Gaza: A Concentration Camp of 1.5 Million People

February 22nd, 2018 by Jean Shaoul

Israeli forces attacked 18 targets in the Gaza Strip belonging to Hamas, which controls the besieged enclave, in the second such action over the weekend.

The strikes followed an explosion during a demonstration of Palestinians on the southern border with Israel Saturday that injured four Israeli soldiers. The Israeli military shot and killed two Palestinian teenagers in response. It was the worst such border incident since Israel’s war against Gaza in 2014 and portends a broader offensive.

None of the militant groups in Gaza has claimed responsibility for the explosion. Israeli Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman accused the Popular Resistance Committees, one of the smaller armed groups in Gaza, of detonating the bomb. Nevertheless, as always Israel holds Hamas, the Islamist national bourgeois party that controls Gaza, responsible for the attack.

For months, there have been almost weekly demonstrations against Israel’s blockade of Gaza and the deteriorating economic conditions. Last December, tensions rose after US President Donald Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Earlier this year, Gaza’s traders closed in protest over the deteriorating situation.

Israel’s Army Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot warned the cabinet recently that tensions were rising due to the worsening humanitarian crisis, that demonstrations were increasing in size and that an incident along the fence could spark an escalation of hostilities. His purpose was to get cabinet approval for harsh measures to deal with the crisis in the face of Gaza’s economic collapse.

Conditions in Gaza, a narrow coastal strip on the Egyptian-Israeli border, after 11 years of living under a land, sea and air blockade, are hellish.

Last year, a United Nations report stated that the living conditions for two million Palestinians had deteriorated “further and faster” than the prediction made in 2012 that the enclave would become “unlivable” by 2020. Large numbers of people are destitute. Forty-six percent of the population are without work. Sixty five percent live on $1.90 or less a day. This collapse in purchasing power has led to a huge drop in the number of trucks entering Gaza with food and equipment—from 800-1,200 a day to just 300.

Power shortages mean that most Palestinians are lucky if they get four hours of electricity a day. There is not enough power to pump sewage, so 95 percent of Gaza’s drinking water is not fit to drink. The coastal aquifer is almost unusable and will soon be irreversibly-depleted unless remedial action is taken.

The health system is collapsing, medical supplies are dwindling and clinics are closing, causing untold suffering and unnecessary deaths. Unable to get treatment in Gaza for complicated or chronic medical problems, many seek treatment in Egypt, Israel, the West Bank or Jordan. Yet last year, Israel granted just 54 percent of 25,000 applications for travel permits in time for patients to attend their scheduled appointments, down from 92 percent in 2012. As a result, at least 54 people died in 2017 waiting for visas.

Children are in school for just four hours a day.

There is no escape from this open-air prison. Israel has surrounded the Gaza Strip with a high-tech barrier and spent almost $1 billion building an underground-barrier project to seal its border to the attack tunnels into Israel. It controls two of the three exit points, while Egypt controls the third. Last year, Israel issued one-third of the number of exit visas issued two years earlier and just one percent of the number in early 2000. Movement between the two Palestinian territories, Gaza and the West Bank, in either direction is all but impossible.

The economic and social plight of the two million Palestinians living in the tiny enclave has been dire ever since Israel, with the full support of the US, European Union and the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority (PA)—particularly since 2013—imposed a blockade on Gaza. Jordan, by imposing strict transit conditions on Gazans, and Egypt, which controls the Rafah crossing, have played a key role in the siege.

The siege of Gaza was mounted following the unexpected victory of Hamas over Fatah in the January 2006 elections which the major powers had intended as a means of strengthening the hand of Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah leader and PA President. Winning 44 percent of the vote in the West Bank and Gaza, compared to Fatah’s 41 percent, Hamas took 74 of the 132-seat Palestinian Legislative Council.

Hamas’ election victory was the result of widespread disgust at Fatah’s corruption and subservience to Israel. The Oslo Accords, which Hamas had earlier opposed, had brought wealth for a few and unemployment, poverty and military oppression for the majority, while the Israeli settlements on land to be included in any future state had increased.

Despite Hamas’ willingness to accept some form of a “two state solution” and take a minority role in a coalition with Fatah, Israel and the US rejected this. They demanded Hamas abandon its three core tenets and renounce the use of arms, recognise Israel and sign up to the Oslo Accords in return for international recognition of a Hamas-controlled PA, or face an international boycott. The other members of the Quartet, the UN, European Union and Russia, soon fell in line with Washington’s demands, and the EU too cut its aid to the PA.

The US and Israel were determined to prevent any attempts by Fatah and Hamas to reach an agreement, deepening the split between the two factions in order to divide and rule, while increasing Hamas’ economic dependence on Qatar and Iran.

In June 2006, Israel launched an attack on Gaza, knocking out its power station, making Gaza increasingly dependent on Israel for its electricity and precipitating daily power cuts lasting for hours at a time. Israel tightened its blockade on Gaza after Hamas forestalled and defeated an attempted coup by Fatah in a brief but brutal civil war in June 2007. Three military assaults on Gaza in 2008-09, 2012 and 2014 killed 1,417, 147 and 2,250 Palestinians respectively, and destroyed much of Gaza’s basic infrastructure together with tens of thousands of homes. Around 90,000 of the 500,000 people displaced by the 2014 assault remain displaced or homeless.

The blockade worsened after the military coup in Egypt that toppled the Muslim Brotherhood-led government of Mohammed Morsi and the clampdown on the Brotherhood and Hamas—a Brotherhood affiliate—by the military junta of Abdul Fattah el-Sisi.

El-Sisi closed Egypt’s border crossing at Rafah and forced Hamas to close the tunnels between Gaza and Egypt that had provided a means of circumventing Israel’s blockade and a source of income, by taxing the goods brought in, for Hamas.

Last year, Abbas imposed further hardship on Gaza. He stopped paying Israel for fuel for Gaza’s power station and electrical transmission into the Gaza Strip and ended or cut salary payments to thousands of public sector workers. This was to force Hamas into “reconciliation” talks with Fatah that culminated in a Cairo-brokered agreement in October. But the talks have stalled and the promised relief has failed to materialise.

In October, the World Food Programme announced a cutback in its food voucher programme in Gaza due to a budget shortfall.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration withheld $65 million in funding for the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA), which supports some 1.2 million in Gaza, as well as $45 million in food aid in the West Bank and Gaza that it had promised for an emergency UNRWA appeal.

UNRWA has for decades provided key social services as well as a vital lifeline for the poorest Palestinians. Now that too has gone and the viability of the agency itself is in question.

*

Featured image is from Defend Democracy Press.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Gaza: A Concentration Camp of 1.5 Million People

On the heels of Iowa and Ohio, Wyoming has become the third state to introduce a bill criminalizing the type of activities undertaken by past oil and gas pipeline protesters. 

One of the Wyoming bill’s co-sponsors even says it was inspired by the protests led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against the Dakota Access pipeline, and a sheriff involved in policing those protests testified in support of the bill at a recent hearing. Wyoming’s bill is essentially a copy-paste version of template legislation produced by the conservative, corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

At the organization’s December meeting, ALEC members voted on the model bill, the Critical Infrastructure Protection Act, which afterward was introduced in both Iowa and Ohio.

Like the ALEC version, Wyoming’s Senate File 74 makes “impeding critical infrastructure … a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) years, a fine of not more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00), or both.” Two of the bill sponsors of SF 74, Republican Sens. Eli Bebout and Nathan Winters, are ALEC membersSF 74 has passed unanimously out of its Senate Judiciary Committee and now moves onto the full floor.

ALEC‘s model bill, in turn, was based on two Oklahoma bills, HB 1123 and HB 2128. The Sooner State bills, now official state law, likewise impose felony sentencing, 10 years in prison, and/or a $100,000 fine on individuals who “willfully damage, destroy, vandalize, deface, or tamper with equipment in a critical infrastructure facility.” As DeSmog has reported, the Iowa bill has the lobbying support of Energy Transfer Partners — the owner of the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) which runs through the state — as well as that of the American Petroleum Institute and other oil and gas industry companies.

ALEC brings together primarily Republican Party state legislators and lobbyists to enact and vote on “model” legislation at its meetings, which take place several times a year. Within different task forces at these meetings, corporate lobbyists can voice their support or critiques of bills, while also getting a vote. Those bills often then are introduced as legislation in statehouses nationwide, as in this latest example in Wyoming.

Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in Wyoming has helped the state vastly increase its natural gas production and spurred pipeline build-out. However, multiple studies in recent years have also linked fracking-related activities around the small town of Pavilion to groundwater contamination.

Credit: Center for Media and Democracy

Targeting ‘Ecoterrorism’

Wyoming’s bill, like the ALEC model bill and one of the Oklahoma bills, includes language implicating any organization “found to be a conspirator” and lobbing a $1 million fine on any group which “aids, abets, solicits, encourages, hires, conspires, commands, or procures a person to commit the crime of impeding critical infrastructure.”

State Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leland Christensen, a Republican and one of the bill’s co-sponsors, said when he introduced the bill that legislative language was needed to hold accountable those “organizations that sponsor this kind of ecoterrorism.”

The fiscal note for the Wyoming bill says that the “fiscal impact to the judicial system is indeterminable,” while also discussing the prospective costs of incarcerating people under the auspices of the legislation.

“The Department of Corrections states that the impact of the bill is indeterminable as there is currently no way to accurately estimate the number of offenders that will be sentenced pursuant to the bill,” reads the fiscal note. “Each year of incarceration currently costs the state approximately $41,537 per inmate, including medical costs. Each year of community supervision costs the state approximately $2,000 per inmate.”

ALEC Model Confirmed

One co-sponsor of the Wyoming bill, its sole Democratic supporter, Rep. Stan Black, told WyoFile.com that the bill was inspired by what took place at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation and that SF 74 was based on the ALEC model bill.

Shortly after ALEC members voted to adopt the Oklahoma legislation as a model bill, Oklahoma’s HB 1123 was also adopted by the corporate-funded Council of State Governments (CSG) as a piece of “Shared State Legislation” (SSL) at its own annual meeting held just a week later.

ND Rep. Kim Koppelman (Photo Credit: North Dakota Legislature)

One of the state legislative officials sitting on CSG‘s Committee on Shared State Legislation, North Dakota’s Republican Rep. Kim Koppelman, has a long history of involvement with ALEC, and throughout 2017 he spoke critically of the Indigenous-led movement against the Dakota Access pipeline.

“One of the major issues we dealt with was several bills introduced in response to the violent protests at the site of the Dakota Access pipeline,” Koppelman wrote in a February 2017 article halfway through the North Dakota Legislature’s session. “As you may know, peaceful protests led by Native American tribes began this summer but they attracted others from throughout the nation and deteriorated into illegal occupation of sites on federal land, trespassing on private land, blocking of roadways and some incidents of violence.”

At the beginning of 2017, Koppelman co-sponsored three pieces of North Dakota legislation, which crack down on pipeline protests. Two of them passed and are now state law.

The bills “struck a good balance to ensure everyone’s constitutional right to peacefully protest, which we cherish, but to provide for appropriate consequences when anyone crosses the line into anarchy, terrorizing or destruction of property,” wrote Koppelman in his article. “These bills have been fast tracked to give law enforcement the tools they need.”

After DeSmog filed an open records request pertaining to Koppelman’s ALEC and CSG efforts in this area, he told DeSmog,

 “I have no documents or records concerning the subject of your request but, even if I did, you should be aware that, under North Dakota Century Code Section 44-04-18.6, communications and records of a member of the North Dakota Legislative Assembly are not subject to disclosure.”

In a follow-up email exchange, Koppelman told DeSmog that he “had no role in bringing the bill” to CSG and does not know who did so.

“Frankly, I don’t even specifically recall the bill you’ve inquired about, without going back to review it,” Koppelman told DeSmog. “I also don’t recall who may have supported or opposed it at that meeting, either on the Committee or among the members of the public in the audience.”

For the ALEC bill, Koppelman also said he could not speak to its origins as a model or who has pushed it at the state-level since becoming a model.  When asked by DeSmog if CSG records the Shared State Legislation meetings or keeps minutes, Koppelman said that he does not believe so “because the result of meetings and the committee’s work is in the published volume” of Shared State Legislation which CSG disseminates annually.

CSG has in the past, though, kept meeting minutes of its SSL voting sessions, doing so as recently as 2014. Those minutes included an attendance list, which listed nearly three times the number of lobbyists present as state legislators and showed industry attendees representing both the American Gas Association and the Consumer Energy Alliance.

According to a letter obtained and published by HuffPost, the ALEC model bill has also enjoyed the backing of the American Gas Association, American Chemistry Council, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), and Marathon Petroleum.

Industry, Cops Push ALEC Bill in Wyoming

According to a follow-up story by WyoFile.com, the Wyoming Senate Judiciary Committee had Wyoming Business Alliance lobbyist Cindy DeLancey, rather than the lead sponsor, Sen. Christensen, introduce the bill in front of the committee.

Before taking over as head of the Wyoming Business Alliance, DeLancey worked as a director of government and public affairs for BP, where she did “government and public affairs support for the Leadership Team of the Lower 48 North Business Unit,” according to her LinkedIn profile. DeLancey’s Wyoming Business Alliance biography also shows that she formerly served as the chair of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming’s Government and Public Relations Committee. She did not respond to a request for comment.

Wyoming Business Alliance steering committee members include representatives from the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, Chesapeake Energy, Devon Energy, and Jonah Energy. Petroleum Association of Wyoming leadership committees consist of representatives from companies such as Devon Energy, Chesapeake Energy, BP, Anadarko Petroleum, and other companies, while its board of directors lists officials from those companies, plus ExxonMobil, EOG Resources, Halliburton, Williams Companies, and others.

WyoFile.com has reported that, according to a document received from Sen. Christensen, the Petroleum Association and other oil and gas companies have also come out as official supporters of the bill, along with law enforcement representatives. The Wyoming bill’s official backers include the Wyoming Association of Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police, the Wyoming Business Alliance, the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, the Wyoming Petroleum Marketers Association, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), Holly Frontier Corporation, Anadarko Petroleum, and ONEOK.

According to a special events calendar obtained by DeSmog, the Wyoming Business Alliance hosted a reception at the Cheyenne Botanic Gardens on February 12, just days after Wyoming bill SF 74 was introduced on February 9.

On March 1, ALEC will also host a reception at the Nagle-Warren Mansion Cheyenne, according to that calendar, with invited guests asked to RSVP to Wendy Lowe or David Picard. Picard currently has no oil and gas industry lobbying clients, according to his lobbying disclosures, but his lobbying firm’s website says he formerly did so for companies such as Shell, BP, and Marathon. He did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

According to lobbying disclosure forms, Lowe works as a lobbyist for Williams Companies, a major pipeline company with over 3,700 miles of pipeline laid in Wyoming. Lowe also formerly served as associate director of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, according to her LinkedIn Profile.

Wyoming ALEC Pipelines Bill

Credit: Wyoming State Legislature

Lowe, the private sector chairwoman for ALEC in Wyoming as of 2014, won the state chair of the year award from ALEC in 2012. She has also previously received corporate-funded “scholarship” gifts to attend ALEC meetings as an official Wyoming representative, according to a 2013 report published by the nonprofit watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy.

An ALEC newsletter from May 2011 shows that, at an ALEC event Lowe co-hosted in 2011 in Wyoming, she praised the organization for “creating a unique environment in which state legislators and private sector leaders can come together, share ideas, and cooperate in developing effective policy solutions.”

The Center for Media and Democracy also reported in 2014 that Lowe, a former Peabody Energy lobbyist, gave a presentation titled, “Increasing Travel Reimbursement Income” at an ALEC meeting in Chicago in 2013. But Lowe told DeSmog that, although she attended the Senate hearing on the bill, she did not know about it until it was proposed and is not lobbying for it.

National Sheriffs: DAPL Full Circle

At a state Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Wyoming bill, Laramie County Sheriff Danny Glick also came out in support of the legislation, warning that a situation similar to Standing Rock could happen in Wyoming.

