabotage the North-South talks. In what was described as a US-led “War against the Peace”, the Pentagon responded by threatening a “Bloody Nose” operation using tactical nuclear weapons against North Korea. US threats emanating from the White House were also directed against the South Korean government of President Moon, intimating that restrictions on bilateral trade and investment against the ROK were being contemplated.

What was not revealed to the public were the discussions (of an entirely different nature) behind closed doors between  North and South Korean national security officials as well as the “behind the scenes” role of US intelligence in these negotiations.

The CIA has a close and overlapping working relationship with its ROK counterpart The Korea Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) (now referred to as The National Intelligence Service). The KCIA created in 1961 during the US sponsored military regime of President Park Chung-hee, has consistently acted as a de facto subsidiary of the CIA, largely acting on behalf of US intelligence.

In turn, in consultation with and on behalf of the CIA, the KCIA has developed over the years an “unofficial” bilateral “working relationship” with its North Korean intelligence counterparts.

Prior and in the course of the Winter Olympics, several key bilateral meetings were held between key national security and intelligence officials of North and South Korea.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s National security adviser Chung Eui-yong was put in charge of the negotiations in Pyongyang, officially acting on behalf of South Korea, but also (indirectly) on behalf of the United States.

On March 6, (local time), Chung Eui-yong, together with four other senior ROK officials met up with the DPRK leadership in Pyongyang. The delegation was also received at a State dinner with Kim Jong-un.

The ROK delegation also included  Suh Hoon, head of the ROK’s National Intelligence Service (KCIA), who was appointed by President Moon in May 2017. His appointment had been approved by Washington.

While KCIA Chief Suh Hoon had previously worked on a mandate geared towards dialogue and peace on behalf of the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations, and now on behalf of President Moon, he nonetheless has routine consultations with CIA director Mike Pompeo. In relation to the Pyongyang talks, it is highly unlikely that Suh Hoon and Chung Eui-yong would have acted without consulting their counterparts in Washington, namely CIA Director Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser General H. R. McMaster.

The briefing meeting in the Oval Office (March 8) with Chung Eui-yong and Suh Hoon was carefully scheduled immediately following the talks in Pyongyang on March 6-7. According to the Korean Times:

Chung is likely to play the role of messenger between Pyongyang and Washington for their talks on denuclearization. Chung and Suh will visit Washington soon after they come back from Pyongyang.

Suh is Moon’s top strategy maker on North Korea issues and one of the President’s closest aides who helped him draw up his peace overture plans.

Under the former liberal Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations, Suh was a member of the teams that led the first and second inter-Korean summits in 2000 and 2007, respectively. He met former North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-un’s father, on several occasions during the summits.

Suh was a member of the National Security Council and was in charge of North Korea strategy at the NIS under the Roh government, having experience in negotiating with high-ranking North Korean officials at many meetings. He was a member of Moon’s election camp for both the 2012 and the 2017 presidential elections.

As the head of the spy agency, Suh has a close communication channel with U.S. CIA Director Mike Pompeo. It was the two spy agencies that mediated the meeting between U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and Kim Yo-jong during their stays in South Korea in early February, although the meeting was cancelled at the last minute. (Korean Times, March 10, 2018, emphasis added)

Trump’s Decision to Meet Kim Jong-un

In all likelihood Trump’s decision was approved at the highest levels of US intelligence.

There was nothing spontaneous in Trump’s statement. It was staged.

No doubt he had been advised both by Pompeo and McMcmaster. His announcement followed the briefing by the head of the South Korean Delegation, ROK National Security Advisor Chung Eui-Yong, who had led the mission to Pyongyang on March 6.  Mr Chung briefed president Trump, who immediately and spontaneously confirmed his decision.

The tone of Mr. Chung’s statements was skilful and diplomatic, praising president Trump, intimating that the ROK delegation to Pyongyang was in fact also acting (indirectly) on behalf and in consultation with Washington.

From Chung’s statement (see below) it would appear that the North Korean leadership would be prepared to cave in to US demands. (Whether this reflects the DPRK’s real intentions is another matter).

Chung also congratulated President Trump for his “maximum pressure policy” directed against the DPRK leadersip:

 
Transcript

CHUNG:    Good evening.  Today, I had the privilege of briefing President Trump on my recent visit to Pyongyang, North Korea.  I’d like to thank President Trump, the Vice President, and his wonderful national security team, including my close friend, General McMaster.

I explained to President Trump that his leadership and his maximum pressure policy, together with international solidarity, brought us to this juncture.  I expressed President Moon Jae-in’s personal gratitude for President Trump’s leadership.

I told President Trump that, in our meeting, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said he is committed to denuclearization.  Kim pledged that North Korea will refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests.  He understands that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and the United States must continue.  And he expressed his eagerness to meet President Trump as soon as possible.

President Trump appreciated the briefing and said he would meet Kim Jong-un by May to achieve permanent denuclearization.

The Republic of Korea, along with the United States, Japan, and our many partners around the world remain fully and resolutely committed to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.  Along with President Trump, we are optimistic about continuing a diplomatic process to test the possibility of a peaceful resolution.

The Republic of Korea, the United States, and our partners stand together in insisting that we not repeat the mistakes of the past, and that the pressure will continue until North Korea matches its words with concrete actions. (source: White House)

Concluding Remarks

While outright war against North Korea has so-far been averted, the 2018 US-ROK war games against the DPRK have not been scrapped.

What is unfolding is a process whereby US intelligence is playing a key “behind the scenes” role in North-South peace negotiations, with a view to ultimately enforcing and sustaining US hegemony in North East Asia.

The North Koreans are astute strategists. Will they abandon their nuclear weapons program in exchange for  empty “American promises”?

*

 


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Fake News Storm Clouds Gather Over Southeast Asia

March 10th, 2018 by Joseph Thomas

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Fake News Storm Clouds Gather Over Southeast Asia

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Kim Jong-un invited Trump to meet face-to-face “as soon as possible,” according to South Korean National Security Adviser Chung Eui-yong, saying:

“North Korea will refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests. I told President Trump that at our meeting (in Pyongyang), North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said he’s committed to denuclearization” – provided his country’s security is guaranteed, what’s been unattainable throughout the post-WW II period.

On Thursday, Trump tweeted:

“Kim Jong Un talked about denuclearization with the South Korean Representatives, not just a freeze.”

“Also, no missile testing by North Korea during this period of time. Great progress being made but sanctions will remain until an agreement is reached. Meeting being planned!”

According to Chung, a meeting between both leaders will take place by May. North Korea will suspend nuclear and ballistic missile tests ahead of and during talks.

Trump told Chung he’ll meet with Kim “to achieve permanent denuclearization.”

He and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe also agreed to continue applying maximum pressure on Pyongyang, Abe to visit the White House in April.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said

“(w)e look forward to the denuclearization of North Korea. In the meantime, all sanctions and maximum pressure must remain.”

The date and location of Trump’s meeting with Kim remains to be announced. Throughout its history, no US president ever met with a DPRK leader.

Ahead of Chung’s announcement, Rex Tillerson said talks with North Korea were likely a long way off, adding

“we just need to be very clear-eyed and realistic about it.”

South Korean President Moon Jae-in cautiously said

“(t)his is just a start. (W)e can’t be optimistic just yet.”

Washington is hostile toward all sovereign independent countries like North Korea, wanting them transformed into pro-Western ones, observing US rules.

They include unrestricted free market access for its corporations, privatizing state enterprises at fire sale prices, deep social spending cuts, mass layoffs, workers paid poverty wages, and other neoliberal policies.

America is a notorious deal-breaker, its history strewn with broken promises. Betrayal is longstanding US policy – time and again agreeing to one thing, then doing another.

Its agreements aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. The historical record is clear – one broken promise after another since the beginning of the republic. Rare exceptions prove the rule.

US policymakers reject cooperative relations with all other nations, wanting America’s interests served.

Kim and Trump meeting and whatever follows won’t likely change decades of US hostility toward the DPRK – not as long as its sovereign independence remains unchanged, refusing to become a US vassal state – the price Washington demands to be taken off its target list.

A Final Comment

Below is Chung’s full statement on Thursday:

“Good evening. Today, I had the privilege of briefing President Trump on my recent visit to Pyongyang, North Korea.”

“I’d like to thank President Trump, the Vice-President, and his wonderful national security team, including my close friend, General McMaster.”

“I explained to President Trump that his leadership and his maximum-pressure policy, together with international solidarity, brought us to this juncture.”

“I expressed President Moon Jae-in’s personal gratitude for President Trump’s leadership. I told President Trump that, in our meeting, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un said he is committed to denuclearization.”

“Kim pledged that North Korea will refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests. He understands that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and the United States must continue. And he expressed his eagerness to meet President Trump as soon as possible.”

“President Trump appreciated the briefing and said he would meet Kim Jong-un by May to achieve permanent denuclearization.”

South Korea “along with the United States, Japan, and our many partners around the world remain fully and resolutely committed to the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

“Along with President Trump, we are optimistic about continuing a diplomatic process to test the possibility of a peaceful resolution.”

South Korea “the United States, and our partners stand together in insisting that we not repeat the mistakes of the past, and that the pressure will continue until North Korea matches its words with concrete actions. Thank you.”

*

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

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

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

March 5 marked the fifth anniversary of the death of Hugo Chavez, which was the underlying occasion for the International Solidarity meeting “Todos Somos Venezuela” (We are all Venezuelans) in Caracas, March 5-7, 2018.

A rush of emotions was felt collectively while close to 350 delegates from 95 countries paid homage to Commander Hugo Chavez at his resting place at the Cuartel de la Montaña in Caracas.

Chavez left an undeniable imprint in the history of Venezuela, Latin America and many other countries struggling for social justice. His legacy can be distilled to his unwavering commitment and drive to uplift the social status of all Venezuelans and restore their dignity after decades of neglect from the two main alternating parties in government.

Author and former Cuban Ambassador to Venezuela from 1994 to 2009, German Sanchez Otero captured the transcendence of that commitment in the title of his book Hugo Chavez y la Resurrección de un Pueblo (Hugo Chavez and the resurrection of a people. Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, La Habana 2014).

Hugo Chavez was a great orator with a direct appeal to the masses with his colloquial style and popular language that inspired trust. That is a rare trait in a political figure. But then Chavez was not your typical politician. He shunned empty rhetoric and that was his most convincing appeal as a leader. He had the ability of speaking to a large audience or on TV and make all feel he was addressing them individually.

His speeches were a blend of politics, exposition of ideological programs, and organizational directives on how to stir the new society – his view of what was a retaking of Simon Bolivar’s vision of independence – towards what he called “Socialism of the 21st Century”.

A keen sense and awareness of the role of history and people’s protagonist role led him to say what I believe to be one of his simplest and yet most profound statements that defines his ideology, indeed defined his actions until his death: “The people are the fuel of the engine of history”.

A suitable byline of that statement might suggest that the “fuel” needed to be refined to a high grade first in order to spark the engine. So he did by empowering the majority of disenfranchised Venezuelans who puntofijismo had taken for granted and abandoned. Chavez enriched Venezuela’s history with a new volume written by the people and facilitated by what we call now Chavismo.

In Latin America the people, or what Marxism calls the working class, are typically the forgotten class. They are merely the fuel used by corporations not recorded in the annals of history. However Chavez was not a Marxist. His ideology was a contextual blend of eclectic theories with a strong historical basis. He did not fit the political trend of his time rooted in neoliberalism.

How could he? Chavez came to power in the 1990s when there seemed to be a shift of the world leftist ideology towards the centre and right of the political spectrum. That made him appear relatively more radical. Chavez, like Bolivar at his time, came when he was needed to break patterns and set new trends.

He set to break the most obvious pattern: the cycle of poverty in Venezuela with more than 80% of the population living in poverty. He has largely achieved that goal that is now being pursued by president Nicolas Maduro. However, the Venezuelan rightwing opposition, in its drive to discredit Chavismo, repeats the mantra of “humanitarian crisis” together with other “crisis” that are artificially created by ill conceived policies.

We must not confuse structural poverty created by a system driven by and for corporations before Chavismo, with scarcity imposed by external factors on Venezuela like sanctions and financial punitive actions now.

We must not confuse structural insecurity that did not guarantee jobs and living wages before Chavismo, with fear imposed by threats of foreign invasions and military interventions on Venezuela now.

We must not confuse structural misinformation by corporate media before Chavismo, with the artillery of lies and disinformation imposed by a foreign ideology on Venezuela to mislead and confuse now.

Before Chavez the social problems were endemic as a result of an obsolete capitalist model stalling without “fuel”. Now the people of Venezuela are participants and protagonists, and reactionary forces are at work to break the engine of history.

Chavez’s constitution of 1999 that replaced the “moribund” constitution of puntofijismo is all about people and their relevance in society by granting them not only a participatory role in the revolutionary process but also more fundamentally a protagonist role. That is the greatest of Chavez’s legacies marking the Bolivarian Revolution.

It is precisely calling on that legacy that the National Constituent Assembly is again consulting Venezuelans – the original power – legally and in the most democratic process, for ways to strengthen the Bolivarian Revolution.

During the three-day solidarity meeting we all had the opportunity to hear President Nicolas Maduro speak, but the powerful presence of Hugo Chavez was felt in the innumerable times he was acknowledged, and in the chanting of Chavez vive (Chavez lives) by delegates including the President.

With this week’s tremendous diplomatic breakthrough between North and South Korea, the Korea Peace Network, a grassroots coalition of peace activists, scholars and Korean-American leaders, sent an Open Letter on March 8 to President Donald Trump urging his support for peace and diplomacy. The letter was signed by representatives of 58 organizations, and by 143 other Korean-American, peace, faith and academic leaders.

Specifically, the letter asks Trump to again postpone the massive U.S.-South Korea military exercises as a gesture of good faith, as North Korea has stated it will not conduct any further nuclear or missile tests while negotiating with South Korea. The military exercises were scheduled to be held in February, but were postponed until after the Winter Olympics and Paralympics when Trump agreed to South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s request to do so.

Kevin Martin, President of Peace Action and convener of the Korea Peace Network, said,

“The United States has a rare opportunity to help resolve longstanding tensions on the Korean Peninsula, and this chance must not be missed. Further postponement or cancellation of the massive war exercises, which North Korea understandably loathes and fears, makes all the sense in the world at this time when South and North Korea are negotiating on so many crucial issues.”

Commenting on the letter to Trump, signed by dozens of Korean-American organizations and individuals, Martin noted,

“It is great to see so many Korean-Americans speaking out for peace and diplomacy and against war. We need to follow their leadership and amplify their voices.”

As the Korean War ended with the signing of an armistice agreement rather than a peace treaty, the two Koreas technically remain in a state of war. Many hope this budding diplomatic engagement can be the first step to finally signing a peace treaty to formally end the war.

Simone Chun, who serves on the steering committee of the Alliance of Scholars Concerned About Korea, remarked,

“The recent dramatic breakthrough in North-South relations reverses a dangerous pattern of animosity and aggression that has driven the two Koreas further apart and brought the peninsula dangerously to the brink of war. We now have a historic opportunity to begin to put an end to the longest-running war in modern history.”

Read the Open Letter to President Trump advocating continuing the Olympic Truce and suspension of US/ROK war exercises below.


President Donald Trump

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20500

March 8, 2018

Re: Continuing the Peace Momentum in Korea after the Winter Olympics

Dear Mr. President:

As U.S. civil society groups and individuals deeply concerned with the future course of our policy in Korea, we urge you to support the current momentum for peace and dialogue in Korea, far beyond the end of the Winter Olympic Truce in late March.

We thank you for your decision to postpone the winter U.S.-South Korea joint military drills at the request of South Korean President Moon. Such a positive move made it possible for North Korean athletes to participate in this year’s Winter Olympics in South Korea.

Moreover, it also paved the way for the recent visit of high-level delegates from North Korea to South Korea and subsequent talks with President Moon. These encouraging steps, along with the re-connection of the military hotlines between the South and North, have contributed greatly to a significant reduction in military tensions on the Korean Peninsula at this time.

We urge you to maintain this diplomatic progress beyond the end of the Olympic Truce. In order to continue the current peace momentum and engage in serious talks with North Korea, we urge you to suspend the pending large-scale U.S.-South Korea joint war drills (“Key Resolve/Foal Eagle”) indefinitely, or reduce the scale of such drills significantly, without dispatching aircraft carriers, strategic bombers or any “operation decapitation” forces which will be perceived by North Korea as a threat to its national security. These joint war drills are militarily unnecessary, diplomatically counterproductive, and far more likely to enhance rather than diminish the possibility of an armed clash on the Korean Peninsula.

In fact, past U.S. administrations suspended large-scale joint war drills in 1992, 1994 and 1995 as confidence-building measures. Putting off the military exercises indefinitely will give more time for North-South diplomacy, with U.S. support, and allow the initiation of U.S.-North Korea talks, as both the North Korean and South Korean governments now advocate.

We believe the current U.S. campaign of “maximum pressure” against the North is both provocative and dangerous. The tougher sanctions announced recently — almost amounting to an economic blockade — could easily escalate military tensions in Northeast Asia again, and possibly result in a horrific resumption of the Korean War. At a minimum they will exacerbate the misery of ordinary North Koreans and antagonize Russia and China, whose cooperation is needed to resolve the current impasse.

We agree with the majority of Americans who, according to recent polls, solidly support negotiations, not war. We strongly urge you to pursue a “maximum engagement” policy with North Korea, which is the only way to achieve permanent peace and nuclear disarmament on the Korean Peninsula.

Respectfully,

Organizational Signers

Enhee Ahn, The National Institute of Hahm Seok Hon’s Philosophy
Robin Alexander, Remembering Hiroshima, Imagining Peace
Jim Anderson, Peace Action New York State
Earl Arnold, Presbyterian Peace Network for Korea
Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies, New Internationalism Project
Blaise Bonpane, Office of the Americas
John Burroughs, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
Jacqueline Cabasso, Western States Legal Foundation
Michael Carrigan, Community Alliance of Lane County (Eugene, OR)
Jeff Carter, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Kay Kyungmi Cho, Korea Neutralized Unification Movement, LA One Corea Now
Citizens Fighting for Justice
Gerry Condon, Veterans for Peace
Joseph Essertier, World Beyond War
David Gibson, Peace, Justice, Sustainability Florida
Myung Ji Cho, Kancc-North Central Area
Robert Gould, MD, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Bay Area Chapter
David Hartsough, Peaceworkers
Cole Harrison, Massachusetts Peace Action
Mark Harrison, United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
Patrick Hiller, Oregon Peace Institute
Mary Hladky, Military Families Speak Out
Madelyn Hoffman, New Jersey Peace Action
Duane Johansen, Alliance of Scholars Concerned About Korea
John Kim, Veterans For Peace-Korea Peace Campaign
Peter Kim, Support committee for Korean Prisoners of Conscience in US
Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
Tong-Kyun Kim, TLtC Justice & Peace Committee
Michael Klare, Professor of Peace & World Security Studies, Hampshire College
Dr. Roger Kotila , Democratic World Federalists
Yali Lee, Yali Tour
Henry Lowendorf, Greater New Haven Peace Council
Dughong Min, JTS America
Soonyoung Min-Kim, Good Friends USA
Tony Langbehn, Maryland United for Peace and Justice
Alabama Lee, NUAC
Kevin Martin, President, Peace Action, Convener, Korea Peace Network
Duncan McFarland, United for Justice with Peace, Boston
Linda Moh, Action One Korea Indianapolis
The Rev. Robert Moore, Coalition for Peace Action, PA and NJ
Kwan Nam, One Corea Now
Misuk Nam, One Heart for Justice
Richard Ochs, Peace Action Baltimore
Guy Quinlan, All Souls Nuclear Disarmament Task Force. NYC
Thea Paneth, United for Peace and Justice
Rev. Rich Peacock, Peace Action of Michigan
Terry Rockefeller, September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows
Roxanne, Minnesota Peace Project
Kristina Romines, Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND)
Carolyn Scarr, Ecumenical Peace Institute/CALC
Kate Shim, Naka
H. K. Suh, National Association of Korean Americans
Nancy C. Tate, LEPOCO Peace Center (Lehigh-Pocono Committee of Concern), Bethlehem, PA
Aaron Tovish, Zona Libre
Prof. Rene Wadlow, Association of World Citizens
Rick Wayman, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Prof. Lawrence Wittner, Emeritus, SUNY-Albany, Solidarity Committee of the Capital District (Albany, NY)
Kil Sang Yoon, Korean American National Coordinating Council, Inc.

Individual Signers

Chunghyun Ahn
Charles Armstrong
Jane Baker
Don Baker
Keith Brooks
CJ
Christine Brunner
Lynn Cardiff
Sylvia Rodriguez Case
Myung Ji Cho
David Choi
Kyeong-Hee Choi
Joseph Choe
Sunjung Choh
Alex Choi
Young Choi
Michael Chwe
Tracy Comstock
K Chung
Chuck Churchill
Nicolas J S Davies
Anthony Del Plato
Esther
Henry Em
Charles Fredricks
Bonnie Gorman
Richard Greve
Daniel Guy
Si Han
Steve Harrison
Cheehyung Harrison Kim
Martin Hart-Landsberg
Vana Kim Hansen
Lee Doo Hee
Jeffrey Herold
Carol Ho
Sepk Hong
Bryce Hutchinson
Kyo J. Hyun
Kim Iksoo
Michael Jeon
Kelly Jeong
Sug Jeonv
Christopher Joonmoo Lee
Youngju Jun
Sookeung Jung
Jung
Tae Ho Kang
Walter L. Keats
Larry Kerschner
Sun-Chul Ki
Heang Ki Paik
Carl J. Kilgore
Gyung Jin Kim
Daniel Y. Kim
Debbie Kim
Jieun Kim
Eric Kim
Eunjung Kim
Eva C. Kim
Grace Kim
Haemee
Haing Kim
Il-sun Kim
Hyoungkeun Kim
Hongkyung Kim
Jonathan J Kim
Joshua Taebog Kim
Jinseob Kim
Kevin Kim
Michael Kim
Myung K. Kim
Shawn Kim
Sung Kwon Kim
Suzy Kim
Yu Jin Kim
Yeun Moon Kim
Yeong Kim
Chang Ku Kang
Sungju Park-Kang
Lina Koleilat
Roger Kotila
Catherine Kreuter
Dasol Lee
Jiyoung Lee
Ki-chan Lee
Lea Lee
Myungza Lee
Namhee Lee
Samuel Lee
Sharon W.Lee
Steven Lee
Yinsook Lee
Young Lee
Yoojin Lee
Yuna Lee
Ramsay Liem
Lee Tinker Loe
Jean Michel Lorne
John Marciano
Arnold Matlin, M.D.
Joshua McHugh
Yong Soon Min
Caroline Norma
Mark Nyhan
Joseph S. Onello
Moon J. Pak
Sung u Pak
Jin Park
EunJin Park
Shin-Hwa Park
Fritz H. Pointer
Charles Reitz
Pyongwon Rhoe
Ken Kilnam Roh
CB Saeji
Matthew Shapiro
Louise Shawkat
June Kim
Il Oh
Ashley Santangelo
Deb Sawyer
Edward J. Shultz
Rudy Simons
Jungran Shin
Iksoo Shin
Alice Slater
Hyongtae Son
Seung Woo Son
Young Song
Souya
Thomas Stinnett
HK Suh
J.J. Suh
Travis Wagner
Andrea Watson
Gail Whang
Michael Wong
Col. Ann Wright (ret.)
Mili Yoon
Jong-sung You
Jaek Young
Jasmine Zulaikha

cc:
Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson
Secretary of Defense James Mattis

The National Endowment for (Meddling in) Democracy

March 10th, 2018 by Daniel Lazare

Featured image: Kiev during the NED supported protests that led to the coup of the pro-Russian president, in 2014 (Source: Mstyslav Chernov/Creative Commons)

“They’re meddling in our politics!” That’s the war cry of outraged Clintonites and neocons, who seem to think election interference is something that Russians do to us and we never, ever do to them.

But meddling in other countries has been a favorite Washington pastime ever since William McKinley vowed to “Christianize” the Philippines in 1899, despite the fact that most Filipinos were already Catholic. Today, an alphabet soup of U.S. agencies engage in political interference virtually around the clock, everyone from USAID to the VOA, RFE/RL to the DHS—respectively the U.S. Agency for International Development, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Department of Homeland Security. The last maintains some 2,000 U.S. employees in 70 countries to ensure that no one even thinks of doing anything bad to anyone over here.

Then there is the National Endowment for Democracy, a $180-million-a-year government-funded outfit that is a byword for American intrusiveness. The NED is an example of what might be called “speckism,” the tendency to go on about the speck in your neighbor’s eye without ever considering the plank in your own (see Matthew 7 for further details). Prohibited by law from interfering in domestic politics, the endowment devotes endless energy to the democratic shortcomings of other countries, especially when they threaten American interests. In 1984, the year after it was founded, it channeled secret funds to a military-backed presidential candidate in Panama, gave $575,000 to a right-wing French student group, and delivered nearly half a million dollars to right-wing opponents of Costa Rican president Oscar Arias—because Arias had refused to go along with our anti-communist policy in Central America.

A year later, it gave $400,000 to the anti-Sandinista opposition in Nicaragua and then another $2 million in 1988. It used its financial muscle in the mid-1990s to persuade a right-wing party to draw up a “Contract with Slovakia” modeled on Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America; persuaded free marketeers to do the same in Mongolia; gave nearly $1 million to Venezuelan rightists who went on to mount a short-lived putsch against populist leader Hugo Chavez in 2002; and then funded anti-Russian presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine in 2005, and the later anti-Russian coup there in 2014.

What all this had to do with democracy is unclear, although the NED’s role in advancing U.S. imperial interests is beyond doubt. Rather than “my country right or wrong,” its operating assumption is “my country right, full stop.” If Washington says Leader X is out of line, then the endowment will snap to attention and fund his opponents. If it says he’s cooperative and well-behaved, meaning he supports free markets and financial deregulation and doesn’t dally with any of America’s military rivals, it will do the opposite. It doesn’t matter if, like Putin, the alleged dictator swept the last election with 63.6 percent of the vote and was declared the “clear” winner by the European Union and the U.S. State Department.

If he’s “expanding [Russia’s] influence in the Middle East,” as NED President Carl Gershman puts it, then he’s a “strongman” and an “autocrat” and must go.

America’s own shortcomings meanwhile go unnoticed. Meanwhile, the NED, as it nears the quarter-century mark, is a bundle of contradictions: a group that claims to be private even though it is almost entirely publicly funded, a group that says democracy “must be indigenous” even though it backs U.S.-imposed regime change, a group that claims to be “bipartisan” but whose board is packed with ideologically homogeneous hawks like Elliott Abrams, Anne Applebaum, and Victoria Nuland, the latter of whom served as assistant secretary of state during the coup in Ukraine. Historically speaking, the NED feels straight out of the early1980s, when Washington was struggling to overcome “Vietnam Syndrome” in order to rev up the Cold War. The recovery process began with Ronald Reagan declaring at his first inaugural, “The crisis that we are facing today [requires] our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God’s help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. After all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.”

The U.S. was apparently not just a nation, but something like a religion as well. Additional input for the new NED in 1983 came from spymaster William Casey, CIA director from 1981 to 1987, who, after the intelligence scandals of the 70s, had swung around to the view that certain covert operations were better spun off into what the British call a “quango,” a quasi-non-government organization.

“Obviously we here should not get out in front in the development of such an organization,” he cautioned, “nor do we wish to appear to be a sponsor or advocate.”

It was a case of covert backing for an overt turn.

Others who helped lay the groundwork were:

  • Neoconservative ideologue Jeane Kirkpatrick, Reagan’s ambassador to the UN, famous for her argument that “traditional authoritarian governments” should be supported against “revolutionary autocracies” because they are “less repressive” and whose UN aide
  • Carl Gershman would become NED president and serves to this day
  • Human rights Democrats who believe that America’s job is to enforce democratic standards throughout the world, however idiosyncratic and self-serving they may be
  • Old-fashioned pluralists who maintained that the power to succeed existed in different groups’ working separately toward a common goal, in this case, spreading democracy abroad

The result was an ideologically lethal package that assumed whatever Americans did was democratic because God is on our side, that old-fashioned CIA skullduggery was passé, and that the time had come to switch to more open means.

“We should not have to do this kind of work covertly,” Gershman later explained. “We saw that in the 60s, and that’s why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that’s why the endowment was created.”

In the interests of pluralism, the NED adopted a quadripartite structure with separate wings for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the GOP, and the Democrats, each working separately yet somehow together.

Pluralism helped tamp down debate and also shore up support on Capitol Hill. Liberal Democrats were initially skeptical due to the NED’s neocon tilt. Michigan Congressman John Conyers Jr. tried to kill it in 1985, and The Nation magazine complained a few years later that the group served as little more than “a pork barrel for a small circle of Republican and Democratic party activists, conservative trade unionists, and free marketeers who use endowment money to run their own mini State Department.”

But when the House voted unexpectedly to defund the agency in 1993, beneficiaries sprang to its defense. Major-league pundits like George Will, David Broder, and Abe Rosenthal “went into overdrive,” according to The Nation, as did the heavy hitters of the Washington Post editorial page. Vice President Walter Mondale, a member of the NED board of directors, worked the phones along with Lane Kirkland, George Meany’s successor as head of the AFL-CIO. Ronald Reagan wrote a letter, while Senators Richard Lugar, Orrin Hatch, and John McCain pitched in as well. So did prominent liberals like Paul Wellstone, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, Ted Kennedy, and Carol Moseley-Braun. These people normally couldn’t bear to be in the same with one another, but they were of one mind when it came to America’s divine right to intervene in other nations’ affairs.

The anti-NED forces didn’t stand a chance. Twenty-five years later, the endowment is again under attack, although this time from the right. Gershman started the ball rolling when, in October 2016, he interrupted his busy pro-democracy schedule to dash off a column in the Washington Post accusing Russia of using “email hackers, information trolls and open funding of political parties to sow discord” and of “even intervening in the U.S. presidential election.” Since there was no question whom Russia was intervening for, there was no doubt what the article amounted to: a thinly veiled swipe at a certain orange-haired candidate.

Never one to forget a slight, Trump got his revenge last month by proposing to slash the NED budget by 60 percent. The response was the same as in 1993, only more so. Uber-hawk Senator Lindsey Graham pronounced the cut “dead on arrival,” adding:

 “This budget destroys soft power, it puts our diplomats at risk, and it’s going nowhere.”

Gershman said it would mean “sending a signal far and wide that the United States is turning its back on supporting brave people who share our values,” while Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin moaned that the administration was guilty of an “assault on democracy promotion.” The ever-voluble Democratic Congresswoman Nita Lowey accused the administration of “dismantling an agency that advances critical goals.”

“The work our government does to promote democratic values abroad is at the heart of who we are as a country,” added Senator John McCain.

America is democracy, democracy is America, and, as history’s first global empire, the U.S. has an unqualified right to do unto others what others may not do unto the U.S. Only a “Siberian candidate,” “a traitor,” or “a Russian stooge” could possibly disagree.

*

Daniel Lazare is the author of The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American politics. He has written for a wide variety of publications from The Nation to Le Monde Diplomatique, and his articles about the Middle East, terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites as Jacobin and Consortium News.

Moscow is prepared to cooperate with a British investigation into the death of ex-spy Sergey Skripal, the Russian foreign minister said. He dismissed rumors of the country’s involvement as “hysteria” and “propaganda.”

Sergey Lavrov said that Russia is blamed for everything that goes wrong on the planet, and noted that no facts had been presented to suggest any Russian involvement in the poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter.

“We haven’t heard a single fact, we only watch TV coverage, where your colleagues speak fervently with serious faces that if it is Russia. The response will be that Russia will remember forever. It’s not serious, it’s propaganda at its finest and pressing hysteria,” said the foreign minister, who was speaking at a press conference alongside his Ethiopian counterpart, Workneh Gebeyehu.

However, Lavrov stated that if British authorities were interested in cooperating with Russia in relation to any case, “be it poisoning of British subjects, be it rumors of interfering in US campaign, if help is really needed, we are ready to look at such possibility.

“However, to conduct such matters, one shouldn’t run to TV screens with baseless accusations, but turn professionally to existing channels, including law enforcement,” he added.

Lavrov added that the frenzy of finger-pointing at Russia sought “parallels” with the case of Alexander Litvinenko. However, the Russian FM pointed out that Litvinenko’s death, also blamed on Russia, hasn’t been fully investigated.

“I want to remind people that Litvinenko’s death was also attributed to Russia, but hasn’t been investigated, because court proceedings, which were called ‘public,’ were in fact closed. They were carried out in a very strange way, and numerous facts, which emerged throughout investigation, haven’t come into the public domain,” the minister said.

“We offered our assistance and cooperation, however British justice decided that they are above this, and it was enough just to come out with a verdict which is not inclusive,” Lavrov added, saying that many facts linked to the tragedy have been “swept under the carpet.”

Those interested in the matter should turn to countries they wish to find answers from, not to “propaganda channels,” Lavrov added.

Skripal, 66, and his daughter Yulia, 33, were exposed to a nerve agent, according to UK authorities. The pair were found slumped on a bench outside a shopping center in Wiltshire on March 4. British police say that more than 20 people in total were injured in the alleged attack, which has been described by authorities as “attempted murder.”

Home Secretary Amber Rudd stressed that the investigation must “respond to evidence not rumor.” But British media wasted no time in blaming Russia for the incident.

Skripal worked as a double agent for the UK intelligence agency MI6 and was jailed in Russia in 2006 for spying for Britain, having passed on the names of undercover Russian intelligence agents. In 2010, he was one of four spies released by Russia in a “spy swap” for 10 Russian agents.

Daniel Ellsberg has a message that managers of the warfare state don’t want people to hear.

“If you have information that bears on deception or illegality in pursuing wrongful policies or an aggressive war,” he said in a statement released last week, “don’t wait to put that out and think about it, consider acting in a timely way at whatever cost to yourself…. Do what Katharine Gun did.”

If you don’t know what Katharine Gun did, chalk that up to the media power of the war system.

Ellsberg’s video statement went public as this month began, just before the 15th anniversary of when a British newspaper, the Observer, revealed a secret NSA memo — thanks to Katharine Gun. At the UK’s intelligence agency GCHQ, about 100 people received the same email memo from the National Security Agency on the last day of January 2003, seven weeks before the invasion of Iraq got underway. Only Katharine Gun, at great personal risk, decided to leak the document.

If more people had taken such risks in early 2003, the Iraq War might have been prevented. If more people were willing to take such risks in 2018, the current military slaughter in several nations, mainly funded by U.S. taxpayers, might be curtailed if not stopped. Blockage of information about past whistleblowing deprives the public of inspiring role models.

That’s the kind of reality George Orwell was referring to when he wrote:

“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.”

Fifteen years ago,

“I find myself reading on my computer from the Observer the most extraordinary leak, or unauthorized disclosure, of classified information that I’d ever seen,” Ellsberg recalled, “and that definitely included and surpassed my own disclosure of top-secret information, a history of U.S. decision-making in Vietnam years earlier.”

The Pentagon Papers whistleblower instantly recognized that, in the Observer article,

“I was looking at something that was clearly classified much higher than top secret…. It was an operational cable having to do with how to conduct communications intelligence.”

What Ellsberg read in the newspaper story “was a cable from the NSA asking GCHQ to help in the intercepting of communications, and that implied both office and home communications, of every member of the Security Council of the UN. Now, why would NSA need GCHQ to do that? Because a condition of having the UN headquarters and the Security Council in the U.S. in New York was that the U.S. intelligence agencies promised or were required not to conduct intelligence on members of the UN. Well, of course they want that. So, they rely on their allies, the buddies, in the British to commit these criminal acts for them. And with this clearly I thought someone very high in access in Britain intelligence services must dissent from what was already clear the path to an illegal war.”

But actually, the leak didn’t come from “someone very high” in GCHQ. The whistleblower turned out to be a 28-year-old linguist and analyst at the agency, Katharine Gun, who had chosen to intervene against the march to war.

As Gun has recounted, she and other GCHQ employees “received an email from a senior official at the National Security Agency. It said the agency was ‘mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council members,’ and that it wanted ‘the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises.’”

In other words, the U.S. and British governments wanted to eavesdrop on key UN delegations and then manipulate or even blackmail them into voting for war.

Katharine Gun took action:

 “I was furious when I read that email and leaked it. Soon afterwards, when the Observer ran a front-page story — ‘U.S. dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war’ — I confessed to the leak and was arrested on suspicion of the breach of section 1 of the Official Secrets Act.”

The whistleblowing occurred in real time.

“This was not history,” as Ellsberg put it. “This was a current cable, I could see immediately from the date, and it was before the war had actually started against Iraq. And the clear purpose of it was to induce the support of the Security Council members to support a new UN resolution for the invasion of Iraq.”

The eavesdropping was aimed at gaining a second — and this time unequivocal — Security Council resolution in support of an invasion.

“British involvement in this would be illegal without a second resolution,” Ellsberg said. “How are they going to get that? Obviously essentially by blackmail and intimidation, by knowing the private wants and embarrassments, possible embarrassments, of people on the Security Council, or their aides, and so forth. The idea was, in effect, to coerce their vote.”

Katharine Gun foiled that plan. While scarcely reported in the U.S. media (despite cutting-edge news releases produced by my colleagues at the Institute for Public Accuracy beginning in early March of 2003), the revelations published by the Observer caused huge media coverage across much of the globe — and sparked outrage in several countries with seats on the Security Council.

“In the rest of the world there was great interest in the fact that American intelligence agencies were interfering with their policies of their representatives in the Security Council,” Ellsberg noted.

A result was that for some governments on the Security Council at the time, the leak “made it impossible for their representatives to support the U.S. wish to legitimize this clear case of aggression against Iraq. So, the U.S. had to give up its plan to get a supporting vote in the UN.” The U.S. and British governments “went ahead anyway, but without the legitimating precedent of an aggressive war that would have had, I think, many consequences later.”

Ellsberg said:

“What was most striking then and still to me about this disclosure was that the young woman who looked at this cable coming across her computer in GCHQ acted almost immediately on what she saw was the pursuit of an illegal war by illegal means…. I’ve often been asked, is there anything about the release of the Pentagon Papers on Vietnam that you regret. And my answer is yes, very much. I regret that I didn’t put out the top-secret documents available to me in the Pentagon in 1964, years before I actually gave them to the Senate and then to the newspapers. Years of war and years of bombing. It wasn’t that I was considering that all that time. I didn’t have a precedent to instruct me on that at that point. But in any case, I could have been much more effective in averting that war if I’d acted much sooner.”

Katharine Gun “was not dealing only with historical material,” Ellsberg emphasizes, she “was acting in a timely fashion very quickly on her right judgement that what she was being asked to participate in was wrong. I salute her. She’s my hero. I think she’s a model for other whistleblowers. And for a long time I’ve said to people in her position or my old position in the government: Don’t do what I did. Don’t wait till the bombs are falling or thousands more have died.”

By making her choice, Gun risked two years of imprisonment. In Ellsberg’s words, she seemed to be facing “a sure conviction — except that the government was not willing to have the legality of that war discussed in a courtroom, and in the end dropped the charges.”

As this month began, Katharine Gun spoke at a London news conference, co-sponsored by ExposeFacts and RootsAction.org (organizations I’m part of) and hosted by the National Union of Journalists. Speaking alongside her were three other whistleblowers — Thomas Drake, Matthew Hoh and Jesselyn Radack — who have emerged as eloquent American truth tellers from the NSA, State Department and Justice Department. The presentations by the four are stunning to watch.

Their initiatives, taken at great personal risk, underscore how we can seize the time to make use of opportunities for forthright actions of conscience. This truth is far from confined to what we call whistleblowing. It’s about possibilities in a world where silence is so often consent to what’s wrong, and disruption of injustice is imperative for creating a more humane future.

*

Licensed under Creative Commons.

Norman Solomon is the coordinator of the online activist group RootsAction.org and the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of a dozen books including “War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.”

Western Civilization: The Final Crossroads

March 10th, 2018 by Richard C. Cook

Overview

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.

But first, some history, including concepts that may be controversial.

Speaking globally, the West is that part of the world settled by people of European descent. Racially, the original peoples of the West stem from those classified as Indo-European, though people of that race and language family also long ago penetrated into Asia, including Northern India and Persia.

Over the centuries, Western civilization has incorporated people of other races whose lands the Europeans conquered, such as the indigenous peoples of the Americas, and the peoples of Siberia and parts of central Asia taken over by the Russians.

Some nations of the West transported people as slaves from Africa. All Western nations today also include people who have freely migrated from other parts of the world, such as India, Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia. Many of these immigrants have come from countries the Western nations colonized. There have also been vast migrations from Europe to the Americas, including a large Jewish influx from Eastern Europe and Russia.

Regarding the question of whether the Indo-European conquest of lands occupied by other races was just and fair, we would have to say that it was not. But it is a fait accompli. All parties must now make the best of it.

Certainly the fact of conquest imposes obligations that are still far from being adequately recognized, as in the ongoing destruction of the Amazon rain forest and its indigenous cultures. Indigenous peoples everywhere have been badly mistreated and often subjected to genocide, including in the Western outposts of Australia and New Zealand.

But in spite of the endless variations in local and regional demographics, it yet remains possible to speak of Western civilization as a cultural and geopolitical entity, just as we can speak of an Islamic civilization stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, and a civilization of the East that includes India, Japan, China, and other Asian nations. The predominant religions of the East are Hinduism and its offspring Buddhism. In China, Buddhism melded with a compatible substrate of Confucianism and Taoism.

Western Culture

What defines a civilization is not only race but also its shared culture. The principal factor that identifies Western civilization as a unit is the historic prevalence of the Christian religion. Without Christianity, the concept of Western civilization would be meaningless.

But the West is divided among numerous nation-states that speak diverse languages. Its population includes many who see themselves as atheists, agnostics, or “spiritual but not religious.” Nevertheless, the West is culturally defined by the historic presence stated in the creeds of both Catholic and Protestant sects of “one holy catholic and apostolic church” (all words lower-case).

In this sense, the actual founders of Western culture are four men who personified the Judeo-Christian faith as expressed in the Old and New Testaments; namely, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, and St. Paul. Yes, they were Hebrews/Jews.

In Biblical parlance, the peoples of the West who adopted Christian teachings were the “Gentiles,” starting with the Greeks and Romans.Western civilization is largely what the Gentiles forged after their conversion to a common faith.

Of course there are many who reside in Western nations who would dispute these generalizations. But what is described here is true enough and gives us something concrete to work with. History cannot be understood otherwise, including what is happening in the world today.

No matter what observers believe or disbelieve, the West still lives under laws based on the Ten Commandments and, at its best, ideals rooted in the Sermon on the Mount. From this perspective, the destiny of Western civilization can be analyzed in terms of the tension between the influence of its spiritual mentors and the characteristics of its much older tribal make-up.

Struggles for Dominance

The peoples of the West have been fighting each other since they can first be sighted in prehistory.The earliest Indo-European cultures tended to be local or regional, structured tribally, including those of the Celts, the Germans, the Slavs, and the Greeks and Romans. Tribal warfare within, between, and among these groupings was a constant. They all appealed to their tribal gods for victory.

But around 2,000 years ago, attempts began to be made to consolidate the West under centralized systems of governance, the first being the Roman Empire. Once Christianity took root, the culture of the West became that of the Roman Catholic Church, which by the High Middle Ages exercised its presence throughout much of Europe.

By the 15th and 16th centuries, today’s nation states had taken shape and had begun to compete for dominance both on the European continent and in the acquisition of colonies, filling a vacuum left by the decline in the power and prestige of the Papacy that resulted in the splitting of the West through the Protestant Reformation. The Wars of Religion that ensued were ghastly in their carnage.

Russia and parts of Eastern Europe had already split from Catholicism through religious schism, creating the culture of Orthodoxy. Also, for a millennium, Europe fought on its borders against Islam for survival. But with the Reformation thrown in the mix, the glue that held the West together dissipated, leading the most powerful nations—Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Russia, the German principalities, Poland, Denmark, and Sweden—to fight each other in wars of great savagery.

The areas of Italy and Germany remained disorganized until their unification in the 19th century. Those nations then took part in the prevailing struggles for supremacy and were joined by the U.S., the growing colossus across the Atlantic Ocean that had achieved unification through the American Civil War.

The political relations among the nations of the West since around 1500 can be fairly described as an almost continuous state of intra-civilizational civil war—with ostensibly Christian nations slaughtering each other’s populations in the millions.World Wars I and II were a phase of an old pattern.

But due to the rise of science and technology, these wars were unprecedented in their carnage and cruelty. During the modern history of the West, there were never any “good wars.” Rather it was “tribalism on steroids.”

Today’s Insanity

Today it seems incredible that given the exponential growth in the power of science to create weapons of mass destruction sufficient to destroy all life on earth many times over, we stand on the brink of yet another phase in the unending saga of war among Western powers, lining up with the U.S. and Western Europe on one side and Russia on the other. We might even see in this division the residue of the Great Schism of a thousand years ago.

Both sides, of course, are marshaling allies from other parts of the world, with China and Central Asia tending to align with Russia, and the U.S. exerting tenuous control at present over Western Europe, Latin America, and nations on the Asian fringe, such as Japan and South Korea, along with Australian and New Zealand.

It does not take a great deal of insight to realize, when we approach the situation from this macro-historical perspective, that the present-day standoff between the U.S. and Russia is insane. Instigating the insanity are American financial, political, and military leaders. Cheering them on have been the truly dangerous partisans of the U.S. mainstream media.

A war between the U.S. and Russia would have to involve use of nuclear weapons, unless Russia totally surrenders to U.S. hegemony in advance. But Russia is not going to do this.

The U.S. believed that Russia had in fact capitulated through the collapse of the Soviet Union and the aftermath in the 1990s. But the rebirth of Russian autonomy in the two decades since then has proven these assumptions totally wrong.

In the hiatus between the end of the Soviet Union and the rise of a new Russia, the U.S. launched its massive series of wars against the Islamic nations in a continuing attempt to curb and control any movement toward economic and political independence in that part of the world. Russia, straddling as it does both Europe and Asia, had been ambiguous about these wars, finally taking a stand against them by supporting the government of Syria in the assault on that nation by U.S. proxies.

Meanwhile, at home, U.S. society and its domestic economy have been falling apart under the astronomical expense of endless warfare along with financial legerdemain and moral corruption. The credibility of the U.S. government has been fatally compromised by the rise of the “Deep State,” the control of government by secretive cadres of militarists and assassins, and the lies told about the false flag of 9/11.

Meanwhile, the military’s leading generals have become powerful warlords who control vast resources, extend their tentacles throughout civilian society, and trumpet provocative political pronouncements and threats that should be the sole purview of political leaders. Most of the latter are puppets who humiliate themselves by throwing ever-increasing amounts of dollars at the feet of their uniformed darlings.

Sometimes trillions of these dollars just disappear down Pentagon black holes. The tendency to fawn over the military is likely to increase, as many of the Democratic Party candidates for contested seats in the 2018 House elections are likely to be former military-intelligence operatives.

The West is staggering today under the burden of its inability to bring centuries of internecine warfare to a halt through some kind of humane and rational settlement of differences. The main beneficiary of this chaos has been China, which appears to be solving many of the problems that have baffled the West and is poised to assume global leadership by peaceful growth of its economy and the success of its social system under its oriental—some say Confucianist—brand of communism.

Thus the West is facing another tragedy that likely will be its last. There is no way out by continuing to pursue the dark byways of economic exploitation and war with which the West has been obsessed for centuries.

This obsession has been channeled through the demonic force of nationalism, abetted by hubris, greed, fear, and hatred. All movements throughout history founded upon the elevation of one nation above the rest have opened the floodgates to hell.

Every aggressor has seen itself as “exceptional.” Nationalism, always rooted in racial myths, is just a latter-day phase of the most barbaric tribalism of the ancient past—sadism and human sacrifice in the thinnest of disguises.

The best example of this throwback tribalism was Nazi Germany. In the U.S. today, we are seeing “Nazification” at work on many levels, not just through the erection of a military/police state, but also including genocidal policies against the poor, the elderly, and racial minorities.

The Anglo-American Empire

Another factor is how the U.S. has inherited the centuries-old policy of Britain to oppose by force of arms the arising of any great power on the European continent that might threaten its hegemony. In the 18th century and continuing through the wars against Napoleon, the enemy was France. After the rise of Germany and continuing through the two World Wars of the 20th century, Britain demonized and sought to crush the German nation.

Contrary to the usual misconceptions, World War I was instigated by Britain to undermine a burgeoning trade rival. World War II followed as a matter of course after Germany was forced to shoulder the entire burden of guilt for starting the previous conflagration.

After World War II, the Soviet Union was branded as the next continental enemy, beginning with the Cold War and resuming today. Of course Britain had defeated France on its own through an anti-Napoleon coalition. To defeat Germany, Britain had to rely on the U.S. To take on the Soviet Union—now Russia—the U.S. gladly assumed the lead, its elites greedily anticipating the wealth and power that would ensue.

Today the U.S. stands at the head of what we all know is essentially an Anglo-American empire, with its oligarchy living high on the hog for the last few generations. But it’s an unnatural empire that carves out a piece of the West dominated by English-speakers and claims it’s the whole. But to insist now on the supremacy of this arrangement for all time is suicidal for Western civilization. The empire must be given up.

Seeking a Solution

The solution is not for the U.S. to continue to escalate conflict with Russia, while Britain, with its retrograde“Brexit,”from the European Union, eggs us on, as does the Anglo-American client state of Israel. Of course after its intended conquest of Russia, which can never happen,the empire wants to move on to an ultimate showdown with China for global control.

But such control is an illusion. East is East and West is West, and so they shall remain. Survival of humanity on earth depends on a harmonious equilibrium between the two, with the Islamic world balanced in between.

It is time for those of us in the West to search deeply within our own souls to find the solution. Meanwhile, the cybernetic revolution has introduced an entirely new factor into the equation with instantaneous worldwide communication, combined with the ease of international travel.

Not to mention the unfathomable destructiveness of today’s weaponry and the systems available to deliver these weapons to the homes of all civilian populations on earth. This is what our misuse of the gifts to mankind from scientific knowledge has brought us—an opportunity to do even more evil on a gigantic scale.

The Time Has Come for Epochal Change

Today the nations of the West must unite in peace, with the U.S. and Russia aiming to achieve a meeting of minds across the negotiating table. But they can only do so through realization of their common spiritual heritage, not by force. Force has failed. I repeat: force has failed.

Unfortunately, conservative elements within the Western nations, including those within the dominant Christian churches, are pulling in the opposite direction, away from negotiation, unity, and peace. Fear, arrogance, and hatred are retrenching, as the demons of destruction await their next turn on the stage.These demons couldn’t care less if humanity destroys itself.

The one nation that seems to be acting otherwise is in fact Russia. If a return to earlier attempts at rapprochement is to take place, the initiative must doubtless come from Russia, as it did with Gorbachev in the 1980s.

Russian President Vladimir Putin may be doing just that today by responding firmly but open-mindedly to U.S. hostility, including the “Russiagate” farce that the U.S. Deep State is engineering. Despite daily provocations, Putin continues to refer to the West as “partners.”

But the U.S. must now respond in kind. We have already shown the ability to cooperate with Russia on a small but highly symbolic scale through joint work on the International Space Station.

As of this writing, a glimmer of hope has emerged through a letter from U.S. senators Markey, Merkley, Feinstein, and Sanders to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson for a strategic dialogue made urgent by President Putin’s recent announcement of a new generation of conventional and nuclear weapons.

The senators write that despite “policy rifts” and “significant” disagreements, “… the United States should urgently engage with Russia to avoid miscalculation and reduce the likelihood of conflict.”

Certainly the Trump administration should respond positively to this request. But going further, President Donald Trump should act boldly by sending a bipartisan commission to Moscow to talk with the Russian government about immediate action across a much broader front to defuse the present crisis by working together toward a peaceful future for Spaceship Earth.

A Dream: A Council Convened to Save Western Civilization

International councils can be keys to solving problems and starting afresh. An example was the councils leading to the Peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years War in 1648 and created the patterns and arrangements under which modern Europe emerged.

It is suggested that the main topic of discussion of the meeting between U.S. and Russian counterparts mentioned above be the convening of a major Council to take place at a central location, such as Paris, in the year 2021. This Council should encompass all the nations of the West, from those of the Americas, to the nations of the European Union, to Russia.

Such a Council should consist of three main sections: 1) political/military; 2) economic;and 3) religious/cultural.

Political/military: Discussion should start with an agreement by the member nations of NATO to dissolve that entirely unnecessary relic of a sad history. Also called for would be a goodwill gesture by the U.S. to cut its military expenditures by at least half within five years. Discussion of political issues would then follow.

Economic: The focus should be on sustainable economic development, equity for all levels of society, and protection of the natural environment.Global warming should be addressed. A basic income guarantee for all citizens of the West should be instituted, as should a common international circulating currency of gold and silver monetary units.This currency could be issued by a new network of national public banks under a charter that would supplement or replace the post-World War II Bretton Woods agreements.

Religious/cultural: All religious denominations of the West should be invited. As a good faith gesture, the Roman Catholic Church should alter the main practice that historically has divided it from the rest of Christendom and announce that from now on its clergy will be allowed to marry.

The goal of the Council would be to take steps toward uniting those elements of Western civilization that today are obsessed with destroying each other. A major objective would be to find ways to include in the benefits of civilization the lower income levels that are threatened with genocide by economies that mainly augment the already bloated incomes of national oligarchies.

Conclusion

I know that many readers are pointing at the foregoing proposals and asking, “Who are you kidding?” But I am quite serious. Unless matters are addressed at this level, nothing can be expected but more catastrophe.

A start can and should be made. Deep within the spiritual history of the West, the memories, ideas,and energy are present for deep transformation to take place. These memories, ideas, and energy will eventually break through in their dazzling light, perhaps sooner than we think. The signs are all around.

It is the task of those who care to work in peace to prepare the ground. And part of the work is to keep the present travail of the West under the microscope of constructive criticism.

*

Richard C. Cook is a retired U.S. federal government analyst. In his 32-year career he worked for five civilian agencies and the Carter White House. While with NASA he documented the flaws with the space shuttle solid rocket boosters and testified before the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Unable to return to NASA after his testimony, he spent the rest of his career with the U.S. Treasury Department. On retirement in 2007, he published “Challenger Revealed,” the definitive account of the multiple layers of cover-up surrounding the disaster. He went on to publish a book on monetary policy entitled “We Hold These Truths: The Hope of Monetary Reform,” along with dozens of internet and print articles on public policy issues. He may be reached at [email protected].

Copyright 2018 by Richard C. Cook. This article may be reposted.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Western Civilization: The Final Crossroads

NGOs Push Senators to Support Yemen Resolution

March 10th, 2018 by Derek Davison

A group of over 40 NGOs have signed on to an open letter calling on senators to support SJRes54, a joint resolution introduced last month by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Chris Murphy (D-CT). The resolution calls for a vote to authorize the U.S. military role in Yemen’s civil war under the 1973 War Powers Act. If that vote is held it could signal an end to U.S. involvement in Yemen and a reassertion of a congressional role in authorizing military action all over the world.

