Last week I wrote that “all signs point toward an upcoming large-scale Israeli/U.S. attack on Lebanon and Syria, and all the sycophantic mainstream media are in the kitchen prepping for the feast. Russia and Iran are the main course, with Lebanon and Syria, who will be devoured first, as the hors d’oeuvres.” Those signs are growing more numerous by the day.
Israel’s mainstream newspapers, Haaretz, and the more conservative Jerusalem Post, both announce in headline news that Iran has built a new base in Syria with missiles capable of hitting Israel. One look at these newspapers with their talk of Israeli war preparations and the potential in assassinating the Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah makes it very clear that an expanded Middle Eastern war is fast approaching. Russia, Syria, and Iran are being demonized as mind control propaganda spews forth. The mainstream corporate media in the United States and other countries are sure to follow.
In Lebanon, the Prime Minister Saad Hariri has returned to Saudi Arabia to meet with his Saudi patrons for the first time since his shocking resignation on November 4, 2017, which he later withdrew. The timing of his visit suggests another anti-Iranian and anti-Hezbollah announcement will follow. Will Hariri issue another statement accusing Iran and Hezbollah of destabilizing Lebanon to add to the war rhetoric coming out of Israel at the same time that Lebanon is making a military agreement with Russia? The moves on the chessboard are happening fast and furious. Divide and conquer is clearly the strategy of Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States.
Here in the United States, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group of retired intelligence workers, has just issued a public warning, or what they call a memo, to Donald Trump ( Why bother? Do they actually think he is listening or is in charge?) Growing Risk of U.S.-Iran Hostilities Based on False Pretexts. This group, which shares some suspicions regarding Iran and is therefore not its apologist, nevertheless says the following:
There is considerable anti-Iran rhetoric in U.S. media, which might well facilitate a transition from a cold-war type situation to a hot war involving U.S. forces. We have for some time been observing with some concern the growing hostility towards Iran coming out of Washington and from the governments of Israel and Saudi Arabia. National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster is warning that the ‘time to act is now’ to thwart Iran’s aggressive regional ambitions while United Nations Ambassador Nick Haley sees a ‘wake-up’ call in the recent shooting incident involving Syria and Israel. Particular concern has been expressed by the White House that Iran is exploiting Shi’a minorities in neighboring Sunni dominated states to create unrest and is also expanding its role in neighboring Iraq and Syria.
VIPS also suggests that because Netanyahu may be indicted on corruption charges:
“it is conceivable that he might welcome a ‘small war’ to deflect attention from mounting political problems at home.”
One may say the same of Donald Trump, but as history has taught us ‘small wars’ lead to large wars, and as is well known, the ultimate target of these warmongers is Russia, and such a war would be far from small.
One of the signers of the VIPS’ aforementioned article is Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer who in a separate article, Donald Trump’s foreign policy: Made in Israel?(No need for the question mark), rightly says that Trump is aligned with the most hardline elements in Israel and that “some pretext for war [with Iran] will surely follow with the United States having to bear much of the burden as well as most of the consequences, including what is likely to be a large casualty list as the Iranians will surely fight back.” Furthermore, Giraldi says that the U.S., with an active presence on the ground in Syria aimed at destabilizing the country and ousting Assad, is supporting alleged Israeli intelligence that allows it to bomb another sovereign country under the claims it is protecting Israel by attacking Iranian, Hezbollah and Russian targets.
While the American public is inundated with news about Jared Kushner and Hope Hicks, propaganda about how the Syrian government is slaughtering civilians in East Ghouta (see Jonathan Cook’s excellent article, The Authoritarians Who Silence Syria Questions, and is further depressed by news of the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglass High School, shares are rising in the US military-Industrial Complex and the Academy Awards ceremony will soon give a Hollywood deluded society a “needed distraction” from all the news. Meanwhile, the bloodthirsty warmongers are licking their lips in anticipation. They are beating the war drums, and not very slowly right now. The beat has quickened. You can hear it if you listen.
Perhaps the propaganda film The Post, about the CIA’s favorite newspaper, The Washington Post, will take home the golden fetish at the Oscars while Israel and the U.S. assumes their responsibility to protect the innocent by killing more of them and expanding their deadly arms toward their ultimate targets.
*
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at MassachusettsCollege of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/
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.
Imagine living in a country where the entire social services sector is privatized, run by “charities” that are based in other countries and staffed by foreigners who get to decide whether or not you qualify for assistance.
Welcome to Haiti, the “Republic of NGOs.”
As salacious details about Oxfam officials hiring Haitian girls for sex make headlines, the media has downplayed NGOs’ lack of accountability to those they purportedly serve. Even less attention has been devoted to the role so-called non-governmental organizations have played in undermining the Haitian state and advancing wealthy countries’ interests.
According to a series of news reports, Oxfam UK’s Haiti director hired prostitutes and organized orgies at a charity-run villa set up after the devastating 2010 earthquake. Some of the girls may have been as young as 14, and Oxfam representatives traded aid for sex. Oxfam UK leaders tried to keep the issue quiet when it emerged in 2011, which enabled a number of the perpetrators to join other NGOs operating internationally.
Since the earthquake there have been innumerable stories of NGOs abusing their power or pillaging funds raised for Haitians. In an extreme case, the U.S. Red Cross built only six houses with the $500 million they raised for Haiti after the earthquake.
While impoverished Haitians get short shrift, NGOs respond to the interests of their benefactors. After the UN occupation force brought cholera to Haiti in October 2010, Oxfam and other NGOs defended the Washington-France–Canada instigated MINUSTAH (Mission des Nations Unies pour la stabilisation en Haïti). In response to Haitians protesting the UN’s role in the cholera outbreak, Oxfam spokeswoman Julie Schindall, told the Guardian
“if the country explodes in violence, then we will not be able to reach the people we need to.”
At the same time Médecins Sans Frontières’ head of mission in Port-au-Prince, Stefano Zannini, told Montreal daily La Presse that
“our position is pragmatic: to have learnt the source at the beginning of the epidemic would not have saved more lives. To know today would have no impact either.”
Of course that was nonsense. Confirming the source of the cholera was medically necessary. At the time of these statements, UN forces were still disposing their sewage in a way that put Haitian life at risk. Protesting UN actions was a way to pressure MINUSTAH to stop their reckless sewage disposal and generate the resources needed to deal with a cholera outbreak that left 10,000 dead and one million ill.
Worse than deflecting criticism of the UN’s responsibility for the cholera outbreak, NGOs put a progressive face on the invasion/coup that initiated MINUSTAH. Incredibly, many NGOs justified U.S. Marines taking an elected President from his home in the middle of the night and dumping him 10,000 km away in the Central African Republic. On March 25, 2004 Oxfam Québec and a half dozen other Canadian government-funded NGOs defended Canada’s (military, diplomatic and financial) role in the ouster of thousands of elected officials, including President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Marthe Lapierre of Development and Peace stated:
“We’re not talking about a situation where a rebel group suddenly orchestrated Aristide’s departure. We’re talking about a situation where the Aristide government, since 2000, had gradually lost all legitimacy because of involvement in activities such as serious human rights violations and drug trafficking, but also because it was a profoundly undemocratic government.”
Oxfam Québec regional director Carlos Arancibia concurred:
“I fully agree with the analysis presented by others. It’s important to understand that things went off the rails starting in the year 2000, with the election.”
(After they lost the May 2000 legislative elections the opposition claimed that the electoral Council should have used a different voting method, which would have forced eight Senate seats to a runoff. Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas party would likely have won the runoff votes, but the U.S./Canada backed opposition used the issue to justify boycotting the November 2000 presidential election, which they had zero chance of winning. For its part, Washington used the election dispute to justify blocking aid to the country. Even without the disputed senators, Fanmi Lavalas still had a majority in the senate and even when seven of the eight Lavalas senators resigned the aid embargo and effort to discredit the elections continued.)
At the time of the coup, most of Haiti’s social services were run by NGOs. A Canadian International Development Agency report stated that by 2004, “non-governmental actors (for-profit and not-for-profit) provided almost 80 percent of [Haiti’s] basic services.” Amongst other donor countries, the Canadian government channelled its “development assistance” through NGOs to shape the country’s politics.
According to CIDA,
“supporting non-governmental actors contributed to the creation of parallel systems of service delivery. … In Haiti’s case, these actors [NGOs] were used as a way to circumvent the frustration of working with the government … this contributed to the establishment of parallel systems of service delivery, eroding legitimacy, capacity and will of the state to deliver key services.”
As intended, funding NGOs weakened the Aristide/René Préval/Aristide governments and strengthened the U.S./France/Canada’s hand.
Highly dependent on Western government funding and political support, NGOs broadly advanced their interests.
The Oxfam “sex scandal” should shine a light on the immense, largely unaccountable, power NGOs continue to wield over Haitian affairs. It should also be a lesson in how not to use “aid” to undermine democracy.
In a 5-3 decision handed down on Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Jennings v. Rodriguez that the government can arrest and indefinitely detain immigrants, depriving them of the fundamental right to bail.
As a result, hundreds of thousands of immigrants will be locked up in internment camps as their immigration cases proceed, with no opportunity for release until their cases are decided—a process that often takes years. Roughly 450,000 immigrants were jailed in detention centers at some point during the last year, and that number will increase astronomically after yesterday’s ruling.
The decision makes no distinction between undocumented immigrants and those with legal permanent residency. It means millions of immigrants living in the US are subject to arrest and indefinite detention.
This milestone event has passed with virtually no comment in the corporate-controlled press. As of Tuesday evening, the online front pages of the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and Politico had no coverage of the ruling, while the New York Times had a single article far down its page. At the same time, these five sites featured a combined 23 front-page articles on the anti-Russia witch hunt.
No major Democratic Party official has made a statement on the ruling, and the Twitter accounts of Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are all silent.
The case was initiated by Alejandro Rodriguez, a Mexican citizen who was jailed in 2004 and held in detention without bond as his case made its way through the arduous immigration appeals process. In 2007, after being imprisoned for three years, he filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his long detention. The District Court for the Central District of California ultimately certified a class of plaintiffs including thousands of similarly situated immigrants on whose behalf the suit was fought. Many class members have been detained for longer than six months.
Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion shows the depth of support within the ruling class for police-state methods of rule.
“Detention during [immigration] proceedings gives immigration officials time to determine an alien’s status without running the risk of the alien’s either absconding or engaging in criminal activity,” the decision reads.
The ruling overturns a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision mandating bond hearings after six months of detention. Alito scolded the Ninth Circuit for the “implausible” argument that indefinite detention “raise[s] serious constitutional concerns.”
Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts, mocked the three-justice dissent for “devoting the first two-thirds of its opinion to a disquisition on the Constitution.” Thomas and Gorsuch agreed with the result but said the court should throw the challenge out because immigrants do not have the habeas corpus right to even question the legality of their detention.
Justice Stephen Breyer, whose dissent was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor, warned:
“No one can claim, nor since the time of slavery has anyone to my knowledge successfully claimed, that persons held within the United States are totally without constitutional protection. Whatever the fiction, would the Constitution leave the Government free to starve, beat or lash those held within our boundaries? If not, then, whatever the fiction, how can the Constitution authorize the Government to imprison arbitrarily those who, whatever we might pretend, are in reality right here in the United States? The answer is that the Constitution does not authorize arbitrary detention. And the reason that it is so is simple: Freedom from arbitrary detention is as ancient and important a right as any found within the Constitution’s boundaries.”
Elsewhere, he added,
“We need only recall the words of the Declaration of Independence, in particular its insistence that all men and women have ‘certain unalienable Rights,’ and that among them is the right to ‘Liberty.’”
Although the Democratic appointees’ dissent makes additional warnings about the impact of yesterday’s decision, there has been no comment on the role of the Democratic Party in paving the way for the decision. Democratic nominee Elena Kagan recused herself from the decision because she was solicitor general when the Obama administration argued against granting the plaintiffs a bond hearing in the lower courts and in support of indefinite immigrant detention.
The statutes cited by the Alito majority were passed with bipartisan support. When Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch argued that immigrants have no right to even file habeas corpus petitions based on final deportation orders, they cited a statute enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which had bipartisan approval in Congress, including from Democrats such as Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Elijah Cummings, Steny Hoyer and Sheila Jackson-Lee, and was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton.
The case now heads back to the Ninth Circuit. In rejecting the six-month bond requirement set by that court, the Supreme Court remanded for further deliberation on the merits of the immigrants’ constitutional claims.
Jennings v. Rodriguez is further proof that the Bill of Rights is a dead letter. Both parties have signed off on mass surveillance, illegal war, state torture, black site prisons and drone assassinations of US citizens without warrants or trials. The decision of the political and media establishment to downplay the significance of Tuesday’s ruling shows that there is no constituency for the defense of democratic rights in the American ruling class.
The authorization for a regime of mass indefinite detention is an existential threat to workers of all national origins, regardless of immigration status. There is a history in the US, including during miners’ strikes in Bisbee, Arizona in 1917 and Colorado from 1901 to 1903, of the government indefinitely detaining and even deporting striking workers from one state to another at the behest of the corporations. Not only will the decision be cited as the Trump administration expands the network of immigrant internment camps across the country, it will soon be turned against US citizen workers as well.
Pyeongchang Olympics might be able to offer the third chance of peace in the Korean peninsula. In fact, there were two chances of peace in the past, one in 1994 and the other in 2005. Both could have led to success but failed because of some unjustifiable reasons. Let us hope that the third chance will succeed.
One of the most memorable events of the Pyeongchang Olympics was the visiting of the North Korean delegation including Kim Young Nam, head of the Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly and, above all, Kim Yo-Jong, sister of Kim Jong-un who came with her brother’s message of peace and a possible inter-Korean summit. Kim Jong-un’s message has given the world a hope of peace.
The world is asking this question:
“What is the chance of ending the nuclear crisis in the Korean peninsula after the Pyeongchang Olympics?”
In fact, there were two chances of peace in the past, one in 1994 and the other in 2005.
On October 21, 1994, there was what was called the Framework Agreement by virtue of which North Korea agreed to abandon all nuclear programs in return of peace, construction of two Light Water Reactors (LWR), supply of 500,000 tons of fuel oil and even international assistance for the economic development of North Korea. The second chance of peace in the Korean peninsula came in 2005. On September 19, 2005, at the 4th round of the 6-Party Talks in Beijing, North Korea promised what it had proposed in 1994 in return of peace with Washington and the supply of heavy fuel oil. North Korea also promised to return to NPT and allow the inspections of IAEA.
The international community blew both chances of peace. The 1994 Agreement failed because of mutual mistrust between the U.S. and North Korea, controversy surrounding missile tests and, above all, Washington’s treatment of North Korea as a part of the “axis of evil”.
The chance of peace in 2005 did not succeed largely because of the lack of mutual trust and, in particular, freezing of Pyongyang’s $ 25 million deposited at the Banco Delta Asia in Macao. But, these visible reasons of the failures of peace opportunities were merely circumstantial ones. What were then the fundamental reasons? To answer this question, we have to know the nature of the bilateral relations between the U.S. and North Korea. To be more precise, we have to know what each side expects to get from the bilateral relations.
What North Korea wants is to be free from the American attacks. To do so, North Korea claims that it is obliged to have nuclear weapons. This position has been consistently kept for the last several decades. In fact, the dying message of Kim Il-sung to his son, Kim Jong-il was denuclearization of the Korean peninsula; Kim Il-sung did not want nuclear weapons in Korea. Kim Jong-il did not want to have them either; he wanted to respect his father’s wish.
Kim Jong-il told Japanese Prime Minister, Koizumi, at the meeting with the Japanese delegation on May 22, 2004 in Pyongyang, about his deep concerns about possible US attacks; he made it quite clear that North Korea had to develop nuclear weapons solely to defend itself. His message was quite clear:
“Nobody can keep silent, if threatened by someone with a stick. We come to have nuclear weapons for the sake of the right of existence. If our existence is secured, nuclear weapons will be not necessary any more”.
A statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Korea of October 11, 2006 made the same point. It said:
“The nuclear test was entirely attributable to US nuclear threat, sanctions and pressure. North Korea was compelled to substantially prove its possession of nuclear arms to protect its sovereignty”.
This position has been clearly reiterated in Kim Jong-un’s New Year speeches since he took over the power in 2012.
In other words, in the eyes of North Korea, the fundamental root of the nuclear crisis in the Korean peninsula is American threats to attack the land of Juche. As far as Pyongyang is concerned, the deployment of a large number of American nuclear assets in South Korea during the Cold War era, installation of the American nuclear umbrella protecting Japan and South Korea since 1991, annual U.S.-South Korea joint war games (the Foal Eagle and Key Resolve joint exercises in Spring and Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercise in Autumn) have been and are real threats to Pyongyang.
North Korea being threatened by the U.S. has been consistently asking for peace with the U.S. Then, why does the U.S. ignore Pyongyang’s plea? There can be three reasons. First, the U.S. might worry about the North Korean dream of reunifying the peninsula under the Red Flag. But, North Korea officially abandoned such dream by virtue of its 1992 Constitution. Besides, the North Korean model of reunification is the regime of Koryo Confederation in which both Koreas would remain sovereign states.
Second, American leaders may not like the ideology of North Korea. It is certain that the North Korean ideology is different from American values. But, the U.S. has friendly relations with many countries having ideologies which are very different from the American way of thinking.
Third, the U.S. claims that North Korea is a threat to the U.S. This begs two questions. Does North Korea have the military capacity to threaten the U.S.? Even if it has such capacity, what benefits can it expect to gain from threatening the super power? Let us be realistic about such possibilities. North Korea is a small country with a population of 23 million people, a GDP of US$40 billion spending each year perhaps less than US$ 5 billion on national defence. How can such a small country threaten the U.S. of 327 million people with a GDP of US$18 trillion spending each year more than US$ 600 billion on national defence?
It is true that North Korea has been making belligerent statements even warning counter attacks. But, this warning has been for self defence, not for offensive purposes. A more important question is about possible benefits which North Korea expects to obtain from engaging a war against the U.S. Nobody would deny what is inevitable; a war with the U.S. would be a certain tragic suicide of Pyongyang’s regime.
On its part, the U.S. argues that its mighty military muscles deployed in South Korea are for the protection of South Korea and the U.S. against North Korean nuclear attacks. But North Korea says that it has no intention of attacking South Korea. At the same time, North Korea says that it will never attack the U.S. unless it is threatened. The trouble is that Washington does not seem to believe what North Korea is saying. Here lies the root of deep mistrust between Washington and Pyongyang.
Under these circumstances, what is the chance of having permanent peace in the Korean peninsula? It goes without saying that the first thing to do is reopening of dialogue between Pyongyang on the one hand, and on the other hand, Washington and Seoul. Fortunately, owing to highly productive diplomatic initiatives of the president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, shown during the Pyeongchang Olympics, the dialogue has become a possibility
Obviously the dialogue is a good start, but the dialogue must lead to fruitful negotiations for peace. The success of negotiations depends on a compromise between what the U.S. wants and what North Korea desires. It is likely that Pyongyang will demand peace treaty with the U.S., elimination of joint military exercises, or reduction of their size at least, removal of sanctions, compensation for the loss of economic benefits due to sanctions and resuming of Inter-Korean peaceful interaction and cooperation. In return, Pyongyang might abandon its nuclear program.
On the other hand, The U.S. may satisfy some parts of North Korea’s demand; it may reduce the range of sanctions; it may reduce the size of joint military exercises; it could allow inter-Korean cooperation. But what does Trump really want from the negotiation? It appears that Trump asks no less than a full denuclearization of the land of Kim Jong-un. But if the full denuclearization of North Korea takes place, Tramp will have difficulty in justifying the deployment of American armed forces in South Korea. The world will be anxious to see how far Trump will go in negotiations
*
Professor Joseph H. Chung is Associated Professor of Economics and Co-director of East Asia Observatory of University of Quebec in Montreal. He has been teaching economics at various universities in Canada and Korea. His recent research projects have been focusing on inter-Korean relations, in particular, the issue of reunification of the Korean peninsula.
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102 Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling) PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
The Indictment issued by the US Department of Justice on February 16, against Russians alleged to have “defrauded the United States government” and a wave of “sanctions” imposed or threatened against the Russian government and individuals the past few weeks echo the Nazi propaganda and ideological preparation of the German people in the period leading up to Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the USSR in June 1941. The same techniques are being applied to the American population to build a psychological architecture of war and destruction. It is the arming of the civilian population with xenophobic and nationalistic abstractions to create support for violent action, for war, and the suppression of democracy. It is a danger to world peace and to democracy in the west only collective action can remove.
The entire anti-Russian propaganda campaign for the past several years rests on the long-standing stereotypes planted in American minds during the Soviet period, but now reinforced and expanded upon to amplify fear and hatred of Russia and its people. Hitler was very successful in mobilizing the German nation for war and creating enemies with slander and disinformation against Russians and Jews. A mythical world was created that had no relation to objective reality. The Nazis used these methods to create an illusion of ever-present terror to solidify their control over a people in despair of their condition, the poverty of their lives, to create the conformity they needed to impose a dictatorship.
The same process is proceeding to unfold in the United States. The Russian “Slavic menace” used by the Nazis has been replaced with the Russian “threat to democracy.” Just as the Soviet Union was portrayed by the Nazis as a subhuman state rule by criminals, Russia now is portrayed by the US ruling class and their intelligence services as an evil state ruled by criminals.
It is interesting to note that the US propaganda indictment uses 2014 as the reference date for the beginning of the alleged Russian campaign to subvert democracy in America, for it was in 2014 that the United States backed the neo-Nazi coup against the elected government of Ukraine. That coup led to the disaster that is now Ukraine, for as soon as the coup took place, the threats against Russians and Russian culture in Ukraine caused the peoples of east Ukraine to either join the Russian Federation as happened in Crimea or to set up separate republics in the Donbass region to resist the neo Nazi factions that took power in Kiev. The coup partly succeeded in moving NATO right up to the Russian border but failed to take control of all Ukraine since the reaction of the people of eastern Ukraine denied them possession of the industrial and mining resources of Donbass and denied them the important naval base at Sevastopol.
That this is a propaganda campaign is evidenced by the corresponding allegations of Russian “threats to democracy’ in Britain and Europe. New allegations smear the leader of the British Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn with alleged past links to Soviet and Czech communist agents, the latest in a long list of accusations that he is a Putin puppet. That the communists are not in power in Russia does not matter. The important point is that the allegations link him to Russians and the constant menacing theme in the mass media that NATO countries and “democracy” are under threat from Russian subversion. The objective is two-fold; primarily to recreate Russians as the “other,” as the enemy that needs to be dealt with and, secondarily, to discredit political parties and suppress popular movements that have social and economic justice as their aims.
The suppression of populist or left political parties, suppression of dissent and providing scapegoats to the NATO public for their increasingly desperate lives under capitalism by attributing public discontent to the Russian “sowing of discord,” as is claimed in the American indictment, are all important objectives in this campaign. But the larger ambition of the United States and its allies is the elimination of Russia as an independent and sovereign nation and its shattering into a thousands pieces. Any opposition to this objective is now being criminalised in the US as support of the Russian “conspiracy against democracy.”
The continuing theatrical staging of hearings on Russian subversion in the US Congress, the daily media coverage on the subject, the harassment of Russians even on the sports field and its banning from the Winter Olympics, are a prelude to wider ranging actions. We can expect US citizens to be arrested on bogus charges to send shock waves through the population. The indictment is carefully constructed to prepare the ground for that with the use of the phrase “Defendants did knowingly conspire with each other and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury.” Who the persons “known” are will be interesting to determine for if they are known why are they not named.
But the unknown can be anyone, anyone at all. CNN, on February 21 ran a video, under the title, “Who are the citizens hired by Russian trolls,” of one of their “journalists” baiting a woman in Florida, a Mrs. Goldfarb, whom they had tracked down as being one of the supposed dupes of the Russians, accusing her of acting on their behalf. Her pleas to leave her alone, that she never helped any Russians and was as patriotic as the CNN man, were met by a microphone shoved into her face and aspersions cast on her true motives and loyalty. It is not far from aggressive CNN men to aggressive police interrogating and arresting citizens. Mrs. Goldfarb got it right when she fired back “It’s all bullshit,” a heroic act these days. But her name is now public and she is now deemed a co-conspirator. In fact anyone who criticises the state of the nation can be labelled as a co-conspirator. So that, on the lie that they are protecting “democracy” the American ruling class in control of the machinery of government is destroying what little democracy there is in that country and for their sole benefit.
As the character Agius, a US agent up to no good in Canada, says in my novel, “You talk about democracy and truth in your trials, in your tiresome lectures. You talk about justice. There is no such thing. A crisis exists. You can see it all around you. In a crisis you must have order. The people are told a myth. It makes them feel good about themselves. It panders to their egos. You want to take the myth from them and tell them there is no god. They don’t want to be told that, Eiger.” And for too many in the United States and other NATO countries this seems to be the case. There are too few Mrs. Goldfarbs out there.
But the problem she has along with many others is that she blames everything on Hillary Clinton, or Trump, or whoever they have been deluded into thinking has the power, instead of the entire socio-economic and political system she is buried in. In fact there is a wide spread notion in the USA that the Russian subversion of American democracy theme is a plot by Clinton and the Democratic Party upset about losing the election to Trump and the Republicans. There may be some truth to that. But I suggest that this campaign was planned long before and would have taken place even if she had won. The same allegations would have been made, with different details, of Russian attempts to undermine her and American democracy as they have been made in Britain even under Conservative Party rule. For their purpose it didn’t matter who won. The objective was the same under either scenario. Paint a picture of the US under threat and Russia as the evil destroyer of American democracy. For conditions in the United States require a scapegoat if the lid is to be kept on. The continuous mass shootings, even in schools, across that nation, are the bubbles of a seething cauldron of anger and despair.
If the reports of dozens of Russians being killed in Syria by American bombs are correct, then the war is already on, the action against the scapegoat is heating up, but no one officially wants to say it yet. That attack was a provocation, like several other hostile actions. There is no other reason that the Americans did it except as a provocation. The reaction, the consequence is yet to come. But the actions match the hostile rhetoric so we can expect further provocations, in Syria, in Ukraine, in the Baltic, and in Asia as the Americans build and use their armed forces in synchronisation with their domestic and international propaganda.
In a previous article, I referred to Soviet attempts at the United Nations to have war propaganda made a war crime, an attempt the Americans opposed. It bears repeating because what we are looking at in the United States is a deliberate campaign, using war propaganda, to generate hostility to a nation in order to justify a war.
“A Soviet draft definition of aggression presented to the General Assembly in 1957 defined war propaganda as ideological aggression. Their draft stated that a state has committed ideological aggression when it ‘encourages war propaganda, encourages propaganda for the use of atomic or other weapons of mass extermination and stimulates Nazi-fascist views, racial or national superiority, or hatred and disdain for other peoples.’”
The American governments have never obeyed international law unless it served their interests so stating that this is the law and that they are criminals might make us feel that we have done something but will change nothing; applying a label only identifies; useful, yes, and then what? That is the question, to be class conscious or not to be conscious at all, to act collectively or not to act at all. For this war being waged is not just against Russia as a state or a nation, nor the Russian people but against all of us the world over who have nothing but the power of our labour and combined action to resist; to resist the forces of capital that want to dominate and exploit us. So unite and act. What do we have to lose? Everything.
*
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
The crumbling “liberal” West is in a desperate hurry in the Balkans. More than a quarter century since the first Western states, pushed by Germany, unilaterally recognized the secession of the former Yugoslav federal republics of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina and about 19 years since NATO’s air and land attack against what had remained of the country (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, comprising Serbia and Montenegro) resulting in NATO’s occupation and subsequent forced amputation of Serbia’s Kosovo and Metohija province (by way of recognition of its unilaterally declared independence of February 2008 by the main Western powers, some – but not all Muslim countries – and all the smaller countries whose hands Uncle Sam could either twist or stuff with a fistful of dollars) – NATO’s taskmasters are increasingly showing signs of nervousness for having failed to establish complete control over the territory of the former model multi-ethnic country and calls for the Alliance to take care of “unfinished business” in the region are gaining in volume.
Just last summer, Montenegro was expressly absorbed into NATO, on the wings of a contrived, supposedly Russian-backed “attempted coup” (the “evidence” of which is on par with that so far offered to back claims of the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russians during the 2016 US presidential campaign) and the associated intimidation and scare-mongering used to justify pushing the country into the Alliance without allowing something as cumbersome as a referendum to get in the way. This special op might have, at first glance, seemed rather trivial, considering Montenegro’s tiny size and population of about 600,000. Until, that is, one looks at a map and realizes that the traditionally Russian-allied country was the last non-NATO holdout in the northern Mediterranean.
Next, it was Macedonia’s turn. First, its nationalist government, which had the temerity to actively court Chinese investment and good relations with Russia had to be jettisoned. This was accomplished through a destabilizing George Soros and US-backed campaign, the inevitable evidence-free claims of “Russian meddling” and the installing of a new pro-Western government in May 2017, brokered by the EU and US, after some major arm-twisting by US diplomat Hoyt Brian Yee (the deputy of Victoria Nuland of the Ukrainian coup and “F*ck the EU” fame), with the crucial aid of Macedonia’s Albanian minority – the Atlanticists’ most reliable trump card in the Balkans over the past three decades. In addition to promising the Albanians equal status with that of the majority Macedonians (who are South Slavs and make up about 65% of the population, as opposed to the Albanians’ 25%), new prime minister Zoran Zaev’s main task is to make way for Macedonia’s EU accession and express admission to – you guessed it – NATO. Toward that end, hurried negotiations are now being conducted with Greece, which has been blocking Macedonia’s NATO aspirations for the better part of two decades until the country changes its name, i.e., gives up claims to being the historic Macedonia of Alexander the Great and, potentially, to Greece’s own Macedonia region. Since the start of 2018, Macedonia’s new government has taken steps toward that end, renaming its capital city Skopje’s airport (from “Alexander the Great” to “Skopje International Airport”) as well as its main highway to Greece (from “Alexander the Great” to “Friendship Highway”). That still hasn’t fully satisfied Greece, but Macedonian diplomacy is doing its utmost to speed the process along in time for the next NATO summit in July 2018. By securing Macedonia, NATO not only adds another piece of jewelry but also gains firm control of a key communication along the Balkan branch of both China’s New Silk Road and the Russian Turkish Stream gas pipeline.
As a result, since adopting its own Resolution on military neutrality last fall, making it impossible for B-H to be officially invited to join NATO, the Serbian leadership in B-H has been subjected to various fake news campaigns and provocations concocted in various Anglo-American media, military and diplomatic kitchens.
First came allegations that – what else? – a “Russian-trained” group under the name “Serbian Honor” (or “Srbska čast” in the original Serbian) took part in a parade marking the anniversary of Republika Srpska on January 9. The Washington Post and the Guardian quickly put out the distress calls, with appropriately alarmist headlines: “Russia finds young men who love guns — and grooms them” and “Russian-trained mercenaries back Bosnia’s Serb separatists.” But, as has become the custom of late with what Donald Trump has christened the fake news media, the claims have proven to be evidence-free.
For one, while a group called “Serbian Honor” does exist, Republika Srpska Police Minister Dragan Lukac has denied that it took part in the parade. For two, absolutely no evidence has been offered that its members are “Russian-trained,” except for empty claims of supposed ties between this obscure group and the Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Center established in the Serbian city of Nish in 2012. The irony here is especially rich, as the Center’s main activity since its inception has been to provide personnel and resources to help clear the thousands of illegal cluster munitions and aerial bombs left behind by NATO’s illegal bombing of Serbia in 1999. That’s right: Russian resources are being used to clean up NATO’s crime scene. And, yet, the lead NATO country is accusing Russia of exercising “malign influence” in the region.
The Center also provided vital aid during the catastrophic floods that beset Serbia in 2014. Yet, again, the main NATO countries have persistently tried to portray this small outpost – hosting, as Serbia’s foreign minister has put it, a grand total of “five Serbs, four Russians and one dog” – as some sort of sinister spy, or even military base. All that has been lacking is – you guessed it – evidence to back up these ludicrous claims. Even Reuters admitted as much, reporting that no sources were cited in the original story to back up the claim that “mercenaries” were being trained there. But, as we’ve learned, especially over the past several years, a minor inconvenience such as the truth must not stand in the way of the “greater good” of restarting the Cold War, even at the risk of making it substantially “warmer” than its previous incarnation.
The US Embassy in Sarajevo issued denials, but the published documents did indeed show that the use of A-10 and DU ammunition was being considered. Milorad Dodik, the president of Republika Srpska, flatly warned NATO “not to dare” use DU ammo, while the inhabitants of the villages near the proposed military exercise site vowed to block the event from taking place.
This is classic psychological warfare, and it’s bound to intensify. For, in its steady buildup along Russia’s western borders, NATO seems to be seeking to eliminate all potential loose ends in its rear. And Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are precisely that. In the war-weary Balkans, especially in the Serbian majority parts, that kind of calculus has an eerily familiar ring. It was the Serbs that rose to reject the Royal Yugoslav government’s attempt to appease Nazi Germany by signing a pact with it on March 25, 1941. As a result, Hitler had to postpone his attack on the USSR for several crucial weeks until the Serbian-led rebellion could be pacified (it was, but only briefly, as two majority Serb guerilla movements arose during summer of 1941, and fought on until the country’s liberation). Some think that this at least partly contributed to the Nazi war machine’s failure to break Stalin before the Russian winter set in, which ultimately cost it the war.
Some might find the analogy surprising. But actions speak louder than words. As in the US, it’s now practically all “Russia! Russia! Russia!” in the Balkans, and the traditionally pro-Russian Serbs are under rapidly increasing political, propaganda and military pressure to join the “new order,” finally give up their historic and spiritual Kosovo heartland, and turn their backs on their traditional Russian ally and Orthodox Christian co-religionists. The West’s quarter century long anti-Serbian and, by extension, anti-Russian crusade is intensifying, and things may well be coming to a head in the near future.
And we know what it might mean when things are coming to a head in the Balkans…
*
Aleksandar Pavic is an independent analyst and researcher.
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.
According to The Guardian journalists, “as many as 150 airstrikes beginning on Sunday were recorded in 18 towns of Idlib province by Monday”. Trying to imagine the number of attacks carried out without interruption for 12 hours we came to the conclusion that Idlib Governorate, in the view of The Guardian, has suffered a saturation bombing. In fact, if these figures were accurate at least eight aircraft would have flown mission and dropped about 60 bombs at every town – based on an average maximum loading of eight FAB-500 general purpose bombs per one Su-25 jet.
Western governments and western corporate media have promoted a common narrative on Syria. It has been difficult for outsiders to be sure of what is going on, given that Syria has long been a closed society, a trend only reinforced by the last seven years of a vicious civil-cum-proxy war, and the presence of brutal ISIS and al Qaeda militias.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis says there is no evidence that the Syrian government used sarin gas on its own people.
It is a narrative we have been pushing back on for years. So what does this mean for U.S. policy in Syria? And will President Trump continue to push for war in Syria, or will he return to the positions of candidate Trump who said the U.S. should stay out of it?
Russia operates in Syria by invitation. So do Hezbollah fighters and Iranian military advisors. US forces are there illegally – waging naked aggression by terror-bombing and support for terrorists, seeking regime change.
Observers have noticed, however, that since the 1980’s, something big has occurred in the United States: the political system and its processes have fallen into the hands of an unscrupulous money establishment in a way that has left a majority of Americans deprived of the basic services they are entitled to receive from their government.
In the Eastern Ghouta in Syria, a war is fought every day without the exclusion of blows: it is the war of information and propaganda, which is consumed by tweets and photographic material on social networks. Objective: to bring public opinion to its own side, at any cost and by any means.
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) could become Mexico’s first progressive president in generations, but what would such a presidency actually look like? It is not an easy question to answer, though his time as leader of Mexico’s largest city could offer some insights. Between 2000 and 2005, Lopez Obrador headed the government of Mexico City. In a position akin to mayor, AMLO ran a city that today boasts a population of 8.9 million people in the city proper, and 20 million people if the surrounding greater urban area is included. In short, Mexico City is a country within a country.
When AMLO left office, he enjoyed an 84% approval rating. His welfare reforms were wildly popular, and he gave the city a major facelift while improving public transport and education. On the other hand, he has been accused of failing to address corruption while sparking controversy with his views on domestic security.
We cannot know whether AMLO – who polls suggest could win Mexico’s upcoming presidential elections – will run the country the same way he ran its capital. It has been more than a decade since he left the mayor’s office, and both he and Mexico have changed a lot.
Moreover, a potentially hostile congress could make AMLO’s election promises impossible to fulfil – not to mention the external challenges posed by the Donald Trump administration in the United States.
Nonetheless, AMLO’s time as mayor of Mexico City is our best window into understanding his style of governance. So, a decade on, how did he do?
Welfare
Without doubt, AMLO’s biggest achievement as mayor of Mexico City was to create the country’s first comprehensive, socially-funded retirement pension system.
Before AMLO, Mexico had a mostly privatized system of income-related pensions with some government subsidies. This system was woefully inadequate. In 2000, only about 22% of Mexicans aged 65 and older had any kind of pension. Today, 88% of all Mexican seniors have a pension – largely thanks to AMLO.
In 2001, AMLO’s government introduced a universal pension to residents of Mexico City. Anyone older than 70 was entitled to the pension (later lowered to 68).
The scheme was very popular, though it had problems. For one, AMLO’s government set the pension in 2001 at just half the minimum wage, or about US$65 a month. Nonetheless, more than 80% of Mexico City’s seniors had successfully applied for a pension by the end of the next year.
This figure continued to rise until about 2011, when figures plateaued. The pension application process was considered easy initially, but, after a decade, complaints began to mount that new applicants were suffering long waiting times.
AMLO’s pension program could hardly be considered a failure. In fact, the overwhelming popularity of the program forced AMLO’s political rivals to endorse pensions. AMLO put pensions on the national agenda, and used Mexico City as a laboratory to prove such programs could work.
An AMLO presidency could be expected to prioritize welfare programs like the senior pension. However, it remains to be seen whether he could deliver on providing dignified living for millions of elderly Mexicans still living hand-to-mouth.
Redevelopment
Supporters of AMLO say he revitalized a rusting city – and they have a point. Anyone who has visited Mexico City has likely spent some time meandering around the city’s well maintained old colonial centre. AMLO is largely to thank for the state of the historic centre, after he oversaw major renovations during his time as mayor.
Successive Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) governments had promised to rejuvenate the city’s heart during the 1980s and ’90s, but when AMLO came to power the colonial centre remained a wreck of semi-abandoned colonial buildings and streets lined with garbage. Under AMLO, streets were re-paved, new street lights installed and the city scrubbed clean.
The secret to AMLO’s success was twofold. For one, his government relied on local communities to carry out most of the work, empowering locals to take the lead in repairing their city streets. This brought grassroots organizations into the fold, turning a largely aesthetic project into an exercise in community cooperation and pride.
But the second pillar of the redevelopment was more controversial: a heavy dependence on the support of billionaire Carlos Slim. Mexico’s richest man poured about US$200-million into the colonial centre during the first redevelopment phase alone, with critics accusing Slim of effectively buying the city.
Tax breaks and other incentives were also used to encourage investment. Critics warned the influx of private development was gentrifying vast swathes of the city and pricing out locals. AMLO responded by arguing the development was being accompanied by better services, better public safety and an improved city for all residents.
Education and Transport
Indeed, another of AMLO’s flagship initiatives was the creation of the Autonomous University of Mexico City (UACM) in 2001. Before then, the Federal District did not even have a public university. Not only that, but the UACM was the first new university built in Mexico for nearly three decades, making it a major achievement.
Later in AMLO’s term, he undertook arguably his biggest challenge: fixing Mexico City’s notoriously gridlocked traffic. The centrepiece of these efforts was the US$30-million Metrobus, which was hailed as Mexico City’s first new major public transport initiative in nearly 30 years.
Initially, the project saw jumbo-sized buses running down their own dedicated lane on a 20 kilometre stretch of the critical artery of Insurgentes, the longest avenue in Mexico City. Today, the Metrobus is on its seventh line, with successive governments expanding the popular initiative.
Along with providing fast, safe public transport, the system was also praised as a major step to address climate change. In its first decade of operation, Metrobus reduced Mexico City’s carbon footprint by just under 144,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. This was achieved partly by coaxing Mexico City residents away from private vehicles while also replacing older, more polluting buses.
Yet the initiative was not without controversy. A clunky smart card system initially frustrated users, while environmentalists complained the bus lanes were built over the corpses of thousands of historic trees.
In the face of such a huge traffic congestion crisis, critics say the Metrobus was simply too small in scope. Instead, they say the Metrobus was simply a cheaper alternative to a much better solution – more subway lines.
Still, AMLO has pledged to make university education universally accessible while investing heavily in infrastructure. His record suggests he is dead serious.
Corruption and Security
Finally, if AMLO has an Achilles heel, it is corruption. Despite vowing to crack down on corruption, AMLO’s record is spotty at best.
Then there was his suggestion of offering amnesty to drug kingpins, which sparked a public backlash. AMLO supporters responded by arguing the backlash was the result of AMLO’s comments being exaggerated.
Nonetheless, on the question of corruption and impunity, AMLO’s record is not particularly impressive. In left-wing circles, it is the corruption issue that all-too-often leads to AMLO being branded as just another unreliable politician.
Foreign Policy and Energy
AMLO’s foreign policy is one area where he has broad support. He has arguably taken the toughest stance of any major candidate against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that has devastated Mexico since the 1990s. He has pledged to do a better job of renegotiating the deal than the current administration of Enrique Pena Nieto.
“Pena is too quiet and Donald Trump speaks very loudly,” AMLO has said. “One doesn’t beg for liberty, one seizes it.”
Comments like these resonate well with Mexicans, who are tired of being derided as criminals and rapists. In some ways, Trump has done the most to help AMLO, despite the presidential hopeful toning down his anti-imperialist rhetoric in recent years.
The same could be said for AMLO’s stance on Mexico’s controversial energy reforms, which opponents say involve privatizing the country’s national resources. Once a firm opponent of the reforms, AMLO’s stance is less clear today. He has promised to carry out a public consultation on the reforms, but one of his closest allies has likewise promised to ensure existing privatization deals remain in place.
All up, AMLO’s record is far from perfect. He has a proven record on welfare, education, infrastructure and development, but his history of seemingly taking a light touch to corruption is worrisome. His energy policy positions are also an issue of concern, even if he may offer a better path than any other candidate.
Ultimately, Mexico’s entire political process is so encumbered with corruption that few, if any, candidates can be considered clean, AMLO included.
So while AMLO is, without any doubt, the only major candidate worth considering for progressives, it is still an open question as to whether he has what it takes to turn Mexico around.
*
Ryan Mallett-Outtrim is an Australian independent journalist and travel writer currently living in Puebla, Mexico. He is a member of the alternative news collective Venezuelanalysis.com, and is a contributor to Australian alternative newspaper Green Left Weekly. He blogs at Dissent Sans Frontieres.
The Guardian article from February 6, 2018, titled “Biggest airstrikes in a year hit Syria after rebels shoot down Russian jet” claims that “Russian and Syrian jets have bombed up to 18 towns across north-west Syria, devastating civilian areas and forcing fresh waves of refugees to flee”. According to the journalists Martin Chulov and Kareem Shahee, a series of devastating airstrikes have been carried out in the northwest of Idlib province. “Nine people were treated for symptoms of chlorine exposure after a bomb was dropped on the town of Saraqeb by a helicopter”, they claim.
Inside Syria Media Center has tried to get to the bottom of the adequacy of this information and determine whether it is credible.
Fake No.1 Mission Impossible
According to The Guardian journalists, “as many as 150 airstrikes beginning on Sunday were recorded in 18 towns of Idlib province by Monday”. Trying to imagine the number of attacks carried out without interruption for 12 hours we came to the conclusion that Idlib Governorate, in the view of The Guardian, has suffered a saturation bombing. In fact, if these figures were accurate at least eight aircraft would have flown mission and dropped about 60 bombs at every town – based on an average maximum loading of eight FAB-500 general purpose bombs per one Su-25 jet.
At the same time, Business Insider reports that “the most recent satellite images of the Russian-operated Hmeimim air base in Syria show Moscow has 10 types of aircraft in the war-torn country, 33 jets in total and a smaller number of fixed-wing aircraft.” So, all the Russian aircraft are supposed to have taken off and landed 4 times, refueled, loaded weapons and once again set course for Idlib for the 12 hours.
If it really did happen, this military operation could be compared to the one-night air raid on London during WW2, which caused over, 500 deaths a night. But this has nothing in common with the casualties reported by The Guardian.
Besides, The Guardian’s figures vary substantially with those from other sources. Thus, The Washington Post referring to ВВС channel reported 25 airstrikes on 15 towns. It also claimed that about 20 militants in the area died in bombardment while The Guardian cited 300 people killed, mostly women and children.
Having analyzed Turkish mass media, we do not consider the Guardian’s ‘facts’ to be authentic. For example, Anadolu Agency reported on civilian casualties referring to White Helmets’s director in Idlib, Mustafa Haj Yusuf. This organization has already been involved in staging fake videos. Moreover, Turkish media claimed the only tragic case had happened in Masaran village with eight locals killed and about 40 wounded from Feb. 4 to Feb. 5, 2018. It was also reported that three mosques and a hospital had been destroyed in Maarat al-Numan without quoting the number of killed. So Guardian’s data on 300 civilians killed is also looking different.
Fake No.2 What happened in Termala?
Covering the situation around Termala, The Guardian’s reporters refer to some monitoring groups. In our opinion, the source of this false information is the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Surprisingly, we have not found any photos or videos which could prove this airstrike. The Observatory’s representatives said Russian airstrikes had killed three people targeting the village of Termala in Idlib on February 6. This information was widely disseminated by the influential Western media like Anadolu and NYP. However, their data slightly varies. Some report three civilians deaths while others report five deaths.
Fake No.3 “Chemical explosion”
There is a particular interest in a new case of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. According to The Guardian, “nine people were treated for symptoms of chlorine exposure after a bomb was dropped on the town of Saraqeb by a helicopter.” However, some American sources like Business Insider say there were two bombs and 11 wounded. The Guardian’s journalists refer to the unnamed ‘medics’. This alleged fact causes major doubts because of several reasons.
First, we’ve analyzed the craters formed, according to locals, by the barrel bomb with chlorine gas dropped on Saraqeb.
Location of the bomb dropped on Saraqeb
The result of the barrel bomb drop in Hama Governorate
The dispersion of soil fragments in craters doesn’t match with the barrel bomb drop. This is called a fragmentation effect. The detonating wave converts the shell and sends its fragments/splinters flying with high velocity in roughly three separate directions when the projectile reaches the surface and the explosive filler blows up.
The aperture of the craters formed and the amount of the splinters in them mostly depend on the shape and body of the shell, and also on the explosive filler inside. The directions of the splinters are affected by the velocity and the speed of rotation at the moment when the projectile explodes. Usually, the majority of the splinters are in the side cones (roughly 80 % of the splinters), and with the shells fired by cannons and howitzers, which have cylindrical projectiles, the aperture of the cone is usually between 40 – 50 degrees. The shells fired by mortars, are usually drop-shaped, giving the side cone an aperture of over 50 degrees. Below is the scheme of the dispersion of soil fragments.
The scheme shows that an artillery and mortar shell unlike a barrel bomb has a parabolic trajectory and coming in a shallow or a steep angle. At the same time, a vertically dropped barrel bomb has practically the similar dispersion of soil fragments in all the directions. The ammunition of different type and function can’t leave the same traces on the ground.
In the videos above, we can see the craters of that kind which are equal to many others formed as a result of artillery or mortar shell. So, the video shows the mortar crater, not the barrel one. The crater is most likely to have been created due to the militant attack.
Second, Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) found out the location of the alleged attack.
The supposed impact point of the two barrel bombs
However, thoroughly looking at the older Google-maps pictures dated 01/10/16 we can assume that the craters had been formed long ago.
The screenshot of Google-maps dated 01/10/16
It is worth paying special attention to the use of chlorine effects radius. We can use the following formula to describe the process.
R = 2,52 √ Q/d,
Q=spread over materials (tons),
d= density (tons m-3).
The density can be measured on the basis of the bomb’s form appeared in the video. The bomb of such type was allegedly dropped on Saraqeb. We identified that the chemical warheads for this barrel bomb do not exceed 10 kilos. Consequently, two barrel bombs’ mass is less than 20 kilos.