One of our Niobrara county commissioners already has graffiti going up — ‘No DAPL’ — in that area up there,” Glick said at the hearing, referring to the shorthand for the Dakota Access pipeline. Glick, an Executive Committee member and Immediate Past President of the National Sheriffs’ Association, was one of the most supportive sheriffs pushing what has been characterized as a heavy-handed and militaristic reaction by law enforcement to the activism at Standing Rock.

Under the direction of Glick, Laramie County sent officers to the Dakota Access protests under the auspices of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), triggered after North Dakota’s Republican Governor Jack Dalrymple issued an emergency order on August 19, 2016. Glick too, spent time at Standing Rock and spoke at a press conference alongside Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier on October 6, 2016.

Glick, who attended a roundtable meeting at the White House in February 2017 with President Donald Trump and other sheriffs, was also previously CC‘d on a set of emails obtained by DeSmog and Muckrock in which the National Sheriffs’ Association and public relations firms it had hired wrote talking points in an attempt to discredit those who participated at Standing Rock. Those talking points said to describe the anti-pipeline movement as rife with “anarchists” and “Palestinian activists” who used violence and possessed “guns, knives, etc.”

‘Worst Instincts of Power’

Critics say the Wyoming bill could have far-reaching and negative impacts, if it becomes law, both in terms of criminal sentencing and for First Amendment rights. The American Civil Liberties Union of Wyoming, for example, has come out against the bill on both grounds.

 

The Sierra Club in Wyoming agreed, saying in an email blast that the bill is “explicitly designed to crush public opposition to projects like the Dakota Access and Keystone pipelines, by preventing the kind of protests that occurred at Standing Rock.”

Even people representing industry interests and within the Republican Party have come out against the bill as it currently reads.

This bill appeals to the absolute worst instincts of power,” Larry Wolfe, a Wyoming attorney who represents the oil and gas industry, said at a hearing about the bill, according to WyoFile.com. “We the powerful must protect things that are already protected under existing law.”

Republican Senator Cale Case largely echoed the concerns put forward by Wolfe.

This country has been through WWII, civil unrest in the 1960s and a heck of a lot more, but we didn’t need legislation like this,” Case conveyed in an email to WyoFile.com. “Good laws already exist to protect property without this chilling impact on free speech.”

*

This article was originally published by DeSmogBlog.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests. Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill
  • Tags:

Anti-Trump, anti-Russian fundamentalism emanates from the heart of “The Resistance.” Fundamentalism—meaning strict adherence or imposition of the basic principles of any theory, politics, or religion—is one aspect of totalitarianism and/or fascism, but I’m not using those words because we’re not there yet, or at least not domestically. I can still write this without getting arrested.

“Global hegemony” more accurately describes the US empire of bases, and “barbarism” the cruise missiles, proxy wars, and covert operations savaging the Global South. Bombs literally smash dissent and defiance, but they don’t persuade hearts and minds. More often they have the opposite effect.

On Sunday, February 18, Resistance icon Bernie Sanders appeared on “Meet the Press” and said:

What most Americans know is that, at the end of my campaign, when it appeared that Clinton was going to win, and certainly after she won the nomination, what the Russians were doing is flocking to Bernie Sanders Facebook sites, and they were saying to Bernie Sanders supporters—as they were, by the way, to Black Lives Matter supporters, people who were fighting for social justice, as they were saying to the Muslim community, “If you voted for Sanders, you have to understand Hillary Clinton is crazy, she’s a murderer, she is terrible”—all kinds of horrible, horrible things about Hillary Clinton.

And it turns out that one of our social media guys in San Diego actually went to the Clinton campaign in September and said, “Something weird is going on. Bernie’s not in the campaign. Hundreds of these people are now coming onto his Facebook sites.” So I think we already knew that. It was an effort to undermine American democracy and to really say horrible things about Secretary Clinton.

Americans didn’t need Russian Facebook posts to read horrible things about Secretary Clinton

Bernie obviously doesn’t read Black Agenda ReportCounterpunchGlobal Research, and other left news sites, many of which were on the Prop or Not list, which the Washington Post published despite its dubious origins. He must not listen to the one and only Jimmy Dore Show on the YouTube, even though Jimmy still has a soft spot for Bernie. Jimmy and those of us who write for the aforementioned publications all said horrible things about Hillary Clinton before, during, and after the 2017 campaign.

Hillary Clinton is a murderer and a war criminal. She violated the first principle of international law—the sovereignty of UN member nations—in Libya and all the other nations that the US was already at war with when she became Secretary of State. She committed war crimes and crimes against humanity under the preposterous pretense of preventing genocide. Anyone who would murder so many innocents is a sociopath—a person manifesting extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience. That’s one definition of crazy.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama presided over the murder of Afghans, Syrians, Iraqis, and Libyans, including President Muammar Gaddafi. That’s not counting those who died in US proxy wars, crackdowns by ruthless US-backed dictators, and the US-backed right-wing coup in Honduras with all its brutal consequences.

And that’s all apart from the bribery and corruption uniting the State Department and the Clinton Family Foundation during her tenure, including the undisclosed cash contributions that flowed to the foundation during the sale of Uranium One—and with it, one-fifth of the uranium production capacity of the United States—to the Russian firm Rosatom. In her official capacity, Secretary of State Clinton approved that transaction.

I’m not Russian and I’m not trying to undermine American democracy, but I’ve written about all this, sometimes on Facebook and Twitter, and sometimes for publication. In 2017 I wrote “Clinton E-Mail on Libyan Conquest: We Came, We Saw, We Got Oil.” Of course that’s not all “we” got; Libya also has uranium, cobalt, credit markets, warm water ports, and opportunities to rebuild everything that NATO destroyed. But “we” did get oil, which has become shorthand for imperial loot. Executives of the Waha Group (Marathon, ConocoPhillips and Amerada Hess) wrote to thank Secretary Clinton.

I put quotation marks around “we” because it’s not a pronoun that identifies the vast majority of Americans, despite its standard use as such in political discourse. To the victors go the spoils, but we’re not the victors. At least half of us couldn’t survive a $1000 emergency, and all we get, war after war, is deeper in debt for all the missiles and military tech manufactured to destroy nations, sow chaos, and make profit for weapons manufacturers. Most of us are still chained to the oil companies just to make our way to wherever we have to go, often on roads and bridges in disrepair because the money’s all gone to the wars.

Thanks for the memories, Secretary Clinton. Thanks President Obama. You’re both sociopaths and murderers, but I’m not Russian, and I’m not trying to undermine American democracy. Neither are writers for the aforementioned publications or other left, antiwar, anti-imperialist American writers and broadcasters.

Neither are Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and the rest of the Fox News hosts, nor the writers and editors of Breitbart News or any of the alt-right, wing-nut websites. I mention them not as kindred spirits, but as far more prominent Americans who said horrible things about Hillary Clinton in 2017. People do that during political campaigns; they say horrible things about each other, true or not. Hillary Clinton called Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables.” He called her “crooked Hillary” whenever he had the media’s abundant attention, often to crowds cheering, “Lock her up!”

Americans didn’t need Russia’s social media meme bombers to find writers, broadcasters, and social media aficionados saying horrible things about Secretary Clinton. Some had reason and evidence; others were just determined to elect their own equally horrible, amoral, unconscionable, sociopathic candidate, Donald Trump, who is now a war criminal as well.

This is obvious, indisputable, and readily reviewable. The evidence is in last year’s print, broadcast, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram archives, but nevertheless, a confounding number of Americans are willing to blame “the Russians” or Vladimir Putin for Hillary’s defeat.

Defenders of the Mueller indictments say they don’t allege that 13 Russians swung the election for Trump. They don’t say that 13 Russians hacked into the DNC or Podesta emails or gave them to Wikileaks. Or that they hacked and altered the tallies of any electronic voting machines, despite how readily those machines invite hacking and fraud. They don’t even say that Putin was in command of this operation.

They’re right; the Mueller indictments don’t say any of that. Anyone who thinks they do should read them, but how many Americans will? If they’re not Fox News fans, MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the liberal extremist media have probably already convinced them that the Russian government is responsible, as has Resistance royalty: Bernie Sanders, Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, and California Congressional Reps Adam Schiff, Ted Lieu, and Jackie Speier, just to name a few. I mention the Californian Reps because I live here where they make the most noise when they’re not in Washington, although many Americans outside the Golden State now recognize the glazed eyes and fundamentalist countenance of Adam Schiff, who represents West Hollywood to the eastern border of Pasadena, and Echo Park to the Angeles National Forest. Jimmy Dore and his wife Stef Zamorano live in Pasadena, and Stef has suggested suing Schiff for neglecting his constituents to lead the anti-former-communist crusade on the national stage.

On Meet the Press, Bernie Sanders said that “everybody knows” the Republicans are trying to sabotage the 2018 midterms. Seemed like he actually made a little slip on the air there; he probably meant “the Russians,” although he said the Republicans, because he went on to further accuse “the Russians.” Perhaps he was imagining that the Russians would help the Republicans defeat “The Resistance,” but whatever he meant, he went on to say:

And I think one of the of the weirdest things in modern American history is you have every intelligence agency, you have the Mueller report, you have Trump’s own administration saying the Republicans [another slip?] want to sabotage the 2018 campaign. Everybody knows this, except the President of the United States, and I think people are asking, “What is going on with this president?”

What we have got to do—and I think Senator Langford talks about some of the issues—front end, front end, what we have got to say to the Russians: “You are doing something to undermine American democracy. You are not going to get away with it. This is a major assault. If you do that, there will be severe, severe consequences. We’ve gotta protect states and communities to make sure that their voting is not compromised.”

Seems kinda reckless to accuse the nation with the second greatest number of nuclear missiles in the world of a major assault and then threaten them with “severe, severe consequences” just because 13 Russians have been noodling around on social media, maybe helping to organize a few pro-Trump rallies. Not that the number of nukes really matters since both the US and Russia have enough to destroy all but the faintest traces of life on earth. A member of the Russian Parliament said Mueller’s story is straight from a Hollywood crime comedy, probably with the title “Thirteen Friends of Vladimir Putin,” but that doesn’t mean that the country’s military strategists aren’t taking further steps to defend it.

Also seems kinda reckless to be bolstering the argument for internet censorship or even state control, especially when, as “The Resistance” so often claims, the spectre of fascism haunts the US and the world. According to Julian Assange, information control of the internet with artificial intelligence is a greater danger than global warming.

Nevertheless, Bernie Sanders is still the most popular politician in the US, still drawing record crowds, and now reported to be discussing a 2020 run for president.

*

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at @AnnGarrison or [email protected] 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Anti-Trump, Anti-Russian Fundamentalism. The Reckless “Resistance”
  • Tags: ,

Gaza: Who or What Has a “Right to Exist”?

February 22nd, 2018 by Judith Deutsch

Gaza: An Inquest into its Martyrdom (Verso, 2018), is an extraordinary book. It is also a difficult book to read. In his preface, Norman Finkelstein writes that this work “has been a painstaking, fastidious undertaking born of a visceral detestation of falsehood, in particular when it is put in the service of power and human life hangs in the balance.” He writes that “Gaza is about a Big Lie composed of a thousand, often seemingly abstruse and arcane, little lies. The objective of this book is to refute that Big Lie by exposing each of the little lies.” His meticulous inquest into Israel’s atrocities and the moral depravity within humanitarian institutions demands answers about who or what has a right to exist.

The book primarily investigates the official reports about Operation Cast Lead (2008-09), the Mavi Marmara (2010), and Operation Protective Edge (2014). Finkelstein attributes these assaults in part to Israel’s intention to prove its deterrence capacity after its defeat by Hezbollah in 2006. A pattern emerges of Israel’s surreptitious provocations that conceal its own aggression, use of disproportionate military force and targeting of civilians, specious legality, and lies that exonerate Israel and permit ever-increasing brutality. The Dahiya doctrine refers to Israel’s military strategy of acting immediately, decisively, and with disproportionate force. Dahiya is a suburb of Beirut that was flattened by Israel in the 2006 war.

Punishing Blockade

Operation Cast Lead was preceded by Israeli assaults that destroyed Gaza’s infrastructure, cruelly named 2004 Operation Rainbow, 2004 Operation Days of Penitence, 2006 Operation Summer Rains and Autumn Clouds, 2008 Operation Hot Winter. After the democratic election of Hamas in 2005, Israel imposed a punishing blockade which UN Special Rapporteur John Dugard noted was the first time an occupied people was subject to sanctions and that were a violation of major UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions and a ruling by the International Court of Justice. Israel attacked a civilian population imprisoned within its territory and already decimated by a ruined economy.

A shell fired by Israeli forces explodes over the northern Gaza

Israel attacked Gaza with the most advanced combat aircraft in the world, flying nearly 3000 sorties and dropping 1000 tons of explosives. The U.S. Senate unanimously supported the attack and the House vote was 390 to 5. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman “joined the chorus of hallelujahs during Cast Lead” and expressed hope that Israel would “’educate’ Hamas by inflicting a heavy death toll on Hamas militants and heavy pain on the Gaza population.” Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni “audaciously declared in the midst of Cast Lead that ‘no humanitarian crisis’ existed in Gaza. UNRWA director described what was obvious from eyewitness photographs and newscasts: “We have a catastrophe unfolding in Gaza for the civilian population…. They’re trapped, they’re traumatized, they’re terrorized.” What was also obvious was that Israel systematically targeted Gaza’s civilian infrastructure. 1400 civilians were killed, including 350 children.

Goldstone Report

Amnesty International and the Goldstone Report established that Israeli soldiers, not Hamas, used civilians as human shields. The Goldstone Report found that much of the devastation was premeditated and anchored in a military doctrine. The Report stated that the assault constituted “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population….” The Report also paid tribute to “the resilience and dignity of the Gazan people.” It recommended that individual states “start criminal investigations in national courts, using universal jurisdiction….” It noted Israel’s “seemingly deliberate cruelty” to children.

On April 1, 2011, Goldstone disowned the “devastating UN report of Israeli crimes carrying his name.” The gist of his recantation was that Israel did not commit war crimes and that it was fully capable of investigating violations of international law. The other three investigators issued a statement unequivocally affirming the Report’s original findings. Finkelstein goes into considerable detail about Goldstone’s recantation which essentially legitimized Israel’s alibis: that Israel does not target civilians but that civilian casualties were due to error or were collateral to targeting militants, and that its grossly disproportionate destructiveness was justified self-defence.

Goldstone attributed his recantation to a drone photograph of the Al-Samouni family compound that Israel offered as evidence 22 months after the massacre of 29 family members. Several family members were actually gathering firewood but the blurry photograph purported to show that they were carrying rocket launchers. Israeli soldiers based close to the house had even warned the commanding officer, Colonel Malka, that the Al-Samounis were civilians. The Israeli investigation claimed that the massacre was just a “simple mistake.” From his investigations, Goldstone also knew well from soldiers’ testimonies that they had license to go “crazy,” “lunatic,” “insane,” “to destroy everything in its way” and “kill everything that moves.” John Dugard, previous UN Special Rapporteur, adjudged that “there are no new facts that exonerate Israel and that could possibly have led Goldstone to change his mind.” Finkelstein’s verdict:

“In one fell swoop, Goldstone inflicted irreparable damage on the cause of truth and justice and the rule of law…. He poisoned Jewish-Palestinian relations, undermined the courageous work of Israeli dissenters, ‘and – most unforgivably – increased the risk of another merciless IDF assault. … the singular distinction of Goldstone’s recantation was that it renewed Israel’s license to kill.”