Yemen has been mired in a civil war since September 2014, when the Houthis, a Shia group based in northern Yemen, seized control of the country’s capital city, Sanaa. The Houthis’ move came amid a dispute with Yemen’s internationally recognized president, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, who eventually fled the capital for the southern Yemeni port city of Aden. Meanwhile, the Houthis, along with forces loyal to Yemen’s former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh (who fell out with the Houthis and was killed by them in December), pushed south until they reached Aden in March 2015.

At that point a coalition led by Saudi Arabia—and including the United Arab Emirates along with several other Middle Eastern and African countries—intervened in the war on behalf of Hadi and his government. What followed has been a nearly three-year-long humanitarian catastrophe, one that the United Nations says could be the worst the world has seen in the past 50 years. More than 10,000 civilians have been killed—most of those by coalition airstrikes—and millions have been displaced by the violence. An estimated eight million people are at critical risk of starvation, and the conflict has caused the worst cholera outbreak in recorded history, with over one million cases. Both of those crises have been exacerbated by the coalition’s blockade of Yemen—which is ostensibly meant to keep weapons from reaching the Houthis but has slowed and frequently prevented the entry of humanitarian aid—and by airstrikes that have damaged Yemen’s largest port, Hudaydah. The AP uncovered evidence that the UAE has been operating a network of secret prisons in southern Yemen where detainees are routinely tortured.

The Saudi-led coalition’s war in Yemen would likely be unsustainable without U.S. support. The U.S. refuels and helps maintain the coalition’s aircraft. It shares targeting information with the coalition. Its naval vessels have helped to bolster the coalition blockade. And despite its occasional criticisms of the coalition’s excesses the U.S. continues to sell hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry to Saudi Arabia and the UAE while their war in Yemen rages. All this is happening while the U.S. is conducting a parallel war in Yemen against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)—a group that, ironically, has benefitted considerably from the chaos created by the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led intervention. That campaign against AQAP is not covered by the Sanders-Lee-Murphy resolution.

The text of the letter is as follows:

We, the undersigned organizations, strongly urge you to support S.J.Res. 54, introduced by Senators Lee (R-UT) and Sanders (I-VT), along with Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT). This important legislation invokes section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to require a debate and vote on ending unauthorized U.S. military involvement in Yemen’s civil war. U.S. participation in the Saudi and United Arab Emirates (UAE)-led coalition’s military operations in Yemen has not been authorized by either a congressional declaration of war nor a specific statute. Further, by providing technical, logistical and other military support for the Saudi and UAE-led coalition in Yemen, the U.S. has facilitated numerous violations of international humanitarian law in Yemen and the creation of the largest humanitarian crisis in the world. It is imperative that the Senate reasserts Congress’ constitutional authority as the sole body that can declare war by passing S.J.Res. 54.

Since March 2015, the U.S. has provided the Saudi and UAE-led coalition in Yemen with political and military support, including targeting intelligence, mid-air refueling, and other logistical support. U.S. personnel reportedly work alongside Saudi and other counterparts in the coalition’s joint command center for targeting assistance and other purposes. CENTCOM has publicly confirmed that the U.S. continues to provide mid-air refueling to the coalition, despite having no information on the objectives, flight plans, or targets of the refueled missions and no way to verify whether such missions comport with the laws of armed conflict or U.S. national security objectives. U.S. weapons sold to Saudi Arabia have been misused repeatedly in airstrikes on civilians and civilian objects that are the leading cause of civilian casualties in the conflict and destroyed Yemen’s vital infrastructure. This destruction of infrastructure has exacerbated the world’s largest hunger crisis in which 8.4 million civilians are on the brink of starvation and created the conditions necessary for the largest cholera outbreak ever documented.

Yet despite the fact that the U.S. is actively aiding and abetting coalition abuses, U.S. military involvement in the disastrous conflict in Yemen has never been publicly debated by the Senate. This war of attrition has been waged using U.S. weapons, military support, and personnel without consent of Congress for far too long. Congress has a constitutional and ethical duty to ensure any and all U.S. military operations comply with domestic and international law, and U.S. participation in the civil war in Yemen raises numerous legal and moral questions that must be resolved by Congress. With S.J.Res. 54, the Senate must send a clear signal that without congressional authorization, U.S. military involvement in Yemen’s civil war violates the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Section 8 (c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 defines the introduction of armed forces as the “the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.” U.S. mid-air refueling of coalition warplanes carrying out airstrikes against the Houthis clearly constitutes participation in the movement of Saudi-led military forces as well as accompanying them in active hostilities in Yemen. It is clear that U.S. logistical and targeting assistance for coalition airstrikes constitutes coordination of Saudi-led military forces engaged in hostilities against the Houthis in Yemen.

The president is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, but his legal authority to deploy and commit U.S. troops to foreign conflicts is extremely limited. Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires a specific statutory authorization for any military involvement in armed conflicts other than in cases of self-defense. As Houthi/Saleh forces in Yemen are not in any way associated with Al Qaeda and do not pose an imminent threat to the United States, there is simply no existing statutory authority for the U.S. involvement in this conflict. S.J.Res. 54 provides a unique opportunity for Congress to reassert its constitutional duty as the sole body that can declare war. We urge you to take the first step in reasserting Congress’ authority over declaring war by co-sponsoring the resolution and voting for it when it comes to the Senate floor.

*

Derek Davison is a Washington-based researcher and writer on international affairs and American politics. He has Master’s degrees in Middle East Studies from the University of Chicago, where he specialized in Iranian history and policy, and in Public Policy and Management from Carnegie Mellon University, where he studied American foreign policy and Russian/Cold War history. He previously worked in the Persian Gulf for The RAND Corporation.

Featured image is from the author.

More than 32,000 people have submitted comments opposing a military takeover of most of Nevada’s Desert National Wildlife Refuge ahead of a deadline today. The refuge was created more than 80 years ago to protect the largest herd of desert bighorn sheep in the United States.

The Air Force wants to assume control of nearly 70 percent of the 1.6 million acre refuge to expand the vast Nevada Test and Training Range. Handing more than two-thirds of the refuge over to the military would strip protections for wildlife and wildlands and cut off public access.

Desert National Wildlife Refuge, the largest national wildlife refuge in the lower 48 states, was designated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1936 to protect the desert bighorn sheep, Nevada’s state mammal. It also provides vital habitat for a variety of vulnerable species, including the imperiled Mojave desert tortoise.

“People from Nevada and across the United States are urging the Air Force not to take this destructive step,” said Patrick Donnelly, Nevada state director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “They love this wildlife refuge and they want bighorn sheep to remain protected. Not one acre of the refuge should be handed over for military industrialization.”

The Air Force’s proposal would harm bighorn and other wildlife by expanding military combat operations on the refuge. Plans call for industrializing the largely untouched wildlands with dozens of miles of new roads, constructing more than 100 miles of fencing, bulldozing two air strips and building radio signal emitters.

Preferred alternative map

Map of NTTR and Desert NWR prepared by Friends of Nevada Wilderness. The proposed military takeover areas are shaded black. 

“Desert National Wildlife Refuge holds Nevada’s most important unprotected wilderness quality lands,” said Jose Witt, Southern Nevada director at Friends of Nevada Wilderness. “It is imperative that the Air Force not be allowed to irreparably destroy those wilderness qualities by expanding their bombing range. These lands need permanent protection.”

“Our national wildlife refuges, from Izembek and Arctic in Alaska to Desert in Nevada, are under attack,” said Jenny Keatinge, senior policy analyst for Defenders of Wildlife. “The Air Force’s bid to take over a huge swath of wildlife habitat within Desert Refuge sets a dangerous precedent for the National Wildlife Refuge System. These lands were specifically designated to protect wildlife, and they are part of our national heritage. The Air Force should heed the thousands of people who oppose its heavy-handed attempt to seize control of Desert Refuge, and continue the collaborative approach to managing refuge resources that balances wildlife conservation, cultural resource protection and military use of these lands.”

The strong public opposition follows public meetings held by the Air Force in January, where hundreds turned out to oppose the plan. More than 200 people attended a Las Vegas meeting, and everyone who spoke opposed the land seizure. Many joined together chanting, “Don’t bomb the bighorn!”

“From Native American tribes to rural counties to horsemen to wildlife watchers, the people are united: The military should not expand into this beloved national wildlife refuge,” said Christian Gerlach, national organizer with the Sierra Club. “The wildlife, culture and history at stake here are far too valuable to sacrifice for unnecessary militarization on our public lands.”

The Air Force is required to respond to the public comments in a final environmental impact statement, expected next autumn. Congress will ultimately decide the fate of Desert National Wildlife Refuge when it takes action on the Air Force’s final recommendation.

*

All images in this article are from Center for Biological Diversity.

The British government and mass media have mounted a hysterical anti-Russian campaign centred on the still unexplained circumstances surrounding the hospitalisation of former British double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, after they were found unconscious on a bench in Salisbury on Sunday.

Initial reports Monday stated that Skripal, aged 66, may have ingested fentanyl, a synthetic opioid many times stronger than heroin, which can be fatal in small doses.

On Tuesday, the other person hospitalised was identified as Skripal’s 33-year-old daughter, Yulia, who was also said to be in a critical condition.

Skripal is a former colonel in Russia’s GRU, the military intelligence service. He spent four years in jail in Russia after being found guilty in 2006 of passing secrets to MI6, the UK’s foreign intelligence service. He was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

Skripal served four years before being released in 2010, when he was pardoned by Russia as part of a well-publicized 10-person spy swap between the US, the UK and Russia. He moved to the UK where he has lived for the past seven years.

The pair were found unconscious and slumped on a bench near the Maltings shopping centre. Police stated that two became ill at around 13.30 p.m. Police arrived on the scene at around 16.15 p.m., after being alerted by a concerned member of the public. It was announced Wednesday that a police officer is also in critical condition after attending the incident. The Skripals visited a nearby restaurant, Zizzi’s, which was cordoned off, as well as a local pub, The Bishop’s Mill.

By Tuesday, despite nothing of substance being reported by the police, the government and media had effectively declared the incident an act of terrorism, with the finger pointing at Russia’s Putin government. References to an opioid being involved were dropped, with media reports saying the government’s secret chemical lab at Porton Down was as yet unable to identify the substance. Wiltshire police announced that London’s Metropolitan Police counter-terrorist unit would be taking over the investigation.

In parliament, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson spoke about the “disturbing incident in Salisbury” and stated,

“Although I am not now pointing fingers, because we cannot point fingers, I say to governments around the world that no attempt to take innocent life on UK soil will go either unsanctioned or unpunished,”

He then referred to Russia as a “malign and destructive force” and warned that if Moscow were found to be involved, the government would “take whatever measures we deem necessary to protect the lives of the people in this country, our values and our freedoms.”

In another pointed reference to Russia, he stated that the case had “echoes of the death of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006”—the former officer in Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB, the successor to the KGB), who died on November 23, 2006 after having been granted asylum in Britain in 2000. The UK, backed by the US have long claimed that the Putin regime ordered the killing despite no evidence being presented in an official British inquiry in 2016—other than the presence of the radioactive substance polonium.

Johnson threatened that England could consider boycotting the soccer World Cup in Russia this summer.

Every newspaper, apart from the Financial Times, led with hysterical anti-Russian headlines . The Sun blared, “Red Spy in UK Poison Terror,” with an accompanying story referring to “fear over a Kremlin backed hit…” The Daily Mirror’s headline was “ ‘Assassins’ on British street”.

In an article in the Spectator, columnist Ed West posed the question, “Will Britain stand up to Russia?”

By the evening, despite Newsnight anchor Kirsty Wark introducing the story by saying, “so far we know nothing about what happened to them, if they were poisoned and if they were, by whom,” the BBC’s flagship news programme was dedicated to a narrative that Russia was responsible and that Skripal and his daughter were likely victims of an attack by Russia intelligence operatives.

The media have reported the deaths of Skripal’s wife, his son and his older brother as mysterious events requiring investigation. His wife died of cancer in 2012 in Britain.

The following day the Daily Telegraph asserted that “Putin swore death on poisoned Russian spy.” The Times went with “MI5 believes Russians tried to kill former spy.”

On Wednesday morning, the government convened its COBRA committee, which meets during periods of national emergencies. On Wednesday evening, Met Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley announced that Skripal and his daughter were subjected to an attack by a “nerve agent,” with it being classified as a case of “attempted murder.”

No information released by the authorities can be taken at face value. All reports attest that Skripal was supposedly politically inactive. He evidently did nothing to hide his identity, buying a house for £260,000 in his real name and applying to join a railway social club. He regularly bought lottery scratch cards and purchased food from a local Polish food store.

If the Putin regime were indeed set on killing Skripal and his daughter, some explanation needs to be made as to motive. Skripal’s daughter lived and worked in Russia and made regular trips back and forth.

At least one other person released from jail in Russia would appear to have been a much more likely target of the Putin regime than Skripal, if indeed its intention was to prevent anti-Russian activities. Igor Sutyagin developed into a prominent anti-Putin figure in the UK, becoming a fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) defence and intelligence think-tank.

RUSI is central to the formulation of British imperialism’s anti-Russian policy. Even the Guardian’s main advocate against the Putin regime, columnist Luke Harding, was forced to acknowledge that Sutyagin “gave lectures on Vladimir Putin’s darkening state, and kept a high public profile. Skripal, by contrast, eschewed London. He settled with Liudmilla [his wife] in the comparative quiet of Wiltshire.”

Asking the question who would benefit from the deaths of Skripal and his daughter, there would appear to be no obvious reason why the Putin government would authorize such an act. Putin is currently campaigning in the last stretch of the 2018 presidential election, which takes place on March 18. He is expected to be re-elected.

Under conditions in which the NATO powers, including Britain, are seeking to utilise any pretext to justify their ongoing encirclement of Russia’s border, Putin authorising the murder of two people on the streets of the UK would be a propaganda gift to his opponents.

The response of the government and media to these events must be placed in the context of the concerted drive by London to demonize Russia. Only last week the Times devoted its front page, an op-ed piece and an editorial to bellicose calls by senior military figures, including second in command of the armed forces, Sir Gordon Messenger, for an increase in military spending, naming Russia as the power that must be confronted.

This followed a January speech given at RUSI by General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the General Staff of the British Armed Forces, in which he declared that the UK had to actively prepare for war with Russia and other geo-political rivals.

*

Featured image is from RTE.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Offshoring Indian Agriculture: Is India Becoming a GMO Trash Can?

L’avvertimento nucleare di Putin

March 10th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

Il discorso del presidente russo Putin sullo stato della nazione, dedicato alle questioni interne e internazionali, ha suscitato in Italia scarso interesse politico-mediatico e qualche commento ironico.

Eppure dovrebbe essere ascoltato con estrema attenzione. Evitando giri diplomatici di parole, Putin mette le carte in tavola. Egli denuncia il fatto che negli ultimi 15 anni gli Stati uniti hanno alimentato la corsa agli armamenti nucleari, cercando di acquisire un netto vantaggio strategico sulla Russia. Ciò viene confermato dalla stessa Federazione degli scienziati americani: per mezzo di rivoluzionarie tecnologie, gli Usa hanno triplicato la capacità distruttiva dei loro missili balistici da attacco nucleare. Allo stesso tempo – sottolinea Putin – gli Usa, uscendo dal Trattato Abm, hanno schierato un sistema globale di «difesa missilistica» per neutralizzare la capacità russa di rispondere a un first strike nucleare. Sulla scia dell’espansione della Nato ad Est, hanno installato siti missilistici in Romania e in Polonia, mentre altri sistemi di lancio (di missili non solo intercettori ma anche da attacco nucleare) sono su 18 navi da guerra dislocate in aree vicine al territorio russo.

La Russia ha più volte avvertito gli Stati uniti e gli stati europei membri della Nato che, in risposta a tale schieramento, avrebbe adottato delle contromisure. «Nessuno però ci ascoltava, quindi ora ascoltateci», avverte Putin. Passa quindi al linguaggio della forza, l’unico evidentemente che capiscono a Washington.

Dopo aver ricordato che dopo il crollo dell’Urss la Russia aveva perso il 44,6% del suo potenziale militare e che gli Usa e i loro alleati erano convinti che essa non l’avrebbe più potuto ricostruire, Putin mostra su due grandi schermi i nuovi tipi di armi strategiche sviluppati dalla Russia.

Un missile da crociera lanciato dall’aria armato di testata nucleare, con raggio d’azione praticamente illimitato essendo alimentato a energia nucleare, una rotta imprevedibile e la capacità di penetrare attraverso qualsiasi difesa anti-missile. I missili Kinzhal e Avangard con velocità ipersonica (oltre 10 volte quella del suono).

Il missile balistico intercontinentale Sarmat da 200 tonnellate su piattaforma mobile, con raggio di 18000 km, armato di oltre 10 testate nucleari che manovrano a velocità ipersonica per sfuggire ai missili intercettori.

Un drone sottomarino più veloce di un siluro che, alimentato a energia nucleare, percorre distanze intercontinentali a grande profondità colpendo porti e fortificazioni costiere con una testata nucleare di grande potenza.

Putin rivela le caratteristiche di tali armi perché sa che gli Stati uniti stanno sviluppando armi analoghe e vuole avvertirli che la Russia ormai è al loro livello o a un livello superiore.

Ciò conferma che la corsa agli armamenti nucleari si svolge non sulla quantità ma, sempre più, sulla qualità delle armi, ossia sul tipo di vettori e sulle capacità offensive delle testate nucleari. Conferma allo stesso tempo il crescente pericolo che corriamo avendo sul nostro suolo armi nucleari e installazioni strategiche Usa, come il Muos e il Jtags in Sicilia.

Il ministro degli esteri russo Lavrov denuncia che «Stati europei non-nucleari membri della Nato, violando il Trattato di non-proliferazione, vengono addestrati dagli Usa all’impiego di armi nucleari tattiche contro la Russia». L’avvertimento è chiaro, anche per l’Italia. Ma nessuno dei principali partiti ne ha preso atto, cancellando dalla campagna elettorale, con una sorta di tacito accordo, qualsiasi riferimento alla Nato e alle armi nucleari. Come se ciò non avesse niente a che fare con il nostro futuro e la nostra stessa vita.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on L’avvertimento nucleare di Putin

First published by GR on August 28, 2017

A CBS news article published in 2011 entitled Social Media Is a Tool of the CIA. Seriously”  reveals the “unspoken truth” which the mainstream media including CBS have failed to address. 

According to CBS, the CIA is  “using Facebook, Twitter, Google (GOOG) and other social media to spy on people.”

The article published by CBS refutes the lies of the MSM (with the exception of CBS?). It confirms the insidious relationship between the CIA, the Search Engines,  Social Media and major advertising conglomerates:

“You don’t need to wear a tinfoil hat to believe that the CIA is using Facebook, Twitter, Google (GOOG) and other social media to spy on people.

That’s because the CIA publishes a helpful list of press releases [link inactive] on all the social media ventures it sponsors, via its technology investment arm In-Q-Tel. … “

Screenshot of CBS article 

The CBS report acknowledges that “privacy” is threatened by the advertisers, yet at the same time these advertisers are “in bed with the CIA”,  acting on behalf and in liaison with US intelligence.

Screenshot of CBS article

The Privatization of Spying

Spying on individuals is a highly profitable undertaking for private companies on contract to the CIA, NSA, Homeland Security. The CBS report suggests in no uncertain terms that the personal information pertaining to millions of Americans collected by one of the World’s largest ad agencies is sold to the CIA. 

According to an earlier Wired News July 2010 report by Noam Schachtman:

THE INVESTMENT ARMS of the CIA and Google are both backing a company that monitors the web in real time — and says it uses that information to predict the future.

The company is called Recorded Future, and it scours tens of thousands of websites, blogs and Twitter accounts to find the relationships between people, organizations, actions and incidents — both present and still-to-come. In a white paper, the company says its temporal analytics engine “goes beyond search” by “looking at the ‘invisible links’ between documents that talk about the same, or related, entities and events.”

Screenshots of Wired News report

Freedom of Expression

Social Media and Search engines are being used to Spy on Americans! But not only on Americans. The process of personal data collection is worldwide.

What is at stake, however, is not only the issue of “Privacy”. The online search engines also constitute an instrument of online media censorship.  

Google has introduced algorithms intended to downgrade independent and alternative media. In this regard, the Guardian reported (December 2016) on “How Google’s search algorithm spreads false information with a rightwing bias. 

Screenshot of Guardian article

Independent online media is targeted. Freedom of Expression on internet based news outlets is being routinely shunted by Google:

“New data compiled by the World Socialist Web Site, with the assistance of other Internet-based news outlets and search technology experts, proves that a massive loss of readership observed by socialist, anti-war and progressive web sites over the past three months has been caused by a cumulative 45 percent decrease in traffic from Google

Below are excerpts of the CBS News 2011 article, to read the entire article click here:

The world’s largest database on individuals

One of the main threats to privacy comes from advertisers, who want to track everything consumers do on the web and scrape their online accounts for personal information. It shouldn’t be surprising, therefore, to learn that the CIA and the worlds largest ad agency network, WPP (WPPGY), have been in bed together on a social media data-mining venture since at least January 2009. WPP currently claims to own the world’s largest database of unique individual profiles — including demographic, financial, purchase and geographic histories. WPP’s Visible Technologies unit took an investment from In-Q-Tel in fall of 2009. Visible Technologies develops tools that can scan social media networks such as Twitter and Facebook. …

Google and CIA: old friends 

Are you seeing a trend yet? Google (GOOG) has been a partner with the CIA since 2004 when the company bought Keyhole, a mapping technology business that eventually became Google Earth. In 2010, Google and In-Q-Tel made a joint investment on a company called Recorded Future, which has the Minority Report-style goal of creating a “temporal analytics engine” that scours the web and creates curves that predict where events may head.

Google is already helping the government write, and rewrite, history. Here, from its transparency report, are some stats on the amount of information it has either given to the government or wiped from the web based on requests by U.S. agencies:

  • 4,601 requests from U.S. government agencies for “user data
  • Google complied with government requests for user data 94% of the time.
  • 1,421 requests for “content removal
  • Google complied with content removal requests 87% of the time.
  • 15 requests were from “executive, police etc.”
  • 1 was a national security request.

emphasis added. To Read the complete CBS News article by Jim Edwards click here.

  • Posted in Archives, English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Social Media Is a Tool of the CIA: “Facebook, Google and Other Social Media Used to Spy on People”

This article was first published on October 19, 2014.

This week marks the three-year anniversary of the Western-backed assassination of Libya’s former president, Muammar Gaddafi, and the fall of one of Africa’s greatest nations.

In 1967 Colonel Gaddafi inherited one of the poorest nations in Africa; however, by the time he was assassinated, Gaddafi had turned Libya into Africa’s wealthiest nation. Libya had the highest GDP per capita and life expectancy on the continent. Less people lived below the poverty line than in the Netherlands.

After NATO’s intervention in 2011, Libya is now a failed state and its economy is in shambles. As the government’s control slips through their fingers and into to the militia fighters’ hands, oil production has all but stopped.

The militias variously local, tribal, regional, Islamist or criminal, that have plagued Libya since NATO’s intervention, have recently lined up into two warring factions. Libya now has two governments, both with their own Prime Minister, parliament and army.

On one side, in the West of the country, Islamist-allied militias took over control of the capital Tripoli and other cities and set up their own government, chasing away a parliament that was elected over the summer.

On the other side, in the East of the Country, the “legitimate” government dominated by anti-Islamist politicians, exiled 1,200 kilometers away in Tobruk, no longer governs anything.

The fall of Gaddafi’s administration has created all of the country’s worst-case scenarios: Western embassies have all left, the South of the country has become a haven for terrorists, and the Northern coast a center of migrant trafficking. Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have all closed their borders with Libya. This all occurs amidst a backdrop of widespread rape, assassinations and torture that complete the picture of a state that is failed to the bone.

America is clearly fed up with the two inept governments in Libya and is now backing a third force: long-time CIA asset, General Khalifa Hifter, who aims to set himself up as Libya’s new dictator. Hifter, who broke with Gaddafi in the 1980s and lived for years in Langley, Virginia, close to the CIA’s headquarters, where he was trained by the CIA, has taken part in numerous American regime change efforts, including the aborted attempt to overthrow Gaddafi in 1996.

In 1991 the New York Times reported that Hifter may have been one of “600 Libyan soldiers trained by American intelligence officials in sabotage and other guerrilla skills…to fit in neatly into the Reagan Administration’s eagerness to topple Colonel Qaddafi”.

Hifter’s forces are currently vying with the Al Qaeda group Ansar al-Sharia for control of Libya’s second largest city, Benghazi. Ansar al-Sharia was armed by America during the NATO campaign against Colonel Gaddafi. In yet another example of the U.S. backing terrorists backfiring, Ansar al-Sharia has recently been blamed by America for the brutal assassination of U.S. Ambassador Stevens.

Hifter is currently receiving logistical and air support from the U.S. because his faction envision a mostly secular Libya open to Western financiers, speculators, and capital.

Perhaps, Gaddafi’s greatest crime, in the eyes of NATO, was his desire to put the interests of local labour above foreign capital and his quest for a strong and truly United States of Africa. In fact, in August 2011, President Obama confiscated $30 billion from Libya’s Central Bank, which Gaddafi had earmarked for the establishment of the African IMF and African Central Bank.

In 2011, the West’s objective was clearly not to help the Libyan people, who already had the highest standard of living in Africa, but to oust Gaddafi, install a puppet regime, and gain control of Libya’s natural resources.

For over 40 years, Gaddafi promoted economic democracy and used the nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. Under Gaddafi’s rule, Libyans enjoyed not only free health-care and free education, but also free electricity and interest-free loans. Now thanks to NATO’s intervention the health-care sector is on the verge of collapse as thousands of Filipino health workers flee the country, institutions of higher education across the East of the country are shut down, and black outs are a common occurrence in once thriving Tripoli.

One group that has suffered immensely from NATO’s bombing campaign is the nation’s women. Unlike many other Arab nations, women in Gaddafi’s Libya had the right to education, hold jobs, divorce, hold property and have an income. The United Nations Human Rights Council praised Gaddafi for his promotion of women’s rights.

When the colonel seized power in 1969, few women went to university. Today, more than half of Libya’s university students are women. One of the first laws Gaddafi passed in 1970 was an equal pay for equal work law.

Nowadays, the new “democratic” Libyan regime is clamping down on women’s rights. The new ruling tribes are tied to traditions that are strongly patriarchal. Also, the chaotic nature of post-intervention Libyan politics has allowed free reign to extremist Islamic forces that see gender equality as a Western perversion.

Three years ago, NATO declared that the mission in Libya had been “one of the most successful in NATO history.” Truth is, Western interventions have produced nothing but colossal failures in Libya, Iraq, and Syria. Lest we forget, prior to western military involvement in these three nations, they were the most modern and secular states in the Middle East and North Africa with the highest regional women’s rights and standards of living.

A decade of failed military expeditions in the Middle East has left the American people in trillions of dollars of debt. However, one group has benefited immensely from the costly and deadly wars: America’s Military-Industrial-Complex.

Building new military bases means billions of dollars for America’s military elite. As Will Blum has pointed out, following the bombing of Iraq, the United States built new bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia.

Following the bombing of Afghanistan, the United States is now building military bases in Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Following the recent bombing of Libya, the United States has built new military bases in the Seychelles, Kenya, South Sudan, Niger and Burkina Faso.

Given that Libya sits atop the strategic intersection of the African, Middle Eastern and European worlds, Western control of the nation, has always been a remarkably effective way to project power into these three regions and beyond.

NATO’s military intervention may have been a resounding success for America’s military elite and oil companies but for the ordinary Libyan, the military campaign may indeed go down in history as one of the greatest failures of the 21st century.

*

Garikai Chengu is a research scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on [email protected].

The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

March 9th, 2018 by Prof. Jules Dufour

Global Research Editor’s Note

This important analysis and review of US military might by award winning Canadian geographer Professor Jules Dufour,  was first published by Global Research in 2007.  Jules Dufour passed away after a long illness in August 2017. 

US military presence around the World has expanded dramatically in the course of the last five years.  This study is largely based on data for the period 2001-2005.

*      *      *

The Worldwide control of humanity’s economic, social and political activities is under the helm of US corporate and military power. Underlying this process are various schemes of direct and indirect military intervention. These US sponsored strategies ultimately consist in a process of global subordination.

Where is the Threat?

The 2000 Global Report published in 1980 had outlined “the State of the World” by focusing on so-called  “level of threats” which might negatively influence or undermine US interests.

Twenty years later, US strategists, in an attempt to justify their military interventions in different parts of the World, have conceptualized the greatest fraud in US history, namely “the Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT). The latter, using a fabricated pretext  constitutes a global war against all those who oppose US hegemony. A modern form of slavery, instrumented through militarization and the “free market” has unfolded.

Major elements of the conquest and world domination strategy by the US refer to:

1) the control of the world economy and its financial markets,

2) the taking over of all natural resources (primary resources and nonrenewable sources of energy). The latter constitute the cornerstone of US power through the activities of its multinational corporations.

Geopolitical Outreach: Network of Military Bases

The US has established its control over 191 governments which are members of the United Nations. The conquest, occupation and/or otherwise supervision of these various regions of the World is supported by an integrated network of military bases and installations which covers the entire Planet (Continents, Oceans and Outer Space). All this pertains to the workings of  an extensive Empire, the exact dimensions of which are not always easy to ascertain.

Known and documented from information in the public domaine including Annual Reports of the US Congress, we have a fairly good understanding of the strucuture of US military expenditure, the network of US military bases and  the shape of this US military-strategic configuration in different regions of the World.

The objective of this article is to build a summary profile of the World network of military bases, which are under the jurisdiction and/or control  of the US. The spatial distribution of these military bases will be examined together with an analysis of the multibillion dollar annual cost of their activities.

In a second section of this article, Worldwide popular resistance movements directed against US military bases and their various projects will be outlined. In a further article we plan to analyze the military networks of other major nuclear superpowers including  the United Kingdom, France and Russia.

I. The Military Bases

Military bases are conceived for training purposes, preparation and stockage of military equipment, used by national armies throughout the World. They are not very well known in view of the fact that they are not open to the public at large. Even though they take on different shapes, according to the military function for which they were established; they can broadly be classified under four main categories :

a) Air Force Bases (see photos 1 and 2);

b) Army or Land Bases;

c) Navy Bases and

d) Communication and Spy Bases.

Photo 1. Air Base of Diego Garcia located in the Indian Ocean

Image:Diego Garcia (satellite).jpg

Reference : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Diego_Garcia_%28satellite%29.jpg

Photo 2. Diego Garcia. An Aerial View of two B-52 and six Kc-a135

Reference : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/images/diego-garcia-ims7.jpg

II. More than 1000 US Bases and/or Military Installations

The main sources of information on these military installations (e.g. C. Johnson, the NATO Watch Committee, the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases) reveal that the US operates and/or controls between 700 and 800 military bases Worldwide.

In this regard, Hugh d’Andrade and Bob Wing’s 2002 Map 1 entitled “U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World, The Cost of ‘Permanent War'”, confirms the presence of US military personnel in 156 countries.

The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Brand new military bases have been built since September 11, 2001 in seven countries.

In total, there are 255,065 US military personnel deployed Worldwide.

These facilities include a total of 845,441 different buildings and equipments. The underlying land surface is of the order of 30 million acres. According to Gelman, who examined 2005 official Pentagon data, the US is thought to own a total of 737 bases in foreign lands. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the Pentagon one of the largest landowners worldwide (Gelman, J., 2007).

Map 1. U.S. Military Troops and Bases around the World. The Cost of «Permanent War» and Some Comparative Data

Source: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=884

Map 2. The American Military Bases Around the World (2001-2003)

Source : http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/index.htm

Source : http://www.nobases.org

Map 3 US Military Bases Click here to see Map 3

The Map of the World Network “No Bases” (Map 3) reveals the following:

Based on a selective examination of military bases in North America, Latin America, Western Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia, Indonesia, the Philippines and Japan, several of these military bases are being used for intelligence purposes. New selected sites are Spy Bases and Satellite-related Spy Bases.

The Surface of the Earth is Structured as a Wide Battlefield

These military bases and installations of various kinds are distributed according to a Command structure divided up into five spatial units and four unified Combatant Commands (Map 4). Each unit is under the Command of a General.

The Earth surface  is being conceived as a wide battlefield which can be patrolled or steadfastly supervised from the Bases.

Map 4. The World and Territories Under the Responsibility of a Combatant Command or Under a Command Structure

Source : http://www.defense.gov/home/features/2009/0109_unifiedcommand

Territories under a Command are: the Northern Command (NORTHCOM) (Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado), the Pacific Command (Honolulu, Hawaii), the Southern Command (Miami, Florida – Map 5), The Central Command (CENTCOM) (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the European Command (Stuttgart-Vaihingen, Germany), the Joint Forces Command (Norfolk, Virginia), the Special Operations Command (MacDill Air Force Base, Florida), the Transportation Command (Scott Air Force Base, Illinois) and the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) (Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska).

Map 5. The Southern Command

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapabases.htm

NATO Military Bases

The Atlantic Alliance (NATO) has its own Network of military bases, thirty in total. The latter are primarily located in Western Europe:

Whiteman, U.S.A., Fairford,
Lakenheath and Mildenhall in United Kingdom,
Eindhoven in Netherlands,
Brüggen, Geilenkirchen, Landsberg, Ramstein, Spangdahlem, Rhein-Main in Germany,
Istres and Avord in France.
Morón de la Frontera and Rota in Spain,
Brescia, Vicenza, Piacenza, Aviano, Istrana, Trapani, Ancora, Pratica di Mare, Amendola, Sigonella, Gioia dell Colle, Grazzanise and Brindisi in Italy,
Tirana in Albania,
Incirlik in Turkey,
Eskan Village in Soudi Arabia and
Ali al Salem in Koweit (http://www.terra.es/actualidad/articulo/html/act52501.htm )

III. The Global Deployment of US Military Personnel

There are 6000  military bases and/ or military warehouses located in the U.S. (See Wikipedia, February 2007).

Total Military Personnel is of the order of  1,4 million of which 1,168,195 are in the U.S and US overseas territories.

Taking figures from the same source, there are 325,000 US military personnel in foreign countries:

800 in Africa,
97,000 in Asia (excluding the Middle East and Central Asia),
40,258 in South Korea,
40,045 in Japan,
491 at the Diego Garcia Base in the Indian Ocean,
100 in the Philippines, 196 in Singapore,
113 in Thailand,
200 in Australia,
and 16,601 Afloat.

In Europe, there are 116,000 US military personnel including 75,603 who are stationed in Germany.

In Central Asia about 1,000 are stationed at the Ganci (Manas) Air Base in Kyrgyzstan and 38 are located at Kritsanisi, in Georgia, with a mission to train Georgian soldiers.

In the Middle East (excludng the Iraq war theater) there are 6,000 US military personnel, 3,432 of whom are in Qatar and 1,496 in Bahrain.

In the Western Hemisphere, excluding the U.S. and US territories, there are 700 military personnel in Guantanamo, 413 in Honduras and 147 in Canada.

Map 3 provides information regarding military personnel on duty, based on a regional categorization (broad regions of the world). The total number of military personnel at home in the U.S. and/or in US Territories is 1,139,034. There are 1,825 in Europe 114, 660, 682 in Subsaharian Africa, 4, 274 in the Middle East and Southern Asia, 143 in the Ex-USSR, and 89,846 in the Pacific.

IV. The Operational Cost of the Worldwide Military Network

US defense spending (excluding the costs of the Iraq war) have increased from 404 in 2001 to 626 billion dollars in 2007 according to data from the Washington based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. US defense spending is expected to reach 640 billion dollars in 2008.

(Figure 1 and http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/002244.php ).

These 2006 expenses correspond to 3.7% of the US GDP and $935.64 per capita   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of-the_United_States).

Figure 1. U.S. Military Expenditures since 1998

At 2007 prices, 1998 military spending was $364.35bn. 2008’s is approximately $643.9bn

Source : http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

According to Fig 1, the 396 billion dollars military budget proposed in 2003 has in fact reached 417.4 billion dollars, a 73% increase compared to 2000 (289 billion dollars). This outlay for 2003 was more than half of the total of the US discretionary budget.

Since 2003, these military expenditures have to be added to those of the Iraq war and occupation The latter reached in March 2007, according to the National Priorities Project, a cumulative total of 413 billion dollars.

(http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdi/jdi050504_1_n.shtml),

(http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182 ).

Estimates of the Defense Department budget needs, made public in 2006 in the DoD Green Book for FY 2007 are of the order of  440 billion dollars.
(http://www.dod.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/index.html )

Military and other staff required numbered 1,332,300. But those figures do not include the money required for the “Global World on Terrorism” (GWOT). In other words, these figures largely pertain to the regular Defense budget.

A Goldstein of the Washington Post, within the framework of an article on the aspects of the National 2007 budget titled «2007 Budget Favors Defense», wrote about this topic:

“Overall, the budget for the 2007 fiscal year would further reshape the government in the way the administration has been striving to during the past half-decade: building up military capacity and defenses against terrorist threats on U.S. soil, while restraining expenditures for many domestic areas, from education programs to train service”

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/04/AR2006020401179.html ).

V. US Military Bases to Protect Strategic Energy Resources

In the wake of 9/11, Washington initiated its “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT), first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. Other countries, which were not faithfully obeying Washington’s directives including Iran, North Korea, Syria and Venezuela have been earmarked for possible US military intervention.

Washington keeps a close eye on countries opposed to US corporate control over their resources. Washington also targets countries where there are popular resistance movements directed against US interests, particularly in South America. In this context, President Bush made a quick tour to Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico «to promote democracy and trade» but also with a view to ultimately curbing and restraining popular dissent to the US interests in the region. .

(http://www.voanews.com/spanish/2007-03-08-voa1.cfm)

The same broad approach is being applied in Central Asia. According to Iraklis Tsavdaridis, Secretary of the World Peace Council (WPC):

“The establishment of U.S. military bases should not of course be seen simply in terms of direct military ends. They are always used to promote the economic and political objectives of U.S. capitalism. For example, U.S. corporations and the U.S. government have been eager for some time to build a secure corridor for US.-controlled oil and natural gas pipelines from the Caspian Sea in Central Asia through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea. This region -has more than 6 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and almost 40 percent of its gas reserves. The war in Afghanistan and the creation of U.S. military Bases in Central Asia are viewed as a key opportunity to make such pipelines a reality.”

(http://stopusa.be/campaigns/texte.php?section=FABN&langue=3&id=24157 ).

The US. are at War in Afghanistan and Iraq. They pursue these military operations until they reach their objective which they call “VICTORY”. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployment_of-the_U.S.-Military), American troops fighting in these countries number 190,000.  The “Enduring Freedom” Operation in Iraq alone has almost 200,000 military personnel, including 26,000 from other countries participating to the US sponsored “Mission”. About 20,000 more could join other contingents in the next few months. In Afghanistan, a total of 25,000 soldiers participate to the operation (Map 6 and Map 7).

Map  6.  Petroleum and International Theatre of War in the Middle East and Central Asia

Source : Eric Waddell, The Battle for Oil, Global Research, 2003

Map 7. American Bases Located in Central Asia

Source : http://www.heartland.it/

Map 8. Oil Fields in Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

VI. Military Bases Used for the Control of Strategic Renewable Resources

US Military Bases in foreign countries, are mainly located in Western Europe: 26 of them are in Germany, 8, in Great Britain, and 8 in Italy. There are nine military installations in Japan (Wikepedia).

In the last few years, in the context of the GWOT, the US haa built 14 new bases in and around the Persian Gulf.

It is also involved in construction and/or or reinforcement of 20 bases (106 structured units as a whole) in Iraq, with costs  of the order of 1.1 billion dollars in that country alone (Varea, 2007) and the use of about ten bases in Central Asia.

The US has also undertaken continued negotiations with several countries to install, buy, enlarge or rent an addional number of military bases. The latter pertain inter alia to installations in Morocco, Algeria, Mali, Ghana, Brazil and Australia (See Nicholson, B., 2007), Poland, Czech Republic (Traynor, I., 2007), Ouzbekistan, Tadjikistan, Kirghizstan, Italy (Jucca, L., 2007) and France.

Washington has signed an agreement to build a military base in Djibouti (Manfredi, E., 2007). All these initiatives are a part of an overall plan to install a series of military bases geographically located in a West-East corridor extending from Colombia in South America, to North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia and as far as the Philippines (Johnson, C., 2004). The US bases in South American are related to the control and access to the extensive natural biological , mineral and water resources resources of the Amazon Basin. (Delgado Jara, D., 2006 and Maps 9 and 10).

Map 9. The Biological Wealth of Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

Map 10. Freshwater Resources in Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

VII. Resistance Movements

The network of US military bases is strategic, located in prcximity of traditional strategic resources including nonrenewable sources of energy. This military presence has brought about political opposition and resistance from progressive movements and antiwar activists.

Demonstrations directed against US military presence has developed in Spain, Ecuador, Italy, Paraguay, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria and in many other countries. Moreover, other long-termer resistance movements directed against US military presence have continued in South Korea, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, Cuba, Europe, Japan and other locations.

The Worldwide resistance to US foreign military bases has grown during the last few years. We are dealing with an International Network for the Abolition of US Military Bases.

Such networks’ objective is to broadly pursue disarmament, demilitarization processes Worldwide as well as dismantle US military bases in foreign countries.

The NO BASES Network organizes educational campaigns to sensitize public opinion.  It also works to rehabilitate abandoned military sites, as in the case of Western Europe.

These campaigns, until 2004, had a local and national impact.

The network is now in a position to reach people Worldwide. The network itself underscores that “much can be gained from greater and deeper linkages among local and national campaigns and movements across the globe. Local groups around the world can learn and benefit from sharing information, experiences, and strategies with each other”

(http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )

“The realisation that one is not alone in the struggle against foreign bases is profoundly empowering and motivating. Globally coordinated actions and campaigns can highlight the reach and scale of the resistance to foreign military presence around the world. With the trend of rising miniaturization and resort to the use of force around the world, there is now an urgent and compelling need to establish and strengthen an international network of campaigners, organisations, and movements working with a special and strategic focus on foreign military presence and ultimately, working towards a lasting and just system of peace»

(http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en )

The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have, in this regard, created a favourable momentum, which has contributed to the reinforcement of the movement to close down US military bases in foreign countries:

“At the time of an International anti-war meeting held in Jakarta in May 2003, a few weeks after the start of the Iraq invasion, a global anti-military Bases campaign has been proposed as an action to priorize among global anti-war, justice and solidarity movements»  (http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en).

Since then, the campaign has acquired greater recognition. E-mail lists have been compiled ([email protected]  and [email protected] ) that permit the diffusion of the movement members experiences and information and discussion exchanges. That list now groups 300 people and organizations from 48 countries. A Web site permits also to adequately inform all Network members. Many rubrics provide highly valuable information on ongoing activities around the World.

http://www.no-bases.org/index.php?mod=network&bloque=1&idioma=en

In addition, the Network is more and more active and participates in different activities. At the World Social Forums it organized various conferences and colloquia. It was present at the European Social Forum held in Paris in 2003 and in London in 2004 as well as at the the America’s Social Forum in Ecuador in 2004, and at the Mediterranean Social Forum in Spain in 2005.

One of the major gatherings, which was held in Mumbai, India, in 2004, was within the framework of the World Social Forum. More than 125 participants from 34 countries defined the foundations of a coordinated global campaign.

Action priorities were identified, such as the determination of a global day of action aiming at underscoring major issues stemming from the existence of US military bases. The Network also held four discussion sessions at the Porto Alegre Social Forum in 2005. One of those pertained to the financing of the Network’s activities.

It is important to recall that the Network belongs to the Global Peace Movement. Justice and Peace organizations have  become more sensitized on what was at stake regarding US military bases.

Map 11. Social and Resistence Movements in Latin America

Source : http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

The Quito and Manta International Conference, Ecuador, March 2007

A Network World Conference for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases was held at Quito and at Manta, Ecuador, from March 5 to 9 2007

(http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:SmEvQwFUeiAJ:www.abolishbases.org/pdf/CalltoEcuadorFlyer-Francais.pdf+R%C3%A9seau+mondial+des+bases+militaires&hl=fr&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3&lr=lang_fr ).

The objective of the Conference was to underscore the political, social, environmental and economic impacts of US military bases, to make known the principles of the various Anti-Bases movements and to formally build the Network, its strategies, structure and Action Plans. The main objectives of the Conference were the following:

–           Analyze the role of Foreign Military Bases and other features of military presence associated to the global dominance strategy and their impacts upon population and environment;

–           Share experiences and reinforce the built solidarity resulting from the resistance battles against Foreign military Bases around the World;

–           Reach a consensus on objectives mechanisms, on action plans, on coordination, on communication and on decision making of a Global Network for the abolition of all Foreign military Bases and of all other expressions of military presence; and

–            Establish global action plans to fight and reinforce the resistance of local people and ensure that these actions are being coordinated at the international level.

Conclusion

This article has focussed on the Worldwide development of US military power.

The US tends to view the Earth surface as a vast territory to conquer, occupy and exploit. The fact that the US Military splits the World up into geographic command units vividly illustrates this underlying geopolitical reality.

Humanity is being controlled  and enslaved by this Network of US military bases. .

The ongoing re-deployment of US troops and military bases has to be analyzed in a thorough manner if we wish to understand the nature of US interventionism  in different regions of the World.

This militarization process is characterized by armed aggression and warfare, as well as interventions called “cooperation agreements”. The latter reaffirmed America’s economic design design in the areas of trade and investment practices. Economic development is ensured through the miniaturization or the control of governments and organizations. Vast resources are thereby expended and wasted in order to allow such control to be effective, particularly  in regions which have a strategic potential in terms of wealth and resources and which are being used to consolidate the Empire’s structures and functions.

The setting up of the International Network for the Abolition of Foreign Military Bases turns out to be an extraordinary means to oppose the miniaturization process of the Planet. Such Network is indispensable and its growth depends on a commitment of all the People of the World. It will be extremely difficult to mobilize them, but the ties built up by the Network among its constituent resistance movements are a positive element, which is ultmately conducive to more cohesive and coordinated battle at the World level.

The Final Declaration of the Second International Conference against Foreign Military Bases which was held in Havana in November 2005 and was endorsed by delegates from 22 countries identifies most of the major issues, which confront mankind. This Declaration constitutes a major peace initative. It establishes  international solidarity in the process of  disarmament. .

(http://www.csotan.org/textes/texte.php?type=divers&art_id=267 ).

 References

COMITÉ DE SURVEILLANCE OTAN. 2005. Las bases militares : un aspecto de la estrategia global de la OTAN. Intervencion del Comité Surveillance Otan en la Conferencia Internacional realizada en La Habana 7-11.11.2005. 9 pages.

DELGADO JARA, Diego. 2006. Bases de Manta, Plan Colombia y dominio de la Amazonia. Militarizacion de la Hegemonia de EE. UU. En América latina. 17 pages.

EQUIPO DE COMUNICACIÓN CONFERENCIA NO BASES. 2007. La gente del mundo no quiere bases militares extranjeras.   

GELMAN, J. 2007. Terratenientes. Rebelion. 26 de Febrero de 2007,  http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id-47353

Ghana to host US Military Base? February 26, 2006. 

JOHNSON, C.,  America’s Empire of Bases. January 2004.

JOHNSON, C.  America’s Empire of Bases. Janvier 2004 .

JOHNSON, C. 2005. The Sorrows of Empire. Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. Henry Holt, April 2005, Paperback. 389 pages.

JOHNSON, C., 2007.. 737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire.  February 19, 2007

JUCCA, L., 2007. Italians protest over U.S. base expansion. Sat Feb 17, 2007.

MANFREDI, E. 2007. Djibouti : Hôtel Corne d’Afrique, grande base américaine. Le GRAND SOIR.info. Édition du 23 mars 2007.

NEW INTERNATIONALIST. 2004. The Bases of Resistance, December 2004, Issue 374.

NICHOLSON, B. 2007. Secret New Us Spy base to Get Green Light. February 15, 2 007. 

TRAYNOR, I. 2007. US EXPANDS, Builds New Military Bases in Europe.  The Guardian, anuary 22, 2007.

TSAVDARIDIS, I., 2005. Military Bases around the world and in Europe – the role of the USA and NATO. Novembre 2005. Stop USA / STOP United States of Agression. 

VAREA, C., Las bases Militares de EEUU en Iraq. 4 mai 2006. Nodo50.

Web Sites  

An Internet Guide to United States Military Bases Around the World :

http://www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm

APPEL A UN RASSEMBLEMENT INTERNATIONAL en Mars 2007, Équateur, Pour  l’abolition de toutes les bases militaires

Bases y Ejercicios Militares de EE.UU. El Comando Sur.

BUILDING A GLOBAL ANTI-MILITARY BASES MOVEMENT
 

Campana. Un mundo sin bases militares . Asemblea de Organizaciones y Movimientos contra la guerra, la OTAN y el Neoliberalismo (Madrid), Nodo50.

Challenges to the US Empire, http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/challenges/challengesindex.htm.

Washington veut installer une base militaire en Algérie. Le Quotidien d’Oran, 20 juillet 2003. 

Empire? http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/index.htm

International Conference against Foreign Military Bases. Final Declaration.

[Fsmed-general] for all that are against foreign military bases:
http://www.grups.pangea.org/pipermail/fsmed-general/Week-of-Mon-20060206/001002.html

FUENTES DE AGUA EN AMÉRICA LATINA :
http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapahegem.htm

Abdulhafeth Khrisat, Impérialisme américain et politique militaire, ,  Université Mu’tah 

Interview with Chalmers Johnson, Part 1. An Empire of More Than 725 Military Bases.

Liste des bases militaires américaines dans le monde.

Major Military Bases World-Wide,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sites.htm

Military Bases Around The World, http://www.fsmitha.com/com/bases.htm

Military Bases around the world and in Europe – the role of the USA and NATO , Iraklis Tsavdaridis, Secretary of the World Peace Council (WPC) 8th November 2005, From the Greek Committee for International Detente and Peace (EEDYE), Presented on November 8, 2005 at the International Conference on Foreign Military Bases in Havana/Cuba organized by MOVPAZ :

http://stopusa.be/campaigns/texte.php?section=FABN&langue=3&id=24157  

Military of the United States : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces

MOVIMIENTOS SOCIALES DE RESISTENCIA EN AMÉRICA LATINA 

No a la instalacion de una base de la OTAN en Zaragoza :
http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/article.php3?id_article=6261

OTAN – Le grand jeu des bases militaires en terre européenne :

http://www.mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DIN20060509&articleId=2414

Protestas contra bases militares de EEUU en Espana :
http://spanish.peopledaily.com.cn/spanish/200104/02/sp20010402_46341.html

RIQUEZA DE LA BIODIVERSIDAD EN AMÉRICA LATINA

US Military Troops and Bases Around the World :
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2003/0710imperialmap.htm

U.S. Military Troops and Bases Around the World /united for peace & justice:
http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=884

US Military Expansion and Intervention :
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/index.htm

YACIMIENTOS PETROLEROS EN AMÉRICA LATINA :
http://www.visionesalternativas.com/militarizacion/mapas/mapapetrol.htm

Jules Dufour is President of the United Nations Association of Canada (UNA-C) – Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean branch and Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).  He is Emeritus Professor of Geography at the University of  Quebec, Chicoutimi.

In 2007, Professor Jules Dufour became Chevalier de l’Ordre national du Québec, a distinction conferred by the Quebec government, for his contributions to World peace and human rights,  his numerous scholarly writings and the work he accomplished in the context of national and international commissions on issues pertaining to regional development, human rights and the protection of the environment.

Translated from the French, first published on Global Research’s French language website: www.mondialisation.ca

Article in French, 10 avril 2007.

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases

Americans live a never-never-land existence. The politicians and presstitutes make sure of that. 

Consider something as simple as the unemployment rate.  The US is said to have full employment with a January 2018 unemployment rate of 4.1 percent, down from 9.8 percent in January 2010. 

However, the low rate of unemployment is contradicted by the long-term decline in the labor force participation rate.  After a long rise during the Reagan 1980s, the labor force participation rate peaked in January 1990 at 66.8 percent, more or less holding to that rate for another decade until 2001 when decline set in accelerating in September 2008.  

Today the labor force participation rate is the lowest since February 1978, reversing all of the gains of the Reagan years. 

Allegedly, the current unemployment rate of 4.1 percent is the result of the long recovery that allegedly began in June 2009.  However, normally, employment opportunities created by economic recovery cause an increase in the labor force participation rate as people join the work force to take advantage of employment opportunities. A fall in the participation rate is associated with recession or stagnation, not with economic recovery.  

How can this contradiction be reconciled?  The answer lies in the measurement of unemployment.  If you have not looked for a job in the last four weeks, you are not counted as being unemployed, because you are not counted as being part of the work force.  When there are no jobs to be found, job seekers become discouraged and cease looking for jobs.  In other words, the 4.1 percent unemployment rate does not count discouraged workers who cannot find jobs.

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics has a second measure of unemployment that includes workers who have been discouraged and out of the labor force for less than one year.  This rate of unemployment is 8.2 percent, double the 4.1 percent reported rate.   

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

The US government no longer tracks unemployment among discouraged workers who have been out of the work force for more than one year.  However, John Williams of shadowstats.com continues to estimate this rate and places it at 22 or 23 percent, a far cry from 4.1 percent.

In other words, the 4.1 percent unemployment rate does not count the unemployed who do show up in the declining labor force participation rate. 

If the US had a print and TV media instead of the propaganda ministry that it has, the financial press would not tolerate the deception of the public about employment in America.

Junk economists, of which the US has an over-supply, claim that the decline in the labor force participation rate merely reflects people who prefer to live on welfare than to work for a living and the current generation of young people who prefer life at home with parents paying the bills.  This explanation from junk economists does not explain why suddenly Americans discovered welfare and became lazy in 2001 and turned their back on job opportunities.  The junk economists also do not explain why, if the economy is at full employment, competition for workers is not driving up wages.

The reason Americans cannot find jobs and have left the labor force is that US corporations have offshored millions of American jobs in order to raise profits, share prices, and executive bonuses by lowering labor costs. Many American industrial and manufacturing cities have been devasted by the relocation abroad of production for the American consumer market, by the movement abroad of IT and software enginering jobs, and by importing lower paid foreign workers on H1-B and other work visas to take the jobs of Americans.  In my book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism, I give examples and document the devastating impact jobs offshoring has had on communities, cities, pension funds, and consumer purchasing power. See also this. 

John Williams of shadowstats.com questions whether there has been any real growth in the US economy since the 2008 crisis that resulted from the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.  Williams believes that the GDP growth rate is an illusion resulting from the understatement of inflation.  Just as unemployment is under-counted, so is inflation.  

Two “reforms” were introduced that result in the under-measurement of inflation.  One is the substitution principle.  When the price of an item in the basket of goods used to measure inflation goes up, that item is thrown out and a cheaper substitute is put in its place.  The “reformers” argue that consumers themselves behave in this way. Thus, they claim this practice is reasonable.  However, the old way of measuring inflation measured the cost of a constant standard of living.  The new way measures the cost of a falling standard of living.

The other reform is to classify some price rises as quality improvements rather than as inflation.  The consumer has to pay the higher price, but he is said to be getting a better product, and so it is not inflation.  There is some truth to this, but it appears it is over-used in order to report low inflation rates.  Both of these reforms are suspected of being motivated by holding down Social Security costs by denying cost-of-living (COLA) adjustments to Social Security recipients.

If inflation is under-measured, the use of the measure to deflate nominal GDP in order to arrive at real GDP leaves some price rises in the GDP measure. Therefore, price rises or inflation are counted as increases in real goods and services.  John Williams suspects that most of the GDP growth reported since the alleged recovery is simply price rises, not increases in real goods and services. 