The screenshot of the barrel bomb allegedly dropped on Saraqeb
The chloride density is d=0,001557 tons m-3. We can calculate the radius of possible damage using the formula: R =2,52*√0,02/0,001557=9 meters.
Thus, only the people standing around the epicenter could be wounded. The nearby houses couldn’t be ruined.
Besides, the pictures of the bomb were taken in the different locations and not in the direct placement of the explosion. This fact can also confirm the falsification of The Guardian’s information.
The photos of the chlorine bomb taken not in the place of the explosion
The only house that could be affected is inhabited and half-constructed without roof and window-frames.
The photo of the house
The peak chlorine effects radius is laid down upon the map below.
The peak chlorine effects radius of the two bombs
Moreover, the puddle of water inside the crater emerged after the rain. It gave us an idea to see weather forecasts in Saraqeb where the bomb had been allegedly dropped.
The picture of the crater with the puddle of water in Saraqeb dated 02/04/2018
It turned out that a week before the video was posted on February 4, 2018, there had been no precipitations in Saraqeb. This proves that the video was made much earlier – for example, during the last rainfall on January 27, 2018.
The weather forecast in Saraqeb dated 02/04/2018
The article was written by Syrians for Truth & Justice special report group allegedly provides evidence of a chemical attack and contains the statements by the supervisors of the so-called Aviation Observatory which monitors the movement of warplanes in Saraqeb skies. The officer said that a helicopter with a designation “Alpha 253” had taken off from al-Manjazrat School, located in Hama countryside at 9:00 pm on February 4, 2018, and headed towards the north of Syria.
That day the sun went down at 17:03 pm, so it was very dark at 9:00 pm, and according to the weather forecast, the sky was cloudy.
It is curious to find out how the representative of the so-called Aviation Observatory could see a helicopter and its designation.
Another issue concerns the reasonability of dropping two barrels of poisonous gas. What military task the Syrian president (if it was him) could seek to solve by giving an order to drop two barrel bombs of chlorine from the helicopter?
Chemical weapons are considered as weapons of mass destruction. Its use implies a massive loss of human life. Thus, in 1988, the using of chemical weapons in Halabja (Iraqi Kurdistan city) led to the death of five thousand people.
We value every single life. However, taking into account only 11 victims, it cannot be called massive death.
So why the Syrian government needs to use chemical weapons if its amount cannot even kill? This quite differs from the narrative of the Western media that tries to present Assad as a bloodthirsty murderer.
By acting like this, the Syrian Arab Army would never drive ISIS out of the country or gain an advantage over the opposition. Such measures are ineffective but are good for a provocative act.
Shortly after this, the United States declared once again to the world community that it “would keep the right to launch attacks against Syria if it becomes necessary to prevent or stop the use of chemical weapons.” All this reminds of Khan Shaykhun incident and the U.S. missile strike on the Shayrat airbase.
In addition, it’s worth noting that we’ve never heard about the use of chemical weapons by Syrian troops against ISIS.
Fake No.4 “Destroyed Hospitals”
The Guardian also mentions Ahmad al-Dbis, the director of safety and security at the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations (UOSSM). He often makes public statements to The Guardian, The Telegraph, Reuters, Huffington Post, Der Spiegel, etc. His words are based on the statements of the White Helmets. Nevertheless, we’ve found some more contradictions.
One is “the fact” of an airstrike on the hospital in Kafr Nabl.
The analysis of the video of SMART opposition channel allows telling that the footages were taken at specially prepared places and from different angles as if the cameramen knew about the impending airstrikes and pre-selected positions for recording.
In addition, the hospital’s exterior questions the very fact of the medical personnel recently working in there. It looks like the hospital has been out of operation for a long time (since May 28, 2014.)
The footage of the destroyed Kafr Nabl Hospital
We have also found out that the hospital received most of the damage much earlier. In the course of the investigation, the media center stumbled upon other videos of hospital attacks in Kafr Nabl previously.
In the video of the Syrian opposition YouTube channel Qasioun News Agency on March 25, 2017, you can see White Helmets volunteers putting out one of the single-story buildings on the territory of the hospital.
Photo of the fire on the hospital’s territory dated March 25, 2017
Near the building, we have found a burned diesel generator which previously supplied the hospital with electricity. The generator was destroyed by fire on March 25, 2017. The following video shows that the generator is out of order. Hence the hospital is out of operation since March 2017.
The territory of the hospital dated March 25, 2017.
Diesel generator destroyed by fire dated March 25, 2017.
Apparently, the medical personnel left the building much earlier. The latest evidence that the hospital operates for its intended purpose is a video dated May 17, 2014.
Video of the working hospital dated May 17, 2014.
On May 25, 2014, the hospital was attacked and partially destroyed.
After that, it seems that it was occupied by militia groups that used the hospital building as their base. The video shows a special mound (1) that covers the windows; there are no windows in the entire building (2); there are grills (3) installed at the entrance and indoor; the defensive positions are based on the second floor (4).
Photo of the destroyed hospital in Kafr-Nabl in the province of Idlib
The hospital current state shows that there was a serious fight for the building, perhaps between local opposition groups. The walls have multiple bullets holes.
Photos of bullet holes
There are other burned buildings nearby that rather look like fortified positions of militants. Some of those buildings were seriously hit by artillery shells. Here is a small structure that has also been converted into a fire position after being partially destroyed.
A small structure in the territory of the medical center
The mentioned facts point out that Kafr Nabl hospital was already out of operation as of February 5 2018.
Another curious detail is that an ambulance parked in front of the building has exactly the same location in each video dating from September 19, 2017.
Moreover, there is no fragment of glass around or in the vehicle which means that the ambulance, with no equipment inside the cabin, by the way, was more likely to have been damaged long before the strike cited by the Guardian.
The ambulance cabin in the video dated February 5, 2018
Here’s another odd fact: rescuers are carrying out only two injured persons with no trace of dust on them. It means that these patients had been moved there to make a staged video about the aftermath of “an airstrike” on the hospital in February, 2018. The footage doesn’t show a real rescue operation through the hospital allegedly treats up to 200, 000 patients a year!
Staged video with two hospitals “patients”
Thus, the claims about the hospital bombing are clearly a hoax.
Speaking of the Maarat al-Numan hospital we can say that its interior also looks doubtful as there’s no wall damage while the hospital rooms and halls don’t seem to be used for treatment: many of them are full with trash and lack medical equipment.
Besides, one shot demonstrating the so-called bombing aftermath shows no material damage, dust or any other effect from an alleged air strike. And then, in other shots (2 min 12 sec) with the very same hospital after an “air strike”, the doors are pulled off and the building is damaged.
Medical equipment keep operating after an air strike
All this raises doubts about the veracity of information sourced from the director of safety and security at the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations Ahmad al-Dbis and the activist Hassan Mukhtar cited by the Guardian. For instance, Hassan Mukhtar claims there are 300 civilian deaths in two cities without mentioning his sources. But the most unbelievable is that how “the activist” could get information on “600,000 refugees trying to find a safe haven towards the Turkish border” in such short period of time.
Summary
We’ve found out the following inconsistent facts, which are more likely to be concocted:
The number of air strikes launched from Feb. 4 to Feb. 5, 2018, and the number of towns in Idlib province allegedly damaged due to the raids
Information about civilian deaths in the village of Termala
Data about a chemical attack on the town of Saraqeb
Information about air strikes on the hospitals in Kafranbel and Maarat al-Numan
The craters created by bombs
Lack of warhead fragments in the craters
Based on the investigation, it comes clear that the largest Western media, like the Guardian, tried to cover a new provocative initiative seemingly concocted by the Syrian opposition and the White Helmets backed by the U.S. special services and their allies who seek to discredit the Assad government, Syria’s and Russian’s Air Forces.
*
All images in this article are from Inside Syria Media Center.
Lawmakers on Tuesday introduced a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which would reverse the Federal Communications Commission’s unpopular repeal of Net Neutrality protections.
Led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, the Senate version of the resolution has already drawn support from 50 senators, just one shy of the number needed to pass the chamber. Rep. Michael Doyle of Pennsylvania introduced an identical resolution in the House, where the measure currently has 150 co-sponsors, with more joining every day.
Democrats plan to force a vote on the resolution in the coming months. The move follows the publication of the FCC repeal in the Federal Register last week, which triggered a countdown clock for legal and congressional actions to overturn the agency’s widely disparaged decision to strip internet users of Title II Net Neutrality protections.
The resolution’s introduction kicks off an internet-wide day of action on Tuesday. Throughout the day, internet users, small businesses, online communities, public-interest groups, technology companies and popular websites will harness their reach to flood lawmakers with calls, emails and tweets aimed at securing the final votes in the Senate and House needed to pass the CRA resolution.
More information about today’s activism is available via the coalition website BattlefortheNet.com.
Free Press Action Fund Government Relations Director Sandra Fulton made the following statement:
“Today millions of Net Neutrality supporters from across the country are putting lawmakers on notice: You have to choose whether you side with big phone and cable lobbyists or with the majority of people in the United States — both Republicans and Democrats — who want to restore Net Neutrality protections.
“We thank the hundreds of members of Congress who have already made their choice clear and stood up for the open internet, along with the educators, entrepreneurs, advocates and activists who depend on this essential platform to make their voices heard.
“People are shocked by what Chairman Pai and his Republican FCC colleagues have done. Striking down the 2015 rules is a radical rewiring of the internet that hands control of the network to a few powerful internet service providers. The FCC repeal blatantly ignored the fact that the 2015 rules were working for everyone, as broadband investment and deployment continued under the Title II-based protections the Pai FCC struck down.
“Pai’s actions are so wrongheaded and outrageous that it’s no surprise millions of people are speaking out in defense of the open internet. Lawmakers who haven’t yet committed their support to the CRA resolution need to wake up, listen to their constituents and sign on in support of restoring Net Neutrality. And they need to act now while the CRA opens this window for fully rejecting the FCC’s dangerous action.”
Oxfam has outdone itself. In the murky, squalid business where charity seems to chase, then embed itself in disaster zones like a dedicated virus, Oxfam ranks highly. In terms of a tally, the number of reported abuses in the charity sector is galloping ahead, with one of Britain’s most noted charities in the lead.
The revelations this month that the charity’s staff sexually exploited victims of the Haiti earthquake in 2010, a point subsequently concealed, have triggered a storm of British discontent. The revelations included a very active country director, Roland van Hauwermeiren, who revelled in sex parties as he went about his humanitarian work. Allegations of sexual abuse in Oxfam shops have also made their searing mark.
The organisation has lost over 7,000 donors since the revelations, and MPs on the international development committee overseeing aid have been unimpressed. The Charity Commission may well have been misled by former executives Dame Barbara Stocking and Penny Lawrence.
Oxfam’s CEO, Mark Goldring, is all apologies, notably after remarking in an interview with The Guardian that the charity was being attacked as if “we murdered babies in their cots. Certainly, the scale and the intensity of the attacks feel out of proportion to the level of culpability. I struggle to understand it.”
The official line from the organisation was more humbling, though prefaced by an insistence that measures of reform had been implemented.
“It is clear we still have not done enough to change our own culture and to create the strongest possible policies to protect people we work with globally. We are doing that right now. But we must do much more and act with greater urgency.”
On the other side of the moral saviour is the self-helping abuser. Such figures have needs and callings. The squalid reality soon manifests. Vulnerability is less there to be alleviated than cultivated, teased into an ongoing relationship between the victim and the touted rescuer. Historically, however, the mission of rescue can be broadly seen as part of the stock idea of the civilising project. The modern humanitarian project is a colonialism of the emotions, pornogrified guilt that finds refuge in despair.
It is precisely such a civilising mission that was said to cause debility and emotional decay. The obligated civilisers, in engaging their burdensome task, would encounter harsh environments, uncompromising geography and problematic natives.
It was precisely such background that provided the alibi and apologia for the white civilizer’s bad behaviour read against noble necessity. Geographer Ellsworth Huntington suggested in Civilization and Climate (1915) that temperate zones engendered mental stimulation while tropical climates induced “tropical inertia”.
The focus of such geographers and the odd enthused quack was an insistence on justifiable degeneracy as an occupational hazard. “Tropical neurasthenia” was one term coined by Charles Woodruff in his 1905 work The Effects of Tropical Light on White Men, emphasising the preponderance of insanity amongst certain US soldiers based in the Philippines. (Those based in cooler regions evinced fewer problems.)
“According to the man’s complexion and general resistance to this exhaustion from increased metabolism and effects of the light may be so slight as to show mere enervation, or nervous weakness being more marked in older men.”
Such studies served to bolster the views of Benjamin Kidd, a British sociologist who insisted that peoples from temperate zones could never adjust to tropical climes.
Taking such factors into account, and the modern, heart bleeding charity worker becomes a colonial builder. Such a figure is part of the modern industry of rescue, dressed up as a charitable exercise. According toAfua Hirsch, theories such as tropical neurasthenia may well have fallen out after the Second World War,
“but to this day our understanding of countries that receive humanitarian assistance is still deeply grounded in the same colonial thinking.”
Even those considered voraciously read and enlightened on the problems of empire find room, even if small, to defend such missions. Poverty and disaster invite assumptions.
“I do wonder how hard it must be to sustain ‘civilised’ values in a disaster zone,” pondered Cambridge classicistMary Beard. That statement, it should be added, followed on from, “Of course one can’t condone the (alleged) behaviour of Oxfam staff in Haiti or elsewhere.”
The Beard episode induced outrage. Language police duly considered her use of inverted commas of civilisation as unwarranted and misguided. Others chose to avoid seeing them. Torrential abuse followed.
Fellow Cambridge academic Priyamvada Gopal finessed a particularly brutal response, reflecting on her own place of employment. Cambridge, that abode “where there is little direct abuse but plenty of genteel and patrician casual racism passing as frank and well-meaning observations.” Beard had done nothing to show contrition, indeed persisted in refusing “to see what was so profoundly and deeply wrong” with such claims, supplemented by “bizarre, indeed cringe-making comparisons between the French resistance and aid workers.”
Beard felt, a point she subsequently made in a blog for the Times Literary Supplement, she had been “guilty of a shorthand which misled.” She duly concluded that it was “too easy to imagine that we are better than those who do the work we would be too scared to do.” The implication of such a sentiment, framed as an obligatory task of the nobly decent, is clear: even those involved in rescue and inadvertent civilising are humans too. Patrician morality is alive and kicking.
*
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
It has been a long year ever since January 20th of last year. Not only because of the ever-ensuing embarrassments of the Commander in Chief with such frequency it can be difficult to follow, but also – and I would say especially – because of the incessant daily media focus on the so called “Russiagate” scandal, a conspiracy which seeks to prove a collusion between the Putin and the Trump administration in order to successfully steal the 2016 presidential election win away from Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton.
The United States and the Russian Federation have a long history of mutual hostility – famously dividing the East and West into a bipolar world during the Cold War – and the vision of Russia is among many Americans still that of the Soviet bad guys. The Cold War was not a pleasant time for many obvious reasons, but in the minds of the American left, the McCarthy era is one that still sticks, and its apparent return is something that seems to concern only a minority on the left – including myself. Now for the unacquainted, McCarthyism can be described as “the vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the US government and other institutions carried out under Senator Joseph McCarthy in the period 1950–4. Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, though most did not in fact belong to the Communist Party” (source). It was a clever way used by the US government to frame and condemn all the big left leaning civil rights and social justice movements that were happening during the Cold War era. Professors, academics, independent media platforms, politicians or activists with left leaning messages were being labelled as Soviet agents by the US government, discrediting them completely of any legitimacy in the eyes of the American people through the widespread Red Scare. What has been happening in the last year can be seen as a mirror of the same mentality, except that “Soviet spy” has today been replaced by labels such as “Kremlin agent” or “Russian bot”.
It isn’t news that what is often referred to as the “American Left” of the Democratic party is in reality nothing more than a neo-liberal party slightly more to the center/left than the GOP. So in this article, when I am referring to the terminology “American Left”, and the one subject to the revamped McCarthyism, I am in fact talking about the often anti-establishment, anti-imperialistic and even sometimes anti-capitalistic left – the one that threatens the current neo-liberal status quo. So as I elaborate my case, I just want to make it clear that I am referring to the latter.
One of the greater, larger left-wing media presence on US ground is undoubtedly RT America (RT short for Russia Today). Hosting many US critical segments such as Redacted Tonightby Lee Camp, On Contactwith Chis Hedges and Breaking The Setwith Abby Martin, RT America comes out as a prominent side-narrative to the mainstream medias such as MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR and so forth. Yet last year, RT America has had to register itself as a “foreign agent”, on the basis of a very weak report by the Director of National Intelligence. Reasons for this decision as stated in the report claims to be that RT regularly covers surveillance, civil liberties, protest movements, the environmental impacts of fracking and Wall Street greed. Other more establishment friendly foreign news media on US soil such as BBC America have not had to register as a foreign agent. So far, only RT. Facebook (known for working closely with the US government) has even gone as far as marking RT articles shared on its platform as spam The Intercept did find out recently as well that Facebook does censor certain of its pages on behalf of governments, so more of the same behaviour is expected to be seen more in the future.
Where the delegitimization of leftist media really strikes is in the realm of “fake news”-stamping and propaganda-flagging. The Washington Post backed the website project PropOrNot.com which frames in a sort of ‘blacklist’ news medias that they believe are Russian Propaganda, with usually no evidence to back up their claims. Many independent news outlets are to be found on their list, and none of the major media conglomerates (unless they’re Russian, of course). In the same vein, Facebook has decided to team up with established media outlets such as AP and ABC News to find out and decide what is or is not “Fake News”.
Apparently, Americans are believed to be too unwise to figure it out for themselves, and if alternate narratives and opinions are being held, it must be because they have fallen victim of fake news. BBC has even gone as far as taking the teaching role in spotting “fake news”. The concept seems to be that social media platforms and mainstream media outlets are to tell the population what is real and what is a lie. The same outlets that pushed the war in Iraq, Syria, Libya, as well as the current Russiagate narrative. Media outlets that are ramping up on US intelligence spokesmen for their news segments, despite the fact that they are historically known to lie and deceive the American people. These same people are to tell us what is the truth. It is my belief that one of the only way such a development has become possible lies in the fact that the Democratic party and its voters have a newfound love for the FBI, NSA and CIA, thanks to the Russiagate conspiracy.
During the last year, James Comey and Robert Mueller have incessantly been praised by the media as American heroes and patriots saving the American people from the Kremlin puppets that Trump and his administration are accused to be (with very little evidence so far). It would seem that in this day and age, the Democrats would rather side with the deep state than with reason. Through programs such as COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird, the FBI and CIA have spent decades and millions of dollars deceiving and crushing any movement that dared to challenge the two-party system. For “the resistance” movement to embrace US intelligence agencies and the lies they propagate is an extremely reckless and dangerous move, and by doing so they are not only consciously trying their best to harm the current administration, but unconsciously harming the many media outlets, journalists, activists and politicians who hold a different view on the world than the Washington narrative, and who are now all being flagged as Kremlin agents pushing Russian propaganda.
During the last year we have been told not only that Trump’s campaign colluded with the Kremlin, but also that Bernie Sanders, Green Party leader Jill Stein and even that UK’s Jeremy Corbyn did. So have we been told about whistleblowers Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, and many of RT America’s journalists who have their shows and articles published on RT America for the sole reason that RT is one of the only outlets allowing their differing viewpoints on American politics. Many Russiagate sceptics on Twitter have received messages directly from Twitter informing them that they might have fallen victim to Russian propaganda because they had retweeted or were following certain accounts they deemed to be associated with the Kremlin. From my own personal experience, I cannot count how many times I have seen Russiagate sceptics being called-out by liberals for being Kremlin agents or Russian bot accounts – all because of the many, many Russia-Kremlin-Trump stories that have been promulgated over the last year. It has paralyzed a large portion of the centre-left to not even move an inch more towards the left, and has condemned those who have.
There is a paranoia happening in the US political establishment, remarkably similar to the one experienced during the Cold War era. It doesn’t matter whether the Russia-Collusion story is true or not (let’s not forget the United States has itself meddled in countless foreign elections ever since the end of WWII, even in Russia in 1996), it matters more what this ongoing investigation and grotesque media-hype is doing to the American public – and by extension to the rest of the world. The US-Russia relation is worse today than at the high point of the Cold War, all thanks to this constant Putin bashing and the fact that NATO is slowly encircling the Russia in Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, the Arctic, the Middle-East and Asia. Despite the West promising not to expand NATO an inch Eastwards as part of the German reunification deal, such promises have not been kept. But of course, most of the general population is fine this politically unwise expansion of NATO, “because you know, Russians are bad” (satire).
If there is a threat to national and global security today, and a threat to free speech and independent media, it is not coming from Putin or the Kremlin – but rather from the United States. And until the American left gathers itself and stops listening to the warmongering pundits and establishment journalists parroting the Washington narrative, we have nothing but a bleak future in front of us with regards to the relation between thte two old nemesis nuclear superpowers.
*
Jonathan Sigrist is a student at the University of Tromsø in Northern Norway, currently studying the geopolitical, environmental, cultural and economic relations between the Arctic nations (The US, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark/Greenland and Iceland), as well as the future of the Arctic’s role in global politics. He has lived in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and France, and is a fervent observer and critic of US foreign policy.
The tropical Andes of Ecuador are at the top of the world list of biodiversity hotspots in terms of vertebrate species, endemic vertebrates, and endemic plants. Ecuador has more orchid and hummingbird species than Brazil, which is 32 times larger, and more diversity than the entire USA.
In the last year, the Ecuadorean government has quietly granted mining concessions to over 1.7 million hectares (4.25 million acres) of forest reserves and indigenous territories. These were awarded to transnational corporations in closed-door deals without public knowledge or consent.
This is in direct violation of Ecuadorean law and international treaties, and will decimate headwater ecosystems and biodiversity hotspots of global significance.However, Ecuadorean groups think there is little chance of stopping the concessions using the law unless there is a groundswell of opposition from Ecuadorean society and strong expressions of international concern.
The Vice President of Ecuador, who acted as Coordinating Director for the office of ‘Strategic Sectors’, which promoted and negotiated these concessions, was jailed for 6 years for corruption.However, this has not stopped the huge giveaway of pristine land to mining companies.
From the cloud forests in the Andes to the indigenous territories in the headwaters of the Amazon, the Ecuadorean government has covertly granted these mining concessions to multinational mining companies from China, Australia, Canada, and Chile, amongst others.
The first country in the world to get the rights of Nature or Pachamama written into its constitution is now ignoring that commitment.
They’ve been here before. In the 80’s and 90’s Chevron-Texaco dumped 18 billion gallons of crude oil there in the biggest rainforest petroleum spill in history. This poisoned the water of tens of thousands of people and has done irreparable damage to ecosystems.
Now 14% of the country has been concessioned to mining interests. This includes a million hectares of indigenous land, half of all the territories of the Shuar in the Amazon and three-quarters of the territory of the Awa in the Andes.
Please sign the petition and contribute to the crowdfund which will help Ecuadorean civil society’s campaign to have these concessions rescinded.
As founder and director of the Rainforest Information Centre (RIC), I’ve had a long history of involvement with Ecuador’s rainforests.
Back in the late ‘80’s our volunteers initiated numerous projects in the country and one of these, the creation of the Los Cedros Biological Reserve was helped with a substantial grant from the Australian Government aid agency, AusAID. Los Cedros lies within the Tropical Andes Hotspot, in the country’s northwest. Los Cedros consists of nearly 7000 hectares of premontane and lower montane wet tropical and cloud forest teeming with rare, endangered and endemic species and is a crucial southern buffer zone for the quarter-million hectare Cotocachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve. Little wonder that scientists from around the world rallied to the defense of Los Cedros.
Tropical Andes (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
In 2016 a press release from a Canadian mining company alerted us to the fact that they had somehow acquired a mining concession over Los Cedros! We hired a couple of Ecuadorean researchers and it slowly dawned on us that Los Cedros was only one of 41 “Bosques Protectores” (protected forests) which had been secretly concessioned. For example, nearly all of the 311,500 hectare Bosque Protector “Kutuku-Shaimi”, where 5000 Shuar families live, has been concessioned. In November 2017, RIC published a report by Bitty Roy, Professor of Ecology from Oregon State University and her co-workers, mapping the full extent of the horror that is being planned.
Although many of these concessions are for exploration, the mining industry anticipates an eightfold growth in investment to $8 billion by 2021 due to a “revised regulatory framework” much to the jubilation of the mining companies. Granting mineral concessions in reserves means that these reserves aren’t actually protected any longer as, if profitable deposits are found, the reserves will be mined and destroyed.
In Ecuador, civil society is mobilising and has asked their recently elected government to prohibit industrial mining “in water sources and water recharge areas, in the national system of protected areas, in special areas for conservation, in protected forests and fragile ecosystems”.
The indigenous peoples have been fighting against mining inside Ecuador for over a decade. Governments have persecuted more than 200 indigenous activists using the countries anti-terrorism laws to hand out stiff prison sentences to indigenous people who openly speak out against the destruction of their territories.
Fortunately, the new government has signalled an openness to hear indigenous and civil society’s concerns, not expressed by the previous administration.
But we will need a huge international outcry to rescind the existing concessions:many billions of dollars of mining company profits versus some of the most biologically diverse ecosystems on Earth and the hundreds of local communities and indigenous peoples who depend on them.
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION TO SUPPORT THEIR DEMANDS.
From 2006, under the Correa-Glas administration, Ecuador contracted record levels of external debt for highway and hydroelectric dam infrastructure to subsidize mining. Foreign investments were guaranteed by a corporate friendly international arbitration system, facilitated by the World Bank which had earlier set the stage for the current calamity by funding mineralogical surveys of national parks and other protected areas and advising the administration on dismantling of laws and regulations protecting the environment.
After 2008, when Ecuador defaulted on $3.2 billion worth of its national debt, it borrowed $15 billion from China, to be paid back in the form of oil and mineral exports. These deals have been fraught with corruption. Underselling, bribery and the laundering of money via offshore accounts are routine practice in the Ecuadorean business class, and the Chinese companies who now hold concessions over vast tracts of Ecuadorean land are no cleaner. Before leaving office Correa-Glas removed much of the regulation that had been holding the mining industry in check. And the corruption goes much deeper than mere bribes.
The lure of mining is a deadly mirage. The impacts of large-scale open pit mining within rainforest watersheds include mass deforestation, erosion, the contamination of water sources by toxins such as lead and arsenic, and desertification. A lush rainforest transforms into an arid wasteland incapable of sustaining either ecosystems or human beings.
But it doesn’t have to be this way. Civil society needs an open conversation with the state. Ecuador has enormous potential to develop its economy based on renewable energy and its rich biodiversity can support a large ecotourism industry. In 2010 Costa Rica banned open-pit mining, and today has socioeconomic indicators better than Ecuador’s. Costa Rica also provides a ‘Payment for Ecosystem Services’ to landholders, and through this scheme has actually increased its rainforest area (from 20% to just over 50%).
Ecuador’s society and government must explore how an economy based on the sustainable use of pristine water sources, the country’s incomparable forests, and other natural resources is superior to an economy based on short term extraction leaving behind a despoiled and impoverished landscape. For example, studies by Earth Economics in the Intag region of Ecuador (where some of the new mining concessions are located) show that ecosystem services and sustainable development would offer a better economic solution let alone ecological and social.
The Rainforest Information Centre is launching a CROWDFUND to support Ecuadorean NGO’s to mobilise and to mount a publicity and education campaign and to help advance a dialogue throughout Ecuador and beyond: ‘Extractivism, economic diversification and prospects for sustainable development in Ecuador’.
We have set the crowdfund target at A$15,000 and Paul Gilding, ex-CEO of Greenpeace International is getting the ball rolling with an offer to match all donations $ for $ so that every $ that you donate will be matched by Paul. Donations are tax-deductible in Australia and the US.
When you sign the PETITION you will reach not just to the President of Ecuador and his cabinet. The petition is also addressed to the other actors who have set the stage for this calamity, being:
The World Bank who funded a project which collected geochemical data from 3.6 million hectares of Western Ecuador including seven national protected areas and dozens of forest reserves thus doing the groundwork for the mining industry.
The international governments and NGO’s who funded the creation and upkeep of these Bosques Protectores and indigenous reserves and other protected sites and who now need to persuade Ecuador to prevent their good work from being undone.
The governments of the countries whose mining companies are preparing this devastation.
Australian senator Lee Rhiannon (who was part of helping us create Los Cedros 30 years ago) wrote to the Canadian Environment Minister on our behalf and the Canadian Embassy has expressed concern about the bad name Cornerstone is giving the other Canadian mining projects. They have asked us for a meeting to discuss the reports of bad business practices by the company. Likewise, the Chinese government is beginning to develop some guidance which will come into effect in March 2018. We are lobbying the Australian government to put pressure on BHP, Solgold and other Australian companies preparing to mine protected forests and indigenous reserves in Ecuador.
Visit Ecuador Endangered for more links to the history and causes of Ecuador’s mining crisis. There you will find research, detailed reports and news updates. Contact information can be found for those wanting to be involved in the campaign, which is being run entirely by volunteers. To let the Ecuadorean Government, World Bank and mining companies know you want them to invest in a sustainable future for all, a petition can be found here.
*
John Seedis the founder and director of the Rainforest Information Centre in Australia. He has been campaigning to save the world’s rainforests since the 1970s.
Featured image: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis meets with troops stationed at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, April 21, 2017. (DoD photo by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Brigitte N. Brantley)
`We will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists, but great-power competition – not terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security.’ Henceforth Russia and China will be America’s main enemies, with Iran and North Korea thrown in for good measure.
So declared US Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, last week in a statement of profound importance for the world.
For the past seventeen years, the US military has been laying waste to the Muslim world in the faux `war on terrorism.’ Afghanistan, Iraq, much of Syria, Somalia, Pakistan – all have been heavily bombed. US B-52’s and B-1 heavy bombers have tried to pound those resisting American ‘guidance’ into submission.
In Afghanistan, America’s longest war, President Donald Trump ordered a doubling of bombing against Taliban forces battling US occupation. Now, the US is running very low on bombs, guided munitions and even air-to-air missiles for some reason. Stores of munitions are being rushed from the US Pacific command to the Mideast.
At the same time, the US is fast running out of Muslim targets to bomb, now that the bogeyman ISIS has vanished into thin air and US air attacks in Syria are being minimized for fear of clashing with Russia. Iran still remains on the US potential hit list.
Which brings us back to General ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis. He is quite right that so-called terrorists (that’s anyone who actively opposes the Lex Americana) pose no real life or death threat to the US mainland.
But if so, how then to maintain the $1 trillion US military budget? Well, of course, trot out those good old ‘Reds Under Our Beds.’ Actually, the Pentagon has been planning a new war with China for the past three years, a mainly air and naval conflict to dominate China’s coasts and seas. The Pentagon is loading up on new aircraft, missiles, satellites and naval craft for the next Pacific War, and trying to enlist India as an ally against China.
But what then about Russia? Not so easy. The likely theater for a US-Russia clash is on the Baltic coast, Ukraine, the Black Sea or Syria. In this case, the US would be confronted by the same problem that afflicted France in the fall of 1939.
Few people know that it was France that first attacked Germany, not the other way around. Responding to the German invasion of Poland, France and Britain declared war on Germany. French divisions began to invade Germany’s Rhineland. But after a few skirmishes the French high command, under the inept Gen. Maurice Gamelin, didn’t know what to do next. Germany was large, and the defensive-minded French did not anticipate occupying its entire country.
After a brief demonstration, the French Army withdrew behind the Maginot Line. Hitler did not counter-attack in hope he could forge a peace treaty with London and Paris. Winston Churchill and his fellow imperialists furiously sought to push Britain into war with Germany. But months of inactivity went by, known as the ‘Sitzkrieg’ or ‘drôle de guerre’ until Germany acted decisively.
This would also be America’s problem in a war against Russia. How deep into Russia to attack (assuming no use of nuclear weapons)? How to protect ever lengthening supply lines? Napoleon and Hitler faced the same challenges and failed.
Of course, this supposes the US is ready for war. In truth, neither the US and NATO nor Russia are in any way prepared to fight a real war on land, sea and air. Military forces on both sides have been so run down and depleted by little wars and budget cuts that there are serious shortages of war stocks and aging equipment.
Key NATO member Germany is in a shambles. Its feminized military, run by a nice but incompetent lady defense minister, could not fight its way out of a paper bag. France is not much better off. The US armed forces and Britain are critically short of spares, munitions, transport, and armor. Russia’s once mighty Red Army is short of everything. Both east and west are simply unready for a real war.
As if there is any reason for one. There is not. Those jackanapes in the US Congress and media trying to inflate online mischief by 20-something Russian hackers into a second Pearl Harbor are crying ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.
A final respectful note to Gen. Mattis (my dad was a marine): A good general does not pick a fight with two, far–away major powers at once. The trick is to turn them against one another. Declaring a future war against China and Russia is a crazy idea. Only draft-dodgers and generals who lost the Vietnam War could come up with it.
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.
I am loath to draw more attention to the kind of idiocy that passes for informed comment nowadays from academics and mainstream journalists. Recently I lambastedProf Richard Carver for his arguments against BDS that should have gained him an F for logic in any high school exam.
Now we have to endure Brian Whitaker, the Guardian’s former Middle East editor, using every ploy in the misdirection and circular logic playbook to discredit those who commit thought crimes on Syria, by raising questions both about what is really happening there and about whether we can trust the corporate media consensus banging the regime-change drum.
Whitaker’s arguments and assumptions may be preposterous but sadly, like Carver’s, they are to be found everywhere in the mainstream – they have become so commonplace through repetition that they have gained a kind of implicit credibility. So let’s unpack what Whitaker and his ilk are claiming.
Whitaker’s latest outburst is directed against the impudence of a handful of British academics, including experts in the study of propaganda, in setting up a panel – the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media – to “provide a source of reliable, informed and timely analysis for journalists, publics and policymakers” on Syria. The researchers include Tim Hayward of Edinburgh University and Piers Robinson of Sheffield University.
So what are Whitaker’s objections to this working group? Let’s run through them, with my interjections.
Whitaker: They dispute almost all mainstream narratives of the Syrian conflict, especially regarding the use of chemical weapons and the role of the White Helmets search-and-rescue organisation. They are critical of western governments, western media and various humanitarian groups but show little interest in applying critical judgment to Russia’s role in the conflict or to the controversial writings of several journalists who happen to share their views.
Western governments and western corporate media have promoted a common narrative on Syria. It has been difficult for outsiders to be sure of what is going on, given that Syria has long been a closed society, a trend only reinforced by the last seven years of a vicious civil-cum-proxy war, and the presence of brutal ISIS and al Qaeda militias.
Long before the current fighting, western governments and Israel expressed a strong interest in overthrowing the government of Bashar Assad. In fact, their desire to be rid of Assad dates to at least the start of the “war on terror” they launched after 9/11, as I documented in my book Israel and the Clash of Civilisations.
Very few corporate journalists have been on the ground in Syria. (Paradoxically, those who have are effectively embedded in areas dominated by al Qaeda-type groups, which western governments are supporting directly and through Gulf intermediaries.) Most of these journalists are relying on information provided by western governments, or from groups with strong, vested interests in Assad’s overthrow.
Should we take this media coverage on trust, as many of us did the lies promoted about Iraq and later Libya by the same western governments and corporate media? Or should we be far more wary this time, especially as those earlier regime-change operations spread more chaos, suffering and weapons across the Middle East, and fuelled a migrant crisis now empowering the far-right across much of Europe?
Whitaker and his ilk are saying we should not. Or more disingenuously, Whitaker is saying that the working group, rather than invest its energies in this supremely important research, should concentrate its limited resources on studying Russian propaganda on Syria. In other words, the researchers should duplicate the sterling efforts of Whitaker’s colleagues in daily attributing to Russian President Vladimir Putin the superpowers of a James Bond villain.
Here’s a counter-proposal: how about we leave well-funded western governments and media corporations to impugn Putin at every turn and on every pretext, while we allow the working group to check whether there is a large (larger?) mote in the west’s eye?
Whitaker: The worrying part, though, especially in the light of their stated intention to seek ‘research funding’, is their claim to be engaging in ‘rigorous academic analysis’ of media reporting on Syria.
Is this really so worrying? Why not allow a handful of academics to seek funds to try to untangle the highly veiled aid – money and arms – that western governments have been pumping into a war tearing apart Syria?
Why not encourage the working group to discern more clearly the largely covert ties between western security services and groups like the White Helmets “search-and-rescue service”? One would think supposedly adversarial journalists would be all in favour of efforts to dig up information about western involvement and collusion in Syria.
Whitaker: But while members of the group are generally very critical of mainstream media in the west, a handful of western journalists — all of them controversial figures — escape similar scrutiny. Instead, their work is lauded and recommended.
More of Whitaker’s circular logic.
Of course, the few independent journalists (independent of corporate interests) who are on the ground in Syria are “controversial” – they are cast as “controversial” by western governments and corporate journalists precisely because they question the consensual narrative of those same governments and journalists. Duh!
Further, these “controversial” journalists are not being “lauded”. Rather, their counter-narratives are being highlighted by those with open minds, like those in the working group. Without efforts to draw attention to these independent journalists’ work, their reporting would most likely disappear without trace – precisely the outcome, one senses, Whitaker and his friends would very much prefer.
It is not the critical thinkers on Syria who are demanding that only one side of the narrative is heard; it is western governments and supposedly “liberal” journalists like Whitaker and the Guardian’s George Monbiot. They think they can divine the truth through … the corporate media, which is promoting narratives either crafted in western capitals or derived from ties to groups like the White Helmets located in jihadist-controlled areas.
Again, why should the working group waste its finite energies scrutinising these independent journalists when they are being scrutinised – and vilified – non-stop by journalists like Whitaker and by big-budget newspapers like the Guardian?
In any case, if official western naratives truly withstand the working group’s scrutiny, then the claims and findings of these independent journalists will be discredited in the process. These two opposed narratives cannot be equally true, after all.
Whitaker: The two favourites, though, are Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley — ’independent’ journalists who are frequent contributors to the Russian propaganda channel, RT. Bartlett and Beeley also have an enthusiastic following on ‘alternative’ and conspiracy theory websites though elsewhere they are widely dismissed as propagandists.
“Widely dismissed” by … yes, that’s right, Whitaker’s friends in the corporate media! More circular logic. Independent journalists like Bartlett and Beeley are on RT because Whitaker’s chums at British propaganda outlets – like the Guardian and BBC – do not give, and have never given, them a hearing. The Guardian even denied them a right of reply after its US-based technology writer Olivia Solon (whose resume does not mention that she was ever in Syria) was awarded a prominent slot in the paper to smear them as Kremlin propagandists, without addressing their arguments or evidence.
Whitaker: [Bartlett and Beeley’s] activities are part of the overall media battle regarding Syria and any ‘rigorous academic analysis’ of the coverage should be scrutinising their work rather than promoting it unquestioningly.
There is no “media battle”. That’s like talking of a “war” between Israel, one of the most powerful armies in the world, and the lightly armed Palestinian resistance group Hamas – something the western corporate media do all the time, of course.
Instead there is an unchallenged western media narrative on Syria, one in favour of more war, and more suffering, until what seems like an unrealisable goal of overthrowing Assad is achieved. On the other side are small oases of scepticism and critical thinking, mostly on the margins of social media, Whitaker wants snuffed out.
The working group’s job is not to help him in that task. It is to test whether or how much of the official western narrative is rooted in truth.
Returning to his “concerns” about RT, Whitaker concludes that the station’s key goal:
is to cast doubt on rational but unwelcome explanations by advancing multiple alternative ‘theories’ — ideas that may be based on nothing more than speculation or green-ink articles on obscure websites.
But it precisely isn’t such “green-ink” articles that chip away at the credibility of an official western consensus. It is the transparently authoritarian instincts of a political and media elite – and of supposedly “liberal” journalists like Whitaker and Monbiot – to silence all debate, all doubt, all counter-evidence.
Because at heart he is an authoritarian courtier, Whitaker would like us to believe that only crackpots and conspiracy theorists promote these counter-narratives. He would prefer that, in the silence he hopes to impose, readers will never be exposed to the experts who raise doubts about the official western narrative on Syria.
That is, the same silence that was imposed 15 years ago, when his former newspaper the Guardian and the rest of the western corporate media ignored and dismissed United Nations weapons experts like Scott Ritter and Hans Blix. Their warnings that Iraq’s supposed WMD really were non-existent and were being used as a pretext to wage a disastrous colonial war went unheard.
Let’s not allow Whitaker and like-minded bully-boys once again to silence such critical voices.
*
Jonathan Cook is a Nazareth- based journalist and winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism.
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.
We continue to hear from a variety of uninformed or corrupt people that there is “clear evidence” that Russia interfered in the US presidential election. We hear it from the Atlantic Council, a mouthpiece for the military/security complex.
We hear it from a nutcase in the British Labour Party.
We hear it from Washington Post and, of course, from all the other professional liars at the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc.
We hear it from Newt Gingrich on Fox News and from politicians in both parties.
We hear it from Bloomberg news from Henry Meyer and Kevin Cirilli.
The truth of the hoax indictment is available, but it is not reported by the MSM. This website has reported the facts about the indictment as has Moon of Alabama and David Stockman. Even Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in his press conference announcing Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russians told us part of the truth when he said at the 5 minute, 22 second mark that
“there is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election.”
Rosenstein goes on to say that the suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a trial, which, of course, will not take place as the indicted charges are make-believe and the US has no jurisdiction over the indicted Russians.
Is this the way the presstitutes and politicians are reporting it?
Of course not. Mueller’s comic indictment is being treated as proof that the Russian government interfered in the election. In other words, the presstitutes and politicians are purposely deceiving the public at home and abroad. The corrupt American media and political system misrepresent Mueller’s unproven accusation as proof of guilt.
Note that Rosenstein waited until the end of his press conference to tell us that Mueller’s indictment is not supportive of the Russiagate allegation of a Trump/Putin conspiracy that stole the election from Hillary. Note also that Rosenstein does not tell us that what Mueller has indicted is a private Russian internet marketing bait-click scheme whose purpose was to make money, not influence the US presidential election. See this for example, and this and this.
The presstitutes have not explained the charges that comprise the indictments of the 13 Russians. It is important to understand what these charges are. As Mueller’s charges themselves make perfectly clear, the indictment has nothing to do with stealing an election. The Russians are charged with committing violations of visa laws by disguising the true reason for their trip to the US. They are charged with fraudulent use of telephone calling cards, email accounts and bank accounts, apparently by using false names and stolen identities. In other words, the crimes, even if they were committed, do not relate to the Russiagate allegations of a Trump/Putin conspiracy to steal the presidential election.
As I read the indictment, these illegalities are alleged to constitute a conspiracy to defraud the United States by interfering in the election. However, according to the indictment, the conspiracy to defraud began in 2014 before it was known Trump would be a presidential candidate. So who was the unknown candidate at the time who was to benefit from the interference? Why would Russians interfere in an election when they do not know who the candidates will be? Apparently, both Mueller and the American presstitute media are too stupid to see the relevance of this question.
Why hasn’t the media explained any of this and asked how it amounts to a Putin/Trump conspiracy to steal the election? What is wrong with the American people that they cannot see this by themselves. Why do they need it explained to them? Is it because they are too lazy to care enough to know the truth?
David Stockman, a former member of the House of Representatives and a former director of the Office of Management and Budget, accurately describes Mueller’s indictment as a “comic book indictment” and “a great big nothingburger.”
Stockman points out some of the facts that Mueller, Rosenstein, Fox News, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, BBC, etc., have failed to tell us:
“The nefarious ‘troll farm’ in St. Petersburg that comprises nearly the totality of Mueller’s case is not a Russian intelligence agency operation at all.”
“Nowhere in the entire 37 pages is there even a clause linking Prigozhin’s Hobby Farm to the SVR (foreign intelligence service), the FSB (counter-intelligence and anti-terrorism), the GRU (military intelligence service), any other agency of the Russian State—-or even some purported Kremlin back channel to Putin.”
The question is: Why is the entirety of the print and TV media, a huge chunk of the Internet and social media, a majority of Congress, the entirety of the military/security complex and even a Disney movie, “His Double Life,” determined to elevate “the Russian threat”?
The Disney movie concludes with these words across the screen: Russian agents “are your neighbors. Your co-workers. Your friends. Your husbands.” The “Russian agents” are not only under your bed, but also in bed with you! (Notice that the Russian agents are men, not women, thus in keeping with Identity Politics.)
We know that the military/security complex owns the media. Apparently the complex owns Hollywood as well.
Keep in mind how rare truth is told and how unlikely you are to hear and read the truth.
The concentration during the Clinton regime of the diverse and partly independent media into the hands of six mega-corporations created the ability to control the explanations the public is given. Now the ruling oligarchy is moving to bring the Internet under control as well.
Richie Allen, the host of the most popular independent radio show in Europe, found his Google/YouTube channel deleted yesterday. 1,400 videos of interviews with former CIA officers, bankers, journalists, scientists, including yours truly, simply disappeared. These were largely videos providing counter-narratives to the official explanations. YouTube has a policy that allows deletion of videos that offend people who have been brainwashed and find it painful to have their beliefs challenged. In other words, anything that does not adhere to the official explanations is considered bullying and harassment to the brainwashed masses who are no longer to be permitted the choice between the blue pill and the red pill.
Google/YouTube censorship is hitting other sites also: see this and this.
The decision to control all explanations fed to Americans was made years ago. Clearly, the concentration of 90% of the US print, TV, and radio media in the hands of six mega-companies during the Clinton regime was a major step forward. Other concentrations, such as Google/YouTube, have followed. All of these concentrations are illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, but the act is no longer enforced, because according to the neoliberal junk economists, “markets are self-regulating.”
In the absence of a diverse and independent media, there is no such thing as democracy and government accountable to the people. By controlling explanations, the ruling oligarchs can use government for whatever best serves them. The people are the losers.
The Trump presidency is the perfect timing for the oligarchs to take over control of all information. The liberal/progressive/left hate Trump so much that they are willing to ignore the proven fact that Russiagate was a FBI/Obama/Hillary conspiracy against Trump in order to use the false accusation as a weapon against Trump. Gun control advocates and Identity Politics are willing to turn a blind eye to the unanswered questions about school shootings and terrorist bombings in order to get more gun control and police power to suppress “white supremacists.” Partisan in their approach, they do not consider that the same power will be used against them.
As far as I can tell, the vast majority of young Americans have no idea what is at stake. Most will never realize that their reality consists of controlled explanations. They will never know the truth about anything.
*
This article was originally published by Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.
It was a stunning announcement, stunning because of what was said and maybe equally as stunning because it was honest.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis says there is no evidence that the Syrian government used sarin gas on its own people.
It is a narrative we have been pushing back on for years. So what does this mean for U.S. policy in Syria? And will President Trump continue to push for war in Syria, or will he return to the positions of candidate Trump who said the U.S. should stay out of it?
Let’s give it a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.
The statement is getting very little media coverage but it is a very big deal.
According to Defense Secretary James Mattis, there is no evidence that the Syrian government has used sarin gas on its own people.
Here is exactly what Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon:
“We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used.”
“We do not have evidence of it.”
“We’re looking for evidence of it, since clearly we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions.”
Mattis insists that he wasn’t refuting the claims. But in a sense, he did.
According to Newsweek, in 2017 a White House memorandum was quickly produced and then declassified to justify an American Tomahawk missile strike against the Shayrat airbase in Syria.
The justification used was that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people. Then President Trump himself insisted that there was no doubt that Syrian President Assad had killed his own people with banned chemical weapons.
But Mattis also didn’t qualify the statement to just the Syrian airbase strike. That means that the 2013 gas attack in Ghouta also was not proven to be Assad.
At that time, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry were demanding congress approve use of force against Assad. Obama said this from the rose garden as he said American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles were on standby in the Mediterranean Sea.
“I’m prepared to give that order, but having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”
Congress did not approve that use of force, but then applauded Trump for his use.
For his part, in this latest statement, Mattis says that “aid groups and others” had provided evidence of the Syrian government using sarin.
But as I have extensively reported over the past few years, there is much evidence that the so called Syrian freedom fighters are actually ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters. And there is evidence that they have used chemical weapons.
Other problems with the claims of Assad using sarin: in the 2013 Ghouta event, the sarin came from home-made rockets, which were favored by insurgents.