Israel’s killing of nine passengers on the Mavi Marmara, part of the Gaza flotilla to break the blockade of Gaza, followed the same pattern of previous assaults: Israel characterized their victims as terrorists; the pre-planned attack by Israeli commandos was vastly disproportionate. The commandos opened fire on the unarmed passengers with tear gas, smoke and stun grenades, and live ammunition. Israel appointed Jacob Turkel, a former Israeli Supreme Court justice, to chair Israel’s investigation, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon appointed the corrupt and criminal Colombian president Alvaro Uribe to chair a UN Panel. According to the official investigations, the “shaheeds” armed themselves to kill Israelis but did not manage to kill even those in their custody, whereas the Israelis took “every precaution and exercised every restraint not to kill anyone but ended up killing nine people.” The UN Report invented a novel legal fiction by differentiating the land and sea blockades as if boats are for smuggling weapons, thereby justifying the naval blockade and attack on the Mavi Marmara. “It must be a first … that a report bearing its [UN] imprimatur vilified the victims of a murderous assault because they sought to cast light on an ongoing crime against humanity.”

Israeli troops and tanks near the Gaza border (Source: Israel Defense Forces – Armored Corps Operate Near the Gaza Border / CC)

Operation Protective Edge was the deadliest massacre. Again, Israel provoked and opportunistically seized a timely opportunity to attack. Israel assassinated Hamas military chief Ahmed Jabari and exacerbated Israeli racism and paranoia through its concealing facts about the killing of three settlement youth. Arab Spring had turned into Arab Winter, with Egypt again closing the Gaza border. The 2014 downing of the Malaysian plane conveniently deflected attention from Israel, and Israel bombed Gaza hours later.

The disproportion is self-evident. Hamas killed 73 Israelis of whom only 8% were civilians while Israel killed 2200 Gazans of whom fully 70% were civilians. Israel killed 550 [recent figure is 556] children, and Hamas killed one Israeli child. The ratio of civilian dwellings destroyed was 18,000:1. As well, Israel again destroyed vital infrastructure, leaving Gazans without electrical power, potable water, medical care.

Finkelstein dissects the major investigative reports. Both the Amnesty and the UN Human Rights Council investigations of Operation Protective Edge refused to accuse Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity or of violating the UN Charter or the Geneva Conventions. These reports appallingly presumed an equivalence of suffering by Gazans and by Israeli Jews. Joining in this whitewash were UNICEF, the Lancet medical journal editor Dr. Richard Horton, Jacques de Maio of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and International Criminal Court former chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo who heaped praise on Israel’s respect for the “rule of law.” The International Court of Justice which had previously declared the settlements illegal, evasively claimed that Protective Edge was “highly complicated,” to which Finkelstein asks “where the complication lay: was it when Israel dropped 100 one-ton bombs on Shja’iya or when it indiscriminately fired 20,000 high-explosive artillery shells in densely populated civilian areas?”

These investigations bought into Israel’s claims that it only targeted “militants.” Finkelstein commented:

“On this evidentiary standard, Amnesty couldn’t find that Israel had committed a war crime unless and until Israel acknowledged its commission.”

Amnesty accepted Israel’s internal investigation which “found that the attacks had been carried out in accordance with international law.” The UNHCR even accepted Israel’s alibis about the killing of 18 people at the UNRWA Beit Hanoun School. Finkelstein: Israel did not take “all feasible precautions to protect civilians, even though it did take all feasible precautions to set them up for a bloodbath.”

Right to Exist

Both Freud and Marx explored the distortions of thinking in which abstractions are treated as material or animistic things, an observation that appears to be lost in much political discourse. The most egregious examples are that the “state” and “corporations” or even the “planet” have a “right to exist” while people do not. Finkelstein’s inquest concerns depraved individual behavior made credible and enforceable in association with abstract powerful institutions. Israel’s vicious massacres are hardly the first. Post Cold War, the U.S.’ 1991 bombing of Baghdad, the ensuing UN sanctions leading to half-million child deaths, and the sieges of Fallujah were among many other atrocities showing that it is easy to get away with murder.

What are the forces from within and without that protest collusion with murder? Some institutions (always created by people and made up of people) are inherently and historically destructive to human life, like the military, corporations and a range of financial institutions, and perhaps the UN Security Council, while other institutions have an uneven record or are modifiable.

In today’s world, states must be assessed in terms of the deaths they cause or facilitate inside and outside their borders. Similarly, the humanitarian organizations investigated by Finkelstein necessitate this kind of standard. Amnesty and the UNHRC are cases in point. Astonishingly, Saudi Arabia remains chair of the UNHRC. In 2012 Suzanne Nossel was named chair of AIUSA. On Nossel’s watch, child murder justifier Madeleine Albright gave the keynote address to the AIUSA AGM in 2012. Maximilian Forte, author of Slouching towards SirteNato’s War on Libya and Africa, reported that In her State Department job, Nossel had played a key role drawing up the UN Human Rights Council resolution that ultimately formed the basis for Security Council Resolution 1973 that led to the NATO intervention in Libya. Amnesty had also credited the unfounded reports about Iraq and the incubator babies that was used to justify the devastating 1991 war.

Was there dissent within Amnesty? Have there been retractions or admissions of guilt and of responsibility for complicity in so many deaths? The good work of Amnesty then serves to lend credibility to its disastrous positions.

In this book Finkelstein expresses outrage that Israel is exonerated by prestigious people and institutions, allowing escalation of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Persistent exposure of the little and big lies needs to be part of the struggle if there is really to be a Never Again for all people.

*

Judith Deutsch is a columnist for Canadian Dimension magazine, former president of Science for Peace, a psychoanalyst by profession and writes about a range of social justice issues. She can be reached at [email protected].

A top-rated lawyer who has beaten the Food and Drug Administration more times in court than any other attorney is calling on the Trump administration to launch a probe into possible links between commonly-prescribed psychiatric drugs and the epidemic of school shootings.

“The financial interests of the psychiatric industry is to feed this drug industry,” said Jonathan Emordin a short documentary video.“

And the drug industry’s financial interest is to come up with the agents to feed the psychiatric industry.

“The psychiatric industry, then, is endlessly engaged in identifying new disorders,” he continued, “which can then be treated with psychiatric drugs. Now psychiatric drugs are the primary drugs that are consumed in America.”

He’s right about that. In October 2011, Harvard Medical School noted the “astounding” increase in the use of antidepressants by Americans. According to a report by “the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), the rate of antidepressant use in this country among teens and adults (people ages 12 and older) increased by almost 400% between 1988–1994 and 2005–2008,” wrote Peter Wehrwein.

By December 2016, as reported by the Scientific American, fully one-in-six Americans were taking a psych drug.

Emord says the studies show the number is higher — one-in-five Americans. And he believes there is a substantive link between increased psychiatric drug use, especially by younger Americans, and the rash of school shootings.

The attorney notes that psych drugs are known to produce dangerous side effects that include thoughts of and/or tendencies towards suicide and, importantly, violence. As such, “shouldn’t we expect aberrant behavior to be cropping up all over the nation?” Emord said.

The attorney added that it’s shocking there isn’t more outrage over the use of drugs even the FDA has admitted can cause dangerous side effects and the high number of school shooters in recent years that have been taking them. (Related: On the same day that 17 children were murdered in a Florida high school, almost 300 Americans were killed by FDA-approved prescription medications.)

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) International agrees.

“There is overwhelming evidence that psychiatric drugs cause violence. 27 International drug regulatory warnings cite violence, mania, hostility, aggression, psychosis and even homicidal ideation. Individuals under the influence of such drugs and committing these acts of senseless violence are not limited to using guns are not limited to just schools,” the CCHRI said on the organization’s website.

The organization reports that “at least 36 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.” The result: 172 people wounded and 80 people killed.

The number could be higher; medical and psychiatric histories are not known about all school shooters.

In the video interview, Emord discussed his efforts on behalf of an organization to obtain the medical records of Adam Lanza, who committed the atrocious murders of six-year-old first-graders at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

But state officials refused to turn them over, claiming that doing so would mean identifying the antidepressants he was taking and thus “cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications.”

Emord said that argument “is ridiculous.” He argued in a Freedom of Information Act case to see Lanza’s records that there were no longer any privacy interests among the concerned parties because those were “extinguished by the acts of” Lanza, yet the state of Connecticut continued to resist.

“Against all of that is this huge financial interest of both the psychiatric community and the drug industry,” he said. “If this did not exist, if there wasn’t this huge lobbying presence, I strongly suspect that the coroner’s offices would release the information to the public.”

He also suspects there would be investigations on the state and federal level. But so far, there aren’t any.

Yet.

 

*

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for NaturalNews.com and NewsTarget.com, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources

CCHRInt.org

PsychDrugShooters.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Federal Investigation into Link Between Psych Drugs and School Shootings
  • Tags:

In the video below, Dr. Peter Breggin talked about the dangers of psychiatric drugs which are unequivocally one of the culprits of present-day mass shootings.

He exposes the hazard of each class of drug in the effort to raise awareness to cut back and taper off from these medications.

.

.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Psychiatric Drugs Are More Dangerous than You Ever Imagined. One of the Culprits of Mass Shootings
  • Tags:

British Columbia’s Mount Polley Copper Mining Disaster of 2014

February 22nd, 2018 by Dr. Gary G. Kohls

”Environment Canada reported that the metallic contaminants that had been dumped in the Mt Polley tailings pond included these hazardous metals: Lead, Arsenic, Nickel, Zinc, Cadmium, Vanadium, Antimony, Manganese and Mercury.”

“ALL tailings “ponds” are problems. If they don’t breach and spill massive amounts of toxic sludge into the environment like at Mount Polley, they leach that contamination slowly, poisoning the waters and lands around them.” – Source

Last year, the Duluth News-Tribune published a Local News article with the title “EPA signals its support for final PolyMet review”.

The article ended with what I regard as an intentionally deceptive and woefully insufficient sentence from the DNT journalist: “Critics say the project is likely to taint downstream waters with acidic runoff.”

In a column for the Duluth Reader, which I wrote in response, I attempted to correct the notion that “acidic runoff” is the major reason for the widespread opposition to PolyMet’s proposed copper/nickel mining project (and the Twin Metals Project, which is adjacent to the pristine Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness).

Both PolyMet and Twin Metals, it should be mentioned, began as Penny Stock companies from Canada and are total novices when it comes to operating copper/nickel sulfuric acid-producing mines. The companies have never earned a penny producing a product. All their revenues have come from speculators, major transnational mining corporations and other investors that are hoping that the regulatory agencies will succumb to corporate propaganda and public pressure, that the mines will be built and that they can cash in on their investments before northern Minnesota wakes up to the sobering realities.

Typical of many mainstream media outlets that depend on advertising revenues from Big Business, the Duluth News-Tribune reneged on its duty to fully inform the public on critical issues by reporting on the 2014 catastrophe at Mount Polley, British Columbia where 24 million cubic meters of toxic sludge suddenly burst from its tailings lagoon and “tainted the downstream waters” into Lake Quesnel and the Fraser River.

Note that the earthen dam that dissolved at Mount Polley was 130 feet high. The earthen dam at PolyMet tailings lagoon is projected to attain a height of 250 feet!

The Mount Polley Copper Mining Disaster of 2014 

On August 4, 2014, a copper/gold open pit mine at Mount Polley, British Columbia had its huge tailings pond dam (an earthen dam) suddenly burst, massively polluting downstream streams, rivers and lakes (and probably eventually the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of the Fraser River, not to mention underground aquifers which had already been polluted during the years before the catastrophe.

The millions of tons of toxic sludge flooded into tiny Hazeltine Creek and then into the pristine Quesnel Lake, which flows into the 800 mile long Fraser River, a migratory Sockeye salmon-bearing river that empties into the Georgia Strait and the Pacific Ocean at the city of Vancouver, B.C.

Typical of most government and industry responses to such catastrophic mining industry failures, Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party government of Canada – not to mention the ruling Liberal Party government of British Columbia – tried to cover up the disaster. Hence, most North Americans on either side of the border (certainly us Minnesotans) were unaware of the event, thanks in part to our co-opted corporate-controlled media that failed to adequately report on it.

Immediately below are links to dramatic photos and videos that have been available to the US government and media agencies, but which were not reported, to my knowledge, on in the evening news of either local or regional media outlets.

Imperial Metals Corporation of Vancouver, the owner of the mine, acknowledged that they had, as is true of all metal sulfide mining operations, been continuously dumping hazardous waste into the tailings pond in the years leading up to the failure of the dam.

The following list of toxic minerals that had been dumped in the Mt Polley lagoon is taken from Environment Canada’s website here.

Environment Canada reported that the metallic contaminants that had been dumped in the tailings pond included these hazardous metals: Lead, Arsenic, Nickel, Zinc, Cadmium, Vanadium, Antimony, Manganese and Mercury.

Each of these 9 heavy metal contaminants are highly toxic to all life forms. They have no safe levels in drinking water or in the serum or tissues of human or animal tissue. These contaminants, commonly found in ALL hard rock sulfide mines, are also lethal to plant life, but only when the rock has been ground up into fine powder in the mineral extraction process.

It is important to recall that polluted aquifers cannot be de-toxified by any known process.

The photo above was taken following the Mt Polley tailings pond failure. It pictures what was once the tiny, 6 foot wide Hazeltine Creek. Photo courtesy of Clayoquot Action, Tofino, BC (www.clayoquotaction.org)

Here is a selection of links to some of the videos of the Mount Polley tailings pond dam failure:

The first one is titled: “The Unlikely Truth – The Imperial Metals Environmental Disaster”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfanpPz8HeA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAItFxc8bME&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg3yd8GPSnA

And here is an important video of an experimental tailings dam breach that can happen to any earthen dam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWEWVw7TGk4

“ALL tailings “ponds” are a problem. If they don’t breach and spill massive amounts of toxic sludge into the environment like at Mount Polley, they leach that contamination slowly, poisoning the waters and lands around them.” 

The birds-eye view of the mouth of Hazeltine Creek (now 120-150 feet wide) as it enters into Quesnel Lake, the previously deepest, purest lake in British Columbia and a famous trout and salmon fishery that was irretrievably damaged on August 5, 2014, when 24,000,000 cubic meters of toxic sludge breached the upstream Mt Polley mine’s tailings dam and exploded downstream. The tan material in the photo represents millions of floating dead trees that were swept away in the massive flood.

Immediately below are satellite photos of the Mt Polley copper/gold mining facility’s before and after it suddenly dissolved in 2014. Note the change in color of the tailings pond, the nearby lakes and the widening of the Hazeltine Creek that directed the poisonous sludge into Quesnel Lake. The creek had been invisible to satellite photos until the flood.

All these photos depict what are considered the biggest environmental disasters in the histories of Canada and could, someday in the near or distant future, represent what could happen to Minnesota’s St. Louis River watershed, since highly toxic metal tailings/sludge/slurry/slime ponds have a substantial risk of failing, especially in the case of one of our planet’s increasingly common (seemingly annual) 100-year catastrophic floods, storms or downpours. These photos are posted here.

A Final Thought

Northern Minnesotans, Native American Water Protectors (like the heroes at Standing Rock), sportsmen, environmentalists, downstream businesses, wild rice harvesters, fish, game, birds and just plain working folks whose babies and other vulnerable beings with developing brains need non-toxic water to thrive or simply survive must understand that such relatively common catastrophes could destroy the aquifers in the BWCAW, Birch Lake, the Partridge River, the Embarrass River, the St. Louis River, the city of Duluth and ultimately, Lake Superior.

In the considered opinion of many ethical thinkers, any thinking human with a conscience would conclude that the risks are too great to allow any amateur (or experienced) sulfide mining company such as PolyMet or Twin Metals to dig either a massive open-pit mine or a below ground mine, both of which require permanent, nearby tailings ponds in which to deposit the 99.8% hazardous waste products.

The same goes for the similarly amoral, non-human corporations like Switzerland’s GlencoreXstrata or Chile’s Antofagasta. Whether the company is a minor or a major mining company, the risks of tailings pond ruptures are still too great. (Glencore and Antofagasta are the two major multinational mining corporations that control PolyMet and Twin Metals.)

The plans to open and operate permanently polluting sulfuric acid-producing copper mines in pristine watersheds that are upstream from children and other living things should be shelved for the good of the planet and the resources left in the ground where they are safe. But somehow, the legislators, businessmen and Chambers of Commerce who are often in bed with their corporate paymasters are quite willing to ignore the risks in favor of a few temporary jobs. And fattening of their bottom lines The risks seem to be OK for conscienceless corporations and their investors, but most of them don’t live downstream.