The historically high stock averages are another feature of make-believe America.  The high price/earnings ratios do not reflect strong fundamentals, such as high rates of business investment, strong growth in real retail sales fueled by strong growth in consumer incomes. The Federal Reserve has used an increase in consumer debt to fill in for the missing growth in consumer income for so long that consumers have no more room to take on more debt.  Without growth in wages and salaries or in consumer debt, consumer demand cannot drive the economy and business profits. 

What explains the high stock prices?  The answer is the trillions of dollars the Federal Reserve has created in order to stabilize the large “banks to big to fail” and bail out their extremely poor investment decisions. All of this liquidity found its way into the financial sector where it drove up the prices of stocks and bonds, enriching equity owners and denying retirees any interest income on their savings.

The values of financial instruments are supported by money creation, not by underlying fundamentals.  Yet, the stock averages are treated as proof of economic recovery and America’s first place in the world.

As I said, it is never-never-land in which we live.

*

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


Global Research works to give readers critical coverage of such issues and much more.

In the face of mainstream media disinformation, we have remained independent and continued to act as a vital information portal. We are grateful to all those involved in this process.

The Centre for Research on Globalization/Global Research do not seek financial support from private and public foundations. This is why we value every single donation and contribution made by our readers.

The delicate balance of power in the Horn of Africa might soon be broken by the developing situation inside of Djibouti surrounding the future ownership of its main port, with the possible American-Emirati reaction to this potentially serving as a trigger for militarily activating the complex transregional alliance system that’s formed in this part of the world over the past couple of years.

Making A Mountain Out Of A Molehill

The tiny state of Djibouti is once again making global headlines after its government ended a contract with an Emirati port operator late last month that was in control of the country’s most important container terminal. The move followed a multi-year dispute that culminated in what Abu Dhabi decried as an “illegal seizure” of its asset, but which the national authorities said was a necessary action to end the stalemate. This seemingly insignificant commercial spat would have remained irrelevant to international politics had the US not decided to weigh in earlier this week in supporting its Emirati ally.

Reuters reported that the top America military official in Africa, Marine General Thomas Waldhauser, responded to speculation in Congress that Djibouti was supposedly planning to “give [the port] to China as a gift” by ominously warning that

“If the Chinese took over that port, then the consequences could be significant”.

Republican Representative Bradley Byrne went even further by speculating that

“If this was an illegal seizure of that port, what is to say that government wouldn’t illegally terminate our lease before its term is up?”

These statements have thus turned an ordinarily uneventful dispute that’s destined for the Court of International Arbitration into a full-fledged geopolitical scandal.

Djibouti regional map

Djibouti’s Transregional Dimensions

Djibouti is of global importance because of its location at the Bab el Mandeb strait that connects the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden and serves as the maritime transit location between Europe and Asia. Apart from the US, China, France, ItalyJapan, and soon even Saudi Arabia all have bases in the country, with India being able to utilize America’s by means of the summer 2016 LEMOA deal that gives each country access to the other’s military facilities on a case-by-case “logistics” basis. Furthermore, Djibouti is the terminal location for the Djibouti-Addis Ababa Railway (DAAR) that basically functions as “China’s CPEC” or the Horn of Africa Silk Road, thus explaining one of the unstated strategic reasons why Beijing chose the country for hosting its first-ever overseas military base.

Ethiopia, however, is at the center of a transregional alliance system that’s sprung up in the area over the past couple of years as a result of its ambitious efforts to construct the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile River that provides most of the more famous Nile’s water. The balance of forces has seen Ethiopia band together with Sudan while Egypt – which claims that GERD will adversely affect its water supplies and therefore make it strategically dependent on Ethiopia – has sought out Addis Ababa’s nemesis, Eritrea. Moreover, the Gulf Cold War has expanded to the region, with Qatar siding more closely with Ethiopia and the UAE partnering with Eritrea, in which it has a military facility that it uses in connection with the War on Yemen.

Saudi Arabia is impartial because it has military relations with Eritrea but agricultural ones with Ethiopia, even though its Egyptian partner (which practically functions as a subordinate or client state at this point) wishes that it took a stronger stand against Addis Ababa. Djibouti’s situation is much more complex than any of these parties’ because it has close relations with each of the countries that have or will have military bases within its territory, and it had previously enjoyed positive relations with the UAE prior to the port dispute. Qatar used to station peacekeepers along the Djiboutian-Eritrean border since their brief 2008 border conflict but withdrew them last summer after both states sided with Saudi Arabia in the Gulf Cold War.

Approaching The Breaking Point

Even though Djibouti has historically harbored suspicions of much larger Ethiopia’s intentions, especially since it became landlocked following Eritrea’s 1993 independence, its fears have been allayed ever since China got involved in DAAR and apparently convinced it that Addis Ababa has no interest in behaving aggressively towards the de-facto city-state so long as its Silk Road access to the People’s Republic is ensured. In fact, the “African CPEC” did more for building trust between these two lopsided countries than anything else could have ever done, though it wasn’t a solution for regional stability in the geopolitical sense, as is evidently seen by the transregional alliance system that was earlier described.

In fact, the structural instability that now characterizes the Horn of Africa might reach a breaking point with the potential destabilization of Djibouti that might be brought about if the US and its Emirati ally join forces in pressuring this tiny country to reverse its takeover of the disputed port. Washington is already hinting that it might consider this to be a ‘national security threat’ to its interests, while Abu Dhabi is alleging that what happened is no different than the strong armed robbery of one of its most prized global assets. The groundwork has now been established for these two countries to cooperate in making Djibouti pay for what it did.

Policy Toolkit

The reason why this has any importance to the outside world is because it may lead to the Horn of Africa becoming a 21st-century version of the pre-World War I Balkans in the sense that a far-reaching alliance network could once again be on the brink of being militarily activated due to an unexpected and seemingly insignificant event. The two most realistic and potentially interconnected options that the US-UAE “alliance within an alliance” have at their disposal for use against Djibouti suggest that a larger conflict could easily explode by miscalculation alone, to say nothing of Machiavellian intent, thus making the historical-regional comparison an apt one:

Eritrean Border Skirmish:

The UAE’s Eritrean underling already has a preexisting border disagreement with Djibouti, and it wouldn’t be difficult for the wealthy patron state to tempt its impoverished client to make a move against Abu Dhabi’s new regional adversary.

Color Revolution:

Djibouti was briefly rocked by pro-Islamist Color Revolution unrest at the end of 2015 that was quickly quelled by the authorities, though there’s no saying that such a scenario couldn’t be “encouraged” to repeat itself in the near future as “phase one” of an American pressure campaign.

Hybrid War:

The merging of conventional Eritrean aggression, Asmara’s asymmetrical use of the Al Shabaab terrorist group that the UNSC sanctioned the country for supporting, and American-backed Color Revolution unrest in the urban center would constitute a classic Hybrid War in the Horn of Africa.

Djibouti political map

Realistic Responses

Scenario forecasting is a difficult art so it’s with a grain of salt that one should approach this exercise, though nevertheless understanding the utility that it has in allowing one to envision the most likely responses to each of the two primary options that the US and UAE have for use against Djibouti:

The Second African World War:

Eritrean aggression against Djibouti could prompt Ethiopia and Sudan to take action against it, thereby drawing in Asmara’s Egyptian ally and its GCC partners, all of which might create a situation that compels the US and China to intervene at different stages and in varying capacities to uncertain ends.

An Ethiopian Collapse:

Ethiopia is in the throes of its second state of emergency in just as many years, and the Color Revolution blockage of DAAR might be all that’s needed to provoke the Oromo into reviving their Hybrid War campaign and possibly pushing the country past the edge of collapse.

Pro-Beijing Blowback

The American-Emirati destabilization of Djibouti might intentionally or unwittingly produce consequences that endanger China’s interests in the Horn of Africa, but there’s also the chance that the blowback that they produce conversely strengthens Beijing’s role in this region instead:

The People’s Republic And Peacekeeping:

So long as China can avoid the “mission creep” scenario that the US is pushing it towards, it might be able to manage any Eritrean-Djiboutian border tensions (and possibly others) through a peacekeeping mission like the one that it proposed last summer, therefore stabilizing the region.

Diplomacy And Deal-Making:

China is the best suited out of any country to mediate between all conflicting parties within the region, especially if it commits peacekeepers to the cause, and this might see its diplomacy producing the Silk Road fruit of more “win-win” deals that sustain the peace that its soldiers first attained.

Peace Isn’t Possible Without The People’s Republic:

The aggregate consequences of China’s military and diplomatic efforts at obtaining, securing, and advancing peace in the Horn of Africa could enable Beijing to become a stabilizing force in one of the world’s most unstable regions and consequently assist its integration into the Multipolar World Order.

Concluding Thoughts

The latest developments in the tiny Horn of Africa country of Djibouti might seem uninteresting for most outside observers, but upon closer examination of the broader strategic dynamics at play and the delicate balance of power between the two transregional alliances there, it becomes apparent that these unresolved and escalating events might serve as a catalyst for a larger conflict. At the risk of sounding cliché, the “stage is set” and all of the local actors are ready – and almost eager, one could argue – to “play their role” in the upcoming “drama”, with only China having any realistic chance of stabilizing the situation before it gets out of control.

That said, China must also remain cognizant of the US’ desire to trap it in the quagmire of “mission creep” as a proxy means of “containing” its influence in Africa, and Beijing’s relatively ‘conservative” decision makers aren’t predisposed to overtly intervening in other countries’ affairs, though the recent case of Myanmar stands out as a notable exception and might portend a change in policy. In any case, it’s clear to see that the destabilization of Djibouti will inevitably have negative consequences for China’s regional and Silk Road interests, thereby making the most recent developments yet another example of how the US-Chinese proxy struggle is rapidly reaching every corner of the world.

*

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.

All images in the body of the article are from the author.


Global Research works to give readers critical coverage of such issues and much more.

In the face of mainstream media disinformation, we have remained independent and continued to act as a vital information portal. We are grateful to all those involved in this process.

The Centre for Research on Globalization/Global Research do not seek financial support from private and public foundations. This is why we value every single donation and contribution made by our readers.

It was public, expressive and demanded.  The apology by Ben Bradley, a social media hazard but also Tory member of the UK House of Commons, is something that will put detractors of Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn on notice.  While accusations have been made about the emerging cult of the Corbynista ringed by the steel of Momentum, Corbyn has weathered his fair share of accusations from espionage turn coat to terrorist sympathiser.

On the milder end of the spectrum come suggestions that Corbyn the Prime Minister would disable Britain as a nuclear power.  To have Corbyn at Number 10, for instance, would be a gargantuan handicap in nuclear war, a point shared by some of his own party members. In 2017, for instance, the Labour leader told the founder of the Glastonbury festival, Michael Eavis, that he would, on becoming prime minister, get rid of Trident with speed.  When confronted with the prospect of nuclear oblivion, he would be reluctant to push any relevant buttons concerned with the venture. 

Another vulnerable heel identified by Tory members and strategists has been Corbyn’s intimate association with members of the left, both granite hard and solidly firm.  When expulsions of certain militant wings were suggested from the Labour fold, including the Trotskyist Militant Tendency, Corbyn resisted with bite.  As chairman of the Hornsey constituency party, he signed a membership card for former member of the International Marxist Group, Tariq Ali.  This was a measure that irked members of Labour’s National Executive Committee. 

Accusations against Corbyn are not of the odourless variety.  Hues and traces remain, a slight sense of stomach turning stench. But the Tory party has made it its mission not merely to discredit Corbyn in terms of policy (messianic socialist, utopian sandal wearing thinker) to that of someone far more dangerous.  Slurs are exceedingly regular, while assumptions are rich with grim suggestion. 

Security minister Ben Wallace has even suggested that Corbyn’s interest in foreign policy issues had a birds of a feather aspect to it, similar, for instance, to that of Soviet spy Kim Philby.  Steve Baker, parliamentary under secretary of state for exiting the EU confirmed to the BBC’s Andrew Neil feelings about how Corbyn “is a grave danger to this country because of the ideas in which he believes and what that would mean.” Defence secretary Gavin Williamson was even less reserved, suggesting that meeting an alleged Czechoslovak spy was tantamount to “a betrayal of this country”.

The spy central to the Tory assault was Ján Sarkocy of the StB, Czechoslovakia’s secret police.  When in Britain in the 1980s, his diplomatic cover was Ján Dymič, Third Secretary to the Czechoslovak embassy in London.  During that time, the currently chatty Sarkocy claimed to have paid Corbyn for information that would be relayed to Prague and Moscow.  He claimed, in fact, to be particularly busy running a coterie of Labour members, suggesting a certain megalomania at work.

As a BBC report by Rob Cameron on the connection between Sarkocy and Corbyn went,

“Nothing in Agent Dymič’s descriptions of three meetings with the Labour MP – two in the House of Commons one on Seven Sisters Road – suggest the StB ever regarded him as anything other than a potential source.”

Bradley took heed.  As the MP for Mansfield was kind enough to explain, on February 19,

he “made a seriously defamatory statement on my Twitter account… about Jeremy Corbyn alleging that he sold British secrets to communist spies.  I have since deleted the defamatory tweet.”  

Bradley also promised to cover Corbyn’s legal costs, and make out an “undisclosed substantial sum of money to a charity of Jeremy Corbyn’s choice.”

Image result for Ben Bradley

Image on the right: Ben Bradley and Jeremy Corbyn

In words of effusive contrition he accepted that his statement had been “wholly untrue and false”, admitted the harm caused to the Labour leader and offered an “unreserved and unconditional apology to… Corbyn for the distress I have caused him.”

Bradley certainly went out on a limb – as did the Labour machine.  While lawyers berated and threatened the Tory politician with crushing legal action, Corbyn’s supporters were attempting to circumvent the narrative, thereby bypassing conservative media outlets.  A Corbyn spokesman blamed “significant parts of the national press which are owned by billionaire tax exiles” for “a succession of false and absurd stories.”

Basic factual blunders were singled out.  Yes, Corbyn had met with a Czechoslovakian diplomat in 1986, but reports that a second meeting took place on October 24, 1987 were groundless.  “On that day Jeremy was in fact in Derbyshire at the Chesterfield socialist conference”.  With an air of triumph, the spokesman claimed that a meeting with the diplomat in the House of Commons, short of being miraculous, could never have happened. The Labour leader, marvellous as he is, cannot bi-locate.

Bradley’s apology generated more retweets – 55,000 – than the combined Tory party’s tweet metre in 2018. The sting in the tail lay in Labour’s advice to Bradley that he tag a request to “please retweet” at the end of his message.  A viral apology indeed.

The point has been picked up by observers of Labour’s social media efforts.  Hannah Jane Parkinson, for instance, notes

“an army of supporters across social media that know how to drive engagement by combining youth, such as Abi Tomlinson’s #milifandom in 2015, with effective organisation by digital-savvy groups such as Momentum, whose members volunteer their time for free.”

The episode is illuminating on one, specific level.  Despite having everything from blue rosettes and the kitchen sick thrown at him from high, the Momentum movement that backs Corbyn, and his team, remain formidable.  Stumbles and follies have been neutralised.  But a continued mastery over the digital front, the micromanaging of the Corbyn brand, suggests considerable influence, not necessarily power.  More beyond targeted tweets and virally distributed Tory apologies will be needed.

*

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: [email protected]

It’s been three months since the media outcry over the open market slave trading in Libya and yet, the problem persists.

And the root cause of how these slave markets were created, thanks to U.S. foreign policy, has been ignored.

Do you want to end the slave trade in Libya?

We’ll tell you the biggest step toward making that happen… in a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

The video shocked the world. 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.

So how did we get here? Most media will tell you that Libya is the main transit point for refugees and migrants trying to reach Europe by sea.

According to Time,

“In each of the last three years, 150,000 people have made the dangerous crossing across the Mediterranean Sea from Libya. For four years in a row, 3,000 refugees have died while attempting the journey, according to figures from the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the U.N.’s migration agency.”

What’s more, according to a September report by the United Nations Human Rights Agency, there are estimates that “400,000 to almost one million people” are now bottled up Libya. “Detention centers are overrun and there are mounting reports of robbery, rape, and murder among migrants.”

Read just about any mainstream report on what is happening in Libya, and what you will not hear is who is responsible for the utter failure of Libya.

The policies that have created some of the most horrific conditions in the world fall squarely on the shoulders of former President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Keep in mind, in 2003, under the Bush administration, the long time leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, had entered into an agreement where Gaddafi would give up any weapons of mass destruction and the U.S. would leave Gaddafi and Libya alone.

But under Obama and Clinton, the U.S. broke that agreement. In 2012 the U.S. insisted that there was an “Arab Spring” uprising taking place in Libya. There was not. As I reported at the time, the fighters attempting to overthrow Gaddafi were al Qaeda fighters.

Under Obama and Clinton, on March 21st of that year, a no fly zone was imposed over Libya. And then, seven months later, with the U.S. tracking a Gaddafi convoy, the Libyan leader was caught and killed in the streets.

Was Muammar Gaddafi a dictator? Yes. No question.

But was Libya under Gaddafi a relatively peaceful place? Yes.

Gaddafi actually promoted a Pan-Africanism, spoke out against anti-black Arab racism and was pushing for unified African currency.

Bragging about her so-called accomplishments after the fact, Hillary Clinton famously said…

“We came, we saw, he died.”

The problem is, so many others are dying now as a result.

In an interview after the leaving the White House, former President Obama called the overthrow of Gaddafi his greatest single mistake in office. While that is difficult to argue, what is truly stunning about that statement? The policy to overthrow Gaddafi was attempted again for the next four years by the Obama administration as they attempted to overthrow the Assad regime, even as Libya continued to slip deeper into chaos.

And that’s what you need to know. Because Obama is no longer president, Clinton is no longer secretary of state and Gaddafi is no longer alive.

The answer to how Libyans should fix what is happening in Libya is beyond me. But the answer as to what the U.S. should do about Libya is not.

If we want to prevent these chaotic failed states around the world, the U.S. must stop intervening and thereby creating them through the toppling of governments in the Middle East and Africa.

*

This video and text were originally published on Truth in Media.

Ben Swann is an investigative journalist working tirelessly to dissolve the left/right paradigm prevalent in most mainstream media narratives. As a news reporter and anchor in the earlier days of his career, he has gained a wealth of experience while earning two Emmy Awards and two Edward R. Murrow awards.

Featured image is from TruePublica.

ISIS, or ISIL, or Islamic State, has been almost completely defeated in Syria, but the U.S. Department of Defense is requesting an increase instead of a decrease in funding to support “Vetted Syrian Opposition,” or fighters in Syria against Syria’s Government, and it refers to these fighters as being part of America’s “strategy to defeat ISIS,” instead of as being what they now obviously are: fighters for regime-change, or to overthrow Syria’s Government (which is headed by its President Bashar al-Assad, who received 89% of the votes cast throughout Syria in the internationally monitored 2014 Presidential election).

The Trump Administration’s “Department of Defense Budget Fiscal Year (FY) 2019” funding-request to Congress calls for “III. Requirements in Syria” of:  

a Coalition campaign to degrade, dismantle, and ultimately defeat ISIS in Syria. One key element of DoD’s strategy to defeat ISIS is to train, equip, sustain, and enable elements of the Vetted Syrian Opposition (VSO) eligible for support under current law. By the end of FY 2018, these forces are projected to total approximately 60,000 to 65,000; 30,000 to conduct ongoing combat missions against ISIS in the MERV, and 35,000 Internal Security Forces in liberated areas (to provide approximately 20 police/security forces for every 1,000 civilians).

Here is the:

SUMMARY

The FY 2019 request fully funds the Syria T[rain]&E[quip/arm] program based on requirements to sustain a 35,000 Internal Security Force together with a 30,000 combat personnel partner forces (as required) to liberate, secure, and defend territory previously controlled by ISIS [but now no longer ISIS-controlled]. The following is a summary of the requirements in Syria by category: 

Category FY 2018 Request FY 2019 Request ($ in Millions) [FY2018, then FY2019]

Weapons, Ammunition, Vehicles and Other Equipment $393.3 $162.5 

Basic Life Support $6.1 $8.0 

Transportation and Staging $40.0 $28.0 

Operational Sustainment $60.6 $101.5 

TOTAL $500.0 $300.0

In other words: for the 2018 FY, $500 million is being sought, and for the 2019 FY, $300 million is being sought, for this campaign to overthrow Syria’s democratically elected (but in any case legitimate) President, and thus successfully to culminate the former U.S. President Barack Obama’s active military support of Al Qaeda in Syria to achieve this overthrow-objective.

If U.S. air-support is required in this “Coalition campaign” from the United States and its Coalition of the Saud family and other fundamentalist-Sunni Arab oil monarchies, then even a single U.S. plane that could be shot down by enemy fire (either Syrian, or Russian) could cost far more than the $800 million that this budget-request is calling for. Consequently, this is clearly a low-ball figure, which is normal for any Government request for a military invasion and occupation that American voters oppose by two-to-one. This has long been U.S. public sentiment regarding the issue. For example:

Consequently, this is a budget-request that — though it may sail through Congress — is almost certainly opposed by the voters. The only scientific study that has ever been done on the question of whether the preferences of the U.S. electorate correlate at all with the legislation that ends up passing into law in Congress found that there was no significant such correlation but that the preferences of the wealthiest Americans did significantly correlate with what gets passed into law. If wealthy Americans favor continuation and increase of Obama’s military invasion and occupation of Syria, then Trump’s budget-request for this increased invasion-and-occupation there will likely be passed and signed into law by the President, in this ‘democracy’. Certainly, based upon all of the polling, both in the United States and in Syria, the likelihood that Trump will win another term as the U.S. President is lower than that Assad will win another term as Syria’s President, and this isn’t because Syria is a dictatorship and America isn’t. It’s because a far higher percentage of Syria’s voters support their President than the percentage of America’s voters who support our President. That’s what all of the polling, at least up to the present time, shows.

Throughout Trump’s campaign for the White House, he had attacked his ‘opponent’ Hillary Clinton’s neoconservative (i.e., imperialist) foreign-policies, and also President Obama’s neoconservative policies. Even after Trump won election, he said, in a 1 December 2016 rally in Cincinnati, that, “we will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past. We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments, folks. Our goal is stability, not chaos because we wanna rebuild our country. It’s time.”

*

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


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

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

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:

Some 2,000 IDF Aerial Defense troops will be participating alongside 2,500 US troops, including some 1,400 Marines and 1,100 sailors, in the largest joint exercise with US Army’s European Command (EUCOM). The Americans have also deployed the USS Iwo Jima and USS Mount Whitney as well as their Patriot missile defense system, Aegis ballistic missile defense system, communication systems, 25 aircraft, and three hovercraft. 

Over the course of the two-week long exercise troops will practice possible challenging and complex scenarios adapted to Israel’s operational reality such as missile threats in various sectors simultaneously as well as the threat posed by precise missiles that Iran is trying to produce for Hezbollah. Simulations during the exercise will include the use of the Arrow missile defense system, the Iron Dome, the Patriot system and for the first time the David Sling system, which was declared operational in April 2017

Hezbollah and the Gaza Strip will be major targets for both the U.S. and Israeli forces as the report mentions the threat of “high-trajectory missiles”:

“Juniper Cobra 2018 is another step in improving the readiness of the IDF and the IAF in particular to enhance their operational capabilities in facing the threat posed by high-trajectory missiles,” Haimovitch said.

While “the exercise demonstrates the close and strategic cooperation between the IDF and the US Armed Forces,” Haimovitch continued, Israel has the capabilities to protect the country from threats posed by her enemies. Nevertheless “you want to have all the capabilities and the Americans bring additional strengths”

What makes Juniper Cobra (which began in 2001) different this year in comparison with previous exercises is that it is the largest joint US-Israeli air defense exercise to date. One of the scenarios Israel is concerned about is how the Palestinians will react to the U.S. embassy move to Jerusalem followed by Guatemala (a U.S. puppet state). Although the report did mention Hezbollah, nothing was said about Syria. However, the main Juniper Cobra drill will continue until March 15th with “additional joint exercises between Israeli and American troops will continue after the completion of the drill through the end of March” the report said.

US Air Force Third Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Richard Clark, who also the commander for the deploying Joint Task Force-Israel said that the

U.S. and Israel have a “strong and enduring military- to-military partnership” and that “The Juniper Cobra exercises continue to strengthen this relationship, providing us with the opportunity to bolster interoperability and develop seamless integration with our Israeli partners.”

Clark continued:

“As far as decision-making, it is a partnership,” he continued, stressing nonetheless that “at the end of the day it is about the protection of Israel – and if there is a question in regards to how we will operate, the last vote will probably go to Zvika [Haimovitch]”

The report also mentions that U.S. troops will be on the ground to defend Israel once they are given the orders:

Washington and Israel have signed an agreement which would see the US come to assist Israel with missile defense in times of war and according to according to Haimovitch “I am sure once the order comes we will find here US troops on the ground to be part of our deployment and team to defend the state of Israel”

What is interesting is what Clark said in regards to U.S. troops going to war for the ‘Jewish State’:

And those US troops who would be deployed to Israel, are prepared to die for the Jewish State, Clark said.  “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 every conflict we train for and enter, there is always that possibility,” he said

A major war on Hezbollah, the Palestinians and Syria involving both U.S. and Israeli troops will be under Trump and Netanyahu’s watch. Syria will be the main battlefront, the pivotal point in history that will determine if the US-Israeli led coalition (if victorious) will lead the world to the next war with Iran and its allies.

*

This article was originally published on Silent Crow News.

Featured image is from the author.


Global Research works to give readers critical coverage of such issues and much more.

In the face of mainstream media disinformation, we have remained independent and continued to act as a vital information portal. We are grateful to all those involved in this process.

The Centre for Research on Globalization/Global Research do not seek financial support from private and public foundations. This is why we value every single donation and contribution made by our readers.

“Fake News” and World War III. The Danger of Nuclear Annihilation

March 9th, 2018 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

This text presents an assessment which is “censored” by the search engines. Kindly consider forwarding it to your friends and colleagues as well as crossposting it on alternative media and blog sites.

The threat of World War III is real, yet there is no anti-war movement in sight.  In the US, Canada and the EU, the peace movement is defunct, ignorant of the broader implications of nuclear war.

This is why, dear readers we call upon your support. Establish community networks, spread the word, organize at the grassroots level.

***

We are at a dangerous crossroads in our history.

The dangers of a Third World War are routinely obfuscated by the media. A world of fantasy permeates the mainstream media which tacitly upholds the conduct of nuclear war as a peace-making endeavor. 

World War III is terminal. Albert Einstein understood the perils of nuclear war and the extinction of life on earth, which has already started with the radioactive contamination resulting from depleted uranium, not to mention Fukushima.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

The media, the intellectuals, the scientists and the politicians, in chorus, obfuscate the untold truth, namely that war using nuclear warheads destroys humanity.

“Fake News” has become “Real News”. 

And “Real News” by the independent online media is now tagged as Russian propaganda.

In turn, the independent media (including Global Research) is the object of censorship via the search engines and social media. 

What we are dealing with is a War against the Truth. Objective reporting on the dangers of a Third World war is being suppressed. Why? 

The future of humanity is at stake. The danger of nuclear annihilation is not front-page news.

The unfolding consensus among Pentagon war planners is that a Third World War is “Winnable”.  

Nuclear War as an “Instrument of Peace”

Concepts are turned upside down. Political insanity prevails. 

A diabolical discourse is unfolding.  The so-called “more usable” tactical nuclear weapons (B61-11, B61-12) with an explosive capacity between one third and twelve times a Hiroshima bomb are heralded (by scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon) as “peace-making” bombs, “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground”.

These are the weapons which are contemplated for use against North Korea (or Iran) in what is described by the Pentagon as “a bloody nose operation”, with limited civilian casualties. And the corporate media applauds.

Fake News: these nuclear bombs are WMD. The “Bloody Nose” (“safe for civilians”) Concept is “Fake News”

Lest we forget, when the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (see image below), 100,000 people died within the first seven seconds following the explosion. Needless to say, today’s nuclear weapons are far more advanced than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.

When war becomes peace, the world is turned upside down. Conceptualization is no longer possible.  Insanity prevails. The institutions of government are criminalized and so is the media.

The Pentagon and NATO are beating the drums of war. What is at stake is a Worldwide media disinformation campaign in support of a Third World War, which almost inevitably would lead to nuclear annihilation.

In the words of Fidel Castro: “In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity”.

“The use of nuclear weapons in a new war would mean the end of humanity. …

Today there is an imminent risk of war with the use of that kind of weapon and I don’t harbour the least doubt that an attack by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran would inevitably evolve towards a global nuclear conflict.

There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people.

In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.

Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!” (Complete text and video recording, October 2010 Interview with Fidel Castro by Michel Chossudovsky)

When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards.

When war is upheld as a humanitarian endeavor endorsed by the self proclaimed international community, pacifism and the antiwar movement are criminalized. yet it should be noted that in the course of the last 15 years, the anti-war movement has largely become defunct, civil society organizations have been coopted.

How do we reverse the tide: a cohesive grassroots counter-propaganda campaign

The Road Ahead

There are no easy solutions. What is required is the development of a broad based grassroots network which seeks to disable patterns of authority and decision making pertaining to war. This is by no means an easy and straightforward undertaking.

This network would be established nationally and internationally at all levels in society, towns and villages, work places, parishes. Trade unions, farmers organizations, professional associations, business associations, student unions, veterans associations, church groups would be called upon to integrate the antiwar organizational structure. Of crucial importance, this movement should extend into the Armed Forces as a means to breaking the legitimacy of war among service men and women.

The first task would be to disable war propaganda through an effective campaign against media disinformation. (including support of the online independent and alternative media).

The corporate media would be directly challenged, leading to boycotts of major news outlets, which are responsible for channelling disinformation into the news chain.  This endeavor would require a parallel process at the grass roots level, of sensitizing and educating fellow citizens on the nature of  the war and the global crisis, as well as effectively “spreading the word” through advanced networking, through alternative media outlets on the internet, etc. It would also require a broad based campaign against the search engines involved in media censorship on behalf of the Pentagon.

The creation of such a movement, which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of the structures of political authority, is no easy task. It would require a degree of solidarity, unity and commitment unparalleled in World history. It would require breaking down political and ideological barriers within society and acting with a single voice. It would also require eventually unseating the war criminals, and indicting them for war crimes.

Abandon the Battlefield: Refuse to Fight

The military oath taken at the time of induction demands unbending support and allegiance to the US Constitution, while also demanding that US troops obey orders from their President and Commander in Chief:

“I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God”

The President and Commander in Chief has blatantly violated all tenets of domestic and international law. So that making an oath to “obey orders from the President” is tantamount to violating rather than defending the US Constitution.

“The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.” (Lawrence Mosqueda, An Advisory to US Troops A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOS303A.html,

See also Michel Chossudovsky, “We the People Refuse to Fight”: Abandon the Battlefield!  March 18, 2006 )

The Commander in Chief is a war criminal. According to Principle 6 of the Nuremberg Charter:

“The fact that a person [e.g. Coalition troops] acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

Let us make that “moral choice” possible, to enlisted American, British, Canadian and US-NATO Coalition servicemen and women.

Disobey unlawful orders! Abandon the battlefield! … Refuse to fight in a war which blatantly violates international law and the US Constitution!

But this is not a choice which enlisted men and women can make individually.

It is a collective and societal choice, which requires an organizational structure.

Across the land in the US, Britain, Canada and in all coalition countries, the new anti-war movement must assist enlisted men and women to make that moral choice possible, to abandon the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now in Syria and Yemen.

This will not be an easy task. Committees at local levels must be set up across the United States, Canada, Britain, Italy, Japan and other countries, which have troops engaged in US led military operations.

We call upon veterans’ associations and local communities to support this process.

This movement needs to dismantle the disinformation campaign. It must effectively reverse the indoctrination of coalition troops, who are led to believe that they are fighting “a just war”: “a war against terrorists”, a war against the Russians, who are threatening the security of America.

The legitimacy of the US military authority must be broken.

What has to be achieved:

  • Reveal the criminal nature of this military project,
  • Break once and for all the lies and falsehoods which sustain the “political consensus” in favor of a pre-emptive nuclear war.
  • Undermine war propaganda, reveal the media lies, reverse the tide of disinformation, wage a consistent campaign against the corporate media
  • Break the legitimacy of the war-mongers in high office.
  • Dismantle the US sponsored military adventure and its corporate sponsors.
  • Bring Home the Troops
  • Repeal the illusion that the State is committed to protecting its citizens.
  • Expose the “fake crises” such as the global flu pandemic as a means to distract public opinion from the dangers of a global war.
  • Uphold 9/11 Truth. Reveal the falsehoods behind 9/11 which are used to justify the Middle East Central Asian war under the banner of the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT)
  • Expose how a profit driven war serves the vested interests of the banks, the defense contractors, the oil giants, the media giants and the biotech conglomerates
  • Challenge the corporate media which deliberately obfuscates the causes and consequences of this war,
  • Reveal and take cognizance of the unspoken and tragic outcome of a war waged with nuclear weapons.
  • Call for the Dismantling of NATO
  • Implement the prosecution of war criminals in high office
  • Close down the weapons assembly plants and implement the foreclosure of major weapons producers
  • Close down all  US military bases in the US and around the World
  • Develop an antiwar movement within the Armed Forces and establish bridges between the Armed Forces and the civilian antiwar movement
  • Forcefully pressure governments of both NATO and non-NATO countries to withdraw from the US led global military agenda.
  • Develop a consistent antiwar movement in Israel. Inform the citizens of Israel of the likely consequences of  a US-NATO-Israeli attack on Iran.
  • Confront Target the pro-war lobby groups including the pro-Israeli groups in the US
  • Dismantle the homeland security state, call for the repeal of the PATRIOT legislation
  • Call for the removal of the military from civilian law enforcement. Call for the enforcement of the Posse Comitatus Act
  • Call for the demilitarization of outer space and the repeal of Star Wars

People across the land, nationally and internationally, must mobilize against this diabolical military agenda, the authority of the State and its officials must be forcefully challenged.

This war can be prevented if people forcefully confront their governments, pressure their elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens on the implications of a nuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

What is required is the development of a broad and well organized grassroots antiwar network which challenges the structures of power and authority, the nature of the economic system, the vast amounts of money used to fund the war, the shear size of the so-called defense industry.

Click book cover to order Michel Chossudovsky’s latest book directly from Global Research

What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war.

What is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well as its so-called “Homeland Security agenda” which has already defined the contours of a police State.

The World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history. The US  has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.

It is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must take a stance individually and collectively against war.

We call upon people across the land, in North America,  Western Europe, Israel, The Arab World, Turkey and around the world to rise up against this military project, against their governments which are supportive of US-NATO led wars, against the corporate media which serves to camouflage the devastating impacts of modern warfare.

The military agenda supports a profit driven destructive global economic system which impoverishes large sectors of the world population.

This war is sheer madness.

The Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.

It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.

It destroys families and people. It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow human beings.

It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and the police state as the sole avenue.

It destroys both nationalism and internationalism.

Breaking the lie means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force.

This profit driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

Let us reverse the tide.

Challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.

Break the American inquisition.

Undermine the US-NATO-Israel military crusade.

Close down the weapons factories and the military bases.

Bring home the troops.

Members of the armed forces should disobey orders and refuse to participate in a criminal war.

Author’s note:  the later part of this article entitled The Road Ahead was first formulated in 2010.

Selected Articles: Global Warfare

March 8th, 2018 by Global Research News

Global Research is an independent media funded exclusively through the support of its readers. Every contribution helps us continue to bring you the up-to-date, incisive information that you can count on.

If you are unable to make a donation, you can help us by cross-posting and/or forwarding Global Research articles, sending them to your friends on your e-mail lists, posting them on internet blogs, etc., and subscribing to our free newsletter.

*     *     *

“Wipe the Soviet Union Off the Map”, 204 Atomic Bombs against 66 Major Cities, US Nuclear Attack against USSR Planned During World War II

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 08, 2018

It should be understood that these US nuclear threats directed against Russia predate the Cold War. They were first formulated  at the height of World War II under the Manhattan Project when the US and the Soviet Union were allies.

Israel Now Arming Seven Terrorist Groups in Syria, Report

By Brandon Turbeville, March 08, 2018

Israel has long been known to provide support to terrorists operating in Syria ever since the crisis began in 2011. From providing medical support to terrorist fighters as well as training and intelligence and even some amount of weaponry and logistics, the Israelis have openly supported the so-called rebels in their efforts to overthrow the secular government of Bashar al-Assad.

Entering the Ring of War Propaganda

By Mark Taliano, March 08, 2018

Once we enter the ring of propaganda fabricated by western agencies of deception, we start to lose, since it is at that point that we become entwined in the convoluted narratives.  Intelligence agencies are specialists at creating such fake narratives.

The “No Trump Military Parade”

By Margaret Flowers and Ann Garrison, March 08, 2018

President Trump has asked the Pentagon to plan a military parade in Washington DC on Veteran’s Day, November 11. Democrats have decried the cost and authoritarian implication, and antiwar groups are planning a countermarch.

Homo Sapiens on Track to Extinction? Climate and Nuclear Threats. Can Humanity Survive?

By Robert J. Burrowes, March 08, 2018

Unfortunately, of course, the climate is not the only imminent threat to human survival. With an insane leadership in the White House in the United States – see ‘Resisting Donald Trump’s Violence Strategically’ – we are faced with the prospect of nuclear war. And even if the climate and nuclear threats to our survival are removed, there is still a substantial range of environmental threats – including rainforest destruction, the ongoing dumping of Fukushima radiation into the Pacific Ocean, extensive contamination from military violence… – that need to be addressed too, given the synergistic impacts of these multiple and interrelated threats.

Are You Listening, America? “If the Button is Pushed, There’s No Running Away”

By Scott Ritter, March 08, 2018

Putin outlined developments in Russian strategic military capability. The developments collectively signal the obsolescence of America’s strategic nuclear deterrence, both in terms of its present capabilities and—taking into account the $1.2 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program President Trump unveiled earlier this year—anything America might pursue in the decades to come.

Trade Conflict Heats Up, Towards a Full-scale Global Trade War?

By Nick Beams, March 08, 2018

The Trump administration is expected to announce today how it will apply the tariffs on steel and aluminium outlined last week. While a full-scale global trade war has yet to break out, the major powers are manoeuvring for an impending conflict.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Global Warfare

US Continues Massive Military Build Up

March 8th, 2018 by Shane Quinn

Less than a year into his second term as president, Barack Obama addressed the nation by saying “for nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security”. Among his first words, Obama highlighted Syria and “where we go from here… against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad”.

Obama accused (without  a shred of evidence) the Assad government of having “gassed to death over a thousand people”, lamenting “the terrible nature of chemical weapons” which are “a crime against humanity”. Obama neglected to mention how, 25 years before, American policies made possible the most destructive gas attack of the post-World War II period – Saddam Hussein‘s assault on the Kurds of Halabja, northern Iraq, which killed at least 5,000 people.

In March 1988, Halabja – just nine miles from Iran’s border – was targeted by the US-sponsored Iraqi army, due to the city being under the control of the Tehran-allied Kurdish guerrillas. The Reagan administration was heavily supporting Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988). Iranian nationalists had previously overthrown the US-backed dictatorship of the Shah in 1979, which was at the root of the ensuing war between the neighbors.

The Americans knew as early as 1983 that the Iraqi despot was utilizing chemical and biological warfare upon Iran. It went on for years. Rick Francona, a retired US Air Force colonel, said later that

“the Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew”.

Despite this knowledge, the US continued providing significant military aid to the Iraqi dictatorship.

Not mentioned by Obama either was America’s chemical and biological attacks on Cuba, which lasted for many years. In the early 1960s, during Operation Mongoose, the CIA inflicted illnesses upon Cuba’s sugar cane workers by spreading chemicals along the crop fields. During the same period, American agents repeatedly contaminated Cuban sugar exports, a key commodity of the Caribbean island’s industry.

In 1971, the US introduced African swine fever to Cuba, the first such outbreak in the Western hemisphere. It led to the country’s entire pig population being put down, pork being a fundamental of the Cuban diet, which was thereafter unavailable for months.

A decade following that, a virulent form of dengue fever was transmitted to Cuba, resulting in 273,000 people being infected on the island. The disease claimed 158 lives, with over 100 of those dying being children. Other diseases such as sugar cane rust, tobacco blue mold, and hemorrhagic conjunctivitis were also introduced by the US. However, none of these actions come under the “violation of the laws of war” that Obama outlined in his national address.

Elsewhere, America utilized chemical weapons en masse during its attacks on Korea in the 1950s, and later, during the war against Vietnam and the rest of Indochina. In the Korean War, the US released over 32,000 tons of napalm, an incendiary liquid, on available targets.

During the invasions of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos (in the 1960s and 70s), US aircraft dropped over 20 million gallons of “Agent Orange” – lethal carcinogens such as dioxin. This cowardly form of warfare only became a moral issue back home, when the poisonous fluids were accidentally sprayed upon tens of thousands of Americans soldiers operating in the areas.

Indeed, many US troops were at the time oblivious to the dangers these deadly chemicals posed. It would be the Vietnamese and their neighbors who would endure the greatest suffering, however. As a result of the chemical warfare, deaths continue rising today in this part of Asia – while birth defects and deformed children are another side effect.

Among Obama’s “anchors of global security” in Europe, is the US-led organization NATO. In reality, this aggressive military alliance is having the opposite effect as it destabilizes entire regions near Russia’s frontiers.

As long ago as 1960, James P. Warburg, the former financial adviser to president Franklin D. Roosevelt, described NATO as “an outmoded instrument for the pursuit of free world interests”. Warburg, who wrote various books on US foreign policy, felt NATO could be used only as “a bargaining counter for an eventual peace settlement in Europe”. However, the First World War veteran and acclaimed banker felt that “it may be too late to use NATO for even this purpose”. With NATO 11 years in existence, Warburg felt it had run its course.

Nor was he alone in his views. As first supreme commander of NATO in the early 1950s, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was no dove, had already placed a 10-year time-span on the organization. In his farewell address in 1961, after serving two terms as president, Eisenhower said

“we must guard against the unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex”.

Just over 20 years ago, his granddaughter, Susan Eisenhower, signed an open letter to president Bill Clinton along with 49 military, political and academic leaders. They were protesting against plans by NATO to expand, describing any such actions as “a policy error of historic proportions”. To no avail.

In the time since, a further 13 countries have joined NATO, including two that are situated along Russia’s borders (Estonia and Latvia). Montenegro, in southern Europe, was the latest to ally itself to NATO in June 2017, bringing its membership to 29 states.

One could only imagine the American reaction had Canada and Mexico joined the USSR-dominated Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. The former US ambassador and historian, George Kennan, wrote in 1997 that

“Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era”, which would “impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking”.

At a NATO summit in Bucharest [Romania] in April 2008, it was made clear that Georgia and the Ukraine “will become members of NATO”. This was not lost on the Russians. Much to the West’s indignation, Russia has inevitably responded to these serious threats near its doorstep.

Vladimir Putin‘s August 2008 intervention in Georgia was designed to prevent that country gaining NATO membership. Georgia is, after all, situated on Russia’s frontier, along the Caucasus. Georgia’s northern border is only 500 miles from Stalingrad [today, Volgograd], and what many consider the turning point of World War II as the Nazis’ elite forces were surrounded.

The Ukraine also shares a border with Russia, the latter looking on aghast as US-sponsored forces illegally overthrew Viktor Yanukovych‘s democratic government in 2014. The following year, Obama himself admitted the US had “brokered a deal” in the Ukraine, which has seen Russia understandably intervene in the east of the country.

Kennan’s prophetic words from two decades ago, regarding Russia’s turn in “directions decidedly not to our liking”, have rung true. As US/NATO policies in Europe have become increasingly hostile, the Russians have emerged stronger on the other side. Russia is in a far more commanding position today than it was 20 years ago, when NATO enlargement began to accelerate.

On the far side of the world, US forces are attempting to encircle and intimidate China, their other coming foe. The establishment of over 400 American military bases – located from Japan, South Korea and onto India – have encircled China whose influence still continues to rise, even in Europe. America’s “pivot to Asia” was not Donald Trump’s initiative, but was announced in 2011 by the supposedly non-interventionist Obama.

The mainstream widely reports that America is “turning inward”, while simultaneously the superpower continues the largest build up of its military forces since 1945, primarily directed at China. The American military outlay for 2016 dwarfed any other nation, which contradicts the assertions of a country withdrawing from the world.

*

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. 


If you look to Global Research as a resource for information and understanding, to stay current on world events or to experience diversity and transparency in your news, please consider making a donation to support our endeavours.

Global Research is an independent organization that is funded exclusively through the support of its readers. It does not accept public or private funding. Every contribution helps us continue to bring you the up-to-date, incisive information that you count on.

As the Syrian government rapidly gains ground against the terrorists in East Ghouta, the United States is once again considering military action against Syria under the guise of a “response” to alleged but disproven claims that the Syrian military is using chemical weapons.

The Washington Post reports,

The Trump administration has considered new military action against the Syrian government in response to reports of ongoing chemical weapons use, officials said, raising the prospect of a second U.S. strike on President Bashar al-Assad in less than a year.

President Trump requested options for punishing the Assad government after reported chlorine gas attacks — at least seven this year — and possibly other chemicals affecting civilians in opposition-controlled areas.

In a Feb. 25 incident, residents and medical staffers in a rebel-held Damascus suburb, Eastern Ghouta, described symptoms associated with chlorine exposure. One child died, medical staffers reported.

The president discussed potential actions early last week at a White House meeting that included Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, officials said.

One official quoted by the CIA-aligned Washington Post says that the administration has made no decision regarding military action and, for the time being, has agreed to continue monitoring the situation.

The Washington Post also reports that

“One senior administration official said that Mattis was ‘adamantly’ against acting militarily in response to the recent chlorine attacks and that McMaster ‘was for it.’”

Pentagon spokeswoman, Dana White, denied that the meeting took place.

Since American corporate media is so unreliable it is impossible, at this point, to ascertain whether or not the meeting took place or whether the story itself is disinformation. However, the Trump administration has been crowing about Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons for some time with White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying as recently as Sunday that

“The civilized world must not tolerate the Assad regime’s continued use of chemical weapons.”

In April of 2017, the United States launched a Tomahawk missile attack on the Syrian military al-Sha’aryat airbase allegedly as a response to the “undeniable” use of chemical weapons by the Syrian military. However, after killing a number of Syrian soldiers, civilians, and children in those missile strikes, Secretary of Defense James Mattis finally admitted that there was no evidence Assad has used sarin gas.

Indeed, claims that Assad used chemical weapons at Khan Sheikhoun has largely been disproven and was known to be the work of terrorists in the area, White Helmets, and Western media to most honest researchers even before the United States committed its act of aggression.

*

Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome.

Featured image is from the author.


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

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

The Trump administration is expected to announce today how it will apply the tariffs on steel and aluminium outlined last week. While a full-scale global trade war has yet to break out, the major powers are manoeuvring for an impending conflict.

Yesterday, European Union Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said the EU would take the case to the World Trade Organisation and work with others if Trump went ahead. The EU, she confirmed, has drawn up a list of products that would be subject to tariffs to the tune of €2.83 billion if the US proceeds. The targets could include certain types of bourbon, and food products such as peanut butter, cranberries and orange juice, as well as Harley Davidson motorbikes.

Malmström said she was reluctant to use the term “trade war” and the EU did not “want this to go out of proportion.” But she added:

“[W]e need to take certain measures if this [happens]. It risks a serious blow to the European economy and to our workers.”

The European powers hope to be excluded on the basis that they are strategic allies of the US, so the “national security” grounds on which Trump announced the measures do not apply to them.

However, this argument, which was advanced by the now former head of Trump’s National Economic Council, Gary Cohn, who resigned on Tuesday, is not cutting much ice as the “America First” economic nationalists assume greater control in the White House.

Trump used a press conference with Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven on Tuesday to single out the EU for attack.

“The European Union has been particularly tough on the United States,” he said. “They make it almost impossible for the United States to do business with them. And yet they send their cars and everything else …”

This was a clear threat that if the EU responds to the steel and aluminium tariffs, then the US will hit back with moves against cars.

Canada—the largest exporter of steel to the US—and Mexico have also called for exemptions from the tariff plan. The Trump administration said any such exclusion depended on the two countries bowing to US demands in the ongoing renegotiation of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC yesterday there was a mechanism for a “carve out” of countries from the tariffs. But that would only apply to the extent that the US was “successful” in renegotiating NAFTA.

In a television interview yesterday, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross tried to sound a conciliatory note.

“We’re not trying to blow up the world,” he said. “There’s no intention of that.”

Yet the administration’s actions have very definite global consequences, as the US Chamber of Commerce, one of the country’s largest business lobby groups, noted.

“The US Chamber is very concerned about the increasing prospects of trade war, which would put at risk the economic momentum achieved through the administration’s tax and regulatory reforms,” an official statement declared. “We urge the administration to take this risk seriously and specifically to refrain from imposing new world-wide tariffs on steel and aluminium.”

The US actions have caused consternation in ruling political and financial circles around the world. Reserve Bank of Australia governor Philip Lowe attacked the Trump measures and warned that escalation and retaliation would produce a “very big shock for the world economy.”

Lowe said the moves were “highly regrettable and bad policy” but were manageable for the world economy, provided they were confined to two industries. He expressed the hope that other countries would “just sit still and do nothing,” saying:

“That’s the hardest thing to do in some cases, because there’s a political imperative in some countries to kind of respond to what is seen as an unjust action.”

An emerging theme from opposition in the United States is not a repudiation of trade war as such, but concerns that the Trump administration has used a blunt instrument that hits US strategic allies rather than the real opponent, China.

In the Wall Street Journal, Greg Ip noted that the US was not the only country with a chip on its shoulder about trade. There were “countless others” when it came to China.

“For President Donald Trump, this could be an opportunity to lead a coalition against China’s predatory trade behaviour. Instead, he is threatening trade war with the countries that would make up such a coalition, over commodities that are much less vital to the US economy and national security than the sectors threatened by China’s expropriation of intellectual property.”

This approach was reflected in a letter from 107 House Republicans sent to Trump yesterday, expressing “deep concern” about the prospect of broad global tariffs on steel and aluminium.

Warning of “unintended negative consequences” for the US economy, the letter said:

“We support your resolve to address distortions caused by China’s unfair practices, and we are committed to acting with you and our trading partners on meaningful and effective action.”

Last August, the office of the US Trade Representative launched an investigation under Section 301 of the 1974 US Trade Act to determine whether Chinese actions in relation to technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation were unreasonable and detrimental to US interests.

The investigation’s report is expected within weeks. Under the legislation, the president has the power to retaliate for what are deemed to be unfair trade practices. A US investigation conducted last year claimed the annual loss to the US economy from counterfeited goods, pirated software and the theft of trade secrets was at least $225 billion and could go as high as $600 billion. It designated China as the main culprit.

Bloomberg reported that

“under the most severe scenario being weighed, the US could impose tariffs on a wide range of Chinese imports from shoes and clothing to consumer electronics.”

It cited two people “familiar with the matter” who spoke on condition of anonymity.

China has so far adopted a low-key approach to the steel and aluminium tariffs, largely because it is well down the list of countries that export the metals to the US. But it is almost certain to respond to measures under Section 301.

Signalling that his administration is gearing up for action, Trump declared in a Twitter post yesterday:

“The US is acting swiftly on intellectual property theft. We cannot allow this to happen as it has for many years!”

Financial Times economics columnist Martin Wolf this week noted that Trump’s action on steel and aluminium was unlikely to be the last.

It was “more likely to be the beginning of the end of the rules-governed multilateral trading order that the US itself created.”

This assessment is borne out by Cohn’s resignation after he had failed to at least moderate the measures. It is a sure sign that, whatever the final form of the steel and aluminium tariffs, their imposition signifies the start of a descent into global trade war on a scale not seen since the disastrous conflicts of the 1930s, which played a major role in creating the conditions for World War II.

Israel Now Arming Seven Terrorist Groups in Syria, Report

March 8th, 2018 by Brandon Turbeville

Israel has long been known to provide support to terrorists operating in Syria ever since the crisis began in 2011. From providing medical support to terrorist fighters as well as training and intelligence and even some amount of weaponry and logistics, the Israelis have openly supported the so-called rebels in their efforts to overthrow the secular government of Bashar al-Assad. Indeed, Israeli airstrikes on Syrian military and/or allied military positions in support of terrorist factions are the most obvious means of support with Israel having struck Syria around one hundred times since the beginning of the war.

However, while all this information is well known, more evidence has emerged that Israel is now providing terrorists with even more direct support and weaponry that it had done previously.

In an article by Elizabeth Tsurkov, “Israel’s Deepening Involvement With Syria’s Rebels,” posted on War On The Rocks on February 14, 2018, Tsurkov reveals that Israel is becoming even more active in arming terrorists on Syria’s border (in reality, Syria’s own territory) that will be then used in Syria itself. She writes,

Another major shift in Israeli policy occurred during this time as well, according to Syrian activists and rebels I have interviewed, as well as pro-regime and opposition media reporting. Rebels from Quneitra and western Daraa, as well as media activists in those regions with ties to the rebels, told me that Israel began providing more military support to a greater number of rebel groups affiliated with the Free Syrian Army. This support came in the form of weapons, ammunition and money to purchase weapons on the black market. All of my sources confirmed the identity of at least seven factions receiving Israeli support, on the condition that the groups would not be named. However, two of these groups have been publicly identified before: Liwaa’ Fursan al-Jolan and Firqat Ahrar Nawa. Israeli officials have vehemently denied support to jihadist groups, leaving open the possibility that the government supports these non-jihadist groups.

Some of the groups that started getting Israeli support in late 2017 were previously supported by the Military Operations Command, a CIA-directed center in Amman. Until January 2018, this center paid the salaries for tens of thousands of Free Syrian Army “Southern Front” fighters and provided them with materiel and ammunition. The Trump administration’s decision to shut down the center left rebel factions in southern Syria in desperate need for alternative sponsors.

. . . . .

Israel previously provided assistance to the besieged Beit Jann pocket in western Damascus, transferring medicine, medical equipmentfood and diapers. Israel also provided cash to Iyad Moro, a former rebel commander and Israel’s contact person in Beit Jann, for the purchase of weapons on the black market, according to a rebel whose faction was operating in the area. As the Assad regime intensified its assault on the besieged area,Israel permitted several dozen rebels from Daraa and Quneitra to cross through the occupied Golan to Beit Jann in December 2017. This crossing was reported in the pro-Hizballah daily al-Akhbar and confirmed to me by four rebels in southern Syria.

Following the surrender of the Beit Jann pocket, some of these fighters were evacuated back to their homes in southern Syria through regime territory, while other rebels left for rebel-held Idlib. A third group, the largest, “reconciled” with the Assad regime and remained in their homes. Israel’s apparent involvement in the “reconciliation” negotiations ensured that these fighters will now serve as a regime-approved militia under Moro’s command, tasked with keeping both rebels and Iranian proxies away from the border fence. This agreement could possibly serve as a blueprint for future deals in southern Syria, which would aim to secure regime and Israeli interests, at the expense of both Iran and the rebels.