Also, according to Newsweek:
“In the 2013 event, the White House memorandum seemed to rely heavily on testimony from the Syrian white helmets who were filmed at the scene having contact with supposed sarin-tainted casualties and not suffering any ill effects.
“Carla del Ponte was unable to fulfill her U.N. joint investigative mechanism mandate in Syria and withdrew in protest over the United States refusing to fully investigate allegations of chemical weapons use by ‘rebels’ who are actually jihadis, allied with the American effort to oust President Assad (including the use of sarin by anti-Assad rebels).”
According to the Times of London:
“Carla del Ponte, head of the independent UN commission investigating reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, told a Swiss-Italian television station that UN investigators gleaned testimony from victims of Syria’s civil war and medical staff which indicated that rebel forces used sarin gas – a deadly nerve agent.
“‘Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,’ del Ponte said in the interview, translated by Reuters.
‘This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,’ she added.”
It was the involvement of those jihadis posing as Syrian rebels that made then-candidate Trump state emphatically that he wouldn’t intervene and help oust Assad as Hillary Clinton wanted to do.
Candidate Trump pushed back heavily against intervention. He warned that ISIS was likely to take over Syria if Assad were ousted, just as they have in Iraq and Libya.
And yet the U.S. is only escalating fighting.
Four Russian nationals, and perhaps dozens more, were killed in fighting between pro-government forces in eastern Syria and members of the United States-led coalition fighting the Islamic State, according to Russian and Syrian officials—that according to the New York Times.
Russia says that no members of the Russian armed forces were killed and that any Russians fighting alongside the Syrians were mercenaries.
So what you need to know is that candidate Trump was clear when he pointed to the bush policy in Iraq and the Obama/Clinton policies in Libya and Syria that have only strengthened the creation and spread of ISIS and jihadism.
Candidate Trump rightly pointed out that these policies had failed and that it was insanity to keep pursuing those policies and expecting a different outcome.
So why is President Trump now embracing those insane policies that if continued will undoubtedly leave another power vacuum in the Middle East which will be filled with jihadis?
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: A White House protest held by Teens for Gun Reform last week in the wake of the Florida school massacre. (Lorie Shaull / Flickr)
The proliferation of guns in American society is not only profitable for gun manufacturers, it fools the disempowered into fetishizing weapons as a guarantor of political agency. Guns buttress the myth of a rugged individualism that atomizes Americans, disdains organization and obliterates community, compounding powerlessness. Gun ownership in the United States, largely criminalized for poor people of color, is a potent tool of oppression. It does not protect us from tyranny. It is an instrument of tyranny.
“Second Amendment cultists truly believe that guns are political power,” writes Mark Ames, the author of “Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion: From Reagan’s Workplaces to Clinton’s Columbine and Beyond.” “[They believe that] guns in fact are the only source of political power. That’s why, despite loving guns, and despite being so right-wing, they betray such a paranoid fear and hatred of armed agents of the government (minus Border Guards, they all tend to love our Border Guards). If you think guns, rather than concentrated wealth, equals political power, then you’d resent government power far more than you’d resent billionaires’ power or corporations’ hyper-concentrated wealth/power, because government will always have more and bigger guns. In fact you’d see pro-gun, anti-government billionaires like the Kochs as your natural political allies in your gun-centric notion of political struggle against the concentrated gun power of government.”
American violence has always been primarily vigilante violence. It is a product of the colonial militias; the U.S. Army, which carried out campaigns of genocide against Native Americans; slave patrols; hired mercenaries and gunslingers; the Pinkerton and Baldwin-Felts detective agencies; gangs of strikebreakers; the Iron and Coal Police; company militias; the American Legion veterans of World War I who attacked union agitators; the White Citizens’ Council; the White League, the Knights of the White Camellia; and the Ku Klux Klan, which controlled some states. These vigilante groups carried out atrocities, mostly against people of color and radicals, within our borders that later characterized our savage subjugation of the Philippines, interventions in Latin America, the wars in Korea and Vietnam and our current debacles in the Middle East. Gen. Jacob H. Smith summed up American attitudes about wholesale violence in the Philippines when he ordered his troops to turn the island of Samar, defended by Filipino insurgents, into “a howling wilderness.”
Mass culture and most historians do not acknowledge the patterns of violence that have played out over and over since the founding of the nation. This historical amnesia blinds us to the endemic violence that defines our culture and is encoded in our national myth. As historian Richard Slotkin writes in “Regeneration Through Violence: The Mythology of the American Frontier 1600-1860,” the first of his three magisterial works on violence in American society, our Jacksonian form of democracy was defined by “the western man-on-the-make, the speculator, and the wildcat banker; [in a time] when racist irrationalism and a falsely conceived economics prolonged and intensified slavery in the teeth of American democratic idealism; and when men like Davy Crockett became national heroes by defining national aspirations in terms of so many bears destroyed, so much land preempted, so many trees hacked down, so many Indians and Mexicans dead in the dust.”
“The first colonists saw in America an opportunity to regenerate their fortunes, their spirits, and the power of their church and nation,” he writes, “but the means to that regeneration ultimately became the means of violence, and the myth of regeneration through violence became the structuring metaphor of the American experience.”
“A people unaware of its myths is likely to continue living by them, though the world around that people may change and demand changes in their psychology, their ethics and their institutions,” Slotkin writes.
The metaphors we use to describe ourselves to ourselves are rooted in this national myth. We explain our history and our experience and seek our identity in this myth. This myth connects us to the forces that shape and give meaning to our lives. It bridges, as Slotkin writes,
“the gap between the world of the mind and the world of affairs, between dream and reality, between impulse or desire and action. It draws on the content of individual and collective memory, structures it, and develops it from imperatives for belief and action.”
The historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortizin her book “Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment” also illustrates how the racist, white settler vision of the world continues to color our perception of reality. She writes:
The populist frontier ideology has served the U.S. ruling class well for its entire history and once again found tremendous resonance in the Vietnam War as another Indian war. A key to John F. Kennedy’s political success was that he revived the “frontier” as a trope of populist imperialism, speaking of the “settling” of the continent and “taming” a different sort of “wilderness.” In Kennedy’s acceptance speech in Los Angeles at the 1960 Democratic Convention, he said: “I stand tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that stretch 3,000 miles behind me, the pioneers of old gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their lives to build a new world here in the West. … We stand today on the edge of a new frontier.” The metaphor described Kennedy’s plan for employing political power to make the world the new frontier of the United States. Central to this vision was the Cold War, what Richard Slotkin calls “a heroic engagement in the ‘long twilight struggle’ against communism,” to which the nation was summoned by Kennedy in his inaugural address. Soon after he took office, that struggle took the form of the counterinsurgency program in Vietnam and his creation of the Green Beret Special Forces. “Seven years after Kennedy’s nomination,” Slotkin reminds us, “American troops would be describing Vietnam as ‘Indian Country’ and search-and-destroy missions as a game of ‘Cowboys and Indians’; and Kennedy’s ambassador to Vietnam would justify a massive military escalation by citing the necessity of moving the ‘Indians’ away from the ‘fort’ so that the ‘settlers’ could plant ‘corn.’ ”
The gun culture permits a dispossessed public, sheared of economic and political power, to buy a firearm and revel in feelings of omnipotence. A gun reminds Americans that they are divine agents of purification, anointed by God and Western civilization to remake the world in their own image. Violence in America is not about the defense of liberty or radical change. It is an expression of domination, racism and hate. American vigilantes are the shock troops of capitalism. They butcher the weak on behalf of the strong.
“The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer,” the English novelist and essayist D.H. Lawrence wrote. “It has never yet melted.”
There are some 310 million firearms in the United States, including 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles and 86 million shotguns. The number of military-style assault weapons in private hands—including the AR-15 semi-automatic rifles used in the massacres at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., and at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.—is estimated at 1.5 million. The United States has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world, an average of 90 firearms per 100 people.
“Total gun deaths in the United States average around 37,000 a year, with two-thirds of those deaths being suicides, leaving approximately 12,000 homicides, a thousand of those at the hands of the police,” writes Dunbar-Ortiz. “Mass shootings—ones that leave four or more people wounded or dead—now occur in the United States, on average, at the pace of one or more per day. Disturbing as that fact is, mass shootings currently account for only 2 percent of gun killings annually. The number of gun deaths—37,000—is roughly equal to death-by-vehicle incidents in the United States per year.”
If the ruling elites feared an armed uprising, a draconian form of gun control would instantly be law. But the engine of gun ownership is not the fear of government. It is the fear by white people of the black and brown underclass, an underclass many whites are convinced will threaten them as society breaks down. Guns, largely in the hands of whites, have rarely been deployed against the state. In this, the United States is an exception. It has a heavily armed population and yet maintains political stability. The few armed rebellions—the 1786 and 1787 Shays’ Rebellion, the 1921 armed uprising by 10,000 coal miners at Blair Mountain in West Virginia—were swiftly and brutally put down by militias and armed vigilantes hired by capitalists. These uprisings were about specific grievances, not systemic change. Revolution is foreign to our intellectual tradition.
As jobs and manufacturing are shipped overseas, communities crumble, despair grips much of the country and chronic poverty plagues American families, the gun seems to be the last tangible relic of a free and mythic America. It offers the illusion of power, protection and freedom. This is why the powerless will not give it up.
“In the heartland, these are people who feel they’ve been the victims of sustained economic violence at the hands of tyrannical governments of both parties,” writer and editor Daniel Hayes wrote in The New York Times in 2016. “In 2008, Barack Obama’s notorious misstep got one thing right: Rural people will ‘cling’ to guns. Not because they are sad or misguided, but because it is the last right they feel they still have: a liberty at least, in place of opportunity.”
“Outsourcing and guns: These are the twin issues animating Trump voters in rural Kentucky,” he wrote. “The two are linked and feed off each other; the only difference between them is that white rural voters see outsourcing as a losing battle, whereas protecting and expanding Second Amendment rights is the only policy they’ve been able to get politicians to move on. For that reason alone, it is totemic.”
The Second Amendment, as Dunbar-Ortiz makes clear in her book, was never about protecting individual freedom. It was about codifying white vigilante violence into law.
“The elephant in the room in these debates has long been what the armed militias of the Second Amendment were to be used for,” Dunbar-Ortiz writes. “The kind of militias and gun rights of the Second Amendment had long existed in the colonies and were expected to continue fulfilling two primary roles in the United States: destroying Native communities in the armed march to possess the continent, and brutally subjugating the enslaved African population. …”
Attacks on the gun culture and the gun violence that plagues the nation are seen by many gun owners as an attack on their national identity. The more powerful the weapon, the more powerful the gun owner feels. There are those among the marginalized and enraged who are tempted, especially because of easy access to assault-style weapons, to use their guns in mass killings to cleanse the world. The lone killer, almost always a white male, is celebrated by Hollywood and in our national myth and “frontier psychology.” This peculiar American veneration of violence, Slotkin writes, “reaches out of the past to cripple, incapacitate, or strike down the living.”
*
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, New York Times best selling author, former professor at Princeton University, activist and ordained Presbyterian minister.
Relevant article selected from the GR archive, first published by Global Research on February 28, 2015
The following email was sent to me by a Global Research reader, widow of an American serviceman, an unspoken victim of America’s wars.
Her response shows how effective war propaganda has become, in turning concepts up side down.
Western civilization is threatened, the ISIS bogeyman seeks World domination. Our American way of life is threatened.
She blames the enemy for the death of her husband, rather than the US government.
I offered to send her my book regarding the impacts of nuclear war. I signed my email with the words “For Peace”.
She responded by saying: “How dare you think peace is the answer.”
War is the solution, she says. “total annihilation is the answer. .. What we have to do is to teach nations to fear us”:
Have we become so complacent of fear that we will not use mass destruction against the Middle East. We did it against Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end all threats from those who have no regard for other humans? [first email]
…
In response to your email, I am a military brat and have good experience with war.
Have you ever been to a little place called Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq. I had 6 very good friends, drafted to Vietnam, who never returned.
I am a war widow and raised an 18 month old son, alone!!
How dare you think peace is the answer.
For countries, that threaten our way of life, war is not good enough to slap hands, total annihilation is the answer.
If we had done that, ISIS would not be beheading people.
They are encouraging our own people to join ISIS to retaliate against America.
Are you ready to live under ISIS world domination? Remincent of a little man named Adolf Hitler, who annihilated 6 million Jews.
If we can teach nations to fear us, then we wouldn’t need war, then our precious military would not die on foreign soil, leaving families devastated.
Think about that. Peace, Fear is a much better alternative. [second email]
(minor editing by M.Ch.)
The Victims of War Propaganda
Her response is the product of a propaganda campaign within the US Armed Forces.
She is the victim of America’s wars, the widow of an American serviceman. She is also the victim of war propaganda which instills hatred and upholds war as the solution.
Upon reading her message, I felt that the most important thing to do was to reach out to her, and the victims of war propaganda, provide them with concepts and information, which will enable them to know the truth about US led wars.
More broadly Americans are misinformed as to the true nature of America’s wars. “Wipe out the rest of the world to ensure the security of the American homeland.”
Going after “Islamic terrorists”, carrying out a worldwide pre-emptive war to “protect the Homeland” are used to justify a military agenda. This has become a consensus shared by millions of people. In turn, “The Global War on Terrorism” is presented as a “Clash of Civilizations”.
Evil folks are lurking. A good versus evil duality prevails, which instills in the minds of millions of people the notion that war is a humanitarian undertaking.
What is required is counter-propaganda to sensitize our fellow-citizens, with a view to confronting the stream of lies emanating from the US government and the mainstream media. This campaign should be extended to members of the Armed Forces and their families.
Spread the word far and wide. Reverse the Tide. Obama’s “Global War on Terrorism” is Fake, it’s a criminal undertaking.
The fundamental issue, which is obfuscated by the media is that the Islamic State (ISIS) is a creation of US intelligence, which is used to destabilize and destroy sovereign countries as part of a global war of conquest.
All US wars and related occupations are flagrantly illegal, Trump continuing what his predecessors began.
Pentagon and State Department officials lied, claiming Washington needs no congressional or other authorization to maintain a military presence in Syria and Iraq.
US-installed puppet Iraqi prime minister Haider al-Abadi was pressured to accept the indefinite presence of US forces in the country.
Syria’s Bashar al-Assad slammed their presence in northern and southern parts of the country, earlier saying:
“Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation or consultation or permission, they are invaders, whether they are American, Turkish, or any other(s).
Russia operates in Syria by invitation. So do Hezbollah fighters and Iranian military advisors. US forces are there illegally – waging naked aggression by terror-bombing and support for terrorists, seeking regime change.
Last March, Assad blasted Washington, saying wherever US forces are sent, “they only create a mess. They are very good at creating problems and destroying, but they are very bad in finding solutions,” adding:
Without US-led foreign intervention, war would “only take a few months” to end. It never would have been launched.
Washington intends indefinite missions wherever it shows up. Last month, Rex Tillerson lied saying
“(t)he Trump administration’s counterterrorism policy is quite simple. It is to protect Americans at home and abroad from attacks by terrorists.”
The only threat they face is state-sponsored terrorism, no others from terrorist groups Washington created and supports.
Tillerson lied claiming “Syria remains a source of severe strategic threats,” adding US forces will remain in the country indefinitely “to protect our own national security interest.”
They illegally occupy Syrian territory for regime change. Throughout its history, Syria never threatened US security.
The Pentagon and State Department lied, claiming ISIS terrorists in Syria give Washington legal justification for US forces to remain indefinitely in Syria and Iraq.
The Trump administration turned truth on its head, claiming a legal right to strike Syrian forces and Iranian military advisors it believes threaten US troops and terrorist fighters it supports and falsely calls “rebels.”
According to Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Mary Waters,
“the United States will not hesitate to use necessary and proportionate force to defend US, coalition, or partner forces engaged in operations to defeat ISIS and degrade Al Qaeda.”
Washington created and supports ISIS and al-Qaeda, Waters failed to explain. US forces operate illegally in all its war theaters.
Trump has no legal authority to wage war anywhere without Security Council approval. All US wars are illegal acts of aggression against sovereign nations threatening no one.
Congress has appropriation authority. It can end US wars by cutting off funding, the way US involvement in Southeast Asia ended in April 1975.
Efforts began with the Church/Cooper June 30, 1970 amendment (attached to a supplemental aid bill), stipulating no further spending for soldiers, combat assistance, advisors, or bombing operations in Cambodia.
The 1972 Church/Case amendment to end all funding for US military operations in Southeast Asia, except for withdrawal subject to the release of prisoners of war, was the first congressional legislation to end the Vietnam war.
In June 1973, Congress passed the Church/Case amendment ending all funding after August 15.
On April 30, 1975, US forces completed their withdrawal from the rooftop of its Saigon embassy, ending over a decade of war – based on the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing war without declaring it, based on a false flag incident.
Congress can end illegal US wars today the same way it did in the 1970s. Figures like Senators Frank Church, William Fulbright, George McGovern, and others like them aren’t around today.
Even conservative Senator Richard Russell, Lyndon Johnson’s mentor in the Senate, called war in Southeast Asia the “damn worse mess I ever saw,” telling LBJ the territory wasn’t a “damn bit” important to America.
US wars of aggression rage today in multiple theaters. Virtually no congressional profiles in courage exist to stop them.
No House or Senate members argue publicly against endless US wars. None publicy support peace.
Nothing is being done to cut off war funding. Instead, military budgets are increased.
The vast majority of House and Senate members publicly support Washington’s imperial war agenda – including self-styled progressive Bernie Sanders.
Without strong opposition, endless US wars continue, others in the wings to be launched.
Catastrophic nuclear war is ominously possible against one or more nations threatening no one.
America’s imperial agenda is humanity’s greatest threat!
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.
The plan was announced three years ago, during the Obama administration, when Pentagon officials declared: “In front of Russian aggression, the United States is considering the deployment of ground-based missiles in Europe” (the manifesto, 9 June 2015).
Now, with the Trump administration, the plan is officially confirmed. In the 2018 fiscal year the Congress of the United States authorized the financing of “a program of research and development of a ground-based mobile Cruise missile”. It is a nuclear missile with an intermediate range (between 500 and 5500 km), similar to the 112 Cruise nuclear missiles deployed by the US in Comiso in the 1980s.
They were eliminated, along with the Pershing 2 ballistic missiles deployed by the US in Germany and the Soviet SS-20 deployed in the USSR, by the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF), stipulated in 1987. It prohibits the deployment of ground-based missiles with a range between 500 and 5500 km.
Washington now accuses Moscow of deploying missiles of this category and declares that, “if Russia continues to violate the INF Treaty, the United States will no longer be bound by this treaty”, ie the United States will be free to deploy ground-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe.
However, a decisive fact is ignored: the Russian missiles (assuming their range is intermediate) are deployed in a defensive position in the Russian territory, while the US intermediate-range missiles would be deployed in an offensive position in Europe close to the Russian territory. It is as if Russia deployed nuclear missiles pointed at the United States in Mexico.
As the US / NATO escalation continues, the deployment of such missiles in Europe is increasingly likely.
Meanwhile, in early February, Ukraine tested a ground-based intermediate-range missile, which was certainly produced with US assistance.
The new US nuclear missiles – much more precise and faster than the Cruise missiles of the Eighties – would be deployed in Italy and probably in Eastern countries too, adding to the B61-12 nuclear bombs that US will deploy in Italy and other countries since 2020.
In Italy, the new Cruise missiles would probably again be positioned in Sicily, although not necessarily in Comiso. On the island there are two US installations of primary strategic importance.
The MUOS ground station of Niscemi, one of the four on a world scale (2 in the US, 1 in Australia and 1 in Sicily) of the satellite communications system that connects all US forces, even nuclear, anywhere of the world they are.
JTAGS, a satellite reception and transmission station for the US «anti-missile shield», which is about to become operational in Sigonella. It is one of five worldwide (the others are in the United States, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Japan). The station, which is transportable, is used not only for anti-missile defense but also for attack operations, launched from forward-deployed bases such as those in Italy.
In the “Nuclear Posture Review 2018″ the Pentagon declares: “The United States commit nuclear weapons forward-deployed to Europe, to the defense of NATO. These forces provide an essential political and military link between Europe and North America”.
By linking us to their strategy not only militarily but politically, the United States increasingly transform our country into a forward-deployed base of their nuclear weapons pointed at Russia, therefore into a forward-deployed target at which Russian nuclear weapons are pointed.
First published by Global Research on April 27, 2015
Each morning I walk throughout my quiet neighborhood here in Central Florida noticing more and more homes with giant U.S. flags hanging from the garage tops. Occasionally, if I know the neighbor with the flag, I ask what is the reason he or she keeps it up so long. The answer is alwaysthe same: ” To support our troops in the Middle East and the war on terror.”
It is thus useless to conduct a debate, as most of these folks happen to be senior citizens even older than me, the baby boomer. And, if for some reason the neighbor hanging the sign happens to be a man or woman younger than yours truly, chances are any forthcoming ‘ conversation ‘ will get testy to say the least. Having stood weekly on street corners in my town withanti phony war signs for ten years can attest to that fact. The propaganda sadly does run that deep!
So many Americans really do not have a correct sense of history. When this writer uses Nazi Germany as an example of an ‘ empire on steroids ‘ and compares it to our own, the critics go wild. ” How can you dare compare what the Nazis did to what our country is doing or done? ” Well, let’s take a look back at then and now. Let’s take the GI on the ground first. When Germany began its assault on Europe, many German soldiers, not the true believer Waffen SS, really bought into the skillful propaganda spun by Goebbels and others. The Versailles Diktat, as it was really known by Germans after WW1, did in fact destroy any hope for economic recovery.
Most German leaders and students of history alike agreed that Germany was excessively punished by the victors of WW1, which in fact aided the rise and popularity of parties like the National Socialists AKA Nazis. When Hitler and his gang assumed power, a majority of German citizens including most of the soldiers in uniform believed in whatever lies they were told about their European rivals: Poland, France, England and Russia. So, when the Wehrmacht marched into those countries (except UK), the troops believed in the need for war. As time wore on and the atrocities and cruelties mounted, and victories turned into defeats, the morale level lowered. Now, isn’t that what happened to our own soldiers after we did the dirty deed and invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq? Many returning soldiers, not the true believer right wing types ( American Sniper lovers ) now see the futility of our country’s efforts in the Middle East. Hope springs eternal.
During the reign of the Nazi empire or Third Reich, the average hard working German citizen for the most partloved the economic boom occurring in the 1930s. Who wouldn’t love more jobs, higher wages, food on the table etc? Factor out those who ‘ knew better’ about the brutality of the regime against not only Jews but unions and basically anyone who questioned Hitler and his gang ( duh, like the fact that they outlawed any other political party but their own). What was left was a silent majority ( wonder if Nixon and Agnew got inspiration from that? ) of everyday Germans who reveled in the current better times. They ‘ drank the Kool-Aid’ and hung the Swastika flags from their homes to support their brave troops. Need one say more? Cannot you the reader connect the dots? How many of our fellow Americans really give a **** at what we have and are doing in the Middle East?
Who cares about some rag head child or elderly person blown away by a smart bomb or smart drone missile? If everygood and decent neighbor of mine, the ones who proudly hang those flags, could watch the 2007 You Tube of the Apache helicopter massacre of 19 Iraqi men who were just walking along in the daylight sun ( and of course the two young kids in the parked car who were seriously maimed). If they would listen closely and hear the audio of the soldiers in the copter who did the dirty deed… as if it was some video game! Perhaps then the bridge across the Rubicon would materialize.
Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn , NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 300 of his work posted on sites like Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Counterpunch, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust., whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected])
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.
In the past, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) justified its militarization of large swaths of Eastern Europe by pointing to the omnipresent threat of terrorism, or some ‘rogue’ foreign state, inherently understood to be Iran. Today the mask has slipped and it is no longer denied that NATO’s primary target is Russia.
But first, a trip down nightmare lane. The road to ruin – at least as far as US-Russia relations were concerned – began immediately following the 9/11 terror attacks. Three months after that fateful day, in December 2001, George W. Bush informed Vladimir Putin that the US was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a strange move considering that the treaty had kept the peace between the nuclear superpowers since 1972. This geopolitical “mistake,” as Putin rightly defined it, allowed the US to begin the process of deploying a missile defense system, smack on the border with Russia, allegedly to shield the continent against an attack by Iran. Never mind the fact that Tehran had absolutely no reason, not to mention the wherewithal, to carry out such a suicidal mission. But Washington has never been one to let facts get in the way of a forced move on the global chess board.
Thus, the Bush administration advocated on behalf of a land-based missile defense system with interceptors based in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic. However, due to serious objections from Russia, not to mention the apprehensive citizens of the host countries, the plan had reached an impasse in 2008 – just as Obama was replacing Bush in the White House. Some would call that impeccable timing. What happened next can only be described as a devious sleight of hand on the part of Washington.
In September 2009, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Barack Obama, announced to great fanfare that the US would “shelve” the Bush plan. This announcement was received in Moscow and beyond as a sign that America’s first black president was truly the real deal when it came to working on behalf of global peace. Suddenly, it appeared that the Bush reign of error had been an ugly anomaly, a bad eight-year dream. That grand illusion lasted for about as long as it took to read that sentence.
Image on the right is then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and then-President Barack Obama
Barack Obama, the man who had seduced the global masses with his velvety albeit telepromoted delivery, shifted gears the very next day, announcing that the US would be deploying, in four phases, sea-based SM-3 interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe instead. An opinion piece in the New York Times, penned by then Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, provided all the information to understand that the world had been hoodwinked.
“Steady technological advances in our missile defense program — from kill vehicles to the abilities to network radars and sensors — give us confidence in this plan,” Gates wrote. “The SM-3 has had eight successful tests since 2007, and we will continue to develop it to give it the capacity to intercept long-range missiles like ICBMs. It is now more than able to deal with the threat from multiple short- and medium-range missiles — a very real threat to our allies and some 80,000 American troops based in Europe that was not addressed by the previous plan.”
“We are strengthening — not scrapping — missile defense in Europe,” he concluded.
With the benefit of hindsight and common sense, it seems that Washington’s plan from the start was to move forward with the sophisticated SM-3 system; the bulky Bush initiative just provided the necessary distraction to usher in the advanced Obama plan, which presents a major threat to the global strategic balance.
But all that is ancient history compared to what is happening today. Under the guise of ‘Russia aggression,’ a concept that was peddled to the unsuspecting masses based on the fake news of a Russian ‘invasion’ of Ukraine and Crimea, compounded by claims that Russia somehow swayed the 2016 US presidential elections, US-led NATO has dropped all pretensions and declared open season on Russia. Combined with Donald Trump’s empty threat that the US would exit NATO if member states did not start spending more on defense (2 percent of annula GDP), Eastern Europe has become a veritable hothouse of paranoia-driven militarization.
In what the Kremlin has described as the greatest amassing of military assets on its border since World War II, NATO troops and hardware have set up camp from as far north as Estonia, down through Latvia and Lithuania, into Romania and Poland, where the rotation of US troops is now standard operating procedure.
Meanwhile, massive military games aimed at deterring the Russian bogeyman continue unabated on Russia’s border. In April, British journalist Neil Clark described just one of these exercises, dubbed Summer Shield. The NATO military exercises “got underway at the Adazi military base. Soldiers from Latvia, the US, Bulgaria, Estonia, Canada, Lithuania, the UK, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Germany and also non-NATO member Sweden are taking part in the drills,” Clark wrote.
He then went on to make a rather unsettling yet accurate observation:
“Today’s mantra regarding ‘Russian aggression’ is the 2003 equivalent of ‘Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction,’ to be repeated ad nauseam by anyone supporting NATO’s Drang nach Osten. And like the WMD claim, it’s based on zero evidence.”
Such reckless behavior would have been difficult to fathom less than a decade ago.
But these are brave new times, and American madness has settled upon the realm of foreign relations like a noxious cloud, forcing client states to crack open their tattered wallets or be left out in the cold when the big, bad Russian bear comes a knocking.
An MFOR rocket is launched from a HIMARS (Source: United States Department of Defense U.S. Marine Corps photo)
Consider the case of Romania, one of Europe’s poorest countries. Prompted by Donald Trump‘s warning that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members must fork over 2 percent of their GDP on military spending, Bucharest just made a down payment on a $1 billion American-made M142 HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System), as well as four new multi-function corvettes.
Romanian Defence Minister Mihai Fifor told Jane’s that these exorbitant purchases would “improve Romania’s national and allied defense capability” and emphasized that Romania’s commitment to the 2% of GDP spending cap “for the next 10 years is strong”.
Prime Minister Viorica Dancila said,
“We want those procurement programs to also strengthen our defence industry based on offset arrangements where possible”.
This was not the first American military incursion into Romania under the guise of guarding against Iran and other alleged rogue players.
In May 2016, the US activated its $800 million missile shield in Romania, which Russia obviously views as a direct threat.
“At the moment the interceptor missiles installed have a range of 500 kilometers, soon this will go up to 1000 kilometers, and worse than that, they can be rearmed with 2400km-range offensive missiles even today, and it can be done by simply switching the software, so that even the Romanians themselves won’t know,” Vladimir Putin told reporters during a visit to Greece in May 2016.
“We have been saying since the early 2000s that we will have to react somehow to your moves to undermine international security. No one is listening to us,” Putin warned.
It remains to be seen how long NATO tone deafness will continue before the militarization of Eastern Europe gets completely out of control and the situation becomes untenable. Or perhaps the point of no return has already come to pass and, fait accompli, we are merely enjoying an illusory calm before the storm.
*
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist.
February 28th, 2018 by Center For Biological Diversity
The widespread use of wildlife-harming neonicotinoid pesticides is failing to deliver promised benefits to agricultural production, according to a study published today in the academic journal Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
The global assessment of 200 scientific studies by the International Task Force on Systemic Pesticides found that use of neonicotinoids over the past two decades has inflicted serious damage to birds, pollinators and other insects without generally increasing yields.
“This study should be the final nail in the coffin for these dangerous pesticides here in the U.S.,” said Lori Ann Burd, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s environmental health program. “It’s mindboggling that while much of Europe and Canada are limiting the use of these poisons, the U.S. EPA is considering expanding their use across millions of acres.”
The study shows neonicotinoids can be phased out to protect pollinators and aquatic invertebrates without harming agricultural productivity; research also shows that farmers benefit from integrated pest management practices such as crop rotation and biological controls.
Moving forward, the study’s authors conclude that the documented harms of neonicotinoids must be weighed against evidence that use of the dangerous pesticides does not generally result in higher yields or profits.
The International Task Force on Systemic Pesticides is made up of the world’s leading experts on neonicotinoids and other systemic pesticides. Today’s study is the response of the scientific community to escalating worldwide concerns about the harm of these pesticides on biodiversity and ecosystems.
“Here in the U.S., it’s time the EPA started listening to the world’s leading scientists instead of pandering to companies hoping to squeeze more profits out of selling these dangerous pesticides,” said Burd. “This eye-opening study confirms that the EPA must move quickly to eliminate the unacceptable risk posed by neonics. The sooner the better.”
Background
Neonicotinoids are a class of pesticides known to have both acute and chronic effects on aquatic invertebrates, honeybees, birds, butterflies and other pollinator species; they are a major factor in overall pollinator declines. These systemic insecticides cause entire plants, including their pollen and nectar, to become toxic to pollinators. They are also slow to break down, and they build up in the environment.
A large and growing body of independent science has found overwhelming evidence linking neonicotinoids to declines in populations of bees, birds, earthworms, butterflies and other wildlife.
Neonicotinoids have long been known to pose serious harm to bee populations. EPA assessments released in December 2017 found the commonly used pesticides can also kill and harm birds of all sizes and pose significant dangers to aquatic invertebrates.
The EPA’s aquatic and non-pollinator risk assessment found that the majority of uses of neonicotinoids on currently registered crops resulted in risks to freshwater invertebrates that exceeded levels of concern — the threshold at which harm is known to occur.
Yet the same week the EPA released these risk assessments, the agency announced that it was considering allowing the highly toxic neonicotinoid pesticide, thiamethoxam, to be sprayed directly on 165 million acres of wheat, barley, corn, sorghum, alfalfa, rice and potatoes.
International Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) isan international series of events that seek to raise awareness of Israel’s apartheid system over the Palestinian people and to build support for the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Many people remember apartheid as a dark chapter in the history of South Africa and the world. But for the Palestinian people, apartheid isn’t history; it is a brutal, daily reality.
Apartheid is the Afrikaans word for ‘apartness’. It describes the system of racial discrimination that once existed in South Africa. Today, the United Nations defines apartheid as acts “inhumane acts…committed in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime”.
South African apartheid was established in 1948, the same year as the Palestinian Nakba or ‘catastrophe’ that saw the first 750,000 Palestinians forced from their homes. In the 1980s, these two apartheid regimes shared deep economic and military ties. Israel trained and advised the South African military, both in domestic repression of the anti-apartheid movement and in military aggression in Namibia and Angola.
The Shadow of the Wall
The charge of apartheid has been made against Israel for many years by legal scholars and international institutions. An exhaustive legal study published in 2009 stated that Israel has implemented all the core characteristics of South African apartheid, by categorising and segregating the population along racial lines and subjecting the Palestinian population to extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention.
Racial discrimination is a fact of daily life for Palestinians in the occupied territory. Under Israeli law, and in practice, Jewish Israelis and Palestinians are treated differently in almost every aspect of life including freedom of movement, family, housing, education, employment and other basic human rights. Dozens of Israeli laws and policies institutionalise this prevailing system of racial discrimination and domination.
Segregation is carried out by implementing separate legal regimes for Jewish Israelis and Palestinians living in the same area. For example, Jewish Israeli settlers living in the illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank are governed by Israeli civil law, while Palestinians also living in the occupied West Bank are governed by Israeli military law.
This ‘apartness’ is also institutionalised through separate legal systems governing Jewish Israelis and Palestinians living in the same area, with Palestinians in the occupied West Bank governed by Israeli military law. In 2012 the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination condemned Israel for precisely this, calling for an end to all policies of “racial segregation and apartheid.”
Many of these practices are prohibited by the UN Apartheid Convention, such as the forced transfer of communities to make way for illegal Israeli settlements and the denial of a host of fundamental human rights. Simply existing as a Palestinian in Palestine carries the risk of murder, torture and unlawful imprisonment.
The illegal Apartheid Wall, built by Israel in the West Bank, towers eight meters high, blocking access to schools, hospitals, loved ones and water supplies. Covered in watch towers, electric fences, cameras and military patrols, it is the ultimate symbol of ‘apartness’.
The Memory of a Movement
Last year, new ground was broken when the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA) published a report which not only named Israel as an apartheid state but advocated BDS tactics to bring down the apartheid regime. It is in part because apartheid is synonymous with the call for BDS that calling the Israeli system by its name is so important.
In South Africa, it took two tidal waves to bring apartheid to its knees: first and foremost from within, was a radical mass movement of poor black South Africans; but boycott, divestment and sanctions advocated by the international community and solidarity movements also played a vital role by isolating South Africa’s apartheid regime. This began as a grassroots effort by people of conscience across the world, who inspired by the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, protested and lobbied corporations, universities, trade unions, churches and finally governments to get on the right side of history.
Like black South Africans, Palestinians confront a brutal and profoundly racist colonial occupation; and now, like black South Africans once did, they are building a global BDS movement to free themselves. The BDS movement strives to win freedom, justice and equality for all Palestinians, calling for an end to occupation, full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel and the right of all refugees to return home.
Over recent years, despite growing efforts at repression and censorship in Palestine and internationally, this movement has grown from strength to strength. It has forced major corporations like G4S and Veolia to quit Israeli markets and won large-scale divestments from banks complicit in Israel’s human rights violations.
In 1997, Nelson Mandela famously said:
“We know only too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
This was a sentiment shared with many South Africans as they threw off the yoke of ‘apartness’. But there is also a sense in which it is true for all of us. As long as the powerful anywhere can detain, demolish and destroy life with impunity, all freedom is fragile.
Speaking at the security conference in Munich, US President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster announced that “we will not allow Russia to hold the nations of Europe hostage.” Apparently, local media sources couldn’t come up with anything more fresh than parroting him, unleashing yet another instance of compulsive Russia-bashing, alluding that the recent drastic improvements in the state of Russia’s armed forces are somehow keeping the EU hostage. One could come across a torrent of similar articles immediately after the revision of America’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
But let us inject some objectivity into the otherwise heavily propagandized matter by asking: hasn’t the US been forcing Europe to risk everything in its own little nuclear game?
It’s been seven years since the signing of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) initiative and both Moscow and Washington would announce that they’ve attained the stated goal of reducing the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, today the world rather vocally protests the new nuclear doctrine of the United States, according to which it is going to seek to increase its nuclear posture even in conflicts that should otherwise remain strictly conventional in their nature. The United States has considerably simplified the criteria which enables Washington to use nuclear weapons, expressing its intention of developing smaller nuclear warheads for by both sea and land based cruise missiles.
The National Interest argues that there’s a handful of reasons for these force-structure adjustments, however even such a prolific pro-Washington mouthpiece finds itself unable to downplay the fact that the changes introduced were designed to deter the Russian government from what many in Washington believe to be a lowered nuclear threshold.
It would be added that Moscow hasn’t really lowered or raised the nuclear threshold in recent years. Yet, most people would be misled by the fact that policymakers in both Russia and the United States have different concepts about the conditions under which a conflict meets the nuclear threshold.
It’s no secret that Washington has taken every possible step to weaken, contain, and eventually bring about regime change in Moscow in favor of one that is more compliant with US national interests. It’s been noted that this goes back to NATO’s invasion of Kosovo, against fervent Russian objection. The bold steps that the United States and NATO took to bring down the Milošević government, convinced Russia’s policymakers that Washington would eagerly pursue its foreign-policy goals, while paying no heed to Russian national-security concerns.
It’s no wonder that after witnessing a string of color revolutions across Europe that came hand-in-hand with the so-called Arab Spring, there’s no persuading Moscow that somehow America would ever respect its sovereignty, dismissing the notion of national sovereignty in its meddling all across the globe. That is precisely why any step that Russia has taken so far should not be regarded as a sign of imperialist or revanchist ideas taking hold of the Russian elite, but as an attempt to defend itself from a growing external threat.
“Donald Trump does not understand the historical significance of nuclear disarmament and has repeatedly argued that during the election campaign he allegedly asked one of his advisers what an advantage the United States has in nuclear weapons if they never use it. with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, he boasted that his nuclear button is bigger. For Trump, nuclear weapons are an integral part of his fantasy of omnipotence,” Tagesspiegel said in a statement.
Both the United States and Russia have gone a long way on the road toward nuclear disarmament. However, now Trump has decided to send dubious signals, notes the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Trump, unlike his predecessors, has not said a single word about his future nuclear disarmament initiative, while keeping just as silent about Washington’s intentions to extend the New START.
Tilman Ruff, the founding chair of the Melbourne-founded International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Ican) said the newly released US nuclear posture review was “a chilling document.
This increases the danger of nuclear war … it clearly flags that great power confrontation with Russia is back on again. It essentially says, ‘we’re back in the cold war’.
According to German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, Washington’s decision to develop new tactical nuclear weapons marks the launch of a new round of a nuclear arms race. Gabriel noted that Europe would be “particularly vulnerable” in this race, as it was during the Cold War. This notion is supported by the annual report of the Munich Conference, in which experts have unanimously agreed that the world has never been so helpless in the face of this new threat.
The Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs of China, Fu Yinghas openly challenged Washington’s position during the Munich Security Conference, noting that Beijing can’t be any more surprised to hear Washington accusing other states of presenting a nuclear threat, while it itself adjusts its own nuclear strategy in a rather unpleasant manner.
The whole conference can be summarized with a statement made by a Swiss jurist, Beatrice Fihn, who warned all participants of the Munich conference about the possibility of new accidents, noting that the world cannot always count on luck, as, statistically speaking, something terrible would happen sooner or later. However, Washington apparently couldn’t care less about Europe and its security, as it continues accusing Russia of holding it hostage to a nuclear threat.
*
Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”
I had high hopes that the Pentagon’s Nuclear Posture Review would lay out a creative new strategy that would save money when it comes to sustaining and modernizing America’s hideously expensive nuclear arsenal. It ended up doing just the opposite.
Basically an “and the kitchen sink too” document, it not only maintains and modernizes the current nuclear triad, but also expands upon it with calling for new iterations of established delivery systems as well as a developing a whole new one as well. Most controversially it looks to field more “usable” nuclear weapons in some nebulous attempt to deter an enemy’s own use of low-yield tactical nukes during a limited conflict. This is sometimes referred to as “escalate to de-escalate,” but regardless of the tactics involved, really this document represents a handout to defense contractors of monumental proportions and above all else, a unsustainable and highly expensive strategy overall.
Just modernizing the nuclear arsenal we have today was slated to cost roughly $1.5T with inflation over the next 30 years and that is without the new initiatives laid out by the Strategic Posture Review. These include the introduction of low-yield warheads for the D5 Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile, the reintroduction of a nuclear-tipped naval cruise missile, and the development of nuclear-armed hypersonic weapons that will become a whole new medium of delivery in the coming decades.
Before the review was released the Pentagon was already working on new ICBMs, new Columbia class ballistic missile carrying submarines, new stealthy B-21 nuclear bombers, a new guided variant of the B61 tactic nuclear bomb dubbed the B61-12, and a new air-launched nuclear-tipped cruise missile dubbed the LRSO. Basically a totally remodeled nuclear arsenal along with all the command and control architecture that supports it. Now, according to the Strategic Posture Review and the Pentagon’s overall strategy going forward, this is not nearly enough.
AGM-86 cruise missiles being loaded on a B-52H. The AGM-86B is the country’s sole nuclear air launched cruise missile after the retirement of the AGM-129.
Many have argued, including the author of this article, for the potential elimination or reduction of the ground-based Minuteman III ICBM inventory in particular. This leg of the nuclear triad acts as a massive “nuclear sponge” to soak up hundreds of enemy warheads during a conflict more than anything else. This strategy is almost laughable if it weren’t so alarming. Maybe it would save the US from direct attacks on a number of secondary targets in populated areas, but what will be left of the US, or even the world eventually, once fallout from hundreds of thermonuclear weapons that pummeled the central part of the country takes effect.
The ICBM leg is not nearly as survivable as the ballistic missile submarine leg nor is it anywhere near as flexible as the nuclear bomber leg of the triad and its assortment of weaponry. Eliminating the ICBM leg of the triad could save hundreds of billions of dollars that could be invested in expanding America’s nuclear ballistic submarine force and on a whole slew of other capabilities the Pentagon says it desperately needs. Instead, under the Nuclear Posture Review, we are going to be sticking roughly 400 new missiles into existing Minuteman III silos.
Minuteman III missile receiving upgrade.
Some will say that America’s ICBM force is “an insurance policy” against the other two legs of the triad experiencing technical failure or being knocked out before they can launch their deadly payloads. Considering that our second strike deterrent relies on those submarines primarily, such an argument is questionable at best. And by moving substantial funds to the nuclear ballistic submarine (SSBN) program, that second strike deterrent would only become more survivable and dense.
But even if the triad remains intact in full, do we really need to spend billions on new delivery systems beyond what was already planned? For instance, the nuclear tipped naval cruise missile seems to be more of a bargaining chip to get Russia back into treaty compliance than anything else, but that’s a very costly bargaining chip to say the least.
The nuclear-tipped BGM-109A Tomahawk cruise missile, usually referred to as the TLAM-N, was finally stricken from inventory just five years ago. Now a new missile would have to be developed for this purpose, and the procedures for handling and employing the weapon on American Navy ships and submarines would need to be reintroduced—a far more complex and expensive proposition than one might think.
Equipping Trident D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles for tactical nuclear delivery purposes is downright troubling. An unannounced launch of Trident missile could, or more likely would, be viewed as an incoming strategic strike, not a limited tactical one. Quite frankly, such an act could usher in the beginning to the end of the world as we know it, especially during a time of such intense conflict that a nuclear weapon of any type would be used. The ability to issue a prompt tactical nuclear strike from nearly anywhere on the globe may be attractive, but hypersonic delivery systems will fulfill that capability in the years to come anyway, for better or worse.
In the end, substantially increasing the number of America’s nuclear delivery systems and making nuclear weapons “easier to use” is a reckless and extremely costly path to go down, especially without giving up something in return. And the cold hard truth is that $700B defense budgets are notsustainable. As America is forced to confront its reckless spending habits in the years to come, sustaining the nuclear arsenal we already have will become fiscally challenging—doing so with an expanded arsenal will be all but impossible.
So what you have here is a big reactionary shot of nuclear sugar before an inevitable crash. And yes, the threat profile may be changing around the globe, and certainly a resurgent Russia is something to be dealt with by fielding a strong defense and a solid nuclear deterrent, but how many ways do you need to potentially end the world multiple times over?
When it comes to tactical nuclear weapons, we already have hundreds of them forward deployed to Europe, and the F-35 would be a more cost effective and less risky delivery system than reintroducing naval cruise missiles or low-yield warheads on submarine-launched ballistic missiles. We will also have over 100 stealth bombers and 75 B-52s, not to mention a new very stealthy air-launched nuclear-tipped cruise missile to take on flexible nuclear delivery missions. So a bit of rationalization would go a long way when it comes to updating our nuclear arsenal instead of just saying “we want all of it and more.” Doing so isn’t a strategy at all, it’s a childish and irresponsible cop out to making realistic decisions that can endure for the decades to come.
The Pentagon’s existing triad and its modernization plan seemed to have all the threats covered before the introduction of this expansive nuclear weapons strategy.
So who wins in all this? Defense contractors, and in a huge way. Nuclear weapons contracts are extremely expensive and the secrecy surrounding them helps with limiting public ridicule and even congressional oversight.
But don’t blame the contractors, blame those who are making these decisions. Just going on a nuclear shopping spree while the dollars are many sets the Pentagon up for some tough, if not embarrassing triaging of fiscal priorities down the road. As such, the chances are very high that these initiatives will end up being viewed as highly wasteful and nearsighted in the not so distant future, and even integrating them into existing arms treaties is a whole other issue altogether.
The video below was created by an amazing team of people that won’t let the voices of innocent civilians who are being killed in Damascus, be silenced by western mainstream media!
Created by Carla Ortiz, Jason Clarke, Soraya Tebbani and narrated by Sarah Abed.
.
*
Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and political commentator. Focused on exposing the lies and propaganda in mainstream media news, as it relates to domestic and foreign policy with an emphasis on the Middle East. Contributed to various radio shows, news publications and spoken at forums. For media inquiries please email [email protected].
Featured image is from Sarah Abed.
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.
“Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of a private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.” Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945), 32nd American President (1933-1945), (in ‘Message to Congress on Curbing Monopolies’, April 29, 1938)
“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), French economist, statesman, and author.
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you super add the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority.” Lord Acton (John E. Dalberg) (1834-1902), English historian, politician, and writer.
“The truth is there are very few members [of the U.S. Congress] who I could even name or could think of who didn’t at some level participate in that system [of bribery and corruption in Washington D.C.].” Jack Abramoff, professional lobbyist and onetime power broker for the elite of Washington, D.C. (during a CBS’s 60 Minutes interview, Sunday November 6, 2011)
“Now [the United States] isjust an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and Congress members. … So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors. …The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves.” Jimmy Carter (1924- ), 39th U.S. President (1977-1981), (in a radio interview, Tues. July 28, 2015)
*
On January 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890-1969),34th President of the United States, (1953-1961), and a five-star general, gave a Farewell address that has echoed through the years. He not only warned his fellow citizens about the danger of a “military-industrial complex”, which could “endanger our liberties or democratic processes”, but he also issued a wish in saying that “we want democracy to survive for all generations to come.”
Observers have noticed, however, that since the 1980’s, something big has occurred in the United States: the political system and its processes have fallen into the hands of an unscrupulous money establishment in a way that has left a majority of Americans deprived of the basic services they are entitled to receive from their government.
This can be explained by the workings of a political cycle of corruption, through which big money increasingly corrupts basic political institutions and practices.
Before the 1980s, the U.S. system of government had functioned reasonably well along the lines dictated by the U.S. Constitution and following the democratic principle eloquently summarized by President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) when he said that the U.S. government is the “government of the people, by the people, for the people” as dictated by the vote of citizens who elect officials and who favor the adoption of common good policies.