States that surround the potentially poisoned wilderness areas as well as Lake Superior and the other 4 great lakes should have a say in the issue. Bullying corporations, along with their co-opted friends in positions of power seem to be quite willing to risk permanent catastrophes such as Mt Polley.

Corporations, especially mining corporations like Antofagasta and Glencore have repeatedly earned their sociopathic labels, and so they can’t be expected to act as ethical humans, especially when billions of dollars are involved.

Addendum:

Brazil’s worst environmental disaster in its history occurred in November 2015, when the Samarco iron mine’s tailings pond suddenly emptied its toxic contents into the Rio Doce River, either killing or terminally polluting everything in its path, until it reached the Atlantic Ocean 300 miles downstream.

Nobody in Minnesota heard about either the 2014 Mount Polley disaster (British Colombia’s worst environmental disaster in its entire history) or Brazil’s 2015 Samarco disaster on our corporate-controlled TV stations, thanks to some clever press censorship and/or some conspiracy of silence to not allow Minnesota voters to be made aware of what could happen to their environment because of the hazardous tailings ponds that are at high risk of bursting and destroying the downstream environment. Citizen awareness of the risks inherent in tailings ponds would have been an early warning signal that would have impaired the progress of both Canadian Penny Stock mining company’s (PolyMet and Twin Metals) in their semi-secret plans to exploit northern Minnesota’s precious resources and then have the mess they leave behind get cleaned up by us taxpayers.

For more information and photos of the disaster, check this out.

The heavily contaminated sludge from the now-infamous Samarco mine destroyed mining and non-mining communities that happened to be downstream from the tailings pond. The massive amount of toxic sludge entered the Rio Doce river in a sudden, thunderous flood (ironically, “doce” means “sweet” in Spanish).

The poisonous sludge polluted or killed everything in its path as it flowed toward the Atlantic Ocean, a distance of 300 miles. The guilty mining company perpetrators were as helpless in dealing with the aftermath as PolyMet and Antofagasta will be when their tailings ponds break at some point in the future. (Samarco, incidentally, is co-owned and operated by the mining giants, Vale (Brazilian) and the largest mining company in the world, BHP Billiton (British-Australian).)

Before and after satellite photos of the Samarco disaster are available here.

*

Dr Kohls is a retired physician from Duluth, MN, USA. He writes a weekly column for the Duluth Reader, the area’s alternative newsweekly magazine. His columns deal with the dangers of American fascism, corporatism, militarism, racism, malnutrition, Big Pharma’s psychiatric drugging and over-vaccination regimens, and other movements that threaten the environment, prosperity, democracy, civility and the health and longevity of the populace.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise noted.

One recalls, when in the late 70s they rebroadcast the re-runs of The Three Stooges comedy show, aficionados of the show would shout out ‘It’s Stooge time!’ Well, sadly, after the latest school shooting in Florida, it is Stooge Time again. The February 19th USA TODAY, as mainstream a paper as one can find, carried this full page report by Brett Murphy ( relegated to Page 4 when it should have been on Page One) that covered the chain of actions and non actions by the state agencies, the Sheriffs Dept. and the FBI regarding the horrific actions of Nikolas Cruz. The article below is in part based on the information contained in the USA Today report. 

School Shooter Nikolas  Cruz

We now know that Cruz was diagnosed with depression, autism and ADHD, and that he was cited for violence, fighting, assaults, profane language and insults at school at least 41 times from 2012-2017 by teachers, school officials and administrators. In May of 2016 a Florida Dept. of Children & Families investigator wrote “Mr. Cruz stated he plans to go out and buy a gun” ( six months before he turned 18 and legally bought one) and “It is unknown what he is buying the gun for.”

Police have acknowledged to visiting his home dozens of times and there is no indication what actions, if any, the officers took. Of course, it is now public knowledge, while our fastidious FBI is ‘hot on the case’ of some Fat Cat Russians allegedly hacking into the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign (with, of most importance, revealing nothing but the TRUTH by the way) that they were called in January by a concerned citizen stating that Cruz stated his desire to kill people.

We now know, and the FBI has had to apologize after the murders that nothing was done about it…. No visits to Cruz and no interviews of him by the FBI. Going back to  2016, the Dept. of Children and Families investigator was told that Cruz was self mutilating himself, a reason that the Florida Baker Act Law could have been used to involuntarily get him mental health evaluation. At that same time, the investigator became concerned about Cruz’s talk about being depressed and wanting to purchase a gun. Oh boy!! Now here’s the kicker: The investigators for that department noted his mental health diagnoses and his expressions of hate such as Nazi symbols on his book bag alongside of a racial slur. When an investigator then went to visit Cruz at his home, there was no search to confirm those self mutilations because, to quote the investigator, “He was wearing long sleeves.”

The story gets more disgraceful. The school staff, doing their jobs, in October of 2016 called Henderson Behavioral Health in Broward County after learning that Cruz had self mutilated and had a fight with another student. It was noted that “Henderson’s mobile crisis unit had been called out to the school and determined that he was not at risk to harm himself or others.” The Henderson crisis clinician treating Cruz found him stable enough NOT to warrant hospitalization under that Florida Baker Act for people who pose a threat to themselves or others. By the way, according to the reporter, an administrator at Henderson declined to answer questions and hung up when contacted for an interview this past Sunday. Children and Families Department Secretary Mike Carroll said in a statement this past Saturday “Mental health services and supports were in place when this investigation closed.” Oh really Mike. Thanks goodness it wasn’t YOUR kids or grandkids in that school last week.

There is more to share the ‘Stooge time’ here folks. Let’s not let the police off the hook completely either. Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said last week that his office received about 20 calls in the past few years about Cruz. That is not what some of the neighbors told the reporter. They felt that the number of 20 times over a few years was much too low. A few said that deputies were frequently parked at Cruz’s home, and one neighbor, Dave Brugman, called the Sheriff’s dept after seeing Cruz post online about buying guns just after his 18th birthday- around the same time as the Children and Families investigation. “They told us they checked it out”, Brugman said, and they added “You can’t watch him every day.”

So, we have an obvious mentally ill young man, for not months but years, who obviously needed continuous psychiatric treatment and close supervision. Here’s the final kicker. Yes, ALL those in positions that we the public rely on had failed. If that was because we lived in a society whereupon the cherished Safety Net was well funded and serviced by full staffing and lower caseloads, then the target of blame is obvious. Sadly, that is NOT the case, and of course NOT ever mentioned by the USA TODAY story. Look how many homeless folks walk the streets of ALL our towns? Doesn’t anyone connect the dots and realize that many of these folks are mentally ill and need institutional help? Of course, many of the others are low income folks from dysfunctional backgrounds, with little or no family or friends support. They are the ones who ‘fall through the rocks’ of this top heavy economic system we are submitted to live under. As far as the mentally ill homeless, I would say that if Nikolas Cruz did NOT use that gun and pull the trigger, he himself, with what little funding and staffing there currently is for the Safety Net, would be one of that army of the homeless walking the streets of Parkland.

Our states and their cities are broke!

The Military Industrial Empire makes sure that over HALF of your tax dollars goes down the rabbit hole for unnecessary military spending and phony wars and occupations, with our nearly 1000 bases in countries that DO NOT want us there! Children like NIkolas Cruz, who are mentally ill, will continue to be pushed along by agencies that don’t have the resources or staffing to really stop this madness… until the next trigger is pulled!

*

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])

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Stooge Time” for America. Florida School Killer Nikolas Cruz Diagnosed with Depression, Autism and ADHD
  • Tags:

Mainstream War Propaganda. Embedded with the Terrorists

February 22nd, 2018 by Mark Taliano

All of the mainstream Western news sources dealing with the war on Syria have been discredited. This helps to explain why the mainstream news stories amount to criminal war propaganda.

There is a war on Syria because the West and its allies are waging a “Regime Change”/Dirty War on the country.  All of this is well-documented.  It is not an “organic” war.  The war exists because of the West and its allies, not despite the West and its allies.  Western governments, including Canada’s government[1] have publicly declared their intent to remove the democratically-elected President of Syria from power.

Mainstream news sources are all embedded with the terrorists, who are proxies for the West.  The White Helmets[2] are an intelligence construct paid for by the West and its allies to serve the function of public relations front for al Qaeda and al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists.  This has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Similarly, news sources such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights[3] and others are all partisan, supported by the West, and sources for propaganda stories. These sources are part of the hybrid warfare complex which is engineering consent for more war crimes against Syria and her peoples, hence they are criminal according to Nuremburg Principles.  War propaganda is a crime.

The West wants to escalate its aggressions against Syria, so the war propaganda is also escalating. MSM news consumers should be aware though, that all of the allegations against the Syrian government have been proven false. The alleged gas attacks have all been false flags.  The Caesar photo[4] evidence alleging Assad’s atrocities against his own people is fraudulent.  The Saydnaya[5] stories are fake.

The West invents stories and engineers false flags so that its disastrous, holocaust -generating invasions can be falsely viewed as “humanitarian” or as the fruit of a “Responsibility to Protect”.

In the past few weeks alone, Western-supported terrorists have launched more than a thousand bombs onto the citizens of Damascus.  Terrorists deliberately target schools, hospitals, and shopping centers, and these mortars have so far murdered about 11 civilians over these last few weeks. Pictured below are some of the terrorists’ victims.

The mortars come from East Ghouta, in the Damascus area, and to the relief of Syrians, East Ghouta is the next target for the legitimate Syrian military to address.  The Syrian military has every right, and in fact is duty- bound, to protect its citizens and to destroy and/or neutralize the terrorists.

Tom Duggan has lived in Syria for a number of years.  What follows is a daily report directly from Syria. Duggan’s analysis is consistent with 7 years of evidence-based observations.  It is credible reporting.

News from mainstream media, sometimes referred to as “colonial” media, is nothing short of war propaganda.

Those of us who are allowing ourselves to be misled by mainstream war propaganda must share some responsibility for the current overseas holocaust that is being perpetrated thanks to our monies and our tacit consent.

*

Notes

[1] Mark Taliano, “Canada rejects the rule of international law and embraces international barbarity.” American Herald Tribune. 18 March, 2016.(https://ahtribune.com/opinion/695-canada-international-law.html) Accessed 21 February, 2018.

[2] Video: “White Helmets – The Mask of Terror/ Aleppo, January 2016.” LiveLeak/Anna News 1 December, 2017. (https://orbisnjus.com/2017/12/01/video-die-white-helmets-die-maske-des-terrors-sehenswert/) Accessed 2 February, 2018.

[3] Vanessa Beeley, “Syria’s White Helmets, NGO “Soft Power” and War Propaganda. The “Moderate Terrorists” Myth Exposed.  Part II “ 21st Century Wire, 28 October, 2015. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/syrias-white-helmets-ngo-soft-power-and-war-propaganda-the-moderate-terrorists-myth-exposed/5485128) Accessed 2 February, 2018.

[4] Rick Sterling, “The Caesar Photo Fraud that Undermined Syrian Negotiations.” Dissident Voice. 3 March, 2016. (https://dissidentvoice.org/2016/03/the-caesar-photo-fraud-that-undermined-syrian-negotiations/) Accessed 21 February, 2018.

[5] Tony Cartalucci, “Amnesty International Admits Syrian “Saydnaya” Report Fabricated Entirely in UK.” Off Guardian/Land Destroyer. 10 February, 2017. (https://off-guardian.org/2017/02/10/amnesty-international-admits-syrian-saydnaya-report-fabricated-entirely-in-uk/) Accessed21 February, 2018.

Featured image is from Farsnews


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

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mainstream War Propaganda. Embedded with the Terrorists
  • Tags:

Confirmed US Meddling in Thailand’s Upcoming Elections

February 22nd, 2018 by Joseph Thomas

As the United States intensifies its accusations against Russia for alleged interference in the 2016 US Presidential Elections, the United States itself is found engaged in confirmed political interference worldwide.

This includes in Southeast Asia where Washington is attempting to rush elections in Thailand in hopes of returning their proxy Thaksin Shinawatra and his Pheu Thai Party (PTP) to power.

US efforts to rush elections have included a concerted effort to dismiss those pointing out Shinawatra’s continued influence in Thai politics, his continued leadership role over PTP and his intentions to use PTP to return to power.

However, Reuters in an article titled, “Thai ex-PM Thaksin calls for party unity ahead of promised election,” would openly admit Shinawatra, a convicted criminal and fugitive, still controlled PTP whose leadership met with him recently in Hong Kong.

The article reported:

Fugitive former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra met lawmakers from his Puea Thai Party in Hong Kong where he called for party unity ahead of an approaching general election, party members said on Monday.

Many are watching to see how Puea Thai Party performs in a vote which the military government has promised to hold in November but which could be delayed.

The necessity of repeated delays of Thai elections is very straightforward.

Thaksin Shinawatra, a convicted criminal and fugitive still seeks to contest them through PTP. Allowing a fugitive to contest elections would be illegal and any election outcome influenced by a convicted criminal and fugitive would be illegitimate. By delaying elections, the current Thai government hopes to continue diminishing Shinawatra’s unwarranted influence and wealth as well as that of his political network inside Thailand until both are no longer an obstruction to legal elections.

Yet despite this straightforward necessity to delay elections, the United States and its European partners have repeatedly demanded rushed elections. Additionally, the US and its European partners are funding myriad opposition fronts ranging from media platforms to street protests to place pressure on the current Thai government to rush elections while it is believed Shinawatra and PTP still have a chance of winning.

US Meddling

The US accuses Russia of political interference based on activities of the Internet Research Agency a recent FBI indictment insinuated was linked to the Russian government. While no actual evidence has surfaced linking the organisation to the Kremlin, the US not only possesses its own organisations for the purpose of political interference, they are openly funded by and linked directly to the US government.

In Thailand, the United States government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is funding media organisations like Prachatai which promote daily protests and demands for immediate elections.

Shinawatra also controls his own media organisations inside of Thailand. This includes VoiceTV supposedly founded by his son, Panthongthae Shinawatra, but clearly serving his father’s political agenda.

Supposed rights advocates like Fortify Rights (page 20, .pdf)iLaw, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), Cross Cultural Foundation, Thai Netizen Network and Isaan Record are also all funded by the US government via NED and have not only contributed toward attempts to manufacture dissent, but have also led small protests in the streets themselves.

Anon Nampa of US-funded TLHR has repeatedly led anti-government protests demanding elections while concurrently representing fellow protesters in court cases, calling into question the supposed impartiality his organisation claims to represent.

Protesting alongside Nampa are members of Thaksin Shinawatra’s own street front, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) also known as red shirts. This includes UDD organiser Sombat Boonngamanong and dedicated red shirts like Yupa Saengsai.

The UDD red shirts have committed serial acts of violence and terrorism including gunning down two shopkeepers while committing widespread arson and looting in 2009, the use of some 300 heavily armed militants during protests in 2010 which led to nearly 100 deaths and also ended in widespread arson and looting, bombings including that of a Bangkok hospital and a terrorist campaign aimed at anti-Shinawatra protesters in 2014 that left nearly 30 dead.

With the reemergence of Shinawatra’s red shirts on the streets, observers have warned that violence is imminent.

Yet despite this, efforts by the Thai government to arrest leaders and prevent another round of instability and violence have been decried by the US government and its European partners as well as US-funded fronts like Prachatai, TLHR, Fortify Rights and their partners in corporate foundation funded fronts like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Under the guise of “human rights,” “freedom of assembly” and “freedom of expression,” these compromised organisations representing concerted foreign meddling in Thailand’s internal political affairs are setting the conditions for another attempt at violently subverting Thailand’s stability and political order.

This reflects a similar pattern seen elsewhere around the globe where the US pressures nations into holding elections Washington is confident its proxies can win. Should those elections fail to place Washington’s proxies into power, or be delayed, the US then organises increasingly disruptive street protests, then violence, before more directly involving itself in “regime change.”