Tsurkov also mentions “humanitarian aid” coming from Israel, a country never known for its concern for human rights. This “humanitarian aid” was photographed in a number of terrorist locales after having been liberated by the Syrian military. She writes,

The aid from Israel, which was once concealed or provided through the United Nations and other agencies, began appearing in the original packaging in Hebrew in 2016. Last year, Israel publicized for the first time the extent of the aid it has transferred into Syria, amounting to over 360 tons of food, 90 tons of clothes, and other much-needed items such as generators. Israel also began admitting women and children for day treatments in Israeli hospitals and continues to admit injured and sick Syrians, while Jordan largely sealed off its border. Thus, during the February 2017 rebel offensive on the Manshiye neighborhood in Daraa, Jordan did not allow injured rebels to enter for treatment (a policy Jordan has employed to deter unwanted rebel offensives on the regime), while Israel accepted them in large numbers, according to rebels and activists.

According to dozens of interlocutors in southern Syria, after initial opposition, Israeli aid is being warily accepted by a desperate population that feels abandoned by everyone else. Thousands of Syrians, particularly those residing in camps for the displaced along the border fence, are able to survive thanks to this aid. Syrians who return from medical treatment in Israel tell their friends and relatives about the high quality of the care and describe Israel as a beautiful and highly advanced country.

It is also worth pointing out that Tsurkov attempts to paint Israel as opening its medical facilities to “injured Syrians.” In reality, Israel has opened its hospitals only to terrorists with the exception of perhaps the occasional propaganda necessity.

With all of this in mind, any claims of victimhood by Israel should immediately be discarded. Indeed, this portrayal of self-defense and endangerment should especially be discarded when one considers the history of the state itself.

Israel has made its own enemies by virtue of its colonial nature, its foreign and domestic policy, and even by direct organization and funding. It is thus wholly accurate to say that Israel’s enemies are literally those of its own making.

*

Brandon Turbeville writes for Activist Post – article archive here – He is the author of seven books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom7 Real ConspiraciesFive Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President, and Resisting The Empire: The Plan To Destroy Syria And How The Future Of The World Depends On The Outcome.

Featured image is from the author.


If you look to Global Research as a resource for information and understanding, to stay current on world events or to experience diversity and transparency in your news, please consider making a donation to support our endeavours.

Global Research is an independent organization that is funded exclusively through the support of its readers. It does not accept public or private funding. Every contribution helps us continue to bring you the up-to-date, incisive information that you count on.

A Stalinist Purge in America?

March 8th, 2018 by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

This year could turn out to be a defining year for the United States. It is clear that the US military/security complex and the Democratic Party aided by their media vassals intend to purge Donald Trump from the presidency.  One of the open conspirators declared the other day that we have to get rid of Trump now before he wins re-election in a landslide.

It is now a known fact that Russiagate is a conspiracy of the military/security complex, Obama regime, Democratic National Committee, and presstitute media to destroy President Trump.  However, the presstitutes never present this fact to the American public.  Nevertheless, a majority of Americans do not believe the Democrats and the presstitutes that Trump conspired with Putin to steal the election. 

One question before us is:  Will Mueller and the Democrats succeed in purging Donald Trump, as Joseph Stalin succeed in purging Lenin’s Bolsheviks, including Nikolai Bukharin, whom Lenin called “the golden boy of the revolution,” or will the Democratic Party and the presstitutes discredit themselves such that the country moves far to the right?

Stalin didn’t need facts and could frame-up people at will as he had absolute power.  In the US the presstitute media, like Stalin, does not concern itself with facts, but the presstitutes do not have absolute power.  Indeed, few people trust the presstitutes, and even fewer trust Mueller.  

Many are puzzled that President Trump has not moved against his enemies as they have no evidence for their charges.  Indeed, Mueller’s indictments have nothing whatsoever to do with the Russiagate accusations.  Why are not Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and all the rest indicted for their clear and obvious crimes?

America’s future turns on the answer to this question.  Is it because the Trump regime is letting the presstitutes and the Democrats destroy their credibility, or is it because Trump is weak, confused, and doesn’t know how to use the powers of his office to slay those who intend to slay him?

If it is the former, then America will move far to the right.  If it is the latter, America will have had its own Stalinist purge, and the purge is likely to follow the Stalin model and to extend down to those who voted for Trump. 

The failure of the integrity of the liberal/progressive/left has left the US facing two unpalatable outcomes. One is a right-wing government empowered by the left’s self-defeat.  The other is the rise of the Identity Politics state in which oppression will be based on gender, race, and beliefs.

This is not the only issue that could be resolved in 2018.  There are others, and the other two major ones are the economic situation and the military situation.  

For a decade the central banks of the West and Japan have printed money far in excess of the increase in real goods and services.  This money printing has not caused massive inflation of consumer prices.  Instead it has caused inflation in financial instruments and real estate.  

The high Dow Jones average is the product of this money printing.  Can the central banks stop printing money and allow interest rates to rise, thus collapsing equity prices and pension funds? What would be the consequences?

Militarily, since World War II Washington has relied on its armed predominance to dictate to the world.  But now the President of Russia has announced possession of what are from the US perspective super weapons that do not, as some claim, give Russia parity with the US, but give Russia immense military superiority over the US, indeed over the entire Western alliance.  

Russia’s capability, which the US has no chance of matching any time soon, means that Washington’s policy of intimidation has no chance of intimidating Russia.  If Washington’s policy toward Russia continues in a hostile demeanor, Russia is likely to kick Washington’s teeth out.  

The cat has been belled.  America is no longer “the sole superpower.”  It is a second-rate power whose hubris is likely to do it in. Will it happen in 2018?

*

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

Kosovo’s “Independence”: Dilemmas of NATO’s Aggression in 1999

March 8th, 2018 by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović

Featured image: The ruins of a Serbian Orthodox cathedral in Djakovica (Kosovo), blown up in July 1999.

A ten-years “independence” anniversary of the Republic of Kosovo that was celebrated by Kosovo’s Albanians on February 17th, 2018 again opened a question of the NATO’s military intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the FRY) in March−June 1999 as a foundation for Kosovo’s secession from Serbia and its unilateral proclamation of a quasi-independence on February 17th, 2008. Nevertheless, Kosovo became the first and only European state up today that is ruled by the terroristic warlords, coming in this case from the (Albanian) Kosovo Liberation Army (the KLA).

The aim of this article is to investigate the nature of the NATO’s war on Yugoslavia in 1999 which has as a final outcome the creation of the first terroristic state in Europe – the Republic of Kosovo.

Terrorism and Kosovo independence

The KLA terrorists with a support by the US’ and the EU’s administrations launched a full scale of violence in December 1998 for the only purpose to provoke the NATO’s military intervention against the FRY as a precondition for Kosovo secession from Serbia hopefully followed by internationally recognized independence. In order to finally resolve the “Kosovo Question” in the favor of the Albanians, the US’ Clinton’s administration brought two confronting sides to formally negotiate in the French castle of Rambouillet in France in February 1999 but, in fact, to impose an ultimatum to Serbia in order to accept de facto secession of Kosovo. From the formal point of view, the Rambouillet ultimatum de iure 1) recognized Serbia’s territorial integrity, 2) the disarmament of terroristic KLA, and 3) did not mention Kosovo independence from Serbia. However, these crucial conditions of the final agreement were, in essence, highly favorable to the KLA and its secessionist project in the favor of independent Kosovo and, therefore, Serbia rejected them. The US’s answer was a military action led by the NATO as a “humanitarian intervention” in order to directly support Kosovo’s Albanian separatism. Subsequently, on March 24th, 1999 the NATO started its military operation against the FRY which lasted till June 10th 1999. Why the Security Council of the UN was not asked for the approval of the operation is clear from the following explanation:

Knowing that Russia would veto any effort to get UN backing for military action, NATO launched air strikes against Serbian forces in 1999, effectually supporting the Kosovar Albanian rebels”.[1]

The crucial feature of this operation was a barbarian, coercive, inhuman, illegal, and above all merciless bombing of Serbia for almost three months. The NATO’s military intervention against the FRY – Operation Allied Force – was propagated by its proponents as a purely humanitarian operation, but it is recognized by many scholars that the US and its client states had mainly political and geostrategic aims that led them to this military action.

The legitimacy of the intervention of the brutal coercive bombing of both military and civilian targets in Kosovo’s province and in the rest of Serbia and Montenegro became immediately controversial as the Security Council of the UN did not authorize the action. Surely, the action was illegal, according to the international law, but it was formally justified by the US’ administration and the NATO’s spokesman as a legitimate for the reason that it was unavoidable as all diplomatic options were exhausted to stop the war. However, a continuation of the military conflict in Kosovo between the KLA and Serbia’s state security forces would threaten to produce a humanitarian catastrophe and generate political instability in the region of the Balkans. Therefore, “in the context of fears about the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Albanian population, a campaign of air strikes, conducted by US-led NATO forces”[2] was executed with a final result of the withdrawal of Serbia’s forces and administration from the province: that was exactly the main requirement of the Rambouillet ultimatum.

A Serbian civil train, bombarded by NATO aviation at Grdelica bridge on Apr 12, 1999. At least 15 passengers were burnt alive.

A Serbian civil train, bombarded by NATO aviation at Grdelica bridge on Apr 12, 1999. At least 15 passengers were burnt alive.

It is of the crucial importance to stress at least five facts in order to properly understand the nature and aims of the NATO’s military intervention against Serbia and Montenegro in 1999:

  • Only the Serbian targets were bombed while the KLA was allowed and even fully sponsored to continue its terroristic activities either against Serbia’s security forces or the Serbian and Montenegrin civilians.
  • The ethnic cleansing of the Albanians by the Serbian security forces was only a potential action (in fact, only in the case of direct NATO’s military action against the FRY) but not a real fact as a reason for the NATO to start coercive bombing of the FRY.
  • The NATO’s claim that the Serbian security forces killed up to 100.000 Albanian civilians during the Kosovo War of 1998−1999 was a pure propaganda lie as after the war there were found only 3.000 bodies of all nationalities in Kosovo.
  • The bombing of the FRY was promoted as the “humanitarian intervention”, what means as legitimate and defensible action, that scholarly should mean “…military intervention that is carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives”.[3] However, today it is quite clear that the intervention had political and geostrategic ultimate objectives but not the humanitarian one.
  • The NATO’s military intervention in 1999 was a direct violation of the UN principles of international conduct as it is said in the UN’s Charter that:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”.[4]

What happened in Kosovo when the NATO started its military campaign was quite expectable and above all wishful by the US’ administration and the KLA’s leaders: Serbia made a much stronger military assault on the KLA and the ethnic Albanians who supported it. As a consequence, there was a significant increase in the number of the refugees – up to 800.000 according to the CIA’s and the UN’s sources. Hence, the US’s administration presented all of these refugees as the victims of the Serb-led policy of alleged systematic and well-organized ethnic cleansing (“false flag” Horseshoe Operation) regardless of the facts that:

  • An overwhelming majority of them were not the real refugees but rather “TV refugees” for the Western mass media.
  • Many of them were simply escaping from the consequences of the NATO’s merciless bombing.
  • Just part of the refugees has been the real victims of the Serbian “bloody revenge” policy for the NATO’s destruction of Serbia (but not too much of Montenegro).
  • One part of the Albanian “refugees” or “displaced persons” simply used the opportunity of the war to legally reach some of the Western countries (primarily Germany and Switzerland).

Nevertheless, the final result of the NATO’s sortie campaign against the FRY was that the Security Council of UN formally authorized the NATO’s (under the official name of KFOR)[5] ground troops to occupy Kosovo and give to the KLA free hands to continue and finish with the ethnic cleansing of the province from all non-Albanians. That was the beginning of the making of Kosovo’s “independence” which was formally proclaimed by Kosovo’s Parliament (without national referenda) on February 17th, 2008 and immediately recognized by the most important Western countries.[6] Kosovo, therefore, became the first legalized European mafia state.[7] Nevertheless, in addition, the EU’s and the US’s policies to rebuild peace on the territory of ex-Yugoslavia did not manage to deal successfully with probably the main and most serious challenge to their proclaimed task to re-establish the regional stability and security: al-Qaeda linked terrorism, especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina but also in Kosovo.[8]

Ethnic map of Socialist Yugoslavia according to 1981 census.

Ethnic map of Socialist Yugoslavia according to 1981 census.

Dilemmas

According to the NATO’s sources, there were two objectives of the alliance’s military intervention against the FRY in March−June 1999:

  1. To force Slobodan Milosevic, a President of Serbia, to accept a political plan for the autonomy status of Kosovo (designed by the US’ administration).
  2. To prevent (alleged) ethnic cleansing of the Albanians by Serbia’s authorities and their armed forces.

However, while the political objective was in principle achieved, the humanitarian one was with quite opposite results. By bombing the FRY in the three airstrikes phases the NATO succeeded to force S. Milosevic to sign political-military capitulation in Kumanovo on June 9th, 1999, to handle Kosovo to the NATO’s administration and practically to authorize the KLA’s-led Islamic terror against the Christian Serbs.[9] A direct outcome of the operation was surely negative as the NATO’s sorties caused approximately 3000 killed Serbian military and civilians in addition to an unknown number of killed ethnic Albanians. An indirect impact of the operation cost a number of the ethnic Albanian killed civilians followed by a massive refugee flows of Kosovo’s Albanians[10] as it provoked the Serbian police and the Yugoslav army to attack. We cannot forget that a greatest scale of war crimes against the Albanian civilians in Kosovo during the NATO’s bombing of the FRY was most probably, according to some research investigations, committed by the refugee Serbs from Croatia’s region of Krayina (the self-proclaimed “Republic of Serbian Krayina” from 1991 to 1995), who were after August 1995 in the uniforms of the regular police forces of Serbia as a matter of revenge for the terrible Albanian atrocities committed in the Krayina region in Croatia only several years ago against the Serb civilians[11] when many of Kosovo Albanians fought the Serbs in the Croatian uniforms.

The fundamental dilemma is why the NATO directly supported the KLA – an organization that was previously clearly called as a “terrorist” by many Western Governments including and the US’s one? It was known that a KLA’s warfare of partisan strategy[12] was based only on direct provoking of Serbia’s security forces to respond by attacking the KLA’s posts with an unavoidable number of civilian casualties. However, these Albanian civilian victims were not understood by the NATO’s authorities as a “collateral damage” but rather as the victims of deliberate ethnic cleansing. Nevertheless, all civilian victims of the NATO’s bombing in 1999 were presented by the NATO’s authorities exactly as a “collateral damage” of the NATO’s “just war”[13] against the “oppressive regime” in Belgrade.

Here we will present the basic (academic) principles of a “just war”:

  1. Last resort – All diplomatic options are exhausted before the force is used.
  2. Just cause – The ultimate purpose of use of force is to self-defend its own territory or people from military attack by the others.
  3. Legitimate authority – To imply the legitimate constituted Government of a sovereign state, but not by some private (individual) or group (organization).
  4. Right intention – The use of force, or war, had to be prosecuted for the morally acceptable reasons, but not based on revenge or the intention to inflict the damage.
  5. A reasonable prospect of success – The use of force should not be activated in some hopeless cause, in which the human lives are exposed for no real benefits.
  6. Proportionality – The military intervention has to have more benefits than losses.
  7. Discrimination – The use of force must be directed only at the purely military targets as the civilians are considered to be innocent.
  8. Proportionality – The used force has to be no greater than it is needed to achieve morally acceptable aims and must not be greater than the provoking cause.
  9. Humanity – The use of force cannot be directed ever against the enemy personnel if they are captured (the prisoners of war) or wounded.[14]

If we analyze the NATO’s military campaign in 1999 in regard to the basic (academic) principles of the “just war”, the fundamental conclusions are:

  1. The US’s administration in 1999 did not apply any real diplomatic effort to settle the Kosovo crisis as Washington simply gave the political-military ultimatum in Rambouillet only to one side (Serbia) to either accept or not in full required blackmails: 1) To withdraw all Serbian military and police forces from Kosovo; 2) To give Kosovo administration to the NATO’s troops; and 3) To allow the NATO’s troops to use a whole territory of Serbia for the transit purpose. In the other words, the basic point of the US’s ultimatum to Belgrade was that Serbia will voluntarily become a US’s colony but without Kosovo province. Even the US’s President at that time – Bill Clinton, confirmed that S. Milosevic’s rejection of the Rambouillet ultimatum was an understandable and logical decision. It can be said that Serbia in 1999 did the same as the Kingdom of Serbia did in July 1914 by rejecting the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum which was also absurd and abusive.[15]
  2. This principle was absolutely misused by the NATO’s administration as no one NATO’s country was attacked or occupied by the FRY. In Kosovo at that time, it was a classic anti-terroristic war launched by the state authorities against the illegal separatist movement but fully sponsored in this case by neighboring Albania and the NATO.[16] In other words, the second principle of the “just war” can be only applied to the anti-terroristic operations by the state authorities of Serbia in Kosovo province against the KLA rather than to the NATO’s military intervention against the FRY.
  3. The Legitimate authority principle in the Kosovo conflict case of 1998−1999 can be applied only to Serbia and her legitimate state institutions and authority which were recognized as legitimate by the international community and above all by the UN.
  4. The morally acceptable reasons officially used by the NATO’s authorities to justify its own military action against the FRY in 1999 were quite unclear and above all unproven and misused for the very political and geostrategic purposes in the coming future. Today we know that the NATO’s military campaign was not based on the morally proved claims to stop a mass expulsion of the ethnic Albanians from their homes in Kosovo as a mass number of displaced persons appeared during the NATO’s military intervention but not before.
  5. The consequences of the fifth principle were selectively applied as only Kosovo’s Albanians benefited from both short- and long-term perspectives by the NATO’s military engagement in the Balkans in 1999.
  6. The sixth principle also became practically applied only to Kosovo’s Albanians what was, in fact, and the ultimate task of the US’ and the NATO’s administrations. In other words, the benefits of the action were overwhelmingly single-sided. However, from the long-term geostrategic and political aspects, the action was very profitable with a minimum loses for the Western military alliance during the campaign.
  7. The practical consequences of the seventh principle became mostly criticized as the NATO obviously did not make any difference between the military and civilian targets. Moreover, the NATO’s alliance deliberately bombed much more civilian objects and non-combat citizens than the military objects and personnel. However, all civilian victims of the bombing of all nationalities became simply presented by the NATO’s authority as an unavoidable “collateral damage” but, in fact, it was a clear violation of the international law and one of the basic principles of the concept of a “just war”.
  8. The eighth principle of a “just war” surely was not respected by the NATO as the used force was much higher as needed to achieve proclaimed tasks and above all was much stronger than the opposite side had. However, the morally acceptable aims of the Western policymakers were based on the wrong and deliberately misused “facts” in regard to the ethnic Albanian victims of the Kosovo War in 1998−1999 as it was primarily with the “false flag” case of “brutal massacre of forty-five civilians in the Kosovo village of Racak in January 1999”[17]. This case, however, became a formal pretext (casus belli) for the NATO’s intervention. Nevertheless, it is known today that those Albanian “brutally massacred civilians” were, in fact, the members of the KLA killed during the regular fight but not executed by Serbia’s security forces.[18]
  9. Only the last principle of a “just war” was respected by the NATO but for the very reason that there were no captured soldiers from the opponent side. The Serbian authorities also respected this principle as all two NATO’s captured pilots were treated as the prisoners of war according to the international standards and even were free very soon after the imprisonment.[19]

Conclusions

The crucial conclusions of the article after the investigation of the nature of NATO’s “humanitarian” military intervention in Kosovo in 1999 are:

  1. The NATO’s military intervention against the FRY during the Kosovo War in 1998−1999 was done primarily for the political and geostrategic purposes.
  2. A declarative “humanitarian” nature of the operation just served as a formal moral framework of the realization of the genuine goals of the post-Cold War US’s policy at the Balkans which foundations were laid down by the Dayton Accords in November 1995.
  3. The US’s administration of Bill Clinton used the terrorist KLA for pressing and blackmailing the Serbian Government to accept the ultimatum by Washington to transform Serbia into the US’s military, а political and economic colony with a NATO’s membership in the future for the exchange of formal preservation of Serbia’s territorial integrity.
  4. The Western Governments originally labeled the KLA as a “terrorist organization” what should mean that its guerrilla-combat strategy of direct provoking Serbia’s security forces was morally unacceptable and would not result in either diplomatic or military support.
  5. During the Kosovo War in 1998−1999, the KLA basically served as the NATO’s ground forces in Kosovo for the direct destabilization of Serbia’s state security.
  6. The KLA was militarily defeated at the very beginning of 1999 by Serbia’s regular police forces but it was revitalized by the NATO during the bombing campaign from March to June 1999.
  7. The NATO’s sorties in 1999 have as the main goal to force Belgrade to give Kosovo province to the US’s and EU’s administration in order to transform it into the biggest US’s and NATO’s military base in Europe.
  8. The NATO’s “humanitarian” intervention in 1999 against the FRY violated almost all principles of the “just war” and the international law – an intervention which became one of the best examples in the post-Cold War history of unjust use of coercive power for the political and geostrategic purposes and at the same time a classic case of “coercive diplomacy” used by the Western Governments.
  9. Some 50.000 NATO’s troops displaced in Kosovo after June 10th, 1999 did not fulfil the basic tasks of their mission: 1) Demilitarization of the KLA as this paramilitary formation was never properly disarmed; 2) Protection of all Kosovo inhabitants as only up to January 2001 there were at least 700 Kosovo citizens murdered on the ethnic basis (most of them were the Serbs); 3) Stability and security of the province as most of the Serbs and other non-Albanians fled the province as a consequence of systematic ethnic cleansing policy committed by the KLA – a criminal-terrorist organization being in power in Kosovo after June 1999.
  10. The US’s reward for the KLA’s loyalty was to install the army’s members to the key governmental posts of today “independent” Republic of Kosovo which became the first European state administered by the leaders of ex-terrorist organization who started immediately after the war to execute a policy of ethnic cleansing of all non-Albanian population and to Islamize the province.
  11. The ultimate national-political goal of the KLA in power in Kosovo is to include this province into a Greater Albania – a political project drafted by the First Albanian Prizren League in 1878−1881 and for the first time realized during the WWII.[20]
  12. Probably, the main consequence of the NATO’s occupation of Kosovo after June 1999 up today is a systematic destruction of the Christian (Serb) cultural inheritance and the Euro-Christian feature of the province that is followed by its obvious and comprehensive Islamization and, therefore, a transformation of Kosovo into a new Islamic State.
  13. What concerns the case of the Kosovo crisis in 1998−1999, the first and authentic “humanitarian” intervention was that of Serbia’s security forces against the terrorist KLA in order to preserve the human lives of ethnic Serbs and anti-KLA Albanians in the province.
  14. The Balkan Stability Pact for both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo-Metochia attempted to underemphasize traditional concept of sovereignty giving a full practical possibility to the UN’s (in fact the West’s) administrative control over these two ex-Yugoslav territories.[21]
  15. The NATO’s “humanitarian” intervention in 1999 against the FRY clearly violated the recognized international standards of non-intervention, based on the principle of the “inviolability of borders” going beyond the idea of “just war” according to which the self-defense is the crucial reason, or at least formal justification, for the use of force.
  16. While the NATO declaratively fulfilled “the international responsibility to protect” (the ethnic Albanians) by heavily bombing Serbia (and not too much Montenegro) by bypassing the Security Council of UN it is clear that this 78-days terror effort was counterproductive as “creating as much human suffer-refugees as it relieved”.[22]
  17. The fundamental question in regard to the Kosovo “humanitarian” intervention(s) today is why the Western Governments are not taking another “humanitarian” coercive military intervention after June 1999 in order to prevent further ethnic cleansing and brutal violation of human rights against all non-Albanian population in Kosovo but above all against the Serbs?
  18. Finally, the NATO’s military intervention was seen by many social constructivists as a phenomenon of “warlike democracies” as a demonstration how the ideas of liberal democracy “undermine the logic of democratic peace theory”.[23]

*

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is Founder & Director of the Private Research Centre “The Global Politics” (www.global-politics.eu), Ovsishte, Serbia. Personal web platform: www.global-politics.eu/sotirovic. Contact: [email protected]

Notes

[1] S. L. Spiegel, J. M. Taw, F. L. Wehling, K. P. Williams, World Politics in a New Era, Thomson Wadsworth, 2004, 319.

[2] A. Heywood, Global Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 320.

[3] Ibid., 319.

[4] J. Haynes, P. Hough, Sh. Malik, L. Pettiford, World Politics, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2011, 639.

[5] The 1244 UN Security Council Resolution on June 10th, 1999. The KFOR’s basic responsibilities were:

  • To protect aid operations.
  • To protect all Kosovo’s population.
  • To create a stable security in the province in order that the international administration can function normally.

[6] This recognition of self-proclaimed Kosovo’s independence from a democratic country of Serbia with a pro-Western regime basically recognized a victory of the Albanian Kosovo’s radicals’ policy of ethnic cleansing after June 1999. The Albanians from Kosovo started their atrocities against the Serbs immediately after the Kumanovo Agreement was signed in June 1999 when the KLA returned back to Kosovo together with the NATO’s occupation ground troops. Up to February 2008, there were around 200.000 expelled Serbs from Kosovo and 1.248 non-Albanians who have been killed in some cases even very brutally. The number of kidnapped non-Albanians is still not known but presumably, a majority of them were killed. There were 151 Serb Orthodox spiritual and cultural monuments in Kosovo destroyed by the Albanians in addition to 213 mosques built with financial support from Saudi Arabia. Before Kosovo’s independence was proclaimed, there was 80 percent of graveyards which were either completely destroyed or partially desecrated by the Albanians. On Kosovo’s right to independence, see [M. Sterio, The Right to Self-Determination under International Law: “Selfistans”, Secession, and the Rule of the Great Powers, New York−London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013, 116−129]. On secession from the point of international law, see [M. G. Kohen, Secession: International Law Perspectives, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006].

[7] T. Burghardt, “Kosovo: Europe’s Mafia State. Hub of the EU-NATO Drug Trail”, 22-12-2010, http://www.globalresearch.ca/kosovo-europe-s-mafia-state-hub-of-the-eu-nato-drug-trail/22486.

[8] J. Haynes, P. Hough, Sh. Malik, L. Pettiford, World Politics, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2011, 588.

[9] On the “just peace”, see [P. Allan, A. Keller (eds.), What is a Just Peace?, Oxford−New York: Oxford University Press, 2006].

[10] According to the official Western sources, even up to 90 percent of Kosovo’s Albanian population became refugees during the NATO’s military intervention. Therefore, it should be the largest displacement of the civilians in Europe after the WWII. Nevertheless, all of these Albanian refugees are unquestionably considered to be “expelled” from their homes by Serbia’s security forces and the Yugoslav army.

[11] For example, in the “Medak Pocket” operation on September 9th, 1993 there were killed around 80 Serbian civilians by the Croatian forces [В. Ђ. Мишина (уредник), Република Српска Крајина: Десет година послије, Београд: Добра воља Београд, 2005, 35] in which Kosovo’s Albanians served too.

[12] The “partisan” or “guerrilla” war is fought by irregular troops using mainly tactics that are fitting to the geographical features of the terrain. The crucial characteristic of the tactics of the partisan war is that it uses mobility and surprise but not direct frontal battles with the enemy. Usually, the civilians are paying the highest price in the course of the partisan war. In other words, it is “war conducted by irregulars or guerrillas, usually against regular, uniformed forces, employing hit-and-run, ambush, and other tactics that allow smaller numbers of guerrillas to win battles against numerically superior, often heavily-armed regular forces” [P. R. Viotti, M. V. Kauppi, International Relations and World Politics: Secularity, Economy, Identity, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2009, 544]. With regard to the Kosovo War in 1998−1999 the reconstruction of the Albanian guerrilla strategy is as following:

“…a police patrol is passing a village, when a sudden fire is open and some policemen killed and wounded. The police return the fire and the further development depends on the strength of the rebellious unit engaged. If the village appears well protected and risky to attack by the ordinary units, the latter stops fighting and calls for additional support. It arrives usually as a paramilitary unit, which launches a fierce onslaught” [P. V. Grujić, Kosovo Knot, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RoseDog Books, 2014, 193].

[13] The “just war” is considered to be a war that has a purpose to satisfy certain ethical standards, and therefore is (allegedly) morally justified.

[14] A. Heywood, Global Politics, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 257.

[15] М. Радојевић, Љ. Димић, Србија у Великом рату 1914−1915, Београд: Српска књижевна задруга−Београдски форум за свет равноправних, 2014, 94−95.

[16] For instance, Albania supplied Kosovo’s Albanian separatists by weapons in 1997 when around 700.000 guns were “stolen” by the Albanian mob from Albania’s army’s magazines but a majority of these weapons found their way exactly to neighboring Kosovo. The members of the KLA were trained in Albania with the help of the NATO’s military instructors and then sent to Kosovo.

[17] R. J. Art, K. N. Waltz (eds.), The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics, Lanham−Boulder−New York−Toronto−Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2004, 257.

[18] В. Б. Сотировић, Огледи из југославологије, Виљнус: приватно издање, 2013, 19−29.

[19] On the NATO’s “humanitarian” intervention in the FRY in 1999, see more in [G. Szamuely, Bombs for Peace: NATO’s Humanitarian War on Yugoslavia, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013].

[20] A Greater Albania as a project is “envisaged to be an area of some 90.000 square kilometres (36.000 square miles), including Kosovo, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro” [J. Haynes, P. Hough, Sh. Malik, L. Pettiford, World Politics, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2011, 588].

[21] R. Johnson, “Reconstructing the Balkans: The effects of a global governance approach”, M. Lederer, P. Müller (eds.), Criticizing Global Governance, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005, 177.

[22] A. F. Cooper, J. Heine, R. Thakur (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, Oxford−New York: Oxford University Press, 2015, 766.

[23] J. Haynes, P. Hough, Sh. Malik, L. Pettiford, World Politics, Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2011, 225.

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: Coast Guard Petty Officer 3rd Class Ryan Leonard watches oil and gas flare during the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil disaster. (Coast Guard photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Matthew Belson)

For thousands of Coast Guard members who responded to the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, the dangers were clear — an oil platform in flames and then a hole in the seafloor spewing millions of gallons of oil. But what made many Coast Guard members truly afraid was what came after. 

As the agency worked to contain the spill, airplanes swooped in low, spraying a mysterious concoction of chemicals. These oil dispersants, BP hoped, would quickly cleanup its monumental mess.

“I can tell you Coast Guard members were terrified of the concept of dispersants,” said Rear Admiral Erica Schwartz, the Coast Guard’s director of health and safety.

New studies indicate their fears were well-founded.

The nearly 2,000 Coast Guard members who reported exposure to oil dispersants suffered a range of illnesses — lung irritation, skin rash, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea — at higher rates than members who were not exposed to the chemicals or were exposed to oil alone, according to research by the Uniformed Services University, a Maryland health sciences and medical school run by the federal government.

“With increased levels of exposure there was a higher prevalence of reporting cough and shortness of breath, and more reporting of wheeze than non-exposed people,” said Jennifer Rusiecki, a USU researcher involved in two recent studies on the health of Coast Guard personnel who responded to the disaster.

Read full article here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Coast Guard Responders Harmed by Chemicals Used to Clean Up BP Deepwater Oil Spill, Research Shows
  • Tags: ,

Entering the Ring of War Propaganda

March 8th, 2018 by Mark Taliano

Western populations are inundated with war propaganda, and all of the MSM is guilty.  It serves to promote criminal warfare rather than peace.

Once we enter the ring of propaganda fabricated by western agencies of deception, we start to lose, since it is at that point that we become entwined in the convoluted narratives.  Intelligence agencies are specialists at creating such fake narratives.[1]

Fundamental lies and omissions persist because we insist on using them as talking points despite the preponderance of evidence that negates them.

There are, for example, no “moderate terrorists”[2] in Syria.  The term itself is an oxymoron and quite ridiculous. All of the terrorists in Syria are there precisely because the West and its allies are waging a supremely illegal war against the Syrian government. They are all proxies for the West.

The War on Terror is a fraud and the West is not waging war against ISIS either.[3]  ISIS are monsters, but they are not Frankenstein monsters who have turned on their masters in Syria.  They remain Western assets, sometimes expendable[4], but assets nonetheless.  They served to deliver key strategic areas to the West and they still serve that function, as outlined in the 2012 DIA document.

The ring of propaganda includes Hollywood. The 2018 Oscars featured Bana al-Abed[5], falsely conflating her with feminism and freedom. Omitted from the spectacle is the fact that Bana’s father worked for both al Qaeda and ISIS[6], and that Western terrorist supporters and propagandists are exploiting her to create illegal war propaganda.

The White Helmets[7] fall into the same category.  They are terrorist-auxiliaries, and they exploit children, and murder children, to create fake narratives centered around their heroic “humanitarian” deeds. The White Helmets are not a legitimate source of information for news.

Also omitted from MSM narratives is that terrorists in East Ghouta[8]  murder civilians who try to escape occupied areas, just as terrorists murdered civilians trying to flee occupied Aleppo. Civilians continue to be used as human shields.  Most do not stay in terrorist-occupied areas of their own volition.

The choice in Syria is not between two monsters.  The Western terrorists are monsters, but the elected Syrian government is not a monster.  All of the demonization campaigns against Assad have proven false.  The Saydnaya torture evidence is fraudulent[9].  The Caesar “kills his own people”[10] photo evidence is fraudulent, and Assad does not gas his own people either.

The only monsters in the whole dirty war are the West and their allies.  We are the ones committing the Supreme international crime, we are the ones fabricating the war narratives, and we the people are accomplices in our governments’ crimes when we fail to denounce them.

*

Notes

[1] Mark Taliano, “ ‘Stories within Stories’ ”: The CIA’s Strategies to Dupe the American Public.” Global Research. 24 July, 2016. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/stories-within-stories-the-cias-strategies-to-dupe-the-american-public/5537635) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[2] Mark Taliano, “U.S–Led NATO’s Tree Of Lies.” Global Research. 17 May, 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/u-s-led-natos-tree-of-lies/5590456) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[3] Makia Freeman, “ISIS Is a US-Israeli Creation. Top Ten ‘Indications’. Global Research, 7 March, 2018/The Freedom Articles, 5 April, 2016. “(https://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-is-a-us-israeli-creation-top-ten-indications/5518627)

 Accessed 7 March, 2017.

[4] Tim Anderson, “U.S. ATTEMPTED TO CREATE SUNNI-SHIA RIFT IN THE MIDDLE EAST: TIM ANDERSON.” Interview, Shiafollowers. 25 February, 2018. (https://shiafollowers.com/index.php/2018/02/25/u-s-attempted-create-sunni-shia-rift-middle-east-tim-anderson/) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[5] “HOLLYWOOD CAUGHT EXPLOITING EIGHT YEAR OLD DAUGHTER OF TERRORIST AT OSCARS 2018 CEREMONY.”

clarityofsignal1. 6 March 2018. (https://www.bitchute.com/video/jTaAySeZSQfZ/) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[6] “Beeley: Bana Alabed’s dad worked for ISIS.” RT UK. 17 October, 2017.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4QDXpjoPT4&feature=share) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[7] Vanessa Beeley, “WHITE HELMETS ‘Manufacturing Consent’ for War in Syria.” 6 March, 2018. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMdtfVCAdec&feature=share) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[8] “Militants shell & shoot at escapees from E. Ghouta, may use them as human shields – Syrian nun to RT.”

RT Question More.  5 Mar, 2018. (https://www.rt.com/news/420506-ghouta-rebels-human-shield/amp/?__twitter_impression=true) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[9] Rick Sterling, “Amnesty International’s ‘Kangaroo Report’ on Human Rights in Syria.” Global Research. 12 February, 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/amnesty-internationals-kangaroo-report-on-human-rights-in-syria/5574195) Accessed 7 March, 2018.

[10] Rick Sterling, “The Caesar Photo Fraud that Undermined Syrian Negotiations.” Dissident Voice. 3 March, 2016. (https://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/the-caesar-photo-fraud-that-undermined-syrian-negotiations/) Accessed 7 March, 2018


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

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

A triumph of “populism.” A hung parliament. “Ungovernable” Italy. Berlusconi’s demise. The latest chapter in a European saga. The “end of socialist parties.” Italy’s latest elections were a roller coaster featuring plenty of thrills. Yet the top political nugget is unmistakable: Only one coalition may aspire to an absolute majority, an – unlikely – alliance between the populist Five Star Movement and the extreme-right League, led by Matteo Salvini.

That’s what actually will be hangin’ in the air for the next – long – days; arguably as many as 51, according to a projection by JPMorgan relayed by Bloomberg. “Europe,” meanwhile, will also be hangin’ in the balance, as Italy is the third-largest economy in the eurozone.

The Italian race was a highly personalized affair, centered on four stars: former prime minister Matteo Renzi – the Italian Tony Blair – of the center-left Democratic Party (PD); the larger-than-life Silvio “bunga bunga” Berlusconi of the right-wing Forza Italia; populist Five Star leader Luigi Di Maio; and extreme-right Lega leader Matteo Salvini.

As for Sergio Mattarella, the president of the Italian Republic, he will have to pull nothing less than a magic trick to come up with a government.

‘Italy for Italians’

With nearly 32% of the vote, the populist Five Star Movement is now the top party of a largely fractured Italy. Five Star won largely in the south while Lega won largely in the north. As for the PD, it even managed to lose historically leftist Emilia-Romagna.

Five Star’s platform features a promise to lower taxes – which in Italy tend to hover around a Dante-esque lower circle of hell; set up a universal minimum wage; raise pensions; revise the terms of “hire and fire”; invest in new technologies; cut red tape for business; and on the crucial immigration issue, come up with more bilateral treaties to increase repatriation of immigrants.

Contrary to alarmist hysteria, Italy is not exactly sinking. The fundamentals are actually solid. Gross domestic product went up 1.5% in 2017 – twice the rate of Rome’s forecasts. Of course that’s much less than the 2.5% European average, but it’s still Italy’s best score in 10 years, during which the nation was mostly mired in a horrible recession. Industrial production went up by 3%, and exports by 7%, leading to a trade surplus of €48 billion (US$59 billion).

Still, the center-left coalition, in power since 2013, ended up in smithereens. The PD will hardly recover. Blair clone Renzi, the party’s secretary, might as well say goodbye, as the stigma of “loser” will not vanish.

Indeed, this election result might as well represent the end of a historical cycle of “socialist” – only in name – parties in power; their demise is due to the simple fact they went hardcore neoliberal. The PD most likely will turn into an opposition radical chic minority vehicle for sectors of the educated middle class paying lip service to “humanitarian values.” Definitely not a mass party.

All eyes are focused on whether Five Star leader Luigi Di Maio – who succeeded founder Beppe Grillo – will bow out to a political alliance.

Five Star may be entering a new, more moderate phase; in fact it will have to, otherwise its “change you can believe in” narrative simply won’t be implemented (even as it insists nothing can change with those corrupt political parties in place).

Five Star has been presented with a historic chance actually to rule. As much as there’s a fierce internal struggle between the orthodox and the “governists,” 5S would hardly trade this electoral gift for playing the role of opposition.

As for the 45-year-old Milanese Salvini, he was rewarded for a master political coup. Salvini erased “Nord” from the party’s name and got rid of the green representing wealthy – and largely mythical – Padania from the party logo to the benefit of a nationalist/populist blue. And he bet on campaigning hard on immigration – in the process thoroughly overtaking its right-wing ally, Berlusconi’s Forza Italia.

Salvini was praised by Marine Le Pen and fully supported by Steve Bannon. He even conquered large swaths of southern Italy in the election, promising only 15% in taxes and protection for Italian olive oil from North African competition. Sporting sweatshirts emblazoned with “Italy for Italians,” his tirades against “clandestine” immigrants, Nigerian drug dealers, the euro, Islam and homosexual liaisons were wildly popular.

No more bunga bunga?

And that brings us to the fate of Silvio “Il Cavaliere” Berlusconi, cutting quite a lonely figure in his seventh electoral campaign, something totally against his glamour-drenched historical script. He rambled on like a scratched CD. He lost his mojo. He was heavily criticized even by his – much younger – allies. And the worst – from his point of view – happened: The Lega boomed, yet that was still not enough to propel his alliance toward a large majority.

Silvio could always come up with a last-minute cliffhanger – an alliance with Renzi. Too little, too late.

Even as Salvini insists there will be no coalition and the center-right will rule by itself, Italy may wake up one of these days to a political outlook closer to Hungary’s Viktor Orban than Germany’s Angela Merkel. The real Italian Job would be the surge of an anti-Brussels coalition of 5S and Lega.

Stranger things have happened in the magic peninsula.

Washington Is Intent on Destroying Iran

March 8th, 2018 by Brian Cloughley

On February 18 the leader of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, declared that Iran “is trying to establish this continuous empire surrounding the Middle East from the south in Yemen but also trying to create a land bridge from Iran to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. This is a very dangerous development for our region.” Netanyahu’s presentation was dismissed by the Iranian foreign minister as “a cartoonish circus,” but it was nonetheless a reflection of the policy of the United States, which is Israel’s mentor and unconditional ally.

Last November Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei suggested to President Vladimir Putin that Tehran and Moscow should cooperate more fully to try to dissuade the US from further disruptive dabbling throughout the Middle East. His opinion was that “Our cooperation can isolate America. The failure of US-backed terrorists in Syria cannot be denied but Americans continue their plots,” which is certainly the case, because although the so-called “moderate rebels” who were recruited to overthrow President Assad, with massive amounts of assistance from the Pentagon and the CIA, collapsed in ignominious failure, the US fandangos continue. Washington is not going to give up, and the Trump administration seems to relish being isolated by almost everyone.

During his time in the White House, President Obama tried to get US-Iran relations on an even keel, and managed to temporarily overcome the Washington warmongers to some extent and push forward the tension-reducing, trade-improving, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) concerning Iran’s nuclear programme, which the BBC described as “the signature foreign policy achievement of Barack Obama’s presidency.” It was settled two years ago by China, France, Germany, Russia, the UK and the US in a most welcome example of international solidarity and downright common sense, and removed sanctions on Iran in exchange for Teheran’s agreement to limit its nuclear research and development.

Federica Mogherini, the European Union’s foreign affairs representative wrote last year that the arrangement was achieving its main purpose of “ensuring the purely peaceful, civilian nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. The International Atomic Energy Agency – the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog – has issued four reports on the matter and has regularly verified that Iran is complying with its nuclear-related obligations. This means that the Iranian nuclear programme has been significantly reformatted and downsized and is now subject to intense monitoring by the IAEA. The joint commission – which I coordinate – oversees constantly the implementation of the agreement, meeting regularly, which allows us to detect even minor possible deviations and to take necessary corrective measures if the need arises.

The deal is also working for Iran. Major companies are investing in the country: the oil sector, the automotive industry, commercial aircraft, just to give a few examples, are areas where significant contracts have been concluded.”

The JCPOA was indeed a marked diplomatic success on the part of Obama as well as being a victory for pragmatic common sense. So naturally the egregious Donald Trump has been trying to destroy it. On February 3 Trump enforced and it’s been downhill all the way since then. The sanctions that had been imposed and then withdrawn had been aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear programme and the EU quite rightly wanted to confine them to nuclear-related agencies — the individuals and organisations directly associated with nuclear matters — but the United States, even in the Obama-guided era, wouldn’t confine itself to the main aspect of the agreement. It introduced sanctions of its own, intended to make it difficult for other nations to trade with Iran, which is consistent with its longtime spiteful attitude to Tehran’s government.

The United States is determined to destroy Iran. For almost forty years, since the overthrow of the corrupt CIA-backed monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Washington has been on the warpath against the mullahs in Tehran. There wasn’t much to choose, comfort-wise between the Shah and his successor, the intensely religious Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, but morally there was a chasm.

The Shah was deeply unpopular and in the late 1970s there were mass demonstrations against him and the country dissolved into chaos. He had to go, and the only possible replacement was the Ayatollah who was living in exile in France, having escaped from the persecution of the Shah’s dreaded secret police, the Savak, in the 1960s. Two weeks after the Shah fled from Iran, the Ayatollah returned to Iran on 1 February 1979 in triumph and to a level of acclaim not shared by all its citizens.

During the Shah’s dictatorship Iran was a good place to live for many people. There was no freedom of speech, but there was a lot of freedom to make money, especially in the US. There was sixty per cent illiteracy, but women were allowed to wear what clothes they wished and to move freely in society — except in the countryside, of course, where they were kept in their place as second-class citizens exactly as they are in present-day Muslim states such as US allies Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

What really vexes the extremists in Washington is the memory of humiliation when the US embassy in Tehran was attacked by mobs of students in November 1979, only ten months after Khomeini took over. There is little doubt that the attackers were students, but there is equally little doubt that they had the Ayatollah’s blessing (as it were) to storm the embassy and take the staff hostage. They demanded the return of the Shah to stand trial in Tehran — a ridiculous condition for cessation of their demented antics — but 52 US citizens were held hostage in Iran from November 1979 to January 1981, which was not just an awkwardness for Washington: it was an ineradicable embarrassment, an international degradation of colossal proportions that could never be forgiven.

It was convenient to forget the hideous savagery of the Shah’s regime when, for example,

“American-trained counterinsurgency troops of the Iranian Army and Savak [the Iranian CIA] killed more than 6,000 people on June 5, 1963.”

The Ayatollah had taken over and was forever to be condemned for his audacity. His successors in the political sphere could never right the wrongs that had been done to the global image of the United States. As put by Martin Ennals, secretary general of Amnesty International,

“The Shah of Iran retains his benevolent image despite the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief.”

In 2002 the appalling President George W Bush, the man who took his country into its disastrous wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, conjured up the phrase the axis of evil, and put the world on notice that America would overcome any country that opposed it. His speech was dramatic and he declared that “North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens” which was true. And still is true, after 15 years in which the US has managed to do exactly nothing to discourage North Korea from arming itself against invasion. Then he said that “Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade” and a few months later he invaded Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, which of course didn’t exist.

Then Bush announced that “Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom” which was formal warning to Iran that it was definitely on the target list, because “States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

Since the era of the Bush wars, the world has certainly known no peace. Washington’s Military Industrial Complex has flourished while its soldiers died for nothing but profit.

The present US campaign against Iran is aimed at destroying the country economically and thus encouraging a violent revolution. And many western observers consider there’s a lot to be said for rising up against the ayatollahs, because they’re a bumptious arrogant unforgiving bunch of bigots who repress women and democracy. So why doesn’t the US have the same thoughts about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, whose unelected princely rulers repress women and do not tolerate democracy? What a horde of humbugs.

Iran is fighting for its life and the Trump administration is following George W Bush in his determination to destroy it. In January Trump tweeted that “The people of Iran are finally acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime. All of the money that President Obama so foolishly gave them went into terrorism and into their “pockets.” The people have little food, big inflation and no human rights. The U.S. is watching!”

Washington is intent on destroying Iran, and the contents of that tweet could hardly be better reason for supporting Tehran in its struggle against the growing menace from the Trump-supported military-industrial complex. The world is watching.

*

Brian Cloughley is a British and Australian armies’ veteran, former deputy head of the UN military mission in Kashmir and Australian defense attaché in Pakistan.

Featured image is from the author.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

The “No Trump Military Parade”

March 8th, 2018 by Margaret Flowers

President Trump has asked the Pentagon to plan a military parade in Washington DC on Veteran’s Day, November 11. Democrats have decried the cost and authoritarian implication, and antiwar groups are planning a countermarch. I spoke to Margaret Flowers, medical doctor, Green Party activist, and co-founder of the movement news website Popular Resistance, who is among those organizing the countermarch.

*

Ann Garrison: Margaret, does this countermarch have a name yet, and what can you tell us about the coalition organizing it?

Margaret Flowers: So far the coalition is just calling this the “No Trump Military Parade.” Our goal is to get so many people signed up to come that Trump feels compelled to cancel it. If that doesn’t happen, we hope that we can mobilize more people to come to Washington DC to oppose it than Trump can mobilize to support it.

As far as the coalition goes, and this is still fairly young, we found that a number of organizations that Popular Resistance works with were organizing responses to the military parade. ANSWER put out a call for people to show up. Veterans for Peace and some of their allied organizations were organizing a veterans and indigenous peace march during that weekend, with a message to reclaim Armistice Day, which is what Veterans Day was initially. Interestingly, this is the hundred year anniversary of the first Armistice Day, the end of World War I.

World Beyond War was also getting people to sign on to oppose the parade, so we thought, “Why don’t we bring all these people together and make this a big display of opposition to militarization both at home and abroad?” We had our first exploratory call last week and found that there was a lot of energy and a lot of unity in our messaging against US imperialism, militarization, and austerity for public needs. The people who are behind this are all groups who are strongly opposed to the corporate duopoly war party, and who have been working to revive the peace movement in the United States.

AG: Some of those who identify as peace activists will no doubt say that this march is a reaction to Trump, not to the wars and weapons production that keep escalating no matter who’s in the White House. What’s your response?

MF: Now that President Trump is in office, that’s the concern because that’s what the Democratic Party groups and the party itself do when Republicans are in power. They use these issues for their own ends.

It’s interesting, and I know that you’re aware of this, that the Women’s March was not a march against US militarism. Among the so-called progressive Democratic Party candidates running in this year’s midterms, I haven’t seen anybody who has a strong antimilitarist platform. So there is a possibility that some of these Democratic Party groups will try to latch onto this effort and use it for their own purposes, but all the people and groups organizing this are opposed to the corporate duopoly war party.

I think it’s important for us to make it clear that the United States has a long history of militarism, and that it has been escalating under recent presidents. Obama was worse than Bush. Trump is trying to outdo Obama. It’s not a matter of who’s in the White House or which party has the majority in Congress. It’s that the United States is the largest empire in the world, and we have a very strong military machine that demands to be fed constantly. So even if some of those Democratic Party members sign on, they may be adding numbers, but hopefully not diluting the message.

AG: A Women’s March on the Pentagon, which is not a reaction to Trump but to war and militarism, is scheduled for October 20-21, the 51st anniversary of the 1967 March on the Pentagon organized by the National Mobilization to End the Vietnam War. Will you be joining or supporting that march as well?

MF: We’re very excited about the Women’s March on the Pentagon. I think, like you, I refrained from participating in the previous Women’s Marches because they were organized by people who were part of the power structure. It’s been interesting to see what’s going on with that because people at the grassroots level didn’t seem to be altogether on board with those who were leading those marches. But, again, there was no strong antimilitarism component to those marches. So we were very excited when Cindy Sheehan announced her Women’s March on the Pentagon. I felt like, “Wow, now here’s a Women’s March I’ll actually feel comfortable participating in,” so Popular Resistance was one of the early organizations to sign on to that. We’ve been promoting it on our website, and I will be there, and we’ll be supporting it in any way we can.

AG: Assuming Trump’s parade goes forward, there will no doubt be a tremendous amount of international media coverage, and the optics will be grim for much of the world if there’s no visible resistance. Will you be working on a media strategy with that in mind?

MF: That’s one of the main reasons we felt so compelled to organize around Trump’s military parade. People around the world keep asking us, “Where is the antiwar movement in the United States? You guys are the aggressors, so why aren’t you doing anything about what your country is doing all around the world?” So having this kind of energy around this military parade—this gross display and glorification of militarism—is an opportunity for us in the United States to show the world that there is opposition to US empire and wars of aggression, including these so-called humanitarian interventions that so many progressives are supporting. And, in addition to having protests in Washington DC, we’re reaching out to our international allies around the world and asking them to hold actions on that day as well. And of course there’s a lot of international media in DC, and when we do actions on various issues, we tend to get more coverage from the international media than from the US media. So we will definitely be reaching out to them.

AG: Do you think a countermarch will be allowed to get anywhere near the Pentagon parade, and have you considered that this might be a dangerous protest?

MF: The benefit of having coalition partners who are actually based in Washington DC is that they can apply for permits as soon as the need arises, and permits are handed out on a first come, first serve basis there. As soon as President Trump put out the message that he might have a military parade on Veterans Day, organizations that we work with quickly applied for permits in as many areas as they could think of where such a parade might happen. So we will have permits to be close to the parade, and we even applied for them before any groups that may come to support it.

As to whether it might be dangerous: the police in DC are fairly used to dealing with protest, and most of the them understand our First Amendment right to freedom of expression. That’s not always the case; the police were very aggressive around Trump’s inauguration, but I think they may regret that. The public is very largely with us, and a lot of people in the military oppose this gross display of militarization, this waste of money and time, as well. If there’s a large turnout, that’s protective. The police will be a lot less likely to misbehave if there are a lot of people around.

AG: The peace movement all but completely faded from view during Obama’s eight years in office, despite new US Wars in Libya and Syria, escalation of the US War in Afghanistan, and the expansion of US bases and militarism across the African continent. If the peace movement re-emerges under Trump, do you think it could survive the election of another Democratic Party president?

MF: It was difficult to see the antiwar movement all but disappear while Obama was president. Of course we were out there protesting anyway, and when we helped organize the occupation of Freedom Plaza in 2011, it included a very strong antiwar component. It was disappointing to see antiwar protestors get confused by a Democratic president who was such a militarist. So we just have to keep working at reviving and growing the antiwar movement here, and try to demonstrate that this goes across political parties, that both Democrats and Republicans are funded and lobbied by the weapons manufacturers and all the other elements of the military industrial complex. The 2018 military budget is $700 billion, and it just keeps growing. It now eats up 57% of our discretionary spending, leaving only 43% for education, transportation, housing, and all our other human needs.

We need to demonstrate that this makes us less secure as a nation by creating more animosity towards us around the world and isolating us in the global community. Other nations are finally getting more courage to stand up and say they don’t want to be bullied or controlled by us anymore. So this hurts every single person in the United States, as well as the masses of people suffering all the casualties and injuries and agony caused by US wars. No matter who’s in office, we have to push the United States to pull back our troops on foreign shores, close down our 800 or more military bases, and redirect our resources to human needs here at home and reparations for all the damage we’ve done around the world.

AG: How can listeners find more information and/or sign on to attend or engage in planning the November 11 countermarch?

MF: We just got a website up: No Trump Military Parade.

*

This interview was originally published on Black Agenda Report.

Margaret Flowers is a medical doctor and a peace, justice, Green Party activist, and co-founder of the Popular Resistance website. She can be reached at popularresistance.org or [email protected].

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

Featured image is from Salon.com.

Anyone reading the scientific literature (or the progressive news outlets that truthfully report this literature) knows that homo sapiens sapiens is on the fast track to extinction, most likely some time between 2025 and 2040.

For a taste of the evidence in this regard focusing on the climate, see ‘Climate Collapse and Near Term Human Extinction’‘What They Won’t Tell You About Climate Catastrophe’‘Release of Arctic Methane “May Be Apocalyptic,” Study Warns’ and ‘7,000 underground [methane] gas bubbles poised to “explode” in Arctic’.

Unfortunately, of course, the climate is not the only imminent threat to human survival. With an insane leadership in the White House in the United States – see ‘Resisting Donald Trump’s Violence Strategically’we are faced with the prospect of nuclear war. And even if the climate and nuclear threats to our survival are removed, there is still a substantial range of environmental threats – including rainforest destruction, the ongoing dumping of Fukushima radiation into the Pacific Ocean, extensive contamination from military violence… – that need to be addressed too, given the synergistic impacts of these multiple and interrelated threats.

Can these extinction-threatening problems be effectively addressed?

Well the reality is that most (but not all) of them can be tackled effectively if we are courageous enough to make powerful personal and organizational decisions and then implement them. But we are not even close to doing that yet. And time is obviously running out fast.