The U.S. Constitution is one of the oldest
The United States is an old democracy. Its Constitution is the oldest written constitution in operation in the world. It was approved on September 17, 1787, after three months of debate, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and it became effective on March 4, 1789.
It is a federal constitution, which created a strong federal government, but according to the principle of separation of powers. At the federal level, it establishes an intricate system of checks and balances between an executive branch headed by a President, a legislative branch with two houses forming the U.S. Congress and a judicial branch consisting of a U.S. Supreme Court and other courts. The purpose was to prevent tyranny. The fifty American states delegated certain powers to the federal government, but undelegated powers are reserved to the states.
This founding document guarantees constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as spelled out in twenty-seven amendments. The first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights and they were ratified and adopted in 1791, while the other seventeen amendments have been adopted over time, between 1795 and 1992.
Basically, the U.S. Constitution was a compromisebetween the political ideas of Alexander Hamilton (New York) and Thomas Jefferson (Virginia). Hamilton and the Federalists favored a centralized federalism, and were supported by merchants and manufacturers. Jefferson and the anti-federalists rather favored the principle of a decentralized federal system; they supported states’ rights and agriculture. Over time, economic and technological developments and various court decisions tipped the balance in favor of Hamilton’s espousal of a strong, even aristocratic, central U.S. government.
The electoral reforms enacted by Republican President Theodore Roosevelt
Since the 1980s, there has been a fundamental change in the way political institutions function in the United States. And this is not only a matter of change in the governance approach to providing public services, assomehave pointed out. It is a profound change in the way ordinary citizens choose their elected representatives and in the way they convey to public officials their demands, wishes and needs. Their influence has greatly diminished over the years.
For most of the twentieth century, a century during which the American standard of living rose substantially, there existed in the United States a system of laws and practices that protected the sanctity of the voting system as an expression of the choices of the citizenry. Legal entities, such as corporations, banks or other organizations were prevented from using their huge access to money to subjugate the voice of the electorate and debase democracy.
President Theodore Roosevelt
In 1905, for example, President Teddy Roosevelt (1858-1919), a Republican, in his annual address to Congress spelled out the democratic principle that “all contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law.” In 1906, Roosevelt was even more explicit, saying: “I again recommend a law prohibiting all corporations from contributing to the campaign expenses of any party… Let individuals contribute as they desire; but let us prohibit in effective fashion all corporations from making contributions for any political purpose, directly or indirectly. ”On January 26, 1907, President Roosevelt signed theTillman Act of 1907, which was the first legislation in the United States prohibiting monetary contribution to national political campaigns by corporations.
How the U.S. Supreme Court has subverted the American electoral system
Indeed with their judgment in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Chief Justice John Roberts and four other justices created a major revolution in the American electoral system. They rejected historic precedents and judicial restraint in order to put a radical pro-corporate spin on the First Amendment, which protects free speech. They declared that “corporations” and other legal organizations are indeed “persons”, entitled to the same human rights as living, breathing persons, and that they can spend unlimited sums of money during electoral campaigns.
Consequently, since the 2010 decision of the U.S. Court, the Preambule of the U.S. Constitutionthat says “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union…” should more appropriately be changed now for “We, the business corporations of America…etc.”, in order to fully reflect the new political philosophy of the five-member majority of the Roberts Court. Indeed, with the decision of Jan. 21, 2010, the type of government the majority of the Roberts Supreme Court wished to establish is essentially ‘a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations’.
Nowadays, the U.S. Government is more centralized and more corrupt than ever
Indeed, over the last quarter century, there has been a quiet political coup in the United States, with far right money interests taking over the American system of government, and this not only includes the U.S. Congress; it includes also the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court. Billionaire oligarchs have taken control in the United States and they pretty much do what they want with the government, irrespective of what the people think or want. This is a throwback to the later part of the 19th Century when Robber Baronscould buy out politicians, pile up the public debt and plunder the public purse at will, while unscrupulously rigging markets and abusing consumers.
People want peace, but the oligarchs—and that includes Donald Trump—want war, permanent war, and they want to be free to line their pockets with the war industry profits all over the world.
People want social servicesand want to reduce poverty, but the oligarchs want to reduce the influence of government, cut taxes and keep politicians corrupted.
Peoplewant their children to be secure,safe and not the target of gunswhen they go to school, but the oligarchs, manufacturers and extremist organizations want to be able to sell military-style assault weapons to everybody who can afford to buy them. Indeed, cowardly American politicians refuse to ban military-style assault weapons, as they are controlled in most countries.
People want to live in a clean environment, but the oligarchs want to be free to pollute and pursue their own private interests.
Most people stand for the rule of law and for democracy, but the oligarchs prefer a system closer to plutocracy, in which their money can call the shots, etc.
The potentially corrupting influence of money has become more and more dominant in U.S. politics, and it has been openly encouraged by numerous decisionsof the U.S. Supreme Court, especially, as we have seen, by the Roberts U.S. Supreme Court, in favor of the wealthy, the powerful and private interest groups, and against the common good.
As a consequence, popular trust in the U.S. government has declined steadily over the last half century. According to the Pew Research Center, while 73% of Americans were said to have trust in the federal government in Washington D.C., in 1958, that percentage had fallen to a mere 18%, in 2017. This represents a huge erosion of public trust in government in a bit less than sixty years. This is a generational shift of great magnitude and the sign of a profound disgust.
What are the consequences of that shift toward less democracy?
Americans are the least likely to exercise their right to vote: in the 2016 election, only 55.7% of eligible voters bothered to vote, as compared to an average of 75% in other OECD countries.
In the U.S., politics has become a rich man’s game: In practice and in most cases, no American citizen who is not rich can expect to be elected in the current American political system, unless he or she is willing to become a political prostitute to big money interests. Moreover, ordinary citizens cannot entertain any hope, on their own, of being able to redress the situation.
More importantly perhaps,it has become harder and harder to encourage government to pass legislation to enhance the common goodand to promote the general welfare of ordinary citizens. Wealthy lobbies, corporations and mega banks, supported by a very concentrated and partisan media, hold the upper hand in anything the government does. These powerful lobbies push the United States to spendmore on its military sector than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan combined.
Not surprisingly,income and wealth disparities in the United States are indecent and growing. The Stanford Centeron Poverty and Inequality has ranked the United States dead last among the 10 richest countries on that score. Half of the U.S. population lives presently in poverty or is low-income, according to U.S. Census data, while the American middle class is losing ground, according to surveys by the Pew Research Center. To compare income and wealth inequality that prevails in the U.S. today, it is necessary to go back 100 years, just before the Great Depression. Presently, there is less social mobility in the United States and the social fabric is increasingly disorganized.
Social cohesion is threatened in a country when income and wealth inequalitiesbecome exceptionally wide. This has been a big problem in South America for many years. Now it has become a growing social and economic problem in the United States.
The United States has the highest incarceration ratein the world, ahead of Cuba, El Salvador, Turkmenistan, the Russian Federation and Thailand. Its rate is almost 5 times higher than the OECD average.
An ominous sign:Life expectancy at birth in the United States fell for the second consecutive year in 2016, due to a dizzying 21% increase in the death rate from drug overdoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In fact, this is the first time since 1962 and 1963, two years in which the flu caused an unprecedented number of deaths, that the United States experienced two consecutive years of declining life expectancy.
Conclusion
Since the 1980s, a vicious cycle of political corruption in the United States has become more and more powerful and has had negative social consequences. It is a cycle of corruption that has allowed the money establishment to tighten its grip on the major American institutions of the Presidency, the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Such a cycle of political corruption is self-reinforcing, and as it becomes more and more comprehensive and entrenched, it also becomes very difficult to break up and reverse.
“One Belt, One Road,” China’s $1 trillion infrastructure initiative, is a massive undertaking of highways, pipelines, transmission lines, ports, power stations, fiber optics, and railroads connecting China to Central Asia, Europe and Africa. According to Dan Slane, a former advisor in President Trump’s transition team, “It is the largest infrastructure project initiated by one nation in the history of the world and is designed to enable China to become the dominant economic power in the world.” In a January 29th article titled “Trump’s Plan a Recipe for Failure, Former Infrastructure Advisor Says,” he added, “If we don’t get our act together very soon, we should all be brushing up on our Mandarin.”
On Monday, February 12th, President Trump’s own infrastructure initiative was finally unveiled. Perhaps to trump China’s $1 trillion mega-project, the Administration has now upped the ante from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, or at least so the initiative is billed. But as Donald Cohen observes in The American Prospect, it’s really only $200 billion, the sole sum that is to come from federal funding; and it’s not even that after factoring in the billions in tax cuts in infrastructure-related projects. The rest of the $1.5 trillion is to come from cities, states, and private investors; and since city and state coffers are depleted, that chiefly means private investors. The focus of the Administration’s plan is on public-private partnerships, which as Slane notes are not suitable for many of the most critical infrastructure projects, since they lack the sort of ongoing funding stream such as a toll or fee that would attract private investors. Public-private partnerships also drive up costs compared to financing with municipal bonds.
In any case, as Yves Smith observes, private equity firms are not much interested in public assets; and to the extent that they are, they are more interested in privatizing existing infrastructure than in funding the new development that is at the heart of the president’s plan. Moreover, local officials and local businessmen are now leery of privatization deals. They know the price of quick cash is to be bled dry with user charges and profit guarantees.
The White House says its initiative is not a take-it-or-leave-it proposal but is the start of a negotiation, and that the president is “open to new sources of funding.” But no one in Congress seems to have a viable proposal. Perhaps it is time to look more closely at how China does it . . . .
China’s Secret Funding Source: The Deep Pocket of Its State-owned Banks
While American politicians argue endlessly about where to find the money, China has been forging full steam ahead with its mega-projects. A case in point is its 12,000 miles of high-speed rail, built in a mere decade while American politicians were still trying to fund much more modest rail projects. The money largely came from loans from China’s state-owned banks. The country’s five largest banks are majority-owned by the central government, and they lend principally to large, state-owned enterprises.
Where do the banks get the money? Basically, they print it. Not directly. Not obviously. But as the Bank of England has acknowledged, banks do not merely recycle existing deposits but actually create the money they lend by writing it into their borrowers’ deposit accounts. Incoming deposits are needed to balance the books, but at some point these deposits originated in the deposit accounts of other banks; and since the Chinese government owns most of the country’s banks, it can aim this funding fire hose at its most pressing national needs.
China’s central bank, the People’s Bank of China, issues money for infrastructure in an even more direct way. It has turned to an innovative form of quantitative easing in which liquidity is directed not at propping up the biggest banks but at “surgical strikes” into the most productive sectors of the economy. Citigroup chief economist Willem Buiter calls this “qualitative easing” to distinguish it from the quantitative easing engaged in by Western central banks. According to a 2014 Wall Street Journal article:
In China’s context, such so-called qualitative easing happens when the People’s Bank of China adds riskier assets to its balance sheet – such as by relending to the agriculture sector and small businesses and offering cheap loans for low-return infrastructure projects – while maintaining a normal pace of balance-sheet expansion [loan creation]. . . .
The purpose of China’s qualitative easing is to provide affordable financing to select sectors, and it reflects Beijing’s intention to dictate interest rates for some sectors, Citigroup’s economists said. They added that while such a policy would also put inflationary pressure on the economy, the impact is less pronounced than the U.S.-style quantitative easing.
Instead of turning the liquidity sprinkler on full-throttle for the whole garden, the PBOC is aiming its hose at specific parts. The latest innovations include plans to bolster the market for local government bonds and the recapitalisation of policy banks so they can boost lending to government-favoured projects. . . .
Policymakers have sought to bolster credit for small and medium-sized enterprises, and borrowers supporting the goals of the communist leadership, such as the One Belt, One Road initiative developing infrastructure along China’s old Silk Road trade routes.
“Non-Performing Loans” or “Helicopter Money for Infrastructure”? Money that Need Not Be Repaid
Critics say China has a dangerously high debt-to-GDP ratio and a “bad debt” problem, meaning its banks have too many “non-performing” loans. But according to financial research strategist Chen Zhao in a Harvard review called “China: A Bullish Case,” these factors are being misinterpreted and need not be cause for alarm. China has a high debt to GDP ratio because most Chinese businesses are funded through loans rather than through the stock market, as in the US; and China’s banks are able to engage in massive lending because the Chinese chiefly save their money in banks rather than investing it in the stock market, providing the deposit base to back this extensive lending. As for China’s public “debt,” most of it is money created on bank balance sheets for economic stimulus. Zhao writes:
During the 2008-09 financial crisis, the U.S. government deficit shot up to about 10 percent of GDP due to bail-out programs like the TARP. In contrast, the Chinese government deficit during that period didn’t change much. However, Chinese bank loan growth shot up to 40 percent while loan growth in the U.S. collapsed. These contrasting pictures suggest that most of China’s four trillion RMB stimulus package was carried out by its state-owned banks. . . . The so-called “bad debt problem” is effectively a consequence of Beijing’s fiscal projects and thus should be treated as such.
China calls this government bank financing “lending” rather than “money printing,” but the effect is very similar to what European central bankers are calling “helicopter money” for infrastructure – central bank-generated money that does not need to be repaid. If the Chinese loans get repaid, great; but if they don’t, it’s not considered a problem. Like helicopter money, the non-performing loans merely leave extra money circulating in the marketplace, creating the extra “demand” needed to fill the gap between GDP and consumer purchasing power, something that is particularly necessary in an economy that is contracting due to shrinking global markets following the 2008-09 crisis.
[S]o-called credit risk in China is, in fact, sovereign risk. The Chinese government often relies on bank credit to finance government stimulus programmes. . . . China’s sovereign risk is extremely low. Importantly, the balance sheets of the Chinese state-owned banks, the government and the People’s Bank of China are all interconnected. Under these circumstances, a debt crisis in China is almost impossible.
Chinese state-owned banks are not going to need a Wall Street-style bailout from the government. They are the government, and the Chinese government has a massive global account surplus. It is not going bankrupt any time soon.
What about the risk of inflation? As noted by the Citigroup economists, Chinese-style “qualitative easing” is actually less inflationary than the bank-focused “quantitative easing” engaged in by Western central banks. And Western-style QE has barely succeeded in reaching the Fed’s 2 percent inflation target. For 2017, the Chinese inflation rate was a modest 1.8 percent.
What to Do When Congress Won’t Act
Rather than regarding China as a national security threat and putting our resources into rebuilding our military defenses, we might be further ahead studying its successful economic policies and adapting them to rebuilding our own crumbling roads and bridges before it is too late. The US government could set up a national infrastructure bank that lends just as China’s big public banks do, or the Federal Reserve could do qualitative easing for infrastructure as the PBOC does. The main roadblock to those solutions seems to be political. They would kill the privatization cash cow of the vested interests calling the shots behind the scenes.
What alternatives are left for cash-strapped state and local governments? Unlike the Fed, they cannot issue money directly; but they can establish their own banks. Fifty percent of the cost of infrastructure is financing, so having their own banks would allow them to cut the cost of infrastructure nearly in half. The savings on infrastructure projects with an income stream could then be used to fund those critically necessary projects that lack an income stream.
For a model, they can look to the century-old Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the nation’s only publicly-owned depository bank. The BND makes 2 percent loans to local communities for infrastructure, far below the 12 percent average sought by private equity firms. Yet as noted in a November 2014 Wall Street Journal article, the BND is more profitable than Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase. Before submitting to exploitation by public-private partnerships, state and local governments would do well to give the BND model further study.
*
This article was originally published on Truthdig.org.
Il piano fu preannunciato tre anni fa, durante l’amministrazione Obama, quando funzionari del Pentagono dichiararono che «di fronte all’aggressione russa, gli Stati uniti stanno considerando lo spiegamento in Europa di missili con base a terra» (il manifesto, 9 giugno 2015). Ora, con l’amministrazione Trump, esso viene ufficialmente confermato.
Nell’anno fiscale 2018 il Congresso degli Stati uniti ha autorizzato il finanziamento di «un programma di ricerca e sviluppo di un missile da crociera lanciato da terra da piattaforma mobile su strada». È un missile a capacità nucleare con raggio intermedio (tra 500 e 5500 km), analogo ai 112 missili nucleari Cruise schierati dagli Usa a Comiso negli anni Ottanta. Essi vennero eliminati, insieme ai missili balistici Pershing 2 schierati dagli Usa in Germania e agli SS-20 sovietici schierati in Urss, dal Trattato sulle forze nucleari intermedie (Inf), stipulato nel 1987. Esso proibisce lo schieramento di missili con base a terra e gittata compresa tra 500 e 5500 km.
Washington accusa ora Mosca di schierare missili di questa categoria e dichiara che, «se la Russia continua a violare il Trattato Inf, gli Stati uniti non saranno più vincolati da tale trattato», ossia saranno liberi di schierare in Europa missili nucleari a raggio intermedio con base a terra.
Viene però ignorato un fatto determinante: i missili russi (ammesso che siano a raggio intermedio) sono schierati in funzione difensiva in territorio russo, mentre quelli statunitensi a raggio intermedio sarebbero schierati in funzione offensiva in Europa a ridosso del territorio russo. È come se la Russia schierasse in Messico missili nucleari puntati sugli Stati uniti. Poiché continua la escalation Usa/Nato, è sempre più probabile lo schieramento di tali missili in Europa.
Intanto l’Ucraina ha testato agli inizi di febbraio un missile a raggio intermedio con base a terra, realizzato sicuramente con l’assistenza Usa. I nuovi missili nucleari statunitensi – molto più precisi e veloci dei Cruise degli anni Ottanta – verrebbero schierati in Italia e probabilmente anche in paesi dell’Est, aggiungendosi alle bombe nucleari Usa B61-12 che arriveranno in Italia e altri paesi dal 2020.
In Italia, i nuovi Cruise sarebbero con tutta probabilità di nuovo posizionati in Sicilia, anche se non necessariamente a Comiso.
Nell’isola vi sono due installazioni Usa di primaria importanza strategica. La stazione Muos di Niscemi, una delle quattro su scala mondiale (2 negli Usa, 1 in Australia e 1 in Sicilia) del sistema di comunicazioni satellitari che collega a un’unica rete di comando tutte le forze statunitensi, anche nucleari, in qualsiasi parte del mondo si trovino. La Jtags, stazione di ricezione e trasmissione satellitare dello «scudo anti-missili» statunitense, che sta per divenire operativa a Sigonella. È una delle cinque su scala mondiale (le altre si trovano negli Stati uniti, in Arabia Saudita, Corea del Sud e Giappone). La stazione, che è trasportabile, serve non solo alla difesa anti-missile ma anche alle operazioni di attacco, condotte da basi avanzate come quelle in Italia.
«Gli Stati uniti – spiega il Pentagono nel rapporto «Nuclear Posture Review 2018» – impegnano armi nucleari, dispiegate in basi avanzate in Europa, per la difesa della Nato. Queste forze nucleari costituiscono un essenziale legame politico e militare tra Europa e Nord America».
Legandoci alla loro strategia non solo militarmente ma politicamente, gli Stati uniti trasformano sempre più il nostro paese in base avanzata delle loro armi nucleari puntate sulla Russia eles, quindi, in bersaglio avanzato su cui sono puntate le armi nucleari russe.
If you’re having trouble sleeping thanks to, well, you know who… you’re not alone. But don’t despair. A breakthrough remedy has just gone on the market. It has no chemically induced side effects and, best of all, will cost you nothing, thanks to the Department of Defense. It’s the new Nuclear Posture Review, or NPR, among the most soporific documents of our era. Just keeping track of the number of times the phrase “flexible and tailored response” appears in the 75-page document is the equivalent of counting (incinerated) sheep. Be warned, however, that if you really start paying attention to its actual subject matter, rising anxiety will block your journey to the slumber sphere.
Threats Galore
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that the United States devoted $611 billion to its military machine in 2016. That was more than the defense expenditures of the next nine countries combined, almost three times what runner-up China put out, and 36% of total global military spending. Yet reading the NPR you would think the United States is the most vulnerable country on Earth. Threats lurk everywhere and, worse yet, they’re multiplying, morphing, becoming ever more ominous. The more Washington spends on glitzy weaponry, the less secure it turns out to be, which, for any organization other than the Pentagon, would be considered a terrible return on investment.
The Nuclear Posture Review unwittingly paints Russia, which has an annual military budget of $69.2 billion ($10 billion less than what Congress just added to the already staggering 2018 Pentagon budget in a deal to keep the government open), as the epitome of efficient investment, so numerous, varied, and effective are the “capabilities” it has acquired in the 17 years since Vladimir Putin took the helm. Though similar claims are made about China and North Korea, Putin’s Russia comes across in the NPR as the threat of the century, a country racing ahead of the U.S. in the development of nuclear weaponry. As the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler has shown, however, that document only gets away with such a claim by making 2010 the baseline year for its conclusions. That couldn’t be more chronologically convenient because the United States had, by then, completed its latest wave of nuclear modernization. By contrast, during the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia’s economy contracted by more than 50%, so it couldn’t afford large investments in much of anything back then. Only when oil prices began to skyrocket in this century could it begin to modernize its own nuclear forces.
The Nuclear Posture Review also focuses on Russia’s supposed willingness to launch “limited” nuclear strikes to win conventional wars, which, of course, makes the Russians seem particularly insidious. But consider what the latest (December 2014) iteration of Russia’s military doctrine actually says about when Moscow might contemplate such a step:
“The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, and also in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.”
Reduced to its bare bones this means that countries that fire weapons of mass destruction at Russia or its allies or threaten the existence of the Russian state itself in a conventional war could face nuclear retaliation. Of course, the United States has no reason to fear a massive defeat in a conventional war — and which country would attack the American homeland with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and not expect massive nuclear retaliation?
Naturally, the Nuclear Posture Review also says nothing about the anxieties that the steady eastward advance of NATO — that ultimate symbol of the Cold War — in the post-Soviet years sparked in Russia or how that shaped its military thinking. That process began in the 1990s, when Russian power was in free fall. Eventually, the alliance would reach Russia’s border. The NPR also gives no thought to how Russian nuclear policy might reflect that country’s abiding sense of military inferiority in relation to the United States. Even to raise such a possibility would, of course, diminish the Russian threat at a time when inflating it has become de rigueur for liberals as well as conservatives and certainly for much of the media.
Strangelove Logic
Russian nuclear weapons are not, however, the Nuclear Posture Review’s main focus. Instead, it makes an elaborate case for a massive expansion and “modernization” of what’s already the world’s second largest nuclear arsenal (6,800 warheads versus 7,000 for Russia) so that an American commander-in-chief has a “diverse set of nuclear capabilities that provide… flexibility to tailor the approach to deterring one or more potential adversaries in different circumstances.”
The NPR insists that future presidents must have advanced “low-yield” or “useable” nuclear weapons to wield for limited, selective strikes. The stated goal: to convince adversaries of the foolishness of threatening or, for that matter, launching their own limited strikes against the American nuclear arsenal in hopes of extracting “concessions” from us. This is where Strangelovian logic and nuclear absurdity take over. What state in its right mind would launch such an attack, leaving the bulk of the U.S. strategic nuclear force, some 1,550 deployed warheads, intact? On that, the NPR offers no enlightenment.
You don’t have to be an acolyte of the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz or have heard about his concept of “friction” to know that even the best-laid plans in wartime are regularly shredded. Concepts like limited nuclear war and nuclear blackmail may be fun to kick around in war-college seminars. Trying them out in the real world, though, could produce disaster. This ought to be self-evident, but to the authors of the NPR it’s not. They portray Russia and China as wild-eyed gamblers with an unbounded affinity for risk-taking.
The document gets even loopier. It seeks to provide the commander-in-chief with nuclear options for repelling non-nuclear attacks against the United States, or even its allies. Presidents, insists the document, require “a range of flexible nuclear capabilities,” so that adversaries will never doubt that “we will defeat non-nuclear attacks.” Here’s the problem, though: were Washington to cross that nuclear Rubicon and launch a “limited” strike during a conventional war, it would enter a true terra incognita. The United States did, of course, drop two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities in August 1945, but that country lacked the means to respond in kind.
However, Russia and China, the principal adversaries the NPR has in mind (though North Korea gets mentioned as well), do have just those means at hand to strike back. So when it comes to using nuclear weapons selectively, its authors quickly find themselves splashing about in a sea of bizarre speculation. They blithely assume that other countries will behave precisely as American military strategists (or an American president) might ideally expect them to and so will interpret the nuclear “message” of a limited strike (and its thousands of casualties) exactly as intended. Even with the aid of game theory, war games, and scenario building — tools beloved by war planners — there’s no way to know where the road marked “nuclear flexibility” actually leads. We’ve never been on it before. There isn’t a map. All that exists are untested assumptions that already look shaky.
Yet More Nuclear Options
These aren’t the only dangerous ideas that lie beneath the NPR’s flexibility trope. Presidents must also, it turns out, have the leeway to reach into the nuclear arsenal if terrorists detonate a nuclear device on American soil or if conclusive proof exists that another state provided such weaponry (or materials) to the perpetrator or even “enabled” such a group to “obtain nuclear devices.” The NPR also envisions the use of selective nuclear strikes to punish massive cyberattacks on the United States or its allies. To maximize the flexibility needed for initiating selective nuclear salvos in such circumstances, the document recommends that the U.S. “maintain a portion of its nuclear forces alert day-to-day, and retain the option of launching those forces promptly.” Put all this together and you’re looking at a future in which nuclear weapons could be used in stress-induced haste and based on erroneous intelligence and misperception.
So while the NPR’s prose may be sleep inducing, you’re unlikely to nod off once you realize that the Trump-era Pentagon — no matter the NPR’s protests to the contrary — seeks to lower the nuclear threshold. “Selective,” “limited,” “low yield”: these phrases may sound reassuring, but no one should be misled by the antiseptic terminology and soothing caveats. Even “tactical” nuclear weapons are anything but tactical in any normal sense. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki might, in terms of explosive power, qualify as “tactical” by today’s standards, but would be similarly devastating if used in an urban area. (We cannot know just how horrific the results would be, but the online tool NUKEMAP calculates that if a 20-kiloton nuclear bomb, comparable to Fat Man, the code name for the bomb dropped on Nagasaki, were used on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where I live, more than 80,000 people would be killed in short order.) Not to worry, the NPR’s authors say, their proposals are not meant to encourage “nuclear war fighting” and won’t have that effect. On the contrary, increasing presidents’ options for using nuclear weapons will only preserve peace.
The Obama-era predecessor to Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review contained an entire section entitled “Reducing the Role of U.S. Nuclear Weapons.” It outlined “a narrow set of contingencies in which such weaponry might still play a role in deterring a conventional or CBW [chemical or biological weapons] attack against the United States or its allies and partners.” So long to that.
The Shopping List — and the Tab
Behind the new policies to make nuclear weapons more “useable” lurks a familiar urge to spend taxpayer dollars profligately. The Nuclear Posture Review’s version of a spending spree, meant to cover the next three decades and expected, in the end, to cost close to two trillion dollars, covers the works: the full nuclear “triad” — land-based ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ones, and nuclear-armed strategic bombers. Also included are the nuclear command, control, and communication network (NC3) and the plutonium, uranium, and tritium production facilities overseen by the National Nuclear Security Administration.
The upgrade will run the gamut. The 14 Ohio-class nuclear submarines, the sea-based segment of the triad, are to be replaced by a minimum of 12 advanced Columbia-class boats. The 400 Minuteman III single-warhead, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, will be retired in favor of the “next-generation” Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, which, its champions insist, will provide improved propulsion and accuracy — and, needless to say, more “flexibility” and “options.” The current fleet of strategic nuclear bombers, including the workhorse B-52H and the newer B-2A, will be joined and eventually succeeded by the “next-generation” B-21 Raider, a long-range stealth bomber. The B-52’s air-launched cruise missile will be replaced with a new Long Range Stand-Off version of the same. A new B61-12 gravity bomb will take the place of current models by 2020. Nuclear-capable F-35 stealth fighter-bombers will be “forward deployed,” supplanting the F-15E. Two new “low-yield” nuclear weapons, a submarine-launched ballistic missile, and a sea-launched cruise missile will also be added to the arsenal.
Think of it, in baseball terms, as an attempted grand slam.
The NPR’s case for three decades of such expenditures rests on the claim that the “flexible and tailored” choices it deems non-negotiable don’t presently exist, though the document itself concedes that they do. I’ll let its authors speak for themselves:
“The triad and non-strategic forces, with supporting NC3, provide diversity and flexibility as needed to tailor U.S. strategies for deterrence, assurance, achieving objectives should deterrence fail, and hedging.”
For good measure, the NPR then touts the lethality, range, and invulnerability of the existing stock of missiles and bombers. Buried in the review, then, appears to be an admission that the colossally expensive nuclear modernization program it deems so urgent isn’t necessary.
The NPR takes great pains to demonstrate that all of the proposed new weaponry, referred to as “the replacement program to rebuild the triad,” will cost relatively little. Let’s consider this claim in wider perspective.
To obtain Senate ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty he signed with Russia in 2010, the Nobel Prize-winning antinuclear advocate Barack Obamaagreed to pour $1 trillion over three decades into the “modernization” of the nuclear triad, and that pledge shaped his 2017 defense budget request. In other words, President Obama left President Trump a costly nuclear legacy, which the latest Nuclear Posture Review fleshes out and expands. There’s no indication that the slightest energy went into figuring out ways to economize on it. A November 2017 Congressional Budget Office report projects that President Trump’s nuclear modernization plan will cost $1.2 trillion over three decades, while other estimates put the full price at $1.7 trillion.
As the government’s annual budget deficit increases — most forecasts expect it to top $1 trillion next year, thanks in part to the Trump tax reform bill and Congress’s gift to the Pentagon budget that, over the next two years, is likely to total $1.4 trillion — key domestic programs will take big hits in the name of belt-tightening. Military spending, of course, will only continue to grow. If you want to get a sense of where we’re heading, just take a look at Trump’s 2019 budget proposal (which projects a cumulative deficit of $7.1 trillion over the next decade). It urges big cuts in areas ranging from Medicare and Medicaid to the Environmental Protection Agency and Amtrak. By contrast, it champions a Pentagon budget increase of $80 billion (13.2% over 2017) to $716 billion, with $24 billion allotted to upgrading the nuclear triad.
And keep in mind that military cost estimates are only likely to rise. There is a persistent pattern of massive cost overruns for weapons systems ordered through the government’s Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP). These ballooned from $295 billion in 2008 to $468 billion in 2015. Consider just two recent examples: the first of the new Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, delivered last May after long delays, came in at $13 billion, an overrun of $2.3 billion, while the program to produce the F-35 jet, already the most expensive weapons system of all time, could reach $406.5 billion, a seven percent overrun since the last estimate.
Flexibility Follies
If the Pentagon turns its Nuclear Posture Review into reality, the first president who will have some of those more “flexible” nuclear options at his command will be none other than Donald Trump. We’re talking, of course, about the man who, in his debut speech to the United Nations last September, threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea and later, as the crisis on the Korean peninsula heated up, delighted in boasting on Twitter about the size of his “nuclear button.” He has shown himself to be impulsive, ill informed, impervious to advice, certain about his instincts, and infatuated with demonstrating his toughness, as well as reportedly fascinated by nuclear weapons and keen to see the U.S. build more of them. Should a leader with such traits be given yet more nuclear “flexibility”? The answer is obvious enough, except evidently to the authors of the NPR, who are determined to provide him with more “options” and “flexibility.”
At least three more years of a Donald Trump presidency are on the horizon. Of this we can be sure: other international crises will erupt, and one of them could pit the United States not just against a nuclear-armed North Korea but also against China or Russia. Making it easier for Trump to use nuclear weapons isn’t, as the Nuclear Posture Review would have you believe, a savvy strategic innovation. It’s insanity.
*
Rajan Menon is Anne and Bernard Spitzer of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York/City University of New York. He is a senior research fellow in the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. He is the author, most recently, of The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention (Oxford University Press, 2016).
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999) guaranteeing sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia and the autonomy of Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia, is the highest binding legal document that obliges all UN members, including the member states of the EU, NATO, the OSCE, the OIC, the African Union.
Resolution 1244 is the only reliable basis and the framework for any negotiations concerning status. Owing to grave mistakes made by the former Serbian authorities, the UN system has produced certain damaging documents of advisory and non-binding character. It is vital that no similar or even greater mistakes are made either presently or in the future, which would make Serbia’s future position and prospects more difficult.
The single most important parameter is the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. It is expected to be observed by all, and the relevant responsibility grows with the rising position of each of us in the society. Respect towards the country’s Constitution is the measure of the seriousness of the state, statesmen and citizens.
Trading’ Kosovo and Metohija for gaining EU membership is unacceptable, because the values concerned are not comparable. Membership is welcome, provided it is offered devoid of blackmails and ‘an exclusive membership fee’.
Having regard to all the experiences so far it is clear that any guarantees of the EU for any future agreements or solutions concerning Serbia could not be trustworthy.
The EU has been initiating agreements in which the rights of Serbia are but a bait, luring Serbia to consent and sign, whereas the true goal is to establish Serbia’s obligations in favour of the other side and, thus, gain foothold for endless blackmails using unique “argument”: ‘If you want EU membership!’ The only implemented provisions of the UNSC Resolution 1244 are those in the interest of the Kosovo Albanians, and none of those which guarantee the rights of the Serbs and of Serbia.
Serbia has fulfilled all of her obligations stemming from the EU sponsored Brussels Agreement of 2013, whereas the Albanians failed to observe the only one they pledged to – the establishment of the Community of the Serbian Municipalities. The EULEX was accepted as being ‘status-neutral’, but in reality this Mission was and remains the key instrument for the establishment of an illegitimate quasi-state on a part of the territory of Serbia. It is shadowed by unsolved serious suspicions of the corrupt behaviour of its staff. The resulting mistrust may only be neutralized through the implementation of unfulfilled obligations towards Serbia and the Serbs, together with genuine impartiality, identifying and prosecuting those responsible for perpetrated crimes against the Serbs.
Under the negotiations thus far, Serbia has gone above and beyond in granting concessions to Pristina and the West and, in return, was not given as little as a minimal protection of her rights and interests.
Belgrade should be wise enough to infer proper conclusions from this practice. It should not involve in any new arrangement or obligation, least of all enter any new ‘legally binding agreement’ for so long until the implementation of all obligations towards Serbia and the Serbian people, including free and safe return of almost 250,000 persons expelled in an ethnic cleansing episode. What kind of normalization would it be without having it conditioned with the safe return of a quarter million of expelled persons?
A legally binding agreement would be used for the accelerated creation of Greater Albania. While remaining outside the UN, Kosovo could hardly unite with Albania, as it is not a subject of international law. Another obstacle is its formally being under the mandate of the UN under UNSCR 1244.
For Serbia, the status of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is a vital issue which will be open for so long as the negotiations produce a just and self-sustainable solution, as set forth under UNSC Resolution 1244. None has the right to blackmail Serbia by means of setting any deadline, or to impose solutions tailor-made to meet their own geopolitical interests.
Serbia’s obligation and invested efforts to ensure the basic human rights of the Serbian people in Kosovo and Metohija, such as personal security, freedom of movement, and inviolability of property rights – enjoy full support of citizens. This obligation, together with duty to ensure observance of the status and inalienable rights of the Serbian Orthodox Church, neither lessen nor eliminate the essential interest, which is – the status of the Province in line with UNSC Resolution 1244 and the Serbian Constitution.
We find unacceptable both indifference, and indulging the malicious propaganda which touts that Kosovo and Metohija is but a burden Serbia should get rid of, and soon, so to enable her economy and the citizens embark onto the future, investments, development, better standard of living, higher population growth, almost a paradise on Earth. This all is yet another great deception. In any given country, standard of living and economy depend on the economic policy and systems, on the diversification of economic cooperation and the sources of investment, rather than on renouncing any vital national or state interest.
Germany exploits the present Brussels’ format of negotiations to promote its own and, to a certain degree, the general Western, geopolitical interests. This dovetails with the way of resolving the Albanian national question, the weakening of the Serbian people and Serbia as a political factor in the Balkans, and with the further deterioration of the unresolved Serbian national question. An important argument supporting this assessment is the actual prevention of 250,000 Serbs and other non-Albanians to exercise the universal right to free, safe and dignified return to their homes and properties.
A just compromise is only possible within the framework of UNSC Resolution 1244 and the Constitution of Serbia. It is neither a compromise nor a durable solution to let Pristina acquire independence, economic and natural wealth, membership to the UN, UNESCO, the OSCE, whereas all the Serbs get new divisions, new international borders instead of the administrative line, status of national minority, and a Community of Serbian Municipalities reduced to an NGO.
Having in mind all of the above, and in particular the altered circumstances, inadequate format of Brussels’ negotiations, the blackmailing dimension of tying the status of Kosovo and Metohija to Serbia’s EU membership negotiations, one can surmise that presently do not exist prerequisites for the reaching of a balanced, just, and durable solution. Such prerequisites may be created by involving Russia and China in the negotiations process and guaranties, that is, by reverting the process back to the United Nations, where it has originally begun.
Serbia has been and remains willing to search for a compromise, to harmonize interests, not in an uncharted space, but within the domain of principles and law. Serbia should not opt for exiting this domain of principles and law, and strive into the future better life by giving priority to injustice over the justice. The justice is a part of reality, too.
Proposing the so-called “two Germanies models” is an obvious attempt to justify and deceive, and an offer for “face saving”. However, the two situations, relevant international circumstances, their origins and root causes are incomparable. Serbia is not the former Federal Republic of Germany, nor is Kosovo and Metohija in the former German Democratic Republic. Serbia has already expressed her opinion of Zeigmar Gabriel’s ultimatum. It would be better that both Europe and the EU state their position, and thus preclude Gabriel from his habit of proclaiming which parts of territories do or do not constitute the part of other states. Let us recall this year is 80th year of the Munich Agreement?
*
Živadin Jovanović is President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals.
Security Council Resolution 2401 terms, calling for a 30-day ceasefire, exclude combat operations against ISIS, al-Nusra and al-Qaeda.
All so-called “rebels” in Eastern Ghouta are US-supported terrorists.
They’re holding countless thousands of Syrian civilians hostage as human shields, unexplained by Western media, waging daily anti-Syria, anti-Russia propaganda war.
Security Council Res. 2401 was adopted on Saturday. As expected, US-supported terrorists breached it straightaway.
Using foreign-supplied weapons and munitions, al-Nusra, Jaysh al-Islam, and Failak al-Rahman have been shelling Damascus before and after the ceasefire took effect.
Russian center for Syrian reconciliation General Yuri Yevtushenko said the following:
“The humanitarian, social and economic situation in Eastern Ghouta is deliberately exacerbated by the leaders of the al-Islam, Failak Ar-Rahman and Jabhat al-Nusra illegal armed groups.”
“All attempts by the government of the Syrian Arab Republic to provide assistance to civilians in the Eastern Ghouta region are blocked by militants.”
On Sunday, Russia’s Defense Ministry said
“(t)he situation in East Ghouta is worsening.”
“In the enclave, (five terrorist) groups (including) Jayish al Islam, Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Failak Ar-Rahman and Fajr al-Umma have created a joint center for coordinating the actions of the groups,” adding:
Despite adoption of SC Res. 2401 on Saturday, their hostilities continue unabated.
Russia’s reconciliation center issued a warning, saying “data at our disposal indicates the leaders of militant units are preparing a provocation that will involve the utilization of chemical weapons in order to accuse the government forces of deploying chemical weapons against peaceful civilians.”
On the same day, US-led terror-bombing continued in northern Syria – on the phony pretext of combating the ISIS which Washington created and supports.
According to the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), Deir Ezzor province al-Shaafa and Dharat Allouni villages were struck, killing at least 29 civilians, injuring others.
Eastern Ghouta is a 60-square mile enclave in the Damascus countryside, the last major terrorist-occupied stronghold – why liberating it is a key strategic objective.
On Sunday, thousands of Syrian forces, including elite Tiger troops, launched Operation Damascus Shield.
Aided by government and Russian airpower, it’s a long-awaited offensive to liberate Eastern Ghouta from US-supported terrorists – an operation likely to take weeks, maybe months to regain control over the strategic enclave.
Separately, Turkish forces continue aggression in Afrin – in violation of SC Res. 2401.
SANA said its warplanes terror-bombed Jandires and Rajo towns in Afrin’s Western countryside, “causing massive destruction to houses.”
Turkish and allied forces are blocking humanitarian aid from reaching civilians in affected areas.
Since Ankara operations began in northern Syria’s Afrin district on January 20, hundreds of civilians in harm’s way were killed, many others injured and/or displaced.
SC Res. 2401 changed nothing on the ground. War continues raging because Washington, its rogue allies, and terrorist foot soldiers want regime change and destruction of Syrian sovereignty.
They oppose restoring peace and stability to the country and its long-suffering people – victims of US imperial ruthlessness.
*
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the CRG, Correspondent of Global Research based in Chicago.
Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from Global Research.
Taliano talks and listens to the people of Syria. He reveals the courage and resilience of a Nation and its people in their day to day lives, after more than six years of US-NATO sponsored terrorism and three years of US “peacemaking” airstrikes.
Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes the mainstream media narratives on Syria.
In the Eastern Ghouta in Syria, a war is fought every day without the exclusion of blows: it is the war of information and propaganda, which is consumed by tweets and photographic material on social networks. Objective: to bring public opinion to its own side, at any cost and by any means. The sources that much of the Western information has used to describe what has been happening in recent weeks are the same as those of the 2016 Battle of Aleppo: the Syrian Human Rights Observatory guided by the dissident Rami Abdel Rahman based in London, the controversial White Helmets, the notorious humanitarian NGO founded by James Le Mesurier and, above all, a dense network of “activists” and “reporter” who declare themselves independent.
What we have undertaken is a journey into this conflict, where children become an extraordinary propaganda tool, able to leverage the emotional side: after all, with the advent of the internet and the new social media, indignation has become a formidable tool and to be effective it must be channeled in a precise and well-determined direction – in this case aimed at demonstrating that “Assad bombards and kills his own people” and to discredit the allies Russia and Iran.
That the war is terrible and brutal there is no doubt but the truth that we want to tell you is another thing, and it is much more complex and sophisticated. To tell you about it, we wore the role of a “rebel” activist, entering the wide and widespread social network that fights against the Syrian government of Assad with photos, movies and hashtags.
Among the first we spoke with is Alaa Al-Ahmad, quoted by the Guardian on 7 February. In his biography on Twitter he describes himself as “a Syrian journalist” of the Eastern Ghouta and contributor to the Damascus Media Center, “an information platform that covers social, military and political events in Syria fairly”. To our precise question, however, he himself confirms the presence of three Islamist groups widely financed from abroad in Eastern Ghouta: al-Rahman Corps, Army of Islam (or Jaysh al-Islam) and Ahrar al-Sham, three organizations Salafis who aim to create a Caliphate in Syria in which to apply the Islamic Shari’a law.
We are talking about the same Islamist organizations that, as Matteo Carnieletto and Gian Micalessin told on “Gli Occhi della Guerra!, have bombed the Syrian capital, leaving many dead, including many children.
Al-Ahmad shares the statements of Arhar-al Sham on social media and turns to Europe for military intervention against Assad:
“My message goes to France to whom I want to remember that we are human and we are not just figures. We have the right to choose who governs Syria. This killer Bashar al-Assad kills us before the eyes of the international community and kills us with internationally forbidden weapons,” he tells us.
No answer when we ask him what his real relations are with the three Salafist groups he mentioned. Here’s how Syrian rebels manipulate information in East Ghouta.
Just like in Aleppo and with the same modalities of Bana al-Abed, also in the information war of Ghouta a children’s role plays a fundamental role as a propaganda weapon in order to convey information in a single direction and in support of the narration of Islamist rebels. They have launched the hashtag #SaveGhouta, they are very young and document the horrors of the war every day with videos and videos. They are the little ones Noor and Alaa and Muhammad Najem. Accounts created only a few months but have already reached hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Including numerous clearly false profiles.
To manage these accounts are followed by family members or activists close to the Islamist opposition. As reported by Middle East Eye, in fact, “children are helped by family members and opposition activists”. Shams Alkhateeb is an English teacher and is the mother of Noor and Ala. Also according to Middle East Eye, it is she who manages her son’s account, documenting daily what is happening in the suburbs of Damascus. He claims to have decided to open a Twitter account “to show the world what is happening inside the Eastern Ghouta: nothing in the world can prevent us from publishing and we hope to document our suffering on Twitter”.
On the identity of Shams Alkhateeb, however, there are no news or certainties, and the family’s connection with the three jihadist groups present in the rebel enclave is not known. Among the profiles followed by Noor and Ala there are numerous journalists, members of the Syrian opposition, the White Helmets and Lina Shamy, the reporter-activist close to Al-Qaeda who documented the battle of Aleppo Est from the sacks controlled by the rebels.
Who really manages the profile of 10 thousand followers of 15-year-old Muhammad Najem, who has been on Twitter since last December, is not aware of it, since he never answered our questions. Alaa Al-Ahmad confirms, however, that
“Muhammad Najem is fine, he is my friend but now he is in the shelter and has no internet”.
We know he’s lying to us, because the young Syrian’s tweets are very frequent and daily. What strikes us about the mysterious Najem is his special interest in the events of international politics and the internal facts of the United States, quite peculiar for a Syrian boy who lives under the bombs and in a bunker without internet, water and food.
On February 17, for example, Muhammad Najem’s profile put a “like” on a New York Times article on the 13 Russians indicted in the Russiagate investigation; February 13 showed another appreciation for a Political article titled “Here’s how the white nationalists fooled the media on the Florida shooting”. Who is behind Muhammed Najem? To date, it remains a mystery. What is certain is that in the war of propaganda nothing is as it seems and the truth is hidden in depth.
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.
Responding to Fidel Castro’s death just over a year ago, then president-elect Donald Trump was among the first to attack the Cuban revolutionary’s legacy. Amidst other accusations, Trump charged Castro with having “oppressed his own people for nearly six decades”, without supplying any evidence to support such a claim.
Not mentioned by Trump was the extensive terrorist attacks perpetrated by his country against Cuba, dating to the early 1960s. Nor was any attention afforded to the crippling economic blockade America continues to impose on its near neighbor, in opposition to global opinion. The embargo was first implemented during the Cuban Missile Crisis over 50 years ago.
Trump further called Castro “a brutal dictator” – once more neglecting to provide proof – while overlooking American backing for some of the most notorious dictators in living memory. The US not only supported, but ensured, the coming to power of tyrants such as Augusto Pinochet (Chile), the Shah (Iran) and Haji Suharto (Indonesia).
General Suharto, for example, was responsible for killing up to a million people in massacres that rivaled Joseph Stalin’s purges. Yet the Indonesian despot, who ruled for over 30 years, was never charged for crimes against humanity. He lived out his remaining days in luxury, while protected by soldiers and politicians.
The US had orchestrated Suharto’s genocidal takeover (1965-66), as hundreds of thousands of Indonesians were killed by his death squads. The level of bloodshed would surely have impressed former SS commanders like Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich, who were instrumental in perpetrating the Holocaust.
Meanwhile, Trump’s hypocritical views are common policy across the West. When a designated foe (like North Korea or Iran) can be accused of something, it receives headline and front page news on mainstream networks and newspapers. Western leaders outline their objections, while ignoring the far more serious abuses that can be leveled at regimes they support (such as Saudi Arabia and Israel).
For decades, oil rich Saudi Arabia has been the most extreme fundamentalist regime in the world – and has remained a darling of the West throughout. The Saudis, with huge military aid provided by the US, Britain, France, and Germany, have been committing an overt famine war against Yemen.
Indeed, successive Saudi regimes make their near neighbor, Iran, seem moderate by comparison. Iran has long been an enemy of the West, after its people overthrew the US-backed dictatorship of the Shah in 1979. This popular revolt against a notorious autocrat deprived America and Britain of access to Iran’s huge oil reserves.
In early January this year, mainstream outlets pounced upon protest marches occurring in Iran. The numbers of those protesting were mischievously exaggerated and exploited for political purposes. There are serious problems in Iranian society, such as high youth unemployment and rising food prices, yet these issues are hardly unique. First world leaders were, however, quick to highlight their concerns for “the great Iranian people” (Trump).
There have been no such misgivings proclaimed for the more severe repression of the Saudi people, for instance. Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, commended the late Saudi King Abdullah upon his death in 2015. King Abdullah’s reign lasted for a decade (2005-2015). During that time, he oversaw extreme punishments for anything from minor thefts to drunkenness, rising oppression against women and homosexuals, to public executions for “witchcraft” and drug trafficking, etc.