Washington’s Man in Dubai and Multipolar Thailand 

Thailand’s longstanding political crisis centres around former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, ousted in a military coup in 2006, and who has attempted to return to power through a number of proxies including his own brother-in-law Somchai Wongsawat and his sister, Yingluck Shinawatra. His sister too was removed from power by a military coup in 2014 after she attempted to amend the nation’s constitution to return her brother to power.

Thaksin Shinawatra’s administration represented the peak of US influence in Thailand.

Between 2001-2006 Shinawatra privatised Thailand’s natural resources including its oil and gas reserves for the sake of US energy giants, committed Thai troops to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, approved of Washington’s use of Thai territory for its extraordinary rendition programme and attempted to pass without parliamentary approval a free trade agreement with Washington that would have granted American corporations and financial institutions unprecedented access and control over Thailand’s population, economy and resources.

Shinawatra and his sister are both convicted criminals. Both have fled the country, evading a 2 year and 5 year prison sentence respectively, making them fugitives as well. Thaksin Shinawatra has allegedly been based in Dubai, the United Arab Emirates while his sister is supposedly being given safe-haven in London, UK.

Since Shinawatra’s ousting from office and his multiple failed attempts to return to power, Thailand has shifted its economic and foreign policy more inward toward Asia, including fostering greater ties with China.

This includes Thailand replacing its ageing Vietnam War-era US military hardware with Chinese armaments. It also includes massive infrastructure deals signed with Beijing including high speed railways that will link major Thai cities as well as Thailand with both its Southeast Asian neighbours as well as China itself.

Thailand is also forging stronger ties with its immediate neighbours in Southeast Asia in both economic and political terms. This includes cooperating with neighbouring countries in their own battle against US political meddling. Thailand’s immediate neighbour to the east, Cambodia, recently asked for the repatriation of opposition members of the Cambodia National Rescue Party which was recently revealed to have colluded with the United States to seize power.

It is clear why the US is determined to reverse its diminishing fortunes both in Thailand, and in Asia in general.

Meddling Industrial Complex: Diminishing Returns?

US attempts to meddle in Thailand’s internal affairs depends on a small but loud and well-funded number of neoliberal Thais educated in the US and Europe and working for US and European institutions, media platforms and foreign-funded organisations. It also depends on Shinawatra’s waning support base in northeast Thailand (referred to as Isaan) where his popularity depends on constant, unsustainable populist handouts.

The diminutive protests held so far are owed to a lack of genuine support for Shinawatra. Protest leaders even admitted that without supporters brought in from Shinawatra’s political stronghold upcountry, protests would remain limited.

Pro-Shinawatra newspaper Khaosod in an article titled, “Protest Just a ‘Kick-Off.’ Activists Say,” admitted:

Sirawith [Seritiwat] said that many protesters upcountry had been blocked from traveling to the capital.

“If the authorities were really brave, then take out those blocks and we’ll fill all of Ratchadamnoen!” he said, referring to road blockades reportedly erected to prevent people from traveling to the capital.

In actuality, there were no roadblocks, only bans on political activities, including Shinawatra’s PTP’s use of charted buses to bring subsidised villagers to Bangkok as it has done in past protests. Should PTP pay villagers to board charted buses now, they may face a political ban, finally barring them from elections.

That an entire opposition movement exists in Thailand solely because of the money and directives of the United States and their proxy Thaksin Shinawatra, is an example of the blatant and extensive political interference Washington is engaged in around the globe as it accuses and attempts to punish Russia for interference and collusion in its own internal political affairs.

More than mere “influence operations” as the FBI’s indictment claims regarding Russian meddling, the US is creating entire opposition movements, from media platforms to street fronts to lawyers designated to defend members of the movement as the government arrests and charges them for sedition.

For nations like Thailand facing extensive US meddling, one possible recourse might be to take pages from Washington’s own rhetoric and punitive measures aimed at Russia, and apply them to US efforts aimed at Bangkok. Vigorous laws targeting US-funded fronts in Thailand posing as nongovernmental organisations modelled after laws the US itself has created and used against Russian media could be one example of this.

However, Bangkok may also decide a more patient and reserved approach, simply delaying elections, weathering US-manufactured dissent and stretching out protests until they expose and exhaust themselves.

*

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from the author.

Lebanon, as so often in the past, is facing mortal danger.

Saudi Arabia is putting great pressure on the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, a powerful but controversial figure who holds dual nationality – Saudi and Lebanese. Riyadh expects Lebanon to play by its own rules, sidelining Hezbollah, ending Iranian influence in the country, and promoting Saudi business and political interests… or else. It is a clear that foreign aid from the Gulf is increasingly conditional.

Tension with Israel is also mounting. A military conflict could erupt at any moment, with devastating consequences. Between 1978 and 2006, Israel attacked its northern neighbor on five occasions. The last time Israel invaded Lebanon, during the so-called Lebanon War in 2006, at least 1,300 Lebanese people were killed and 1 million displaced.

The Israeli air force is lately, unceremoniously, violating Lebanese air space, flying over its territory on the way to Syria, where it is bombing selected targets, grossly violating various international laws.

To make things worse, Israel has begun building an ugly concrete wall right at the border line, an act which Lebanon views almost as a declaration of war. The Lebanese military received orders to confront Israeli bulldozers and construction crews, if the building of the frontier barrier continues. Both sides are now using intermediaries to communicate, but a confrontation may take place at any moment.

There is also a maritime dispute between the two countries, over an oil and gas rich area, which both countries are claiming as their own. This quarrel is also threatening the fragile ‘peace’ between Israel and Lebanon. Although some would say, what peace, really, if both nations are still technically at war?

Reported by AP, on February 8, 2018:

“Israel has in recent days escalated its threats against Lebanon over Lebanon’s invitation for offshore gas exploration bids on the countries’ maritime border.

Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman described Lebanon’s exploration tender as “very provocative” and suggested that Lebanon had put out invitations for bids from international groups for a gas field ,”which is by all accounts ours.”

His comments drew sharp condemnation from the militant Hezbollah group and Lebanese officials, including Hariri, a Western ally, who described Lieberman’s comments as a “blatant provocation that Lebanon rejects.”

Abi Assi quoted Hariri as saying Thursday that area in the water that Israel is claiming, “is owned by Lebanon.”

A day after the above report appeared, Lebanon’s energy minister said, “the dispute with Israel would not stop Lebanon benefiting from potential undersea reserves in the contentious Block 9.”

An international consortium consisting of three giant oil companies – Italy’s Eni, France’s Total and Russia’s Novatek – is standing by, ready to begin drilling, although Total is increasingly reluctant to participate in the project amidst the Israeli threats.

*

Many in Lebanon feel that their country is literally caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

For years, war in neighboring Syria has been sending hundreds of thousands of refugees across the border into tiny Lebanon, greatly straining its fragile and inadequate infrastructure. Refugee slums have mushroomed, in the Bekaa Valley, as well as in all the major cities.

Terrorist groups supported by the West and its allies, have spilled over the border, and are operating in the frontier region, while also infiltrating the capital.

In 2017, the Lebanese military, together with Syrian forces and Hezbollah, managed to confront and greatly weaken both al Nusra and ISIS cells.

Hezbollah is the only truly powerful social force in Lebanon, providing assistance to all needy citizens and refugees, regardless of their religion or ethnicity. It is also fighting, determinedly, all terrorist implants operating in the Lebanese territory.

Lebanese territory on the left, Israeli on the right

Thanks to the help from both Russia and Hezbollah, the Syrian armed forces managed to regain most of the territory of their country and to come very close to winning the war. The country is now rebuilding and hundreds of thousands of refugees are returning home, including those who have temporarily been seeking refuge in Lebanon.

Sidelining Hezbollah would definitely have a devastating impact on both Lebanon and Syria.

And sidelining, intimidating and antagonizing Hezbollah is precisely what the United States is doing again.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson traveled to Beirut, and on February 15th, addressed reporters at a press conference:

“It is impossible to talk about stability, sovereignty and security in Lebanon without addressing Hezbollah. The US has considered Hezbollah a terrorist organization for more than two decades now …It is unacceptable for a militia like Hezbollah to operate outside the authority of the Lebanese government. The only legitimate defender of the Lebanese state is the Lebanese armed forces.”

Mr. Tillerson made some reconciliatory noises regarding Hezbollah, just a few days earlier, but was loudly criticized by both his regime apparatchiks and by the mainstream media. Promptly, he ‘regained his senses’ and stopped rocking the boat.

Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States, indeed, treat pro-Iranian Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Israel continuously intimidates Lebanon, claiming that it will not tolerate any Iranian influence in its vicinity. The fact that Lebanon is an independent country, is somehow overlooked. It is expected to ‘behave’, to accept foreign dictates, even if it means going against its own interests.

After all, Lebanon is in the Middle East, which in turn is just the playground of the West and its allies.

*

Most of the Lebanese citizens are indignant. The Israeli air force flying over their country’s territory, attacking Syria, is to them, naturally, something absolutely unacceptable. Being bullied over disputed resources-rich sea territory, as well as the construction of border barriers, is causing great outrage. However, until now, the Lebanese people felt that there was very little they could do, faced with the overwhelming military might of Israel, a country which is determinedly backed by the United States and most of the Western countries.

All this has suddenly changed.

Unexpectedly, although logically, the ‘Russian alternative’ has emerged.

As reported by the Middle East Monitor on the February 8, 2018:

“Russian media sources revealed that on Tuesday Russian Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, instructed the Russian Defense Ministry to begin talks with its Lebanese counterpart to sign a military cooperation agreement between Russia and Lebanon.

The draft agreement to be signed between the parties included the opening of Lebanese ports in front of Russian military vessels and fleets, in addition to making Lebanese airports a transit station for Russian aircrafts and fighters, and the dispatch of Russian military experts to train and strengthen the capabilities of members of the Lebanese army, according to the Russian agency Sputnik.”

This is just a logical continuation of Russian approach towards the Middle East in general, and Lebanon in particular. According to a Russian Foreign Ministry statement, made public in November 2017, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov declared:

“Russia invariably supports the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Lebanon. We are interested in ensuring that Lebanon is safe, effectively functioning with the participation of all branches of government and with all state structures.”

Lavrov’s remarks came during a meeting with his Lebanese counterpart Gebran Bassil in Moscow.”

Russia is becoming increasingly active in those countries that have been destroyed or at least crippled by the Western interventions, such as Syria, Libya, now Lebanon and soon, hopefully, Afghanistan. Russian involvement is ranging from diplomatic and economic, to, as has been the case in Syria, military.

A Lebanese intellectual, anonymously, declared for this essay:

“If Russian military comes to Lebanon, then Israeli air force would certainly stop flying over our territory. We would also be able to retain our organizations and movements: particularly those that helped our country to stay united and to survive. Most of the Lebanese people have no bad experience with Russia. We tried many things, many alliances and they failed: we are still vulnerable, exposed. There is no harm in attempting to work with the Russians.”

The West, particularly the United States, is well aware of the mood on the streets of Lebanon. That is why Mr. Tillerson came on an official visit. But he offered nothing new, and what he offered, was rejected. It is clear that his mission was to simply preserve the status quo.

While it is increasingly obvious that the Lebanese people are hoping for something much more dramatic and ‘radical’ – they want their country to be respected, taken seriously. They want their borders to be protected. They want to have their independent foreign policy. They want to decide who is their ally and who is their foe.

Lebanon is tired of being stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. And now it is discovering that it actually has other options!

*

This article was originally published by New Eastern Outlook.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are his tribute to “The Great October Socialist Revolution” a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

All images in this article are from the author.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on War on Lebanon? The Geopolitical Battlefield. Mounting Tensions with Israel

Venezuela: Revenge of the Mad-Dog Empire

February 22nd, 2018 by Ajamu Baraka

Only in the world of comic-book fantasies is the United States a friend to the oppressed in Africa or anywhere else on the planet. In the real world, the U.S. is a predator, colonial/capitalist nation. But like the imagined nation of Wakanda, in the latest cultural assault on critical mass consciousness, “American exceptionalism” and “make America great again” — two slogans representing both sides of the imperialist coin—ruling class interests are obscured and the people are reduced to working against their objective interests and being accomplices to imperial lawlessness.

In every part of the world, the United States is engaged in maniacal, criminal assaults on democracy, basic human decency and common sense. From its support for armed jihadists groups in Syria and its illegal occupation of that nation, transferring heavy military equipment to its puppet regime in Ukraine, supporting unending war in Afghanistan, to the military invasion of African, the commitment to maintaining U.S. global dominance has moved war and militarism to the center of U.S. strategy.

But nowhere is U.S. criminality more apparent and unrelenting than right here in the Americas where the Pan-European project was born in 1492. That was the year “Europe” was born, emerging from its relative cultural backwardness using with terrifying efficiency the only advantage it had over the more civilized people of the region—armor protection and steel weapons—to slaughter the people, take the land and begin the 500-hundred-year nightmare the people of the world have suffered ever since.

The commitment to maintaining U.S. global dominance has moved war and militarism to the center of U.S. strategy.”

Today, the barbarism of the Pan-European project continues under the tutelage of what history will record—if humanity survives—as the most violent, racist, oppressive human experience ever to have emerged in the short span of human existence on Earth: the United States of America.

After centuries experiencing the horrors of genocide, slavery, military dictatorships, environmental destruction, and neoliberal exploitation, the people of Latin America began to slowly extract themselves from the clutches of the hegemon from the North. Social movements and peoples undeterred by coups, structural adjustment and death squads started to take back their history in Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, and the rest of the continent. Venezuela has led the way, proclaiming the dawn of a 21st century socialism that would create the new society and the new human in the process.

Because of imperial overreach, the same trap that has ensnared other empires in decline, the U.S. was preoccupied with attempting to manage the mess it had created for itself as a result of the disastrous belief that it could fight two major wars simultaneously. So, while it was bogged down in Western Asia and the so-called “Middle East,” the full force of the U.S. repressive apparatus was not deployed against the fledgling people’s movements and the nominal capture of the state by those movements in Latin America. Of course, the United States helped to engineer a failed coup against Hugo Chavez and it continued training police and military forces in the region. But it wasn’t until the administration of Barack Obama that the deadly gaze of the United States began to really re-focus on Latin America, with Venezuela as its main target.

“Venezuela has led the way, proclaiming the dawn of a 21st century socialism that would create the new society and the new human in the process.”

In what appears on the surface to be a ludicrous position, Barack Obama declared Venezuela a threat to U.S. national security on three different occasions. However, the United States is the enforcer for the global capitalist system and the head of the white, Western, capitalist united front. With that in mind, seeing Venezuela as a threat made sense. Venezuela has been the driving force for the nations of the Americas south of the U.S. border attempting to free themselves from the yoke of U.S. imperialism.

The Trump administration took up with enthusiasm the policy of destabilization, subversion, and economic warfare that was intensified under the Obama administration. Violent regime change is now clearly the objective of the administration. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called for the Venezuelan military to overthrow the government while on a visit to the region and reports have surfaced of military forces from Colombia and Brazil being deployed to their respective borders with Venezuela. Another clear sign that the lives of the people of Venezuela will be sacrificed with violent regime change is the collapse of the dialogue between the Venezuelan government and the counter-revolutionary opposition that had been taking place for almost two years. Up until just a few days ago, it appeared an agreement was in place for a peaceful political resolution.

“Violent regime change is now clearly the objective of the administration.”

The move toward a violent intervention became more apparent when discussions abruptly ended as the opposition decided not to sign an agreement designed to move both parties toward an eventual political resolution.

Concerned about the general disarray among the opposition and the fact that the ruling party and government won 18 out of 23 governorships in regional elections in October 2017, the Trump administration announced that it would not recognize the results of the upcoming Presidential election to be held April 22. All the evidence points to the administration, along with the Venezuela oligarchy, opting for a strategy of regime change, even though it will result in mass slaughter and the dictatorship that the United States pretends to be opposed to in Venezuela.