Given the evidence, scientific and otherwise, documenting the cause and nature of many of these problems and what is required to fix them, why aren’t these strategies to address the problems implemented?

At the political and economic level, it is usually explained structurally – for example, as an outcome of capitalism, patriarchy and/or the states-system – or, more simply, as an outcome of the powerful vested interests that control governments and the corporate imperative to make profits despite exacerbating the current perilous state of the Earth’s biosphere and its many exploited populations (human and otherwise) by doing so.

But the reality is that these political and economic explanations mask the deeper psychological drivers that generate and maintain these dysfunctional structures and behaviours.

Let me explain why and how this happens using the climate catastrophe to illustrate the process.

While scientific concern about the increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere had been raised more than a century ago – see ‘The Discovery of Global Warming’ – it wasn’t until the 1980s that this concern started to gain significant traction in public awareness. And despite ongoing agitation by some scientists as well as climate and environment groups, corporate-funded climate deniers were able to stall widespread recognition of, and the start of serious official action on, the climate catastrophe for more than two more decades.

However, as the truth of the climate catastrophe was finally being accepted by most people and the climate deniers were finally forced into full-scale retreat on the issue of whether or not the climate catastrophe was, in fact, so serious that it threatened human extinction, the climate deniers implemented their back-up strategy: they used their corporate media to persuade people that action wasn’t necessary ‘until the end of the [21st] century’ and to exaggerate the argument about the ‘acceptable’ increase above the pre-industrial norm –  2 degrees? 3 degrees? 1.5 degrees? – to obscure the truth that 0.5 degrees was, in fact, the climate science consensus back in 2007.

But, you might ask: ‘Why would anyone prefer to ignore the evidence, given the extinction-threatening nature of this problem?’

Or, to put the question more fully: ‘Why would anyone – whether an “ordinary” worker, academic, lawyer, doctor, businessperson, corporate executive, government leader or anyone else – prefer to live in delusion and believe the mainstream narrative about “the end of the century” (or 1.5 degrees) rather than simply consider the evidence and respond powerfully to it?’

And what is so unattractive about the truth that so many people run from it rather than embrace it?

Obviously, these questions go to the heart of the human (psychological) condition so let me explain why most humans now live in a delusional state whether in relation to the climate, environment issues generally, the ongoing wars and other military violence, the highly exploitative global economy or anything else.

People do not choose to live in delusion nor do they choose their delusion consciously. A delusion is generated by a person’s unconscious mind; that is, the part of their own mind of which the individual is normally unaware. So why does a person’s unconscious mind generate a delusion? What is the purpose of it?

A person’s unconscious mind generates a delusion when the individual is simply too terrified to contemplate and grapple with reality. Instead, the person unconsciously generates a delusion and then lives in accord with that delusion for the (obvious) reason that the delusion does not frighten them.

This unconscious delusional state is the fundamental outcome of the socialization, which I call ‘terrorization’, of the typical child during their childhood.

Endlessly and violently coerced (by a variety of threatened and actual punishments) to obey the will of parents, teachers and religious figures in denial of their own self-will, while simultaneously denied the opportunity to feel the fear, anger, sadness and other feelings that this violence causes, the child has no choice but to suppress their awareness of how they feel and the reality that caused these feelings. As a result, this leaves virtually all children feeling terrified, full of self-hatred and powerless. For brief explanations of how this happens, see ‘Understanding Self-Hatred in World Affairs’ and ‘Why Are Most Human Beings So Powerless?’

However, and this point is important, each of these feelings is extraordinarily unpleasant to feel consciously and the child never gets the listening they need to focus on feeling them. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

As a result, these feelings are suppressed below conscious awareness and this fear, self-hatred and powerlessness become the primary but unconscious psychological drivers of their behaviour and, significantly, results in them participating mindlessly in the widespread ‘socially acceptable’ delusions generated by elites and endlessly promulgated through elite channels such as education systems, the corporate media and entertainment industries.

Hence, as a result of being terrorized during childhood, delusion is the most common state of human individuals, irrespective of their role in society. For a full explanation of why this happens, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

And, as one part of their delusional state, most people must engage in the denial of reality whenever reality (unconsciously) frightens them (or threatens to bring their unconscious self-hatred or powerlessness into their awareness). See ‘The Psychology of Denial’. This, of course, means that they are frightened to take action in response to reality but also deny it is even necessary.

So what can we do about all of this? Well, as always, I would tackle the problem at various levels.

If you are one of those rare people who prefers to research the evidence and to act intelligently and powerfully in response to the truth that emerges from this evidence, I encourage you to do so. One option you have if you find the evidence of near-term human extinction compelling in light of the lacklustre official responses so far, is to join those participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’.

Obviously, tokenism on your part – such as rejecting plastic bags or collecting rubbish from public places – is not enough in the face of the profound changes needed.

Of course, if you are self-aware enough to know that you are inclined to avoid unpleasant realities and to take the action that this requires, then perhaps you could tackle this problem at its source by ‘Putting Feelings First’.

If you want intelligent,compassionate and powerful children who do not grow up living in delusion and denial, consider making ‘My Promise to Children’.

If you want to campaign on the climate, war, rainforest destruction or any other issue that brings us closer to extinction, consider developing a comprehensive nonviolent strategy to do so. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.

And if you want to participate in the worldwide effort to end violence in all of its manifestations, you are welcome to consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

In summary, the primary threat faced by humanity is not the synergistic multitude of complex social, political, economic and technological forces that are precipitating our rush to extinction.

The fundamental threat to our survival is our psychological incapacity (particularly because of our fear, self-hatred and powerlessness) to perceive reality and respond powerfully to it by formulating and implementing appropriate social, political, economic and technological measures that address our multifaceted crisis systematically.

Unless we include addressing this dysfunctional individual and collective psychological state in our strategy to avert human extinction, we will ultimately fail and extinction will indeed be our fate.

*

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here.

Jane Mayer of The New Yorker and Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks are the latest progressives to jump on the anti-Trump, pro-Russiagate bandwagon. They have made it crystal clear that, in Mayer’s words, they are not going to let Republicans, or anyone else, “take down the whole intelligence community,” by God.

Odd? Nothing is too odd when it comes to spinning and dyeing the yarn of Russiagate; especially now that some strands are unraveling from the thin material of the “Steele dossier.”

Before the 2016 election, British ex-spy Christopher Steele was contracted (through a couple of cutouts) by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee to dig up dirt on candidate Donald Trump. They paid him $168,000. They should ask for their money back.

Mayer and Uygur have now joined with other Trump-despisers and new “progressive” fans of the FBI and CIA – among them Amy Goodman and her go-to, lost-in-the-trees journalist, Marcy Wheeler of Emptywheel.net. All of them (well, maybe not Cenk) are staying up nights with needle and thread trying to sew a silk purse out of the sow’s-ear dossier of Steele allegations and then dye it red for danger.

Monday brought a new low, with a truly extraordinary one-two punch by Mayer and Uygur.

A Damning Picture?

Mayer does her part in a New Yorker article, in which she – intentionally or not – cannot seem to see the forest for the trees.

In her article, Mayer explains up front that the Steele dossier “painted a damning picture of collusion between Trump and Russia,” and then goes on to portray him as a paragon of virtue with praise that is fulsome, in the full meaning of that word. For example, a friend of Steele told Mayer that regarding Steele, “Fairness, integrity, and truth, for him, trump any ideology.”

Image result for Jane Mayer

Now, if one refuses to accept this portrait on faith, then you are what Mayer describes as a “Trump defender.” According to Mayer (image on the right), Trump defenders argue that Steele is “a dishonest Clinton apparatchik who had collaborated with American intelligence and law enforcement officials to fabricate false charges against Trump and his associates, in a dastardly (sic) attempt to nullify the 2016 election. According to this story line, it was not the President who needed to be investigated, but the investigators themselves.”

Can you imagine!

I could not help but think that Mayer wrote her piece some months ago and that she and her editors might have missed more recent documentary evidence that gives considerable support to that “dastardly” story line. But seriously, it should be possible to suspect Steele of misfeasance or malfeasance – or simply telling his contractors what he knows they want to hear – without being labeled a “Trump supporter.” I, for example, am no Trump supporter.  I am, however, a former intelligence officer and I have long since concluded that what Steele served up is garbage.

Character References

Mayer reports that Richard Dearlove, head of MI6 from 1999 to 2004, described Steele as “superb.” Personally, I would shun any “recommendation” from that charlatan. Are memories so short? Dearlove was the intelligence chief who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23, 2002 after a quick trip to Washington. The official minutes of that meeting were leaked to the London Times and published on May 1, 2005.

Dearlove explained to Blair that President George W. Bush had decided to attack Iraq for regime change and that the war was to be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.” Dearlove added matter-of-factly, “The intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy.”

Another character reference Mayer gives for Steele is former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin (from 2000 to 2004) who, with his boss George Tenet, did the fixing of intelligence to “justify” the war on Iraq. State Department intelligence director at the time, Carl Ford, told the authors of “Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War” that both McLaughlin and Tenet “should have been shot” for what they did.

And then there is CIA veteran spy John Sipher who, Mayer says, “ran the Agency’s Russia program before retiring, in 2014.” Sipher tells her he thinks the Steele dossier is “generally credible” in “saying what Russia might be up to.” Sipher may be a good case officer but he has shown himself to be something of a cipher on substance.

Worse still, he displays a distinct inclination toward the remarkable view of former National Intelligence Director James Clapper, who has said that Russians are “typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever.” If Mayer wanted to find some ostensibly authoritative figure to endorse the kind of material in Steele’s dossier, she surely picked a good one in Sipher.

Mayer notes,

“It’s too early to make a final judgment about how much of Steele’s dossier will be proved wrong, but a number of Steele’s major claims have been backed up by subsequent disclosures. She includes, as flat fact, his claim that the Kremlin and WikiLeaks were working together to release the DNC’s emails, but provides no evidence.

Major Holes

Mayer, however, should know better. There have been lots of holes in the accusation that the Russians hacked the DNC and gave the material to WikiLeaks to publish. Here’s one major gap we reported on Jan. 20, 2017: President Barack Obama told his last press conference on Jan. 18, that the U.S. intelligence community had no idea how the Democratic emails reached WikiLeaks.

Using lawyerly language, Obama admitted that

“the conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked.”

It is necessary to carefully parse Obama’s words since he prides himself in his oratorical constructs. He offered a similarly designed comment at a Dec. 16, 2016 press conference when he said:

“based on uniform intelligence assessments, the Russians were responsible for hacking the DNC. … the information was in the hands of WikiLeaks.”

Note the disconnect between the confidence about hacking and the stark declarative sentence about the information ending up at WikiLeaks. Obama does not bridge the gap because to do so would be a bald-faced lie, which some honest intelligence officer might call him on. So, he simply presented the two sides of the chasm – implies a connection – but leaves it to the listener to make the leap.

It was, of course, WikiLeaks that published the very damaging Democratic information, for example, on the DNC’s dirty tricks that marginalized Sen. Bernie Sanders and ensured that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would win the Democratic nomination. What remained to be demonstrated was that it was “the Russians” who gave those emails to WikiLeaks. And that is what the U.S. intelligence community could not honestly say.

Saying it now, without evidence, does not make it true.

Cenk Also in Sync

Image result for Cenk Uygur

Cenk Uygur (image on the left) of The Young Turks at once picked up, big time, on the part of Mayer’s article that homes in on an “astonishing” report from Steele in late November 2016 quoting one “senior Russian official.” According to that official, “The Kremlin had intervened to block Trump’s initial choice for secretary of state, Mitt Romney.” Steele’s late November memo alleged that the Kremlin had asked Trump to appoint someone who would be prepared to lift Ukraine-related sanctions and cooperate on security issues like Syria.

Mayer commented,

“As fantastical as the memo sounds, subsequent events could be said to support it.”

Fantastical or not, Uygur decided to run with it. His amazing 12-minute video is titled: “New Steele Dossier: Putin PICKED Trump’s Secretary of State.” Uygur asks: “Who does Tillerson work for; and that also goes for the President.”

Return to Sanity

As an antidote to all the above, let me offer this cogent piece on the views of Joseph E. diGenova, who speaks out of his unique experience, including as Counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee). The article is entitled: “The Politicization of the FBI.”

“Over the past year,” diGenova wrote, “facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the presidency.”

He pointed out that nearly half of Americans, according to a CBS poll, believe that Mueller’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is “politically motivated.” And, he noted, 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.

This skepticism is entirely warranted, as diGenova explains, with the Russiagate probe being characterized by overreach from the beginning.

*

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).

Those Liberals Engulfed by a Certain Idea of Freedom

March 8th, 2018 by Enzo Pellegrin

In April 1947, still at the side of ruins of the Second World War, the members of the so-called “Liberal International” met in Oxford. A solemn declaration emerged from the congress, then passed to the history of the liberals as the “Oxford Manifesto“.

Inside it, the liberals of 19 nations “assembled at Oxford at a time of disorder, poverty, famine and fear caused by two World Wars; convinced that this condition of the world is largely due to the abandonment of liberal principles” stated a series of standings, including:

The State is only the instrument of the community; it should assume no power which conflicts with the fundamental rights of the citizens and with the conditions essential for a responsible and creative life, namely […] The right to private ownership of property and the right to embark on individual enterprise“.

They went on saying that

These rights and conditions can be secured only by true democracy. True democracy is inseparable from political liberty and is based on the conscious, free and enlightened consent of the majority, expressed through a free and secret ballot, with due respect for the liberties and opinions of minorities.

They added:

The suppression of economic freedom must lead to the disappearance of political freedom. We oppose such suppression, whether brought about by State ownership or control or by private monopolies, cartels and trusts. We admit State ownership only for those undertakings which are beyond the scope of private enterprise or in which competition no longer plays its part

As far as the form that economic relations should have for the realization of such principles, it was confirmed that the free circulation of goods and production factors was an irreplaceable dogma, that in the coming years would be the backbone of the current neoliberalism:

“War can be abolished and world peace and economic prosperity restored only if all nations fulfill the following conditions: […] the free exchange of ideas, news, goods and services between nations, as well as freedom of travel within and between all countries, unhampered by censorship, protective trade barriers and exchange regulations”

In 1997, in the advanced development of the West, far from the ruins of II WW, but close to those wars that the neoliberal economic system had helped to create, the Liberal International met again in Oxford, reaffirming the commitments of the 1947 manifesto. In particular, it was stated that “state control of the economy and private monopolies both threaten political liberty”, but shortly thereafter they specified that “we believe that an economy based on free market rules leads to the most efficient distribution of wealth and resources, encourages innovation, and promotes flexibility.”

War on Yugoslavia

In 1997, it had not been a long time since The first Gulf War (August 1990-February 1991), but there was the smoking rubble of the Yugoslav wars and of the Western intervention in Kosovo. Such wars are examples of blatant connection between the interests of corporate industrial monopolies and the campaigns of destabilization and aggression of NATO Alliance, after the fall of the socialist bloc.

This kind of political and economic world order followed the first bricks of neo-liberal construction of “free trade and competition on a world scale”. This has been reached also through evolution of those “international organizations” so dear to the liberal “manifestino” of 1997: GATT, WTO, IMF, World Bank, regional organizations such as EU, coming to the current partnership agreements, from Transatlantic to the Transpacific one.

This ideological pillar, together with “destatization” processes, was one of the Oxfordian convictions: the free play of forces in an economic competition leads to growth, progress and political freedom.

The “wealth of nations” of Adam Smith lies as a spiritual shadow in the background.

This work was written by Adam Smith in 1776, when “his” nation, the English Empire, had already conquered – precisely through ruthless competition also by the means of economic sovereignty defined “protectionism” – political and military hegemony, maritime power all over the globe and especially above the others mercantilist competitors. From now on, in the free game of competition, the British economic power would have been hegemonic. When you are sure to be the strongest, you can play with open rules.

Which growth, economic and political freedom peace have brought to the peoples these campaigns of liberalization and expansion of economic competition is history of today. We can see around the “free world” the rubble of war, the disaster of massive poverty, generated by what is perhaps the most serious and massive overproduction crisis with subsequent stagnation.

Increased competition favors the survival of the strongest: monopoly corporations which are able to dominate and face the financial market. Through the “international organizations” and by the promotion of neoliberalism, the control on economy by State has certainly been weakened –  up to the point of erasing it. It is the case of weak State members of regional organizations such as EU. Along this, almost indestructible foundations of an even larger Leviathan were built: International and Regionale Organizations full of sovereignty, Partnership Treaties, Military Alliances. All these were directly responsive to the business committees of private monopolies. They don’t need no more to control or to limit the State. They have “their state”.

The sacredness of right to the individual enterprise initiative has ended up crushing the individuals in the grinding of competition, stealing them the freedom which they longed for. There is no single entrepreneur who is not, under a certain level, completely subject to financial powers or other larger monopolies.

More importantly, free competition of production factors on a global scale has led to the almost total disappearance of political freedom, of sovereignty and right to self-determinate for States, peoples and individuals. In the present,  political power relations produce pseudo-representative democracies in which minorities have no longer a voice, majorities enjoy a “dictatorship” (in the liberal sense of term, not in the Marxist tradition) ensured by disproportionate electoral prizes and barrier clauses that place in void the representativeness of millions and millions of votes.

It becomes very difficult to affirm the existence of political freedom when over 4 million votes are often not enough to guarantee parliamentary representation.

The excessive power of media mainstream and the strict rules for submitting an electoral application or candidacy prevent the growth of real opposition forces, disconnected from electoral cartels or concentrations of power pleasing to the real holders of economic, political and military force.

In short, the paradise that free market had to guarantee was transformed into that hell that liberals wanted to romantically fight with an inexhaustible faith in individual.

I wonder if liberals of 1947 Manifesto remembered (the memory was fresher) that their Italian colleagues collaborated with fascism at the time of its rise to power, becoming part of the first Mussolini government, continuing to support it, even after the release of the members of Popular Party, up to join the fascists, in the following elections, in a “big list”. This ones took benefit and power from antidemocratic award of “Acerbo” electoral law, which attributed to the list that had reached the relative majority (exceeding 25% of votes) a prize that allowed them to get the two-thirds of the Chamber’s seats. The “new” electoral law had been approved by the Chamber on July 21, 1923, thanks to the favorable vote of fascists, liberals and exponents of the Catholic right.

Leaving aside representative democracies, we return to “human rights” argument, so dear to the mystique of the liberals.

There is no era, like today’s, in which fundamental rights have not become expensive goods, even in the so-called “developed countries”. Indeed, especially in those.

You have no right to live if you do not have the money to pay health treatments, you have no right to family if you do not have the money to pay for education, house and doctor for your children. You have no right to free movement if you do not have the money to move.

Above all, you have no right to information, free culture and science. You do not have it absolutely – even you can pay – especially in western countries.

It is really ungenerous to comment on paragraph dedicated to “The advance of Liberalism, 1947-97“.

They speak  about “the return of freedom and democracy to the former communist countries in Europe”, and today in many Eastern countries there are authoritarian regimes, if not openly fascist, like in Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, where the lack of respecting human rights and labour rights act as a lever to submit the working class and in general to erase social rights of whole Europe. It is not by chance that these regimes are supported by the western economic and liberal alliances.

They talk about “the spread of democratic government and the rule of law”, and never as in the current era the respect of law and Constitution is seen as a nuisance, where it limits the economic power of monopolies, and it is remembered and utilized only when it is necessary to repress dissent.

They note a “growing respect for human rights, both within states and as a subject for international oversight and – where necessary – intervention”, and never as in our time human rights violations are practiced in increasingly extended areas in the world, especially in areas controlled by or joined with the Western military and economic alliances (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Hungary, Poland, Turkey). The right of intervention is only practiced against the troublesome political and economic competitor for the Western world, often with fake charges of  violations.

A pitiful veil can be drawn up on considerations regarding “increased freedom of information, communication and travel, both within and across national boundaries”, or the “acceptance that shared responsibility within the world community extends to a common obligation to tackle world poverty and to protect the global environment”, misplaced arguments and non-existent circumstances just in 1997, when they can face with the disinformation perpetrated on the Yugoslav wars, and the exploitation of the third world and of the global environment.

Returning to political freedom and representative democracies, I want to quote a reflection by an Italian essayist and mathematician, Piergiorgio Odifreddi, from his latest amusing script “Democracy does not exist“. Regarding the development of today’s political tendencies, the mathematician recalls the well-known paradox of the two ice-cream sellers, which also strongly suggests the relationship between freedom of economic initiative, competition and participation in social life.

On ice-cream sellers, “their optimal arrangement, on a kilometer-long beach, should be 250 meters from the two extremes, so that no bather has to travel more than 250 meters to go and buy ice cream. But since the bathers located towards the extremities will go from the nearest ice-cream anyway, each of the two ice-cream sellers tends to approach the center to steal customers from the other, until the two are in the same position, with the possible consequence that bathers of the two extremes give up buying ice cream, if the distance from the center is perceived by them as excessive. “(P. Odifreddi, La democrazia non esiste. Critica matematica della ragione politica, p.18, Rizzoli 2018, Milan, Italy).

The abstention of today’s bi-tripolar representative systems is now around stable percentages close to 30%, with occasional peaks that reach half of the voters in particular electoral events. In any case, the statistical trend is constantly increasing, even in those countries where voting is compulsory (figure 1). Even the recent Italian general elections saw a turnout of 73%:  two points less than the previous elections in 2013, where 75.20% had voted.

In this way, the true Leviathan has solved the problem of representativeness: the remaining voters concentrate their preference in the center, where you find people able to abdicate so much to their aims and interests for an ice cream. Odifreddi quotes Bertrand Russell, who noted that politicians can never be more stupid than their electors.

*

Enzo Pellegrin is a criminal lawyer and a militant of the Communist Party in Italy. He usually writes on the website www.resistenze.org and on his blog “boraest” (www.boraest.com).

Featured image is from Liberal International.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Those Liberals Engulfed by a Certain Idea of Freedom

Washington Wrecks Cyber Security Talks

March 8th, 2018 by Arkady Savitsky

Cybersecurity (CS) is the latest frontier in warfare. Much has been said about the need to work out certain rules to prevent an “unfettered arms race” and “combat operations” in this domain. Last year, Russia and the US agreed to discuss these issues and form a working group. The need for a joint approach to the problem during a telephone exchange between the two presidents. US pundits have discussed it in depth.

Many hopes were pinned on these Russia-US cyber talks. If they could get off the ground, they would be viewed as a light at the end of the tunnel. Negotiations over strategies in regard to this “fifth domain” might expand to also include land, air, sea, and space. It took a lot of effort to reach an agreement to hold a dialog on February 27-28 in Geneva. Experts had been impatiently waiting for the two powers to address this burning issue.

The whole world heard National Security Advisor H. R. McMaster claiming at the Munich Security Conference in February that the US was ready for such talks. Russia had initiated the efforts to reach an agreement aimed at restricting military operations in cyberspace. The 17-member Russian delegation arrived in Switzerland ready to roll up their sleeves, buckle down, and work hard to tackle the issue and get something accomplished, but Washington torpedoed the consultations. It informed Moscow that its delegation was not coming. It was a last-minute pull out.

That’s pretty tacky! You talk to someone and reach an accord, but then when the time comes to do what had been agreed upon, your counterpart simply doesn’t show up at the scheduled meeting with no advance notice! This isn’t something we’re used to seeing in diplomacy. Or is this a new trend in the evolution of international diplomatic protocol?

As a result, Moscow cut off the Russian-US consultations on strategic stability and bilateral relations that were slated to begin March 6-7 in Vienna. Russia has called for a broad international effort to prevent the militarization of cyberspace. The lessons learned from implementing the 1972 INCSEA Agreement and the 1989 DMA Agreement could help guide this work. Several European NATO members have shown their interest in joining the cybersecurity negotiations. But the US stymied the process, at least in a Russia-NATO format. It’s a pity, because the issue could have become part of a broader Russia-NATO and OSCE agenda.

CS is an area in which agreements can be reached. For instance, Russia and China signed an agreement on CS in 2015. Their deal on cyber security could serve as an example for other states that are willing to join in those efforts. The only initiative aimed at tackling CS on a global level was launched by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2015. It did not go far because of the West’s reluctance to discuss it.

In 2013, Russia and the US came up with a package of agreements that included the exchange of information and emergency response teams. They agreed to use the operational nuclear hotline to also address cyber emergencies. It never got off the ground. The dialog was suspended in 2014 after Crimea joined the Russian Federation.

On Feb. 27 in Geneva the process could have been given a new lease on life. The first-ever non-aggression pact in the cybersphere could have been signed and it could have had room to grow. Once Moscow had agreements in place with both parties, Russia could have acted as a link between Washington and Beijing. America and Russia could have come together to draft an international agreement, outlining universal rules to regulate cyber operations on a global level. After all, the protection of critical infrastructure, such as power and water supplies, against cyberattacks is an issue of common interest, which requires joint efforts, regardless of any political divisions or affiliations.

Without curbs on cyberwarfare, cyber operations might spiral out of control. Without established rules, we could see dangerous consequences. Hostilities could spill over into other areas. In 2001, the US left the 1972 ABM Treaty. Seventeen years later it was surprised to discover that all those years of missile-defense efforts had gone down the drain and that Russia is now leading the superweapons race. On March 1, President Putin elaborated on this issue in his address to the Federal Assembly. A few days ago, the US missed its chance to address the problem of cyberwarfare. It’s quite possible that eventually it will find itself lagging behind in this area as well. And maybe one day it will appreciate the wisdom that can be gained by learning one’s lessons and seizing opportunities.

*

Arkady Savitsky is a military analyst based in St Petersburg, Russia.

Featured image is from the author.

Don’t you understand what I’m trying to say?
And can’t you feel the fears I’m feeling today?
If the button is pushed, there’s no running away,
There’ll be no one to save with the world in a grave,
Take a look around you, boy, it’s bound to scare you, boy,
And you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.

—Barry McGuire, “Eve of Destruction,” 1965

From 2002 until 2011, Paul Marcarelli, perhaps better known to American audiences as Verizon’s “test guy,” made a career starring in television commercials, wandering the width and breadth of the United States, holding a phone to his ear and asking the simple question, “Can you hear me now?” Verizon was, and is, in the communications business in which the ability to send a message is only as good as the corresponding ability to receive it.

On Thursday, Vladimir Putin, Russia’s much-maligned president, delivered his state of the nation address to the Russian Federal Assembly (the Russian national Legislature, consisting of the State Duma, or lower house, and the Russian Council, or upper house). While the first half of his speech dealt with Russian domestic issues—and any American who has bought into Western media perceptions that Russia is a collapsing state, possessing a failed economy, would do well to read this portion of the speech—it was the second half of the presentation that caused the world to sit up and listen.

In this portion of the speech, Putin outlined developments in Russian strategic military capability. The developments collectively signal the obsolescence of America’s strategic nuclear deterrence, both in terms of its present capabilities and—taking into account the $1.2 trillion nuclear weapons modernization program President Trump unveiled earlier this year—anything America might pursue in the decades to come.

Some Western observers have derided Putin’s speech as simple posturing, a manic effort to project Russian power, and with it global credibility, where none exists. Such an interpretation would be incorrect. There should be no doubt among American politicians, military leaders and citizens alike. “Every word has a meaning,” Putin told his audience. The weapons he referred to are real, and Putin meant every word he said.

“Back in 2000,” he said, “the U.S. announced its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Russia was categorically against this. We saw the Soviet-U.S. ABM Treaty signed in 1972 as the cornerstone of the international security system. … Together with the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [START], the ABM Treaty not only created an atmosphere of trust but also prevented either party from recklessly using nuclear weapons, which would have endangered humankind. … We did our best to dissuade the Americans from withdrawing from the treaty. All in vain.”

“The U.S. pulled out of the treaty in 2002,” Putin observed. “Even after that, we tried to develop constructive dialogue with the Americans. We proposed working together in this area to ease concerns and maintain the atmosphere of trust. At one point, I thought that a compromise was possible, but this was not to be. All our proposals, absolutely all of them, were rejected. And then we said that we would have to improve our modern strike systems to protect our security. In reply, the U.S. said that it is not creating a global BMD [Ballistic Missile Defense] system against Russia, which is free to do as it pleases, and that the U.S. will presume that our actions are not spearheaded against the U.S.”

Building on his well-known position, delivered in his 2005 state of the nation address, that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century” that created “genuine drama” in which “the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself,” Putin said in his 2018 state of the nation address that

“apparently, our partners got the impression that it was impossible in the foreseeable historical perspective for our country to revive its economy, industry, defense industry and armed forces to levels supporting the necessary strategic potential. And if that is the case, there is no point in reckoning with Russia’s opinion, it is necessary to further pursue ultimate unilateral military advantage in order to dictate the terms in every sphere in the future. …”

“We ourselves are to blame,” Putin said. “All these years, the entire 15 years since the withdrawal of the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, we have consistently tried to reengage the American side in serious discussions, in reaching agreements in the sphere of strategic stability.”

However, Putin observed, the United States “is permitting constant, uncontrolled growth of the number of anti-ballistic missiles, improving their quality, and creating new missile launching areas. If we do not do something, eventually this will result in the complete devaluation of Russia’s nuclear potential. Meaning that all of our missiles could simply be intercepted.”

Putin pointed out that in 2004, he put the world on notice about Russia’s intent to defend itself, telling the press:

“As other countries increase the number and quality of their arms and military potential, Russia will also need to ensure it has new generation weapons and technology. … [T]his is a very significant statement because no country in the world as of now has such arms in their military arsenal.”

“Why did we do all this?” Putin asked his audience, referring to his 2004 comments. “Why did we talk about it? As you can see, we made no secret of our plans and spoke openly about them, primarily to encourage our partners to hold talks. No, nobody really wanted to talk to us about the core of the problem, and nobody wanted to listen to us. So listen now. …”

“To those who in the past 15 years have tried to accelerate an arms race and seek unilateral advantage against Russia, have introduced restrictions and sanctions that are illegal from the standpoint of international law aiming to restrain our nation’s development, including in the military area, I will say this: Everything you have tried to prevent through such a policy has already happened. No one has managed to restrain Russia.”

This was a message delivered not just to the Russian Federal Assembly, but to the White House and its temperamental occupant, President Donald Trump, to the halls of Congress, where Russia-baiting has become a full-time occupation, and to the American people, who have been caught up in a wave of anti-Russia hysteria fueled by fantastical claims of a Russian “attack” on American democracy which, when balanced against the potential of thermonuclear annihilation, pales into insignificance. Putin spoke, and one would hope that throughout America the modern-day incarnations of Verizon’s Paul Marcarelli are making their way into the homes of every American citizen and the halls of power where those the American people elect to represent them reside, and calling out,

“Can you hear me now?”

Based upon the reaction to Putin’s speech so far, the answer appears to be “no.” This refusal to accept the fact that there exists today a new reality carries with it the potential for catastrophic miscalculation. In Pat Frank’s 1959 novel, “Alas, Babylon,” an American Navy fighter aircraft flying over the Mediterranean Sea fires a missile that veers off target, striking an ammunition depot near the Syrian city of Latakia, setting off a massive explosion that the Soviet Union uses as an excuse to initiate a retaliatory nuclear strike against the United States.

It doesn’t take a stretch of imagination today to paint a scenario in which American and Russian forces clash over Syria. Indeed, a recent incident—in which Syrian militia forces, supported by Russian private military contractors, advanced toward Syrian oil and gas fields occupied by U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters, only to be attacked by American fighter bombers, resulting in hundreds of casualties, including scores of Russian dead—underscores the fact that such clashes are no longer theoretical.

Russian and American aircraft patrol the same airspace. American and Russian troops face off on the ground below. American forces are charged with implementing a policy that is diametrically opposed to the one being pursued by their Russian counterparts. So far, clashes have been limited to proxies, but it is only a question of when, not if, American and Russian forces engage in force-on-force combat.

Syria is not the only geographical point of friction between the United States and Russia. Both the Baltic States and Ukraine find American and Russian forces facing off against one another. American ships and reconnaissance aircraft probing the waters and airspace off the Baltic coast and in the Black Sea have been aggressively challenged by Russian aircraft, oftentimes flying dangerously close to their American counterparts, prompting then-Secretary of State John Kerry to declare that the U.S. Navy would be justified in shooting down the Russians in “self-defense.”

The almost cavalier ease with which the idea of Russian-American combat is floated as a possibility by American decision-makers is born out of a misplaced notion of American military superiority which, while reflecting an accurate estimate of the situation 10 years ago, is no longer the case today. After Russia emerged victorious in its short war with the republic of Georgia in 2008, many shortfalls in communications, organization and training were revealed that underscored the second-class nature of the Russian military when compared with the United States and NATO. Russia undertook a crash program, restructuring its military units, professionalizing its ranks, and investing in top-of-the line equipment, including modern communications. The Russian military that occupied the Crimea in 2014 was orders of magnitude better than the one that fought Georgia six years prior. The Russian military fighting in Syria today (and facing off against the Americans in the Baltics and Ukraine) is even better.

The United States, in recent years, has transitioned away from almost exclusively training for low-intensity conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is once again preparing to fight large-scale combined arms engagements against “near-peer” forces whose training and/or equipment is inferior to the American military. Comments made by U.S. military officers who have recently deployed to the Baltics make it clear that they believe the superiority of American arms serves as a deterrence to Russian regional ambitions. The reality is, even if Russia were to pursue ill-intent against its eastern European neighbors that manifested in military aggression (and there is no indication that this is the case), the notion of American and NATO ground forces serving as a force in deterrence is not sustainable. In fact, in many categories, such as tactical communications, artillery support and armor employment, the Russians outclass their American counterparts. Recent war games show that Russia would defeat NATO in any conflict in the Baltics.

But the quality of the Russian military is not the point. What is important, at least in the context of a broader discussion on comparative nuclear posture, is that 20 years ago, when Russia was militarily inferior to the United States, the Russian leadership embraced a policy of nuclear “de-escalation,” which envisioned the early use of tactical nuclear weapons by Russia to offset the conventional military advantages enjoyed by the United States and NATO. Through this policy, Russia sought to leverage its strong capabilities in tactical nuclear weapons by making the cost of regional engagement too high for any potential opponent. The policy of nuclear de-escalation was born during the time of the Chechen crisis, in the late 1990s, when Russia feared the possibility of Western intervention in that conflict. It served as the backbone of Russia’s nuclear posture in both 2008 and 2014, when Russia intervened in Georgia and Ukraine, respectively. And it backed up Russia’s decision to intervene in Syria in 2015.

This Russian nuclear policy was noted in the 2018 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, which said that “Russian strategy and doctrine emphasize the potential coercive and military uses of nuclear weapons. It mistakenly assesses that the threat of nuclear escalation or actual first use of nuclear weapons would serve to ‘de-escalate’ a conflict on terms favorable to Russia. These mistaken perceptions increase the prospect for dangerous miscalculation and escalation.”

No truer words could have been written. And yet, the Trump administration seems in no hurry to undertake any actions vis-à-vis Russia that would reduce the possibility of any such miscalculation and escalation. While noting in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review that “arms control can contribute to U.S., allied, and partner security by helping to manage strategic competition among states,” the Trump administration went on to declare that “progress in arms control is not an end in and of itself, and depends on the security environment and the participation of willing partners.”

It was as if the entire history of U.S.-Russian arms control referred to by Putin in his state of the nation address never happened.

But it is not just history the Trump administration clouds over. The present and future is likewise shrouded in a cloud of wishful thinking that ignores the progress in Russian strategic capabilities promised by Putin in 2004 and delivered upon in 2018.

“The United States,” the Nuclear Posture Review states, “remains willing to engage in a prudent arms control agenda. We are prepared to consider arms control opportunities that return parties to predictability and transparency, and remain receptive to future arms control negotiations if conditions permit and the potential outcome improves the security of the United States and its allies and partners.”

Noting that “there is no ‘one size fits all’ for deterrence,” the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review states that “the United States will apply a tailored and flexible approach to effectively deter across a spectrum of adversaries, threats, and contexts” in order to “communicate to different potential adversaries that their aggression would carry unacceptable risks and intolerable costs according to their particular calculations of risk and cost.”

While not specifically naming Russia, the Trump administration put Moscow on notice that it “must understand that there are no possible benefits from non-nuclear aggression or limited nuclear escalation. … [P]otential adversaries must recognize that across the emerging range of threats and contexts: 1) the United States is able to identify them and hold them accountable for acts of aggression, including new forms of aggression; 2) we will defeat non-nuclear strategic attacks; and, 3) any nuclear escalation will fail to achieve their objectives, and will instead result in unacceptable consequences for them.”

The Russian president heard the message the United States was communicating.

“We are greatly concerned by certain provisions of the revised nuclear posture review,” Putin said, “which expand the opportunities for reducing and reduce the threshold for the use of nuclear arms. Behind closed doors, one may say anything to calm down anyone, but we read what is written. And what is written is that this strategy can be put into action in response to conventional arms attacks and even to a cyber threat.”

*

Scott Ritter spent more than a dozen years in the intelligence field, beginning in 1985 as a ground intelligence officer with the US Marine Corps, where he served with the Marine Corps component of the Rapid Deployment Force at the Brigade and Battalion level. 


If you look to Global Research as a resource for information and understanding, to stay current on world events or to experience diversity and transparency in your news, please consider making a donation to support our endeavours.

Global Research is an independent organization that is funded exclusively through the support of its readers. It does not accept public or private funding. Every contribution helps us continue to bring you the up-to-date, incisive information that you count on.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Are You Listening, America? “If the Button is Pushed, There’s No Running Away”
  • Tags: ,

Trump to Formally Sign Off on New Tariffs

March 8th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

According to administration trade representative Peter Navarro, Trump will formally sign off on new steel and aluminum tariffs Thursday afternoon in the Oval Office.

They’ll be effective in 15 – 30 days.

“The proclamation will have a clause that does not impose these tariffs immediately on Canada and Mexico,” Navarro explained.

Permanent exclusion depends on successfully renegotiating NAFTA, he added. According to Labor Department data, 930,000 US jobs were lost under the trade deal through 2017.

Months of US, Canada, Mexico negotiations failed to achieve a breakthrough for revising NAFTA, a seventh round of talks ongoing in Mexico City, facing a March 31 deadline to complete a deal.

Sticking points include restructuring NAFTA’s investment, procurement and rules of origin terms, along with its Investment-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system – established to serve predatory corporate interests over consumer welfare, safety and environmental concerns.

ISDS also promotes offshoring US jobs. A corporate controlled extrajudicial tribunal resolves disputes.

Corporate lobbyists want ISDS preserved. Weeks remain in Mexico City talks to try resolving differences.

US steel and aluminum tariffs will be imposed on Canadian and Mexican steel if resolution isn’t achieved.

Trump initially said tariffs would apply to all countries, China his main target, later expressing willingness to allow exemptions for designated nations under certain conditions.

His chief economic advisor Gary Cohn resigned over the tariff issue, strongly opposing it, supporting anti-consumer globalist policies like most others in Washington.

On Wednesday, 107 GOP House members wrote Trump, saying:

“We are committed to acting with you and our trading partners on meaningful and effective action. But we urge you to reconsider the idea of broad tariffs to avoid unintended negative consequences.”

Britain’s Tory government trade and investment minister Greg Hands said

“(w)e are very disappointed by (Trump’s) apparent intention to do this, but we do actually await something more concrete as to what may actually happen.”

EU and IMF officials warned about a possible trade war. Brussels vowed tit-for-tat retaliation.

On Wednesday, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom said

“(w)e are…intensively talking to our American partners. We have done so for a very long time.”

“We should be clear that no decision has been taken so far…We still hope, as the US security partner, that the EU will be excluded,” adding:

“But we have made clear that if the move like this is taken, it will hurt the European Union, it will put thousands of European jobs in jeopardy, and it has to be met by a firm and proportionate response.”

World Trade Organization Roberto Azevedo warned about stiff tariffs causing a “deep (global) recession.”

Separately, Trump may impose new tariffs on a range of Chinese products, according to unnamed administration sources, accusing Beijing of intellectual property theft.

Last Friday, Trump irresponsibly tweeted:

“Trade wars are good, and easy to win.”

According to Global Trade Watch director Lori Wallach, around 100,000 steel and aluminum workers in America lost jobs over the past decade.

World overproduction of steel exists. America ends up the “buyer of last resort,” flooded with subsidized foreign steel. Wallach believes trade war warnings are way overblown.

Economist Michael Hudson said imposing tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum won’t create more US jobs in either industry.

Trump’s policy will “enabl(e) the steel and the aluminum companies to use their increased profits for share buybacks and to pay dividends, but they’re not going to build new factories” or hire more workers.

Imposition of tariffs by Trump is more political than economic. Businessman Trump was a notorious deal-breaker.

He’s trying to operate the same way as president, believing deals he makes he can break for national security reasons, Hudson explained.

*

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

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

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

How a Century of War Changed the Lives of Women

March 8th, 2018 by Lindsey German

Relevant article selected from the GR archive, crossposted on GR in February 2013.

*

Why did the anti-war movement become such a vehicle for women’s political action, and what does that tell us about the position of women today?

This is the introduction to Lindsey German’s new book, How a Century of War Changed the Lives of Women. Lindsey is convenor of Stop the War Coalition. Her previous books include A People’s History of London (2012) and Material Girls (2007).

The Stop the War movement, which began over a decade ago in response to the War on Terror, has become the biggest mass movement in British political history. One of its most remarkable features has been the involvement of women of all ages, races and backgrounds who have been at its centre.

Why did this movement become such a vehicle for women’s political action, and what does that tell us about the position of women today? To answer these questions we must look not just at the past few years, but at the changes that have taken place over the past century.

Women’s liberation and war have often been intertwined in modern history, with the atrocities of war making a dramatic impact on women’s role. The history of the two world wars is full of stories of women who broke through stereotypes, worked in unfamiliar jobs, acted with great courage, became feminists, rejected relationships with men and took up arms.

Successive wars have shown not just women involved in wars − although in this era of total war it is impossible to ignore the direct involvement of civilians in war and the effect on them − but women taking an increasing part in opposing them.

It is almost 100 years since the world descended into the horror of the first of two world wars. It began in sunshine and patriotic fervour, endured four years of mud, misery, injury and carnage on an unprecedented scale, and ended in revolutions and social upheaval. The First World War was a watershed: it deposed kings and emperors, ushered in universal suffrage and workers’ revolution, and changed people’s attitude to war forever.

Governments of the wealthiest countries have never again been able to preside over such carnage and the death of some ten million young men across Europe and further afield. But if the war changed the lives of young men and their families, it also had a profound effect on women.

By the end of the war they had experienced working in jobs previously reserved for men and been paid wages higher than they were able to earn in domestic service, the biggest single employer of women before 1914.

Although they were denied access to some of these jobs when the war ended, they continued to work in greater numbers and in some of the new fields of work that were opening up. They had the vote, or at least some of them did (full female suffrage would have to wait another decade). They started wearing much more comfortable and unrestricted styles of dress. And while marriage and motherhood were still considered women’s main roles, the number of children that women had began to decline quite sharply.

The life-changing impact of the Second World War, just a generation later, was even more dramatic. Women worked in essential industries, joined the armed forces and many jettisoned ideas about chastity and taboos on sex before marriage with great enthusiasm. Again, while they were encouraged to return to the home, marriage and family after 1945, women embarked on careers and education which challenged the traditional stereotypes.

Modern industrialised warfare is fundamentally different. We now have wars of total attrition. Industrial mass production creates and sustains vast armies and unprecedented firepower, and results in unparalleled killing and destruction. It is qualitatively different from previous eras. At Waterloo (1815) Britain had 156 guns; at the Somme (1916) the British army had 1,400 guns, and fired nearly two million shells in just a few days. The Prussian army at Waterloo had 60,000 men; by 1914 the German army had 1.5 million men on the Western Front alone. One outcome of modern firepower was often stalemate and wars of attrition. Industrial output was decisive, mobilising not just soldiers but workers in war industries too. Women were crucial on the home front.

This book is an attempt to understand the relationship between women and war in Britain in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Unlike most of Europe during the Second World War, Britain escaped Nazi occupation, but it was nonetheless subject to heavy bombardment and high levels of government intervention, as well as conscription to create a war economy.

The Second World War shaped the lives of my generation, born in the postwar era of optimism, when people expected improvements in health, education and housing provision as a reward for the terrible years of war, death and dislocation our parents and grandparents had endured. The second half of the twentieth century offered more opportunities for women than at any time in history, and the basis for many of those opportunities was created in the first half of a century which witnessed not only two world wars, but also the worst economic crisis to date.

War has a terrible impact on all people, but increasingly on women as victims of injury, rape, displacement and death. But in Britain and a number of other countries it has also promoted women’s emancipation by breaking down oppressive social structures. Many of the great social changes from which my generation benefited had their genesis in war; others were already in gestation but were advanced by the two world wars.

This was true of the vote for women, equal pay, first raised by trade unionists in the munitions industry and in public transport during the First World War but not granted even in a weakened form until the 1970s, more accessible divorce, education at higher levels, employment in ‘men’s’ jobs, and a falling birth rate.

Although I was born six years after the Second World War ended, the fact of the war was a major feature in my life. ‘The war’ was a constant reference point. My father, and the fathers of most of my friends, had been in the armed forces. The only time they had been abroad was as a result of the war: to Sicily, Burma, North Africa, Greece. One uncle lost a leg at Nijmegen, Holland in 1944. Another, a merchant seaman, was in the river police during the Blitz, then transported troops across the Channel on D-day. London was peppered with bomb sites. My primary school still had its air raid shelters, now stuffed with old desks and equipment.

However, it struck me from a young age that there was another side to the war and one that I understood especially from my mother. This was in stark contrast to the image of war projected from most sources. It was about going out to work and having enough money to go to the Streatham Locarno, the London Palladium and especially the Hammersmith Palais with Canadian and American soldiers and airmen, with money in their pockets and only a brief time to enjoy.

This lifestyle was not enjoyed by all women, but my mother was a teenager when war broke out and had no family responsibilities or children. However, her experience was typical of many young women and shows how the war gave them opportunities they would have thought impossible only a few years earlier. Most importantly, they paved the way for future generations to seize opportunities which they were only beginning to define and articulate.

This was in unoccupied Britain. Just a short distance across the Channel, women’s lives were much more dangerous and repressive. Women in the occupied countries and under the Axis powers faced rape, torture, imprisonment, death on a daily basis. Nevertheless many of them fought bravely in the resistance movements. Even in Britain, death and danger were ever-present, and many, including my mother, lost loved ones. The contradictions expressed in these lives are what this book is about.

The modern form of warfare which sucks civilian lives into its core is a product of an economic system based on industrial competition. Even in the age of globalisation these corporations are tied to nation states or alliances of nation states. Their fates are interlinked. They form part of an international matrix of competition which, periodically, descends into armed conflict. War is a means of safeguarding and extending their markets and geopolitical reach. In this way competition between, say, Ford and Volkswagen or Exxon and Gazprom can become the root of conflicts resolved on the fields of battle − a process that involves destruction and waste on a vast scale.

The beneficiaries of war are not the poor and working class, who fight, work, suffer and die, but those who control the system. Their property, their profits, are at stake. But if they succeed in vanquishing their competitors, they can enjoy the prospect of even greater profits and more lucrative markets. Theirs is an exploitative system, which relies on one class controlling the wealth another class produces. Women are not separate from this process but are themselves part of the class society, and how they respond tends to reflect their position in society.

War is one of the most terrifying aspects of modern capitalism, an all-pervasive war economy which threatens to catapult us back to barbarism. It is also a major force for change: it forces apart old ways of working and living in such a way that women and men are drawn along in its wake, obliged to take on new roles, confront challenges and dangers, revise their ideas and, if fortunate, come out at the other end in one piece.

However, progress for some comes at the cost of the mass annihilation of others. There is no greater mark of a barbarous and dehumanised social system than one that destroys lives, creates wastelands and leaves devastation on such a scale that most people conclude a different system has to be created. It took tens of millions of deaths, the Holocaust, the rise and fall of fascism and nuclear terror before people were ready to try to build a society based on more equal and just principles.

War has also created an odd dialectic for women: their lives have been changed by processes wrought by wars. This has helped them to develop a much deeper understanding of war and a strong commitment, now seen in many women across several generations, to campaign against it. So the consequence of total war has been to build opposition to it and to make women more politically aware and active.

The wars of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have played a pivotal role in British politics. Britain’s history as an imperial power, its continued interventions in the affairs of other countries (albeit since 1945 as a junior partner of the United States) and its warmongering under successive governments have all helped to create an opposition to war which is one of the touchstones of left-wing politics. Time and again, questions of war have been major political issues: in 1914; in 1938 with appeasement; in 1956 with Suez, the Cold War and nuclear weapons; and in recent years, especially 2002−3, the Middle East. War and domestic politics are interlaced.

In Britain my contemporaries and the men and women of later generations have less direct experience of war, but even so, war has become a permanent fact of life for us. The ‘balance of terror’, which until recently existed between the United States and Soviet Union, was sometimes justified as the means to ensure that a third world war could never happen. But many who had lived through the First and Second World Wars knew that wasn’t necessarily true, that deadly weapons could lead to war even if the consequences seemed too horrific to contemplate. The Cold War always contained within it the threat of a major ‘hot war’.

So, relatively soon after the Second World War a new opposition to the threat of war and nuclear weapons emerged internationally, as the implications of armed peace became clear. No one with any awareness could ignore the sometimes very real threat of nuclear annihilation, and this helped lead to the movement against nuclear weapons. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962 was, it was feared, likely to lead to another war less than 20 years after bombs and rockets had devastated London and other major British cities.

Opposition to war has grown since then. This has been specially marked among women. The movement against the Vietnam war took place in a period of social change: women were moving into new jobs, entering higher education, discovering a freer sexuality and engaging in political action. It propelled women’s concerns to centre stage, exposing an American Left that was simply incapable of relating to these problems.

If women’s political issues took centre stage, they did so at least partly in relation to war; those of us who found the Vietnam war to be overwhelmingly a politicising issue had opposition to war engraved in our DNA. Those who created the women’s liberation movement in the late 1960s consciously linked their struggle against oppression with the national liberation movements which were so effective in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s in some of the former colonies of the Western empires.

The changes in women’s lives from the 1960s onwards led to women asserting their right to equality and organisation. One of the main concerns of many has been peace. The peace movement was revived in the early 1980s, this time in opposition to the siting of cruise missiles in Europe. In Britain a major expression of this movement was the Greenham Common peace camp organised by women as a feminist response to militarism, though I felt it was too narrow and too focused on feminism to fulfil its potential. It did however mobilise and galvanise very large numbers of people.

It was only a few years before the ‘balance of terror’ was overturned by the collapse of one side, leaving a much more unstable situation in which new wars became increasingly frequent and dangerous. Since 1989 there has been a rapid succession of wars involving the United States, Britain and other Western powers. The First Gulf War, the Balkans wars (which brought about the breakup of Yugoslavia) and then the War on Terror all indicated how the United States planned to deal with its declining economic power in the twenty-first century.

All were increasingly described not as wars of aggression − which would have been both illegal and politically unacceptable − but as wars of humanitarian intervention. One justification, especially for the War on Terror, became the need to rescue women from subjugation and oppression. Despite the urgency with which this case was pressed by First Ladies and Secretaries of State, the response from many women was to argue that this liberation was not being carried out in their name.

I was strongly opposed to the Vietnam war and to all the wars that followed. But it was from 11 September 2001 that I played a key organising role in building the movement, helping to form the Stop the War Coalition and being elected as its convenor. The high level of involvement and activism in the movement was obvious, with women of all ages, all nationalities and religions, and very widely differing class backgrounds. The legacy of opposition continues and will no doubt give rise to new movements in the future.

It has been remarkable to see how many women have been involved at every level, often with a sense of purpose not found in other spheres of politics, and I have been increasingly intrigued about how this should happen and what political significance it might have. The answer in part seems to do with the cumulative effect of war on women’s lives and consciousness. The twentieth century experienced total war, with civilians increasingly the majority of victims and women expected to play an active part in waging war.

War has infiltrated the home, work and social life in a way that would have been impossible throughout most of history. Women have played a role as combatants, as war workers, defence workers and health workers. They have been direct victims of war. They have also suffered bereavements. The social changes resulting from these developments in turn fed involvement in, and often opposition to, war.

I want to explain the hows and whys of women’s role in warfare, and why so many women in the twenty-first century now oppose war. Wars have been motors of change for women, altering the family and women’s role within it, transforming the sorts of work that women do and their ideas about themselves. The collective and individual decisions and actions of millions of women and men are how history is made.

This book is about some of their decisions, their implications and consequences and
– most importantly − how they can be used to shape the future.

I have interviewed women from different generations about the impact of war on their lives. They have varying backgrounds, beliefs and experiences which I have found extremely valuable in illuminating their motivations, decisions and the impact of war on their thinking. I hope that their views, however subjective, have helped to develop insights about wider changes. The Stop the War Coalition, which began in 2001, is looked at through the eyes of some of its participants. They cover a range of ages and backgrounds, and all are people who have experienced war or have some experience of opposing it.

I look at the questions which have arisen out of the War on Terror: the role of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in modern wars and the way in which arguments about women’s equality are used to justify wars. The attitudes to, and of, Muslim women are also considered. Finally, I use women’s experiences to understand how war has changed women and their ideas, and what the prospects are for peace and women’s liberation in the future.

The experiences are, needless to say, individual. They do not claim to represent all women in the movement or indeed the totality of the movement. There are many organisations and groups within what can be broadly called the peace movement or anti-war movement. These include religious groups, such as the Quakers, who have played a continuing and honourable role in the movement, and groups such as Women in Black which organises internationally for peace.

The various groups often focus on specific issues or take different approaches to organising. The book is not a history of women’s peace organisation or of peace and anti-war campaigning generally. What it does do is raise two major issues − women’s liberation and war − and make connections which I think are relevant and I hope will be useful to those fighting in order to change the world.

The wars that we have witnessed in recent years are not an aberration, but the result of a competitive and crisis-ridden system. Future wars are likely to be about resources, commodities and food and water shortages. They will be about the major powers fighting for market share and strategic control. We will need mass movements to oppose these wars, which endanger the future of humanity.

In Britain, governments are demanding austerity and sacrifice from working people while inequality grows and the spending of billions of pounds on waging war every year continues. As the postwar welfare state sees its greatest threat yet from the same people who support wars and the obscenely high levels of military spending which accompany them, a new generation of women activists are coming onto the field of battle. They have already made clear that they are unwilling to countenance war and militarism, and in the course of opposing those dangers, they are asserting their liberation.

Click here for more information on the book “How a Century of War Changed the Lives of Women

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on How a Century of War Changed the Lives of Women

In light of the International Women’s Day celebration, below is an article that exposes the role of women during the Second World War that has been hidden from the mainstream media.

*

Due to Western ethnocentric views, the woman soldiers, sailors, and pilots of Russia and other otherized (demeaned, alienated, vilified, and demonized) societies, such as China, Iran, Libya, and Syria, remain invisible while Western women serving in Western military forces are lionized as showpieces of equality between the sexes.

This text provides a sociological overview of one of the largest known events in history involving woman combatants: Soviet women in what is ethno-geocentrically referred to in the West  as the “Eastern Front” during the Second World War (or the Great Patriotic War, as it is called in Russia, Ukraine, and the republics of the former Soviet Union). By itself or sui generis, the role of Soviet women in defending places like Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia refutes any views that women are only able to fight in Western military forces because of the myth that they enjoy a certain level of equality. This text, however, goes beyond such a rebuttal by endeavouring to explain the logos behind the mobilization and creation of Soviet woman combatants by examining the roles of societal events, governmental policies, and ideology. Its goal is not only to illustrate that the achievements of women in otherized societies are ignored, but to also challenge the views that woman (unlike men) are simply maternal creatures tied to life that cannot form a large presence in the armed forces.