Obama said King Abdullah had taken “bold steps in advancing the Arab Peace Initiative” and that his “vision was dedicated to the education of his people”, while the two leaders had enjoyed “a genuine and warm friendship”. Elsewhere, Bill and Hillary Clinton praised the late king’s “humanitarian efforts around the world”.
There was not a word criticism – simply, as Obama highlighted, Abdullah’s “steadfast and passionate belief in the importance of the US-Saudi relationship” which was “a force for stability and security”. It would be unwise to note the Saudi efforts for stability and security in their funding of terrorist groups such as ISIS and Al Qaeda.
However, the following year (2016), Obama was sharp to emphasize his “serious differences” with Cuba regarding “democracy and human rights” after visiting the Caribbean island. For years, Cuba has been attacked by establishment figures for what they deem to be repression of human rights.
Overlooked, is that easily the most severe humanitarian abuses occurring in Cuba, can be seen at the US-run Guantanamo military prison. Indeed, the human rights infringements at the “detention camp” are among the worst in the entire Western hemisphere. Prisoners have often been held without charge or access to lawyers – for years on end – an extreme violation of the most fundamental human rights.
For over a century, the US has illegally occupied Guantanamo Bay, which also constitutes Cuba’s major port. Despite repeated demands for its return, the US has refused to relinquish Guantanamo to its rightful owner.
Furthermore, the fact that Cuba has been subjected to continued attacks by the world’s dominant power is also forgotten. America’s terrorist assaults on Cuba lasted for over 30 years, well into the 1990s. It included everything from bombings of Cuba’s tourist industry, infrastructure and exports, to support for international terrorists, along with chemical and biological warfare unleashed on the island.
Elsewhere, in eastern Asia, a serious crisis has been smoldering since the end of World War II. Following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Korea was divided into two zones – the north (Soviet-occupied) and south (American-occupied). This came about despite the desires of unification for ordinary Koreans. In the following years, rising geopolitical hostility led to the Korean War (1950-53), which today enters history as one of the deadliest conflicts since 1945.
Indeed, North Korea was leveled by the might of American military forces, losing over 20% of its population. The scale of devastation is put in perspective, when considering that less than 1% of the United Kingdom’s population was killed during World War II.
In the ensuing decades, the country has remained in the shadow of another American invasion. As a deterrent against the threats, consecutive North Korean leaders have pursued the development and expansion of nuclear weapons and missiles.
The fact that the North’s nuclear program was undertaken to discourage an American attack receives little attention. North Korea’s nuclear policy is hardly a mindless strategy. One must consider the fate of non-nuclear states in the past – such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya – who were all demolished by the US military, along with help from other old imperial powers, Britain and France.
Instead, the public are repeatedly informed that Kim Jong-un wishes to develop missiles that are “capable of striking the US mainland”. If Kim followed through on this threat, it would mean the end of his own country – the US would inevitably retaliate by firing its far more prolific nuclear arsenal upon the North.
What Pyongyang desires is a guarantee for security, along with a termination of provocative US-South Korean military exercises. Indeed the North, with Chinese backing, have repeatedly proposed to the US that they halt their nuclear testing. There is one condition in return: America must cease its military maneuvers on their frontiers, including replicated nuclear-bombing raids with B-52 war planes.
In June 2017, the Trump administration immediately rejected the latest North Korean-Chinese proposition. Obama likewise rebuffed identical offers in 2014 and 2015. Again, little of this is ever reported to wider audiences. The North Korean-Chinese proposals are reasonable by all accounts. Rather, America’s dangerous preference for military solutions outweighs their desire to pursue possibilities for negotiation and peace.
Elsewhere, Russia continues to be denounced on an almost daily basis by mainstream elites – from its annexation of Crimea (previously part of Russia from 1783-1917), to its involvement in Syria and eastern Ukraine. The current Kiev government, illegally imposed by the US in 2014, is the most corrupt in Europe. Yet its highly unpopular leader, Petro Poroshenko, is seldom criticized – unlike his counterpart, Vladimir Putin, who is routinely attacked despite having approval ratings regularly reaching almost 90%.
During last year’s operation to retake Mosul from ISIS in northern Iraq, US-led forces killed about 11,000 civilians. This death toll dwarfs anything ascribed to Syrian government forces in recent days. Yet, in reclaiming Mosul, the appropriate criticism of American-backed forces came entirely from non-governmental organizations (like Human Rights Watch).
The same media outlets condemning the Syrian government, along with allies Russia and Iran, were largely ignoring the catastrophe as Mosul was reduced to rubble. In fact, the civilian death toll reported in Mosul at the time was just 10% of the true figure.
*
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky.
With the icicles still glinting with the closing ceremony of the Pyeongchang Winter Olympic games, US President Donald Trump, like any disgruntled child, wanted to reassert his relevance. Little Rocket Man had assumed diplomatic pose, or at the very least adopted a stance of considered caution towards his South Korean counterparts. While the US seemed stubborn and sulky, South Korea seemed encouraged, taking Pyongyang’s gestures to heart.
This could hardly have been easy for a playtime president. He had been, to some extent, shaded by the spectacle of two Koreas marching and competing together, and murmurings of a possible summit between Kim Jong-un and South Korea’s Moon Jae-in.
The sentiment had been conveyed via an invitation from Kim’s sister, Kim Yo-jong, that the two leaders meet.
“I hope President Moon will,” claimed Kim’s sibling envoy with historical purpose, “take the leading role to open a new chapter for unification and accomplish a legacy that will be remembered for long.”
During the Olympics, US Vice-President Mike Pence decided to damn such efforts with faint praise.
“For all that President Moon has done in outreach and discussions around the Olympics and inter-Korean talks, there is no daylight between the United States and the Republic of Korea and Japan on the need to continue to isolate North Korea economically and diplomatically until they abandon their nuclear and ballistic missile program.”
Pence affirmed the stance by insisting that, whatever openness might be felt for talks between Washington and Pyongyang, North Korea remained, essentially, a power to be isolated in its refusal to take steps towards nuclear dismantlement. Sanctions, for instance, would continue their biting way. What Pence was essentially pushing for was a diplomatic option – at least for Pyongyang – with fewer bargaining chips and a less crowded deck.
This fumbling has become a policy that resists clarity with stubborn conviction. Sanctions must be used, because they are supposedly eating into the nuclear weapons program. This point is hard to ascertain with any certainty, given that the North Korean Army will always have first dibs at any rationed pie. “There’s no guarantee,” advances former deputy assistant secretary of State for sanctions and counter threat finance Andrew Keller, “that [Friday’s] action will ultimately be effective in preventing the illicit trade in coal and fuel with Pyongyang. As ever, showmanship is Trump’s boastful bread and butter.
On Friday, another round made their dreary appearance. Trump deemed these the “heaviest sanctions ever” delved by a US administration. Debate naturally ensued about the accuracy of the term, though Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin was pleased to note that the United States had some 450 sanctions against the DPRK. The Friday bonanza featured some 27 shipping and trade companies, 28 vessels and an individual, all supposedly engaged in illicit trade with Pyongyang.
Whatever the effect of such muscling, it is certainly one that the President wishes to own as his own, even if it risks impairing the roads to diplomatic engagement. On Monday, Trump assailed, in customary fashion, his predecessors on the broader issue of North Korea. Such is the nature of a period he has come to identify as singular, unprecedented, remarkable.
“The Bush administration did nothing. The Obama administration wanted to do something. He told me it’s the single biggest problem. They didn’t do anything. It would have been much easier in those days than it is now.”
Such are the travails of an aggressive superpower’s ill-considered actions. Maximum pressure on the North remains both dulling mantra and dirty deed, and Trump’s insistence on holding this line in public has a damp lettuce feel to it.
Wearily, he keeps insisting that talks are certainly possible with Pyongyang, only to then frame it as a matter of strict conditionality. For good measure, he also suggests that North Korea’s refusal to abandon its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs will lead to massive “loss of lives, numbers that nobody’s ever contemplated, never thought of”.
North Korea, in turn, wants South Korea and the US to halt massive military drills that can be only construed as having one purpose: a rehearsed invasion of the North. But military exercises Key Resolve and Foal Eagle are scheduled to go ahead, though after the Winter Paralympics. As the Korean Central News Agency ill-temperedly retorted,
“The Trump group’s racket for resuming the war exercises is a wild act of ruthlessly tramping even a small sprout of peace that has been now seen on the Korean Peninsula.”
In the meantime, the stalemate between the powers will continue to yield room for the Kim nuclear option, while also adding thrills to the sanctions lobby. It seems that little else gets done on the Hill these days on foreign policy other than pushing the next sanctions agenda. Ultimately, Washington is asking the impossible at first instance: a North Korea which promises, in advance, to remove its most sacred pillar in favour of talks it has yet to experience. Sensibility may well have to come from the South Korean side in what promises to be a continuing scrap.
*
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102 Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling) PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
In an incident that took place less than two weeks after the Greek Defense Ministry announced that Turkey had violated Greek airspace 138 times in a single day, a Turkish coast guard patrol boat on February 13 rammed a Greek coast guard vessel off the shore of Imia, one of many Greek islands over which Turkey claims sovereignty.
Most of the areas within modern Greece’s current borders were under the occupation of the Ottoman Empire from the mid-15th century until the Greek War of Independence in 1821 and the establishment of the modern Greek state in 1832. The islands, however, like the rest of Greece, are legally and historically Greek, as their names indicate.
Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), however, and even much of the opposition seem intent on, if not obsessed with, invading and conquering these Greek islands, on the grounds that they are actually Turkish territory.
In December, for instance, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, the leader of the main Turkish opposition CHP party, stated that when he wins the election in 2019, he will “invade and take over 18 Greek islands in the Aegean Sea, just as former Turkish PM Bulent Ecevit invaded Cyprus in 1974.” He said that there is “no document” proving that those islands belong to Greece.
Meral Akşener, the head of the newly established opposition “Good Party,” has also called for an invasion and conquest of the islands. “What is required must be done,” she tweeted on January 13.
The most garish muscle-flexing has come from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, of course, who seems emboldened by his military invasion of the Afrin region in northern Syria having gone virtually unchallenged.
“We warn those who have crossed the line in the Aegean and Cyprus,” Erdoğan declared, continuing:
“Their courage persists only until they see our army, our ships and our planes… Whatever Afrin is to us, our rights in the Aegean and Cyprus are the same. Do not ever think that the natural gas exploration in the waters of Cyprus and the opportunistic attempts in the Aegean Sea drop off our radar.
“Just as we disrupt the plots [in the region] through Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch [on Syria], and soon in Manbij and other regions, we can and we will disrupt the plots of those who engage in miscalculations on our southern border… Our warships and air forces are keeping an eye on the area closely to intervene in every way when required.”
Referring to the days of the Ottoman Empire, Erdoğan went on:
“Those who think that we have erased from our hearts the lands from which we withdrew in tears a hundred years ago are wrong.
“We say at every opportunity we have that Syria, Iraq and other places in the geography [map] in our hearts are no different from our own homeland. We are struggling so that a foreign flag will not be waved anywhere where adhan [Islamic call to prayer in mosques] is recited.
“The things we have done so far [pale in comparison to the] even greater attempts and attacks [we are planning for] the coming days, inshallah [Allah willing].”
The Ottoman dynasty and empire was established by a nomadic Turkmen chief sometime around the year 1300. During the more than 600 years of the Ottoman period, the Ottoman Turks, who also represented the Islamic Caliphate, regularly launched wars of jihad, invading and occupying lands across three continents.
Neo-Ottomanists in Turkey still proudly embrace the concept of jihad (Islamic holy war) against the kafirs (infidels). The head of the state-funded Directorate of Religious Affairs, the Diyanet, has openly described Turkey’s recent military invasion of Afrin as “jihad.”
This designation makes sense when one considers that Muslim Turks owe their demographic majority in Asia Minor to centuries of Turkish Muslim persecution and discrimination against the Christian, Yazidi and Jewish inhabitants of the area. In the 11th century, Turkic jihadists from Central Asia invaded and conquered the Greek-speaking, Christian Byzantine Empire, paving the way for the gradual Turkification and Islamization of the region through methods such as murder, kidnapping, rape and forced conversions.
The greatest 20th century Turkish assault against Christians took place in the 1914-1923 genocide of Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians (Syriacs/Chaldeans) in Ottoman Turkey. This did not prevent Turkey, which continues to deny the genocide, from becoming a member of NATO in 1952. The assault also did not stop Turkey, three years after joining NATO, from committing a savage anti-Greek pogrom in Istanbul or from forcibly expelling the remaining Greeks from Turkey in 1964.
It is precisely because the Turkish government has never been held accountable for its criminal actions and aggression that they continue to threaten the security and sovereignty of their neighbors. It is high time for the West wake up and take Ankara to task.
*
Uzay Bulut is a Turkish journalist born and raised in Turkey. She is presently based in Washington D.C. Follow her on Twitter.
Featured image: Resigned Ethiopia premier Hailemariam Desalegn.
The Ethiopian Prime Minister unexpectedly resigned and triggered another state of emergency in Africa’s second-largest country.
Premier Hailemariam Desalegn made the announcement late last week but said that he’ll continue to execute his professional duties until the government appoints a successor. This surprise move occurs against the backdrop of the authorities releasing dozens of jailed opposition figures who had been charged with terrorism and other related crimes since around the time that the last state of emergency was implemented in fall 2016. Back then, it was just the country’s largest ethnic group, the Oromo, who were involved in the unrest, and they were galvanized by the government’s plans to expand the capital region into their historic territory that completely surrounds Addis Ababa.
Now, however, this group has also been recently clashing with ethnic Somalis over land rights along their contentious internal frontier, and Ethiopia’s second-largest minority and traditional state-forming people of the Amhara have separately begun their own anti-government demonstrations as well. Altogether, ethnic groups representing well over half of the country’s population are creating serious disturbances across the state, and the commonality behind their actions is their shared discontent with the nature of Ethiopian federalism. The opposition believes that it is superficial and only pays lip service to the titular minorities of each region, while the authorities claim that devolving any more powers would lead to the “Balkanization” of the country.
The security situation is made all the more pronounced by the fact that some of the ethnic minority groups opposed to the government are armed and reported to receive assistance from Ethiopia’s neighboring foe Eritrea, an erstwhile region of the now-landlocked state that achieved independence in 1993 and has since been committed to undermining its former homeland. This explains why Addis Ababa felt compelled to impose another state of emergency in order to preempt any threats that might materialize during this sensitive time. As to why the Prime Minister resigned in the first place, it wasn’t necessarily a direct result of the disturbances themselves but rather the “deep state” divisions that they contributed to accentuating.
The Oromo and Amhara parties that are part of the governing Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) have presumably felt pressured by the unrest in their regions to press their Tigrayan and Southern People’s counterparts – the first of which is reported to have disproportionate influence over the state – to allow for the release of their jailed ethnic compatriots, which in turn inadvertently emboldened the “federalist reformers” even more and contributed to a spiraling security crisis that only the Prime Minister’s resignation and subsequent state of emergency have any chance of controlling. The consequences of these latest events aren’t just limited to the Horn of Africa country, however, as they have serious implications for China as well.
The recently opened Djibouti-Addis Ababa railway functions as China’s “African CPEC” in that it represents Beijing’s main Silk Road investment in the continent, but this vital transit corridor to Africa’s second-largest country and China’s main partner in the landmass could be endangered if the Oromo agitations aren’t quelled and armed groups sabotage this route. Moreover, the simple perception of Ethiopia as a “dangerous” place – whether objectively true or not – could serve as a disincentive to international investors and slow down the impoverished country’s fast growth rate, thereby hampering its economic modernization plans and indirectly impacting on China’s grand strategic expectations for Ethiopia and the rest of Africa by extent in the context of the emerging Multipolar World Order.
The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Feb 23, 2018:
*
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.
There are 500,000 people who are homeless in the United States, including over 40,000 veterans. 6.5 million children are food insecure. The proposed federal budget includes major reductions to public housing. Puerto Rico, Florida and Texas are still suffering from last year’s hurricanes. Medicaid cuts are slated to eliminate coverage for working-class and poor families in states around the country.
With so many crying social needs, Trump and the Pentagon are spending our tax dollars for a massive parade on Veteran’s Day that will bring tanks and potentially nuclear weapons down Pennsylvania Avenue, past the White House and Trump Tower. The parade is part of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy, which includes war preparations and reckless provocations against Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. How many more must die to satisfy the insecurity of a declining Empire and one man’s wounded ego?
The parade itself will cost $30 million — an expensive, decadent celebration to a massive military machine that already drains $700 billion from the federal budget — 10 times Russia’s budget, far more than China’s and more than the next 10 countries combined. Just $20 billion could effectively end homelessness.
The people of the country and the world say NO to this costly and provocative war parade. The centennial of World War I, the most deadly and pointless war in human history, should not be commemorated with such a spectacle for militarism.
Join tens of thousands and who are demanding the cancellation of the parade. We want food, healthcare housing, and peace — not war!
On February 20, from Amman, Jordan, UNICEF Regional Director for the Middle East and North Africa, Geert Cappelaere, issued a statement of “outrage” titled: “The war on children in Syria: Reports of mass casualties among children in Eastern Ghouta and Damascus.”
The “statement” — consisting of blank lines with the preface “No words will do justice to the children killed, their mothers, their fathers and their loved ones” — dovetails with corporate media’s increasingly hysterical rhetoric on the Damascus suburb of Ghouta, which has been plagued with chemical weapons attacks for over four years, perpetrated by U.S.-backed proxies allied with the Nusra Front attempting to frame the Syrian government with war crimes.
UNICEF further wrote:
“We no longer have the words to describe children’s suffering and our outrage. Do those inflicting the suffering still have words to justify their barbaric acts?”
Where was UNICEF’s dramatic blank-lined protest when 200 civilians, including 116 children, were slaughtered by terrorist factions while in convoy from Kafraya and Foua in April 2017? These factions included Ahrar al-Sham (supported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia), al-Nusra (al-Qaeda), and factions of the Free Syrian Army. The Free Syrian Army was armed by the U.S. And, according to the words of former Qatari Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, Qatar — with the support and coordination of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the U.S.—was from the beginning supporting armed groups, even al-Qaeda, in Syria.
This seemingly outraged UN statement has made the rounds in corporate media reports on eastern Ghouta, most of which cite the U.K.-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), run from his home by a sole person, Osama Suleiman, who uses the pseudonym Rami Abdul Rahman. In its recent Ghouta reports, SOHR itself does not providesources.
On February 22, in the UN Security Council, UN Emergency Relief Coordinator and head of OCHA, Mark Lowcock, spoke for just over 10 minutes about eastern Ghouta and “400,000 people besieged.”
Not once did he mention the designated terrorist factions within. These terrorist factions include: Jaysh al-Islam (Saudi-backed), Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (al-Qaeda), Ahrar al-Sham, and Faylaq al-Rahman (the main faction in Jobar, and reported to have received BGM-71 TOW anti-tank guided missiles).
The UN would garner much less public support and outrage if, instead of easily-misconstrued emotive statements, it showed training videos like this one depicting then-leader Zahran Alloush’s Army of Islam training in eastern Ghouta with their armored tanks. This is the reality of eastern Ghouta. Jaysh al-Islam is the group infamous for caging civilians, including women, to use as human shields.
The UN would garner less support still were the UN and corporate media to show videos of civilians like this woman cursing the armed groups, blaming them for hunger and for hoarding food, telling them to leave Ghouta.
With hindsight, we know now that in other formerly-occupied areas of Syria, like East Aleppo, Homs, Madaya, al-Waer, and elsewhere, when finally resecured from terrorist factions, civilians in these areas spoke of terrorists hoarding food and medicine, and preventing them from leaving — holding them hostage as human shields.
It also transpired that the numbers the UN and corporate media were citing about eastern Aleppo’s population —250,000 to 300,000 – were highly inflated, double the actual numbers of civilians in eastern areas. As I wrote previously:
110,000 civilians registered at the Jibreen Registration center; another estimated 10 percent might have gone straight to stay with family instead; and according to the Red Cross, 35,000 people (“fighters” and their family members) were evacuated out of Aleppo. The total number was thus at most 150,000, most likely significantly lower.”
In his February 22 address, only once did the UN’s Lowcock address terrorists’ shelling of Damascus, saying: “shelling from eastern Ghouta is reportedly killing and injuring scores of civilians in Damascus City.”
Why reportedly? Why did Lowcock not take and read the testimonies of civilians as he claims to have done of civilians in eastern Ghouta? Damascus is far more accessible than al-Qaeda-occupied Ghouta: Lowcock could very easily travel to the Syrian capital and meet with some of the many civilians affected by the years of constant mortaring from terrorist factions in eastern Ghouta. Instead, he seems to prefer to repeat testimonies collected from afar, solely from and on Ghouta.
For weeks, Jaysh al-Islam, al-Qaeda, Ahrar al-Sham, and Faylaq al-Rahman have intensified their heavy-shelling of Damascus, intentionally targeting heavily-populated civilian areas of the city, including schools, homes, and crowded public spaces.
These shellings are breaches of the de-escalation zones agreement of May 2017, co-signed by Russia, Turkey and Iran. Eastern Ghouta is one of the four areas included in the agreement of cessation of hostilities. According to the article “6th Astana Process Talks Produce De-Escalation Zone Agreement”:
The guarantor countries noted ‘progress in the fight against terrorism and elimination of ISIL, Jabhat al-Nusra and all other individuals, groups, enterprises and organisations associated with Al-Qaida or ISIL as a result of the functioning of these de-escalation zones’ and confirmed their determination ‘to take all necessary measures to continue to fight them both inside and outside de-escalation zones.’”
Jaysh al-Islam — whose political leader, Mohammed Alloush, was supposed to participate in the May and subsequent 2017 Astana peace talks — is one of the factions attacking Damascus. The Syrian website Muraselon reported that the February 23 bombing of Damascus, which killed at least one civilian, was a powerful missile, likely fired by Jaysh al-Islam. The article referred to the terrorist group’s own social media bragging about possessing and intending to fire said missile on Damascus. That deserves a little outrage and more than a passing comment.
Following the Security Council meeting, Syria’s permanent representative to the UN, Ambassador Bashar al-Ja’afari, spoke to the press, noting Mr. Lowcock’s lack of objectivity in his Security Council statement. Ambassador al-Ja’afari said:
We have an official letter from the Resident Coordinator in Damascus, the chair of OCHA in Syria, saying that during 2017, OCHA — with the cooperation of the Syrian government, and Syrian Red Crescent, and International Committee of the Red Cross — have provided humanitarian assistance to 2.3 million people.
Mr. Lowcock denied this information, while we have it in written form coming from the head of OCHA in Damascus. So, something is wrong. Either these people here in New York don’t read what they get from … their own people in Damascus, or they mislead the Security Council members about what’s going on in Syria.”
He also corrected the lexicon of a “stifling siege,” saying:
[This] is not consistent with the reality on the ground. Commercial trucks have been moving constantly between Damascus and east Ghouta. The Syrian government has been facilitating aid to eastern Ghouta, and medical evacuations to hospitals in Damascus. The UN is ignoring video footage posted by these terrorist groups showing women and children pushed into metal cages on the streets.”
Regarding the heavy shelling of Damascus that Mr. Lowcock stated is reportedly happening, at a Security Council meeting one week prior, Ambassador al-Ja’afari cited the over 1,000 shells from eastern Ghouta that had targeted Damascus. On February 22, al-Ja’afari stated that the number of shells on Damascus was now over 1,200, noting that 8 million people in Damascus were at risk.
According to Syrian state media, SANA, the following terrorist attacks on Damascus have occurred in the past week:
February 24: “Armed groups positioned in eastern Ghouta on Saturday targeted with more than 55 mortar and rocket shells and with sniper fire the residential neighborhoods in Damascus and its countryside.”
February 23: “Armed groups fire 70 rocket shells on Medical Surgery Hospital and residential areas in Damascus and Jaramana: One civilian was killed and 60 others were injured on Friday due to 70 rocket shells fired by the armed groups on the residential neighborhoods of Damascus and its Countryside.”
February 22: “Three civilians, two children among them, were killed and 28 other citizens were injured, six of them children, when the armed groups fired shells on Damascus and its countryside.”
February 21: “A woman was killed on Wednesday while 22 persons were injured in fresh attacks by armed groups on different Syrian regions.” Dozens of shells.
February 20: “Thirteen civilians were killed and 77 others were injured on Tuesday as armed groups in the Eastern Ghouta area continued their breach of the de-escalation zones agreement, targeting residential areas and public facilities in Damascus and its countryside with 114 rocket and mortar shells.”
February 19: “Fifteen civilians, among them children, were injured Monday in attacks by armed groups who targeted Damascus and its countryside with shells.”
February 18: “Armed groups positioned in some areas in Eastern Ghouta on Sunday evening fired several shells on Bab Sharqi neighborhood in Damascus, killing a person, injuring another.”
February 15: “Armed groups, positioned in Eastern Ghouta, launched four shells on al-Wafideen Camp near Harasta, injuring a civilian… Later, the armed groups targeted al-Assad Suburb with four shells, killing one civilian and injuring others.”
The February 23 shelling of Damascus killed a Syrian doctor: Dr. Hassan Haj Hassan, an anesthesiologist and a professor at the Institute of Health Technology in Damascus. He was killed by #EGhouta terrorist shelling of Damascus.
In his latest address at the UN Security Council, Ambassador al-Ja’afari noted that the main headquarters of the Red Crescent in Syria, based in Damascus, was targeted with 10 missiles, originating from Ghouta.
UN Serial Censorship
In trying to relate Syria’s side of the story in the United Nations, Ambassador al-Ja’afari was initially prevented from doing so. In his subsequent address to the press, he noted:
The President of the Security Council, the Ambassador of Kuwait, acted irresponsibly today by trying to prevent me from speaking, while the meeting is on Syria. This irresponsible behavior coming from the President of the Security Council in a meeting allocated to the situation in Syria reveals also that Kuwait is not — the Kuwaiti delegation — is not up to the responsibility it is assuming as President of the Security Council, because this irresponsible behavior works against the rules and procedures of the Security Council. The shortage of the moral behavior of the Kuwaiti ambassador found a crystal-cut answer by the Russian ambassador, who corrected him and said you have no right whatsoever to prevent the Syrian ambassador from addressing the council.”
Watch | Syria on the situation in the Middle East
Censorship at the UN has happened previously. In early 2015, after interviewing the Syrian Ambassador, I wrote, quoting him:
The British ambassador cut me off one time while I was speaking. He said ‘you have exceeded four minutes.’ I said, ‘Who gave you the right to fix four minutes? I am a member of a concerned party, and I have the right to explain.’ To justify his wrongdoing, he also cut off the Iraqi ambassador after me. We were the only two ambassadors speaking at that session, and it was on Syria and Iraq. The issue was on terrorism in Syria and Iraq, and he cut off both of us after four minutes!”
In a subsequent article, I wrote of the repeated cuts to the Syrian Ambassador’s video and microphone feeds, also noting the attempted censorship of Syria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs:
In January, 2014, at the Geneva II conference on Syria in Montreux, Switzerland, Foreign Affairs Minister Walid Muallem was himself cut off by none other than the Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon.
Pointing out the ridiculousness of the situation, Muallem noted: ‘You live in New York, I live in Syria. I have the right to give the Syrian version in this forum. After three years of suffering, this is my right. You spoke for 25 minutes. I need at least 30.’ While Ban interrupted Muallem’s speech, asking him to ‘wrap up in just one or two minutes,’ the Syrian Minister refused to be silenced and did eventually finish his speech.”
Regarding some of the other instances of UN censorship of Ambassador al-Ja’afari, in that same article I wrote:
Correspondent Nizar Abboud…says the cuts are not due to ‘technical problems,’ but instead often done ‘by senior officials at the United Nations.’
Matthew Lee, a journalist with Inner City Press (ICP) reported on an April 5, 2012 feed cut, noting that the speeches of the then Special Envoy for Syria, Kofi Annan, as well as the (Qatari) President of the General Assembly (GA) and Ban Ki-moon were all broadcast on UN television. However, ‘just as Syria’s Permanent Representative Bashar Ja’afari took the floor to respond, UN TV went dark. When the session was over several Permanent Representatives were critical of what they called ‘the PGA’s use of the UN for Qatar’s foreign policy.’
…The Syrian Ambassador was again cut out of the feed on June 18, 2014. ICP’s Lee reported that on June 20 he was told by the same Dujarric regarding the June 7 cut that [in Lee’s words], in fact the error in 2012 was been [sic] to allow Ja’afari to speak AT ALL on UN TV. He said the arrangement was that Ban and the Qatari PGA could speak, then the UN TV was supposed to go off.’
Following the June 2014 Syrian elections, international representatives who had observed the elections in Syria convened at the UN to report back. Roughly five minutes in, after Ambassador al-Ja’afari had opened the meeting and thanked the Secretariat for facilitating it, the webcast feed was cut. Ironically, the Ambassador had stressed he wanted to leave ‘enough time to give you the right picture of the Syrian landscape that was prevailing during elections. They are eyewitnesses.’”
Like corporate media, UN whitewashes al-Qaeda and co-extremists
A screenshot from a 2017 video released by the Saudi-backed terror group Jaysh al-Islam, shows Jaysh al-Islam fighters operating in Eastern Ghouta.
The UN’s Lowcock humanized the suffering in eastern Ghouta, and it cannot be denied there is suffering there, where the aforementioned terrorist groups embed in civilian areas only to hold civilians hostage, and are the cause of the military siege and targeted strikes on Ghouta.
Yet, he and the media mentioned only in passing, and skeptically, the relentless shelling of civilian areas of Damascus and the surrounding countryside, dehumanizing the civilians of Damascus — just as corporate media dehumanized the civilians of Aleppo, then under the relentless bombings and sniping of al-Qaeda and other terrorists’ occupying the city’s eastern areas.
In Aleppo in November 2016, the head of forensics, Dr. Zaher Hajjo,told me (on a day of intense terrorist bombings that killed 18 civilians and injured over 200) that in the past five years 10,750 civilians had been killed in Aleppo, 40 percent of whom were women and children. He said that in the past year alone, 328 children had been killed by terrorist shelling in Aleppo, 45 children killed by terrorist snipers.
In April 2014, I visited the French Hospital in Damascus, which was treating some of the over 60 children who had been injured by terrorists’ shelling of their school, which also killed one child. Also at the hospital was the BBC’s correspondent, Lyse Doucet. While she promised to give an honest account of the targeting of these children, her report instead read:
They’re believed to be fired by rebels, but the government is also accused of launching them into neighborhoods under its control. So brutal is this war that nothing is considered unthinkable…”
In February 2015, I visited Damascus’ University Hospital, documenting just some of the children maimed and critically injured by such terrorist attacks — and, a year prior wrote about my own experiences in the intense shelling of Damascus, where I stayed several weeks — and, since then, have met victims of terrorist shelling of Old Damascus.
With access to numerous sources on these incessant and deadly mortar and rocket attacks and the Syrian ambassador’s repeated statements on this at the UN, the United Nations nevertheless chooses to obfuscate on the intensified shelling of civilian areas of Damascus and elsewhere in Syria, and instead endorse the war propagandists.
On February 22, UNICEF tweeted a New York Times article featuring “media activist” Firas Abdullah. Abdullah is not the neutral media source portrayed. Following the December 2015 killing of terrorist Zahran Alloush, then-leader of Jaysh al-Islam, Abdullah posted his eulogy for Alloush, calling him a “beautiful martyr.” This is the person whom the Times chose to portray a human face of Ghouta, retweeted by UNICEF.
Also on February 22, the UN body tweeted a CNN report citing the SOHR, and of course the UNICEF blank statement of outrage, in the cyclic fashion that is typical of regime-change war propaganda reinforcing itself.
On February 21, UNICEF tweeted a Newsweek photo slideshow titled after UNICEF’s own blank statement of outrage.
"I can tell you that the situation is very catastrophic … there were four hospitals that were destroyed and cannot be able to continue their work in helping people in Eastern Ghouta | Heartbreaking report by @tamaraqiblawi & @SSirgany#EasternGhoutahttps://t.co/4hrRKBoLTy
The February 20 tweet of the blank UNICEF statement included #EasternGhouta, but no hashtag for Damascus. Surely an oversight…
Their February 19 tweet links to an article on the Bana al-Abed of Ghouta, Muhammad Najem, whose Twitter account began in December 2017 and has nearly 5,000 followers. Expect that number to skyrocket. Expect a memoir to follow.
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.
This is not the first time the UN has covered up terrorists’ crimes against Syrian civilians. In October 2016, I wrote of UNICEF’s unproven claims of an aerial attack on an Idlib school, in which UNICEF decried it as possibly “the deadliest attack on a school since the war began more than five years ago.” As I reported, UNICEF overlooked numerous documented deadly attacks on schools:
On October 1, 2014, terrorists’ car- and suicide-bombed the Akrama Al-Makhzoumi School in Homs, killing at least 41 children by conservative estimates, or up to 48 children by other reports, along with women and other civilians.”
I further noted:
On October 28, 2016, RT reporter Murad Gazdiev reported from Aleppo on the latest attacks by Western-backed terrorists on a school in the city. At the time of the report, at least six children were reported killed by a Hell Cannon-fired gas canister bomb which struck a school in Ḩadaiq al-Andalus. From an Aleppo hospital, Gazdiev reported:
‘The rebels launched the rocket at 10 in the morning. Seconds later it hit the National School of Aleppo… Three of the children died on the spot…. blood and pieces of them sprayed on the walls. The victims, six children, ranged in age from 2 to 12. In some cases, doctors weren’t sure if they’d put the right body parts with the correct bodies. Three of the dead children were siblings: two brothers and a sister. Their father was beyond consolation. His mental stability had been torn apart.’
This statement was given over footage of a devastated father kissing the corpses of his children.”
In January 2016, I wrote of OCHA’s selective tweeting around the terrorist-occupied village of Madaya, obfuscating the terrorist-besieged Idlib villages of Foua and Kafraya.
Honest reporters like Murad Gazdiev entered Madaya in January 2016 and confirmed that food and medical aid had indeed entered. He spoke with residents who complained of the armed groups stealing this food.
When I went to Madaya in June 2017, I spoke with civilians there who stated that vast amounts of food and medical aid entered the area, but they had no access to it, as Ahrar al-Sham, al-Nusra and co-extremists holding the village hoarded the food and sold it at extortionist prices. I also saw prisons use to hold, and sometimes torture, civilians before their trials in terrorists’ courts. I also saw these in eastern Aleppo and in al-Layramoun, in the city’s northwest. When eastern Ghouta is finally secured, it won’t be surprising to learn that schools, hospitals, and/or homes were turned into prisons to hold the civilians for whom the UN and corporate media feign concern.
Why the UNICEF bias?
According to UNICEF, the current executive director, Henrietta H. Fore, was formerly Administrator of USAID, Chief Operating Officer for the U.S. Department of State, and Director of the United States Mint in the U.S. Department of Treasury.
The prior UNICEF executive director, Anthony Lake, was national security advisor to President Clinton, and was nominated to be the director of the CIA.
According to Telesur, Lake played a significant role in mass starvation in Somalia in 2010-2012, under-budgeting food aid, budgeting “10 cents a day per person to feed a million internally displaced persons.” Telesur reported that Lake also “admitted publicly that he knew about and did nothing to prevent the genocide in Rwanda, something he ‘regretted.’”
In Yemen, the UN is suspected of having smuggled in two CIA agents, as reported in 2015 by journalist Nizar Abboud, and surprisingly in 2017 by The New York Times.
UNICEF executive directors who formerly worked for USAID, the U.S. State Department, even Director of the United States Mint in the U.S. Department of Treasury: it seems that UNICEF’s role is less about humanitarian aid and more about being the humanitarian propaganda arm of Washington.
We should, indeed, feel sorrow for any civilian casualties in the U.S./U.K. and allies’ war on Syria. However, after years of the most egregious war propaganda on Syria, we should also exercise caution about the latest stories, be they from unsourced SOHR reports or the UN itself.
Remember, Omran Daqneesh was once depicted widely as the face of Syrian suffering. As it turned out, the entire story Western media and agencies told was false, based on unreliable sources.
Recall that the humanitarian agency MSF once insisted that Syrian or Russian airstrikes had destroyed — reduced “to rubble” — a hospital that MSF supported. This turned out to be utterly false.
Unlike MSF, unlike the most of journalists who reported lies around Omran Daqneesh, I did go to see the intact Quds hospital, and met Omran and his father, who told me everything the media had reported on his son was false; the media had exploited his boy. Both MSF and corporate media lied about these stories, and their lies were used to call for further Western intervention in Syria.
Targeting of Afrin civilians met with relative silence
While UNICEF on January 26 noted having received “alarming reports” regarding children’s deaths in Afrin, it hasn’t thus far expressed outrage at the Turkish murder of civilians in the northwestern Syrian town. On February 20, SANA reported:
Entering its 32nd day, the Turkish aggression continues to claim more civilian casualties and causing material damage to properties.
Medical sources at Afrin Hospital told SANA that so far, 175 civilians were killed and more than 450 civilians, most of them children and women, were injured due to the continued assault on civilians’ houses and infrastructure.”
Contrast the nonspecific and tame title of the January 26 UNICEF statement, “UNICEF statement on the escalating violence in Syria,” to the emotive language of February 20, riding on the coattails of corporate media hysteria around Ghouta:
The war on children in Syria: Reports of mass casualties among children in Eastern Ghouta and Damascus; … No words will do justice to the children killed; … We no longer have the words to describe children’s suffering and our outrage; … barbaric acts …”
The UN has yet to issue an updated statement of concern regarding the latest Turkish bombings of Afrin.
In UN humanitarian chief Lowcock’s February 22 address, he spoke of “the killing of civilians and the destruction of entire cities and neighborhoods.”
However, he didn’t mean the killing of hundreds (a lower estimate) or even thousands of Syrian civilians by the U.S.-led coalition, illegal in Syria — the latest being 12 civilians, “mostly women and children,” killed in residential neighborhoods in Hajin town in Deir Ezzor eastern countryside on February 21.
One day prior, Syrian media reported the deaths of “at least 16 civilians, including nine women,” in al-Bahra village, Deir Ezzor countryside, noting, “the death toll is likely to rise as a number of civilians were injured and some of them are in critical condition as a result of airstrikes…”
A UN press release on Lowcock’s statement cited him as saying: “You can still save lives in eastern Ghouta – and elsewhere in Syria. I urge you to do so.”
But this is precisely what Syrian officials have been attempting to do, with offers of amnesty, safe transport of out of Ghouta, and the provision of medical and food aid.
Recently, independent researcher Hadi Nasrallah tweeted (in a long thread on Ghouta):
Even After 7 years of failed negotiations with terrorists for the sake of civilians held in Eastern Ghouta, the Syrian government dropped flyers and maps on the terrorist-held city to give details for civilians on how to flee areas with high tensions and guaranteed them safety”
Even After 7 years of failed negotiations with terrorists for the sake of civilians held in Eastern Ghouta, the syrian government dropped flyers and maps on the terrorist-held city to give details for civilians on how to flee areas with high tensions and guaranteed them safety pic.twitter.com/JzYQZx2F0H
…eight projectiles struck the Al-Wafideen camp site where the Syrian Army has set up an evacuation point for civilians attempting to escape militant-held areas of East Ghouta.”
As with Aleppo, a humanitarian corridor has been established to enable eastern Ghouta residents to leave the district. However, given that terrorists repeatedly shelled humanitarian corridors in Aleppo (including a corridor road I stood on in November 2016), holding civilians hostage, it is quite likely terrorists in eastern Ghouta will do the same.
Yet, in the end, the combination of humanitarian corridors and Syria’s offer of amnesty and reconciliation enabled the exit of terrorists and return of life in Aleppo. As of August 2017, over half a million displaced Syrians returned home, the vast majority internally-displaced.
In Madaya, al-Waer, Homs, and many other areas of Syria, the same deals as in Aleppo enabled the return of stability and life.
In addition to opening the humanitarian corridors, the Syrian army has dropped leaflets over eastern Ghouta informing civilians of designated safe exits for civilians to leave the district to safety in Damascus.
These are the types of actions the UN should be focused on and supporting, not repeating war propaganda that only confuses and prolongs the fight for peace.
*
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. Visit her personal blog, In Gaza, and support her work on Patreon.
“Money is and always has been political. Our central concern should not be with [money’s] technology but with the political and legal framework with which it operates”. ~ Dr. Rebecca L. Spang
I. Introduction
Our planetary governance and financial system currently operates significantly outside of the law. Whether the cost of war, organized crime, corruption, environmental damage, suppression of technology or secrecy, this lawlessness – and the lawlessness it encourages in the general population – represents a heavy and expensive drag on all aspects of our society, our economy and our landscape.
The underfunding of pension funds in the United States is a symptom of that drag. It is not a self-contained crisis.
We are told that we can fix the pension funds by saving more – such as by increasing the contributions from beneficiaries and/or taxpayers. As portrayed in our graphic for the cover of this 2017 Annual Wrap Up, this is the equivalent of trying to fill a milk bucket by milking more cows when the problem is that there is a hole in the bucket. Why put more milk in the bucket until the hole is fixed or the farmer gets a new bucket?
If my subscribers and clients are representative, many people in the US general population – either as beneficiaries or taxpayer – are reluctant to invest more money in the retirement system. Many do not trust it.
They do not trust pension fund governance and management to treat beneficiaries’ interests as primary.
They do not trust money managers to invest wisely. They believe Wall Street promotes fraudulent securities.
They do not trust central banks, the federal government and some state and local governments to behave responsibly.
They are concerned that laws and regulations will be changed in an unfavorable manner – that their pension will become the financial equivalent of a “roach motel.” The money goes in, but it does not come out.
They feel cheated by public agencies that engage in political patronage, for example, that enable workers to game their final working year or two (through overtime, extra shifts, undeserved last-minute promotions, and other manipulative gimmicks) to retire with pension payments that are as much as double what they are rightfully entitled to in the absence of such gimmicks.
Under these circumstances, the decision to avoid increased investment in pension plans or retirement vehicles may, in fact, be a wise decision, albeit it makes the underfunding “crisis” worse.
Addressing pension fund underfunding in the United States will require ensuring integrity in pension fund governance and investment policies where it has been eroded. It likely will also require the successful return to a model of household and family wealth accumulation where individuals and families control the governance and management of their assets instead of depending on centrally controlled systems. Family wealth has the distinct advantage of returning control of investment decisions to individuals. However, this is hardly what the US establishment wants. The centralization of power depends on the increasing control and concentration of family financial capital.
Whichever path we take, the success of our pension fund and retirement assets and their impact on financial markets and society will necessitate addressing the integrity of governmental and corporate governance in the global financial system.
This is the same point that we repeatedly make on the Solari Report. Our economy is a dynamic ecosystem. We cannot isolate one part and “fix it.” If there is a fundamental and systemic imbalance, such as corruption or lawlessness, it must be dealt with on a crosscutting basis.
If our political process delivers profits and a cheap cost of capital for insiders, while considering the general population expendable, the solution is not for everyone else to save more in the face of overwhelming fiscal, monetary and financial debasement due to demands by the first group. Indeed, the centralizers have become the financial equivalent of nymphomaniacs – kicking the capital centralization into liquidation of human and environmental capital to provide more cheap capital to the insiders. The solution is to address the fundamental corruption of the political mechanism. Over the long run the privileges afforded the few are shrinking the total pie.
I chose pension funds as the theme for the 2017 Annual Wrap Up to invest time in reviewing the current state of global and US pension plans. For a complete list of the most useful studies, book and articles I read as well as website sources I used, see our Bibliographysection.
My goal in writing about the state of our pension system is to help you better understand and, where appropriate, reject parts of the official narrative – not get frozen in fear or overwhelmed by the complexity of it. My hope is that you gain a simple overview of the situation that can help you successfully navigate the specific aspects that touch you and your family, either as beneficiary or taxpayer. Without question, the underfunding of pension funds will impact you, one way or another.
If you are a US citizen, you are going to have to deal with the failure, by our various corporate, public and governmental agencies, to fully fund pension funds and health care promises.
These failures will touch you as a taxpayer. If you live in a state where the state and local pension funds are significantly underfunded, the impact on your state and local taxes, your property taxes (not to mention the appraised and market value of your home, farm, land or other real estate) and your municipal systems and services could be significant. Pension and health care liabilities may impact or determine in which state or locality you choose to live. Certainly, if you are planning on moving or buying real estate researching unfunded liabilities should be on your due diligence list. These failures will also impact you as a federal taxpayer for military and government employee obligations as well as for obligations assumed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, as companies fail or shed their pension funds in bankruptcy.
If you depend on income from one or more pension funds that reduce benefits as a result of underfunding or that fail and are assumed by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, it could impact your quality of life, life expectancy and health.
This also extends to families and friends. If your parents’ pension benefits are canceled or cut, and they show up at your door wanting to live with you, you are likely not going to tell them, “Sorry, it’s not my problem.”
In addition, numerous things are happening in the world, including war, environmental degradation, significant credit problems in the fixed income markets or loss of reserve currency status for the dollar that could significantly decrease pension fund returns and asset values, thus diminishing existing funding ratios. This is one of many reasons the health of the entire economy and financial system are important to all of us.
The state of our current pension fund systems is one of the reasons I focus on the financial coup d’etat, including trillions of dollars of bailouts and money missing from the US government. You can’t be short trillions to fund contractual and legally obligated pension promises and simply allow $50+ trillion (my estimate) walk out the monetary and fiscal doors when you have no legal obligation and/or basis for doing so.
So let’s review the current state of US and global pension funds and see if we can’t change the narrative.
There is no pension fund crisis! The so-called pension crisis is the result of a leadership decision that financial obligations to the elderly are expendable. After buying their votes and labor with promises, the leadership is wiggling out of those promises by not funding on a pay-as-you-go basis, then cutting benefits and throwing retirees overboard. Rather than pay for nursing homes, we prefer to expand the billionaire class and use private savings to provide low-cost capital to the national security state, automate with robotics and AI, and invest in space and the transition to a multi-planetary civilization. One particularly good example of this is General Electric. By some estimates, its pension fund is underfunded to the tune of $31 billion. However, during the time its pension fund became so underfunded, GE spent $45 billion to buy back its publicly traded common stock. The needed funds were there at one point; it’s just that the leadership of the company decided to funnel it into stockholders’ hands rather than to the pensions of the employees who helped build the company.
This is a political choice.It is not a financial crisis. It is part of a well-executed plan.
It is a plan that has been engineered by two decades of deliberate central bank and government policies and related enforcement designed to centralize and reorganize the economy accordingly. It is a conscious and intentional abrogation of legal obligations, just as the housing bubble represented a fraudulent inducement.
The financial crisis is what happens to the beneficiaries and their families and the federal, state and local taxpayers who face higher taxes and reduced services.
II. Global Pension Fund Assets
One of the best sources of current global pension fund statistics is the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) based in Paris. OECD has 35 members, primarily developed countries and a few emerging market countries. In 2017, it published Pension Markets in Focus, 2017 Editionthat is an overview of the status of global pension funds. It is important to remember when reviewing OECD tables and charts that they are drawing from non-conforming national data sources.
As of 2016, global pension fund assets totaled $40 trillion, of which $38 trillion was in OECD countries. Of that amount, $25 trillion was in the United States. So US pension assets are approximately 62.5% of global pension fund assets for what is approximately 4.3% of the world population.
From the point of view of China, US pensioners are in very good shape. China has 18.3% of the world’s population and despite an aging population it has less than 1% of the world’s pension assets. Is it any wonder why China is trying to create a global currency and is considering plans to reduce Treasury holdings?
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics
As of 2016, Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada and Iceland all had higher assets as a % of GDP than the United States and, with Switzerland, represent the countries above the weighted average for assets as a % of GDP within the OECD countries. If you want to read the story of the Netherland’s impressive reforms to maintain a sound pension system, read the section on the Netherlands in The Third Rail: Confronting Our Pension Failuresby Jim Leech. It is proof positive that an open society can address and manage retirement systems responsibly.
The OECD figures for the United States include private pension funds, individual retirement accounts, state and local government employee retirement funds, federal government retirement funds and annuity reserves at life insurance companies. Again, data sources in the United States for these different areas are non-conforming. With that caveat, let’s look at a variety of estimated breakdowns.