The moves by the Trump administration represent an ominous re-introduction of the worst imperialist excesses of the late 20th century, where violent coups were the preferred response to any threats to the rule of capital and U.S. imperialist control. Yet, what is even more ominous about the situation unfolding in Venezuela is that unlike a few decades ago, when there was a vocal and active radical and left opposition to U.S. imperialism, the left and many radicals in the U.S. are in open class collaboration with imperialism.

The left in the United States and Western Europe has completely abandoned any idea of solidarity with the global South’s revolutionary projects. A bizarre example of the reactionary nature of the European left was the European Parliament awarding the Sakharov Freedom Prize to the Venezuelan “opposition,” a group that has openly attacked journalists and burned alive two dozen people of primarily Black or dark complexions who they assumed were probably government supporters because they were poor and black. Clearly for the representatives in the European Union’s only democratic body, the integrity of the press and “Black lives” really don’t matter!

“Anti-imperialists must support national independence, especially when a nation is in the cross hairs.”

The courageous struggle of the Venezuelan people to defend their national sovereignty and dignity in the face of the murderous intentions of their North American neighbors and the racist obsequious Venezuelan oligarchy deserves the support of all true anti-imperialists. Whatever failure or internal contradiction we see in the Bolivarian process does not outweigh the principle that anti-imperialists must support national independence, especially when a nation is in the cross hairs of the greatest gangster nation on the planet.

For those of us who inhibit the colonized Black and Brown zones of non-being, as Fanon referred to them, to not resist the white supremacist, colonial/capitalist patriarchy at the center of the U.S./EU/NATO axis of domination is moral and political suicide.

When Secretary of State Rex Tillerson orders the Venezuelan opposition to undermine the agreement to stabilize the situation in Venezuela while simultaneously undermining the internal Korea efforts toward de-escalating the tensions between North and South Korea, we see the familiar hand of classic European colonialist divide-and-rule tactics that propelled them to global dominance and continues to give Western imperialism a leash (lease?) on life.
But for James “Mad Dog” Mattis, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, and all the Mad Dogs of empire, the people of the world have seen behind the curtain and are not impressed with the diversionary smoke and fire of your weapons and bellicosity. The people know they have the cure for the virus that affects you, but you will not be happy with their treatment plan.

*

This article was originally published by Black Agenda Report.

Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016 candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch. His latest publications include contributions to “Jackson Rising: The Struggle for Economic Democracy and Self-Determination in Jackson, Mississippi. He can be reached at: Ajamubaraka.com

Featured image is from the author.

The Reagan administration and the CIA also collaborated with Nicaraguan cocaine traffickers to support the Contras led to the “crack” epidemic of the 1980’s. Crack became a nightmare within the U.S especially for the African-American community. The “crack epidemic”began in Los Angeles, California.

No one ever knew where “crack” actually came from. All they knew is how good it felt for the time being while living in the depths of poverty, crime and despair in the land of the free. One fact is for sure, the U.S. government continued its support to the Contras due to the enormous profits made from both, cocaine and then eventually crack. According to www.drugabuse.com, once individuals smoke crack, it ” provides an immediate, intense euphoric and pain-reducing high that may only last for five minutes” which meant that crack users would get addicted to that euphoric high and essentially become “repeat customers” every few minutes amounting to enormous profits. By importing cocaine into the U.S. and possibly inventing a new potent drug that was so addictive that it would guarantee a steady flow of cash for the Contra war. In the last several years, the MSM, in this case The Washington Post published an article in 2007 with an interesting title ’5 Myths About That Demon Crack’by Craig Reinarman said that “80 percent of those who have tried crack had not used it in the past year”:

Crack is instantly and inevitably addicting

Drug-control officials justified the new laws by claiming that crack was “the most addictive substance ever known.” Of course, this had been said of other drugs in earlier drug scares, beginning with the temperance crusade against alcohol. Still, experts and ex-addicts agree that crack cocaine produces a powerful rush and is easy to abuse; many users have binged on it compulsively and done themselves serious harm.

But the great majority of people who try crack do not continue to use it. For 20 years, the government’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health has found that about 80 percent of those who have ever tried crack had not used it in the past year. And a recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that crack cocaine is not significantly more addictive than powder cocaine

In 2014, in Forbes magazine published an opinion piece by Jacob Sullum ‘Everything You’ve Heard About Crack And Meth Is Wrong’ on neuropsychopharmacologist Carl Hart of Columbia University who conducted research on the addiction patterns of crack and meth:

Before he became a scientist, Hart believed that people who use crack generally get hooked on it and thereby lose control of their behavior. But when he looked at the data on patterns of drug use as an academic, he could plainly see that only a small minority of people who try crack become heavy users. “Even at the peak [of] widespread use,” he writes, “only 10–20 percent of crack cocaine users became addicted.” According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, just 3 percent of Americans who have tried this reputedly irresistible and inescapable drug have smoked it in the last month

Sullum quotes what Hart said why crack was popular in the inner cities:

Crack “gained the popularity that it did in the hood…because there weren’t that many other affordable sources of pleasure and purpose,” Hart writes. “And that was why, despite years of media-hyped predictions that crack’s expansion across classes was imminent, it never ‘ravaged’ the suburbs”

Despite what the MSM says, I personally saw lives utterly destroyed by the crack epidemic in the U.S. and in the Caribbean.

So who exactly invented crack? With the CIA desperate at that time to defeat the Sandinistas it seems that they would have tried anything to keep the war going. It is also important to clarify that there is no evidence to suggest that the CIA actually created “crack” cocaine. However, in an interesting online interview conducted by Zach Weissmueller of Reason T.V. with “Free Way” Rick Ross (one of the main sources for Gary Webb’s investigative series exposing the CIA and the crack connection) fell short on admitting who was responsible for introducing crack to the people of Los Angeles, California when he claimed that “It doesn’t matter if they purposely planned on doing that. What wound up happening is it flooded the ghettos of America. […] 600,000 black men are in prison right now for nonviolent crimes. Our prison industry has boomed.” Sorry Rick, but in a way it does matter.

However, there are many parallels that suggest otherwise, although the evidence is still not clear. What is clear is that the CIA is capable of doing almost anything to further their agenda. For example, in an incisive article written by Troy Hooper in 2012 for the San Francisco Weekly (SFWEEKLY) titled ‘Operation Midnight Climax: How the CIA Dosed S.F. Citizens with LSD’  about a New York Times report in 1974 by Seymour Hersh detailed how the CIA experimented with LSD on the residents of San Francisco:

Seymour Hersh first exposed MK-ULTRA in a New York Times article in 1974 that documented CIA illegalities, including the use of its own citizens as guinea pigs in games of war and espionage. John Marks expertly chronicled more of the operation in his 1979 book, The Search for the Manchurian Candidate. There have been other reports on the CIA’s doping of civilians, but they have mostly dished about activities in New York City. Accounts of what actually occurred in San Francisco have been sparse and sporadic. But newly declassified CIA records, recent interviews, and a personal diary of an operative at Stanford Special Collections shed more light on the breadth of the San Francisco operation.

There were at least three CIA safe houses in the Bay Area where experiments went on. Chief among them was 225 Chestnut on Telegraph Hill, which operated from 1955 to 1965. The L-shaped apartment boasted sweeping waterfront views, and was just a short trip up the hill from North Beach’s rowdy saloons. Inside, prostitutes paid by the government to lure clients to the apartment served up acid-laced cocktails to unsuspecting johns, while martini-swilling secret agents observed their every move from behind a two-way mirror. Recording devices were installed, some disguised as electrical outlets

The late Michael C. Ruppert, a former detective with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) who resigned due to his investigations that led to the conclusion that the U.S. military and LAPD officers were involved in drug trafficking wrote an informative article in 1999 on the crack epidemic in a newsletter From The Wilderness titled ‘Blacks Were Targeted for CIA Cocaine: It Can Be Proven’:

For a long time, many people have believed that African-Americans were targeted by the Central Intelligence Agency to receive the cocaine which decimated black communities in the 1980s. It was, until now, widely accepted that the case could not be proven because of two fallacious straw obstacles to that proof. Both lie smack dab in the misuse of the word “crack” and that is why, in my lectures, I have strenuously objected to the term “CIA crack”.

First, it cannot and probably never will be established that CIA had anything to do with the first creation of crack cocaine. Chemically, that problem could have been solved as a test question for anyone with a BS in chemistry. The answer: add water and baking soda to cocaine hydrochloride powder and cook on a stove. A study of the literature (including articles I wrote 14 years ago for The U.S. Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence), as opposed to, for example, that pertaining to LSD, shows no CIA involvement whatever in the genesis of crack cocaine. Also, there has never been any evidence provided that CIA facilitated the transport or sale of crack itself. What is beyond doubt is that CIA was directly responsible for the importation of tons of powdered cocaine into the U.S. and the protected delivery of that cocaine into the inner cities

Ruppert went on further to explain how the CIA monitored U.S. academics that traveled into drug producing countries (in this case, Peru and Bolivia) and were well aware of the effects of a known sticky paste called ‘Basuco’ which turns coca leaves into a powder like substance. Ruppert suggested that the CIA knew about Basuco because they spied on U.S. academics and monitored their studies:

Only one man, Dr. Robert Byck of Yale University was insistent that trouble was coming and it was BIG trouble. Byck was a professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at Yale Medical School. He began his testimony by stating, “What I would like to talk to you about for the most part is the importance of telling the truthÉ We have given a great deal of cocaine to many individuals and find it to be a most unremarkable drug.” But, according to Webb, “Byck told the Committee that he’d hesitated for a long time about coming forward with the information and was still reluctant to discuss the matter at a public hearing. ‘Usually, when things like this are reported, the media advertises them, and this attention has been a problem with cocaine all along.’ The information Byck had was known to only a handful of drug researchers around the world.

“For about a year, a Peruvian police psychiatrist named Dr. Raul Jeri had been insisting that wealthy drug users in Lima were being driven insane by cocaine. A psychiatrist in Bolivia, Dr. Nils Noya, began making similar claims shortly thereafter.” What had been discovered was an addiction so overwhelming that middle and upper class students and middle class wage earners in Peru and Bolivia had abandoned every aspect of a normal human life, including eating, drinking, personal hygiene to the point of defecating in clothes that would remain unchanged for days, family and shelter in the pursuit of “basuco”. (Webb – pp25-30).

Basuco, a sticky paste, was the first-stage product in the refinement of coca leaves into powder. Although frequently mixed with a cesspool of toxic waste such as gasoline, kerosene and other chemicals, the pharmacological effects of smoking basuco are identical to the effects of smoking crack cocaine which became popular in the US ten years later. So intense was the addiction that desperate South American psychiatrists had resorted to bilateral anterior cyngulotomies (lobotomies) to stop the addiction (Ruppert 3). But even these drastic measures resulted in a relapse rate of between 50-80% (Webb – p36) (Ruppert 2). Yale medical student David Paly, working under Dr. Byck, recalled a 1978 conversation with his mentor. “The substance of my conversation with ByckÉ was that if this ever hits the U.S., we’re in deep trouble.” (Webb – p30)

Byck traveled to Peru to attend a symposium on cocaine with Siegel and other experts in 1979. Later he obtained police permits and federal grants to begin intensive research into cocaine smoking (Webb – p 31). The CIA routinely monitors overseas travels of U.S academics and the purposes of their travels. Since the Nixon Administration, emerging drug trends in producing countries had been a mandate of CIA collection efforts. When law enforcement grants, approvals and funding crossed international boundaries, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) and several special units within CIA were automatically notified. Here, we begin to see that CIA must have been well aware of the effects of basuco. The CIA’s well-documented role in providing training, assistance and advice to Latin American law enforcement agencies guarantees that CIA was collecting intelligence on the destructiveness of cocaine smoking as soon as it began to be a problem. (Colby, Prouty). That was as far back as 1974. (Webb – p33)

With the sudden explosion of the crack epidemic in Los Angeles effecting, first the African-American community (and eventually moved on to other communities throughout the U.S. and the Caribbean) where even the mayor of Los Angeles, Marion Barry was caught smoking crack in a sting operation by the FBI. The U.S. government continued its war against Nicaragua by supporting the Contras with drug profits made from crack sales sounds a bit absurd on the surface, but there is a convincing argument that the CIA was possibly the main culprit behind the invention of crack, but we will never be able to prove it. What the MSM and the U.S. government want you to believe is that crack was originally created by streetwise drug dealers.The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) also claims that drug dealers converted powdered cocaine into crack to produce more profits (https://www.dea.gov/about/history/1985-1990%20p%2058-67.pdf):

In the early 1980s, the majority of cocaine being shipped to the United States was coming through the Bahamas. Soon there was a huge glut of cocaine powder in these islands which caused the price to drop by as much as 80 percent. Faced with dropping prices for their illegal product, drug dealers made a shrewd marketing decision to convert the powder to “crack,” a smokeable form of cocaine. It was cheap, simple to produce, ready to use, and highly profitable for dealers to develop. As early as 1981, reports of crack appeared in Los Angeles, San Diego, Houston, and in the Caribbean

So drug dealers converted powdered cocaine into “crack” to create a drug so potent and so addictive that turns people into “crack smoking” zombies so that they can become repeat customers to make a quick profit? Perhaps, one of the drug dealers had a Bachelor of Science in chemistry who could not find a job with his/her college degree is the one who created the potent drug? Or was it the CIA who needed to keep their war going in Nicaragua to further their agenda? I am not saying that there are no street wise people who live in the inner cities who can create ways to produce profits, but the timing of the crack epidemic is questionable.

We can say that crack was created to make quick profits to fund a covert war to fight the Nicaraguan revolution which destroyed the African-American community and eventually others across the U.S. The CIA could have given various drug dealers the formula to produce it themselves, but then again, there is no proof, however we cannot deny the fact that the CIA knew about the effects of “busuco.” If the CIA did in fact create crack to fund a war, it is criminal beyond any doubt. In fact, it is just pure evil.

This video shows Michael Ruppert’s appearance in a Los Angeles Town hall meeting where he confronted the CIA Director John Deutch about the CIA transporting cocaine into the U.S.:

‘Kill The Messenger’: The MSM vs. Gary Webb

A crusading journalist by the name of Gary Webb broke the story on how the CIA was importing cocaine from Nicaragua to the streets of California to support the Contra Army who was at war with the Sandinistas. A 2014 Washington Post opinion piece by Jeff Leen ‘Gary Webb was no journalism hero, despite what ‘Kill the Messenger’ says’criticized the investigative series ‘Dark Alliance’ by Gary Webb who apparently committed suicide with two shotgun bullets to the head as a fraud. Leen’s analysis of Gary Webb’s investigative report on the CIA’s ‘Cocaine’ operation that destroyed black communities in Los Angeles, California and elsewhere criticizes Webb’s findings:

The Hollywood version of his story — a truth-teller persecuted by the cowardly and craven mainstream media — is pure fiction. But Webb was a real person who wrote a real story, a three-part series called “Dark Alliance,” in August 1996 for the San Jose Mercury News, one of the flagship newspapers of the then-mighty Knight Ridder chain. Webb’s story made the extraordinary claim that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the crack cocaine epidemic in America. What he lacked was the extraordinary proof. But at first, the claim was enough. Webb’s story became notable as the first major journalism cause celebre on the newly emerging Internet. The black community roiled in anger at the supposed CIA perfidy

Not only Jeff Leen of the Washington Post discredits Webb’s investigation, but the New York Times and the The Los Angeles Times also jumped on the band wagon.

Then it all began to come apart. The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, in a rare show of unanimity, all wrote major pieces knocking the story down for its overblown claims and undernourished reporting  

The MSM went on a hunting spree by destroying any claim made by Webb.