The Women of the Blessed versus the Women of the Wretched of the Earth

In regards to social rights, “The cause is effect: you are rich because you are white; you are white because you are rich,” according to Franz Fanon in The Wretched of the Earth (1961).

Similarly, with regards to women’s rights the cause is effect: you are strong because you are a man; you are a man because you are strong.

When pictures of Lieutenant Helen Seymour of the British Royal Air Force (RAF) coming out of her Eurofighter Typoon jet in Gioia del Colle, Italy emerged in March 2011, during the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombing campaign against Libya, it was hailed by the media as a triumph for women in the world of military affairs and combat. The British would showcase how woman had made a great leap forward when Lieutenant Seymour was announced to be one of only ten female pilots using the RAF’s Typoon or Tornado jets. The Guardian would explain in an article titled “Woman pilot in Libya combat mission” (March 23, 2011) by Nick Hopkins the following: “Women have been flying fast jets in the RAF since 1994, but no more than 10 are flying the Tornado or Typhoon at the moment. However, the number is on the rise, and about 12% of personnel in the RAF are now women.”

While London’s Evening Standard in an article titled “Top girls – the women patrolling the sky for the RAF” (March 25, 2003) by Jasmine Gardner would give a historical overview of women in the RAF:

And, like [Lieutenant] Julie Gibson who was the RAF’s first operational female pilot in 1990, [Lieutenant] Kirsty Moore who became the RAF’s first woman on the Red Arrows team in 2009 and [Lieutenant] Juliette Fleming who is one half of the first all-female Tornado crew with her weapons systems officer, Squadron Leader Nikki Thomas, Seymour’s “first” has made us stand to attention.

These media reports that projected the concept of equality among the sexes and the overall theme of women in combat deserve sociological attention, including scrutiny through the use of the plethora of research methods that fall under the school of critical discourse analysis (CRA). This text aims to flush out the ethnocentric and exceptionalist attitudes and notions that are behind the ideas that women in what can be called largely Western or Western-oriented societies, such as in the United States of America or the State of Israel, have reached a level of equality to fight alongside men. The achievements of women in the armed forces of countries like Libya, which was ironically being bombed by the RAF at the time, and the People’s Republic of China largely goes unnoticed in the West. Through an exercise of historical sociological analysis that examines Soviet women as combatants and the logos that allowed them entry into the world of warfare, this text aims to show that woman have not only played historically important roles in combat, but to also demonstrate how the role of women in Otherized societies in not acknowledged in the West.

The Soviet Amazons

Although the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was a patriarchal society at its roots, unlike their counter-parts in Western Europe and North America, women in Soviet society were far more involved in societal development outside of the home, commerce, statecraft, nation-building, and, finally when the time came, warfare. These women were much more intimately involved in their country’s defence and frontline combat than the woman of any other combating society in World War II or the Great Patriotic War as it was called in the USSR. Moreover, Soviet women went to the Eastern Front to fight against Germany and its Axis allies in direct combat roles that included bomber pilots, tankers, machine gunners, infanteers, and grenadiers. 800,000 women went directly to the Eastern Front, which was really a mere fraction of all those who volunteered and wanted to go (Engel and Posadskaya-Vanderbeck 1998). 520,000 of these women served as regular troops in the Red Army, while another 300,000 served in combat and anti-aircraft formation (Krylova 2010). By 1943 about 8% of Red Army personnel were women, which meant that almost one out of ten people in uniform was a woman, and at World War II’s end (1945), young women composed 70% of all Young Communist soldiers (Engel and Posadskaya-Vanderbeck 1998; Krylova 2010). This was a period in which many Soviet fighting women rouse to fame and became Heroes/Heroines of the Soviet Union, from the Ukrainian sniper Lyudmila Pavlichenko to the pilot Nadezhda Popova, another Ukrainian, who served in an infamous bomber regiment called the “Night Witches” by the Germans. This was also not the first time that the Germans faced women from Russian/Soviet society; in the First World War the Germans had fought the Women’s Battalion of Death led by the famous Maria Bochkareva/Botchlareva (née Frolkova) from Siberia (Botchlareva 1918). The performative acts of masculinity and femininity were challenged by these Soviet warriors; war and violence were clearly not an exclusive male space with such a large female Soviet presence.

The logos behind the Soviet woman combatant and what made her are broadly tied to the revolutionary ideology of the Bolsheviks and a stream of succeeding historical events that are tied to upheavals and conflict in the Russian Empire and succeeding USSR. Firstly, as a result of the long period of fighting the number of men in Russian/Soviet society had steadily been decreasing. Added to this were the country’s expanding industry and its need for workers. This allowed large numbers of Soviet women to take the places of men in traditionally masculine jobs. Structurally women in the Soviet Union were integrated into the work force (Bisha et al. 2002; Clement 1979; Engel and Posadskaya-Vanderbeck 1998; Field 1968; Goldman 1993; Hayden [1979] 1984; Pushkareva 1997). Before the rise of the Bolsheviks there was a famous proverb in Russian society, ne zhenat, ne chelovek, which meant “not married, not human” (Stites 1978:8). This changed with the Bolsheviks who at least ideologically saw marriage and the bourgeois family as entities tied to the exploitation of woman. The communist ideology of the Bolsheviks was also radically open to the emancipation of woman and their integration into political life. Bolshevism introduced new laws and programs aimed at integrating and resocializing women while making them politically, socially, legally, and economically equal to men in a militantly socialist society. Clement (1979:xii) calls this “the great Soviet experiment in female emancipation,” which she describes as “one of the most far-reaching efforts to free women ever undertaken.” Several back-to-back wars and internal war also had added to the political activation of women and later to the massive mobilization of woman when Germany attacked in 1941; these events start with the Crimean War then proceed with the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War, and the Russian Civil War and end with the entry of the Soviet Union into the Second World War in 1941. All these things were the variables that produced the social environment needed to unleash the potential of the Soviet woman as women-at-arms or female warriors fighting Hitler’s forces. With the end to the long period of conflict and the increasing ideological pragmatism of the Communist Party, however, the momentum that led to the creation of the Soviet woman soldier or zhenshchina-boets slowed down and saw some reversals (Krylova 2010). Demographics and female reproductive capacities and fertility ultimately undermined the socialist/communist program to mobilization the woman citizen.

At least in romanticized views, the traditional role of women in the Russian Empire, before its replacement by the Soviet Union with the rise of Bolshevism, was confined to the domestic space and can be summed up as “keepers of the hearth” (Bisha et al. 2002). The historian Hayden ([1979] 1984:2) writes that most women in the Russian Empire had very little control over their lives and that countless songs and stories in their culture(s) were about “young women being sold in marriage to strangers and brutally used as little more than household slaves by their husbands and in-laws.” There, however, was much more to the collection of Finish, Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian, Caucasian, Lithuanian, German, Turkic, and other ethnic women that comprised the ethno-linguistic mosaic of the Russian Empire. Although it was barely recognized, women historically were among the most noted authors of Russian literature in the imperial period (Bisha et al. 2002; Tosi 2007).[1] The involvement of women from their society in war was also not unheard of. Women like Varvara Bakunina accompanied her husband in 1796 to the Caucasus as the Russians fought to annex Dagestan, Armenia, Karabakh, and the region around Baku from the Iranians after Iran restored its control over Georgia (Bisha et al. 2002). Women in Russia also fought in wars as far back as the War of 1812 against Napoléon Bonaparte’s Grande Armée; the most famous account being those of the memoirs of Nadia/Nadezhda Durova who served in the Russian Imperial Army and retired as a cavalry captain (Bisha et al. 2002; Meyer 1991).  Under Catherin II an entire woman’s military company was put together composed of “noblewomen and the daughters of Balaklave Greeks [from Crimea]” (Meyer 1991:219).

War, Liberalization, and the Emergence of the Woman Question

The Crimean War (Eastern War; 1853-1856) against the Ottomans, Britain, and France arguably opened the doors for civic improvement and modernization in the Russian Empire through what are called the Great Reforms (Bisha et al. 2002; Hayden [1979] 1984; Stites 1978). It was during the Crimean War that Russian women for the first time served as military nurses and as a result then went on to work in the fields of professional medicine, teaching, and aid work (Bisha et al. 2002). Although the bulk of the female population were specifically not targeted, the programs of the Great Reform recognized that to modernize Russia the country’s entire population needed access to government services and programs, such as legal bodies (Bisha et al. 2002; Hayden [1979] 1984). This actually prompted a staggering amount of peasant women to use the newly established peasant cantonal courts, which alarmed supporters of the patriarchal family (Bisha et al. 2002). It also led to women attending lectures at St. Petersburg University in 1859 and to the establishment of secondary schools for women in 1860, which were available to all social classes in theory (Hayden [1979] 1984). The “women’s question” (called the zhenski vopros in the Russian language) emerged in this period, as a result of Russia’s defeat by the Anglo-Franco-Ottoman Triple Alliance and was brought to the forefront by intellectuals like M.L. Mikhailov (publishing in Sovremennik from 1858-1861) who argued for education programs as the key to the emancipation of women” (Hayden [1979] 1984).[2] During this period of liberalization the universities were slowly opened up to women on the basis of the need of professionals and to prevent upper class women from coming back to the Russian Empire with radical ideas from studying in foreign universities; women’s educational institutes would also be setup in St. Petersburg, Moscow, and Odessa (Hayden [1979] 1984). Only briefly from 1891 to 1894 would women be barred from universities (Hayden [1979] 1984).

The feminist movement in the Russian Empire began to decline in the 1890s, because it had successfully reached its objective of opening up education women as upper and middle class women gained more access to education (Hayden [1979] 1984).[3] It is also important to note that these opportunities were limited to the higher classes and that the feminist movements were classist and represented the upper and middle class women, who make a small fraction of their society’s female population, and did not represent the peasants and working class (narod).

The defeat of the Russian Empire at the hands of the Japanese in East Asia during the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) proved to accelerate the trends and demands for civic reform. It proved to be a turning point for all Russian society, including the empire’s non-Russian majority and women (Mandel 1984). During the war women organized feminist groups dually opposing the war with Japan and demanding equal rights (Edmondson 1992). The country’s autocratic system under the Romanovs would be dented and political liberalization and mobilization would sweep the country. This would provide one of the initial impetuses inside the Russian Empire for the socialist/communist activities that had been sweeping European societies further west. The unfolding of these events, including their effect on women, can be summed up in the following words:

In the political realm, the forces of reform, revolution, and conservatism first met in violent confrontation in the revolution of 1905-1906, an event to which Russia’s loss in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 contributed significantly. Nicholas II was forced to create a legislative body, albeit one with limited power, to break the revolutionary coalition. From 1906-1914 the Duma, the new Russian legislative assembly, regularly included the questions of suffrage for women and the improvement of the legal and civil rights of women among the issues it debated. Among the political parties that emerged from the revolution were several explicitly feminist organizations, reflecting a split among politically active women between those who advocated separate organizations to promote issues of importance to women and those [women] who believed that real equality for women could be achieved only through a social (and socialist) revolution (Bisha et al. 2002:10).[4]

The “women’s question” would mature as an increasingly important issue as feminists, radicals, and liberals all looked for ways to find a solution to the problems of women in the Russian Empire (Hayden [1979] 1984; Stites 1978).

The debates and experiences of this period would later be reflected in the Soviet Zhenotdel or Women’s Bureau/Department inside the Communist Party. According to historical research, “[t]he program and methods employed by the Zhenotdel to improve the status of Russian/Soviet women derived basically from two sources: the theory and traditions of the Western Marxist movement and the experience of Russian liberalism and radicalism in the eight-year period preceding the 1917 revolution” (Hayden [1979] 1984:vii). Broadly, these views were a philosophical continuation of the arguments of Enlightenment thinkers, like François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire) and Denis Diderot for legal equality, and Charles-Louis de Secondat (Baron Montesquieu) about the role played by education in gender inequality (Goldman 1993).

Divisions between socialists/communists and non-socialists/communists would also emerge by the time the Great War or World War I (1914-1918) erupted.  A great schism between the Bolsheviks and the feminists inside Russian/Soviet society would result:

The remaining feminist organizations plunged wholeheartedly into support for the war effort, hoping thereby to gain new supporters for their cause of women’s rights by demonstrating their loyalty and usefulness in [supporting the state] to win the war. The hypocrisy and opportunism of their actions have been aptly described by Richard Stites: ‘All over Russia, feminists who before the war had warned that only women’s suffrage would save mankind from the scourge of war now intoned hymns for victory.’ This chauvinist behavior on the part of the feminists was presented by the Bolsheviks as decisive proof of the bourgeois character of the feminist movement (Hayden [1979] 1984:80).

The Russian Civil War resulted in broad efforts to mobilize woman as militant communists and to enlist in combat support positions for the Red Army (Hayden [1979] 1984). Although women played a predominately secondary role in direct combat, during the Russian Civil War the role of women in the Red Army as partisan fighters was sensationalized, romanticized, and celebrated by the Bolsheviks to encourage women to embrace communism; the defence of Petrograd — the new Soviet name for St. Petersburg — against the White Army involved numerous women and the putting down of the Kronstadt uprising involved 1,300 Red Army women; the women’s theoretical-based publication Kommunistka reported that in 1920 about 1,850 Red Army women were killed, wounded, or taken prisoners by the White Army and foreign armies from places like the US, UK, Canada, France, and Japan assisting them  (Hayden [1979] 1984).

The Emancipation of Women and the Soviet Use of Marxist Theory

Early Marxists have been faulted for a lack or deficit of sex and gender analysis. This does not mean that Marxist theory is totally void of any meaningful analyses of gender and sex or is theoretical incompatible with them. Theoretically, it is the opposite. Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by Friedrich Engels and Women Under Socialism by August Bebel, which were both published in the 1880s, make the Marxist position on patriarchy very clear.[5] Before this Engels and Marx, either separately or in collaboration as co-authors, also published several works concerning the exploitation of women in capitalist societies in the 1840s.

Firstly, the criticism of the so-called “community of women” (the concept that all women in a utopian futuristic communist society would become sexually available to all men) by Marx and Engels as “thoughtless communism” is interpreted as some type of support for patriarchy by their critics, when both social thinkers actually opposed it on the grounds that it “would reduce women to a piece of communal and common property and would represent merely a passage from marriage (a form of exclusive private property) to general prostitution to the whole community” (Hayden [1979] 1984:29). What Marx and Engels are criticizing is the transformation of women from being the property of one man to the property of all males and not women being given the choice to have sexual relations with whosoever they please; the two Germans were not criticizing the ability of women to have agency in sexual affairs, but the lack of agency they would have as part of some type of futuristic harem. The Communist Manifesto also clarifies the fact that they believed that the “community of women” already existed under capitalism (Engels and Marx [1888] 2012). This reduced women to property and led to monogamous marriages, unequal rights between spouses, and marriage as a means of concentrating capital (Luryi 1980).

Secondly, Marx and Engels are critiqued for saying that because of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution the domestic function of women as mothers and wives was affected and eroded. Engels wrote that industrialization and capitalism were breaking the family apart; he wrote the following in The Condition of the Working Class in England:

When women work in factories the most important result is the dissolution of family ties. If a woman works for 12 or 13 hours a day and her husband is employed either in the same establishment or in some other works, what is the fate of the children? They lack parental care and control … this can be seen by the increase in the number of accidents to little children which occur in the factory district (Field 1968:9).[6]

Statements like this have been evaluated idiosyncratically to criticize Engels and Marx. Such critiques fail to take a holistic account of the duo’s work. The two argued that the domestic and generderized roles of women, including their oppression, were a result of the proto-type of the class struggle and one can find constant references to the oppression of women by capitalism in their works (Field 1968; Hayden [1979] 1984). Boston University sociologist and Harvard Russian studies expert Mark Field (1968:8-9) writes:

Marx and Engels regarded the division of labor between men and women for the procreation of children as the first division of labor. Engels postulated that the first instance of class antagonism to appear in history arose from the antagonism between men and women in monogamy and that the first example of class oppression was that of the female by the male, and was caused by the existence of private property. Seen through the prism of the Marxist optic, the battle of the sexes was regarded as the prototype of the class struggle—man appropriated and enslaved women as his means for the production of “legitimate” heirs to whom his private property could be transmitted. Hence the institution of monogamy, the strong sanctions against the adulteress (but not against the philanderer), the double standard (in favor of men only), the existence and encouragement of prostitution, and the stigmatization of the unmarried mother and her offspring (the “natural” or illegitimate child).

Moreover, the following passage should also vindicate the two Germans from accusations that they ignored women in their theoretical work:

The implications, of course, [of the notes of Marx and the text of Engels about the family] were quite clear. Women had not always played a subordinate role in human society; thus there was no reason to believe that there was anything “natural” about the inferior status of women in modern society. If women had not always been oppressed in the past, they need not continue to be oppressed indefinitely into the future. According to Engels, ‘That woman was the slave of man at the commencement of society is one of the most absurd notions that have come down to us from the period of Enlightenment of the eighteenth century.’ Similarly, the idea that the individual patriarchal family had existed since the dawn of history was equally discredited [for Engels and Marx] by the discovery of matrilineal kinship systems: ‘…all written history so far takes as its point of departure the absurd assumption, which became inviolable in the eighteenth century, that the monogamian individual family, an institution scarcely older than civilization, is the nucleus around which society and the state gradually crystallized’” (Hayden [1979] 1984:33-34).

This passage is important because it not only challenges the notion of the patriarchic state, but it also challenges the biological deterministic views that condemned women to a natural state of inferiority. Both Marx and Engels considered the emancipation of women historically inevitable (Buckley 1985).  From the Marxist theoretical standpoint, patriarchy will not be eliminated until there is a classless society.

Marxists saw the “woman question” as a part of the larger issues of social justice and equality (Goldman 1993; Hayden [1979] 1984; Pushkareva 1997; Rosalind1998; Stites 1978). They did not see the inequality of sexes as outside of the same realm of exploitation that workers faced. The prostitution of women was even called inhuman and a particular expression of the general prostitution of all workers to capitalism by Marx (Hayden [1979] 1984). Finally, Marx even quoted the French philosopher François Fourier by saying that the extent of women’s emancipation was the natural measuring stick of general emancipation in a society (Hayden [1979] 1984).

The contemporary family was seen as a bourgeoisie construct, under which the man controlled the woman in every way and she was forced to be dependent on him, that would melt away (Engels and Marx [1888] 2012; Field 1968; Goldman 1993; Hayden [1979] 1984; Pushkareva 1997).  Marx stated:

However terrible and disgusting the dissolution, under the capitalist system, of the old family ties may appear, nevertheless, modern industry, by assigning as it does an important part in the process of production, outside the domestic sphere, to women […] creates a new economic foundation for a higher form of the family and the relations between the sexes (Field 1968:10).

A higher family, where all were brother and sister, would form according to the early Marxists. Marx called this the “new family” and the Bolsheviks called it the “family-society” (Field 1968; Goldman 1993). It would be this concept of transcending the old family, and thus dissolving marriage, that would be central to the Bolshevik project to emancipate women in the USSR. It is these theoretical views that in part made joining the communist movement in its revolutionary stages an act of both personal and sexual liberation for many young women (Goldman 1993; Hayden [1979] 1984; Pushkareva 1997; Stites 1978).

Marxist Ideology in Practice under the Bolsheviks

When they took power, one prominent Bolshevik leader would say that their revolution would be remembered in human history for actively involving women unlike the French Revolution (Stites 1979:317). Prior to the Soviet social engineering programs, historical records contain little evidence, aside from Peter the Great’s so-called Westernization/Europeanization programs, of direct government attempts to openly determine the role of women in Russian/Soviet society (Bisha et al. 2002; O’Malley 2007).[7] The takeover’s effects on woman can be summed as thus:

[It was] the first time in modern history that the government of any modern nation officially announced its intention to carry out a full-scale program for women’s emancipation. At a time when women’s movements in the West limited themselves primarily to demands for a broader political enfranchisement of women, the fledgling Soviet government granted women full and equal political participation at all levels of government. Moreover, the Soviet regime in addition proposed a radical transformation of women’s conditions of daily life, which would include the establishment of a broad network of social services designed to ‘socialize’ women’s household labor, liberalization of marriage and divorce laws, and the setting up of ‘affirmative action’ programs for the purpose of drawing women into government, political organizations, trade unions, factory management, and the professions and skilled trade. This was the most radical program for female equality advanced by any national government in modern times (Hayden [1979] 1984:iv).

Dedicated communist ideologues like Inessa Armand and Alexandra/Aleksandra Kollontai, who was chosen by Lenin to run the Commissariat for Social Welfare, would establish the Zhenotdel for women (Clement 1979; Hayden [1979] 1984). Along with the Komsomol (Youth Branch of the Communist Party) and the Communist Party, the Zhenotdel would come to form one of the three most important organizations of communist power in Soviet society. It is worth quoting Clement (1979:ix) about the life of Kollontai, who was a remarkable Soviet revolutionary and thinker:

She participated in the campaigns for female emancipation and she made a contribution to the literature on the woman question by exploring the relationship between sexuality and liberation. Yet Kollontai vehemently denied that she was a feminist; rather, she saw herself as a Marxist revolutionary who sought freedom for women as part of the freeing of all humankind from the control of capitalism. Thus she set herself apart from these other members of her generation who pursued reforms for women, becoming instead a socialist…

Before the Bolsheviks came into power, wife-beating was officially sanctioned by customary law and the dominance of women by their husbands and fathers was upheld by the imperial state (Hayden [1979] 1984; Stites 1978). In the words of Hayden ([1979] 1984:2), “a wife was obliged to obey her husband as the head of the family, to abide with him in love, honor, and unlimited obedience, and to render him every satisfaction and affection.” Nor could women fully work and getting a divorce was nearly impossible for a woman (Hayden [1979] 1984; Pushkareva 1997; Stites 1978). Women could not even practice law if they had degrees, except in Siberia, until the Bolshevik takeover (Hayden [1979] 1984).

As an application of Marxist theory, marriage laws were changed by the Bolsheviks starting in 1917 with the view of establishing legal and social equality (Hayden [1979] 1984; Pushkareva 1997). In 1918 the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet (VTsIK) ratified the Complete Code on Marriage, the Family, and Guardianship which “constituted nothing less than the most progressive family legislation the world had ever seen” (Goldman 1993:51) Under Soviet law women and men were now legally equal and couples could now pick the surname of either spouse, only civil marriage was recognized, divorce could be obtained upon simple request by either partner, both men and women had equal responsibility for their children, mutual support for one another was required in cases where one partner could not work, and neither partner was compelled to move around the country with the other (Buckley 1985; Goldman 1993; Hayden [1979] 1984; Pushkareva 1997 ; Stites 1978).[8] As early as 1930, the Soviet judiciary even clarified that common residence was not needed for a married couple (Luryi 1980). Property laws, which favoured men where now erased by wiping out the concept of illegitimate children; all children born within or outside wedlock had equal status and were entitled to full support by both parents (Buckley 1985; Goldman 1993; Pushkareva 1997). Women also retained full control of their earnings and both sexes kept all of their own property (Goldman 1993). These new laws probably even encouraged more intermingling among the different ethnic groups of the Soviet Union. With the exception of the Yucatan in Mexico from 1923 to 1926, the USSR was the only country in the world with full freedom of divorce (Stites 1978). Furthermore, it should be noted that Soviet laws were formulated through an internal Bolshevik consensus between more radical-minded and more conservative-minded members, otherwise M.A Reisner suggested that children even have rights to manage property and N.A. Roslavets from Ukraine objected strongly to registered marriage as opposed to “socialist freedom” (Goldman 1993). De facto unions would also receive the same rights as registered marriages in 1925 (Goldman 1993),

Women were given the right to vote in 1917 (Pushkareva 1997). They had the rights to employment and education, the rights to govern and manage the state equally with men, and encouraged to be active citizens who would better themselves to help society and not be uneducated chattel subordinate to their society’s men. Three major publications for women, along with women’s pages (stranichki) in most publications were organized (Hayden [1979] 1984)[9]

The new Soviet Land Code adopted in 1922 abolished all private property, but allowed for the peasants to maintain reformed agricultural communes that were democratized through a new voting system that included women and women, regardless of age or in-law status, were also given ownership rights within the commune’s family units (dvor) which no longer rested on their husbands or sons (Goldman 1993:152-163; Pushkareva 1997). Women actually began to attain “undisputed authority” in rural society (Pushkareva 1997).

Women were encouraged to work in factories and outside of the home and as a result the stereotype of the house wife does not appear to be prevalent in Soviet society (Goldman 1993; Hayden [1979] 1984). The economic independence of woman was pivotal for ensuring the emancipation of Soviet women; women were to be employed and to work. This was not only a communist idea. The early feminist movements in Czarist Russia were involved with charity work, even they as non-communists began to move towards ideas that it was important to make women economically independent  (Hayden [1979] 1984; Pushkareva 1997). One such project was Peter/Petr Lavrov’s “Society of Female Labour,” which aimed at reducing prostitution by allowing women to support themselves and their children through opening up employment opportunities (Hayden [1979] 1984). Soviet sociological studies also found a link between prostitution and unemployment (Goldman 1993:119-120)

The Bolsheviks recognized that woman still had to do a double-shift through what was called a double-burden of public and private work (Buckley 1985; Field 1968; Goldman 1993). Their national project intended to transfer household work from the private sphere to the public arena by turning unpaid household work into paid communal work, such as by creating communal dining halls, having nurseries, and public laundries (Buckley 1985; Field 1968; Goldman 1993; Pushkareva 1997). This was grounded in Marxist ideology; The German Ideology outlined domestic communalism as a precondition for women’s emancipation (Goldman 1993). Maternity leave was also introduced to make sure women would not have to choose between biological reproduction and their work outside of the home (Goldman 1993; Pushkareva 1997). The historian Goldman (1993) calls many of these policies a result of “war communism” due to their connection to industrial output, which depended heavily on Soviet women.

The 1885 Criminal Code of the Russian Empire designated abortion as murder and banned it and the Bolsheviks originally forbid it too, but it was still widely practiced in Russian/Soviet society and the Russian Group of the International Union of Criminologists in the city of St. Petersburg called for its decriminalization in 1914 while the Soviet Supreme Court even acknowledged the pervasiveness of abortion by exonerating a mother who was found guilty of murder by a lower court in early 1920; it would be legalized in November 1920 by both the Soviet Health and Justice Ministries as a means of protecting women from hurting themselves by trying to conduct their own abortions or being exploited by abortionist profiteers (Buckley 1985; Engelstein 1991; Goldman 1991, 1993; Stites 1978).[10] Fertility was important for Soviet officials; the subject of abortion always saw tensions between those who saw it as a public issue of population and women who did not want extra children.

Social Statics and Social Dynamics: Tradition versus the Woman Proletariat

There was a break with tradition in Russian/Soviet society, which started due to capitalism and industrialization. When the Bolsheviks took over Russian/Soviet society, the country’s industrialization would be amplified until it reached a rapid pace during the Stalinist era. They first implemented their industrial programs through a process called “labour militarization” during the internal fighting. The ending of the Russian Civil War, however, ended a period of prolonged fighting that started with World War I and allowed many men to return to the Soviet workforce at the expense of working women (Goldman 1993; Hayden [1979] 1984).  A large chunk of the female workforce would become unemployed in 1921 under the New Economic Plan, but the number of women would gradually rise throughout the 1920s (Engel and Posadskaya-Vanderbeck 1998; Goldman 1993; Hayden [1979] 1984). In 1924 about 27% of Soviet industrial strength would be composed of women (Hayden [1979] 1984:248). Before Soviet industrialization, women had been slowly flocking to Russian industrial factories so that by 1895 they composed 25% of industrial labour and 40% of the textile sectors employees inside the Russian Empire (Hayden [1979] 1984:44). This trend was a result of the lower wages given to women and because they were less likely to strike. As the country industrialized, the long period of conflicts would increase the need for working woman. For example, Russian/Soviet women composed 43.2% of industry in 1917 as a result of the First World War (Meyer 1991:214). The shortage of men also led to the pronounced feminization of the agricultural sector and the advance of women into such traditionally male jobs as messengers, porters, mail carriers, streetcar conductors, truck drivers, railway workers, and metalwork; in Moscow alone there were 115,000 women working in industrial jobs, with 20,000 in metal factories (Meye 1991:213).

The emancipation of women, however, required more than industrialization: “The Bolsheviks recognized that the oppression of women was deeply rooted in the traditional way of life of the Russian people and that it would be necessary to institute fundamental changes in basic social relationships, such as marriage and the family” (Hayden [1979] 1984:iii-iv). Ironically, and maybe in misogynistic terms, the private space — which was associated with women and the family — was disliked and even loathed in the socialist/communist normative system unlike in capitalist societies. This standpoint was the consequence of the Soviet emphasis on the “civic family” of the state and loyalty to the country and the public versus individualism, the private, and the family. The Soviet model actually looked down on much that was traditionally considered feminine:

Yet while Soviet culture gave prominence to the female worker and political activists, it also projected another image of women as unenlightened [under feminine gender scripts], caught up in private and domestic matters, and therefore unable to play a full role in society. Private life, and, by implication, traditional female concerns, were dismissed as being of little relevance unless they could be integrated into the new [socialist/communist] social structure, and even then women’s social responsibilities [as citizens of the state] were expected to take precedence over her family (Hodgson 1998:136).

Marxist morality now aimed for “the destruction of marriage regulations, which creates the illusion that the laborers’ communist collective can consider the interests of two married members as separate and isolated from it” (Hayden [1979] 1984:171). The identification of both marriage and the family as being root causes for the oppression of women was also reflected by the biographic background of many pre-communist female radical activists as middle and upper class women who had to struggle and resist the state-sanctioned authority of their parents and husbands in Czarist Russia (Hayden [1979] 1984). Moreover, under Bolshevik ideology, the concept of illegitimate offspring was archaic (Goldman 1993). Albeit Lenin and certain Soviet leaders had diverging views, a communist ontology of sexuality was disseminated — at least with some success — amongst Soviet society which aimed to have sex recognized as a natural and legitimate act that was neither shameful nor sinful nor tied to morality (Goldman 1993; Hayden [1979] 1984; Stites 1978). Additionally, because of all the fighting in this period and due to the shortage of men, single mothers were not uncommon either. Because the Soviet government wanted to raise the birth rates, it did not allow for the demonization of woman with bastard children; structurally it encouraged adultery and helped normalize single-motherhood (Goldman 1993).

Ironically, a lot of the most progressive Soviet laws about women’s working conditions were opposed by women or made managers fear hiring them (Goldman 1993; Hayden [1979] 1984). For examples, the laws forbidding pregnant women from working at night were protested by pregnant women who said that they were being segregated (Hayden [1979] 1984). Soviet daycare programs were actually met with alarm and bitter resistance by many women and men (Hayden, 1979). When husbands started beating their wives over the issue, the women’s branch of the Communist Party organized very effective “social courts” to stop the violence that were displayed in public to make spectacles of the violent men (Hayden [1979] 1984). Maternity leave also made many managers in Soviet factories reconsider hiring women (Goldman 1993). Soviet officials countered this by decreeing that women and men that possessed the same skills had to be terminated in equal proportions, pregnant women or women with infants on maternity leave could no longer be fired, women with children less than a year old had to have employment priority, single women could not be thrown out of their quarters, and women who lost their jobs were still entitled to keep their children in factory daycares (Goldman 1993).

Male resistance to the communist emancipation of women also persisted throughout the USSR, particularly in the Caucasus, Volga, and Central Asia (Hayden [1979] 1984). Clashes between traditional ways of life and Soviet social engineering took place. Inroads, however, were made.

A major issue of resistance and resentment against Soviet policy involved traditional dress codes in Russian/Soviet society, especially in the peripheral regions.  The traditional veils of the Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim worn amongst what were called “the women of the East” were targeted by Soviet policy and there are cases in the Caucasus were groups of women would gather and publicly throw off their veils; at one noteworthy meeting in Moscow a delegation of seventy-four Soviet women belonging to the so-called “Eastern nationalities” appeared all covered in their traditional dresses, from head to toe, and then suddenly removed their traditional coverings   (Hayden [1979] 1984; Stites 1978). Traditional dress and religious veils were seen by the Zhenotdel and Communist Party leaders as symbols for female “isolation and untouchability” (Stites 1978:333).

Total War and the Soviet Amazons

Total war has always had an interesting interplay with gender scripts. Hodgson (1998:135) writes that “[w]ar, it can be argued, puts men and women back in their proper places [defined by gender scripts].” Inversely, Meyer (1991:208-209) points out in his work on Russian women in World War I that gender stereotypes can be turned on their heads as many men prove to be “sensitive, averse to violence, brutality, and killing,” while many women are provided the opportunity “to prove themselves as fighters.” Paradoxically, while men felt “an unaccustomed lack of power and freedom of movement,” Sandra Gilbert described the First World War as a liberating experience for women, which replaced feelings of powerless in the world (Hodgson 1998:135).

The mobilization of Soviet women against the invading German Wehrmacht can be explained as a synergy of identity, metaphysical concepts of womanhood based on both a mix of tradition and the revolutionary ideology of the state, and finally survival. The scholar Hodgson (1998) believes that it was the traditional view of women and femininity as “moral beings” and the Soviet mobilization of women as “civic beings” that prompted Soviet females to join their male counter-parts in the Soviet military and impelled many of the same Soviet women to demand combat roles. She argues that a figure like Olga Berggolts (Bergholz) became the wartime poet laureate of Leningrad, because she was a woman, the traditional view of women as moral voices in Russian and Soviet societies, and the pragmatic widespread call to arms used to mobilize Soviet men to protect their country’s women and ultimately the “Motherland” (Hodgson: 1998).[11] She also acknowledges that the civic responsibilities of women in Soviet society brought about by Soviet socialism were integral to this:

According to Elshtain, women in wartime are portrayed as ‘civic beings’ responding not just to family demands, but to social claims as well. Soviet women were, however, expected to satisfy these dual demands in peacetime. Perhaps this might suggest that Soviet society perceived itself to be, if not actually at war, then constantly preparing for war. Elsewhere after the 1914-1918 war women had been expected to return to the [gendered] domestic sphere from their brief spell as ‘temporary citizens’ (Hodgson 1998:136).

In her work Hodgson (1998:135), herself an expert of the Russian language and Russian women writers during World War II, writes about the existence of “the wartime poetry of some women who served at the front” and its reflection that war’s effects on Soviet women as liberating, as well as traumatic, from “their assumption[s] of traditional masculine roles.”

Nor were the Soviet/Russian women that went to fight in the Eastern Front forced to fight by Joseph Stalin and Soviet authorities. As social actors, they had agency and were reacting on the basis of the normative settings of the Soviet/Russian social landscape. In context of their social environment, their socialist/communist normative system, and the identities of Soviet womanhood, it can rhetorically be ask if it is even correct to say that Soviet women needed to be mobilized for combat in the Eastern Front in 1941. By the time the Bolsheviks won the Russian Civil War, women had already played active roles on all sides of the internal conflict (Bisha et al. 2002; Hayden [1979] 1984). It can even be postulated that Soviet women fighting to protect their country is a reflection of the “collective conscience,” which in Durkheimian terms is said to be reflected by the individuals that make the population of a society — in this case a socialist/communist “collective conscience.” The socialist/communist normative system and structural changes in Russian/Soviet society had created a generation of modern “Decembrists,” as the Soviets called these militant revolutionaries, which were ready to fight for a world revolution at a moment’s notice.[12] Everywhere that a socialist/communist movement or a socialist-leaning revolutionary movement has gained a hold, women have been integrated into the military, from Cuba where Fidel Castro had a women’s brigade of rebel soldiers fighting against the US-supported Batista regime to the Farabundo Martí Liberation People’s Forces (FPL) in El Salvador and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) — which are believed to have anywhere from one-third to one-fifth of their forces composed of women fighters — in Colombia. The militant aspects of socialist/communist ideologies tied to revolution equally applied to the militarization of men and women as revolutionaries ready to fight capitalism, counter-revolution, fascism, and colonialism. It is these circumstances that are the origins of the identity of the “Red Rifle Woman,” which includes figures like the Marxist intellectual and anti-war activist Rosa Luxemburg.

At the heart of the matter, Soviet female combatants refute any notions of biological determinism that woman are incapable of fighting or waging war. Women will resist and fight just like men to defend their communities or societies:

What is beyond dispute is that women have been able to participate in specific combat situations. The desperate though ultimately futile participation of [N]ative American women in the defense of their villages, as just one example, finds mention in the diaries of US Cavalry troopers. George Armstrong Custer attests: “Before engaging in the fight orders were given to prevent the killing of any but the fighting strength of the village; but in a struggle of this character it is impossible at all times to discriminate, particularly when (…) the squaws [a term for Native/Aboriginal American women] are as dangerous adversaries as the [male] warriors” (Maninger 2008:16-17).

This example of Aboriginal women fighting to defend their communities can be thought of in universal terms and easily applied to Soviet women. Krylova’s (2010) recount of the experiences of Soviet woman combatants leaves no doubt about the agency of the women she depicts in making their choices to fight as combat personnel in the Second World War.

Retreat of the Amazons: Return of Tradition or Curse of the Maternal Body?

Towards the 1980s, women composed over 50% of the Komsomol, including just over 57% of its lower level committees, and 25% of the Communist Party’s members — it was 20% in the 1960s — with rising numbers, which substantiated Soviet claims of increasing female participation in the USSR (Browning 1985; Field 1968). Lenin’s wife, Krupskaya, was actually the closest political contender against Stalin before 1925 (Stites 1979). From 1924 to 1939 there had been three prominent female leaders inside the Central Committee of the Communist Party, the highest political body of the Soviet Union, when women were virtually invisible in other societies in the world (Stites 1979). There was no question that Soviet society was the most progressive in the world when it came to equality of the sexes. Yet, there were many shortcomings in the Soviet project that prevented the USSR from reaching its goal of emancipating women. The paradoxes here were that many of the elements that helped discard the traditional gender roles of women could also have the reverse effect in Soviet society. The Soviet concept of citizenship versus the distinct identity of women, population politics, and the centralization of the Soviet Union all contributed to weakening the project. Foci on the family instead of foci on other gender issues and Soviet failure to develop the structures needed to fully shift domestic work into the public sphere also added to this, not to mention that the family was viewed as the basic unit to repopulate the Soviet Union — a state emerging from decades of large-scale conflict(s). Traditional views also started making a comeback in the Stalinist period. The bureaucratization of the Soviet state and Communist Party factionalism also weakened the Zhenotdel.

Marxist ideology through state socialism undoubtedly has pioneered the work to equalize women with men. State ideology said that Soviet women and men were no different and both were expected to be contributing citizens. In the USSR equality meant equal obligations, which also explains the willingness of Soviet women to fight in the Eastern Front in 1941. In this regard, however, the Soviet state in addition took priority over women. Citizenship, as an identity and social script, came before everything else in Soviet society — including gender roles or any other social statuses — and the so-called “woman question” was supposedly solved after 1917 (Bisha et al. 2002; Buckley 1985; Engel and Posadskaya-Vanderbeck 1998; Goldman 1993; Hayden [1979] 1984; Hodgson 1998; Marsh 1998; Pushkareva 1997). Yet, it seemed that with the demographic decline and the rapid industrialization of the USSR that to be a good citizen for women was tied to being a mother in the Stalinist period. Nor is there any evidence that the socialist state implemented programs to resocialize Soviet men directly.

The need of the state to repopulate tied to this view of citizenship proved to undermine women. In 1946, Soviet women outnumbered men by about 26 million (Engel and Posadskaya-Vanderbeck 1998). This initially helped women during the decades of fighting, because it opened economic roles to Soviet women (Field 1968).  Yet, the decline in the population was a two-edge sword. While the population declined, in terms of a shortage of manpower and a need to staff factories with increasing demands for labour, it allowed women to become active and move into jobs traditionally held by men, in the long run. When peace came, the population decline actually constrained the role of women to mothers and wives who were pushed to have children to repopulate the USSR. This leads to the subject of the maternal body again. The reproductive capacity of women prevented Soviet society from breaking its patriarchal base. This is where the basis of the contradictions in Soviet society and ideology appear; reproduction was central in a society that believed in state planning under scientific socialism. In other words, population planning and demographical politics — a manifestation of the maternal body — were the greatest anti-thesis to progressive Soviet policies for equality of the sexes.

Another major shortcoming of Soviet policy was that “[t]he abolition of the family, rather than gender conflict within it, held the key to woman’s emancipation” (Goldman 1993:6). It is also convincingly argued that because the Soviet Union had a less developed retail and consumption sector, the family had to stay intact and that women were still tied to pink collar jobs. As one observer put during the later part of the Cold War:

Soviet women enjoy many advantages, yet to be won by women in the West, such as a widespread network of state-supported child care institutions, free access to a wide range of trade and professions, and a large degree of economic equality with their male co-workers. However, more than sixty years after the Bolshevik Revolution, Soviet women continue to bear the major burden for household labor, and women have suffered the most from the government’s long-term decision to give a low priority to consumers’ goods and production. Lack of modern household appliances, the poor quality of meals in public dining rooms, and the scarcity, high cost, and inferior quality of basic necessities force women to labor any additional hours outside of their jobs to maintain their households (Hayden [1979] 1984:v-vi).

This was part of the failure to solve the double-burden that the demands of production and reproduction in a modern society put on women as more and more of them were forced to work for wages (Buckley 1985; Goldman 1993).

Pragmatism turned out to become a dilution of ideology and commitment. The Kremlin’s pragmatism ended up hurting Soviet women, the original Soviet vision, and factory democratization. Some blame this on the effects of the total war that the USSR faced from the plains of Soviet Ukraine to the gates of Stalingrad. Just as she opposed feminism as a Marxist, the Bolshevik leader Kollontai also opposed the Communist Party’s divergence from the original Soviet democratic worker-run factory system, which resulted in her essentially being exiled from the USSR through diplomatic postings in Scandinavia (Clement 1979; Hayden [1979] 1984).  What happened was that the Soviet policies and laws that were designed to “wither away” the state —which some refer to as the ideas of anarchic communism and libertarian communism — were instead reversed for the strengthening of the Stalinist USSR. This arguably could have been tied to the preparations for a showdown with Germany and other external forces. This change in the USSR led one British feminist looking back at Soviet policies on women to explain that it appeared that Marxism did not appear to be more than a mere justification for Soviet policies and not their source (Buckley 1985).

Soviet society existed in a paradox, because of the cohabitation or modus vivendi of patriarchal traditions with Soviet communist ideology. Hodgson maintains that the resurrection of pre-Bolshevik traditional cultural values in the 1930s— which also revived patriotic sentiments from the Czarist period that resurrected gendered symbols of masculine heroes like Ivan the Terrible or Peter the Great and the feminine concept of “Mother Russia” — repealed the legislation on abortion and divorce (Hodgson 1998). Discussions of free love and sexuality also disappeared from the Soviet press (Pushkareva 1997). The return to tradition may also be described thus in a political context: “The association between women and honesty relied to a certain extent on women’s identification with the private sphere, which offered some asylum from the encroaching state, a space free from political slogans were more reliable truths might be found” (Hodgson 1998:140).

The discussion on tradition leads to the figure of Joseph Stalin and arguments. Stalin has been criticized as a traditionalist and for curbing women’s rights. Under his rule the Zhenotdel was eroded and then disbanded in 1930. A look at Stalin’s record, however, opens up the floor for debate. New Soviet laws were passed in June 1936 that put legal penalties on any men that did not pay alimony to women, but the laws also made divorce harder, and abortion a measure of last choice that could only be conducted if a woman’s health was in danger (Goldman 1991, 1993; Pushkareva 1997). Abortion would not be legalized in the USSR again until 1955 (Pushkareva 1997). The new laws tried not to target women and appeared to be based on population planning through the strengthening of the family unit to support Stalin’s industrialization program; these Stalinist laws expanded the number of childcare facilities in the USSR, only sentenced people who conducted and pressured (presumably mostly men) pregnant women to have abortions with death or two years in prison, increased pay and benefits for pregnant women or new mothers, and applied criminal penalties to any employer who refused to hire pregnant women or discriminated against them (Goldman 1991, 1993; Pushkareva 1997).[13] A tax on “childlessness” was also imposed (Pushkareva 1997). Major economic and housing incentives were also offered to women to have more children (Goldman 1993; Pushkareva 1997) Golman writes (1993:332): “To every mother with seven children or more, it granted 2,000 rubles for five years for every child born thereafter. Mothers with eleven children were to receive 5,000 rubles per additional child for one year and 3,000 rubles for the next four years.” During the Stalinist era the Zhenotdel’s last activities actually intensified and increased with the so-called “women of the East,” specifically in Soviet Central Asia (Hayden, 1979). In the 1930s there were also campaigns to get women to become automobile drivers, pilots, and to bring women into senior positions and possessions previously monopolized by men (Engel and Posadskaya-Vanderbeck 1998). Article 122 of the Soviet Constitution of 1936 makes the USSR’s commitment to women under Stalin clear:

Women in the U.S.S.R. are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, pre-maternity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens (Beard 1996).

Stalin was clearly concerned with order and working on a structural framework to increase the population, which came at the expense of the older communist programs aimed at producing the emancipation of women in Soviet society.[14]

The Myths/Chains of Military Traditionalists and Patriarchy

What prevents any cognizant recognition or acceptance by military traditionalists and military forces about the ability of women to fight in combat roles are the myths perpetuated, like discursive weapons, by the (1) the cult of the body, which believes that most women cannot fight due to their psychological and physiological characteristics; (2) the cult of homogeneity, which is based on the presumption that the presence of women among military men will disrupt group cohesion and bonding and lower group performance; and (3) the concept of the maternal body, which reduces women to their fertility as reproductive vessels of procreation for men that are destined to be mothers vis-à-vis their female bodies (Carreiras and Kümmel 2008). These views represent a metaphysical dualism that represents man through the mind, objectivity, discipline, civilization, strength, logic, and science while women are represented by the body, subjectivity, wildness, nature, weakness, desire, lust, and emotions. These notions reduce women into mere bodies and prevent them from even having the possibility to transcend. They ultimately turn women into property.

Klaus Theweleit’s ([1977] 1987, [1978]1989) two volumes of Male Fantasies is work that embodies the essentialist views that imprison women within the confines of the maternal body. The maternal body has weighed women down, because women cannot abject themselves from their bodies. Theweleit does not acknowledge historic truths and his methodology requires women to essentially be constructed as good creatures that are naturally alien to conflict. His work refuses to even recognize the sexuality of the very men in the German Freikorps that he studies, by portraying them as masculine minds protecting themselves from the weaknesses of the body represented by women; never once does it mention that these men all fought in the brutal campaigns of Germany’s African colonies and that rape was prevalently uses as a disciplinary tool in the German military, especially in Africa (Amidon and Krier 2009).

The cult of homogeneity — which it can be argued is akin to a sexist version of racist apartheid — is easily disarmed. If not a myth, social homogeneity can easily be disagreed with on the basis that gender roles are socially constructed and thus subject to change. This clearly means there is no natural urge by men to be in an all-male environment in the military unless they have been socially conditioned this way. Therefore, if they are socialized and conditioned in a different way, then their concepts of social homogeneity would be different.

The historical record from the Soviet Union challenges all of these views. Moreover, these views, which are deeply enshrined in the West, cannot even come to terms with the successful en masse mobilization of frontline female fighters in the USSR, and instead ignore what took place during World War II. Nor can these perspectives and beliefs sociologically explain why many women soldiers in the USSR did not see a contradiction in their roles as both women and fighters (Krylova 2010).

The military mobilization of Soviet women played an important role in defeating German Third Reich in Europe. Soviet women combatants did not have to choose between being women and soldiers. They were both women and soldiers, or women soldiers, as a result of the series of events and socialist/communist normative system of Soviet society.

Unlike in the Soviet Union, women in the West were not viewed as authentic soldiers.When Soviet women were fighting as tankers, snipers, and pilots to defend Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and the entire Soviet Union, from Sevastopol to Stalingrad, they essentially had no Western counter-parts. The visit of one famous Soviet female sniper, Lyudmila Pavlichenko, to the United States is very telling about the gap. After fighting to defend the Crimea from the Germans, Pavlichenko was shocked by Western perceptions about how women soldiers in the frontlines should act. While visiting the US to lobby for the opening of a Western Front in Europe to relieve the Soviets from doing most the fighting against Germany, Pavlichenko was shocked to see that US society was more interested to know if female Soviet soldiers wore makeup instead of being interested in what role Soviet women played in resisting the Nazis. Despite the historical record, the West still believes that it is globally pioneering the road for women and gender equality, which is why Western media praise the role of their women as pilots without any cognizance that otherized societies like in places such as Russia have been way ahead of them.

 


NOTES

[1] Russian women writers were able to assume an important role during the Great Patriotic War too (Marsh 1998; Hodgson 1998).

 [2] Mikhailov argued that women’s education should not merely be confined to gender socialization and for the roles of wifehood and motherhood. He was against the concept of “free love,” but believed that a well-educated couple would have a more happy union and thus improve society and both would raise better families (Hayden [1979] 1984).

 [3] Unlike most men, the government would not finance the education of women, except in medical courses to become nurses, and spent only 3% of its education budget on women in 1911-1912. Women were also not allowed to teach at higher levels and graduates were not given civil service jobs (Hayden [1979] 1984).

[4] The strict opposition of Rosa Luxemburg to nationalism (and the nationalist project to divide Russian Poland from Russia) also parallels this view of Marxist orthodoxy at the time that objected to women and men being divided in their struggles or for working women to unite with the female bourgeoisie instead of the rest of the proletariat.  Just as Marxist orthodoxy opposed the division of ethnic groups in their political struggles or cognitively diversified by joining non-socialists/communists and the bourgeoisie, it also opposed a division between men and women. It was capitalism that profited on sex-based and ethnic divisions. This is why the latter group of Russian/Soviet women, which included Alexandra/Aleksandra Kollontai, did not join or form feminist organizations.

[5] Engels used notes made on the anthropologist Lewis Morgan’s study of the Iroquois family (based on matrilineal kinship and matriarchy) by Marx, who had died in 1883, to prepare his text in 1884 (Hayden [1979] 1984:32-34).

[6] See The Condition of the Working Class (1845) by Engels for more on the effects of industrial factories on woman and children.

[7] It is worth noting that the views of Peter the Great (r. 1682-1725), who build St. Petersburg (which was renamed Leningrad in 1924 after V.I. Lenin died), and the Soviet authorities had one similarity. Czar Peter I saw both men and women alike as tools to be utilized by his Czardom in statecraft, just like Soviet officials and planners. Peter’s programs aimed at making the Russian Empire a European great power through the resocialization of the men and women of the nobility and the Westernization of high culture (O’Malley 2007). In Peter’s time the peasants were more or less considered outside of the realm of culture, as social aliens, and all that culture entailed.  In no way were the changes applied by Peter the Great aimed at correcting any “perceived inequality in the status of women within Russian [imperial] society” (Bisha et al. 2002:2-3).

[8] For a time couples were even allowed to use a double name consisting of the family names of both, but the law was changed in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic because hyphenated last names were causing problems (Luryi 1980).

[9] Kommunistka, Peasant Woman (Krestinka), and Woman Worker (Rabotnista) were the names of this triumvirate of  important women’s publications (Hayden [1979] 1984; Pushkareva 1997).

[10] The religious authorities of the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish communities in the Russian Empire/USSR also all opposed and forbid it.

[11] Olga Berggolts (Bergholz), the poet of the nine-hundred day siege of Leningrad, spent most of her time making radio broadcasts that transformed her from a relatively unknown poet to the popular symbol of Leningrad’s resistance as the “Voice of Leningrad” and the “Muse of the Blockade” (Hodgson 1998: 134).

[12] This term comes from the end of the Napoleonic era. Many Russian nobleman and officers who fought against the French Empire ended occupying France. Upon their return to the Russian Empire they brought back new French ideas about government and civic rights, which prompted them to overthrow Alexander/Aleksandr I (r. 1801-1825) in December 1825. Many of the conspirators, called the “Decembrists” due to the month of their coup,  that were exiled to Siberia were also joined by their wives, which were elevated by Soviet historians as the first female revolutionaries of Russian society even though they were not politically active (Bisha et al. 2002:2-3). This may be because the first feminist organization ever established in Russia was established in 1859 by Maria Trubnikova, the daughter of the Decembrist V.P. Ivashev (Hayden [1979] 1984).

[13] Women who got abortions would only be fined 300 if they were caught having an abortion a second time (Goldman 1993:331).

[14] Stalin’s policies on non-Russian nationalities in the USSR parallel his policy on women in many ways. Order was the common denominator for both.


 

WORKS CITED

Amidon, Kevin S., and Dan Krier. 2009. “On Rereading Klaus Theweleit’s Male Fantasies.” Men and Masculinity 11(4):488-496

Beard, Robert, trans. 1996. “1936 Constitution of the USSR.” Bucknell University: Accessed on Nov. 14, 2012 <www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10>.

Bisha, Robin et al., eds. and trans. 2002. Russian Women, 1689-1917: Experience and Expression, An Anthology of Sources. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Botchlareva, Maria. 1918. Yashka: My Life As Peasant, Exile and Soldier. Isaac Don Levine, trans. and transcriber. London, UK: Constable and Company.

Browning, Genia. 1985. “Soviet Politics – Were are the Women?” Pp.207-236 in Soviet Sisterhood: British Feminists on Women in the USSR. Barbara Holland, ed. London, UK: Fourth Estate.

Buckley, Marry. 1985. “Soviet Interpretations of the Woman Question.” Pp.24-53 in Soviet Sisterhood: British Feminists on Women in the USSR. Barbara Holland, ed. London, UK: Fourth Estate.

Carreiras, Helena, and Gerhard Kümmel, 2008. “Off Limits: The Cults of the Body and Social Homogeneity as Discoursive Weapons Targeting Gender Integration in the Military.” Pp.29-47 in Women in the Military and Armed Conflict by Helena Carreiras and Gerhard Kümmel, eds. The Netherlands: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Clement, Barbara Evans. 1979. Bolshevik Feminist: The Life of Aleksandra Kollontai. London, UK: Indian University Press.

Edmondson, Linda. 1992. “Women’s rights, civil rights and the debate over citizenship in the 1905 Revolution.” Pp.77-100 in Women and Society in Russia and the Soviet Union. Linda Edmondson, ed.NYC: Cambridge University Press.

Engel, Barbara Alpern, and Anastasia Posadskaya-Vanderbeck, eds. 1998. A Revolution of Their Own: Voices of Women in Soviet History. Translated by Sona Hoisington. Oxford, UK: Westview Press.

Engels, Friedrich, and Karl Marx. 1888 /2012. The Communist Manifesto.  London, UK: Verso Books.

Engelstein, Laura. 1991. Abortion and Civic Order: The Legal and Medical Debates.” Pp. 185-207 in Russia’s Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation by Barbara Evans Clements, Barbara Alpern Engel, and Christine D. Worobec, eds. Berkley: University of California Press.

Field, Mark G. 1968. “Workers (and Mothers): Soviet Women Today.” Pp.7-56 in The Role and Status of Women in the Soviet Union by Donald R. Brown, ed. NYC: Teachers College Press.