As of the end of 2016, Pension & Investments reported on data compiled by the Investment Company Institute that U.S retirement assets totaled $25.3 trillion. IRAs were the largest component with an estimated $7.85 trillion in assets. Defined contribution plans were $7.03 trillion; government defined benefit plans were $5.46 trillion, private sector defined benefit plans were $2.9 trillion and annuity reserves were $2 trillion. Within the Defined Contributions (“DC”), 401(k) plans accounted for $4.8 trillion of the $7.03 trillion in assets. Other private sector DC plans had $550 billion in assets, $905 billion was in 403(b) plans, $282 billion was held by 457 plans and $467 billion in assets were in the Federal Employees Retirement System’s Thrift Savings Plan.
The Milliman survey of the top 100 corporate pension funds reports: “These pension plans finished 2016 with pension assets of $1.395 trillion and projected benefit obligations (“PBO”) of $1.718 trillion. The funded ratio at the end of 2016 was 81.2%.”
According to Public Plans Data, the combined value of defined benefit plan assets held by state and local governments as of Q4 2016 was $3.85 trillion based on the Federal Reserve Flow of Funds report, September 2017. Public Plan Data states that there are 299 state-administered plans and 5,977 locally administered plans, however, their database is comprised of 170 state and local plans which represent ~95% of the market. In 2016 these pension funds had $3.31 trillion in assets against $4.58 trillion of liabilities. They were 72 % funded, which had steadily declined from 102 % funding in 2001. It appears that assets have grown 52.2% from 2001 to 2016, but during this time liabilities have grown 115.5%.
According to a 2016 report addressing federal plans from Moody’s:
The unfunded liabilities of the various federal employee pensions systems, covering civilian and military employee benefits, amount to about $3.5 trillion, or 20% of US GDP. Additionally, Moody’s estimates that unfunded state and local government pension plan liabilities are of the same magnitude, bringing the total shortfall to 40% of GDP….The bigger challenge to the US comes from the unfunded liabilities for the Social Security and Medicare programs. The Social Security funding gap is estimated at $13.4 trillion, or 75% of GDP, while the shortfall from the Hospital Insurance component of the Medicare program amounts $3.2 trillion, or 18% of GDP.
Tom McKinney, posting at Bill Bergman’s blog at Truth in Accounting, posted the assets for the US Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund as of 2015:
The U.S. Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (retirement fund) has just 48 percent of assets needed to cover future pensions for retired and active federal employees. Currently, there are 2.6 million retired and 2.7 million active federal civilians enrolled, including US Postal Service personnel. As of September 30, 2015, the retirement fund pension assets were $880 billion and the retirement fund pension liabilities were over $1.8 trillion. The $880 billion of pension assets is often referred to as a “pension trust fund.” Agency employers and agency employees underfunded the retirement fund every year, for decades. This resulted in an unfunded pension liability of nearly $1 trillion. Therefore, the US Treasury Department’s General Revenues rescued the retirement fund every year, for at least 30 years. The rescue money is often referred to as a: subsidy, supplemental payment, transfer-in, or a bailout.
OMFIF is a public think tank based in London and Singapore that tracks global investment by public investors, specifically the largest 750 public pension funds, central banks and sovereign wealth funds. Their report for US federal pension fund assets at the end of 2016 showed $600.6 billion for the US Military Retirement Fund, $557.9 billion for the Federal Employees Retirement Systems, $480.4 for the Thrift Saving Plan and $322.9 for Civil Service Retirement.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) is a US government agency created by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The PBGC provides a backstop for the retirement incomes of 40 million American workers in nearly 24,000 private sector defined benefit pension plans. The PBGC, just like the FDIC in the banking sector, is funded by insurance premiums paid by employers that sponsor insured pension plans, and PBGC also receives funds from the various defunct pension plans it takes over. In the same way that the FDIC steps in to provide some relief to financial institution customers when their bank, savings and loan or thrift fails, the PBGC steps in to help those retirees counting on a pension income after their employer defaults and disappears due to insolvency. However, although they are somewhat protected by PBGC, pensioners often receive 50 cents or less on the dollar relative to what they would have received if their previous employer didn’t go insolvent. In 2016, PBGC paid for monthly retirement benefits for nearly 840,000 retirees in more than 4,700 single-employer and multiemployer pension plans that cannot pay promised benefits. Including those who have not yet retired and participants in multiemployer plans receiving financial assistance, PBGC is currently responsible for the pensions of approximately 1.5 million people.
From all available data, it appears that the underfunded ratio is rising on defined benefit plans in the United States in recent years despite an unprecedented rise of the US equity market over the same period. Due to rising underfunded ratios and the dumping of pension plans by companies who can’t meet their long-standing pension obligations using the protection of reorganization and bankruptcy laws, there are serious questions as to the PBGC’s ability to meet current and anticipated future pension obligations, whether or not taxpayers are called upon to provide even further funding toward them.
Putting the size of total US pension fund assets into context, it helps to compare them to the market capitalization of the stock and bond markets. As of the end of 2014, the US stock market was approximately $26 trillion and the US bond market was approximately $40 trillion. Recent estimates of the global stock market capitalization are approaching $80 trillion with the US stock market approaching $30 trillion. As sovereign debt has ballooned since 2008, it has become increasingly difficult to find reliable estimates of total bond market capitalization, but a reasonable guestimate is that it has grown from $100 trillion cited by Bloomberg in 2016.
When you compare total US-funded pension fund assets of $25 trillion to both global and US stock and bond market capitalization, it is clear that US pension funds are a significant financial market participant.
IV. A Comment on US Pension Fund History
I want to make few comments about the history of US pension funds which underscore my viewpoint regarding the official narrative.
After World War II, the US lead the implementation of the Bretton Woods System, building and enforcing a global open trade model. To take advantage of this model, it was important to the US leadership to create a stable labor force and maintain stable labor relations. Pension funds were one of the benefits used to create those stable relations.
Pension funds also helped to centralize capital to finance the growth of the large multinational corporations designed to compete successfully in the Bretton Woods system. Instead of workers taking home their full pay and saving privately, corporations created a vehicle whereby employees put a certain portion of their pay into a centrally controlled pool. This served as a form of capital aggregation and control.
I often refer to the Department of Justice as being in charge of the “control, centralization and concentration of cash flow.” I call the Patriot Act the ‘Control and Concentration of Cash Flow Act’. Promoting centralized pension vehicles has been part of this effort to control capital. Pension funds helped to shift the US from a country in which most savings was controlled and directed by households to a model characterized by centralized savings into pools that could be managed and directed centrally. This also meant capital could be controlled and invested in ways that were remarkably invisible.
If you want to build a global juggernaut of both multi-nationals and the national security state, you need an enormous flow of capital. Pension funds were an essential vehicle to control and concentrate cash flow to do so.
As the corporate system grew, globalization kicked in. Suddenly you could change your relationship with labor because you could access a labor market globally and play those workers off against each other. The Neoliberal economic and trade experiments in Argentina and Chile pioneered by Professor Milton Friedman and his brethren of the Chicago School of Economics, which had devastating and long-lasting consequences for those countries, are further evidence of Mr. Global’s tampering with properly functioning labor markets. This process was turbocharged after the adaption of the Uruguay Round of GATT and the creation of the World Trade Organization in 1995. If you haven’t watched the Sir James Goldsmith video on globalization, it is a marvelous introduction and explanation of that system and how devastating it has been to labor in Europe, the United States and the developed world.
Sir James Goldsmith’s 1994 Globalization Warning
Even though globalization renegotiated the corporate relationship with labor, the leadership still wanted and needed to maintain centrally controlled capital. The question is: How do you keep the central control and get out of providing the rich of benefits? Of course, switching to defined contribution plans was one of the ways that happened. Dumping pension funds on the PBGC when the agency was created in 1974 was another.
The most significant challenge, however, was what would happen when the baby boomers started to retire. Society has aggregated and concentrated this large capital pool to provide stable, cheap financing to build this multinational juggernaut and the national security state. The problem with the boomers’ retirement is, not only will that stop adding capital but,also, they are going to want their money back to pay for retirement. This is a “$2 problem.” They are not going to put in a new dollar – that’s a $1 dollar problem. And, they will want to take a dollar out which results in a $2 problem.
If you listen to my many presentations on the financial coup d’état, I think that the G-7 leadership saw the boomer retirements coming and said, “We have to pull capital out of these systems before the boomer retirement comes due. Then when the boomer retirements come due, we’ll stuff their pension funds full of obligations, such as mortgage-backed securities on their homes or treasury securities on their economy. We’ll bubble the economy and stick the paper in their pension funds. They can come up with a fiscally responsible solution. They can stew in their own juices.”
If you look at the history of pension funds, I don’t see it as something that the country wanted to do for the working population; I think that it was something they used to attract the working population into a certain kind of job and relationship, but the real goal was to concentrate cash flow and control to ensure that the national security state and its corporations had the lowest cost of capital in the global markets. The last thing they wanted to do was return that capital and cash flow.
When the boomers retire, the question was how to overcome the “$2 problem.” I think the answer was the financial coup d’etat – shift enough capital out of existing institutions so that the boomer retirements could not pinch the financing for the national security state and the multinational banks and corporations that operate it.
V. Recent Global and US Pension Fund Performance
The chart and table below show the investment returns of various market indices, pension funds and educational endowments over the ten-year period beginning in 2007 and ending in 2016. The top chart shows the overall average during this ten-year time period. The table provides the detailed data for all years with footnotes explaining the sources.
Going left to right in the chart, the first three purple bars show a benchmark for comparison to fund returns. The first is the “Barclays Aggregate Bond Fund” which represents bonds that have been historically considered a stable investment but have lower returns. This has been the case as interest rates dropped steadily between 1980-2016. The second is the “S&P 500 Index with Dividends” which represents the returns for a common index of the US stock market. As most pension funds have a blended allocation consisting of both stocks and bonds, the third is a “40/60 Portfolio,” and it represents a blended approach. It assumes a hypothetical investment profile where 40% is invested in the Barclays Aggregate Bond Fund and 60% is invested in the S&P 500 Index with Dividends. This ignores the likelihood that pension funds can be expected to have a portion of their assets in cash, global stocks, land and real estate and alternative investments.
We found some excellent data on public pension funds from PublicPlansData.org, a collaborative effort by the Center for State and Local Government Excellence, the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, and the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. This site currently tracks 170 plans across the United States, of which 114 are administered at the state level and 56 are administered locally. The funds they track represent 95 percent of public pension membership and assets nationwide. Chances are, if you are teacher, police officer, fire fighter or otherwise work for a state or local municipality, you’re probably covered by one of these plans.
During the period 2007 to 2016, these 170 public pension plans made an average return of 6.4% per annum, compared to the 40/60 Portfolio, which averaged 7.0% during this time. These funds, on average, outperformed the 40/60 Portfolio in six of those years and underperformed in four.
Looking solely at the average return of 6.4% and the funds’ collective ability to beat the 40/60 benchmark in six out of ten years, one could draw the conclusion these funds are not doing too bad. But the real health of these funds can only be fully assessed by looking at other numbers not shown on this chart, such as the amount of liabilities which are currently funded by these assets and the number of active workers who are currently supporting retirees drawing pension payments. Both of these metrics are discussed elsewhere in this wrap-up, and they’ve only been getting worse over the past ten years.
CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, is one of the 170 public pension plans included in the prior aggregate. With over $302 billion in plan assets, it is also the largest of these plans and one that is very well known and rather powerful as one of the largest stock market investors. For this reason, we thought it worthwhile to show CalPERS separately.
CalPERS’ overall return in this ten-year period was 6.0%. This was below both the average of the collection of 170 state and local pension funds and also the 40/60 Portfolio. What is interesting is that CalPERS over-performed and under-performed the 40/60 Portfolio in all the same six and four years, respectively, as the collection of 170 state and local pension funds. But, given that CalPERS’ assets represent approximately one-tenth of that overall collection, the correlation is not too surprising.
Using data from OECD, the next three green bars show Canada, the UK and the United States. Canada’s average annual pension returns for 2007-2016 were 5.5% while the UK pensions returned 7.2%. However the USA pensions returned 2.1%. Based on the OECD definition, this would include the 170 state and local pension funds in the Public Plans Data. With $3.8 trillion in assets, they should make up approximately 15% of the $25 trillion of the US pensions. If you look at individual annual returns during the ten-year period, US pension funds dropped by more than double compared to their OECD peers during the 2008-9 time frame. The implications for what this average implies about IRA and defined contribution returns over a period despite a US equity market performance that was much better than expected are sobering. However, one likely explanation for a portion of this underperformance is the fact that American individuals fear losses from the stock market (particularly as a result of the dramatic losses and corruption of the financial crisis) and therefore hold an unreasonably large portion of their IRA assets in cash, which provides effectively zero return, or fixed income significantly bringing down the overall average. Either way, there may be unfortunate–but understandable–explanations why America’s retirement asset rates of return significantly lag those of other more socialist counties where the retirement funds are effectively state-administered.
Next in blue and tan are other OECD members: Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands and Switzerland with ten year average annual returns of 5.6%, 5.2%, 5.9%, and 2.7%. These are all beneath the benchmark, with the exception of Switzerland, significantly ahead of the United States. Finally we have added returns in orange for three Ivy League University endowments: Harvard, Yale and Princeton at 7.7%. 7.0% and 7.9%. and in grey for Berkshire Hathaway, Warren Buffet’s conglomerate, at 9.7%.
While the size and legal flexibility of the endowments and Berkshire Hathaway make it possible for them to be more nimble in alternative investments such as venture capital, real estate and commodities, their consistent out performance reminds me of my trading floor partner at Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. Whenever finding a trader outperforming the market, he would rise from his desk and come out screaming across the trading floor, “Explain to me exactly why I am so lucky!” My personal experience with the Harvard Corporation at the time of its spectacular endowment returns during the Clinton Administration underscored how some of those returns came at great expense to the US taxpayer, including on the HUD budget, losses on the housing bubble, the Enron debacle and the “Rape of Russia.” Their brilliance at sticking back door bills to the taxpayer inspired me to write an editorial proposing that they lose their tax exemption. It was not surprising to see a small tax placed on endowment returns over $500,000 per student in the latest tax reform legislation.
The following charts from the 2017 OECD study show a wider comparison of annual nominal returns and real returns (after adjustment for inflation) with both OECD and non OECD member countries. The reported under performance of the US plans below the weighted average is hard to explain given the performance of the US equity markets although the significant drop during 2008 is a major contributor in US under performance. It would not surprise me if other contributors were IRA’s and defined contribution plans staying out of the equity market after the losses of the financial crisis and bailouts. The challenge for investors was not just the dramatic losses – it was a practical concern with the unaddressed corruption in the financial system.
The official narrative is that we are facing a serious pension fund crisis. This view is shared by David Collum, a Chemistry Professor who publishes an excellent annual overview. In his 2017 Year in Review, Collum provides a good description of the underfunding challenge. Here is his pension fund section republished with his permission:
“This massive financial bubble is a ticking time bomb, and when it finally goes off, it is going to wipe out virtually every pension fund in the United States.” ~Michael Snyder, DollarCollapse.com blog
The impending pension crisis is global and monumental with no obvious way out. The World Economic Forum estimates the pension gap—unfunded pension liabilities—at $70 trillion and headed for $250 trillion by 2050.166Conservative but still conventional assumptions about prospective investment returns and spending patterns in old age suggest that retiring into the American dream in your mid 60s requires you bank 20–25 multiples of your annual salary (or a defined benefit plan that is the functional equivalent) to avoid the risk of running out of money. A friend—a corporate executive no less—retired with 10 multiples; he could be broke within a decade (much sooner if markets regress to historical means). Of course, you can defiantly declare you will work ’till you drop, but then there are those unexpected aneurysms, bypass surgeries, layoffs, and ailing spouses needing care. I’ve seen claims that more than 50 percent of retirees do not fully control their retirement age.
“Companies are doing everything they can to get rid of pension plans, and they will succeed.” ~Ben Stein, political commentator
The problem began as worker compensation became reliant on future promises—IOUs planted in pension plans—often assuming the future was far, far away. However, a small cadre of demographers in the ’70s smelled the risk of the boomer retirements and began swapping defined-benefit plans for defined-contribution plans.167 (A hybrid of the two traces back to 18th century Scottish clergy.168) The process was enabled by the corporate-friendly Tax Reform Act of ’86.169 Employees were unknowingly handed all the risk and became their own human resource specialists.
Retirement risk depends on the source of your retirement funds. Federal employees are backstopped by the printing press, although defaults cannot be ruled out if you read the fine print.170 States and municipalities could get bailed out, but there are no guarantees. Defined-benefit corporate plans can be topped off by digging into cash flows provided that the cash flows and even the corporation exist. The depletion of corporate earnings to top off the deficits, however, will erode equity performance, which will wash back on all pension funds. The multitude of defined-contribution plans such as 401(k)s and IRAs managed by individuals are totally on their own and suffer from a profound lack of savings.
Corporate and municipal defined-benefit plans assumed added risks by falling behind in pension contributions motivated by efforts to balance the books and, in the corporate world, create the illusion of profits. The moment organizations began reducing the requisite payments by applying flawed assumptions about prospective returns, pensions shifted to Ponzi finance. My uncanny ability to oversimplify anything is illustrated by the imitation semi-log plot in Figure 25. The red line reflects the assumed average compounded balance sheet from both contributions and market gains. The blue squiggle reflects the vicissitudes of the market wobbling above and below the projection. If the projections are too optimistic—the commonly reported 7–8 percent market returns certainly are—the slope is too high, and the plan will fall short. If the projected returns are reasonable but management stops contributing during good times—embezzling the returns above the norm to boost profits—the plan will fall below projection again. Of course, once the plan falls behind, nobody wants to dump precious capital into making up the difference when you can simply goose projected returns with new and improved assumptions. In a rational world, pensions would be overfunded during booms and underfunded during busts. Assuming we can agree that we are deep into both equity and bond bull markets and possibly near their ends, pensions should be bloated with excess reserves (near a maximum on the blue curve), and bean counters should keep their dirty little paws off those assets and keep contributing because we won’t stay there.
Figure 25. Childish construct of pension assets.
That’s a good segue to drill down into the contemporaneous details. Public pensions are more than 30 percent underfunded ($2 trillion).171 A buzzkiller at the Hoover Institution says that the government disclosures are wrong and puts the deficit at $3.8 trillion.172 Bloomberg says that “if honest math was being used . . . the real number would actually be closer to 6 trillion dollars.”173 What is honest math? Using prevailing treasury yields for starters. Bill Gross—the former Bond King—says that if we get only 4.0 percent total nominal return rather than the presumed 7.5 percent, pensions are $5 trillion underfunded.174 Assuming 100 million taxpayers, that’s $50,000 we all have to pony up. California’s CalPERS fund dropped its assumption to a 6.2 percent return—still seriously optimistic in my opinion—leaving a $170 billion shortfall.175 The Illinois retirement system is towing a liability of $208 billion with $78 billion in assets ($130 billion unfunded).176Connecticut is heading for a “Greece-style debt crisis” with $6,500 in debt per capita (every man, woman, and child?).177 The capital, Hartford, is heading for bankruptcy.178 South Carolina’s government pension plan is $24 billion in the hole. Kentucky’s attempt to fill a gigantic hole in its pension fund (31 percent funded) was felled by politics.179 A detailed survey of municipal pension obligations shows funding ranging from 23 percent (Chicago) to 98 percent (Suffolk).180 My eyeball average says about 70 percent overall. Notice that despite being at the peak of an investment cycle, none are overfunded (Figure 26.) Large and quite unpopular 30 percent hikes in employee contributions are suggested. The alternative of taking on more municipal debt to top off pension funds is a common stopgap measure of little merit long term; somebody still has to pay.
Figure 26. State pension deficits.
The 100 largest U.S. corporate defined-benefit plans have dropped to 85 percent funded from almost 110 percent in 2007. During the recent market cycle that burned bright on just fumes, the companies gained only 6 percent above the 80 percent funding at the end of 2008. Of the top 200 corporate pensions in the S&P, 186 are underfunded to the tune of $382 billion (Figure 27). General Electric, for example, is $31 billion in the hole while using $45 billion for share buybacks.
Figure 27. Underfunding of 20 S&P pension funds.
When are serious problems supposed to start, and what will they look like? Jim Bianco says “slowly and then suddenly.” Some would argue “now.” The Dallas Police and Firemen Pension Fund is experiencing a run on the bank.181They are suing a real estate fund who slimed them out of more than $300 million182 and are said to be looking at $1 billion in “clawbacks” from those who got out early trying to avoid the pain.183 The Teamsters Central States and the United Mineworkers of America plans are failing.184 The New York Teamsters have spent their last penny of pension reserves.185 The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has paid out nearly $6 billion in benefits to participants of failed pension plans (albeit at less than 50 cents on the dollar), increasing its deficit to $76 billion. CalPERS intends to cut payouts owing to low returns and inadequate contributions (during a boom, I remind you).
“The middle 40% [of 50- to 64-year olds] earn $97,000 and have saved $121,000, while the top 10% make $251,000 and have $450,000 socked away.”
~Wall Street Journal
Looks like those self-directed IRAs aren’t working out so well either. Two-thirds of Americans don’t contribute anything to retirement. Only 4 percent of those earning below $50,000 a year maxes out their 401(k)s at the current limits.186 They are so screwed, but I get it: they are struggling to pay their bills. However, only 32 percent of the $100,000+ crowd maxes out the contribution. When the top 10 percent of the younger boomers have two multiples of their annual salary stashed away, you’ve got a problem.186 If they retired today, how long would their money last? That’s not a trick question: two years according to my math. Half the boomers have no money set aside for retirement. A survey shows that a significant majority of boomers are finding their adult children to be a financial hardship.187 Indeed, the young punks aren’t doing well in all financial categories; retirement planning is no exception. Almost half of Gen Xers agreed with this statement: “I prefer not to think about or concern myself with retirement investing until I get closer to my retirement date.”
Moody’s actuarial math concluded that a modest draw down would cause pension fund liabilities to soar owing to a depletion of reserves.188 There is a bill going through Congress to allow public pensions to borrow from the treasury; they are bracing for something.189 This is a tacit bailout being structured. The Fed cowers at the thought of a recession with good reason: Can the system endure 50% equity and bond corrections—regressions to the historical mean valuation? What happens when monumental claims to wealth—$200 trillion in unfunded liabilities—far exceed our wealth? Laurence Kotlikoff warned us; we are about to find out.190 Beware of any thinly veiled claim that the redivision of an existing pie will create more pie.
My sense is that we are on the cusp of a phase change. Stresses are too large to ignore and are beginning to cause failures and welched promises. Runs on pension funds akin to runs on banks would be deadly: people would quit working to get their pensions. At this late stage in the cycle, you simply cannot make it up with higher returns. Enormous appreciation has been pulled forward; somebody is going to get hosed. It’s only fourth grade math. Bankruptcy laws exist to bring order to the division of limited assets. We got into this mess one flawed assumption at a time.
On a final note, there is a move afoot to massively reduce contributions to sheltered retirement accounts. This seems precisely wrong. (I have routinely sheltered 25–30 percent of my gross income as a point of reference.) Congress is also pondering new contributions be forced into Roth-like accounts rather than regular IRAs. I have put a bat to the Roth IRA both in print191 and in a half-hour talk.192 Here is the bumper sticker version:
Roth IRAs pull revenue forward, leaving future generations to fend for themselves;
Fourth grade math shows that Roth and regular IRAs, if compounded at the same rate and taxed at the same rate, provide the same cash for retirement.
Roth IRAs are taxed at the highest tax bracket—the marginal rate—whereas regular IRAs are taxed integrated over all brackets—the effective tax rate.
If you read a comparison of Roth versus regular IRAs without reference to the “effective” versus “marginal” rate, the author is either ignorant or trying to scam you. Phrases like “it depends on your personal circumstances” are double-talk. This synopsis of a Harvard study has two fundamental errors: Can you find them?
“If a worker saves $5,000 a year in a 401(k) for 40 years and earns 5% return a year, the final balance will be more than $600,000. If the 401(k) is a Roth, the full balance is available for retirement spending. If the 401(k) is a traditional one, taxes are due on the balance. Let’s say the person’s tax rate is 20% in retirement. That makes for a difference of $120,000 in spending power, which a life annuity will translate into about $700 a month in extra spending.”
~John Beshears, lead author of a Harvard study
VII. My Financial History as an Alternative Narrrative
I thought it would be helpful if I used a portion of my own financial history to explain why I think that the official narrative is not the appropriate way to look at what is happening to our pension funds.
‘The response from the pension fund investors was quite positive until the President of the CalPers pension fund — the largest in the country — said, “You don’t understand. It’s too late. They have given up on the country. They are moving all the money out in the fall (of 1997). They are moving it to Asia.” He did not say who “they” were but did indicate that it was urgent that I see Nick Brady — as if our data that indicated that there was hope for the country might make a difference. I thought at the time that he meant that the pension funds and other institutional investors would be shifting a much higher portion of their investment portfolios to emerging markets. I was naive. He was referring to something much more significant.’
The fall that the President of CalPERS was referring to was the fall of October 1997. It was the beginning of federal fiscal 1998. This was when the $21 trillion started to go missing from HUD and DOD. For more on this missing money, see our presentation at the Missing Money website at https://missingmoney.solari.com
This meeting underscored for me that the governance system of the largest pension fund in the country was not what the law said the governance system was. If the banking establishment, including the US Treasury and Federal Reserve, could engineer a housing bubble that sucked massive amounts of capital out of the country, and in so doing dictate to CalPERS that they continue to buy billions of mortgage-backed securities and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae stocks, ultimately taking significant losses on them and on real estate when the bubble burst, then whatever was happening, the fiduciary governance structure was not intact.
At the same time billions of dollars started to disappear from HUD, my company Hamilton Securities, which was serving as the lead financial advisor at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was targeted by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Inspector General at HUD.
When the government attacked, they came after every different aspect of my credit and finances – both personally and professionally. I had $500,000 in a 401(k). I had used these funds to finance Hamilton Securities, and then when the company was successful, it paid the 401(k) back. I had the vehicle in place and I could use it to finance the company again. Sure enough, what did the government do? The IRS put the 401(k) under audit, which meant that I couldn’t use it to finance the company.
What happened next? The DOJ demanded huge amounts of make-work for subpoena compliance that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. They issued subpoenas that required about $200,000 of essentially make-work on backing up servers and repetitive subpoena compliance. I busted the 401(k), paid $250,000 in taxes, and spent the $200,000 on doing the contract compliance. That was it for 401(k)s and me.
Many years later when I won the litigation and monies were paid to Hamilton Securities, my CPA said, “Great! Let’s refund $500,000 into the 401(k). I said, “Nope. I’m never going to have a 401(k) again.” I had learned my lesson. It’s not my money if I am in partnership with the US government. They are an untrustworthy partner that I cannot depend on to obey the law.
One thing that you know if you’ve ever worked out the compound interest rate on tax deferral is, where it’s legal, tax avoidance and tax deferral are profoundly attractive. At the same time, my feeling is, given what I do, if I put a dime into a 401(k) or an IRA, “it ain’t my money.”
There are many situations where I recommend to clients that they keep their 401(k) or IRAs. It’s unique to the person. So I’m not saying that you shouldn’t have a 401(k), I’m only saying that I consider the US government – for someone in my situation doing what I do – to be a untrustworthy partner. What is interesting is, if you look at the headlines these days, including the most recent interview I posted on Solari from Bill Binney, the DOJ is now openly and blatantly lawless. They are trying to do to the President of the `United States what they tried to do to Bill Binney – unsuccessfully – and they tried to do to me – also unsuccessfully.
I will never put a dime into a 401(k) or IRA. Every year I read Dave Collum in his annual review denigrate people who buy bottled water when their 401(k) is not fully funded. That’s me. I travel with water from my well when I travel by car. However, airports now refuse to let me take my water through security, so I buy bottled water. Having been poisoned on multiple occasions during the litigation followed by years of detoxing, I understand how essential it is to stay hydrated – especially while traveling. The notion that I would shortchange my health to put money in a vehicle partnered with the US government is amusing. It will never happen. Sorry, Dave!
My “Community” Bank
At the time the litigation began, I had loaned (or given) $250,000 to friends and family. I know that Solari Report subscribers who are familiar with my work have heard this story before. This was $250,000 the government couldn’t seize. They couldn’t get my bank to dirty trick me (Yes, Hamilton Securities had one local bank that worked with the government and their private “snitches” to cheat us) on that $250,000 because it was not in my bank account. It was in the bank accounts and personal assets and savings of many different members of my family and friends.
I had an uncle who was financially secure. He decided to help me because I had a long tradition of helping other members of our family. I hadn’t loaned or given him any money. However, he had witnessed me be generous and help family and friends. He said, “Okay, she took care of us, so I will take care of her.” Those personal loans and gifts and the help from my uncle actually kept me alive. It was the one source of money that the government could never shut off and they tried. They made threatening phone calls to my uncle and showed up at his door in the middle of the night with a subpoena. I was lucky. My uncle was a strong, principled man. The smear and scare tactics did not work.
When I finished the litigation and became an investment advisor, one of the things that I noticed looking at clients’ portfolios and financial statements was that they were working hard to fill up their 401(k)s and IRAs. At the same time, they were not spending sufficient amounts of money on their preventative health care or healthy food – or they weren’t helping their kids buy homes, or reinvesting money in their skills and business. They were starving their family and their businesses of sound investment. This was all on the theory that they had to put more money into their 401(k) and IRAs. What they didn’t understand was that they had been trained to suck up all of the money they needed for their family, for their health, for their community, and, turn it over to large corporations to finance the national security state.
When I settled the litigation, I took the $500,000 that my CPA wanted to put into my 401(k) and repaid and gifted it to the people who helped me survive and succeed. I was convinced that the friendly folks at the DOJ were going to arrange for the IRS to go after me. I knew that if the money were in my “community bank,” there would be less to go after. The thing that kept me alive was personal loans and gifts and the people who helped me at great personal risk. I had loaned and gifted $250,000, and that was what came back albeit not necessarily from the same people; it wasn’t tit-for-tat.
It was like the Great Mandala; you put it out, and it comes back around. I put that $500,000 back out in the “community bank” and I am confident that it is coming back around.
I came to the realization during the litigation period that I could not depend on the traditional healthcare system. It was increasingly not productive or safe for someone in my circumstance. I also concluded that if I continued to pay for healthcare insurance, I would not be able to afford healthcare. In fact, I didn’t need healthcare insurance; I needed healthcare. This started me on a journey of discovering highly economic and practical natural alternatives.
During this period I visited the original homestead of my family when they came to Tennessee four generations ago. It was a log cabin with a dirt floor and no windows – with no heat and no running water. Ten people had lived there for the first winter in Tennessee in the 1850’s. I realized that my ancestors have had long lives for thousands of years without healthcare insurance, without pensions and without disability insurance- all of the things that, as a successful professional person, I thought I needed.
Somehow standing inside the log cabin broke the trance. From then on I focused my health care dollars on good nutrition and caring for my own health as much as possible. I became much more adept at navigating the traditional systems when I needed to access the wonders of modern medicine.
As described in the commentary, this approach turned out to be the right one for me.
My Pension Fund
I had a pension fund from my career on Wall Street. Occasionally as I was organizing my finances, I would call up the US subsidiary of the global bank that owned the bank that had bought the company I worked for that was now the administrator of my pension fund. I tried to get signed up on their online system. They would deny that I was in the pension fund. They insisted that they had no obligation to provide me with a pension fund.
I got frustrated, so I had my lawyer call. Again, they denied that I was in the plan. They refused to recognize my documentation.
At the same time, I had a partner who persuaded me that I should apply for social security early because, if you look at what I could do in terms of investment with my existing savings, he calculated I would be better off taking social security early. And he argued, the system was not trustworthy – if I waited they could change the rules on me. In the process I received a document from Social Security that authenticated and confirmed that the pension fund had sent a confirmation to the Department of Labor that I was in the pension fund and was owed a monthly benefit at a certain level. I now had an official government document that certified the pension fund itself had reported to the federal government my being a beneficiary.
So I called the bank again, and lo and behold, they insisted that I wasn’t in the pension fund. So I sent them a copy of the document. About three weeks later I received a call from a person from the bank who was clearly too senior to be doing customer service – even for a situation like this. I suspect, but I cannot prove, that what had happened was, for political reasons, someone made sure that my name was out of the database, and after investigation they discovered, “We need to put her back in.”
It could have been my old Dillon Read partners trying to make sure that I couldn’t get my pension fund. However, it could simply be the pension fund trying to wiggle out of as many obligations as possible. Whatever the reason, I got the world’s most charming senior executive handling my account. I proceeded for the next month or two to get online and my pension fund began its regular payments in the course of the next year.
No matter how bad you know corruption and fraud is, it is always shocking when it happens to you. It’s like being dropped from a seesaw to have it touch you in this manner. I believe that there was an intentional effort to cheat me out of my pension fund. I will let you determine what you think happened and why.
Frankly, if it hadn’t been for the honest civil service in the US government, I would have been out of a significant flow of income for the rest of my life. It’s not the first time that US civil service has pulled my chestnuts out of the fire.
So between what happened with my 401(k) and my Wall Street pension fund, I don’t have much confidence in the pension system. I’m far from a random sample. We have a financial system in which the governance and the enforcement are sufficiently corrupt that it’s difficult to have confidence in the integrity of the system. This is why it is important that you investigate your unique situation and assess integrity at the individual fund and institution level.
My Home
One of the primary sources of retirement savings is capital gains on the family home, farm, land and real estate.
I had a very beautiful small mansion in Washington. In the process of the litigation, I experienced incredible jealousy and anger coming from the people attacking me about how beautiful my home was. Indeed, when I was Assistant Secretary of Housing, the Secretary of Housing informed me that he would never accept an invitation to attend an event at my previous home (a Washington brownstone), saying “your home is bigger than my home, I would find it castrating.”
I proceeded to sell my home and about every possession in it – all my antiques, all my art collection, everything, including selling family antiques back to relatives – to finance the make work and deal with the smear campaigns, litigation and physical harassment. Needless to say, it was difficult to generate an income when the workload created by government required 70-100 hours a week of work for many years.
At various times I had my house and my possessions used as weapons against me. When I traveled after I moved to Tennessee, every time I returned home, there was one thing of sentimental value or financial value gone. It happened so consistently, I was sure it was no accident. My research showed that this was “standard operating procedure” in such circumstances. So I made a decision to dispose of almost all my possessions. I made a list of everything that had any sentimental or financial value, and I sold them or gave most of them to my relatives and friends. Indeed that was quite a Christmas if you knew me at that time – I had one relative who received a Renoir print for Christmas.
When I settled the litigation I said to myself, “No one is every going to use my possessions as a weapon against me again. I will buy the smallest possible home. I’m going to buy something where I can have my own well – where I don’t have to depend on fluoridated water systems. I will buy a home in an area where costs and taxes are extremely modest. I will use the remnants of remaining furniture – I will not redecorate.”
I have three small properties in Hickory Valley, Tennessee. My combined property taxes on all three are approximately $500 a year. So let’s say that there are terrible state and local municipal funding problems and my property taxes are tripled, then I’m paying $1,500.
I know of people in states or high-cost areas with high property taxes. If they double their property taxes, it can destroy the value of the real estate. It can’t destroy the value of my real estate – my value is too small. I didn’t try to buy a home in an area where I thought I could make decent capital gains. I wanted a home that if it were fire bombed, it was the bank and insurance company’s problem, not mine. I could come up quickly in a new place.
I wanted to put my money in the things that had worked for me. I knew that if I invested in Netflix and Amazon I could make money, but I didn’t come here only to make money. I came here to make a difference. So I invested in launching and building the Solari Report and Solari Investment Advisory Services and in building a global network of people making a difference all around the world.
One of the reasons I chose to stay in Tennessee was because of the due diligence I did on the state budgets and the state pension fund system. They were conservatively managed. Every time I deal with state and local governments here in Tennessee, I get somebody who is competent, who is perfectly pleasant, but tough. These attitudes are certainly reflected if you look at their pension fund arrangements. Our state pension funds have one of the highest funding ratios in the country.
If you come to Tennessee, people live much more modestly than many other states. We have no income tax, but we do have a very high sales tax. In my home town of Hickory Valley, if you go to the city council meeting once a month, the first thing that the mayor and city council do is open the mail, go through the bills, and write the checks. There is no staff and no payroll. This is one of the reasons my property taxes are so low. Our municipality is a very modest operation that never built up the overhead that has happened around the rest of the country. In fact, if everyone in Hickory Valley stopped paying their taxes, they have enough municipal reserves to operate for several decades.
If you look at where we are concerning the economic outlook, I have enjoyed much fewer capital gains since 2000 on my property than I would have if I were in Chicago. However, I have enormous protection from increases from unfunded state and local obligations, a failure of local municipal services and from inflation. If inflation increases, overhead could be hit significantly, and if we get a significant fall in the value of the US dollar, it could be even more significant. A low cost overhead protects me relatively to being in a high cost area.
I did an exercise two years ago looking at all of this. If when I started Hamilton Securities, instead of doing Hamilton, I only invested my money in the stocks I thought would go up during this period, how much would I be worth?” I figured that I would probably be worth – at a minimum – $40 million. I showed my analysis to a very good friend. She looked at me and said, “Yes, but you would be dead.” She was right. If you look at what I would have had to live with and emotionally tolerate, I’m not someone who can watch people being genocided around me and do nothing. To sit around and do nothing would have literally killed me. And If I had stayed in the traditional healthcare system instead of getting to know a wonderful world of natural health and nutrition practitioners, that would certainly have killed me.
One thing I will say – if my net worth is not at the $5-10 million level that many advisors would insist is necessary for a secure retirement – I would say the primary reason is because the cost and time required to live successfully in the face of significant criminal elements has been and continues to be enormous. It was certainly not the result of a failure to save. When you donate approximately 30,000+ hours of make-work to litigating with the federal governments efforts to falsely frame you during your prime working years it qualifies as a “deep state drain.” This is why I am consistently shocked when Americans suggest I should donate more time to helping the US government.
So it’s an unorthodox pathway that I’ve taken. I have constantly moved away from untrustworthy systems towards trustworthy systems. Sometimes that has meant going without or going it alone. If you look at my experiences with the 401(k) system, with federal law enforcement, with the pension fund system, with one of the largest global banks in the world, or the community bank in Washington that I believe defrauded Hamilton Securities, what I have found is that many of these different systems are untrustworthy. The moral of the story is to do your best to stick with trustworthy people, institutions and governments. Seek integrity – there is still plenty available but you need to find and cultivate it.
If I were reviewing your situation, I would have to look at the specifics to understand how this applied to you. If you take someone who is in a corrupt 401(k) situation and in a corrupt pension fund system and in a state and local government that has sizeable unfunded liabilities, you’re talking about someone who can be harmed badly – even destroyed – by what is coming.
VIII. Total Economic Returns – Why Are We Financing Governments, Companies and Products and Services with Negative Returns?
If a private investor buys stock in a company that is making money doing something harmful to the environment, people or economy, they may say, “I am only one person. I have to go along with what makes money in the market. There is nothing I can do.” While I don’t agree with their point of view, it is true that the impact of one person is typically small. However, for a large US pension fund, part of investing $25 trillion in US retirement savings, it is hard to make the same case. If a large pension fund is making money on corporate or government activities that shrink the overall economy or harm the health and well being of the general population, ultimately the harm done to the whole is going to shrink the total pie.
Our pension funds are large enough that they can understand and take responsibility for the health of the whole.
If you look at countries where sovereign wealth funds and pension funds have taken an interest in long-term strategic thinking about what can make the pie as healthy and large as possible, they appear to have more support and trust from the general population. Indeed, a number of large US public pension have also provided leadership on public policy and corporate governance issues.
One area in which this question of the “total economic returns” is pertinent is in health care. One of the challenges for the US pension systems is the underfunding of health care benefits. One of the reasons is that health care costs are exploding. The US spends significantly more per person than other countries on health care but that investment does not translate into a healthy population.
When you dig into the corporate profits that are generating high stock prices, the pension funds are making a nice profit on activities that are slowly bankrupting them when you look through to their health care liabilities. Or they are financing the US government passing laws, enforcing regulations or providing subsidies that ensure the general population’s health will deteriorate.
Another area is the black budget. We know that the US government’s official outstanding debt is $20 trillion. We also know that there are $21 trillion in undocumentable adjustments in federal accounts between fiscal 1990-2015. Let’s say for purposes of this example that this $21 trillion works out to $10 trillion in cash that was transferred into the black budget, creating valuable assets and technology that are now owned by private companies and investors. A significant amount of that transfer would likely have been financed by the purchase of US Treasury securities. US pension and retirement accounts are significant purchasers of these securities. In that case, the US federal financial operations have been used to transfer trillions in real savings out of our pension funds and into private companies and investors. The asset our pension funds now own is an IOU from us as taxpayers backing the US government. We have transferred real savings to private investors in exchange for an IOU from ourselves.
If you step back and look at the operation – particularly in a world where interest rates are extremely low – the US government may simply have become a money laundering operation that transfers our private savings into the black budget in exchange for an IOU, which we are liable.
It seems that the pension funds have a responsibility to not permit our savings to be systematically drained in this manner. No doubt some would argue that the pension funds are in part protected by owning stock in the companies that are the beneficiaries of the asset and technology transfers.
If we are going to allow our family wealth to be centrally managed and controlled, it seems that we have an obligation to ensure that our pension management understand and is responsible for making sure that the total economic returns of pension investments are sound. If you look at the shenanigans that the US pension funds have been financing all along, you would think that they would outperform the benchmark considerably. The fact that they have under performed the benchmark while doing so makes the situation much more frightening.
IX. Other Issues
There are several other issues that should be considered when addressing the condition of our pension funds.
Governance
The first – and most important- is the integrity of the governance structure. Increasingly we are seeing business and government leaders compromised by surveillance, covert operations and control files. We need to ensure that the people who govern and manage our pension funds are qualified to do so and are free to govern and manage without undue pressure or influence that cause them to act in ways contradictory to the laws or best interests of the beneficiaries.
Fiscal and Monetary Policies
Another issue is the impact of monetary and fiscal policies. Falling interest rates have reduced pension fund fixed income returns. At the same time quantitative easing has contributed to the debasement of currencies, contributing to the bubbling of real estate and stock market returns. These policies have contributed to long-term misallocations of capital. It seems that the pension funds should have a greater say in such policies rather than passively continue to finance them.
Defined Benefit vs. Defined Contribution
One of the links that I put in the bibliography is a very interesting letter from one of the teachers’ groups related to an effort by the John & Laura Arnold Foundation to encourage defined contribution plans, as opposed to defined benefit plans.
When you look at what is happening with the under funding of pension benefits, your first conclusion would naturally be to say, “Oh, well, rather than promising a defined benefit and then struggling in the political or corporate process to make it happen, let’s switch to defined contribution. Then if the market or the dollar collapses, the beneficiary will assume the risk. We can’t have the state and local government or the corporations responsible for coming up with a set benefit. It’s just too risky and too difficult. So let’s shift the responsibility back to the beneficiary”.
There is a certain logic in having beneficiary risk rise and fall with the market. I could see why that structure would be more flexible and more attractive to some of the parties. You have the benefit of the beneficiary taking the risk, but you still get to continue to control capital centrally. It’s somewhat the best of both worlds for the people who run the financial system.
Here is the problem: If you look at the bailouts and the money missing from government and at the largesse of quantitative easing– which all come together in ‘the financial coup d’état’ – what you are seeing is that we are guaranteeing a no-risk, zero cost of capital world to insiders, and then turning around and saying, “You know something? Not only are we going to force the general population to finance our mistakes by bailing us out, but what we are going to do is tell you that we’re not going to maintain our legal contractual obligations to you.”
There was no legal and contractual obligation to provide the banks with $24+ trillion, and there is certainly no legal mechanism under the law to disappear $21 trillion or whatever the real number is, from the Departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development.
We are creating a defined benefit world for a group of people who don’t have any legal rights or contractual benefits, but are saying “No, we won’t maintain the defined benefits for this other group of people, aka ‘outsiders’; we want them to bear all the risk. They bore the risk on the housing bubble, and they bore the risk on the bailouts, and now they are going to bear the risk on the pension funds.”
The rich get richly defined guaranteed benefits and everyone else gets defined contributions. The rich bear no system risk – all of it is borne by the general population. The big banks have a 0-1% cost of capital at the Fed window, the poor are paying 30% on their credit cards and sub-prime loans for used cars.
And you ask what is the cause of growing inequality? The answer looks very obvious to me.
Index Funds
If you compare the 60/40 benchmark that I described in the performance chart above, essentially one might look at that and say, “Well, maybe we should just index investments.”
That’s not a good idea. The challenge that we have is that the index system from the beginning was designed to depend on market pricing and on some active managers to do or pay for research and analysis that would provide market discipline.
As a result of government and central banks actively managing markets, we’ve lost honest prices. Then as more investment is indexed, we take out analysts who are digging in and questioning and making a difference to the pricing and the market function. Lose enough capacity and investors start flying blind. We lose the market discipline that indexers depend on for their approach to work.
If pension funds are indexed and you’re not complaining about important issues related to total economic returns (such as iPhones addicting children), and don’t fund managers to do the kind of analysis to make sure that you really want to buy this stock, you’re taking out the last remnants of market discipline. It’s like hosting a sporting match but forgetting to include the referees. The entire society can take all of its capital and drive right off a cliff because indexing can make you very stupid. The allocation of capital becomes even more political and manipulable.
That said, you can’t continue to significantly under perform the benchmark. So the question is: How do you return integrity to the governance and management process? That gets us back to the deep state drain.
Private Equity and Venture
As central banks have loosened monetary policy, the competition for returns has resulted in an explosion of hedge funds, private equity and LBO firms that try to generate both higher returns and fees. This includes moving to the front end of the investment process. They are buying companies before they undertake an IPO. Or they are loading companies up with debt while soaking out their cash in a form of liquidation.
Many of those firms are financed by pension funds. I often scratch my head and say, “Why are you financing them doing things that skim off the front end ahead of what you get?” I suspect they are using the pension funds for, what we used to call, ‘dumb money’.
This is back to the question as to whether government and pension funds are going to support insiders making above market returns by lowering total economic returns.
Earning Assumptions
Calculations of funding ratios depend on assumptions about future earnings and returns – which means that funding ratios can swing wildly depending on assumptions about what happens in the future. Beware of presentations that are too dire or too rosy based on a swing in assumptions. Understand that the future is made up of multiple possible scenarios and we all have a vested interest in helping ensure as healthy an environment, population and economy as possible.
X. The Bottom Line
Let’s bring this down to the bottom line.
Let’s do some ‘guestimates’ about the component parts of what I call the financial coup d’état.
The bailouts consisted of loans and gifts to banks that had no contractual rights to such largesse. The estimate from the TARP Inspector General was a total of $24 trillion.
Before the bailouts we had the pump and dump of the Internet and Telecom stocks – let’s put that at $250 billion.
Of course before that pump and dump we had many decades of narcotics trafficking and related mortgage and securities fraud. If we want to only go back to Iran Contra, we can add at least another $1 trillion.
And then consider the privatization of the rehabilitation and corrections’ systems nationwide, beginning in the Clinton Administration, whose cost was felt not only in higher government expenditures for their services, but also the harder to calculate the effect of an economic system which encouraged the mass incarceration of large segments of our population at enormous expense – destroying not only economic value but hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives.
Then there are $21 trillion of undocumentable adjustments at HUD and DOD – that is not a complete total as documentation is missing for some years at those agencies. And there are another 20 agencies that have not been surveyed.
Add to this Quantitative Easing, which includes permission to the Federal Reserve to retain the profits that they have traditionally paid to the Treasury. It also gives them the ability to purchase at par securities that may be worth much less, even fraudulently issued with shenanigans of the kind we have read about with Wells Fargo. How much does Quantitative Easing add? Trillions?
Then there are reports of hundreds of billions in money missing in Iraq.
Then, of course, there is the ongoing black budget, which is not disclosed or disclosed in part to the House and Senate Intelligence committees only.
There are decades of technology transfer of both regular contract budget and black budget government contracts in which private companies are allowed to own the resulting technology that was paid for by the taxpayers. If you read The Day After Roswell by Philip Corso, you can appreciate that Silicon Valley and the aerospace and defense industries were created by technology laundered out of government ownership into corporate ownership in arguably the greatest corporate windfalls in our history. This is my vote for the largest transfer of wealth.