Surprisingly, Hollywood produced a film based on Gary Webb called ‘Kill the Messenger’ starring Jeremy Renner as Gary Webb. Kill The Messenger was a close depiction of Webb’s real life who discovered the truth about who was really behind the crack epidemic, only to find out it was the CIA. An excellent article written by Brian Covert on Gary Webb’s investigative reporting published by Project Censored titled ‘The Ghost of “Dark Alliance”: A New Movie, An Old Story, And a Discredited Corporate Press’ tells the story of the drug connections between the U.S. government, the CIA and the Contras that led to the cocaine epidemic in the U.S.:

A groundbreaking investigation at the dawn of the Internet age in 1996, the “Dark Alliance” series, like no other newspaper reportage had done before, documented the firm links between the United States government, Central American cocaine traffickers and a domestic U.S. cocaine epidemic that had ravaged entire American communities. It was a news story that shined the spotlight on U.S. government complicity in international drug trafficking and revealed the U.S. government’s much-vaunted “war on drugs” to be a sham.

But while the U.S. government agencies involved in those illegal activities — the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in particular — had plenty of reasons for wanting this story to go away, in the end it was elements of Webb’s own profession, the press, that had been offended most by “Dark Alliance” and worked hardest to not only debunk the findings reported in “Dark Alliance” but also to discredit and destroy the journalistic credibility of Webb himself

Covert explains how the San Jose Mercury News used new technology (the internet) as a major tool for investigative journalism:

Dark Alliance: The Story Behind the Crack Explosion” was originally published in three parts on August 18-20, 1996 in the San Jose Mercury News, a respected daily newspaper in northern California’s Silicon Valley, and carried on its new Mercury Center website. This was significant because it marked the first time for a U.S. newspaper to make use of the rising new technology known as the Internet and the World Wide Web as part of a major news investigation. Webb had wanted to use his newspaper’s website especially to show the detailed documentation and evidence he had gathered as a counterweight to what he called the “high unbelievability factor” of his investigation. And that is where the next significant aspect of “Dark Alliance” comes in: It was the first news media investigation to expose the ties between the “3Cs” — the CIA, the contras and crack cocaine

Webb was not alone in his investigation at the time as “other journalists, most notably Associated Press reporters Brian Barger and Robert Parry, had investigated and reported on the links in the mid-1980s between the U.S. government’s Central Intelligence Agency and large-scale cocaine trafficking by the anti-communist paramilitary forces in Nicaragua known as the “contras.”

Covert does emphasis that the ‘Dark Alliance’ series did not directly link the CIA to drug smuggling within U.S. borders but did provide evidence that “the CIA, at the very least, knew of the cocaine smuggling into the U.S. by the Nicaraguans and did not halt the activities.” Webb went on to note that “some U.S. government agencies even went as far as offering legal protection and bureaucratic cover to some of the most notorious cocaine traffickers in the western hemisphere.”

The main drug traffickers were two Nicaraguan contra supporters by the name of Norwin Meneses and Danilo Blandón who were somehow connected to “Freeway” Rick Ross who “had eventually led to an epidemic of the crack cocaine addiction in Los Angeles that then spread to other U.S. cities, invariably hitting African-American communities the hardest.” “Dark Alliance” series was attacked by the big three newspapers instead of “building on Webb’s groundbreaking investigation and advancing the story forward” according to Covert. The New York Times The Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times all attacked Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series by trying to discredit Webb. Covert points out that “from that point on, the “Dark Alliance” series and Webb himself would be tagged by the American press with the D-word — “discredited” — an inaccurate label that has unfortunately stuck in the popular media to this day, as recent movie reviews of “Kill the Messenger” show.”

Not surprising, The New York Times gave ‘Kill The Messenger’ (released in 2014) a bad review. ‘A Reporter in the Crosshairs: ‘Kill the Messenger,’ a Film About the Reporter Gary Webb’ by Manohla Dargis wrote the following:

It’s the mid-1990s. Mobile phones are as big as clown shoes, and a cutie named Monica Lewinsky has been working in the White House. Gary should be riding high after reporting a series, “Dark Alliance,” linking the Central Intelligence Agency with Nicaraguan contras and the wildfire-like spread of crack through black neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Instead, he sounds and looks haunted or maybe hunted.

Written by Peter Landesman, “Kill the Messenger” is based on a book by Nick Schou about Mr. Webb, his rise and fall, and Mr. Webb’s own book, “Dark Alliance,” his 1998 follow-up to his much-heralded, much-contested 1996 Mercury News series. The film tracks Gary as he reports the story, opening soon after a slinky number, Coral Baca (Paz Vega), hands him a Pandora’s box of a tip. Baca points Gary in the direction of Danilo Blandon (Yul Vazquez), a Nicaraguan drug smuggler and contra supporter who supplies product to a Los Angeles dealer, Ricky Ross (Michael Kenneth Williams). Suddenly, Gary is at a foreign prison visiting another shadowy power player, Norwin Meneses (Andy Garcia), who swans around the yard in a straw hat twirling a golf club

The New York Times was one of the main news media organizations that did give ‘Kill the Messenger’ a “D” for “discredited” as Dargis ends her review on a negative note on the film:

But the film falters as the story swells and churns, and real people like Representative Maxine Waters of California enter the fray in clips alongside fictionalized scenes meant to look like documentary footage. Gary’s story comes under attack, including from big media types, and he enters a downward spiral as so, too, does the film. There are high-horse speeches, long goodbyes, enveloping sadness, a sense of doom; mostly, there is a journalist betrayed by many factors, including his own calling

Brian Covert also mentioned how the CIA director at the time, John Deutch made an appearance in South Central Los Angeles where the crack cocaine outbreak exploded “in an attempt to put out the public firestorm then raging over the CIA-contra-crack connection as outlined in Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series.” Covert said that “Deutch denounced such a connection as “an appalling charge” and defended the CIA’s integrity. “I will get to the bottom of it, and I will let you know the results of what I’ve found,” he told an angry, heckling crowd of hundreds of African-American citizens.” U.S. president Bill Clinton fired Deutch one month later. Covert said that “the CIA and the U.S. Justice Department did both later release internal reports, parts of which validated Webb’s key findings in “Dark Alliance.”The San Jose Mercury News organization began to feel the heat due to Webb’s “Dark Alliance” series:

On May 11, Webb’s boss, Mercury News executive editor Jerry Ceppos (played in the new movie by actor Oliver Platt), announced in a 1,200-word open letter to the paper’s readers that there were several “shortcomings” in the wording and presentation of “Dark Alliance,” though Ceppos did not dispute the core reporting of the series

He continued “If there was ever a chance of getting to the bottom of the CIA’s involvement with drug traffickers,” Webb later wrote, “it died on that day.” Covert ended his article on a positive note regarding Gary Webb’s legacy and his ‘Dark Alliance’ investigative report:

In seeking to discredit Gary Webb as a journalistic colleague, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times and Washington Post had only undermined their own credibility in the public mind and among other working journalists in the field. These three news companies, like a number of others, are today struggling to maintain credibility at a time when U.S. public trust in the news media is at an all-time low. 

Webb’s former employer, the San Jose Mercury News, while still the paper of record in California’s Silicon Valley, has long lost its luster as a bright, shining place to work for ambitious young reporters and editors climbing their way to the top of the news industry. If anything, the Mercury News is renowned these days for being the “newspaper that almost seized the future.” 

And as for the newspaper’s groundbreaking “Dark Alliance” series: The late Gary Webb got the story right back then and he still has it right today. The 500-page book he researched and published after leaving the newspaper business, Dark Alliance (Seven Stories Press, 1998), sets the bar high for solid news reporting and has already become a classic work of American journalism. 

The new Hollywood movie “Kill the Messenger,” regardless of how the Big Media Feeds may rate it, sets the long-buried ghost of “Dark Alliance” free to haunt the corporate press giants that once killed it and to exact its own brand of karmic justice on them — the best kind of justice there is: inspiring a new generation of journalists in the Internet age to get out there and investigate, expose and report the truths that those in authority would rather keep hidden

Well said.

If the CIA did in fact, create “crack” to fund a war in Central America to impose America’s democratic values (and you know where that leads to) only demonstrates how far they are willing to go. But there is also one fact we must consider, the truth may never come out to confirm that the CIA did invent crack. What we can confirm is that the U.S. government and the CIA has been involved in arming and supporting terrorists by any means necessary (including the sale of dangerous drugs including cocaine, crack or heroin) for decades to further their Imperial agenda. The history of the Iran-Contra affair has a deep-rooted connection to the crack explosion.

What is apparent is that the same operation continues today in Syria with first, the Obama administration who funded and armed various terrorist organizations such as the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Al-Qaeda and ISIS to create a civil war within Syrian society (and the rest of the Middle East) to destroy the country from within. It still continues with the Trump administration with backing from the Israelis and Saudis.

The U.S. government and the MSM continue their propaganda to discredit the Syrian government, for example, the Syrian “White Helmets” an NGO who is closely associated with the terrorists are saving the Syrian people from the “brutal dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad.” Independent researcher, writer, photographer and peace activist Vanessa Beeley of 21st Century Wire has done extensive research on the White Helmets and came to the conclusion that the U.S. and other NATO allies funded the controversial group who has ties to various terrorist organizations in her article ‘Who Are Syria’s White Helmets (terrorist linked)?‘:

A hideous murder of a rising star in UK politics, Jo Cox MP, has just sent shock waves across the world. Within hours of her death, a special fund was established in her name to raise money for 3 causes. One of those causes is the Syrian White Helmets. 

Are we seeing a cynical and obscene exploitation of Jo Cox’s murder to revive the flagging credibility of a US State Department & UK Foreign Office asset on the ground in Syria, created and sustained as first responders for the US and NATO Al Nusra/Al Qaeda forces? 

If this is the case, and I fear it is, the depravity of our government, the US government, the state led media and associated Syria Campaign support groups have reached a new level of perversion of Humanity. The White Helmets have been demonstrated to be a primarily US and NATO funded organisation embedded in Al Nusra and ISIS held areas exclusively. 

This is an alleged “non-governmental” organisation, the definition of an NGO, that thus far has received funding from at least three major NATO governments, including $23 million from the US Government and $29 million (£19.7 million) from the UK Government, $4.5 million (€4 million) from the Dutch Government. In addition, it receives material assistance and training funded and run by a variety of other EU Nations 

Hollywood also contributed to the propaganda campaign against Syria when Netflix’s ‘The White Helmets’ won an Oscar for best documentary short last year. The director of the documentary, Orlando von Einsiedel read a written statement from the White Helmets founder Raed al-Saleh during the acceptance speech which said:

“We are so grateful that this film has highlighted our work to the world. Our organisation is guided by a verse from the Quran: To save one life is to save all of humanity. We have saved more than 82,000 Syrian lives. I invite anyone here who hears me to work on the side of life to stop the bloodshed in Syria and around the world”

The CIA supported the Contras by using propaganda to gain public support in the U.S. and around the world through the MSM. They also transported cocaine (that eventually turned into crack) into the U.S. to fund its dirty war against the Sandinistas only shows how far Washington was willing to go to maintain its imperial power in Latin America no matter if it destroyed the lives of their own citizens.

History is surely repeating itself, but this time, it’s the war on Syria without the illegal drug trafficking operation, at least for the time being. Remember, the U.S. military is still guarding the poppy fields in Afghanistan.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Featured image is from https://syntheticurinereview.com/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Crack and the Contras: How the CIA, Mainstream Media Propaganda and the Contras Fueled the Crack Cocaine Epidemic

The conditions in Gaza are frequently described in the neutral language of humanitarianism and poverty. A 6 February document released by the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs notes that: “Emergency fuel for critical facilities in Gaza will become exhausted within the next ten days” and that “at risk are emergency and diagnostic services, like MRIs, CT and x-rays, intensive care units and operating theatres in 13 public hospitals; some 55 sewage pools; 48 desalination plants; and solid waste collection capacity.”

The statement describes this situation as “a humanitarian catastrophe driven by the energy crisis” without providing any information about the causes of or responsibility for that crisis.

A de-politicised language

A Unicef report on poverty in Gaza notes that “economic conditions” have deteriorated in the Strip and that “40 percent of Palestinian families in the Gaza Strip live under the poverty line, and 70 percent rely on some form of external aid”. At no point does this article mention Israel or the United States or their partners.

The World Bank’s October 2017 Palestine’s Economic Outlook notes that unemployment in Gaza is at 44 percent and more than 60 percent for people aged 15-29. This document also declines to mention Israel or any of its allies and only makes a vague reference to “ongoing constraints to economic competitiveness” without giving any sense of what those constraints are, who has put them in place, or why.

It is misleading to characterise the enormous challenges Gaza residents face solely or mainly in the de-politicised language of humanitarianism and poverty.

Presenting the issues people in Gaza are dealing with in such a manner suggests that these have arisen naturally thereby obscuring that they are the result of deliberate US-Israeli-PA-Egyptian policies.

Israel controls land access to Gaza, its airspace, and its sea, and it has besieged the Strip since 2006. Israel is occupying Gaza and, under international law, occupying powers are responsible for the welfare of the population in the territory being occupied.

That Israel manages Gaza’s economy highlights the ways in which it is responsible for poverty and unemployment in the Strip and their ripple effects. Israel decides which goods are worth manufacturing in Gaza and selling outside of it, “impacting the profitability and feasibility of different branches of industry,” in the words of the human rights group Gisha.

The organisation points out that Israel’s control over the only land crossing through which goods come in and out of Gaza allow it to limit what comes in and out so that it “influences almost every aspect of Gaza’s economy and the job market”. Since Israel is “the near sole source of all products and goods coming into Gaza”, it also “holds critical influence over the cost of living in the Strip”.

Israeli crimes against Palestinians

Meanwhile, Israeli restrictions on exports from Gaza leave the territory “isolated and with no real opportunity for economic development”. Israel has carried out three major military assaults on Gaza in less than 10 years, killing thousands of Palestinians.

Israeli restrictions on Palestinians’ ability to import building materials have stalled reconstruction efforts, leaving tens of thousands homeless and infrastructure in dire condition. All of these measures are part of more than 50 years of Israel de-developing the Strip.

Moreover, as the human rights organisation Al-Haq points out, Israel has created a “buffer zone” around Gaza that has reduced the land available for agriculture and Israel has also forcibly restricted Palestinian access to the sea to the extent that: “Approximately 17 percent of land in Gaza has been designated an access-restricted area, leaving over half of the agricultural land and 85 percent of the maritime space in Gaza inaccessible. Given that fishing and agriculture are the main pillars of the Palestinian economy, the closure has devastated life in the Gaza Strip.”

When Israel decides that Palestinian fisherman are too far from shore, the Israeli navy frequently attacks them with stun grenades, destroys their boats, arrests them, or fires on them, killing five fishermen between June 2007 and July 2013, and at least one more in March 2015 and another in June 2017.

Israel does not act alone. the United States continues to provide the essential means for Israel to besiege Gaza – and to carry out all of the other crimes against Palestinians and neighbouring countries it carries out – in the form of military aid and political cover.

The Egyptian government, a recipient of lavish US military aid and an opponent of the Hamas government that’s in power in Gaza, has with a few brief exceptions enforced the blockade at its crossing into Gaza. Last summer the Palestinian Authority, which in many respects has been functioning as a US-Israeli proxy, reduced the salaries paid to its civil servants in Gaza and successfully pushed for Israel to cut the Strip’s electricity in order to weaken its Hamas rivals.

There is little reason to believe that Israel and the US will make life better for Gaza residents anytime soon.

Gisha notes that:

“Throughout 2017, new or intensified measures further restricted travel to and from Gaza” and that these were introduced with “no justification provided as to their purpose and, it appears, no consideration of the impact they would have on Gaza’s civilian population, which is already under great duress.”

As Palestinian-American journalist Ali Abunimah reports, in January the US decided to withhold more than half of its monthly $125m contribution to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), undermining the organisation’s ability to provide “basic health, education and emergency humanitarian services to five million Palestinian refugees” and causing “the worst financial crisis in UNRWA’s history,” according to its spokesperson.

Gaza, therefore, doesn’t have a humanitarian problem. It has a political problem. It has an imperialism problem. It has a colonial problem.

The wrong solutions

Describing the difficulties Gaza residents are facing primarily in terms of humanitarianism and poverty suggests that these problems can and should be solved by international aid and NGOs rather than by a political solution to the question of Palestine that leads to Palestinian freedom.