Gardner, Jasmine. March 25, 2003. “Top girls – the women patrolling the sky for the RAF.” Evening Standard. Accessed on January 12, 2013: <www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/top-girls-the-women-patrolling-the-sky-for-the-raf-6385146.html>.

Goldman, Wendy. 1991. “Women, Abortion, and the State, 1917-1936.” Pp.243-266 in Russia’s Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation by Barbara Evans Clements, Barbara Alpern Engel, and Christine D. Worobec, eds. Berkley: University of California Press.

Goldman, Wendy Z. 1993. Women, The State, and Revolution: Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917-1936. NYC: Cambridge University Press.

Hayden, Carol Eubanks. 1979 /1984. Feminism and Bolshevism: The Zhenotdel and the Politics of Women’s Emancipation in Russia, 1917-1930. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International.

Hodgson, Katherine. 1998. “Under an Unwomanly Star: War in the Writing of Ol’ga Berggol’ts” Pp.134-147 in Women and Russian Culture: Projections and Self-Perceptions by Rosalind Marsh, ed. Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books.

Hopkins, Nick. March 23, 2011. “Woman pilot in Libya combat mission.” The Guardian. Accessed on January 12, 2013: <www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/23/woman-pilot-libya-combat-mission>.

Krylova, Anna. 2010. Soviet Women in Combat: A History of Violence on the Eastern Front. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luryi, Yuri I. 1980. Soviet Family Law. Buffalo, NY: William S. Hein and Company.

Mandel, William M. 1985. Soviet But Not Russian: The ‘Other’ Peoples in the Soviet Union. Palo Alto, California: University of Alberta and Ramparts Press.

Maninger, Stephan. 2008. “Women in Combat: Reconsidering the Case Against the Deployment of Women in Combat-Support and Combat Units.” Pp.9-27 in Women in the Military and Armed Conflict by Helena Carreiras and Gerhard Kümmel, eds. The Netherlands: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Marsh, Rosalind. 1998. “Introduction.” Pp.ix-xix in Women and Russian Culture: Projections and Self-Perceptions by Rosalind Marsh, ed. Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books.

Meyer, Alfred G.1991. “The Impact of World War I on Russian Women’s Lives.” Pp.209-224 in Russia’s Women: Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation by Barbara Evans Clements, Barbara Alpern Engel, and Christine D. Worobec, eds. Berkley: University of California Press.

O’Malley, Lurana Donnels. 2007. “Signs from Empress and Actress: Women and Theatre in the Eighteenth Century.” Pp.9-23 in Women in Russian Culture and Society, 1700-1825 by Wendy Rosslyn and Alessandra Tosi, eds. NYC: Palgrave Macmillan

Pushkareva, Natalia.1997. Women in Russian History: From the Tenth to the Twentieth Century. Translated and edited by Eve Levin. London, UK: M.E. Sharpe.

Stites, Richard. 1978. The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism 1860-1930. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Theweleit, Klaus. 1977/1987. Women, Flood, Bodies and History. Vol. 1 of Male Fantasies. Erica Carter, Steven Conway, and Chris Turner, trans. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.

Theweleit, Klaus. 1978/1989. Male Bodies: Psychoanalysing the White Terror. Vol. 2 of Male Fantasies. Erica Carter, Steven Conway, and Chris Turner, trans. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.

Tosi, Alessandra. 2007. “Women and Literature, Women in Literature: Female Authors of  Fiction in the Early Nineteenth Century.” Pp.39-62 in Women in Russian Culture and Society, 1700-1825 by Wendy Rosslyn and Alessandra Tosi, eds. NYC: Palgrave Macmillan

 

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on The Historic Role That Soviet Women Played in Defeating the Nazis in World War II

Today is International Women’s Day. The article below, first published on GR in May 2016, tells us the struggles of women’s organization in Afghanistan.

*

Please tell us about RAWA, you and your struggle, and the difficulties facing your country.

The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), is the oldest women’s organization in Afghanistan that fights for freedom, democracy, social justice, and secularism. RAWA’s founder was Meena who formed this group at a young age in 1977, with the help of some other female university students in Kabul. Meena was assassinated in Quetta, Pakistan in 1987 by agents of KHAD (Afghanistan branch of KGB) with the help of the bloodthirsty fundamentalist gang of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. She was only 30-years-old. What distinguishes RAWA from other associations is the fact that we are a political organization. When RAWA was found, Afghanistan was under the oppression of the USSR puppet government and later Russian invasion, and Meena felt that the struggle for independence, freedom, and justice was inseparable from the struggle for women’s rights. After Meena’s martyrdom, RAWA continued fighting against the Afghan Islamic fundamentalists and their international backers till today.

RAWA still work underground in most parts of Afghanistan but faces enormous difficulties. The Jehadi leaders, warlords with bloody pasts of horrific crimes, are in control of the current government and parliament, and have their separate kingdoms in different parts of Afghanistan. Abdullah Abdullah, the CEO of Afghanistan, is one of these Jehadi leaders who belongs to the criminal gang of Shorae Nizar. This creates a dangerous situation for us as these thugs our biggest enemies who do not hesitate in hindering our work and harming us. In other parts of Afghanistan where the Taliban fundamentalists are in control, RAWA faces the same oppression. All our members use pseudonyms for protection and we can never go public with our work. Despite these obstacles, it is still possible for us to continue our political activities in most parts of the country due to our contact with locals and the fact that their hatred for these criminals translates into support for us.

Our political activities include publishing our magazines and articles, and mobilizing women to get this consciousness and join our struggle. We collect and document the killings, raping, pillage, extortion, and other crimes of these warlords in remote parts of Afghanistan. Our social activities are providing education to women (not just literacy classes but social and political awareness as to their rights and how to achieve them), emergency aid, making orphanages, and health-related activities.

How is Afghanistan more than 14 years after the US invasion?

The US has committed heinous crimes in Afghanistan in the past decade, killing thousands of innocent people in airstrikes and night raids, and torturing innocent Afghans in their black sites inside their bases. The Bala Baluk massacre in Farah province in 2009 that killed 147 innocent Afghans, the Panjwai massacre in Kandahar province in 2012 that killed 16 innocent Afghans, the killing of twelve innocent children in Kunar province in 2013, and the MSF hospital strike of 2015 in Kunduz province that killed 42 and injured more than 30, are only a few incidents of the bloodshed caused by US/NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Despite this, the biggest treason the US has committed in Afghanistan is the re-installment of Islamic fundamentalist criminals in power. As history has always shown and the present proves, no foreign intervention or occupation is entirely successful without the cooperation of a group of treacherous domestic mercenaries of the occupant country. Today Afghanistan is ruled by bloodthirsty fundamentalist warlords and criminals who share the Taliban’s ideology and have committed crimes worse than that of the Taliban in the past. The Northern Alliance, composed of the most traitorous and misogynist elements of warlords and military commanders were imposed on our people through three historically fraudulent elections. These criminals led the civil war of 1992-1996 that killed more than 65,000 civilians in Kabul alone and plundered the city. Their militias committed systematic murder, rape, gang-rape, extortion, robbery, arbitrary detention, cut off women’s breasts, nailed nails into skulls, performed horrible killing rituals, and hundreds of other crimes. Instead of facing prosecution in international courts for these crimes, these killers enjoy full impunity and fatten their bank accounts with the West’s support. Countless reports by international bodies such as the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented the crimes committed by powerful warlords all over Afghanistan, both in the past and present. Despite this, we know that this support is unwavering and will continue for decades.

The new government of Afghanistan called the ‘National Unity Government’ is headed by long-time US mercenary Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah of Northern Alliance, who were united by a John Kerry brokered agreement after the two could not agree on the results of the rigged and disgusting presidential elections which was full of fraud (the result of this election was officially released a year later!). Ashraf Ghani’s deputies were prominent criminals Rashid Dostum and Sarwar Danish, while Abdullah’s running mates were Mohammad Khan and Mohammad Mohaqiq, another two famous criminals. The first thing the new government did was sign the Bilateral Security Agreement that legitimized the long-term presence of the US in our homeland and was the document that officially sold our independence to the US. There is no new face in the government. The only difference is that this time, the famous criminals of Khalq and Parcham faction who were the puppets of the USSR have also been given a chunk of the power, despite being implicated in a Death List  which revealed the names of 5000 political activists and intellectuals who were killed by the regime in the 1970s and 80s. Needless to say, such a puppet regime cannot bring peace, freedom, democracy, justice, and women’s rights even if they go through elections a hundred times.

According to the UN, the Taliban’s reach is widest now since 2001. The suicide attacks by the Taliban, and the constant war between the Afghan government and Taliban has made life hell for our people. The civilian death rate for 2015 has been the highest ever recorded and a large portion of that is made up of women and children. While the wounds the Taliban gave our people are still bleeding, peace talks are ongoing to include the Taliban in the government. Instead of putting them on trial for their heinous crimes they are being invited to the government to complete the circle of fundamentalist, mercenary criminals in Afghanistan. How can such a criminal force bring peace by taking power?

Today Afghanistan’s economy is in shambles. More than 60 billion dollars was donated to Afghanistan for the so-called reconstruction effort but not even cents reached our people and filled the pockets of mafia in and out of the government. In the past thirteen years not one project has contributed to rebuilding the base of the country. No basic infrastructure has been built in the country and unemployment hits new peaks every day.

Poverty and hunger in Afghanistan is among the highest in the world, comparable only to African nations. Afghanistan has the highest infant mortality rate in the world, millions suffer from hunger and malnourishment. 25% of the children in Afghanistan are engaged in labor to feed their families, which deprives them of school and other basic rights.

Afghanistan has been named the most corrupt country in the world for the past few years. Thanks to the US invasion, Afghanistan is a narco-state today. It is not just the top producer of drugs providing 90% of the world’s opium, but also has the highest user of drugs too with around 3 million addicts. In the recent London conference, Ashraf Ghani stated that of the 500 billion USD income of drugs in Afghanistan, 480 billion has flowed back to Europe. This not only highlights the failure of the West in its so-called war on drugs in Afghanistan, but raises doubts of their involvement in this business.

Regarding women of Afghanistan, whom Washington promised to liberate, what is their situation today?

The Afghan women’s dire situation under the medieval-minded Taliban was exploited by the US as one of the main reasons to invade Afghanistan in 2001. Let us look at how this “liberation” has panned out.

Like all the people of Afghanistan, women are crushed between several forces in a continuous war and insecurity that has plagued our country for more than a decade: the US and its allies, Jehadi and Taliban fundamentalists, and now the newly-emerged ISIS.

The parliament has attempted to legalize stoning to death for adultery, wife-beating, and honor killing. Most of the women in Afghan jails today were sentenced by the misogynist judiciary for “moral crimes” such as running away from home from cruel husbands and in-laws, eloping with a lover, etc. Countless cases of public lashing and executions have been carried out by mock courts of Taliban, and local warlords and Mullahs in all parts of Afghanistan.

The situation of women today is catastrophic. Violence against women has risen to unprecedented levels today. Women suffer from domestic violence, rape, gang-rape, sexual abuse, murder, immolation, honor-killing, underage and coerced marriage to men much older than them, exchange of girls in marriage for items, and tens of other such misfortunes. Young girls have been tortured in basements, have had their noses, lips, and ears chopped off, deprived of food, and beaten to death by their families or in-laws. What we hear in the media is only the tip of the iceberg.

In 2001, the US and its allies used the plight of Afghan women as an excuse to occupy Afghanistan, they specially used the image of an Afghan woman called Zarmina who was publicly killed by Taliban in the Kabul sports stadium. But just few weeks ago the same public execution of an Afghan woman was released but the Western media turned a blind eye on it and they even did not report it.

The rates of self-immolation have reached new heights. Many women burn themselves alive as they see no other solution to their problems. The legislators, judiciary, and police all over Afghanistan are misogynist fundamentalists who impose their anti-women mentalities in the form of laws, and offer full impunity to the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes. It is only natural that in such a situation, violence against women will only continue to rise.

Last year, Afghanistan witnessed the most horrific crime ever committed against an Afghan woman in broad daylight in central Kabul, under the nose of the local policemen and government. Farkhunda, a 26-year-old student, was lynched by a mob of thugs who falsely accused her of burning the Quran. She was kicked, punched, run over by a car, stoned, then burned and thrown in the dry Kabul river. Most of Farkhunda’s killers were released days after their arrest. Out of the four remaining, one was sentenced to just 10 years in prison and the other three to 20 years. Their death penalties were overturned in what were ridiculously brief court sessions.

Later that year, 19-year-old Rukhshana was stoned to death by a Taliban kangaroo court in a Mullah-dominated western province of Afghanistan for eloping. Her screams echoed around the country as she was slowly murdered by an angry crowd of Taliban. A delegation was sent by Ashraf Ghani, the Afghan president, to investigate and punish the perpetrators of the crimes. The delegation was headed by a Mullah who backed the Taliban and openly championed the stoning of the young girl as being Islamic and legal a few days after the incident. The investigation was unsurprisingly futile.

Perhaps the clearest reflection of the mindset of the current legislature came from Nazir Ahmad Hanafi, a prominent Afghan legislator, whose heated interview with Isobel Yeung culminated in a blatant threat: “Maybe I should give you to an Afghan man to take your nose off”, a reference to the mutilation of a 20-year-old Reza Gul, whose husband chopped her nose off  for the “moral crime” of running away from her home.

Afghanistan still has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world, with thousands of women dying during childbirth every year. The official literacy rate stands at 18% although considering the ground reality the rate is much lower than this. Afghanistan is rightfully called one of the worst places to be a woman.

The US has made a joke out of democracy and women’s rights in our country by supporting the most misogynist criminals in the government, but shamelessly using the symbolic presence of female officials to deceive the world about the actual situation. Most of these women are tied to the same fundamentalist parties and criminals, and are as undemocratic and misogynist, as their male counterparts. The others are simply using this opportunity to stuff their bank accounts from the gold rush of foreign aid. The other achievements of women such as reopening of schools and jobs for women are limited to a few urban cities of Afghanistan, with majority women still suffering in the current hellfire.

Right now the Afghan puppet government is negotiating with Gulbuddin and want to take off his name from black list of the UN and give him legal protection and impunity. But this is the most notorious Afghan warlord and enemy of women’s rights who used to throw acid on the faces of women who were seen in public.

The US uses these superficial ‘gains’ as pretext to continue its military occupation of Afghanistan, threatening that they will be lost after its so-called withdrawal. It is a basic truth that hard-fought gains made by the true struggle of women are never lost, and the US uses these cosmetic changes as a smokescreen to justify its invasion to the people of the world.

How do the Afghan people in general see the US “long stay” (occupation) in Afghanistan?

Afghans are feed-up, they know that the West has betrayed them, they came with long claims of “human rights”, “women’s rights” and “democracy”, but in fact they pushed Afghanistan towards disasters and mafia state and everything they did were just cosmetic changes. They are fed-up with the crimes and brutalizes of the US forces in Afghanistan over the past 15 years because tens of thousands of Afghan were killed by their bombs and shootings but in fact terrorism was nourished more than before. They are fed-up that the West is relying on the most brutal and inhuman bands and in the name of “war on terror” actually supports terrorists and use terrorism as a weapon to defeat its rivals like Russia and China.

Why do you think the US is so interested in your country?

At this point, after more than a decade of US aggression in several countries in the region, we think there remains no doubt in anybody’s mind that the US is present in our country and other countries for its own interests. The geopolitical position of Afghanistan offers the US a one-of-a-kind advantage in the region: access to its biggest rivals in the world, Russia, China, India, and Iran. The US has built gigantic military bases and its second largest embassy in the world, and has thousands of military personnel and private contractors stationed in different parts of Afghanistan. This military set up points to the US’s attempt to keep its adversaries under its thumb, and continue pursuing its bigger aims in the region. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, the treacherous, fundamentalist-ridden government of Afghanistan, coupled with a worn-out, war riddled population that has been suppressed for four decades and is too tired to fight back, provides the optimum conditions for the US’s operations here. The traitors of the Afghan state not only sold out Afghanistan, but have kept silent about the brutal crimes of the US forces and defended all its acts of aggression in the country.

Afghans now know that the US just uses Afghanistan as its front in Asia to advance its regional agenda which is to promote terrorism to turn Asia into a burning point on the earth to stop the military and economic advancement emerging powers in this continent.

If you track every significant change in Afghanistan’s situation, such as the relocation of the Taliban – and the war, insecurity, terror, and unrest that automatically follows them – to the northern regions, they all serve a certain interest of the US. In this case it would be causing instability near, and even instigating Russia. It is important to point out here, that contrary to what is generally propagated about the Taliban being lackeys of Pakistan, and to a smaller extent, Iran, the truth is that ultimately it is the US that is holding the leash of these brutes. The Taliban are the reserve force of the US who will utilize them whenever it sees the need. It is no secret that the bloodthirsty Taliban regime was created and nurtured by the US, and will be used whenever the need arises. The Taliban serve a dual purpose for the US today: they justify the continuation of the “war on terror”, and serve as their proxies in parts of Afghanistan that are not under the control of the so-called government. Today, nothing in Afghanistan can occur or change without the US’s permission and it would be quite naïve to think otherwise. This situation also exposes the lie the US government told the world in 2014 about ending its war in Afghanistan by withdrawing its troops and ending the Afghan war. The US continues to have a strong foothold in Afghanistan for its geostrategic purposes.

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on US War Crimes against Women: The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA): Interview

Relevant article selected from the GR archive, first published on GR in December 2012

Introduction

Part 1 of this series Russian History: From the Early East Slavs to the Grand Duchy of Moscow was aimed at explaining the foundation of the Russian state, by discussing its early influences in the cultural and political fields. As the subject of the present part is to provide insight on how Russia reached the status of superpower, it is necessary to briefly get back to the reign of Ivan III.

Although the reign of the tsars started officially with Ivan IV, Ivan III (“Ivan the Great”) played a critical role in the centralization of the Russian state, after having defeated the Mongol army in 1480.

Meanwhile, the extension of the Russian land was eased by the death of Casimir IV, the king of Poland, in 1492 and the fact that Casimir’s son, Alexander, was willing to cooperate with the Russians, so he wedded Ivan’s daughter Helena soon after accessing the throne of Lithuania, as an attempt to avoid open conflict with his powerful neighbor. Unfortunately for him, Ivan III’s clear determination to appropriate as much of Lithuania as possible, finally obliged Alexander to wage war against his father-in-law in 1499. It was a complete disaster for Lithuania and in 1503 Alexander eventually purchased peace by ceding to Ivan III Novgorod-Seversky, Chernigov and seventeen other cities.

With the unification of the state’s heartland almost complete, the country was ready to assert itself on the international stage. One figure sums up Russia’s fast expansion: from 1550 to 1700, Russia’s territory grew by 35000 km2 a year (which is approximately the size of Netherlands today). [1]

Therefore, Russia became a superpower way before the early 19th century, more precisely before the Concert of Europe set up by the Congress of Vienna (1815) …

The Reinforcement of Tsardom

Conventionally, the Tsardom of Russia is considered by historians as the period running from Ivan IV’s claim to be the “ Ruler of all Rus’ ” in 1547 to the foundation of the Russian Empire by Peter the Great in 1721.

Ivan IV’s coronation ceremony was modeled after those of the Byzantine emperors, and six years later Moscow became known as the Third Rome due to the takeover of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire, leaving Moscow as the only legitimate center of the Orthodox Church. Autocratism reached a peak in Russia during his reign (1547-1584), and was nicknamed “Ivan the Terrible”. During the late 1550’s, he subordinated the Russian nobility to an unprecedented degree (a simple provocation was generally enough to get forced into exil or even executed). [2]

Nevertheless, Ivan IV is regarded as a key Russian statesman because in 1550 he promulgated a new code of laws (the Sudebnik), introduced the self-management of rural regions, established the Zemsky Sobor, which was the first representative body on a large scale in Russian history (it happened on a local scale in Novgorod though, as mentioned in the first part of this series) and was also able to decrease the influence of the clergy on politics. [3] Ivan IV managed to annex the Khanates of Kazan in 1552, and those of Siberia and Astrakhan later but his long Livonian War for the control of the Baltic coast and access to sea trade turned out to be a costly failure. [4] Indeed, in 1558 he engaged his country in a twenty-five year war against Sweden, Denmark and the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, which resulted in the failure to secure a critical position in the Baltic Sea. In the meantime, Devlet I of Crimea hoped to take advantage of the difficulties of the Russian army on the Baltic front to repeatedly sack the Moscow area. This northern threat was combined with insecurity on the southern border, where the Nogai Horde pillaged the land and enslaved local inhabitants. [5] Nevertheless, these conquests enabled Ivan IV to gain access to Central Asia and to control the entire Volga River. It also brought a significant Muslim Tatar population into Russia, which officially emerged as a multiethnic and multiconfessional state, even if Russia has ever been a cosmopolite country since its foundation. [6].

However, Ivan IV’s hostility toward the nobility weakened his country in the short term. In 1565, the Tsar divided Russia into two parts: the oprichnina (his private realm) made up of some of the largest and richest districts and the zemshchina (the public domain). By doing so, Ivan IV got rid of a large number of people who helped in the expansion of Russia. This process reached its climax during the “Massacre of Novgorod”, in 1570, while trade significantly decreased. The weakening of the aristocracy combined with low harvests (a lot of peasants left Russia to escape from excessively high taxes, others were killed as part of the repression), military losses and epidemics enabled the Crimean Tatars to burn down Moscow and raid central Russia in 1571. [7] Besides, the joint coalition made up of Sweden, Denmark and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was successful in halting Russia’s expansion for the first time of its history.

Ivan IV’s domestic policy and foreign policy ultimately led Russia to one of the darkest ages of its history, a time of civil war and social struggle known under the name of the “Time of Troubles”.[8]

Time of Troubles, 1598 – 1613

This unstable period runs from the death of Feodor Ivanovich, the last tsar of the Rurik Dynasty to the establishment of the Romanov Dynasty, which would lead the country until the Revolution of 1917. [9]

Between 1601 and 1601, extremely cold summers destroyed crop fields which led to famine and social unrest. They were allegedly caused by the eruption of a volcano in Peru in 1600, massively pouring out sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, which is supposed to have resulted in the formation of sulfur acid preventing the sunlight to reach properly the Earth’s surface. [10]

The Polish-Lithuanian army added further turmoil in the country by carrying out several invasions during the Polish-Muscovite war (1605-1618). In 1605, they also installed an impostor on the throne of Russia: False Dmitry I, who claimed to be the legitimate son of Ivan IV. The turning point occurred at the Battle of Klushino in 1610, when the Russian-Swedish army was defeated, which enabled a group of Russian aristocrats, the Seven Boyars, to depose the tsar Vasily Shuysky, who gained power by killing False Dmitry I. The Polish prince Władysław IV Vasa became tsar and violently repressed the opposing Muscovite crowd, while another impostor, False Dmitry II, also claimed to be the rightful heir of Ivan IV but failed in his attempt to seize power. An important fact is that all the fake tsars were supported by the Catholic Church, because the Polish-Lithuanian leaders wanted to convert the Russian people. Here is certainly the origin of the anti-catholic (and sometimes anti-Polish) feeling in Russia. [11]

Finally, an army led by Kuzma Minin (a merchant) and Dmitry Pozharsky (a prince from the Suzdal area) managed to crush the foreign forces and to expel them from Moscow on the 4th of November, 1612. Pozharsky ran the provisional government of Moscow with the help of his assistant, Dmitry Trubetskoy, until a new tsar was elected by the Zemsky Sobor. [12]

The death toll during the Time of Troubles was heavy: according to Sergey Solovyov, tens of thousands died in riots and battles. [13] This dark period was influential in the emergence of Russian nationalism, and the 4th of November is now celebrated every year as a Unity Day (the tradition was established in 1612 by the new elected tsar, Mikhail Romanov and brought back by Vladimir Putin in 2005, because the bolshevik revolutionaries had replaced it by a day celebrating the revolution of 1917). [14]

The unification of the Russian society around the Romanov dynasty set the framework for the powerful Russian Empire to come.

The Establishment of the Romanov Dynasty

The first task of Mikhail Romanov was to restore peace. It was eased by the weakening of his two main enemies, Sweden and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth due to a conflict between the two entities, which provided Russia with the opportunity to make peace with the former in 1617 and with the latter in 1619, at the price of limited territory losses. Those territories were recovered by the Treaty of Pereyaslav, signed with the Ukrainian Cossacks in 1654, which basically entailed the russification of Ukraine, as a reward for the military support offered by the tsar Alexey I during the Khmelnytsky rebellion against the Cossacks, in an area formerly under Polish control. [15]

This treaty immediately sparked the Russo-Polish War, which had far reaching consequences. Indeed, it ended with the Treaty of Andrusovo (1667), whose major feature is the losses of Kiev and Smolensk, which fell under Russian control. [16] An alliance between the political elite and the nobility then resulted in a dramatic deterioration of peasants’ conditions in all of Russian-controlled territories, as they were charged taxes 100 times higher than a century ago. [17] Obviously, popular rebellions frequently took place, such as the Salt Riot (1648), the Copper Riot (1662) and the Moscow Uprising (1682). [18]

In 1672, Peter I, who would become known as Peter the Great, founder of the Russian Empire was born in this unstable period. In 1682, Feodor III and Peter became tsar with his mother as regent, because he was only 10-year old. He had to wait until the death of his mother in 1694 to actually exercise power (his half-sister, Sophia, managed to seize power in 1682 and ruled the nation until Peter’s mother deposed her seven years later). At this time, Russia was already the largest state in the world (three times the size of continental Europe), which would imply several challenges for the latter statesman. [19]

Foundation of the Russian Empire

Peter I initiated the tradition of the “reforming tsar”. From his reign on, all tsars were judged on their ability to modernize the economy and Russian society as a whole, and also on their ability to gain influence abroad. The protection of the homeland was not ambitious enough anymore. [20] Following this new doctrine, Peter I’s initial military campaigns were directed against the Ottoman Empire, because he wanted to gain a foothold on the Black Sea, by taking the town of Azov. [21]

But his attention quickly turned to the north, as Russia was denied access to the Baltic Sea by Sweden. In 1699, it led Peter I to sign a secret alliance with Russia’s main foe during the 16th and 17th centuries, that is to say the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, to wage war against Sweden, also with the help of Denmark. The Great Northern War ended in 1721, when Sweden had to cede provinces situated east and south of the Gulf of Finland, thereby securing Peter I’s coveted access to the sea. In 1703, it was in this area that he founded St Petersburg, designed as a “window opened upon Europe” which was to replace Moscow as the nation’s capital from until 1918 (the Soviets didn’t move the government as soon as the Revolution was over, in October 1917). Therefore, the conquest of the northern front was a well-prepared plan and Peter decided to assume the title of emperor as a celebration of these conquests, thus replacing the Tsardom with the Russian Empire in 1721. [22]

Under his reign, Russia became an absolutist state molded on the European standards of that time. Indeed, Peter the Great replaced the Boyar Duma (which was a council of nobles, not to be confused with the modern State Duma, which is the lower house of the Russian parliament; the upper house being the Federal Council of Russia) with a nine-member supreme council of state, called the Governing Senate. Its mandate was to oversee administrative, judicial and financial affairs, and its main achievement has been to collect taxes more effectively: tax revenues tripled over the course of Peter the Great’s reign. [23]

Then, in 1722 he displayed his Table of Ranks, whose aim was to determine position and status of everybody in the tree branches of the administration (the military, civil and court services) according to skills rather than according to birth or seniority. He also required state service from all the nobles. Thus, it created an educated class of noble bureaucrats who had to demonstrate their ability to carry out administrative tasks. In this regard, Russia was more developed than other absolute European monarchies, such as France. [24] Peter the Great also undertook a government reform, which officially incorporated the Orthodox Church into the administrative structure but in fact it became a tool of the emperor, as he replaced the patriarchate with the Holy Sinod (a collective entity)  led by a government official. [25]

In 1725, Peter the Great died, leaving an unsettled succession as he failed to choose the next tsar before dying (he passed a law which abrogated traditional rules of succession, based on the law of primogeniture). Obviously, the following decade was marked by various plots and coups. As a result, the critical factor to take the throne over became the support of the palace guards. [26]

The Era of Russian Palace Revolutions

Peter the Great’s wife, Catherine I, was the first woman to ascend the throne of Russia, paving the way for a century almost completely dominated by women, including her daughter Elizabeth and Catherine the Great. Both continued Peter the Great’s policies in modernizing Russia, but Catherine I’s humble origins was considered as a state secret by later generations of tsars. [27]

At the time of Peter’s death, the Russian army was without contest the largest in Europe. The military budget amounted to 65 % of the government yearly income but Catherine I decided to slash military expenditures because the nation was at peace. She was assisted by a Supreme Privy Council, led by Alexander Menshikov, a close friend of Peter the Great who took an active part in the Azov campaign against the Ottoman empire (1695 – 1696) but was accused of corruption (he looted Poland and defrauded the Russian government of around 100 000 rubles, a significant amount of money at that time). Another prominent member of the Council was Peter Tolstoy, an ancestor of the famous novelist, who helped Menshikov in his attempt to raise Catherine I to the throne. Andrei Osterman, was in charge of foreign affairs and was also minister of commerce, while another member of the Council, Dmitry Galitzine advocated for a constitutional monarchy and would become much more influential later, under the reign of Peter II. Then, Catherine I’s son-in-law, Karl Friedrich, was allowed to enter the Council. [28]

Catherine I ordered the construction of the first bridges of St Petersburg, but because of her poor health Menshikov was the real leader of the country and he ultimately took over most of the functions of the Governing Senate. [29]

When she died in 1727, Peter the Great’s grandson, Peter II, was crowned tsar. But he was only 11 year old at that time so he was manipulated by Menshikov until he became severely ill and replaced as Peter II’s senior advisor by Andrei Osterman and Vasily Dolgorukov (the latter joined the Council under the reign of Peter II). Peter II died before he could marry Dolgorukov’s daughter Catherine and he didn’t name a legitimate successor, thereby throwing Russia into another succession struggle. [30]

In 1730, Dmitry Galitzine came up with the idea of turning Russia into a constitutional monarchy, in which the tsar’s executive power would be limited by the Council, and his constitutional project was known as “The Conditions” was signed by the new elected tsar, Anna Ivanovna. In fact, it was called “The Conditions” because she had to accept them prior to ascend the throne. The new dispositions provided that declaration of wars, international treaties, new taxes and using of public revenues were to be approved by the Council. However, Anna Ivanovna revoked her approval of the Conditions only two days after having signed them, and dismantled the Council in the meantime, with significant support from the nobles who were not close enough to a member of the Council to defend their interests. [31]

To strengthen her power, she restored the security police and was assisted by Ernst Johann von Biron, who forced around 30 000 people into exile in Siberia, mainly Old Believers (traditional orthodox believers who didn’t approve the reform of the Orthodox Church). They also repealed Peter I’s legislation about the nobility’s state service requirements and the primogeniture law. Therefore, estates could be subdivided again and nobles were not compelled to complete the state service anymore. Besides, they further deteriorated the conditions of the serfs, who now the landlords’ permission before moving to find work elsewhere. [32]

From 1733 to 1736, Russia allied with Austria and took part in the War of Polish Succession against France and Spain, to prevent the election of a French candidate to the polish throne. Later, Russia and Austria waged war against the Ottoman Empire in order to gain territory in the Azov area, but the death toll was high, mainly due to diseases. This was a major war regarding Russian history because it marked the beginning of the state’s military effort to expand southward, an enterprise that would reveal successful under the reign of Catherine II. [33] Anna Ivanonva named Ivan VI, son of Anna Leopoldovna and the Duke of Brunswick, as her successor and Biron as his regent. [34]

However, Peter the Great’s daughter Elizabeth seized the throne in 1741, assisted by the Preobrazhensky Regiment, an elite regiment of the Russian army formed by her father in the late 17th century, which distinguished itself during the Great Northern War. [35]

She reigned for twenty years and was much more effective than her immediate predecessors (the regency of Biron was marked by high taxes and other economic issues, not to mention the fact that his German origins gave Russians the feeling of losing their independence). Her reign was marked by major cultural and scientific events, such as the foundation of Moscow University (1755) and the Imperial Academy of Arts (1757), along with the emergence of Russia’s first leading scholar, Mikhail Lomonosov. She also ordered the construction of the Smolny Cathedral and the modernization of the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg (at a cost of 2,500,000 rubles just for the Winter Palace) [36]

Her administration partly followed Peter I’s legacy, as they restored the Governing Senate’s powers and abolished capital punishment but also followed Elizabeth predecessors’ efforts to increase the nobility’s control over the serfs, who now needed their landlord’s approval to marry. Under a new law, nobles were also allowed to exile their serfs to Siberia. [37]

Regarding foreign policy, Sweden ceded the southern part of Finland located east of the river Kymmene, which became the boundary between the two states Russia (Treaty of Abo, 1743). This success has been credited to the diplomatic skills of Alexey Bestuzhev-Ryumin, the new vice chancellor, who represented the anti-Franco-Prussian wing of her council. His aim was to bring about an alliance with England and Austria. That’s certainly why Louis XV and Frederick II of Prussia made several attempts to get rid of him, without success. Then, Russia took part in the War of Austrian Succession (1740-1748) and the Seven Years’ War from 1755 to 1762, the first one under an alliance with Austria and Great Britain against Prussia and France and the second one under an alliance with Austria and France against Prussia and Great Britain. Bestuzhev was the main Russian diplomat at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748) which put an end to the War of Austrian Succession. He managed to take Russia out of the Swedish imbroglio, enabled Russia to assert herself in Sweden, Turkey and Poland while isolating Frederick II and improving diplomatic relations between Elizabeth and the courts of London and Vienna. [38]

In 1758, he got fired, without reason according to the future Catherine II: “He was relieved of all his decorations and rank, without a soul being able to reveal for what crimes or transgressions the first gentleman of the Empire was so despoiled, and sent back to his house as a prisoner.” [39] Nevertheless, the identity of his foes was well known: the French and Austrian ambassadors, but also Vice-Chancellor Mikhail Vorontsov (who also took part in the previous plot against Bestuzhev, known as the Lopukhina Conspiracy, which was designed by Jean de Lestocq, who was earlier part of the coup d’état which brought Elizabeth to the throne). [40]

The Seven Year’s War was rather successful for Russia but ended suddenly as a result of mounting financial difficulties and the empress’ death in 1762. Her successor, Peter III, grandson of Peter the Great, took Russia out of the war. [41]

Still, his reign was short and unpopular, especially within the clergy which was expropriated, while the serfs working on its lands were freed. Peter III also proclaimed religious freedom, which has been seen as a challenge to the authority of the Orthodox Church. Besides, he made huge territorial concessions to Prussia and even signed an alliance with Frederick II. Russian troops were soon deployed against Austria. This dramatic diplomatic shift led to a new balance of powers in Europe. [42]

Furthermore, Peter III’s national policy didn’t match at all the interests of the elite: he abolished the secret police set up by his grandfather, fought corruption within the administration and introduced public interest litigation (i.e. the possibility of conducting a lawsuit to defend the public interest). He also established the first state bank in Russia, thus rejecting the nobility’s monopoly on money creation and trade.  Regarding economic policy, he supported mercantilism by forbidding the import of sugar and other products that could be found in Russia. Thereby, he carried out to some extent a westernization of Russian society. But Peter III’s wife, Catherine, took advantage of his unpopularity to set up a coup d’état against him with the help of her lover’s brother, Alexey Orlov, who murdered him in 1762. [43]

The new empress took the name of Catherine II and Peter’s assassination marked the end of the era of palace revolutions [44]

 The Reign of Catherine II

The Russian Enlightenment began under the reign of Elizabeth, who ordered the establishment of the Moscow University and the Imperial Academy of Arts. However, the movement received a significant boost under the reign of Catherine the Great. She considered herself as an enlightened despot, claiming to be especially influenced by the ideas of Montesquieu and Voltaire. She even had an extended correspondence with the latter. In this perspective, she continued the westernization of Russian society undertook by Peter III, and supported burgeoning manufactures. [45]

Catherine II’s political reforms went beyond improving Russia’s bureaucracy developed under Peter the Great, contrary to what has been said by her opponents, who claimed that her adherence to the Enlightenment was just a pretext to expand her power. [46]

Indeed, she established state-run primary schools, which provided basic education, exalted patriotism and innovation but most importantly, in 1767 she wrote a statement of legal principles called Nakaz (which means Instruction), clearly influenced by the ideas of the French Enlightenment, in order to replace the Sobornoye Ulozheniye, which was the legal code established in 1649 by the Zemsky Sobor under the reign of Alexey I. It proclaimed the equality of all men before the law, disapproved torture and death penalty, thus anticipating some of the issues raised by the later United States Constitution. [47] By the way, a less known predecessor of the American Constitution has been the Corsican Constitution drafted by Pasquale Paoli in 1755, mainly inspired by the ideas of Rousseau. [48]

Some of Catherine II’s advisors suggested creating a council to regulate legislation but this proposal was firmly rejected, and when she feared that she was beginning to lose some authority she reverted to the ways of the past: autocratic rule. Officially, she ruled with the Senate but it possessed no legislative powers. She also bolstered the grip of the nobility over the nation’s affairs. Indeed, nobles no longer had to serve the central government, as the law had required since Peter the Great’s time, and many of them received major roles in provincial governments. [49]

Catherine had a paradoxical thought: on the one hand she proved to have been deeply inspired by contemporary French philosophers but on the other hand she consolidated autocratism. A famous illustration of this is the treatment received by Alexander Radishchev, a social critic who was exiled to Siberia due to his pamphlet against the regime, entitled Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow (1790). [50]. In 1773, she also crushed a major peasant uprising led by a Cossack named Pugachev, who managed to take the city of Kazan before being defeated. [51]

Regarding foreign policy, Catherine II successfully waged war against a weaker Ottoman Empire and advanced Russia’s southern boundary to the Black Sea. In 1774, the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji gave the regions of Yinsdale, Kerch and parts of the Yesidan region to Russia, which also assumed military control of the Crimean Khanate and became the formal protector of Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire. In 1783, Catherine took control of the Crimea, helping to spark another War with the Ottoman Empire four years later. In 1792, Russia expanded southward to the Dniestr river through the Treaty of Jassy, thereby annexing most of the Yesidan region. This treaty almost achieved the empress’ “Greek Project” which consisted in renewing a Byzantine Empire under Russian control, after having thrown the Ottomans out of south-eastern Europe. [52]

Russia also expanded westward thanks to the increasing weakness of Poland. Indeed, Catherine signed an alliance with Prussia and Austria to share the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Although the partitioning of Poland greatly added to Russia’s territory and prestige, it also meant a common border with both Austria and Prussia, which were two potential competitors for hegemony over Eastern and Central Europe. Moreover, the empire became more difficult to control because of a more ethnically heterogeneous population. For instance, Catholic Poles staged several uprisings against the Russian occupation, while Jews were deported to the western part of the empire, thus paving the way for anti-Jewish policies later. In 1791, the same three powers abrogated the Polish Constitution of 1791 under the pretext of fearing the emergence of radicalism, an excuse also used to acquire further territories from Poland (Russia was also in control of most of Ukraine and Belarus). This new partition led to the Kościuszko Uprising in Poland, which ended with the third partition of the country in 1795. [53]

By the time of her death in 1796, Catherine’s expansionist policy had definitely turned Russia into a major European power. This new role drove the Russian empire into a series of wars against the other major European force, the Napoleonic empire, which also claimed hegemony over Europe, and this had far-reaching consequences for Russia and the rest of Europe.

Russia under Alexander I

In 1812, Napoleon made a huge mistake when he declared war on Russia after an argument with the new emperor, Alexander I, who ascended the throne after the murder of his father in 1801. Unprepared for winter warfare, thousands of French troops were killed by the Russian regular army, which also received  significant help from peasants, despite all the pro-nobility policies implemented ever since the reign of Anna Ivanovna. [54]

After having defeated Napoleon on the eastern front, Alexander became known as the “savior of Europe” and this status enabled him to join the Congress of Vienna (1815), which was to redraw the map of Europe, on a comfortable diplomatic position. Russia was given most of the Duchy of Warsaw, called “Congress Poland”, and was also allowed to keep Finland, which it had annexed from Sweden six years ago. France and Great Britain refused the original plan advocated by Alexander I and approved by von Hardenberg, who represented Prussia, under which Prussia would trade her polish territories for Saxony. The French and British diplomats refused the deal because Poland would not serve as a buffer state between the two East-European powers anymore. [55]

But the most important consequence of the Congress of Vienna was not even the reshaping of Europe: it opened the tradition of oligarchic diplomacy, as only five powers (Austria, Russia, Prussia, Great-Britain and France) met to discuss the future of world relations. In an important essay, Bertrand Badie showed that the international system didn’t evolve so much since 1815, the G8 and NATO having replaced the Concert in his role of Directory of the World. [56]

Regarding domestic policy, Alexander I’s main achievement has been to bring Russia close to a constitutional monarchy, with the help of his main advisor, Mikhail Speransky. Indeed, the State Council was created in order to improve technique of legislation with the intention of making it the Second Chamber of representative legislature and the Governing Senate was reorganized as the Supreme Court of the Empire. He also introduced political responsibility to the crown for his ministers. A constitution project was stopped in 1810, due to growing resistance from the conservative nobility, especially from Nikolai Karamzin (a famous historian) and also because the Napoleonic wars became the major issue facing the Empire. [57]

Conclusion

Part 2 of this series detailed how Russia progressively asserted herself on the international stage. Hopefully, it would have pointed out the complexity of Russian politics during the period studied.

The country expanded dramatically, saw the implementation of various law codes quite advanced regarding the standards of the time, consolidated his nature of multicultural nation but also roughly repressed opponents to the imperial regime, and the condition of the serfs was terrible. The long hesitation between autocratism and constitutional monarchy, as well as the continuous decrease of the influence of the clergy on politics in favor of the nobility are also good illustrations of the complexity, of the paradoxical situation of Russian society at that time.

In a nutshell, Imperial Russia relied on a combination of principles of the Enlightenment and conservative ideas, expressed by the charismatic statesmen of the Romanov Dynasty, who established the Russian identity on the global stage.

Part 3 will be dedicated to the progressive downfall of the dynasty, until its abdication in 1917, opening a new era, the one of Soviet Russia.

 Julien Paolantoni earned a BSc of Economics & Management from the University of Bordeaux, France, and enrolled in the MSc of Public Law & Political Science still at the same university. He can be reached at:  [email protected]

Notes

[1] Richard Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime, Penguin Books, revised edition, 1997

[2] Glenn E. Curtis (ed.), “Muscovy” in Russia: A Country Study, Library of Congress, 1996

[3] Paul Bushkovitch, Religion and Society in Russia: The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Oxford University Press, 1992

[4] Janet Martin, Medieval Russia: 980-1584, Cambridge University Press, 2008

[5] William Urban, “The Origin of the Livonian War”, Lithuanian Quarterly Journal of Arts and Sciences, vol. 29, 1983

[6] http://www.globalresearch.ca/russian-history-from-the-early-east-slavs-to-the-grand-duchy-of-moscow/5306142

[7] R. G. Skrynnikov, Ivan the Terrible, Academic International Press, 1981

[8] Ibid.

[9] Glenn E. Curtis, op. cit.

[10] http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8616

[11] George Vernadsky, A History of Russia, Yale University Press, 1961

[12] Chester S. L. Dunning, Russia’s first civil war: The Time of Troubles and the founding of the Romanov dynasty, Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001

[13] Sergey Solovyov, History of Russia from the Earliest Times, Academic International Press, 1997

[14] http://www.russiannewsroom.com/content.aspx?id=5895_Politics&date=2007-11-4

[15] Chester S. L. Dunning, op. cit.

[16] Glenn E. Curtis (ed.), op. cit.

[17] Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China, Cambridge University Press, 1979

[18] Jarmo Kotilaine and Marshall Poe, Modernizing Muscovy: Reform and Social Change in Seventeenth-Century Russia, Routledge, 2004

[19] Richard Pipes, op. cit.

[20] Cynthia H. Whittaker, “The Reforming Tsar: The Redefinition of Autocratic Duty in Eighteenth Century Russia”, Slavic Review, vol. 51, 1992

[21] Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, Harper Perennial, 1979

[22] Richard Pipes, op. cit.

[23] Paul Dukes, A History of Russia: Medieval, Modern, Contemporary, Duke University Press, 3rd edition, 1997

[24] Nicholas V. Riasanovsky and Mark D. Steinberg, A History of Russia, Oxford University Press, 8th edition, 2010

[25] Walter G. Moss, A History of Russia, Vol. 1: To 1917, Anthem Press, 2003

[26] Nicholas V. Riasanovsky and Mark D. Steinberg, op. cit.

[27] Catherine Evtuhov, David Goldfrank, Lindsey Hughes and Richard Stites, A History of Russia: Peoples, Legends, Events, Forces, Wadsworth Publishing, 2003

[28] Alan Wood, The Romanov Empire: 1613-1917, Bloomsbury USA, 2007

[29] Nicholas V. Riasanovsky  and Mark D. Steinberg, op. cit.

[30] Gregory L. Freeze, Russia: A History, Oxford University Press, 3rd edition, 2009

[31] Nicholas V. Riasanovsky  and Mark D. Steinberg, op. cit.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Catherine Evtuhov, David Goldfrank, Lindsey Hughes and Richard Stites, op. cit.

[34] Nicholas V. Riasanovsky  and Mark D. Steinberg, op. cit.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Catherine Evtuhov, David Goldfrank, Lindsey Hughes and Richard Stites, op. cit.

[37] Alan Wood, op. cit.

[38] Catherine Evtuhov, David Goldfrank, Lindsey Hughes and Richard Stites, op. cit.

[39] Robert K. Massie, Catherine the Great: Portrait of a Woman, Random House, 2011

[40] Nicholas V. Riasanovsky and Mark D. Steinberg, op. cit.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Catherine Evtuhov, David Goldfrank, Lindsey Hughes and Richard Stites, op. cit.

[44] Alan Wood, op. cit.

[45] James H. Billington, The Icon and the Axe : An Interpretive History of Russian Culture, Vintage, 1970

[46] Nicholas V. Riasanovsky  and Mark D. Steinberg, op. cit.

[47] Walter G. Moss, op. cit.

[48] Dorothy Carrington, “The Corsican Constitution of Pasquale Paoli (1755–1769)”, The English Historical Review, 1973

[49] Walter G. Moss, op. cit.

[50] David M. Lang, The First Russian Radical: Alexander Radischev, 1749-1802, Greenwood-Heinemann Publishing, 1977

[51] Alexander S. Pushkin, The History of Pugachev, Phoenix Press, 2001

[52] Nicholas V. Riasanovsky  and Mark D. Steinberg, op. cit.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Adam Zamoyski, Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna, Harper Perennial, 2008

[56] Bertrand Badie, La diplomatie de connivence: les derives oligarchiques du système international, La découverte, 2011

[57] Nicholas V. Riasanovsky  and Mark D. Steinberg, op. cit.

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on Russian History: The Rise of a Superpower, Foundation of the Russian Empire
  • Tags:

U.S. Holds the World Record of Killings of Innocent Civilians

March 8th, 2018 by Prof. John McMurtry

This article was crossposted on Global Research in July 2014.

A world-renowned Canadian philosopher argues that the United States holds the world record of illegal killings of unarmed civilians and extrajudicial detention and torturing of prisoners who are detained without trial.

Prof. John McMurtry says that the U.S. government is a gigantic mass-murdering machine which earns profit through waging wars, and is never held accountable over its unspeakable war crimes and crimes against humanity. He also believes that the U.S. has become a police state, which treats its citizens in the most derogatory manner.

 “I have travelled alone with only backpack possession through the world, and have found no state in which police forces are more habituated to violent bullying, more likely to draw a gun, more discriminatory against the dispossessed, and more arbitrarily vicious in normal behavior,” said McMurtry. “The US now leads the globe in an underlying civil war of the rich against the poor.”

 “The US can … detain, kidnap and imprison without trial or indictment any US citizen or other citizen anywhere by designating them enemies to the US,” Prof. John McMurtry noted in an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency.

 According to the Canadian intellectual, the United States statesmen have long supported dictatorial and tyrannical regimes and even funded and armed the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler in the period between 1939 and 1945.

 John McMurtry is a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, Canada. In 2001, Prof. McMurtry was named a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada for his outstanding contributions to the study of humanities and social sciences. His latest major works are his 15-year study, “The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: From Crisis to Cure” and three monumental volumes commissioned by UNESCO for its Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems entitled “Philosophy and World Problems.” McMurtry’s articles and writings regularly appear on different newspapers and online magazines across the world.

 Prof. McMurtry took part in an in-depth interview with FNA and responded to some questions regarding the U.S. project of the War on Terror, its military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and the September 11, 2001 attacks. The following is the text of the interview.

Q: Prof. McMurtry; it was following the 9/11 attacks that the United States launched its project of War on Terror. The venture has so far cost the lives of thousands of innocent, unarmed civilians across the world, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya; however, the civilian cost of the Global War on Terror has been mostly ignored by the mainstream media and the politicians in the West. Why do you think they’ve overlooked the enormous rate of civilian casualties resulting from an endeavor which was purportedly aimed at exporting democracy and liberal values to the world?

A: In the US’s so-called War on Terror, by far the greatest and most systematic terrorization of civilians is in fact perpetrated by the US state itself. Unarmed citizens are murdered across the world as ‘collateral damage’, ‘illegal enemy combatants’ or other license of impunity. The US state conceives itself as above international law along with ally Israel, but this reality is taboo to report and so too all the killing and terrorization of civilians. One can truly say that “the historical record demonstrates the US is provably guilty of continual lawless mass murder of civilians across the world”, but the truth is unthinkable within the ruling ideological regime. Consider for example, the US-led deadly civil wars and coup d’etats in Venezuela and Ukraine as well as Libya and Syria. They mass terrorize and destroy societies into defenseless dependency so that their resources, lands and markets are “free” for transnational corporate exploitation. Yet the meaning is un-decoded. Ignorance is built into the syntax of acceptable thought.

Q: Many immigrants who seek refuge in United States from the four corners of the globe in search of a better and more prosperous life think of America as an absolutely free, democratic and open society with abundant opportunities for economic and social progress. However, you’ve argued, as many scholars did, that the United States is a police state. Would you please elaborate more on that? Do you believe that these immigrants and asylum-seekers are not told the whole truth about the United States or are somehow deceived?

A: Deception allies with ignorance. I define a police state as a society in which there is unlimited state power of armed force freely discharged without citizen right to stop it. While the men at the top always proclaim their devotion to the public good, an endless litany of crimes against human life is permitted by legally terrorist offices, central directives, and bureaucratic channels. Thus in “free and democratic America”, more citizens are caged than any country in the world, and over 80% have perpetrated no violence against [any] person. While the US accuses others of inhuman persecution and despotism, it holds the world records for caging non-violent people, for violent killings of civilians, for spy surveillance of everyone, and for mass murders of innocent people across international borders. Even kicking the tire of a VIP vehicle may be prosecuted as an act of “terrorism”. I have travelled alone with only backpack possession through the world, and have found no state in which police forces are more habituated to violent bullying, more likely to draw a gun, more discriminatory against the dispossessed, and more arbitrarily vicious in normal behavior.  The US now leads the globe in an underlying civil war of the rich against the poor.

Q: What’s your viewpoint on the recent laws and legislations that have stipulated limitations on the civil liberties of the U.S. citizens, including the PATRIOT Act of 2001, which was widely criticized and protested at? It’s seen as a discriminatory measure that violates the privacy of the American citizens and the foreign nationals traveling in the States. Isn’t it so?

A: The repression of civil rights by the US goes far deeper than violation of citizen privacy to which the media confine themselves. The Patriot Act together with other laws like the Military Commissions Act, the Defense Authorization Act, the Homeland Security Act and the Protect America Act, mutating to the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, form a systematic curtailment of civil rights and freedoms. Spying on everyone across borders is the accompanying apparatus of the National Security Agency which has been recently exposed in its totalitarian global snooping and dirty tricks. Department analyst Daniel Ellsberg of the Pentagon Papers summarizes the post-9/11 situation in the US as “a coup … a steady assault on every fundamental of our Constitution for executive government to rule by decree”.  What makes these new laws and licenses tyrannical is their selective suspension of established constitutional rights to habeas corpus, the right of the accused to see evidence against him/her, the right to one’s chosen legal defense, the right to trial without indefinite detention, and other rights of due process of law including to free speech and organization that can be construed as supporting “illegal enemies”. As to who these “illegal enemies” are, this is determined by the US president without legal criterion, proving evidence or verification required. The US can thus detain, kidnap and imprison without trial or indictment any US citizen or other citizen anywhere by designating them enemies to the US. This arbitrary power has most infamously instituted US presidential right to kill individuals and those around them at will by robot killer drones – all crimes against humanity and war crimes under international law, but again taboo to report in the mass media or question in international security meetings themselves.

Q: The U.S. government has traditionally supported the oppressive regimes that are widely considered as dictatorial and tyrannical. Some examples include the successive U.S. governments’ support for the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt and Israel. Isn’t such an approach contrary to the democratic principles which the U.S. Constitution is said to be oriented on?

A: Certainly the US has long supported dictatorial and tyrannical regimes. In fact US corporations and banks led the funding and arming of Hitler and the Nazis even during the 1939-45 War, and official US support of murderous dictatorships afterwards has been normalized since the CIA’s foundation in 1947. In the years since 9/11, US government has covertly directed funding and arming of the most destructive armed forces including jihadists, not only in the nations you mention, but in Syria and before that Libya, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan and many much less known places like Mali. Ukraine has been similarly launched into civil war and escalated oppression by US-led destabilization, covert Special Forces, and local fascists.

Yet the US Constitution itself has no clear resource to prevent such international crimes, the founding US fathers themselves being mainly rich slave owners and leaders of the genocidal Western expansion against first peoples which England had forbidden in 1763. In fact, despite some stirring phrases without binding force, the ultimate concern of the US Constitution is the protection of private property and wealth at the top against the masses and democratic reversal. The ultimately governing value is profitable and unfettered private commerce, the “commerce clause” being the only way found to enforce the civil rights of Blacks. The opening slogans of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” seem inspiring except that happiness cannot be pursued, life needs do not ever enter into consideration, and liberty without the means to exercise it is nonsense.

Bear in mind that Supreme Court decisions have further granted the constitutional freedom of private money hoards to control politicians, public speech and elections themselves. Transnational corporations which are the global vehicles of the world’s ruling money sequences have at the same time multiplying powers with no obligations, while other societies’ rights have been effectively erased by international trade treaties which recognize only corporate rights and strip societies of their economic sovereignty and public resources. Corporate rights to dominate public speech and elections have been twisted out of even the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protecting the civil rights of ex-slaves. In short, a near total expropriation of rights by Big Money has shown how anti-democratic the US Constitution has been made. I think that only the rule of life-protective law with the force of international law can regulate this global money-power dictatorship back into coherence with life support requirements now violated at every level, with or without a revolutionary uprising.

Q: Over the course of 20th century, the United States has been involved in several covert foreign regime change actions, and as the Foreign Policy magazine notes, it has toppled seven governments in the last 100 years through masterminding and engineering coups across the world, including the 1953 coup d’etat against the popular government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh or the 1973 coup in Chile that brought down the government of President Salvador Allende. Is such sponsorship of coups and regime change actions the characteristic feature of a democratic, peace-loving government?