There are other things we could add – market manipulation related to the Exchange Stabilization Fund, insider trading, naked short selling, dark trading programs – the list and allegations go on. But pick a large number for financial market manipulation in stock, bond, currency, derivatives, precious metals and commodities and throw that into the pot.
My guestimate for the amount stolen or shifted illegally through these mechanisms is $50 trillion, although I can argue the number higher. But don’t accept my number. Feel free to go through the different frauds, drains and illegal transfers and determine what you think the number might be. Just guess. Your sincere guess will work well for this exercise.
Let’s leave social security out and assume on the $25 trillion of funded pension fund assets that the under funding is $5 trillion. This does not include healthcare because healthcare is a more complex story.
This sounds like a large amount of money, but is it really? It’s only 10% of $50 trillion.
So what is the problem? If it’s not a problem for $21 trillion to go missing from DOD and HUD and it is possible to come up with more than $20+ trillion to give or loan to the banks when there is no legal obligation to do so and when we can transfer trillions of the most valuable technology in the world to private corporations at zero cost, I assure you that fixing whatever pension fund problem there is, is not difficult. However, the political will must exist and want to. That is the problem.
If we can print money to give $20 trillion + to the banks and let $21 trillion go missing from the federal government, why is it a problem to print $5 trillion to fund the pension funds?
Maybe it is because the pension funds are the real money we are using to fund and finance all these various shenanigans. You need a real source of money other than printing through the central banks to make the system go. Hence, pensions are a source of real assets. You cannot allow them to become a used.
It gets back to what I said before. We do not have an under funding crisis. We have a political decision made in the early 1990’s to abrogate a significant amount of pension fund obligations. Money was shifted out and replaced with IOUs from the beneficiaries in the form of securitized or government debt. So when the day came that the boomers wanted their dollar back, it wouldn’t be there; it would be somewhere else. What there would be are trillions in IOUs from a bankrupt government for which the boomers were liable as taxpayers.
We don’t have a financial problem; we have a political problem. The reason we have this problem is because the leadership of the country engineered a financial coup d’état that would, of course, result in this problem.
Think of it this way: It’s not a crisis; it’s a plan.
XI. What Can I Do?
There are a number of important steps you can take to apply this knowledge to your unique situation.
Change the Narrative
There is a statue of A. Philip Randolph in Union Station in Washington DC with a message for those who pass by it in the Nation’s capital:
At the banquet table of nature, there are no reserved seats. You get what you can take, and you keep what you can hold. If you can’t take anything, you won’t get anything, and if you can’t hold anything, you won’t keep anything. And you can’t take anything without organization.
If we are going to shift what happens to the future of retirement and pension benefits in a more positive direction, it is essential to organize. Step one is to change the narrative.
The official narrative, which has an abundance of facts and data to spin, instills panic and blame. It says “Oh, God! We didn’t save enough. It’s our fault. We’re to blame. We haven’t been sufficiently disciplined, so now we’re just going to have to cut benefits and cut benefits and cut benefits and cut benefits. It’s the way it is. There is not enough money.”
Here is an alternative – and more accurate — narrative. “If $21 trillion can disappear from HUD and DOD, let’s get it back and fully fund our pension funds. What is the problem?” Or, “If we can loan or gift $20+ trillion to the banks, what is the problem? Let’s do the same for our pension funds!”
Politics is first and foremost a negotiation over who gets what resources. If we want to stop the harvesting, the first step is to change the narrative. We don’t have a pension fund crisis; we have a political plan. The pension fund crisis is created by that plan. It’s time to change the plan.
Changing the narrative can have a tremendous impact on the resulting allocation of resources over the next five to twenty years, especially if it is inspires meaningful transparency about the black budget and deep state drain.
Do you think that it is not possible to change the narrative? I assure you it is. The leadership agrees with me, which is, among other things, why they are pushing for enhanced mind control technology and gun control with a vengeance.
This year is an election year in the United States – we are electing 435 members of the House of Representatives and more than 30 Senators and 30 Governors as well as thousands of state and local officials. There will be a wealth of opportunities to change the narrative.
Identify Your State and Local Risk
As you change the narrative, it is also essential that you consider what under funding of pension funds will do to your state and local taxes, property taxes, real estate values and essential municipal systems and services. If you are a US citizen or resident, you are likely a federal, state and local taxpayer.
Please find out what the unfunded liabilities of your state and local jurisdictions are and what those unfunded liabilities could mean for your taxes and local services. These liabilities are real and you need to understand their implications for you and your community.
Whenever possible, you need to encourage close family and friends to implement the same exercise to the extent that their financial challenges could impact you as well.
Where practicable, you may want to consider organizing a local group to share the research responsibilities and potential actions involved.
Identify Your Pension Risk
If you expect to receive income from a pension fund, find out what the funding ratios are and whether or not you and your fellow beneficiaries need to do something to ensure your pension is properly managed and fully funded. Indeed a recent survey, posted in the bibliography, indicates a very high percentage of beneficiaries believe their pension fund is fully funded when it is not.
To the extent possible, you need to encourage close family and friends to implement the same exercise to the extent that their financial challenges could impact you as well.
Build Independent Wealth
One of the reasons that we are in this situation is that we allowed our savings to be centrally controlled and managed. One way to relieve this problem is to start building independent family wealth.
One of the books we recommend in the Best Books for 2018 is Family Wealth by Jay Hughes. It was written to help wealthy families stay wealthy. However, it can help families learn how to build wealth as well. Are you plowing money into centrally controlled systems at the cost of building family wealth?
It is never too late to begin. So please start in 2018.
Build Health Care Literacy
Health challenges are a leading cause of financial problems. There is tremendous opportunity to improve your financial future by how you and your family preserve your health and navigate the health care system. Remember, the underfunding of health care is more significant than even pension funds. During the last year, we’ve had two Solari Reports on this topic – one with Dr. Laura Thompson, and one recently with Jo Kline.
If you look at the environmental problems causing health difficulties and disease, whether it’s GMO foods, glyphosate, fluoride in the water or heavy metal and global spraying, all of these things are impacting health and life expectancy. The traditional medical system cannot help you. You need to take charge. You will find quantities of information and ideas on The Solari Report.
So these are my comments on pension funds. The truth is different than the official reality. Whether truth or official reality – the pension fund situation is a financial tsunami that will be working its way through the body politic for many years. It is to your advantage to understand both the truth and the official reality so that you can change the narrative while managing the specifics of your unique situation in a manner that is effective for you.
Taking the time to do so now can make a significant contribution to the success of your efforts to live a free and inspired life – which is our vision for you!
XII. Appendix
Sources
Link to the bibliography of studies, books, articles and websites for those who would like to explore this topic further – click here.
A Note of Gratitude
Special thanks to Jason Worth for his research and collection and analysis of pension fund asset and performance data as well as astute insights and conversations.
It is very, very difficult to plead for the Israeli Prime Minister. He is the man who killed the peace process, who enslaved the Palestinians, tortured Gaza, bombed Syria and Lebanon, did his damnedest to ignite war with Iran. However, there is a Jewish tradition of apologia, of finding positive points of villains.
Syria and its allies have every legal right to defend Syria’s peoples, its sovereignty and its territorial integrity. The terrorists, on the other hand, have no right to destroy the country, and to target civilians, as they have been doing, for the last 7 years.
On Wednesday, February 21st, the UK’s Minister of Defence, Conservative Gavin Williamson, announced that the United Kingdom is changing its fundamental defence strategy from one that’s targeted against non-state terrorists (Al Qaeda, etc.), to one that’s targeted instead against three countries: Russia, China, and North Korea. He acknowledged that a massive increase in military spending will be needed for this, and that “savings” will have to be found in other areas of Government-spending, such as the health services, and in military spending against terrorism.
It makes no logical sense that an athlete would do a one-time consumption of a chemical that is of no value in circumstances where it is almost certain to be detected with huge negative consequences.
Already some austerity measures have already been taken under this 2018 budget which are meant to attract capital from investors. Zimbabwe now has a leaner cabinet and some government workers have been terminated. Zimbabwe initiated its fast track land reform, it enacted an indigenous and economic empowerment act which restricted foreign multinational company’s domination including mining. This has never been done nowhere in Africa, it jettisoned the Economic Economic Structural Adjustment Programme to embark on a “socialist” path.
On Friday, president Trump announced that his administration would be hitting North Korea with the “heaviest sanctions ever imposed on a country before.” The new penalties target dozens of ships and shipping companies that have (allegedly) been helping Pyongyang sustain its economy — and thus, its nuclear program.
“We say at every opportunity we have that Syria, Iraq and other places in the geography [map] in our hearts are no different from our own homeland. We are struggling so that a foreign flag will not be waved anywhere where adhan [Islamic call to prayer in mosques] is recited.”
Apparently Erdogan means at the very least the recapture of all the lands once held by the Ottoman Empire. That’s not just Greece, as in the article title below. That’s also Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Syria, Iraq, Israel, Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and more. How seriously this can be taken is anybody’s guess, but it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. Erdogan is already moving against the Kurds in Syria, explicitly calling the action a “jihad” and invoking the Ottoman era repeatedly.
And “We are struggling so that a foreign flag will not be waved anywhere where adhan [Islamic call to prayer in mosques] is recited” refers to far more than just the old Ottoman domains. That means everywhere there are Muslims in Europe and everywhere else. The caliphate is, in Sunni Islamic theology, the sole legitimate government for Muslims on earth, to which all Muslims owe allegiance. Erdogan is saying more clearly than he ever has before, as far as I know, that he is going to restore the caliphate. And he is virtually promising war with the non-Muslim (at least for now) states of Europe.
How far we have come. Just a few years ago, mainstream analysts would dismiss my talk of jihad and the caliphate by pointing to Turkey as an example of how Islam can coexist with democracy, and confidently predicting that soon the rest of the Islamic world would follow Turkey’s lead. Now they don’t talk about Turkey so much anymore.
“Turkey Threatens to Invade Greece,” by Uzay Bulut, Gatestone Institute, February 19, 2018:
…Referring to the days of the Ottoman Empire, Erdoğan went on:
“Those who think that we have erased from our hearts the lands from which we withdrew in tears a hundred years ago are wrong.
“We say at every opportunity we have that Syria, Iraq and other places in the geography [map] in our hearts are no different from our own homeland. We are struggling so that a foreign flag will not be waved anywhere where adhan [Islamic call to prayer in mosques] is recited.
“The things we have done so far [pale in comparison to the] even greater attempts and attacks [we are planning for] the coming days, inshallah [Allah willing].”…
The best Prime Minister the country has ever had. This is how Benjamin Netanyahu is referred to by his numerous supporters. He is the longest-serving one, since the founder of the Jewish state, David Ben Gurion; he served longer than Vladimir Putin. But now apparently he is on the way to follow his predecessor Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to jail. Olmert had been released only half a year ago after a stint for corruption and obstruction of justice. Now it is Netanyahu’s turn to taste prison gruel, instead of pink champagne he is so fond of. Or isn’t it?
The ring of the Israeli PM story sounds familiar to the American ears. Israeli police chief Ronny Alsheich has fought Bibi as hard as Robert Mueller has fought Trump, while Israeli media stood with police against the Prime Minister as the New York Times stood with the FBI. Every accusation had been leaked to the press well in advance of hearing. The public had been bombarded by accusations day and night. Not only the PM, but his wife, the woman of harsh and ungenerous manners, has been relentlessly attacked, too.
The modus operandi of Israeli Police had been very similar to that of the FBI. They found a weaker man, jailed him for some invented (or true) reason and forced him to denounce the boss. What was done to Manafort and Gates, had been done to Shlomo Filber and Ari Harow.
In the end, the police succeeded in forcing the PM’s inner circle to betray their benefactor. Shlomo Filber, the suspended Communications Ministry director general had spent “two nights in a cold, stinking cell in the police lockup”, says Haaretz newspaper, and he agreed to incriminate Netanyahu.
It is very, very difficult to plead for the Israeli Prime Minister. He is the man who killed the peace process, who enslaved the Palestinians, tortured Gaza, bombed Syria and Lebanon, did his damnedest to ignite war with Iran. However, there is a Jewish tradition of apologia, of finding positive points of villains.
A Rabbi had been asked to eulogise Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, the man greatly hated by observant Jews of his day. He said, Herzl had never walked into a WC while wearing phylacteries; he never studied Talmud on Christmas Eve; and he didn’t shave on Sabbath. These acts are strictly prohibited by the Jewish law, and Herzl didn’t transgress against these prohibitions. (It is beside the point that he didn’t shave, didn’t study Talmud and didn’t wear phylacteries ever at all).
Another Rabbi had defended Satan regarding his persistence in tormenting Job. He said: God loved Job, the wonderful goy, and even preferred him to Abraham, the first Jew. Satan’s intervention had turned God’s kindness to Abraham; it was actually a good deed, restoring Divine attention to the Chosen folk. After hearing that, Satan flew to the wise Rabbi and kissed the fringe of his robe.
Roni Alsheikh
In the spirit of these wise Rabbis, I’ll try to raise a few points in favour of the Israeli PM.
Netanyahu didn’t take a bribe in any regular meaning of the word. He is not a corrupt man, keen to make a quick buck; he is not a fastidious one, either, but politicians rarely are.
He is accused of having a good time with and accepting gifts from the Israeli billionaire and ex-spy Arnon Milchan. This appears to be a proper thing to do in the case of a man who produced pro-Israeli films and did much for the state of Israel. Every Israeli PM would do the same, while enjoying his splendid cigars and good whisky. Netanyahu tried to promote a regulation that would benefit Milchan, but this act would benefit every rich Jew investing in Israel, not just Milchan.
Netanyahu is accused of helping media owners and asking them for a favourable press coverage. This does not strike me as an offence: everybody asks media lords for a positive coverage. Netanyahu had the same problem Trump has: media is universally hostile to him. It was not objective; media was out to get him, spilling lies or exaggerating his minor transgressions. In order to rule efficiently, he needed some positive coverage, but they were prejudiced against him, so he was forced to use this subterfuge by their hostility.
There is a lot of unsubstantiated stories about Mr and Mrs Netanyahu, all of them petty penny-pinching: they overcharged the state while ordering catering, they overpaid their electrician, they returned empty bottles to the shop and got the deposit back, but didn’t refund it to the state. The Attorney General reasonably concluded that there is no proof they actually knew of this detail of housekeeping.
Years ago, a person close to the PM had sounded out a candidate for the post of Attorney General on Mrs Netanyahu’s case. This was presented as an attempt to sell the high position in return for dropping the case; but it was a reasonable precaution. Pity Donald Trump did not sound out Sessions on RussiaGate before appointing him.
Thus, despite much talk, there is very little real hard stuff against PM Netanyahu, but he had been already tried by media and found guilty. However, Bibi is not indicted yet, though the police chief had recommended that. The decision is that of the Attorney General; he will probably postpone making it unless Ronny Alsheich, the top policeman, will find a way to put pressure on the AG.
If and when Bibi will be indicted, he may fight all the way through the court, and he may win. His followers won’t take his defeat easily, shrug their shoulders and go home. They will cause a lot of trouble, and Bibi is not the type to surrender.
However, if he will have to leave his post, who is likely to become the leader of the Jewish state? There are no good guys we can hope to inherit the throne. Like its neighbour Lebanon, Israel is divided into communities divided by their origin and their attitude to religion. Economically the strongest one is the secular East European Ashkenazi community, but it suffers of the same illness of mind the WASPs of America are heirs to. They are liberal and uncertain of their ability and right to rule. They accepted the minorities-prone agenda like the American white liberals: they are for LGBT, for black African refugees and they would like to have Oriental Jews fronting for them.
The Oriental Jewish communities hate Ashkenazi Jews, but they hate Arabs even more. This hatred to Arabs is the cement of the Jewish state. The Orientals want to be top dogs, but they aren’t certain of their abilities and actually prefer the Ashkenazis to take care of the state affairs.
Religious Jewish communities also subscribe to hatred of Arabs, but they are split between ultra-orthodox and nationalist. The ultra-orthodox care more about their own self-interest, while the nationalist religious are millenarians and chiliasts.
Now there are six persons with some chance of inheriting the PM office; more can appear, and some may drop out. Let us look at them briefly. From the Right to Centre-Right, there are
(1) the fiery-spoken secular Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the Russian Jew from Moldova, who called for bombing the Aswan Dam and threatened Lebanon with a war of extinction;
(2) The Minister of Education Naphtali Bennett, the clean-shaven religious nationalist of American background, who said authorities should lock Ahed Tamimi up and throw away the key.
These two candidates are far right.
At the Centre-Right, there are
(3) Yair Lapid, good-looking ex-TV personality, probably the favourite in the race, a Macron of Israel; according to the Jerusalem Post, “the most dangerous man in Israeli politics today, a good-looking, charismatic, overconfident fool, an affable ignoramus with no intellectual gravitas, devoid of moral principle, but with the gift of a silver tongue.” He famously described the Polish astronomer Copernicus as “ancient Greek”, and called the modern Swiss sculptor Giacometti – a “great Renaissance artist”.
(4) The Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon is a Libyan Jew, the only Oriental Jew in the top league of Likud, so he is likely to attract Ashkenazis who believe that he will attract Orientals. He is centrist and rather liberal.
Bear in mind: the Oriental Jews had been disappointing in Israeli politics: they are vainglorious and weak, even if good of intentions, and rarely attract Oriental Jewish voters who prefer to vote for Ashkenazi right-wingers. For them, hatred of Arabs is more important than love of their own.
All four are hard-line Jewish nationalists; all of them hate the Palestinians and are extremely unlikely to make an accommodation (let alone peace) with them.
On the Left and Centre-Left,
5) Israel has its own Hillary Clinton; her name is Zippy Livni, an ex-spy. The liberal American Jewish media refer to her in glowing terms. Once, she practically won an election and was asked to form the government, but she could not produce a government coalition with a parliamentary majority, and thus Netanyahu became the PM, and she had joined the opposition. It is unlikely she will get a second chance.
(6) The head of Labour party, Avi Gabay, is an uninspiring figure and a hawk, at that. As he got elected to lead his party, he said he won’t invite Arabs to his government coalition; he famously said to the Arab states ‘You fire one missile – we’ll fire 20′; he also said that he won’t dismantle the Jewish settlements even for peace. He is a Moroccan Jew, and he courts Likud voters rather than his own constituency. Probably he will fail spectacularly, being unable to appeal to Ashkenazi voters (as a Moroccan) or to Sephardi voters (as too soft on Arabs).
Anyway, the last two personalities have a very little chance to form the next government.
The real rivals are the right-wing-religious and right-wing-secular candidates; in both cases Israel will move more to the right and to extreme chauvinism.
Compared with these candidates, Bibi is prudent and cautious. Though many of his admirers in Israel and in the US pushed him to war, he didn’t (always excepting Gaza, the poor Gaza that is used as the test ground for Israeli weapon manufacturers. Gaza can’t shoot back, and it is perfectly safe to kill children of Gaza. Gaza is there to justify anti-Semites at the Last Judgement). Despite his many threats to Iran and to Hezbollah, he avoided shooting war.
Would his possible successors be as prudent as him? It is slightly more likely they would choose war, as war is the best way to gain popularity, recognition and glory. Bibi is already popular, but any successor will feel a need to show his proof.
Do not regret that Israeli “left” has little chance to rule. Israel probably won’t start a war while the Labour (or Zionist Union) is outside of the government coalition. If and when the left and the right-wing form a Government of National Unity, the likelihood of war turns into certainty. Historically, the Israeli right-wing, despite its constant drive for war, has never fought a war without the approval of its elder Ashkenazi Labour brother. On the other side, the Labour has no problem in going to war. Likewise, any strong action against Palestinians will be taken with support of the “left”, or at the “left’s” initiative.
This apologia for prudent Netanyahu does not mean I have any hopes connected to his rule. I have none, and the Palestinian National Administration has no hopes either. It is rather a sad observation that awful Netanyahu will probably be replaced by an even worse politician, of Jewish religious-ISIS kind or of Jewish secular-fascist kind. This is the terrible logic of apartheid. There is a way out: elimination of apartheid and equality of Jews and non-Jews in the country; but apparently it is not on the table.
In the international context, the fall of Netanyahu will have a big impact. It will be the victory of the liberal globalists, for Netanyahu is a partner of Trump and Putin. However, the liberals won’t enjoy the fruits of their victory, as Israel will continue its drift into religious fundamentalism.
*
This article was originally published by The Unz Review.
There is no moral or legal equivalency between the legitimate Syrian government and the Western-supported terrorists that are destroying Syria.
Syria and its allies have every legal right to defend Syria’s peoples, its sovereignty and its territorial integrity. The terrorists, on the other hand, have no right to destroy the country, and to target civilians, as they have been doing, for the last 7 years.
Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists in East Ghouta, near Syria’s capital Damascus, the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world, are dug in, well-equipped, and fortified with human shields/innocent civilians. They are sectarian, and they exist as a military force because of the West, not despite the West.
Caritas Syria[1] describes the daily trauma that the aforementioned terrorists inflict on Christian communities in Damascus:
“Des centaines d’obus de mortier, en provenance des zones sous contrôle de milices djihadistes takfiristes, dont Jaïsh al-Islam, une milice wahhabite financée par l’Arabie saoudite, le Front al-Nosra, branche d’Al-Qaïda en Syrie, rebaptisé Front Fatah al-Cham, et Ahrar al-Cham, s’abattent régulièrement sur ces quartiers.”
Whereas the Syrian Arab Army seeks to avoid civilian casualties, the terrorists target civilians. This fundamental difference between the terrorists and the legitimate government is erased from Western discourse.
Recently, for example, the SAA dropped the following leaflets onto civilian areas of East Ghouta:
The letter by letter translation of the air drop out on Ghouta
Dear citizens in Eastern Ghouta!
The whole region is entirely seiged by SAA.
Everyone has got sick of this bloody war which brought nothing out but death and homes, schools and hospital destruction.
Because of terrorist groups atrocities, thousands of children, mothers, fathers, brothers and sons have been passed away or lived in refugee camps or shelters.
Dear citizens : we hope you didn’t cooperate with terrorists and urge you to leave the area ASAP.
We guarantee you the following facilities :
*security and safety
* Accommodations and food stuff
*free medications
*secure return to your homes the moment the terrorists are wiped away.
THE GENERAL HEADQUARTER OF ARMY AND ARMED FORCES
Robert Inlakesh decodes the terrorist-supporting propaganda messaging here, and offers strategies for all of us to consider as we are daily bombarded with criminal war propaganda.
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.
Comments Off on There Is “No Equivalency” between the Legitimate Syrian Government and the Western-Supported Terrorists Who are Destroying Syria on Washington’s Behalf
On Wednesday, February 21st, the UK’s Minister of Defence, Conservative Gavin Williamson, announced that the United Kingdom is changing its fundamental defence strategy from one that’s targeted against non-state terrorists (Al Qaeda, etc.), to one that’s targeted instead against three countries: Russia, China, and North Korea. He acknowledged that a massive increase in military spending will be needed for this, and that “savings” will have to be found in other areas of Government-spending, such as the health services, and in military spending against terrorism.
The threat to Britain from states such as Russia and North Korea is greater than that posed by terrorism, the defence secretary said yesterday, marking a significant shift in security policy.
Gavin Williamson suggested to MPs that more money and a change in the structure of the armed forces would be needed as part of a defence review to meet the challenge of a state-on-state conflict, something that Britain has not had to consider for a generation. …
It is a departure from the national security strategy published in 2015, which listed international terrorism first, and chimes with a decision by the United States last month to declare “strategic competition” from countries such as China and Russia as its top focus instead of counterterrorism. …
He described the Kremlin’s “increased assertiveness”, such as a ten-fold increase in submarine activity in the North Atlantic, a growing Russian presence in the Mediterranean region and their involvement in the war in Syria. “But then you are seeing new nations that are starting to play a greater role in the world, such as China. …
Asked whether Mr Williamson accepted that this would have a knock-on effect for how Britain’s military was structured and its readiness for war, “Yes it does,” Mr Williamson replied.
Just as happened when UK’s Prime Minister Tony Blair made his country the U.S. President George W. Bush’s lap-dog in the invasion of Iraq in 2003, UK’s Prime Minister Theresa May makes her country U.S. President Donald Trump’s lap-dog now in the invasions to come, of North Korea, Russia, and China.
The press in the U.S. and its allied countries (such as UK) might have a difficult time persuading their populations that expanding military expenditures in order to conquer Russia, China, North Korea, and — as U.S. President Trump wants also to include — Iran (but he’ll probably use America’s ally Israel for that part of the operation), could be difficult, because, for example, on the same day, February 22nd, Gallup reported that by a margin of 59% to 37%, Americans disapprove of Trump on the issue of “Relations with Russia,” and back on 23 March 2017, Public Integrity headlined “The public favors cutting defense spending, not adding billions more, new survey finds” and reported:
President Trump’s proposed budget for 2018 isn’t following public sentiment, a new survey finds.
The survey, by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC), found that while Trump has proposed a $54 billion boost to federal spending for the military, a majority of Americans prefer a cut of $41 billion. While Trump has proposed a $2.8 billion increase for homeland security, a majority of Americans favor a $2 billion cut. …
Trump’s proposals were at odds with the preferences of both Republicans and Democrats. …
A majority of GOP respondents said they wished to keep the so-called “base” or main defense budget at the current level, although they favored cutting $5 billion in spending from a budget for “overseas contingency operations,” specifically in Afghanistan and Iraq. …
Those results, in turn, were strikingly similar to the conclusions of a 2012 survey by the Center for Public Integrity, PPC, and the Stimson Center, a nonprofit policy study group in Washington, D.C. When respondents were asked in that survey what they would do with Obama’s base defense budget, the majority favored cutting it by at least $65 billion, from $562 billion down to $497 billion. …
The situation is likely to be even more difficult in UK, where according to Gallup’s polling in 2017, as reported in their “Rating World Leaders: 2018”, residents in UK who were asked “Do you approve or disapprove of the job performance of the leadership of the United States?” answered 63% “Disapprove,” and 33% “Approve,” and the net approval (-30%) had declined 26% from the prior President Obama’s rating (-4%), in 2016.
Consequently, in order for the leaders to do this, there will need to be a total divorce from even the claim of being ‘democracies’, because, on such a momentous decision as to whether or not there should be a Third World War (and if so, whether Iran should be a target in it), going against the overwhelming public opinion wouldn’t be possible except in what is effectively a dictatorship (such as the U.S. has been scientifically proven to be). So: actually achieving this will be a stretch, but at least in the United States — a proven dictatorship — it’s possible.
Whereas the press, both in the U.S. and UK, willingly pumped the lies of the Government, that according to the IAEA Saddam Hussein was only six months away from having nuclear weapons, they might not do it this time against actual nuclearly armed nations, because there probably aren’t yet, and won’t soon be, enough billionaires’ bunkers deep underground — such as here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here, and here — to protect them from even the nuclear blasts, much less anything at all to protect anyone at all from the resulting nuclear winter and global famine. So, perhaps, greed will finally meet its limit: sheer self-preservation. It’s one thing when a foreign country, such as Iraq — or Libya, or Syria, or Yemen — is destroyed, but quite another matter when the world itself will be. The degree of insanity that the military-industrial complex is now assuming to exist amongst the general public, might simply not be there, at all. Finally, Western governments’ weapons-manufacturing firms might need to face the steep declines in their stock-values that all of them so richly deserve, and that’s been held off already for decades too long — since at least 1991, when the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance all ended, and all that’s left available as bogeymen who must be killed in order to ‘save the world’, is: Russia, China, North Korea — and maybe (if the Sauds and Israel are to have their way), Iran.
It’s not yet clear just when — if ever — the ‘democratic’ countries in The West (the U.S. and its allies, the billionaires there) will reach the limit of their imperial greed. But if the world is their limit, then there is no limit at all, because the world itself will end, before this limit is reached. And, now, it’s not only Donald Trump who is leading the way there, but Theresa May has joined his luxurious march, toward global oblivion.
There is something very fishy about the Anti Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs) pinned on the Russian curler and Russian bobsledder during the final week of the Peyongchang Winter Olympics.
It makes no logical sense that an athlete would do a one-time consumption of a chemical that is of no value in circumstances where it is almost certain to be detected with huge negative consequences.
That is precisely the situation. The Russian Mixed Curling bronze medal winner, Alexander Krushelnitsky, had to give up his medal, plus that of his partner wife, because traces of meldonium were found in his urine sample. He had previously tested clean. Meldonium is a medication which helps keep the heart healthy by increasing blood flow. That would be of no benefit in a sport like curling which requires accuracy, strategy and focus but is not taxing physically. The “sweeping” to help guide the rock down the ice lasts only 20 seconds or less. International curlers were astounded at the news and bemused at the idea of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) for curling. The skip of the Danish curling team said ”I think most people will laugh and ask, ‘what could you possibly need doping for?”
Krushelnitsky (image on the right) strongly denies taking banned drugs.
“I am categorically opposed to doping …. never, at any time that I have been involved in sport, have I ever used prohibited substances”.
Similar curious circumstances apply in the second ADRV. Russian bobsledder Nadezhda Sergeeva had numerous negative (clean) tests before she was tested positive for banned trimetazidine. Bobsledding is another sport which requires physical and mental skill but not physical endurance.
In the February 25 IOC meeting to close the Peyongchang Winter Games, the head of the IOC Implementation Group, Nicole Hoevertz, said the Russian athletes had been tested “more than any other athletes”. She and her group were convinced that the 168 member Russian athletic team was clean. At about 82:00 in the video, she says the two Russian doping violations were “so peculiar.” She introduced the Director of the IOC Medical and Scientific Commission, Dr. Bludgett, to provide more detail. He suggested that meldonium would not be of benefit in curling. He then went further and suggested the ADRV regarding trimetazidine may be in error. He said trimetazidine “is a substance where there is a parent compound which is a common headache migraine treatment available particularly in China and Japan and if that is found then it is not considered an ADRV. And if there is a very low level, as there was in this case, that is a possibility.”
Sergeeva (image on the left) denies ever taking banned drugs and even went on social media with a T-shirt declaring her commitment to clean sport.
In summary, it seems highly unlikely that two different Russian athletes would intentionally take medications that have no benefit but which are almost guaranteed to be detected resulting in huge harm to them and their team.
Who Benefits?
Another possibility is that meldonium or trimetazidine powder was surreptitiously put in the food of the athletes. This one time consumption would cause a positive test.
In fact there are forces on the international scene who are pleased that Russia has been battling defamation and charges of “state sponsored doping” for the past two years. They want the current denigration and punishments of Russia to continue, perhaps influencing Russia’s upcoming national election and undermining Russia’s hosting of the Football World Cup this summer.
One such group is the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The CIA has a long history of big and small criminal deeds. Presumably it would not be difficult for them to infiltrate Olympic facilities or bribe a corrupt individual to put traces of meldonium or another powder in someone’s food or drink.
Those who quickly dismiss this possibility probably also thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2002. That was a false claim supported by evidence fabricated by the CIA.
It is well documented the CIA carries out murders, coups and major sabotage. The CIA has documented some of their methods in “The Official CIA Manual of Trickery and Deception”. They don’t just carry out assassinations and coups. In the book “In Search of Enemies”, former CIA officer John Stockwell documented how the CIA created a false story about Cuban soldiers raping Angolan women to defame Cuba.
Corrupt police forces sometimes plant evidence on a suspect they wish to convict. It would be essentially the same thing to get a Russian athlete to ingest spiked food or beverage. The CIA has motive and expressed intent:
In contrast with Russian leaders who call the US a “partner”, US officials increasingly call Russia an “adversary”. The latest US National Security Strategy explicitly says they intend to respond to Russia as an adversary: “ The United States will respond to the growing political, economic and military competitions we face around the world. China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity.”
Neoconservatives forces openly talk about “punishing” Russia. The former Deputy Director of the CIA, Michael Morrell, said “We need to make the Russians pay a price” . He confirmed on public television that means killing Russians (and Iranians) in Syria. This is the 33 year veteran CIA leader who publicly campaigned for Hillary Clinton.
Did the CIA plant the doping evidence? We don’t know for certain but it should not be dismissed out of hand. The CIA has the means, opportunity and above all the motive to falsely implicate Russians in new doping cases with the goal of preventing Russia from getting beyond the international sporting sanctions and punishments. They have done vastly more deceitful, manipulative, and outrageous things than this.
Media Bias
Unfortunately, western media will not investigate this possibility. Western media cannot even accurately report on events like the IOC meeting yesterday. The fact that the head of the IOC Implementation Group warmly praised the Russian participation at the Peyongchang Olympics is not mentioned in western media. The fact that Dr. Bludgett raised questions about the accuracy of the ADRVs against Russia is not mentioned in reports from NY Times, the UK Guardian or Inside the Games. Instead, the writer at Inside the Games once again exaggerated the voice of critics of Russia as he downplayed the voices of international athletes who want to put the doping scandal behind and move forward.
Western media have reported deceptively that the Russian athletes have “admitted” to the violations. In fact, both Russian athletes strongly deny taking banned drugs.
Western media bias is also shown in the focus on alleged Russian doping and minimization or ignoring of other possible violations. For example the story about the Norwegian cross-country ski team and their use of banned asthmatic medications. They get around the restrictions by having their doctor claim that most of their athletes are asthmatic. This situation is a result of the inconsistent rules and regulations. A Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) can be given to any athlete designated by a doctor and in secrecy. They are not required to publicly disclose this, giving incentive to corruption and misuse.
Richard McLaren’s Bias
The World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) has also been biased. Over one year ago, their investigator Richard McLaren (image on the right) claimed “over one thousand Russian athletes benefited” from the alleged Russian conspiracy to cheat the ant-doping system. McLaren said the proof would be provided to the various sport federations. In September 2017 it was revealed that charges had been filed against 96 athletes. Of these, WADA cleared 95 athletes of wrongdoing; only one athlete was proven to be in violation. More recently, the Court of Arbitration in Sport completely overturned the bans on 28 Russian athletes. In summary, it appears that McLaren’s accusation about “over one thousand athletes benefiting” was a huge exaggeration or fabrication.
Where Do Things Go From Here?
The IOC Executive Board has indicated they intend to lift the suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee if no more “anti doping rule violations” are found in the last batch of athlete samples from the Peyongchang Olympics. The results are expected in a few days.
Another ADRV may appear. If so, that will greatly complicate the effort to reintegrate Russian athletics. Even if the final tests are all clean, those who oppose Russia will continue trying to delay or prevent the full integration of Russia within the world sporting Community.
The former Moscow Laboratory Director Grigory Rodchenkov is the primary weapon in the campaign accusing Russia of “state sponsored doping”. “Icarus” is a movie about him which has received huge funding and promotion. It is nominated for an an Oscar Academy award. This will serve the campaign well.
The Russian have been accused of trying to murder Rodchenkov But if he suddenly dies one day, it is more likely to be by the CIA. At this point, Rodchenkov has done all the damage he can to Russian sports. The only thing he could possibly do is to recant or fall apart. His handlers have prevented him from appearing before the various committees looking into the accusations. At this point, Rodchenkov could be more valuable dead than alive. His death would be a powerful weapon to disrupt the normalization of relations with Russia.
In conclusion, going back to the Peyonchang Olympics, there should be caution before assuming the guilt of the Russian athletes who received ADRVs. It makes no sense that two Russian athletes would take useless medications knowing they will be tested and found out.
The doping incident serves the interests of those in the West who seek more not less conflict and seek to weaken Russia through “hybrid” warfare. It is possible the CIA has a hand in the latest incidents, just as they have a hand in Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov. They have the means, opportunity and motive. They have the experience and history.
If this is true, it’s another example of the dangerous descent in international relations. The Olympics movement has the goal of fostering peaceful relations. The sad truth is there are forces who want to prevent that. They prefer to demonize and divide in a quest for economic and geopolitical supremacy over “adversaries”. International sports is just another arena for them.
*
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. He can be reached at [email protected]
Trump is continuing the same foreign policy as the Obama Administration on Syria to remove its President, Bashar al-Assad from power. The Trump Administration claims that they are still serious threats of ISIS and other terrorist groups within Syria. Ironically, Trump also claimed in a number of occasions that it was the U.S. that had defeated the terrorists, but in reality it was the pro-Syrian government forces with help from Russia that deserves most of the credit, besides wasn’t it the U.S. who created ISIS and other terrorist groups that devastated Syria in the first place?
However, terrorists are not the only threats according to the U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson and of course, Trump himself, it is Iran who poses a serious threat to the entire region. Last month, Tillerson delivered a speech at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and made it clear that U.S. troops will remain in Syria not just to fight terrorists, but to prevent Iran from attacking its interests, its main allies and the U.S. military:
And continued strategic threats to the U.S. from not just ISIS and al-Qaida, but from others persist. And this threat I’m referring to is principally Iran.
As part of its strategy to create a northern arch, stretching from Iran to Lebanon and the Mediterranean, Iran has dramatically strengthened its presence in Syria by deploying Iranian Revolutionary Guard troops; supporting Lebanese Hizballah; and importing proxy forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere. Through its position in Syria, Iran is positioning to continue attacking U.S. interests, our allies, and personnel in the region. It is spending billions of dollars a year to prop up Assad and wage proxy wars at the expense of supporting its own people
Tillerson also said that
“it is vital for the United States to remain engaged in Syria for several reasons: Ungoverned spaces, especially in conflict zones, are breeding grounds for ISIS and other terrorist organizations.”
Then Tillerson explained why U.S. troops must remain in Syria and that is to ultimately remove President Bashar al-Assad:
Additionally, a total withdrawal of American personnel at this time would restore Assad and continue his brutal treatment against his own people. A murderer of his own people cannot generate the trust required for long-term stability. A stable, unified, and independent Syria ultimately requires post-Assad leadership in order to be successful. Continued U.S. presence to ensure the lasting defeat of ISIS will also help pave the way for legitimate local civil authorities to exercise responsible governance of their liberated areas. The departure of Assad through the UN-led Geneva process will create the conditions for a durable peace within Syria and security along the borders for Syria’s neighbors
Syria has been an obstacle to the long anticipated war with Iran for both the U.S. and Israel. There has been an economic war on Iran which has been in effect since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 with continued economic sanctions imposed primarily by the U.S. Their main objective is to ultimately turn Iran into another Iraq or Libya making Israel the hegemonic power within the Middle East with its undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal with U.S. support.
With that said, what can justify a US-led war on Syria this time around? Possibly, another false-flag operation using chemical weapons to attack civilians and blame the Syrian government yet again. Officials in the Trump Administration have been reiterating the Syrian government’s “alleged” chemical weapons attacks on civilians since last month with some help from the mainstream-media (MSM). On February 2nd, U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis answered a series of questions at a press conference, one of the questions (which does sound scripted in my opinion) was on Assad’s use of chemical weapons,
“Just make sure I heard you correctly, you’re saying you think it’s likely they have used it and you’re looking for the evidence? Is that what you said?”
Mattis replied with:
That’s — we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when — in the previous administration, when they were caught using it. Obviously they didn’t, cause they used it again during our administration. And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used.
We do not have evidence of it. But we’re not refuting them; we’re looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using — we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?
On February 17th, The U.S. National Security Adviser to Trump, H.R. McMaster gave a speech at the Munich Security Conference and said “Public accounts and photos clearly show that Assad’s chemical weapons use is continuing” according to a Reuters article titled ‘Public reports ‘clearly show’ Assad’s use of chemical weapons: McMaster’:
It is time for all nations to hold the Syrian regime and its sponsors accountable for their actions and support the efforts of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,” he said. McMaster did not specify which public accounts or pictures he was referring to
The December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) by the Trump Administration mentions Syria’s “use of chemical weapons against its own citizens” was practically the same narrative used by the Obama administration:
The danger from hostile state and non-state actors who are trying to acquire nuclear, chemical, radiological, and biological weapons is increasing. The Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons against its own citizens undermines international norms against these heinous weapons, which may encourage more actors to pursue and use them. ISIS has used chemical weapons in Iraq and Syria. Terrorist groups continue to pursue WMD-related materials. We would face grave danger if terrorists obtained inadequately secured nuclear, radiological, or biological material
Screengrab from The Atlantic website
In an article published earlier this month by Krishnadev Calamur of The Atlantic‘Assad Is Still Using Chemical Weapons in Syria: Neither the threat of U.S. action nor an Obama-era agreement appears to deter Bashar al-Assad’, said:
UN investigators are looking into reports the Syrian regime used chemical weapons on at least two rebel-held towns in recent days. The reports mark at least the sixth time the regime of President Bashar Assad has used such weapons against civilian population centers.
The UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria said Tuesday it had received multiple reports “that bombs allegedly containing weaponized chlorine have been used in the town of Saraqeb in Idlib and Douma in eastern Ghouta”
Jean Pascal Zanders, head of The Trench said that Syria’s compliance to completely eliminate chlorine from its chemical weapons list has failed because purified water is considered part of the “non-weapons” applications process according to the article:
The chemical attacks keep coming despite an Obama-era agreement with Russia, struck in 2013, on the destruction of Assad’s chemical weapons. Under that deal, Syria agreed to eliminate its chemical-weapons stockpile. News reports at the time said Syria had 1,000 tons of chemical weapons, including mustard gas, sarin, and VX, the nerve agent. International inspectors say Syria has largely destroyed the stockpiles it said it had—though there continue to be complaints about the pace of Syria’s compliance. But that agreement did not include chlorine because the Assad regime hadn’t added it to a list it submitted to international monitors of the chemical weapons it possessed. The most recent attacks were all reportedly chlorine-based.
Jean Pascal Zanders, who heads The Trench, an organization that studies disarmament and security issues, told me that part of the problem is that chlorine has non-weapons applications like purifying water. He said he believes that Assad’s use of chlorine “probably started as an opportunistic use of a toxic chemical. … Then later on, a more dedicated production system was set up particularly with respect to designing barrel bombs and other types of projectiles to disseminate chlorine in larger quantities.” Although chlorine wasn’t included on the Syrian list given to inspectors, the use of chlorine-based weapons is still a violation of Syria’s commitment to the chemical weapons convention
Calamur referenced Jeffrey Goldberg’s article from last April who also writes for The Atlantic said that Assad still has weapons that contains sarin gas in his possession:
The “deal to disarm Assad of his chemical weapons was a failure,” Jeffrey Goldberg wrote in The Atlantic last April, after Assad was accused of using sarin gas against civilians in an attack that prompted retaliation from the Trump administration. “It was not a complete failure, in that stockpiles were indeed removed, but Assad kept enough of these weapons to allow him to continue murdering civilians with sarin gas. The argument that Obama achieved comprehensive WMD disarmament without going to war is no longer, as they say in Washington, operative”
Goldberg also said that Assad “kept enough” chemical weapons to continue the massacre of civilians. Goldberg also said that the Obama Administration resisted striking the Assad government directly after he allegedly ordered the use of chemical weapons in August 2013 in the populated areas of Ghouta:
Obama’s policy toward Syria will perhaps be best remembered for his failure to enforce his metaphorical “red line” on the use of chemical weapons. When Assad used sarin against civilians in August 2013, Obama, who had resisted striking Assad directly, opted instead for the deal with Russia on Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile. But when last April Assad used sarin gas again, Trump showed little hesitation in using force in reply. That strike—and the threat of the use of more force—has not stopped the chlorine attacks, however.
Much has changed in Syria since last April’s U.S. military strike on Assad’s forces: for one, ISIS has been defeated; as a result, Assad is more firmly in charge of many of the country’s major population centers, though with Russian and Iranian support. As the international community tries to negotiate an end to the Syrian conflict, Assad’s use of conventional weapons on civilian targets such as hospitals and residential neighborhoods is also a priority. Those attacks have killed hundreds of thousands of people
As a reminder, an article by The Daily Mail titled ‘UN accuses Syrian rebels of carrying out sarin gas attacks which had been blamed on Assad’s troops’ quoted what senior United Nations official Carla Del Ponte said in regards to the 2013 sarin gas attack on civilians which was blamed on the Syrian government by the U.S. and the U.K.:
‘Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals, and there are strong, concrete suspicions, but not yet incontrovertible proof, of the use of sarin gas,’ said Del Ponte in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
‘This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities’
The U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia want Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad removed from power by force even if it means creating more chaos right up to the borders of Iran. Syria has over 2,000 U.S. troops stationed in its territory, adding Israel’s aggression in recent years is a sign that another war is surely on the table. With pro-Syrian Government forces still intact and Hezbollah (who defeated Israel in the last conflict) has its own weapons arsenal adding Russia’s full support of the Assad government, the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia are headed towards a no-win situation if they decided to attack Syria, Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iran at the same time. It would be the equivalent to committing suicide.
The Trump Administration and the MSM are again reminding the world that Assad still has chemical weapons that can be used against his own citizens on any given moment for a reason. There can be the possibility of another false-flag operation coordinated by the U.S. military and the CIA that will use their experienced terrorist networks (who have used chemical weapons on civilians in the past) such as newly created Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) also known as the former Jabhat al-Nusra who are allies of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to launch another chemical attack to blame the Assad government. For Washington it can justify an all-out war on Syria to help save its civilians from the “butcher of Damascus.” I could imagine Trump tweeting “We Told You So” if a false-flag attack were to take place.
For U.S. and Israeli war planners, a strike on Iran cannot possibly happen until Syria and Hezbollah is taken out of the equation. They very well know that attacking Iran will be a huge task. The U.S. and Israel would not be able to fight a united front against Syria, Hezbollah, Lebanon, Iran, Russia and even China in a regional conflict. The next war on Syria is to remove or murder Assad. If successful, it would destabilize Syria, then the U.S. and Israel would most likely set their sights on Hezbollah then eventually Lebanon before they can attempt any attack on Iran, but then again, with Russia and China backing Iran, it would still be an extremely difficult situation for the U.S. and its allies.
Trump did give the U.S. military a free hand to do whatever is necessary to achieve their main objectives. In regards to the Middle East, let’s hope that generals who are in charge of the U.S. military stationed in the region do not have the same mindset as General Buck Turgidson and Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper from the 1964 film Dr. Strangelove who would have done anything to go to war with the Soviet Union during the Cold War including the use of a false-flag operation for the glory of the empire. Unfortunately, a war on Syria will most likely take place during the Trump Administration and that will eventually lead to World War III like many of us in the alternative media has been warning about for years.
Apparently so, in view of the documented record in the public domain.
Perhaps it is because, in a majority of cases, the incumbent of the Knesset’s high office has had no history or professional experience of public service, diplomacy or government. They were all, predominately, male and either former soldiers or ex militiamen, many of Polish or Russian origin whose experience lay in using force when necessary to gain territory with the strategy of ethnic cleansing of indigenous peoples in land they wished to annex. They include:
Golda Meir, born in Kiev, the only female Prime Minister of Israel, was Foreign Secretary at the time of the disastrous Suez Crisis in 1956, when Israel, after secretly colluding with Britain and France to illegally re-gain control of Egypt’s Suez Canal, was humiliated by the US and the UN who demanded their immediate withdrawal. Her co-conspirator, British Conservative prime Minister, Anthony Eden, as a consequence, later died in ignominy, a broken man.
Menachem Begin, former prime Minister, born in Brest, was originally the leader of the Irgun Zvi Leumi, a terrorist militia involved in fighting Britain, the UN appointed mandate holder for Palestine. Irgun’s most notorious attack was the terrorist bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing 91 and injuring many others.
Yitzhak Shamir, Russian born former prime minister. Leader of LEHI, the so-called Stern Gang militia, was responsible, together with the Irgun, for the massacre of the entire Palestinian village of Deir Yassin on April 9th., 1948.
Arial Sharon, born Scheinermann, former prime Minister, was defence minister and held by the court to be personally responsible for the 1982 massacre of an estimated 2000 Muslim civilians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps by a Christian militia under his control. He was forced to resign.
Ehud Olmert, former prime Minister, was found guilty of bribery and corruption and sentenced to 19 months imprisonment in 2016.
Moshe Katsav, Iranian-born, former president of Israel was found guilty of two counts of rape and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment, in 2011.
Binyamin Netanyahu, current prime minister, and his wife, Sara, are currently both under investigation into serious allegations of bribery and fraud. The decision of the attorney-general is awaited as to whether official charges will be made and the Netanyahu family indicted. In any event, his career as Prime Minister is, almost certainly, at an end.
Should the next Israeli prime minister suffer from similar character flaws as the majority of his, of her, predecessors, then the international community needs to take appropriate action to properly defend its individual national security and its respective constituents from a political contamination that is the antithesis of democratic government.