A: There has been almost no coup or government overthrow since 1945 not led by the US. The examples you give of Mosaddegh and Allende are sea-changes of history in which elected, socially responsible and peaceful governments led by men of the very highest quality have been criminally usurped. This perpetual and increasing destabilization of other states and societies along with other gravely degenerate trends are systematically tracked in my 15-year study The Cancer Stage of Capitalism/ from crisis to cure. In the US itself, the three powers of supreme legislature, executive and court are now all controlled by the same money party selecting for the same full-spectrum predation of life and life support systems everywhere to multiply themselves. Yet still the long record of the US state and its oligarch allies destroying societies across the world is unspeakable in the mass media because they themselves are financed and advertised in by the same transnational corporations that demand the resources and territories of societies everywhere. The carcinogenic global causal mechanism is ever more evident and catastrophic, but not recognized.

Q: More than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, there are still several unanswered questions about the tragic event, including the origins and motives of the perpetrator, the role of foreign intelligence organizations in masterminding the attacks and the behind-the-scenes benefits of the attacks for the U.S. military-industrial complex. As you note in your writings, it was not Osama bin Laden who spearheaded the 9/11 attacks. Who is the real culprit? Did the 9/11 attacks play into the hands of the Bush administration to set in motion its lethal project of War on Terror and start invading different countries?

A: My recent monograph on the Internet, “The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State” is a definitive answer to these questions. The turning-point event is laid bare step by step as a mass-murderous construction whose scenario is anticipated and contrived by US geostrategic planners with the official investigation completely concealing the basic fact that fireproofed steel infrastructures collapsed at the speed of gravity into their own footprints against the laws of physics. Moreover the first question of forensic justice – cui bono, who benefits? – is ruled out from the start, although every subsequent policy, decision and new power served the interests of the Bush Jr. regime and the US military-oil complex against the welfare of the American public and the world, especially Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

Unfortunately conspiracy theories miss the inner logic of the strategic event and the system disorder driving it. The official conspiracy theory is absurd, but every disbeliever in it is pilloried as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ – the reverse projection which is the signature operation of US propaganda. Always blame others for what the US does as the reason for attacking them. One might laugh at the same old propaganda psy-op and fabrications trotted out endlessly, but the terrible reality is the 9/11 construction has had effectively sabotaged international progress in solving the world’s gravest problems. It has dismantled the global peace movement that was reaching an historical peak in 2001 to stop US-led militarism after the Cold War. It has successfully suppressed world-wide uprisings against a US-led global corporate dictatorship despised and opposed by ever more citizens across America, Europe and the world. It has even formed the draconian laws and police practices needed to squash the world-wide environmental movement across the world at same time. 9/11 has, in short, vastly empowered the corporate money system devouring human and planetary life by falsifying opponents as “terrorists”. But who joins the dots of the Great Repression?

Q: Since its inception 66 years ago, CIA has been involved in numerous covert sabotage, anti-sabotage, assassination, propaganda, destruction and subversion plans against other countries, and during the course of all these covert actions, it has violated different internationally recognized treaties and regulations as well as the sovereignty and territorial integrity of these nations. Are these actions and gambits legal or illegal? If they are illegal, then why doesn’t any international organization investigate the crimes and hold the U.S. government accountable?

A: Yes this is a turning-point issue of the world. But the US record as a rogue state is unspeakable in the mass media because they are financed and advertised in by the same transnational corporations that demand the resources and territories of the world by threat of trade-investment embargo and the point of the gun of US and NATO forces. This is what the lawless but unnamed US reign of terror achieves – not only by war crimes and crimes against humanity, but by economic ruin for any society resisting transnational trade treaties and demands which recognize only foreign corporate rights to profit. If the underlying causal mechanism is taboo to recognize, unaccountability is the result. Blame is instead diverted to US-designated enemies – like Iran or Russia or Venezuela – and the society-destroying disorder rampages on.

In fact there are many life-protective international laws to hold the US accountable to, but every one of them is repudiated by the US so as not to apply to itself ; laws and conventions against nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, landmines, small arms, international ballistic missiles, torture, racism, sexism, child abuse, arbitrary seizure and imprisonment, crimes against humanity and war crimes, military weather distortions, biodiversity loss, and international climate destabilization. Yet this record remains taboo to track or publish even as the US demonizes others for “defying the laws and norms of the international community”.

The US and ally Israel thus violate the laws against armed aggression, occupation and crimes against humanity at will, but who even knows or cites the laws?  For example, when the US was about to perpetrate the supreme crime of invasion against Iraq in 2003 with no lawful grounds, no-one raised the issue at the Security Council, including the Iraqi diplomat there. As one who later debated on Canadian public television a leading US geostrategic analyst three days before the criminal bombing of Baghdad began, my statement  that he was “advocating war crime and should be arrested for doing so” was deleted from the live broadcast. The cornerstone of international law is thus silenced while the media go on calling opponents “unpatriotic” or “terrorists” – as in Nazi Germany. If law-abiding states do not stand and join for the rule of international life-protective law, there seems no end.

  • Posted in Archives, English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Holds the World Record of Killings of Innocent Civilians
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Bullied Relations: Australia, East Timor and Natural Resources

Art and Politics in Australia

March 8th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Art and Politics in Australia
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Rs 1.4 Trillion Plan to Destroy India’s Agriculture

Il discorso del presidente russo Putin sullo stato della nazione, dedicato alle questioni interne e internazionali, ha suscitato in Italia scarso interesse politico-mediatico e qualche commento ironico. Eppure dovrebbe essere ascoltato con estrema attenzione.

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on VIDEO – L’Arte della Guerra – L’avvertimento di Putin: le nuove armi nucleari russe

12 years as Prime Minister and Netanyahu’s only achievement has been to mire his high office in charges of corruption, bribery, fraud and conspiracy.

Furthermore, he has tragically managed to turn his electorate into the most extreme Right-wing constituency in the history of the state whilst Israel’s founding father and first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, silently screams out from his grave in the Negev desert.

Binyamin Netanyahu has deliberately jettisoned any chance of peace by his continued expropriation of Palestinian property in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in the vain hope of creating a Greater Israel of stolen land, to conform to the extremist ideology of his late father, Benzion Netanyahu.

By so doing, he has achieved two unintended consequences of immense importance: the first being the now increasing perception of Israel by the international community as a high-tech, nuclear-weaponised, pariah state, in the image of North Korea. The second, being the huge increase in antisemitism throughout Europe and on campuses throughout Britain and America.

Arguably, no politician in modern times, has come close to Netanyahu in turning a formerly admired technical powerhouse into a reviled neo-apartheid state of Political Zionists who have subjugated an indigenous Arab nation, numbering in excess of five million, whose families have been the documented, primary majority people of the region for over a thousand years.

Netanyahu’s attempt to change history has failed as has his term of political fame and family fortune. The only question now is: how much permanent damage has he inflicted upon not only the Israeli state but, and perhaps more importantly, upon the Jewish worldwide diaspora?

The Alt-Media’s “politically correct” “glorification” of all things Russia-related is a “well-intended” but knee-jerk response to the rampant Russophobia of the Mainstream Media, but it nevertheless results in the generation of an overly “perfect” and therefore inaccurate version of the country that’s at odds with reality and was just debunked by none other than President Putin himself.

Misreading Russia

President Putin’s keynote speech to the nation last week naturally captured the attention of the global media, with the Mainstream Media (MSM) intensifying their relentless fear mongering campaign by over exaggerating decontextualized statements about Russia’s hypersonic weapons program while the Alt-Media was swooning over the President’s announcement and framed it as another “5D chess move” that forever put a stop to America’s aggression abroad as per their hero’s “master plan”. Both reactions are hyperbolic in their own way and predicated on appealing to each of their respective audiences. The MSM has an interest in pushing the “Russia threat” narrative because it reinforces the “Russiagate” paranoia and “justifies” Trump’s gargantuan military budget that he earlier unveiled as part of his Pentagon-centric “America First” foreign policy. As for the Alt-Media Community, many of its casual members, “formal” figures, and outlets (which does not refer to its publicly financed ones) have all but “deified” President Putin already, with the latter two doing so in order to appeal to the “wishful thinking” fantasies of the desperate masses in order to remain relevant by reinforcing their “flock’s” groupthink.

Neither MSM nor Alt-Media, however, tended to pay much attention to the bulk of the President’s speech focusing on domestic issues, as they each seem to have independently arrived at the same conclusion that such topics aren’t “sexy” enough for their audience and isn’t what the general public outside of Russia is interested in. In a sense, Russia might have proverbially dodged a bullet because there’s a lot in its leader’s speech that could be exploited by the MSM in the same way as the hypersonic weapons announcement was. At the same time, however, the argument can also be made that Alt-Media inadvertently deprived its audience of hearing about key facts, quotes, and strategies that they wouldn’t otherwise be aware of had they not read the transcript of President Putin’s extensive speech but which could have given them a more accurate view of the country that many of them have hitherto placed on par with “paradise”.  It’s in the interests of reporting on and analyzing objective facts, whatever the consequences may be on one’s own perception of Russia, that the present analysis was written.

Why Alt-Media Gets Russia Wrong

Russia, like any country in the world, isn’t “perfect”, but just like the object of anyone’s desire, its devotees have a tendency of seeing it that way regardless, especially if they’re not from there themselves but are attracted to it for geopolitical reasons or simply as a statement of principled opposition against the policies of their home country. Whatever the reason may be, and it’s irrelevant in this context to conduct a psychoanalysis of this trend, the end result is that many people across the world who truly appreciate Russia’s efforts to forge a Multipolar World Order that’s fairer and more just than the unipolar one that it seeks to replace often overlook some of the country’s unpleasant realities. This is more often than not due to both a combination of cognitive dissonance in refusing to accept that their “deified” “role model” doesn’t rule over “paradise” and a deliberate move to avoid unintentionally playing into the runaway Russophobia that’s come to dominate the general discussion. For however “noble” this may or may not be, it nevertheless has fed into a growing online cottage industry that wrongly portrays Russia as having no problems at all.

This artificial narrative has gone viral to the point where an increasing number of people in the Alt-Media Community adhere it as though it’s a “secular religion”, complete with its own “churches” (certain websites and forums), “priests” (narrative writers and promoters), “congregation” (their fellow “believers”), and “heathens” (those who “sacrilegiously” question the “sanctity” of Russia’s “infallibility”). There’s nothing innately “wrong” with this so long as the “cult members” keep their beliefs to themselves and don’t “proselytize”, but the issue arises once they attempt to aggressively enforce their views onto others and/or disseminate them as indisputable “truths” that axiomatically form the basis of International Relations. The warped perception of Russia that’s beginning to take shape in the Alt-Media Community as a result of this “secular religion’s” growing popularity (provoked to a large degree as a response to the MSM’s Russophobia) must urgently be corrected before it gets out of control and creates an Alternative Reality fully detached from real life. If those who want to truly understand and help Russia don’t have an accurate idea of what it even is, then their plans and efforts will inevitably be for naught.

Take It From The Man Himself

Personal testimonies from Russians and foreigners living within the country about some of state’s shortcomings are no longer effective in conveying the truth of the situation, as they’re merely dismissed as “Soros propaganda”, “fake news”, or “someone with an axe to grind”, nor are factual news reports from Russia’s publicly financed media outlets like TASS sufficient in this task either. The only way to destroy the dogmatic and ultimately dangerous thinking about Russia’s “infallibility” that’s taken hold of the Alt-Media Community is to use President Putin’s own words to debunk this fake narrative once and for all, since it follows that “believers” will be forced to accept whatever their “deity” says no matter how much they’d otherwise resist doing so if the message came from anyone else. Accordingly, given the wealth of material presented in President Putin’s recent landmark speech to the nation and the global attention that this event produced, it’s fitting to quote from the man himself in drawing attention to some of the country’s problems that are utterly ignored by the Alt-Media Community.

It should be prefaced that the following will intentionally focus on the constructive criticisms that President Putin made about his country in order to raise awareness about the true state of affairs in Russia, but that the country’s leader impressively listed off a staggering amount of facts and strategies in proving that much progress that has already been made since the turn of the century. So as not to “preach to the choir”, and understanding that the MSM audience will probably never read this analysis, the decision was made to engage in “shock therapy” by quoting the parts of President Putin’s speech that will probably come off as “surprising” and “unbelievable” to the Alt-Media masses who have “deified” the man and proclaimed his country “perfect”. Again, the intention in doing so is to set the record straight about Russia so that those who follow its affairs can have the most accurate picture in their minds about the reality in which it operates. Accepting its shortcomings is key to understanding its limitations in the present day and accordingly forecasting its most likely actions in the future.

Having gotten the “caveats” out of the way, here are the most “politically incorrect” and “sacrilegious” messages that President Putin conveyed in his latest speech that powerfully shatter the Alt-Media delusions about Russia’s ”infallibility”:

No More Procrastinating

Quote:

“We have no right to allow a situation when the stability that has been achieved would lead to complacency, all the more so as many problems remain unresolved…It is high time we take a number of tough decisions that are long overdue. We need to get rid of anything that stands in the way of our development and prevents people from fully unleashing their potential.”

Interpretation:

Russia has been holding off on doing what’s needed for far too long, and it can’t afford another moment to needlessly waste. The days of procrastinating because of perceived complacency (apathy, which is sometimes linked to the Russian cultural trait of “avos’”) are over, and the country must recognize this before it’s too late.

Source: Kremlin.ru

Russia Is “Falling Behind”

Quote:

“It is not a question of someone conquering or devastating our land. No, that is not the danger. The main threat and our main enemy is the fact that we are falling behind. If we are unable to reverse this trend, we will fall even further behind. This is like a serious chronic disease that steadily saps the energy from the body and destroys it from within step by step. Quite often, this destructive process goes unnoticed by the body.”

Interpretation

External enemies are no longer Russia’s main threat because they’ll be kept at bay by the nation’s military and its recently unveiled hypersonic weaponry that restored the global strategic balance. Instead, the chief threat to the country is its lack of development. Russia hasn’t risen to the occasion in capitalizing off of new trends and therefore it’s falling behind. If it doesn’t correct its course, it’ll be destroyed before it even knows what happened to it.

The Employment Structure Is Broken

Quote:

“We need to upgrade the employment structure that has become inefficient and archaic, provide good jobs that motivate people, improve their well-being and help them uncover their talents. We need to create decent well-paid jobs.

Interpretation:

Russia has amazingly lifted millions of people out of poverty and slashed unemployment, but the jobs that its citizens have aren’t inspiring them enough to fulfill their potential, both personally and economically. The whole structure is broken and must be reformed.

Pensioners Are Just As Poor As They’re Made Out To Be

Quote:

“We will also strive to reduce the gap between the size of pensions and pre-retirement wages.”

Interpretation:

Pensioners live in poverty and struggle to maintain respectable living standards.

Life Expectancy In Russia Is Still Less Than In The G7

Quote:

“Life expectancy levels have increased by over seven years and now total 73 years. But, of course, this is not enough either. Today, we must set an entirely new goal. By the end of the next decade, Russia must confidently join the club of countries posting a life expectancy of 80-plus years, which includes Japan, France and Germany.”

Interpretation:

Russians shouldn’t be satisfied that they now live longer than they did during the chaotic 1990s when life expectancy was “just over 65 years, with men’s life expectancy falling below 60 years”, but should aspire to match and even surpass the length of life that their G7 peers enjoy if they’re serious about giving the new generation a better future.

Housing Is Too Expensive And Corrupt

Quote:

“Urban renovation should be supported by the introduction of state-of-the-art construction technology and materials, modern architectural solutions, digital technology for social services, transport and utilities sectors. Among other things, this would make the housing and utilities sector more transparent and efficient, so that people receive quality services at a reasonable cost.”

Interpretation:

It’s not just enough to build new and better homes for Russians, but this process must be more “transparent” (a euphemism for “free from corruption”), and people mustn’t be charged a proverbial “arm and a leg” for buying a home or paying for utilities. Moreover, everything must be efficient, which evidently isn’t the case right now otherwise the President wouldn’t stress this point.

Local Bureaucrats Ignore The People’s Will And Must Be Held To Account By Their Constituents

Quote:

“Of course, a lot will depend on municipal and local authorities and whether they will be receptive to new ideas. The ability to respond to the diverse needs of various generations, including families with children, retirees and people with disabilities, will also be instrumental. People must have a decisive say in the future of their cities and villages. We have discussed this many times, including at meetings with heads of municipalities. Today, I am not saying it just to check the box. I ask you to bring it to the attention of decision-makers at all levels.

Interpretation:

President Putin knows that he’s only one man and his words can only do so much in a country that inherited millions of lackadaisical bureaucrats from the communist era, many of whom are still working within state structures and may have even entrenched their outdated and counterproductive mentalities into their “workplace culture”. Russia will not develop and catch up to the West (and increasingly, Asia as well) at the pace that’s urgently needed unless the population holds these figures to account by doing more than just voting. They need to resort to “bottom-up” pressure when needed.

Not Enough Russians Have Their Own Home

Quote:

“I understand how important it is for everyone, for every family, to have their own house, their own home. I know this is the problem of problems in Russia. It lingers from decade to decade. How many times governments promised and tried, sincerely tried to resolve it. But we can and must do it now…I see three key factors for increasing the affordability of housing. The first is the growth of people’s incomes. I have spoken about this in the past, and we must ensure this. Next, a decrease in mortgage interest rates and, of course, an increased supply in the housing market.”

Interpretation :

Russians, just like anyone else in the world, dream of having their own homes and moving away from their families once they reach a certain age or get married. This is unfortunately very difficult to do, especially in Moscow and other big cities due to the excessive costs involved, inadequate compensation from their jobs, dysfunctional financial system, and endemic corruption that makes everything worse.

The Financial System Must Be Fixed

Quote:

“In December, the average interest rate on ruble loans for the first time decreased to below 10 percent. We know, of course, that loan terms are individual and may differ from one borrower to another. But we must continue to lower the average interest rate to 7–8 percent. We held long discussions on the figure I should say here. I am sure that the target figure should be 7 percent. In the next six years, mortgage loans must become accessible to the majority of Russian families, working people and young professionals.”

Interpretation:

Interest rates are prohibitively high for the majority of Russians, thus making it difficult for them to take out loans, which in turn negatively impacts on their spending habits in boosting the economy through consumer purchases and real estate, for example. The financial system must therefore be fixed in order to make loans more accessible to the populace and stimulate steady economic growth within the country, as this could help remedy some of the problems that Russia is presently experiencing in housing and other spheres.

The Property Tax Is Unfair And Unaffordable

Quote:

“I also propose revising the personal property tax. It must be fair and affordable. Some people, including those in this hall, tried to convince me that this tax should be based on the market value of property. They told me that using obsolete valuation by the Technical Inventory Bureau is an anachronism. But it turned out in reality that cadastral value, which should be comparable to market value, often exceeded it by far. This was not the agreement. And the people did not expect this from us. We must revise the mechanism for calculating the tax and also the calculation of the cadastral value of property. One way or another, it must not exceed the real market value. All decisions regarding this must be taken without delay in the first six months of this year.”

Interpretation:

Be it through corruption, inept bureaucratic inertia, inefficiency, misunderstandings of complex bureaucratic law, or whatever else, the property tax that citizens are required to pay is evidently excessive and doesn’t correlate with the market value of the property. This has caused a lot of frustration among the people and resentment towards the authorities, undermining the public’s trust in the state. If Russia is to develop and expand its housing market by making it more accessible to the average person, then it also has to correspondingly improve upon this issue as well.

The Condition With Local Roads Is “Completely Unacceptable”

Quote:

“We have overhauled federal roads. Now we must modernise regional and local routes. I am not going to talk about the figures now, but I know them. It is a fact that federal roads have mostly been renovated. The situation is somewhat worse with regional roads, and it is completely unacceptable with local roads.”

Interpretation:

Connectivity is one of the buzzwords of the 21st century, and while Russia’s overhaul of federal roads will enable it to more efficiently link Western Europe with East Asia, the situation with regional and local routes remains lacking. The latter, in fact, leave a lot to be desired, which President Putin believes is “completely unacceptable” and must be addressed as soon as possible.

Domestic Air Connectivity Must Be Improved

Quote:

“We will renovate and expand the network of regional airports across Russia. In six years, half of the regions will be connected between each other by direct flights. The situation where you had to make a connection in Moscow when flying to a neighbouring region will become a thing of the past. We are already working on this.

Interpretation:

As surprising as it may sound, President Putin is correct – sometimes Russians have to first fly far away to Moscow en route to a neighboring region, which might sound absurd but reflects the reality of the contemporary situation. The government is making progress on improving this, but it still remains a time-consuming annoyance.

Public Wages Risk Stagnating

Quote

“We must not lose the positions we have already attained. I am referring to the level of wages. Wages in the public sector must continue growing, as well as the quality of work and skills of the people working in healthcare, education and other areas that define people’s wellbeing.”

Interpretation:

President Putin is worried that public wages might stagnate, thus inhibiting the country’s growth by depriving its public employees of the incentive that most people need to improve the quality of their work and skills. Although unstated, the solution is for the state to commit more money to this sphere.

Some Administrative Hospital Changes Have Been Disastrous

Quote:

“In recent years, we have optimised the hospital network in the country. This was done in order to build an effective healthcare system. However, in some case, I have to say this today, too many administrative changes were introduced: hospitals in small towns and villages have been closed. No one proposed an alternative, and people were left with practically no medical aid. The only advice they were given was, “Go to the city to get treatment there.” I must say that this is unacceptable. They forgot about the main thing: the people, their interests and needs, equal opportunities and justice.”

Interpretation:

Almost as unbelievable as having to sometimes fly halfway across the country to Moscow in order to reach a neighboring Russian region is the fact that some small towns and villages don’t have any hospitals. The locals are instead forced to travel elsewhere in order to receive healthcare services, and the local officials contemptuously don’t care about their plight. Like President Putin said, “this is unacceptable”, and it goes along with his call for people to hold bureaucrats to account beyond election season.

Environmental Challenges Still Persist

Quote:

“We have tightened environmental requirements for companies, which should reduce industrial pollution. Starting in 2019, 300 industrial enterprises with a negative impact on the environment must convert to the best available environmentally friendly technology, and all enterprises in the high environmental risk group must do this starting in 2021. We had a go at this problem many times, and every time our companies complained about the difficulties involved. There is no going back now. I want everyone to know that we will not delay this programme any longer.”

Interpretation:

Pollution is a problem in Russia, and the government seems to have previously caved in to corporate pressure in delaying the enforcement of various requirements. That’s not going to happen anymore, and President Putin made it clear that he’s serious about enforcing new standards and ensuring that they’re complied with on time. This might even be an oblique message to the “oligarchy” that wields enormous influence in this sphere.

Not Everyone Has Reliable Access To Drinking Water

Quote:

“We must seriously improve the quality of drinking water. In some small towns, water is only available for several hours a day. We must use defence industry technologies to settle these problems.”

Interpretation:

This might strike some people as shocking, but the fact is that a (presumably small) portion of Russians don’t have reliable access to drinking water, a problem stereotypically associated with countries of the “Global South”.

Citizenship Must Be Easier To Attain:

Quote:

“I also propose creating the most convenient and attractive conditions for talented young people from other countries to enroll at our universities. They already come to study here. But we also need to create conditions for the best foreign graduates of our universities to work in Russia. This fully applies to foreign scientists and qualified specialists. I think we need to seriously improve the procedure for granting Russian citizenship. The focus should be on the foreign nationals Russia needs: on young, healthy and well-educated people. For them, we need to create a simplified system for obtaining Russian citizenship.”

Interpretation:

Russia has one of the strictest migration policies in the world, which has unfortunately prevented it from capitalizing on the enormous foreign talent that arrives in the country every year to learn. Once these students graduate, they mostly leave Russia and never have any opportunity to return unless it’s on a tourist visa, which is a pity for those who sincerely love the country and want to settle down there. One of the reasons why the West was so successful in the past is that it was able to flexibly incorporate foreign experts into its framework by offering them citizenship, something that Russia has finally realized that it needs to do as well.

Labor Productivity Is Still Lagging

Quote:

“First of all, it is important to increase labour productivity on a new technological, managerial and personnel basis. We are still lagging noticeably behind in terms of this indicator. It is necessary to ensure that labour productivity in medium-sized and large enterprises of basic industries, such as manufacturing, construction, transport, agriculture and trade, grows at a rate of at least 5 percent per year, which will allow us to reach the level of the leading world economies by the end of the next decade.”

Interpretation:

Russia’s transition away from its erstwhile energy exporting-dependency and towards a more sustainable real-sector economy has already made phenomenal progress but its full development will still take some time. It’s absolutely imperative that the country improve its labor productivity in order to become competitive with the world’s leading economies and then ultimately remain so, otherwise it will continue to lag behind them and undermine President Putin’s comprehensive vision of Trump-like socio-economic reform in Russia.

Post-Soviet Russia’s Economy Is Still Too State-Controlled

Quote:

”The state must gradually reduce its share in the economy. In this connection, it has to be noted that the state has taken over a number of financial assets in an effort to revive the banking sector. These initiatives are headed in the right direction and have my support. That said, these assets should be put on the market and sold without delay.”

Interpretation:

Russia must open up its economy to private investment and allow businessmen to exert more influence over the country’s overall dynamics. The state has previously provided support to the financial sector, but it’s now time for the government to give up its control over these said assets and sell them on the open market as soon as possible. To be succinct, Russia’s economy has to liberalize sooner than later.

Corrupt Officials And Cops Are Intimidating Businesses

Quote:

“We need to get rid of everything that enables corrupt officials and law enforcement officers to pressure businesses. The Criminal Code should not serve as a tool for settling corporate disputes. These should be referred to administrative and arbitration courts.

Interpretation:

Under no circumstances should corrupt officials and cops abuse the law, especially when this holds back economic development. It sets a terrible precedent and is completely contrary to everything that President Putin stands for. Russia cannot improve its international position unless this changes.

Legal Double Standards Must Be Done Away With

Quote:

“At the same time, criminal law should be strictly enforced in the case of offences infringing upon the interests of citizens or society or violating economic freedoms. I am referring to offences against property and assets held by citizens, illegal takeovers, competition law violations, tax evasion and embezzlement of public funds.”

Interpretation:

Corruption is eating away at Russia’s efficiency and also costing it untold sums of money that could otherwise be invested into the economy for everyone’s benefit. Nobody should ever be above the law, but unfortunately some people have been for quite a while now and it’s such a widespread problem that President Putin used his national podium to address it.

The Government Could Do “A Lot” More To Help Businesses

Quote:

“Now I would like to address all representatives of Russian business, those who run their own small business, a family enterprise or a farm, an innovative company or a large industrial enterprise. I know, I know we still have a lot to do.”

Interpretation:

One of President Putin’s main themes in his speech was to emphasize that the government has finally heard the complaints of the citizenry and will be responding to their problems. The structural shortcomings that have held Russia back since independence won’t be allowed to persist.

Some Government Officials Are Unfocused And Inefficient

Quote:

“Government officials of all levels should be interested in improving their efficiency and be strictly focused on obtaining concrete results…This line of thinking should be used to rebuild the public service system, where appropriate, and to introduce project work methods.”

Interpretation :

President Putin boldly said what no other official would previously dare to say in public, and it’s that part of the public service system must be “rebuilt” because it’s broken beyond repair. To that end, like the Russian leader suggested, officials absolutely have to become more focused and efficient.

Concluding Thoughts

All of the abovementioned messages, quotes, and interpretations provide raw insight into the real situation in Russia today, which is that of a rising Great Power that has nevertheless been held back by many serious domestic difficulties – some of them systemic – but which finally recognizes what needs to urgently change in order for it to catch up with its competitors and succeed. None of the points that were made should ever be abused to denigrate Russia, nor should anyone exaggerate them in order to fit a decontextualized narrative about its level of socio-economic, institutional, and infrastructural development, but these “inconvenient facts” also shouldn’t be omitted from any objective analysis about the country and its capabilities because their absence prevents people from devising the appropriate solutions to fixing them.

Russia has come a long way since 1991, but it still has a ways to go too, as President Putin emphasized, and it’s precisely because of his “political incorrectness” in calling out his country’s problems that he’s the best suited for tackling them. His striking example in fearlessly addressing Russia’s problems should serve as the perfect example to all of its international friends that it’s absolutely okay to constructively criticize the country so long as one’s intentions are to identify what’s wrong in order to fix it. Overemphasizing various shortcomings in order to advance a hostile narrative is unacceptable and manipulative, but if Alt-Media sincerely aspires to accurately reflect the true state of affairs in Russia today, then it must inevitably broach this topic in a measured and respectful way.

*

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.

All images in this article are from the President of Russia website.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on It’s Okay to Constructively Criticize Russia, Even President Putin Does It!
  • Tags: ,

The annual speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin on March 1 to the Russian Federal Assembly, televised to the nation, contained a section on Russian military cutting edge technologies that NATO-friendly media chose to either downplay as a propaganda ploy or an election campaign stunt. Given the hints of Russian military technology developments unveiled in the Syrian war theater since September 2015, Washington ignores what is clearly a strategic game-breaking development and makes all the hundreds of billions of dollars of so-called US missile defense technology being deployed from South Korea, Japan, Poland and beyond into little more than a Pentagon defense boondoggle.

The military security section of Putin’s two hour speech to the Russian Federal Assembly on March 1 began some two-thirds into his remarks, after extensive discussions of plans to lift the economy, transform health care, improve education.

The keystone of Putin’s security remarks, ignored in mainstream western media coverage, was the Russian response has been to the “unilateral US withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the practical deployment of their missile defense systems both in the US and beyond their national borders.”

The strategic significance of that decision by the Bush-Cheney Administration was not lost on Russian military defense planners. It opened the door for the Pentagon and for NATO to encircle Russia with a ring of ballistic missile defense systems aimed at Russian nuclear missile launch sites. Putin clarified that that 1972 ABM Treaty had made nuclear war unthinkable, the foundation of Mutual and Assured Destruction or MAD:

“the ABM Treaty not only created an atmosphere of trust but also prevented either party from recklessly using nuclear weapons, which would have endangered humankind, because the limited number of ballistic missile defense systems made the potential aggressor vulnerable to a response strike.”

When Washington unilaterally pulled out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, the US Government began an aggressive series of moves including bringing NATO to the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe, fomenting a coup and civil war in Ukraine and other provocations that have led to construction of anti-ballistic missile bases in Romania and Poland—both NATO members, as well as in the Russian Far East in Japan and South Korea. Additionally, as Putin noted,

“The US global missile defense system also includes five cruisers and 30 destroyers, which, as far as we know, have been deployed to regions in close proximity to Russia’s borders.”

This is no minor deployment in Russian eyes.

Trump Nuclear Posture Review

The decision by the Russian leadership now to unveil a daunting array of its cutting-edge military technologies including nuclear-powered hypersonic cruise missiles and underwater drones was no election ploy. It was a clear and direct reply to the January 2018 State of the Union address to Congress of the US President and publication days later of their 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), and Putin says so.

The Trump 2018 NPR document is a radical shift from previous administrations. It abandons the earlier declarations of “no first use” of nuclear weapons, and boosts nuclear modernization efforts including the intention to bring on “new” nuclear weapons, restoration of submarine-launched cruise missile capability and low-explosive-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile warheads, and to sideline arms control. In one section the new US Nuclear Posture Review declares that,

“The United States would only consider the employment of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States, its allies, and partners. Extreme circumstances could include significant non-nuclear strategic attacks…” (emphasis added-w.e.).

No definition of what Washington calls a “significant non-nuclear strategic attack” is made. In brief, as one US nuclear analyst noted, the new US nuclear doctrine is based on competition and confrontation.

After describing repeated Russian efforts with Washington to reinstate the ABM Treaty after the Bush Administration unilaterally abandoned it in 2002, Putin noted,

“At one point, I thought that a compromise was possible, but this was not to be. All our proposals, absolutely all of them, were rejected. And then we said that we would have to improve our modern strike systems to protect our security. In reply, the US said that it is not creating a global BMD system against Russia…”

That of course was a calculated strategic lie. Russia concluded, after repeated efforts at negotiation, that Washington, following the destruction of Russia’s military and economy in the 1990s Yeltsin era post-Soviet economic collapse, was determined to “pursue ultimate unilateral military advantage in order to dictate the terms in every sphere in the future.”

Nuclear Primacy

Nuclear First Strike or Nuclear Primacy as it is technically called, is the ultimate unilateral military advantage Pentagon strategists have dreamt of since the 1950’s when the USSR tested its first H-bomb and ICBMs. The primacy is the ability to launch a nuclear first strike against Russia with little fear Russia will be able to counter convincingly because US missile defense arrays have been able to knock out the vast majority of Russian nuclear weapons.

The US missile defense is not at all defensive. It is offensive in the extreme. If the United States were able to shield itself effectively from a potential Russian retaliation for a US nuclear First Strike, then the US would be able to dictate its terms to the entire world, not just to Russia. That would be Nuclear Primacy. As the late Lt. Colonel Robert Bowman, former director of the Reagan US Missile Defense Program expressed it to me some years ago in a private exchange,

“Missile defense is the missing link to a First Strike.”

In his latest speech Putin describes the strategic reality Russian military security planners face:

“The US is permitting constant, uncontrolled growth of the number of anti-ballistic missiles, improving their quality, and creating new missile launching areas. If we do not do something, eventually this will result in the complete devaluation of Russia’s nuclear potential. Meaning that all of our missiles could simply be intercepted.”

When the stakes involve unleashing a nuclear holocaust, even if it begins with “low yield” nuclear weapons, against a backdrop of virtual new Cold War confrontations with Russia in recent years, it is no surprise that Russia’s military and security council have decided at just this precarious point in a growing East-West confrontation to unveil a sober response.

Blocking Nuclear Primacy: The Russian Response

Putin unveiled for the first time measures the Russian military R&D has pursued quietly since 2002 to counter the ever-more clear US Nuclear Primacy agenda. He noted that Russia has “developed, and works continuously to perfect highly effective but modestly priced systems to overcome missile defense. They are installed on all of our intercontinental ballistic missile complexes.” However, the real new element Putin revealed is a staggering list of new advanced next generation missiles able to evade US or NATO anti-missile defenses.

First he showed a film of the new Sarmat missile. Weighing over 200 tons with a short boost phase, it is very difficult for US missile defense systems to intercept. Sarmat can be equipped with powerful nuclear warheads, including hypersonic, and the most modern means of evading missile defense. It has virtually unlimited range and capable of attack over both North and South poles.

Sarmat was only the first mentioned response to the growing NATO threat. Putin then described the Russian defense industry development of “a small-scale heavy-duty nuclear energy unit that can be installed in a missile like our latest X-101 air-launched missile or the American Tomahawk missile – a similar type but with a range dozens of times longer, dozens, basically an unlimited range. It is a low-flying stealth missile carrying a nuclear warhead, with almost an unlimited range, unpredictable trajectory and ability to bypass interception boundaries. It is invincible against all existing and prospective missile defense and counter-air defense systems.”

Then in terms of new Russian cutting-edge pilotless weapon systems, he revealed the successful development of Russian “unmanned submersible vehicles that can move at great depths (I would say extreme depths) intercontinentally, at a speed multiple times higher than the speed of submarines, cutting-edge torpedoes and all kinds of surface vessels, including some of the fastest. It is really fantastic. They are quiet, highly maneuverable and have hardly any vulnerabilities for the enemy to exploit. There is simply nothing in the world capable of withstanding them.”

Putin added that the new submersibles “can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads, which enables them to engage various targets, including aircraft groups, coastal fortifications and infrastructure.”

So much for the US doctrine of force projection supremacy via its ten aircraft carrier strike groups, which now become so many sitting ducks.

Putin went on to note that the nuclear power unit for the unmanned submersible has been tested over a period of many years, and that it is “a hundred times smaller than the units that power modern submarines, but is still more powerful and can switch into combat mode, that is to say, reach maximum capacity, 200 times faster.”

Kinzahl and Avangard

Additionally Putin unveiled the Russian hypersonic Kinzhal or Dagger system. This is as Putin describes it, “a high-precision hypersonic aircraft missile system… the only one of its kind in the world. Its tests have been successfully completed, and, moreover, on December 1 of last year, these systems began their trial service at the airfields of the Southern Military District.”

In other words it is not hypothetical, rather it is operational. The definition of hypersonic is an aircraft flying 5 or more times the speed of sound. The Kinzhal goes Mach 10 or ten times. As Putin describes it,

“The missile flying at a hypersonic speed, 10 times faster than the speed of sound, can also maneuver at all phases of its flight trajectory, which also allows it to overcome all existing and, I think, prospective anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems, delivering nuclear and conventional warheads in a range of over 2,000 kilometers.”

Finally, the Russian President revealed development of Avangard, a hypersonic missile that flies at speeds in excess of Mach 20:

“In moving to its target, the missile’s gliding cruise bloc engages in intensive maneuvering – both lateral (by several thousand km) and vertical. This is what makes it absolutely invulnerable to any air or missile defense system. The use of new composite materials has made it possible to enable the gliding cruise bloc to make a long-distance guided flight practically in conditions of plasma formation. It flies to its target like a meteorite, like a ball of fire. The temperature on its surface reaches 1,600–2,000 degrees Celsius but the cruise bloc is reliably guided.”

Putin’s remarks conclude with the statement, fully ignored in the West, that,

“We have repeatedly told our American and European partners who are NATO members: we will make the necessary efforts to neutralize the threats posed by the deployment of the US global missile defense system.”

He makes clear what Russia has warned Washington and NATO of since 2004:

“Despite all the problems with the economy, finances and the defense industry, Russia has remained a major nuclear power. No, nobody really wanted to talk to us about the core of the problem, and nobody wanted to listen to us. So listen now.”

One of the most succinct assessments of the Putin military revelations comes from The Saker, one of the most clear and sober commentators on Russian and Western military capabilities. In his blog the day of the Putin speech he remarked,

“It is indeed set, match and game over for the Empire: there is no more military option against Russia.”

*

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Featured image is from the author.

The use of force, in total disregard for the UN Charter, international law, and international agreements, is today, more than ever before, the main characteristic of Washington’s policy decisions. Consequently, the world is experiencing a decisive shift to militarization rather than, and in negation of, regional and international diplomacy, in US approach to policy. Now, the particular locus of this violation of the world peace and security is the Middle East and the anti-imperialist Iran, in particular.

In the previous section (1), I examined the US agenda of global domination (2) under the direct influence of the Neo-Conservative “Project for the New American Century” (3).  In this section, the question will be further investigated in the framework of another Neocon project, the “Greater Middle East Initiative” (4). The initiative which is claimed to promote ‘democracy and human rights’(5) in the region, was part of President Bush’s “forward strategy of freedom,” by which the US-led expansion of political rights and political participation in the Muslim world is imputed to combat the appeal of Islamist extremism.

Examining the claim, I seek to shed some light for a better understanding of the real intentions behind such US regional initiatives. Finally, I attempt to advance the future prospects of the regional resistance to the continuing US-Israeli attempts at destabilization in the Middle East.

The Greater Middle East Initiative

The 2003 US invasion of Iraq triggered a massive and growing tide of objections and disgust around the world, particularly in the Middle East. The US was seen as dishonest, unlawful and unduly heavy-handed, in the conduct of its “War on Terror”, especially as Iraq had clearly no part in the 9/11 terrorist event, and the claims of Iraq’s clandestine WMD were unmasked as sheer lies, post-invasion. Under these revealing circumstances, the only justification (illegal, of course) that the Bush administration could come up with for its illegal invasion of Iraq, was the down fall of a criminal dictator, and the US’ ex-ally, Saddam Hussein, and the claim to have granted the Iraqi people the prospects of democratic governance.  On this basis, the US chose to move on with another Neocon plan, more specific to the region, and under the fake cover of ‘democracy and human rights’.

The Greater Middle East Initiative formulated in 2004 and re-labeled by Condoleezza Rice in 2006 as the New Middle East, aimed for the US global domination under the banner of “democracy promotion”.  It covered a wide area of land, stretching to Morocco, in the north of Africa, all the way to the western borders of China, and the newly independent countries in Central Asia and Caucasus to the north, bordering the Russian Federation. It was not accidental that all the countries covered by the Greater Middle East plan were largely populated by Muslims, with varying degrees of potential opposition to US domination.

The title of “Greater Middle East” was chosen as a less provocative, more appealing name for a project whose aim was to strengthen and expand the US domination over the predominantly Muslim nations in the Middle East and beyond.  This agenda is clearly evident in the US grand strategy, as defined by Admiral Cebrowski in 2001, and published in 2004 by his assistant Thomas Barnett, “all of the Greater Middle East must be destroyed except for Israel, Jordan and Lebanon.“(6)

The previous US Army officer and historian, Andrew Bacevich, in his book, “America’s War for the Greater Middle East” (2016), states that

“… this region is the theatre for a series of conflicts dating back to 1980, which heralded the start of the Iran-Iraq war.”

While the statement is true at face value, its absence of context is a glaring omission, rendering the meaning obscure, at best.  There’s no trace in that statement of the US’ leading role in instigating the Iraq’s war against Iran and its wide ranging and unconditional support to Saddam Hussein, even as he was using chemical weapons and other inhuman means and methods of warfare against Iran. Equally glaring is the absence of any reference to the US’ responsibility for the “series of conflicts” in the region to the present time.

“Since then”, Professor Bacevich continues, “the US has been involved in balancing conflicts amongst these culturally interconnected nations in order to further its interests in the region.”

It is clear that the purpose of the US’ involvement far from ‘resolving’ any conflicts amongst the nations or the promotion of democracy, has been “balancing” or exploiting the existing fault lines and conflicts and even fabricating new ones to further its own hegemonic interests in the region.

Unfortunately, this had been the abysmal level of responsibility of a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the highest body responsible for ensuring international peace and security, claiming legitimacy and competence for leading the world to ‘peace and prosperity’.

George W. Bush

In George W Bush’s vision, the Greater Middle East Initiative was “a strategy aimed at exporting the American democratic model to the Arab-Islamic world and redefining borders and nations in tune with America’s geopolitical ambitions.” (7) The initiative was devised mainly to bring the emerging tide of terrorism (8), which was increasingly getting out of US control, especially in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, back under its control. As usual, this happened at the expense of the security and prosperity of the Middle Eastern nations. Firstly, since the “American democratic model” was to be militarily enforced, it inevitably led to massive violence and destruction; and secondly, if the initiative ever ‘succeeded’, it would emerge over the ruins of the nations’ most valuable assets -their national sovereignty, identity, independence, and national and regional cohesion and unity.

As a consequence of this ‘democracy’ initiative, Lebanon was invaded by Israel in 2006, mainly with the objective of crushing the Islamic resistance, led by the Lebanese Hezbollah, against Zionist incursions and destabilizing efforts. With the embarrassing defeat of the Israeli military again, after its defeats in 1985 and 2000 by Hezbollah pushing the Israeli army out of Lebanon, Libya and then Syria became the targets of  US/Israeli ‘democracy’ agenda.

Soon after NATO’s attack on Libya, the wealthiest nation in Africa, and the brutal overthrow of Qadafi in 2011, Syria’s democratic government was subjected to US/Israeli agenda of regime change, destabilization and geographical disintegration.  Supported by their NATO and Middle Eastern allies, recruiting, funding, arming and training armies of extremist jihadist and mercenaries from across the globe, Syria was turned into a blood bath, under the banner of ‘democratic revolution’.  The fate of the Iraqi nation, caught in a vicious engineered sectarian war from which ISIS emerged, was no better than their Syrian neighbors.

In 2004, US aborted the Paris Agreement, related to Iran’s peaceful nuclear activities, reached in negotiations with France, Germany and the United Kingdom. The US act disrupted the prospects of constructive political and economic co-operations between Iran and the European Troika, which was taking root in a progressive manner. The US action, rather, lead to nearly a decade of increasing sanctions against Iran, US-supported terrorist attacks against Iranian scientists, and the specter of another out-break of war looming over Iran and the Middle East region. Now, with another US President completely under the spell of the Neocons, again a nuclear agreement, the JCPOA, hard won through painstaking negotiations between Iran and the P5+1, in which the Obama Administration played a leading role, is subject to seriously destructive US threats, in a world bent on another world war.

In 2015, with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria burning, Yemen became the target of inhumane blockade and bombardment by Saudi Arabia’s coalition with the arming and active participation of the US and the UK in the war room, bombing Yemenis towns and infrastructure whilst blockading urgently needed humanitarian supplies of medication, food and other life-saving essentials, affecting 20 million people.

The US’s‘democratic’ Initiative is intended to transform the borders and nations of the Middle East, in line with the Greater Middle East project, to subordinate entities with narrow cultural identity and diminished self-esteem – that is, populations who would be alienated from themselves and from each other – at the service of the US Empire, itself subservient to Zionist expansionist dreams. It would not be difficult then, in the words of Gilbert Acchar,

to strengthen US’ grip on Middle Eastern oil wealth and markets and extend its network of military bases and facilities, all in the name of democratisation.”(9)

The Greater Israel Plan

Israeli Oded Yinon plan for the formation of “Greater Israel” (1982) has important similarities to the Neocon’s plan for the Middle East.  As described by Israel Shahak and Prof Michael Chssudovsky in “Greater Israel: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East, (January 2018) (10), it

“constitutes the cornerstone of powerful Zionist factions within the current Netanyahu government, the Likud party, as well as within the Israeli military and intelligence establishment.”

 The two plans are basically overlapping. The Greater Israel project, however, is a more blunt version of the Neocon Greater Middle East plan.  For instance, it openly calls for the fragmentation of the regional states, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Saudi-Arabia; moving Israel’s capital to Jerusalem (Qods); forcing Palestinians out of what is left of their homeland in the West Bank and Gaza; etc.

Fading of the US Empire

The current US position, especially with regard to the Middle East, is more ludicrous than ever before. In the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump, accused his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, as the “co-founder” of ISIS, arguably the most notorious terrorist group in recent history, and Obama, the sitting president, as “the founder” (11). Now, however, with Trump himself in office, with his startlingly shameless hallmark of self-contradiction, he continues, to provide support to IS. The US is currently re-arming and re-organizing IS, following the terrorist group’s heavy military losses and the subsequent downfall of its self-proclaimed government in Iraq and Syria.

The IS terrorists’ loss of captured territory and their  crushing defeat in November 2017, at the hands of the powerful regional Axis of Resistance, comprising Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Iran, with Russian support, was indeed a Zio-Neocon defeat. However, with the continued strong support IS and other terrorist groups receive from the US and its allies, the people in the Middle East and beyond are faced with the horrors of violent waves of terrorist attacks, for the foreseeable future, for which the US is directly responsible. Of course, Iran and other members of the Axis of Resistance would not allow the re-grouping and re-emergence of IS, as a viable force.  But, despite the eradication of ISIS which was the US’s stated excuse for being in Syria,  the Trump administration has announced its intention to stay in Syria indefinitely (12) to stop the “re-emergence” of ISIS and to counter the “strategic threat from Iran” (13).  Therefore, as with previous US administrations, Trump administration continues to waste billions of the US tax-payers’ money, and countless lives including those of US Service men and ordinary citizens, in pursuit of its dream of global domination.

US’s brutal and lawless adventurism based on delusions of exceptionalism, greed, gross injustice, deceitfulness, coercion and violence – militarily or otherwise – and its illegitimate grip on resources in the Middle East, would not last. The people in the region are, more than ever before, awakened and angry with the destabilizing role of the US and her allies in the Middle East. This awareness is increasingly shared by the global population, including many European and US citizens, who consider the US global lawlessness as a mortal threat to international peace and security and view their prospects and that of future generations, with a sense of foreboding and dread.

The Need to Strengthen the Resistance

It is very unlikely that the Neocon-led US Administration would change course, with or without Trump. Hence, the reemergence of Daesh or Daesh-like US-sponsored violent terrorist groups (14), in the region, are very likely.  It is, therefore, vital for the regional and global peace and security, that the Axis of Resistance, with its proven capabilities, is preserved, supported, strengthened and expanded.

The Axis of Resistance is essential, not only to stamp down on regional terrorism, but also in view of the presently dominant militaristic approach and the unprecedented unpredictability of the US government, increasing the likelihood  of lengthy future military confrontations with Zio-Neocon forces, and/or their proxies. To compel Washington and its allies to understand the futility and the unacceptably high costs of their military approach to the Middle East, unity and cooperation within and among the current regional Axis of Resistance and its powerful allies – Russia and China – have to be further expanded and deepened.   The Axis of Resistance need to regionally and globally expand and strengthen.

The time has long passed when the US or its Zionist client/master could invade and occupy peaceful states in the Middle East, with impunity.  Since early 1980s, when the US and Israeli occupying forces were pushed out of Lebanon, – the first time the Israeli forces were pushed out of an Arab land – the precious invincibility myth of the Israeli military cracked and fell into pieces by the courage and determination of the newly founded Lebanese Hezbollah forces.  Inspired by the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and in view of the repeated defeats in recent decades borne by the US and Israel in their military aggressions in the Middle East, from the resistance in  Gaza, to  Syria, to Iraq, to Yemen,  to  Lebanon, the invincibility myth is now unraveled and buried under the feet of the regional Resistance.

Nevertheless, for the regional resistance to be enduring and most effective in its arduous and unequal struggle against the Zio-Neocon forces, it has to be truly united, in all its layers, encompassing not only the states and armies, but within and between the populations of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc.  The enemy is extremely violent. Thus, the struggle is both hard and unequal.

The Importance of National and Regional Unity

Therefore, unity, both within the Resistance and the populations it emanates from is essential. However, this requires insightful leaderships, able to understand the pressing economic and social needs and problems of the populations. An enduring resistance is born out of the determination to defend and preserve that which is worth defending and preserving. It is rooted in the sense of belonging, trust, justice and hope for the future. An insightful leadership should be able to devise socially just and effective solutions to lighten – make bearable – the sufferings of the population whose unity, sacrifice, and resistance it seeks, and to aim to ameliorate their sufferings and legitimate social and economic grievances as its domestic priority.

This requires wide-ranging consultations to hear all voices and people’s prevailing grievances, protests and opposing views. Social justice and the rule of law, progressively implemented at all social levels, starting with and with particular focus on those at the lower ranks of society, and the reduction in economic and social inequality, should become a norm and a priority, as should be leadership and representatives accountability to the public. Equally important is the role of free and responsible media to bring transparency and dialogue to public debate.  All these measures and their strengthening help generate and maintain people’s confidence in their governments and their enduring and strong standing in support of the resistance to Zio-imperialist military threats and destabilization plots.

This would create a greater prospect for expanding the resistance regionally and globally and would attract the world’s public opinion, particularly in the West – where the Zio-imperialist war propaganda is powerful and ubiquitous – in support of the resistance.  This would help synergize global unity in resistance to Zio-Neocon’s wars and destabilization attempts, starting in the Middle East, and expanding to pave the way to the possibility of regional and global peace, security, social justice and prosperity for all.

*

Dr. Farhad Shahabi is a senior specialist in international relations and disarmament in Iran.

Notes

1) America Persistently Seeks to Destabilize Iran and Undermine Tehran’s Regional Influence in the Middle East, Global Research, January 10, 2018   https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-persistently-seeks-to-destabilize-iran-and-undermine-tehrans-regional-influence-in-the-middle-east/5625541/

2) ‘Neocon 101: What do Neoconservatives Believe?  Some basic questions answered’ Global Research, November 12, 2015, Christian Science Monitor 7 August 2007: “Neocons” believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world.”

https://www.globalresearch.ca/neocon-101-what-do-neoconservatives-believe/6483/

3) REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES  – Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, A Report ofThe Project for the New American Century September 2000 http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

4) ‘The New U.S. Proposal for a Greater Middle East Initiative: An Evaluation’, Tamara CofmanWittes,  Brookings Institute, May 10, 2004,

https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-new-u-s-proposal-for-a-greater-middle-east-initiative-an-evaluation/

5) ‘What Ever Happened to Bush’s Greater Middle East Initiative’, Catherine Shakdam, Mint Press News, Nov. 5th, 2014

http://www.mintpressnews.com/ever-happened-bushs-greater-middle-east-initiative/198496/

6) After the ISIS Caliphate, Rojava’ Thierry Meyssan, Global Research, September19, 2017

https://www.globalresearch.ca/after-the-isis-caliphate-rojava/5610383/

7) ‘What Ever Happened to Bush’s Greater Middle East Initiative’, Catherine Shakdam, Mint Press News, Nov. 5th, 2014

http://www.mintpressnews.com/ever-happened-bushs-greater-middle-east-initiative/198496/

8) ‘Terrorists or “Freedom Fighters”? Recruited by the CIA’ Professor John Ryan,Global Research, Dec 20, 2015

https://www.globalresearch.ca/terrorists-or-freedom-fighters-recruited-by-the…/5429766/

9) ‘Greater Middle East: the US plan’, Gilbert Achcar, Le Monde diplomatique, Apr. 2004, https://mondediplo.com/2004/04/04world

10) “Greater Israel”: The Zionist Plan for the Middle East,The Infamous  “Oded Yinon Plan”, Introduction by Michel Chossudovsky, Dec. 8th, 2017,

https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

11) Donald Trump calls Barak Obama ‘founder of ISIS’ and Hilary Clinton its co-founder, The Independent, August 11, 2016

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-barack-obama-isis-latest-speech-terrorism-claims-election-2016-a7184536.html

12) Donald Trump calls Barak Obama ‘founder of ISIS’ and Hilary Clinton its co-founder, The Independent, August 11, 2016

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/18/578800229/tillerson-says-u-s-to-stay-in-syria-indefinitely

13) US troops will stay in Syria to counter strategic threat from Iran, Washington Post, January 17, 2018

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/us-troops-will-stay-in-syria-to-counter-strategic-threat-from-iran/2018/01/17/eeed9d16-fb8f-11e7-9b5d-bbf0da31214d_story.html?utm_term=.995412d8279e

14) “Going After” the Islamic State. Guess Who is Behind the Caliphate Project? Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 12 September 2014

https://www.globalresearch.ca/going-after-the-islamic-state/5401439

United States troops are continuing their presence in Syria even after its promise to end the mission after their alleged anti-ISIS mission, and this is a pointer to the ultimate intention of the US, which is to disintegrate, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

“It’s very likely that the Americans have taken a course of dividing the country. They just gave up their assurances, given to us, that the only goal of their presence in Syria – without an invitation of the legitimate government – was to defeat ISIS and the terrorists,” Lavrov said.

Regarding pledges to keep a limited military contingent in the war-town state, Lavrov says the US is not being open about their true objectives.

“Now [the Americans] are saying that they will keep their presence till they make sure a steady process of a political settlement in Syria starts, which will result in regime change,” the minister said during a conference in Sochi.

The foreign minister claimed there are “plans of virtual division of Syria.”

“We know of [them] and we will ask our American colleagues, how they are seeing [Syria’s division].”

The US has nearly 2,000 troops currently stationed in Syria. In December, the Pentagon announced the troops will remain on the ground for as long as needed “to support our partners and prevent the return of terrorist groups.” Secretary of State Rex Tillerson later reiterated the plan.

Although the Syrian government regards the deployment of US troops on its sovereign territory as illegal, Washington claims the troops are reportedly fighting ISIS terrorists.

Moscow, which operates in the country on the Syrian government’s request, insists that the US has no grounds to have a military presence in the country without the permission of the Syrian government.

Washington has also been arming and funding various groups under the banners of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

“The US, flirting with various segments of Syrian society that oppose the government with arms in their hands, may lead to very dangerous consequences,” Lavrov warned.


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

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order