Israel politicians tend to be of advantage only to themselves and their own families as, time and again over recent years, they have proved the adage that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
However, this was not true initially. The first Prime Minister of Israel, from 1948- 1954, was a man of undoubted integrity, David Ben Gurion: a graduate of the Universities of Warsaw and Istanbul. He was a socialist of high moral principles who, unlike the current hard-Right Likud Zionist regime, fully recognised that the indigenous Palestinian people, who were displaced, nevertheless had a valid claim to the land. He was posthumously named one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Important People of the 20th century.
Which proves two points, the first is that not all Zionists are bad and the second is that there is a huge difference between those who eat a smoked salmon bagel with a glass of lemon tea, on a kibbutz in Israel, and those who gobble down their lobster Thermidor with a bottle of Scotch in the occupied West Bank, whilst checking the dollar balance of their family’s foreign-currency bank account in New York.
The dominant view of the US-led coalition against the Islamic State (ISIS), Operation Inherent Resolve, is that its fundamental goal is the defeat of ISIS.
And so, in the wake of the routing of ISIS from Iraq and Syria, the core justification for an ongoing US military presence in Syria is ensuring that no post-mortem ISIS insurgency arises.
That the US is unequivocally opposed to ISIS is simply taken for granted.
Yet a closer look at the history of US involvement shows that counterterrorism has been a lesser concern relative to geopolitical and strategic goals. Whenever the goals of expanding territorial control or weakening rivals conflicts with the goal of opposing ISIS, the entity was either ignored or even empowered in pursuit of these more paramount concerns.
In some ways, by providing a pretext for extended military operations on foreign soil, and by helping to diminish the military might of the Syrian regime and its allies, some coalition officials have seen the Islamic State as a potentially beneficial phenomenon to the wider ends of weakening the Syrian state and opposing Iranian influence in the Levant.
Audio leaks would later surface of then Secretary of State John Kerry explaining that the Obama administration saw this expansion as beneficial to the US position.
Seeing that this could be used to pressure Assad, the threat of state-collapse was something to be “watched” and “managed,” rather than deterred. “We were watching,” Kerry said:
“… and we know that this was growing… We saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably manage — that Assad would then negotiate.”
Yet this was not simply a case of exploiting events that were entirely out of control. At this time, Obama’sregionalallieshad been conducting major influxes of support to jihadist factions among the rebels, including ISIS, for years in their bid to oust Assad.
US intelligence oversaw and was well aware of these policies. As Kerry’s observations suggest, the motive was that with “Daesh growing in strength”, the US military would be able to “manage” this development while the expansion of ISIS would mean that “Assad would then negotiate.”
This all changed when Russia, in response to the expanding ISIS movement, intervened. With Russia in the game, regime-change looked like an increasingly dwindling prospect.
Awkwardly, Russia was “carrying out more sorties in a day in Syria than the US-led coalition has done in a month,” while also targeting ISIS oiltankers, something the US-led coalition was reluctant to do — to the point that large convoys of oil trucks carrying ISIS oil were able to operate efficiently and in broad daylight.
The embarrassing contradictions of the “anti-ISIS” campaign were becoming difficult to explain away. Instead of being “degraded” or “destroyed”, ISIS was actuallyexpandingduring the bulk of the anti-ISIS campaign.
“… the Islamic State was effectively on the same side as the West, especially in Syria, and in all its other warzones was certainly in the same camp as the West’s regional allies.”
Moreover, “on a strategic level, its big gains had made it by far the best battlefield asset to those who sought the permanent dismemberment of Syria and the removal of [the Iran-leaning] Nouri Maliki in Iraq.”Therefore, the trick for the West was “trying to find the right balance between being seen to take action but yet still allowing the Islamic State to prosper.”
Citing a prophetic 2008 RAND Corporation report, Davidson explains that the “illusory campaign that would eventually need to be waged against the Islamic State” would therefore mainly consist of “the establishment of certain red lines” along a “contain and react approach.” This would “involve deploying perimeters around areas where there are concentrations of transnational jihadists,” while making sure to limit any action to only “periodically launching air/missile strikes against high-value targets.”
In other words, Russia’s intervention essentially called Washington’s bluff. Seeing this, and also seeing Syria increasingly in a position to reclaim those territories that ISIS had been so effective at denying them, it appeared that it was time to start getting serious about putting an end to the Caliphate.
Bombing Syria… Again
In terms of its proven effectiveness at weakening the militaries of Syria and Hezbollah, and of draining the resources of Syria’s sponsors, gaining maximum strategic benefit from Islamic State’s eradication would depend not only upon handing over administration of retaken territories to proxies on the ground, but also on ensuring that its guns were primarily being pointed towards Syria and Iran.
While ISIS was indeed fought on certain fronts where it sat upon lucrative energy resources and vital infrastructure, its fighters frequently operated away from allies and toward the front-lines of rivals.
For example, during ISIS’ 2015 surge, whose “threat” towards the Syrian Army (SAA) was to be “managed” by the US as leverage, they successfully encircled and besieged Syrian forces in Deir Ezzor.
Map of Syria showing siege of Deir Ezzor (circled in blue) as of August 2015
The only effective force fighting ISIS for the West was the Kurdish YPG militias, also calledthe Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), who were concentrated along the country’s northern borders. Therefore, the US “sphere-of-influence” that was to be carved from ISIS’ decline was geographically limited to the territory adjacent to this region.
Since the important Deir Ezzor resources were therefore “in-reach”, it was imperative that the Syrian Army did not persevere against the Islamic State and find themselves in a position to take them before the US-backed SDF were able to.
Map of US-backed SDF advances vs. ISIS (yellow) in Syria, from September 2015 to March 2016
It is perhaps not very surprising that an apparent coalition attack on SAA positions in Deir Ezzor occurred only months after ISIS began besieging the city, killing three soldiers and wounding another thirteen. The US-led coalition bombings effectively assisted the ISIS advance at the expense of Assad’s forces.
While this could admittedly be chalked up to a one-off mistake, it was not the only attack of its kind.
Almost a year later, as the Syrian government was still holding out against the siege, US-led coalition warplanes launched a much larger and sustained attack, dropping over a dozen airstrikes that reportedly killed dozens of Syrian soldiers while wounding at least a hundred others.
The attack was a major boost to the besieging Islamic State, as one British journalist described it: “in the immediate aftermath, Isis swarmed forward and cut the city in half,” further tightening the noose around the SAA while directly threatening their airborne supply-line.
With the facts this time undeniable, and eager to distance themselves from the obvious strategic advantage received, the US admitted culpability but denied it was anything more than a mistake. The media quickly accepted these denials, overlooking major inconsistencies that remained.
For instance, the official report revealed that the US had misled the Russians about the location of the intended strike, ignored intelligence reports saying Syrian soldiers were being targeted, and circumvented normal targeting procedures before the action was taken, downgrading the intelligence requirements needed to launch the strike.
As veteran journalist Gareth Porter pointed out, the “irregularities in decision-making [were] consistent with a deliberate targeting of Syrian forces.”
Another possible explanation pointed towards the open hostility that top Pentagon officials had expressed towards a joint US-Russia ceasefire deal agreed upon days earlier, which collapsed in the wake of the attack. The officials were specifically antagonistic towards requirements of cooperation with the Russian military, therefore displaying motive and ability.
A further possible explanation was provided by the director of Human Rights Watch. Using language not so different than John Kerry’s, and seemingly in agreement with such a strategy, he wrote on his Twitter handle asking: “As US kills 80 Syrian soldiers, is it sending Assad a signal for his deadly intransigence?”
What is certain is that for those committed to weakening Syria’s progress against ISIS in the much coveted northeastern “sphere-of-influence,” the coalition bombings securely tipped the balance of forces against the Syrian Army, who only managed to survive due to Russian air-power.
The strategic dimension of this is that as long as most of Deir Ezzor was occupied by ISIS, and not Syria, the option to retake it remained open. If Syria reestablished its control, taking the area would not be possible for the US-led coalition without a full declaration of war. Within this political dynamic then, the only way to make sure that the area remained “in-reach” of the coalition was by ensuring that the Islamic State remained in control and prevented further Syrian expansion.
And while conventional pundits would routinely dismiss the occurrence of such strategic considerations, they plainly did take place.
The US defense establishment thought-process was best described by the former director of the CIA, Michael Morell. Echoing Kerry’s mindset, Morell said the United States needed “to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria, we need to make the Russians pay a price,” specifically advocating the killing of Iranians and Russians operating in the country to do so. “I want to put pressure on [Assad],” he continued, “I want to put pressure on the Iranians, I want to put pressure on the Russians,” in order to make them “come to that diplomatic settlement.” Importantly, however, this was to be done “covertly,” he said, “so you don’t tell the world about it, right? You don’t stand up at the Pentagon and say, ‘we did this,’ but you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”
Indeed, these were the very possibilities being discussed among the highest policy-planning bodies within the administration.
John Kerry himself requested on multiple occasions that the US launch missiles at “specific regime targets”, in order to “send a message” to Assad to “negotiate peace.” Like Morell, Kerry suggested the US would not have to acknowledge the attacks, but that Assad “would surely know the missiles’ return address”.
Live to Fight Another Day
The strategic benefits afforded from ISIS were perhaps best described by Thomas Friedman. Writing in the New York Times, he explained that:
“America’s goal in Syria is to create enough pressure on Assad, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah so they will negotiate a power-sharing accord… that would also ease Assad out of power.”
Therefore, since the Islamic States’ “goal is to defeat Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria — plus its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies… we could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad.”
His assessment was that the US did not want to defeat ISIS straight away, because “if we defeat territorial ISIS in Syria now, we will only reduce the pressure on Assad, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah.”
One way was to leave an open corridor for ISIS fighters to escape through, in areas where US-backed forces were battling the group.
Prior to the battle in Mosul, top ISIS leaders were reportedly able to flee the city and find their way into Syria. As the battle was waged, regular ISIS units also apparently had open access to a similar escape route.
Sources described seeing hundreds of fighters fleeing Mosul and entering into Syria, heading towards Deir Ezzor and Raqqa. The strategic rationale was alluded to by Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister, when he told the media “if Daesh were forced out of Mosul, they were likely to go on to Syria.”
The Iraqi commander in charge of the operation would confirm that this indeed had happened. Citing intelligence information he received, the commander said that militants “were fleeing Mosul to Syria along with their families.”
Not long after this, ISIS launched an offensive in Deir Ezzor. The Guardian reported that the fighters breaking through government defenses were “primarily reinforcements coming over the border from Iraq’s Anbar province,” who then “broke through government lines, splitting its territory in half and taking control of the area where the WFP’s [World Food Program] airdrops landed.”
A year later, now during President Trump’s administration, the campaign against ISIS in Tal Afar, Iraq, ended in little over a week. Heralded as a testament to the strength of ISIS’ enemies, it soon became clear that the victory was only made possible by a major ISIS retreat.
In a direct reference to the ‘open corridor’ policy, the Iraqi commander helming the battle told reporters that “significant numbers of fighters were able to slip through a security cordon” and escape. More worryingly, this was made possible because “There was an agreement” with ISIS, according to Major General Najim al-Jobori, between the militant group and Iraqi Kurdish forces. Some of those retreating turned themselves in, while others “fled to Turkey and Syria.”
The report is notable given evidence, previously reported by INSURGE, that elements of Iraqi Kurdish authorities had ties to ISIS in relation to the facilitation of oil sales.
Later in Syria, the situation came to a head when the Syrian Army marched eastward and finally broke the three-year-long siege in Deir Ezzor, placing the surrounding oil-fields within their reach at a time when the US-backed SDF were also marching closer.
The New York Times would describe how “a complex confrontation is unfolding, with far more geopolitical import and risk…
“The Islamic State is expected to make its last stand not in Raqqa but in an area that encompasses the borders with Iraq and Jordan and much of Syria’s modest oil reserves, making it important in stabilizing Syria and influencing its neighboring countries. Whoever lays claim to the sparsely populated area in this 21st-century version of the Great Game not only will take credit for seizing what is likely to be the Islamic State’s last patch of a territorial caliphate in Syria, but also will play an important role in determining Syria’s future and the postwar dynamics of the region.”
“… received information from Knowledgeable and independent sources confirming reaching a deal between the International Coalition and the Syria Democratic Forces in one hand; and the ‘Islamic State’ organization in the other hand, and the deal stated the exit of the remaining members of the ‘Islamic State’ organization out of Al-Raqqah city.”
The SOHR “confirms that this agreement has happened.”
It was later revealed that the agreement included some 50 trucks, 13 buses, 4,000 evacuees and all of the fighters’ weapons and ammunition.
Further information came to light when a high-level participant in the negotiations blew the whistle.
Brigadier General Talal Silo, a former SDF commander who acted as the spokesman for the US’ leading partner in the fight against ISIS, and who has since defected to Turkey, explained that an “agreement was reached for the terrorists to leave, about 4,000 people, them and their families,” all but five-hundred of whom were fighters. He said that a US official had “approved the deal at a meeting with an SDF commander.”
Even more damning, and apparently confirming that specific end-destinations were included within these kinds of agreements, the commander:
“… came back with the agreement of the US administration for those terrorists to head to Deir al-Zor.”
The ISIS evacuees protected under the US-approved agreement were to head towards ISIS-controlled areas “where the Syrian army and forces supporting President Bashar al-Assad were gaining ground.” Here, they would “prevent the regimes advance.” The BBC corroborated this, tracking the convoy to one of these very areas.
Reuters also reported that the front being fought by the Syrian government in Deir Ezzor had “turned into a major base for Daesh militants after the US-backed offensive drove them out of Raqqa.” The deal, in short, directly “boosted the US fight against the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,” as Newsweek observed.
“According to the Americans,” Brig. Gen. Silo continued, “the regime army could reach Deir ez-Zor in six weeks” at first, “but when the regime army proceeded faster than expected, the US wanted the SDF to begin negotiations with Daesh.” The deal was then endorsed because the US “wanted a swift end to the Raqqa battle so the SDF could move on towards Deir al-Zor.”
Silo also claimed that the US and the SDF had made similar deals on at least 2 other occasions, corroborating a Syrian dissident and human rights activist who earlier claimedthat a similar agreement had been reached during the battle for Mosul.
In terms of providing “a swift end to the Raqqa battle” and allowing the SDF to “move on towards Deir Ezzor”, the US-brokered deal proved a success. Just days later the SDF captured the al-Omar fields, the largest and most lucrative Syrian oil deposit.
But according to Elijah Mangier, journalist and war correspondent for the Kuwait-based Al Rai newspaper, after “the United States preceded Russia to the oil and gas Omar oilfield… ISIS then delivered [it] to the Kurds without any resistance.”
Validate this, an SDF spokesperson described how “our forces managed to liberate the fields without notable damages.”
Indeed, according to the SOHR, the “advancement achieved by the Syria Democratic Forces, in which they entered Al-Omar oilfield and took the control of it,” had occurred only “after a counter attack by ISIS [against the SAA], that kept the regime forces away of the outskirts and the vicinity of the field.” It was a tight race though, as “government forces were 2 miles away from the fields” at the time.
The remaining oil-fields and surrounding countryside east of the Euphrates were swept up by the SDF along similar lines, with ISIS voluntarily agreeing to evacuate the areas. SOHR’s sources further clarified “that ISIS prefer[s] handing over the organization-held areas to the SDF instead of handing them over to ‘the Shiite Militia’, in order to prevent the regime forces from advancing towards these area[s].”
“US-backed forces advanced in north-eastern areas under ISIS control, with little or no military engagement: ISIS pulled out from more than 28 villages and oil and gas fields east of the Euphrates River, surrendering these to the Kurdish-US forces following an understanding these reached with the terrorist group.”
Furthermore, “this deal was an effective way to prevent the control by the Syrian army” given that “the United States seems determined to hold on to part of the Syrian territory, allowing the Syrian Kurds to control northeast Syria, especially those areas rich in oil and gas.”
Protecting the Pretext
The lines between Russia and the United States were therefore cut in two by the Euphrates; the SDF to the east, the Syrian Army to the west.
As ISIS’ Caliphate reached its final demise, the US established new rules of engagement, announcing it would not allow Syria or its allies to cross into its zone of control.
Map of Northeast Syria showing government-control (red) and SDF-control (light green) as of December 2017
The overall strategy, according to an analysis by Joshua Landis, a highly-regarded Syria expert and professor at the University of Oklahoma, is aimed at thwarting economic recovery and interconnection within the region, in an attempt “to hurt Iran and Assad.”
The United States’ “main instrument in gaining leverage,” Landis said, are “the Syrian Democratic Forces” and the areas they have conquered in “Northern Syria.” By “denying the Damascus access to North Syria” and by “controlling half of Syria’s energy resources, the Euphrates dam at Tabqa, as well as much of Syria’s best agricultural land, the US will be able to keep Syria poor and under-resourced…
“Keeping Syria poor and unable to finance reconstruction suits short-term US objectives because it protects Israel and will serve as a drain on Iranian resources, on which Syria must rely as it struggles to reestablish state services and rebuild as the war winds down.”
Therefore, by “promoting Kurdish nationalism in Syria,” the US “hopes to deny Iran and Russia the fruits of their victory,” while “keeping Damascus weak and divided.” The US position “serves no purpose other than to stop trade and prohibit a possible land route from Iran to Lebanon,” and to “beggar Assad and keep Syria divided, weak and poor.”
Yet with such an approach in mind, the defeat of ISIS posed a dilemma.
Battling ISIS was the fig leaf under international law that the US relied on to legitimize its military operations on foreign soil without Syria’s consent. With ISIS gone, even this shaky argument does not hold. The US administration was therefore caught between a rock and a hard place.
It is perhaps not a surprise then that the US has, for months, been effectively safeguarding an ISIS contingent pocketed within SDF controlled areas along the northern border with Iraq.
Indeed, theofficialOIRreports register that virtually no airstrikes have been conducted in this area since at least mid-November 2017, only elsewhere along the eastern banks of the Euphrates, “near Abu Kamal” (see here for easier viewing).
By preventing Russia and Syria from crossing the Euphrates to finish fighting ISIS, and by refusing to attack it in these areas, the US presence has essentially protected the Islamic State from a full territorial defeat in Syria.
In that sense, it is extremely worrying that Defense Secretary Mattis has told reporters that the US will plan to stay in Syria and “keep fighting as long as they [ISIS] want to fight,” because “the enemy hasn’t declared that they’re done with the area yet.”
Close-up of ISIS contingent east of the Euphrates (black) not being attacked by US coalition, as of December 2017
There is also another incentive. Much like the ‘open corridor’ policy, the US has announced“it will not carry out strikes against the militants’ last remaining fighters as they move into areas held by the Assad regime in western Syria.”
This has prompted even US-backed opposition fighters to suspect that:
“… their own side could be allowing small Isis pockets to survive so they can attack and weaken the regime and its main backer in the region, Iran.”
In closing, all of these polices have in one way or another been justified under the need to “protect civilians.”
Yet even within the bounds of official narratives, even if all of what has been presented here is disregarded, this is still problematic, given what Charles J. Dunlap Jr., professor of law at Duke University, has called “the moral hazard of inaction.” Since the end result of these US policies allows ISIS to survive, the notion that they “save civilians” isn’t really valid, since “the ISIS fighters who might have been killed lived on to butcher civilians” at a later time.
Unfortunately, thanks to the evolution of US military strategy, ISIS will continue to have the opportunity to do so.
Britain would collapse if it tried to pay back the money it drained from India, eminent economist Utsa Patnaik said at a conference at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi on Wednesday.
Delivering the inaugural lecture at the three-day Sam Moyo Memorial Conference on “Land and Labour Questions in the Global South”, Utsa Patnaik said that the estimated drain from India to Britain over the period from 1765 to 1938 was a whopping 9.184 trillion pounds, several times the size of the UK’s GDP today.
Patnaik, who is Professor Emerita at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning (CESP), JNU, said that the policies followed by Britain during its colonial rule in India were so disastrous that per capita food grains availability in India declined drastically from 197.3 kg per year in 1909-14 to 136.8 kg per year in 1946.
This was because the system was strongly income-deflating (reducing the purchasing power of the people), which enabled the squeezing out of export goods from a poor population. The result was a fall in per capita food availability and declining nutritional intake.
In India, just as also happened in many countries in the Caribbean, local producers were set to work to produce commodities – particularly primary commodities which the colonial powers could never produce themselves in their home countries. The colonial powers then proceeded to appropriate these commodities.
In the Indian case, this appropriation took the form of getting Indian peasants and labourers to produce an enormous global export surplus which earned gold and foreign exchange.
“But the whole of this global export surplus earnings disappeared into the account of the Secretary of State for India in London. Not a penny of it, of sterling or financial gold, was allowed to flow back to the colonised country. Then how did the producers get paid? Very clever. They got paid out of their own taxes!” said Patnaik.
Surplus budgets were being operated systematically in British-ruled India for the best part of 200 years.
“When you tax a population and you do not spend all the taxation within the country, but you set aside a third or more for purchasing export goods, the operation of such surplus budgets deflates mass incomes. It puts a tremendous squeeze on the peasantry.”
“No country in the world today in the Global South has a per capita food availability as low as the level India had reached by the year 1946.”
The amount of wealth drained out of India by Britain can be calculated by estimating the present value of the commodity export surplus – the estimate of 9.184 trillion pounds has been arrived at by calculating the present value at a relatively low 5 percent interest rate.
Branko Milanovic talks about the ethics of global north to the global south.
“He says Britain should return the money it drained from India. But the fact is that this is impossible. Britain would collapse; it does not have the capacity to pay even a fraction of what it drained over 200 years.”
Income deflating policies have resulted in food availability in India declining
The main form that the neo-imperialist policies of income deflation which are current today are taking is contractionary fiscal policy supported by a whole range of other measures to attack small and middle scale agricultural production.
For example, the share of rural expenditure in capital expenditure by the centre and states combined has declined sharply since mid-1990s, as Praveen Jha has shown.
The growth rates of public development expenditure by the centre and the states saw a very sharp contraction in the first half of the 1990s. That was when the structural adjustment and income-deflating programmes were coming in, in a very strong way under Dr. Manmohan Singh. It subsequently went up, but even as late as 2000-05, the growth rate was lower than it was during the 1980s. Then it shoots up from 2005-06 to 2010-11, because of the impact of the global economic crisis and the enormous rise in food prices. Again, in 2010-11 to 2014-15, when Chidambaram was the Finance Minister, he pulled back very sharply, and the growth rate of central expenditure again declined sharply. When you have this kind of income deflating policy, the people will be forced to cut back on their food expenditure and their nutritional standards will come down.
In the pre-reform period, the food grain availability was rising, with fluctuations – it increased from about 452 grams per capita per day in 1972 to 494 grams per capita per day in 1990. But with the onset of neoliberal reforms, more land was diverted to grow export-oriented crops, and trade was liberalised, while fiscal compression reduced employment and incomes of the mass of the population. There was a withdrawal of government support for procurement at minimum prices. As a result of all these, there has been a steep decline in food availability in the recent decades – it stood at 447 grams per head per day in 2013.
This has occurred in spite of production increasing.
When income deflation is very severe, even when output is going up, demand will not go up in proportion because there is income deflation and purchasing power is being compressed. So stocks will build up, and there will be huge exports, with correspondingly lower food availability for the domestic population.
“The per capita supply of cereals in India as of 2011 was 176.5 kg per year, which is the level we had before World War II. And this is the lowest in the world, taking large regions,” Patnaik said.
The three-day conference is being held in memory of Sam Moyo, leading African scholar who passed away in a car accident in Delhi on 21 November 2015. He was the founder and executive director of the African Institute for Agrarian Studies. An authority on agrarian issues, Moyo was a progressive activist and a powerful voice in support of the land reform process in Zimbabwe.
Papers on a wide range of topics touching the land and labour questions are being presented at the conference, hosted by the Centre for Informal Sector and Labour Studies, JNU.
The future of the development project
Jayati Ghosh, Professor at CESP, JNU, delivered a Special Lecture at the conference on Wednesday evening, on “Global instability and the development project: Is the 21st century different?”
Global capitalism has been characterised by instability and stagnant growth in the recent years, she said. Much of the global growth during 2009-17 has been largely due to China and the US, while Europe’s net impact has been negative.
Developed countries are not providing a net demand stimulus to the global economy, as they are running current account surpluses or smaller deficits than earlier, with Europe increasingly responsible for global current account surpluses.
So far only the East Asian Newly Industrialising Economies such as South Korea and Taiwan have been able to close the absolute income gap with advanced countries, not China, South-East Asian countries or Latin American countries.
The recent recovery in developing countries is built on huge amounts of debt, while the developed countries have brought down their debt levels.
What about China?
China’s share of world trade has gone up enormously in the recent decades. Its real GDP increased by 33 times between 1978 and 2015. The Chinese growth miracle has been based on very high investment rates, directed credit and state control. But the recent Chinese growth is heavily based on debt. China is rebalancing now with reduced investment rates and reduced economic growth rates. But as a result, Chinese imports have come down more than exports. This rebalancing could be bad news for the rest of the developing world if it reduces the demand for their exports.
To revive the development project today, it is essential to recognise that the obsession with exports is no longer useful. Export-led growth is reaching its limits; the focus should be on wage and employment-led growth. Asset and income inequality have to be addressed, more revenues have to be raised from direct taxation. Capital and labour markets have to be regulated, and finance has to be controlled to prevent crises, reduce vulnerability and to direct credit to priority activities, Jayati Ghosh said.
ZANU and ZAPU, these former liberation movements fought a protracted war against the white settler regime, because of ZANU military and logistical support from China and ZAPU support from Russia, the insurgence led to fears of a Soviet Union/Communism expansion or encroachment into Southern Africa which forced USA to urge British Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher into talks with the liberation movements. ZANU fears of ZAPU relations with Russia prompted ZANU to get the backing of Britain.
ZANU ascended to power in 1980 after the Lancaster House Agreement which gave preconditions by agreeing first to signing the policies which preserved white capitalist interests mainly in mining and agriculture. These conditions are almost akin to those of Kempton Park Agreements of South Africa, ZANU also agreed to the willing buyer willing seller of land instead of expropriation, that means most of the land remained in the hands of the erstwhile colonisers. It also agreed to a moratorium of ten years before it can start to talk about land, it agree to a number of non-constituent seats to whites in cabinet and parliament to make sure that white interests were safe guarded.
During that period former President Mugabe was a darling of the west and was awarded knighthood and given so much accolades and honorary degrees which they later withdrew at the height of the land revolution. These endearments by the west was a move of trying to create a buffer zone for the Soviet influence, that’s why Zimbabwe had the best social welfare measures in Africa especially on health and conditions. It was a containment measure. Genuine national liberation cannot be achieved by simply achieving formal independence and democratic rights, but only by overthrowing capitalism itself. Capitalist economy has failed to provide decent jobs, houses, education and health care.
The recent events in Zimbabwe whilst it is a bit too early to judge and characterize the new government in power, to us Pan Africanists we say the Land Remains Ours We are also against compensation of white farmers who lost their land through the land revolution, but the President hinted that those who benefited from the land reform it’s irreversible and the land reform was necessary. People are still celebrating the fall of Robert Mugabe and they are euphoric and ecstatic, but the event have just brought some short relief, I foresee the conditions being worse than those under the economic sanctions if we allow imperialism too much free play in our economics. It looks like the new government is conceding to imperialist privatisations, deregulation and dependence on the West, this is what is called neo colonialism.
Already some austerity measures have already been taken under this 2018 budget which are meant to attract capital from investors. Zimbabwe now has a leaner cabinet and some government workers have been terminated. Zimbabwe initiated its fast track land reform, it enacted an indigenous and economic empowerment act which restricted foreign multinational company’s domination including mining. This has never been done nowhere in Africa, it jettisoned the Economic Economic Structural Adjustment Programme to embark on a “socialist” path.
Imperialism was not happy about these moves at all. They started to campaign for regime change in Zimbabwe through a wide array of methods which include media propaganda of misinformation demonizing Zimbabwe and its leadership. After this soft coup the Western capitals toned down the condemning rhetoric. As Pan Africanists we have a genuine concern regarding the lifting of indigenisation and economic empowerment laws which were directed against overseas investors. China is going to to establish an economic foothold in Zimbabwe. The Chinese in Zimbabwe are already exploiting the mineral resources of this country at a song and there are many reports of exploiting and abusing the workers and the trade unions are silent about that and they seem to be getting government protection.
The new administration has appealed to China, US and Britain for re-engagement and to be part of community of nations and end decades of isolation from global lenders and donors. Our fear is imperialist domination, brutal exploitation and the looting of the country’s rich natural resources. To us it is the reemergence of ESAP which brought a lot of suffering during the 1990s and eroded all the social gains which the country had made since 1980.
International financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are there to facilitate the plunder and rape of African lands and forced use of their labour. Zimbabwe seeks to be re admitted into the British Commonwealth but common wealth member country people remain impoverished and uneducated, when Zimbabwe chooses to join it must not be based on compromising its sovereignty and revolutionary principles. The economic structural adjustment programs on Africa obligates countries to surrender to foreign trade relations tilted to benefit multinational corporate interests, like privatization of public goods and service, deregulation, wage cuts and all sorts of things which are not in the interest of the masses. If Foreign Direct Investment is coming it must come through our own terms for the benefit of our people.
The newly installed President of Zimbabwe Emmerson Mnangagwa has been invited this week at the prestigious World Economic Forum 48th meeting set for Davos, Switzerland, this is the first time Zimbabwe attends the forum, the message which Zimbabwe is most likely to take there is to tell the imperialist economies that Zimbabwe is ready and open for business. For the past 18 years these imperialist powers have been working for the downfall of Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe because of his anti-imperialist policies, the same forces supported economic sanctions on Zimbabwe which has brought the economy on its knees. Will just wait and see which direction the new government is taking.
On Friday, president Trump announced that his administration would be hitting North Korea with the “heaviest sanctions ever imposed on a country before.” The new penalties target dozens of ships and shipping companies that have (allegedly) been helping Pyongyang sustain its economy — and thus, its nuclear program. Specifically, these firms have allegedly enabled Kim Jong Un’s regime to evade previous sanctions by helping it trade illicitly with other countries while at sea, as opposed to on land, where such verboten commerce would be more easily detected.
The move represents an escalation of the White House’s latest strategy for combating the North Korean nuclear program: Pursue direct talks with Pyongyang — whileimposing maximum economic pain on the regime — in hopes of forcing Kim Jong Un to denuclearize without unleashing “fire and fury like the world has never seen.”
There are a couple of flaws with this gambit. First, it does little to prevent the Chinese from continuing to keep their eccentric allies afloat; and second, it does nothing to stop the irrational actor in the Oval Office from poisoning the prospects of a diplomatic agreement with homicidal bluster.
The latter liability became abundantly clear Friday afternoon, when a reporter asked the president about his North Korea policy.
“If the sanctions don’t work, we’ll have to go to Phase 2,” Trump replied. “Phase 2 may be a very rough thing. May be very, very unfortunate for the world.”
In other words: If North Korea does not meet my demands, I will deliberately inflict something “very, very unfortunate” on the entire world.
This might sound like a maniacal threat fit for a Bond villain. But if launching a globally devastating war is the only way to preempt the possibility of a globally devastating war, then what choice do we really have? How could we possibly trust that crackpot dictator with the nuclear weapon? I mean, have you heard the things he says?
ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-5-3
Year: 2012
Pages: 102 Print Edition: $10.25 (+ shipping and handling) PDF Edition: $6.50 (sent directly to your email account!)
Reviews
“This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of US wars since ‘9-11’ against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of ‘freedom and democracy’.” –John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University
“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” -Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations
Michel Chossudovsky exposes the insanity of our privatized war machine. Iran is being targeted with nuclear weapons as part of a war agenda built on distortions and lies for the purpose of private profit. The real aims are oil, financial hegemony and global control. The price could be nuclear holocaust. When weapons become the hottest export of the world’s only superpower, and diplomats work as salesmen for the defense industry, the whole world is recklessly endangered. If we must have a military, it belongs entirely in the public sector. No one should profit from mass death and destruction. –Ellen Brown, author of ‘Web of Debt’ and president of the Public Banking Institute
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
Another school shooting massacre. Of course everyone is shocked and saddened. But why is it not expected that occasionally an armed American will turn on his own? Violence and heroic gun play is in the air children breath in the USA.
“… I really believe that even if we had better gun control laws and better mental health, that we would still be the sort of sick and twisted violent people that we’ve been for hundreds of years, that it’s something that’s just in our craw, just in our DNA. And to get that out of our DNA is going to take a lot more than passing a bill in D.C. That’s not going to do it. … “Guns don’t kill people, Americans kill people,” because that’s what we do. We invade countries. We send drones in to kill civilians. We’ve got five wars going on right now where our soldiers are killing people–I mean, five that we know of,” said Michael Moore, in a video he made just a few hours after the news of the Newtown school massacre broke.
Everyone in socialist Cuba has a gun issued by the Cuban government to use in case of another US invasion, but in Cuba, gun crime is virtually nonexistent. Maybe that’s because Cuba’s kids don’t invade other people’s countries. In Cuba there are no killer role models such as there are in the USA, where members of the military are hailed in US media as heroic for ‘serving their country’ in other people’s country, more often than not, uninvited and in mortal combat with its citizens trying to expel them. Just as there are laws against breaking into someone else’s house, there are laws against invading someone else’s country.[1] Just as there are laws against murder, there are laws against genocide.[2]
Grown up children in the USA, who join the military are expected to be ready to go overseas and kill when told (to “maintain America’s unjust predatory investments,” preached Martin Luther King in his 1967 world shaking sermon Beyond Vietnam – a Time to Break Silence).[3]
In his box office hit movie Bowling for Columbine, film maker Michael Moore gave the people of the United States the most astounding in depth killer DNA wake up film ever made, but it went in one ear and out the other into obscurity, so thorough is commercial mass media disinformation and psyop of fright, materialism, egoism and fascination with violence.
“There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years, said National Rifle Association spokesperson in a NRA December 21st 2012, Press Conference. [reported in the Hartford Courant]
And the NRA spokesperson continued:
Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like “American Psycho” and “Natural Born Killers” that are aired like propaganda loops on “Splatterdays” and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it “entertainment.”
But is that what it really is? Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography? How have our nations priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.
And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.”‘
“We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.
We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.
Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless,
Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”Ergo the NRA call for armed guards in every school in America that don’t have them, or enough of them, already.
In order to round out this deadly and horrific description of the promotion of ‘gun play’ in American society by an National Rifle Association spokesperson, we must remember that the National Rifle Association lobbies the US Congress so successfully against gun control that it is the NRA that indeed makes sure that there are more guns than there are adults in the USA.
According to the Congressional Research Service, as of 2009 there were roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968. The NRA has a financial interest in the sale and proliferation of guns. Blocking any legal effort to lessen the availability and amount of guns in the USA just makes it easier for anyone planning a massacre to arm himself.
Since Cubans don’t shoot each other although they each have a gun, the NRA spokesperson and shooting massacres researcher Michael Moore must be right. Guns don’t kill people! Americans kill people with guns! When Americans kill millions in other peoples beloved countries, Americans don’t care much, and its not reported much on TV, but when increasingly Americans kill Americans, that is worthy of televised concern.
What Can Be Done?
What can be done, and where to start doing something about Americans murdering and mass murdering using guns to kill people, not only the relatively few Americans in the USA, but the many millions of children, women and men Americans kill overseas with guns, including guns of great fire power, missiles and bombs of all sizes and types?
American college kids only asking for stricter gun laws, should instead ask Iraqis, Libyans, Afghanistani, Somali, and Yemeni what to do about Americans killing Americans, and they will answer, just first stop invading and killing our people and then pay compensation for the lives taken, the destruction and the injuries; ask Vietnamese, Koreans, Laotians, Cambodians, Panamanians, Dominicans, Cubans and Grenadines, and they will advise to stop praising your GIs that were sent to kill us and calling them heroes even when they didn’t kill enough of us and lost, and of course USA should pay for the death and damage they caused us.
Going to the Source of All the Killing – Following the Money Trail Back to Its Source – Something First World Dissident Writers Rarely do.
1816, Thomas Jefferson declared:
“I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, already they have raised up a money aristocracy, the issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”
A Survey of Investment Banking as the Source of All America’s Wars (the source in turn of the US killing society.)
In Jefferson’s time, the New England Banks ran the genocidal African slave trade. Shortly thereafter land banks throughout the United States ran the genocidal wars against the nations of Native Americans, then the genocidal wars for half of Mexico and the entire Philippine Islands, and the genocidal sacking of China’s capital, Peking. The Federal Reserve (a set of private banks) was secretly planned and established to allow for massive genocidal loan sharking of the First World War and then enforcing its genocidal continuance for an extra year and half.
In 1933, the last wealthy aristocratic insider US president, Franklin Roosevelt confided:
“The real truth of the matter is, as you, and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.”[4] (Jackson was president a century earlier than Roosevelt).
American banking facilitated the enormous investments and joint venturing of nearly all US top corporations with a prostate Nazi Germany to build its Wehrmacht up to the world’s most powerful military in less the first seven years Hitler was in power in open breach of the Versailles Treaty prohibitions of German rearmament. This was openly aimed at the communist Soviet Union.[5] The mega enormous profits from the Second World War made Wall Street owned USA the wealthy single superpower. During the post-war period of nominal de-colonialization until now, few former colonies of the European and American empires have escaped neocolonial regime change wars as the genocidal and racist capitalist speculative investment banking imperialists had civil wars created to justify military interventions to maintain their economic plundering power everywhere. The genocide of USA imperialism using NATO and subservient United Nations military continues as part of the over five centuries long savage viking like speculative investment banking led genocide of white colonialism.
Tackling the Source of Wars: Private Capitalist Speculative Investment Bankers As Documented Throughout American History
We are on the right track in sourcing war, identifying, and exposing, eventually disempowering and prosecuting consorting speculative investment bankers and preventing further mass murder, mass maiming and destruction:
Major-General Smedley Butler (1881-1940), the most decorated Marine in U.S. history, twice decorated with the Medal of Honor. Seventy-five years ago, retired Gen. Butler confessed to having been a “high class muscleman for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.” His 1935 published “War is a Racket” begins with, A racket is best described as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
A racket is best described as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes. A racket is best described as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups.
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras “right” for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927, I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested….
America’s most well known economist, Thorstein Veblen, assumed depression to be the normal condition in a business-enterprise economy, to be relieved by war and expansion abroad. He described capitalism’s unsustainability and its destiny to fail and cause continued suffering. In 1922, Veblen wrote, “The current situation in America is by way of being something of a psychiatrical clinic… Perhaps the commonest and plainest evidence of … unbalanced mentality is to be seen in a certain fearsome and feverish credulity with which a large proportion of Americans are affected…. There is a visible lack of composure and logical coherence, both in what they will believe and in what they are ready to do about it. The fabric of credit and capitalization is essentially a fabric of concerted make-believe resting on the routine credulity of the business community at large.” Veblen saw the modern business leader as essentially a latter-day predatory warrior – transformed, armed, and clothed in a fashion that enables him to dominate modern society.[6]
Today, American led wars are a serious trillion dollar international business. Yet for their addiction to commercial television (for decades CIA supervised), most Americans continue to keep their eye on the president of the U.S., as if the powerful investors of the war establishment were allowing him to be his own man.
It is written in the Bible, “Those that live by the sword, die by the sword” Their children as well? one might ask.
Most Americans, or at least those addicted to their TV screens, might not see what the Third World and even America’s European allied peoples see clearly. For the millions of kids killed by invading armed Americans, the Third and Second World see that the seventy-seven mercilessly slain in Florida last week were the result of American fire power backfiring on its own kids and teachers. While a United States, going broke, is constantly increasing the use of its overgrown military to maintain its investment privileges abroad, its children back home are more often being cut down during childhood.
Thanks to the ever more miraculous new personal communication and information technology, ordinary citizens in our Third World representing 6/7th of humanity will soon unite against the genocide and plundering of the First World.
When the US and Europe lose economic hegemony for the rise of China[7], and other nations of enormous populations, the United Nations will be reconstituted into a more democratic organization with courts that will adjudicate a plethora of lawsuits for the compensation, reparations and indemnity for tens of millions of deaths and hundreds of millions of injuries, mega massive destruction of property and enormous thefts of natural resources, that will make past, present and future investment in the illegal and genocidal use of national armies, secret services and publicly owned broadcasting and telecasting frequencies, unprofitable.[8]
China will lead the non Caucasian populated nations which represent six-sevenths of humanity out of this age of European and European descendant colonial imperialism within ten or twenty years. Everyone, everywhere, should try to end the era of colonial genocide earlier than it will end in any case. Americans killing Americans as Europeans killed each other in two world wars is the finale of those five centuries of white folks banking created genocide. The human specie so phenomenally intelligent as shown in outer space exploration and in ever more astounding discoveries in medicine, will soon end this period of profitable genocide for a relatively small group of insane speculative investment bankers of Western de-civilization.
*
Jay Janson, who lived and performed in Korea, Vietnam and China for sixteen years, is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents in 67 countries; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India, Sweden, Germany Vietnam and the US; now resides in NYC.
Notes
1. Here below copied are the very clear Nuremberg Principles of International Law, which former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark unequivocally states are part of the law of the land by Article Six of the US Constitution.
Principle I
“Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.”
Principle II
“The fact that an internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.”
Principle III
“The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of State or responsible government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”
This paraphrases to, “even if you are head of state you still can be tried under international law.”
Principle IV
The fact that a person 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”.
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: “It is not an acceptable excuse to say ‘I was just following my superior’s orders'”.
Principle V
“Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.”
Principle VI “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes Against Peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(c) Crimes Against Humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population,
Principle VII
“Complicity in he commission of a crime against peace ” or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
2. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948 as General Assembly Resolution 260. The Convention entered into force on 12 January 1951.[1] It defines genocide in legal terms,
No one will regret spending the time to read King’s blistering condemnation of America’s war on and in Vietnam.
4. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a letter to Colonel Edward House, who had been advisor to President Wilson, October 34, 1933
5. Hitler had made his intentions clear in his Mein Kampf about invading Eastward.
and hatred of communists. In the US, the ruling class failing the nation in deep depression, was afraid of the successful socialist Soviet Union being a model for angry citizens in America, Europe and in the colonial powers occupied nations. The was propaganda of fear dubbed the ‘Red Scare’ and the excuse for building up Nazi Germany was ‘only as Bulwark against the USSR.’
6. The Theory of the Leisure Class 1898
* As the Council for the Defense pointed out in summation, not only the leading figures of the German financial-industrial-complex should have been indicted but the even more guilty big investors from around the world led by wealthy Americans and American corporations () that supported Hitler and invested heavily in building prostate Nazi Germany up to number one military power knowing precisely what Hitler had always announced as his intentions and plans for Jews, communists and the Soviet Union. (Ford, DuPont, Rockefeller, Bush, Kennedy, Harriman, Dulles, etc. and almost every single major US corporation)
7. “According to conservative estimates, by 2017, China will overtake the United States as the world’s largest economy, and by 2050, its economy will be twice as large as that of the United States. Chinese influence will extend well beyond the economic sphere. The full social, cultural and political repercussions of China’s ascendancy will be felt sooner. In the coming decades, the West will be confronted with the fact that its systems, institutions and values are no longer the only ones on offer.” [When China Rules the World -The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order by Martin Jacques] Also, Nobel Laureate in Economics Joseph Stilitz writes of this being “The Chinese Century.”
As the acute phase of civil warfare in Syria winds down while the government of President Bashar al-Assad increasingly gains the upper hand over foreign-funded insurgents, regional powers are desperately boosting aid for local proxies in a last-ditch attempt to rekindle the nearly seven-year-long conflict and gain a strategic foothold in the war-torn Arab republic.
Israeli occupation forces are frantically hoping to secure their grip on the country’s southern region surrounding the illegally-occupied Golan Heights, in hopes to gain leverage against what Israel fears is an increasing presence of fighters aligned with Iran.
For the Israeli military’s top brass, this means not only launching outright aggression against alleged targets affiliated with Tehran, but also redoubling support for at least seven armed opposition factions that it euphemistically calls “the locals,” according to an investigative report by Israeli analyst Elizabeth Tsurkov.
The Israelis fear that many of these groups are taking up posts along the Israeli-Syrian border and adjacent to the illegally-annexed Golan Heights, especially after a hesitant Russia agreed to temporarily prevent the Iranian-aligned combatants from deploying from around 5 to 7 kilometers’ distance from Syria’s Golan. Previous demands by Tel Aviv that Washington and Moscow guarantee the departure of the Shia groups were largely shrugged off, as was a demand that a 60-kilometer “safe-zone,” free of the Iranians and their allies, be established in the districts of Daraa and Quneitra.
Israeli occupation forces seized the Golan Heights from Syria during Israel’s expansionist military campaign of 1967, prior to outright annexing it. The move was never recognized by the international community, yet Tel Aviv’s imperialist backers and sponsors in Washington and other Western capitals unofficially recognized the annexation of the strategic 500 square-mile plateau.
Stepping into the funding vacuum
The Israeli aid boost comes after the Military Operations Command, the United States’ CIA-directed center in Jordan, finally halted funding last month that had provided the salaries for anywhere between 10,000 and 20,000 combatants in the “Southern Front” network of Free Syria Army (FSA) militias.
According to Syrian pro-government media sources and interviews Tsurkov conducted with opposition militants, various factions of the Free Syrian Army have enjoyed increased support since the fall of 2017:
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.”
The support has also been accompanied by reported joint operations against affiliates of the Islamic State group in a bid to dislodge the Salafi-jihadists and allow the Israeli-backed militants to gain ground.
Open assistance
Damascus has long expressed alarm over the Israeli military’s aid to opposition factions such as the Quneitra-based Liwa Fursan al-Jolan, or the “Knights of the Golan Brigade,” and FSA faction Firqat Ahrar Nawa. Last month, Firqat Ahrar Nawa posted a video to YouTube showing rebels unloading a truck full of containers bearing Israeli markings before deploying a multiple rocket launcher against an unidentified target.
The Syrian Arab Army has also made claims that it seized large caches of Israeli-manufactured weapons and military equipment in the course of its battles with various foreign-backed rebel factions.
In a report last June by the Wall Street Journal, Fursan al-Jolan spokesman Moatasem al-Golani admitted to his group’s receiving significant direct aid — such as medical care, cash, food and fuel — from the Israelis, boasting:
Israel stood by our side in a heroic way … We wouldn’t have survived without Israel’s assistance.”
The report was followed by an exclusive interview by right-wing Israeli newspaper The Jerusalem Post with Revolutionary Command Council in Quneitra and Golan spokesman Abu Omar al-Golani. In the report, the militant – whose generic nom de guerre has been attached to such titles as “opposition activist,” a “brigade leader,” or “media activist” – appealed to the U.S., the Israelis, and Jordan to help “liberate” Quneitra District from “Assad regime forces” by assisting the anti-government “Operations of the Army of Muhammed” campaign. The campaign was co-led by the rebranded al-Qaida affiliate Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or the Levant Liberation Committee (previously known as Jabhat al-Nusra).
Expressing hope that the Israelis would open up a corridor allowing for wounded rebels to receive quicker treatment in Israeli hospitals, Golani asked for “all types of weapons and military support in order to be able to eliminate the Shi’ite terrorist militias and Iranian gangs of the Assad terrorist regime.”
According to a recent speech by Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Danon – who has been known to fabricate his talking-points – up to 82,000 pro-government Shia fighters affiliated with the Islamic Republic, including Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah, are based in Syria with the consent of the country’s lawful authorities.
Prominent Israeli media personalities like Alex Fishman, chief military-security correspondent for Yedioth Ahronoth, have openly advocated the need to assist rebels regardless of their “religious extremist views” by “buy[ing] their loyalty through material aid.”
According to the Wall Street Journal, the Israelis began providing Golan rebels with direct cash support in 2013 under the tenure of Israeli then-Chief of Staff Moshe Ya’alon. In a 2016 conference at the Institute of National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, Ya’alon controversially endorsed the Islamic State terrorist group as a preferable alternative to Iran:
In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State. They don’t have the capabilities that Iran has … Iran determines future [sic] of Syria and if it leads to perpetuation, Iranian hegemony in Syria will be huge challenge [sic] for Israel.”
/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/DATJT6A2DZDZTIJX3IQENMGTOA.jpg)