Tariq Da’na documents that Palestinians have been pressed into a situation of institutionalised dependence upon a global “aid industry” because aid comes with conditions attached.

These, he writes, have dramatically narrowed Palestinian political space by requiring adherence to the “peace process”, a misnomer for Palestinian-Israeli relations since the 1993 Oslo Accords during which Israel has more than doubled its number of illegal settlers on the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, reduced Gaza to its present state, killed thousands of Palestinians, and Palestinian self-determination has come no closer to fruition.

As Max Ajl points out, however much the staff of international NGOs in Gaza might sympathise with the Palestinians, such institutions’ mandate “does not extend to dealing with the root cause of the siege” and their task “is at best to keep the situation frozen in time … to keep the Palestinians of the Strip alive”.

What is happening to Gaza is a political calamity that requires a political solution: Palestinian liberation.

*

Greg Shupak writes fiction and political analysis and teaches Media Studies at the University of Guelph-Humber. His book, The Wrong Story:  Palestine, Israel, and the Media, can be ordered from OR Books.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Gaza Does Not Have a Humanitarian Crisis. It Has a Colonial Problem
  • Tags: ,

Written largely by the most prestigious British scientist of his day, this report was effectively suppressed upon its release in 1952. Published now in text-searchable format, it includes hundreds of pages of evidence about the use of U.S. biological weapons during the Korean War, available for the first time to the general public.

Download the full report here.

*

Back in the early 1950s, the U.S. conducted a furious bombing campaign during the Korean War, dropping hundreds of thousands of tons of ordnance, much of it napalm, on North Korea. The bombardment, worse than any country had received up to that point, excepting the effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wiped out nearly every city in North Korea, contributing to well over a million civilian deaths. Because of the relentless bombing, the people were reduced to living in tunnels. Even the normally bellicose Gen. MacArthur claimed to find the devastation wreaked by the U.S. to be sickening.[1]

Most controversially, both North Korea and China alleged that by early 1952, the U.S. was using biological or germ warfare weapons against both North Korea and China. The U.S. government has strenuously denied this. Nevertheless, captured U.S. flyers told their North Korean and Chinese captors about the use of such weapons. Later, after the prisoners were returned to U.S. custody, counterintelligence experts and psychiatrists interrogated them. They were told under the threat of court martial to renounce their confessions about germ warfare. They all did so.

The Army Criminal Investigative Division officer in charge of interrogating returning prisoners, including airmen who confessed to use of biological weaponry on North Korea and China, was Army counter-intelligence specialist, Col. Boris Pash. Pash had previously been in charge of security for the most sensitive classified operations of the U.S. government in World War II. He was in charge of security at the Manhattan Project’s Berkeley Radiation Laboratory. (The Manhattan Project was the U.S. crash program to develop the atomic bomb.)

In the immediate aftermath of the war, military intelligence officer Pash led the Alsos Mission, which searched for Nazi and Italian nuclear scientists and fissionable materials, as well as gathering “intelligence about any enemy scientific research applicable to his military effort,” including biological and chemical weapons.[2]

To convince the world of the truth of their claim the U.S. had dropped biological weapons on their countries, and after turning down the suggestion that the International Red Cross look into the charges, the North Koreans and Chinese sponsored an investigating commission. Using the auspices of the World Peace Council, they gathered together a number of scientists from around the world, most of whom were sympathetic to either the Left or the peace movement. Most surprisingly, this commission, which came to be known as the International Scientific Commission, or ISC, was headed by one of the foremost British scientists of his time, Sir Joseph Needham.

The ISC included scientists from a number of countries, including Sweden, France, Italy, and Brazil. The Soviet Union representative, Dr. N. N. Zhukov-Verezhnikov had been the chief medical expert at the Khabarovsk Trial of the Unit 731 Japanese officers accused of participating in bacteriological (aka biological, or germ) warfare before and during World War II, as well as conducting hideous experiments on prisoners to further that aim. Zhukov-Verezhnikov went on to write scientific articles through the 1970s.

Needham himself, though pilloried in the Western press for his opinions on the controversy of U.S. use of biological weapons during the Korean War, remained a highly lauded scientist for years after the ISC report. He was elected a fellow of the British Academy in 1971. In 1992, the Queen conferred on him the Companionship of Honour.[3]

The ISC travelled to China and North Korea in the summer of 1952 and by September produced the “Report of International Scientific Commission for the Investigation of the Facts Concerning Bacterial Warfare in Korea and China,” which corroborated the Chinese and North Korean claims that the U.S. had used biological weapons in an experimental fashion on civilian populations.

The summary report was only some 60 pages long, but the ISC included over 600 pages of documentary material including statements from witnesses, including airmen involved in dropping the weaponry, as well as captured enemy agents; reports from doctors; journal articles from the United States; autopsy reports and lab tests; and photos and other materials. Most of this documentary material has been all but inaccessible for decades, with only a handful of copies of the ISC report in a few scattered libraries in the United States.

From ISC Report, pg. 403

The report concluded that the U.S. had used a number of biological weapons, including use of anthrax, plague, and cholera, disseminated by over a dozen of different devices or methods, including spraying, porcelain bombs, self-destroying paper containers with a paper parachute, and leaflet bombs, among others.

This article is not meant to examine the full range of opinions or evidence about whether or not the U.S. used biological weapons in the Korean War. It is instead an attempt to publish essential documentation of such claims, documentation that has effectively been withheld from the American people, and the West in general, for decades.

Controversies

The charges of U.S. use of biological warfare during the Korean War have long been the subject of intense controversy. The reliance, in part, on testimony from U.S. prisoners of war led to U.S. charges of “brainwashing.” These charges later became the basis of a cover story for covert CIA experimentation into use of use of drugs and other forms of coercive interrogation and torture that became the basis for its 1963 KUBARK manual on interrogation, and much later, a powerful influence on the CIA’s post-9/11 “enhanced interrogation” program.

Establishment Cold War scholars have been quick to debunk the ISC report. The most notable attempts in recent years included the publication of purported letters written by officials of the Soviet Union discussing the lack of evidence of U.S. biological warfare, and the decision to manufacture such evidence to fool the West.[4] Subsequently, a 1997 memoir by Wu Zhili, the former director of the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army Health Division, was published declaring the purported U.S. use of bacteriological agents in the Korean War was really “a false alarm.” [5]

If these documents were to be true, as two Canadian scholars who spent years researching the Chinese-North Korean claims of biological warfare, then it would go against the bulk of archival evidence, including interviews with pertinent witnesses in both the United States and China.[6] Some of this archival evidence is quite recent, including the CIA declassification of a good deal of formerly top secret daily signal intelligence cables from the Korean War.[7]

The cables dealing with North Korean claims of biological warfare, which claims were dismissed by U.S. officials, prove that the North Koreans were serious about the belief they were being attacked by germ weapons, and that they were concerned that reports from the field not be falsified by assiduous if uninformed people sending in reports from the field. There is no evidence that North Korean officials or personnel ever engaged in falsification of evidence of biological warfare.

There also is plenty of archival evidence to be found in the suppressed Needham report materials. For instance, the Wu Zhili document claims,

“‘for the entire year [1952–1953] no sick patient or deceased person was found to have anything to do with bacteriological warfare.”

From the ISC report, pg. 470

But the ISC report documents a number of such deaths, including deaths from inhalational anthrax, a very rare disease almost completely unknown in China at that time. Appendix AA of the report, “Report on the Occurrence of Respiratory Anthrax and Haemorrhagic Anthrax Meningitis following the Intrusion of U.S. Military Planes over Northeast China” details the presence of anthrax by autopsy and laboratory examination in five deaths during March-April 1952. According to U.S. experts who have looked at the details of this report, the conclusions regarding death from inhalational anthrax could not have been faked[8].

Until recently, there has been no effort to make the original Needham materials available for other scholars or the public to assess for themselves the truth or falsity of their analysis. Last year, scholar Milton Leitenberg uploaded a copy of the ISC report to Scribd, but it is a very rough scan, and not searchable, or easy to use for the public. The release was not advertised and the public in particular remains ignorant of its findings.

The version of the ISC report published here utilized state-of-the-art book scanning equipment and is text searchable.

Censorship of Unit 731-U.S. Collaboration on Biological Warfare Data

One important part of the ISC report guaranteed its suppression in the United States after its initial publication. The report discussed the activities of Imperial Japan’s biological warfare detachment, Unit 731, and the U.S. interest in its activities.

Back in 1952, collaboration between the U.S. and Japanese war criminals using biological weapons was top secret, and totally denied by the U.S.

But today, even U.S. historians accept that a deal was made between the U.S. and members of Unit 731 and associated portions of the Japanese military that had in fact been experimenting on the use of biological weapons since the mid-1930s, experimentation that included use of human vivisection and barbaric torture of thousands of human beings, most of whom were disposed of in crematoria. In addition, as described in the book chapter by Bernd Martin noted in the bibliography, there was collaboration between the Japanese and the Nazi regime on these issues.

The U.S. collaboration with Japanese war criminals of Unit 731 was formally admitted in 1999 by the U.S. government, though the documentation for this confession wasn’t published until nearly 20 years later.[9]

It is a matter of historical record now that the U.S. government granted amnesty to Japan’s chief at Unit 731, doctor/General Shiro Ishii and his accomplices. The amnesty was kept top secret for decades, until revealed by journalist John Powell in a landmark article for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientistsin October 1981.

What came to be known as the Needham report, due to the fact the ISC was headed by the prestigious British scientist, came under immediate fire upon release. The report still remains a flashpoint for scholars. A 2001 article by the UK’s Historical Association detailed how UN and UK government officials collaborated in attempts to debunk the ISC findings. The UK Foreign Office released memoranda saying that claims of Japanese bacteriological warfare, going back to 1941, were “officially ‘not proven.’” (See article by Tom Buchanan in Bibliography.)

The sensitivity of the material uncovered by the ISC touched two areas of covert US government research. First was the US government’s own plans to research and possibly implement germ warfare. The second issue concerned the confessions of U.S. flyers as to how they were briefed and implemented trial runs of biological warfare during the Korean War.

China published the confessions of 19 U.S. airmen, but those confessions are also notoriously difficult to obtain. The ISC report published herein does include some of those “confessions,” and the public can be allowed to decide for themselves how authentic or genuine they are.

From testimony of Lt. J. Quinn, ISC report, pg. 614 (PDF)

The U.S. claimed that the flyers were tortured, and the CIA promoted the idea they were “brainwashed” by diabolical methods, causing a scare about “commie” mind control programs and “menticide,” which they used to justify the expenditure of millions of dollars for U.S. mind control programs during the 1950s-1970s.

The programs, codenamed Bluebird, Artichoke, and MKULTRA, among others, used experiments on unwitting civilians, as well as soldiers undergoing supposed anti-torture training at the military’s SERE schools. I have shown via public records that CIA scientists continued to use experiments on “stress” at SERE schools after 9/11, and believe such research included experiments on CIA and/or DoD held detainees. That such research did take place can be inferred from the release in November 2011 of a new set of guidelines concerning DoD research. This newest version of a standard instruction (DoD Directive 3216.02) contained for the first time a specific prohibition against research done on detainees. (See section 7c.)

I believe a strong case can be made that while coercive methods, primarily isolation, was used on the U.S. prisoners of war who later confessed, that their confessions were primarily true. The idea that only false confessions result from torture is in fact false itself. While false confessions can result from torture (as well as less onerous methods, such as the Reid Technique, used by police departments throughout the United States today), actual confessions can also sometimes occur. I have first-hand experience working with torture survivors to know that is true.

Even so, it is a fact that all the POWs who confessed use of germ warfare later recanted that upon return to the United States. But the terms of their recantations are suspect. The recantations were made under threat of courts-martial, and after interrogations by U.S. counterintelligence agents and psychiatrists. The archival evidence of the flyers debriefings have been destroyed or lost due to fire (according to the government). Meanwhile at least one scientist working at Ft. Detrick at the time admitted to German documentary investigators before he died that the U.S. had indeed been involved in germ warfare in Korea. (See the documentary video, “Code Name: Artichoke.”[10])

An “actual investigation… could do us psychological as well as military damage”

The charges of U.S. use of biological weapons during the Korean War are even more incendiary than the now-proven claims the U.S. amnestied Japanese military doctors and others working on biological weapons who experimented on human subjects, and ultimately killed thousands in operational uses of those weapons against China during the Sino-Japanese portion of World War Two. The amnesty was the price paid for U.S. military and intelligence researchers to get access to the trove of research, much of it via fatal human experiments, the Japanese had developed over years of studying and developing weapons for biological warfare.

During the Korean War, the U.S. strenuously denied charges of use of germ weapons and demanded an international investigation through the United Nations. The Chinese and North Koreans derided such offers, as it was United Nations-sanctioned forces that were opposing them in war and bombing their cities. But behind the scenes, a CIA-released document I revealed in December 2013 showed the U.S. considered the call for a UN investigation to be mere propaganda.[11]

At a high-level meeting of intelligence and government officials on July 6, 1953, U.S. authorities admitted behind closed doors that the U.S. was not serious about conducting any investigation into such charges, despite what the government said publicly.

According to this document, the reason the U.S. didn’t want any investigation was because an “actual investigation” would reveal military operations, “which, if revealed, could do us psychological as well as military damage.” A “memorandum from the Psychological Strategy Board (PSB) detailing this meeting specifically stated as an example of what could be revealed “8th Army preparations or operations (e.g. chemical warfare).”[12]

Charges of chemical warfare by the Americans during the Korean War were part of a report by a Communist-influenced attorneys’ organization visiting Korea, and their findings were dismissed as propaganda by U.S. authorities and commentators. But the PSB memo suggests perhaps they were right.

Not long after I published the PSB document and accompanying article, scholar Stephen Endicott wrote to remind me that he and his associate Edward Hagerman, co-authors of the 1998 book, The United States and Biological Warfare: Secrets from the Early Cold War and Korea (see bibliography), had found material themselves that indicated U.S. calls for “international inspection to counter the Chinese and North Korean charges… was less than candid.”

Endicott and Hagerman found that U.S. Far East Commander, Gen. Matthew Ridgway, had “secretly given permission to deny potential Red Cross inspectors ‘access to any specific sources of information.’” In addition, they documented a State Department memo dated June 27, 1952 wherein the Department of Defense notified that it was “impossible” for the UN ambassador at the time to state that the U.S. did not intend to use “bacteriological warfare — even in Korea.” (p.192, Endicott and Hagerman)

The Khabarovsk War Crimes Trial

The ISC report also references the December 1949 war crimes trial held by the USSR in Khabarovsk, not far from the Chinese border. The trial of Japanese war criminals associated with Units 731, 100 and other biological warfare divisions followed upon a near black-out of such issues at the larger Toyko war crimes trials held by the Allies a few years before.

At the time of the Khabarovsk trial, U.S. media and government officials either ignored the proceedings, or denounced them as yet another Soviet “show trial.” The Soviets for their part published the proceedings and distributed them widely, including in English. Copies of this report are easier to find for purchase used, though expensive, on the Internet. Additionally, in the last few years Google made a copy of the former Soviet volume available online (see Bibliography). But no scholarly edition has ever been published.

Even so, U.S. historians have been forced over the years to accept the findings of the Khabarovsk court, though the general population and media accounts remain mostly ignorant such a trial ever took place. The fact the Soviets also documented the use of Japanese biological experiments on U.S. POWs was highly controversial, denied by the U.S. for decades, was a quite contentious issue in the 1980s-1990s. While a National Archives-linked historian has quietly determined such experiments did in fact take place, the issue has quietly fallen off the country’s radar. (See L. G. Goetz in bibliography.)

The relevancy of these issues is of course the ongoing propaganda war between the United States and North Korea, as well as Pentagon reallocation of resources to the Asian theater for a possible future war against China. But it is the clear threat of a nuclear exchange between North Korea and the United States that calls for clarity around the issues that have led to the mistrust between the two countries. Such clarity demands the release of all information that would help the U.S. populace understand the North Korean point of view. Such understanding, and acting upon such knowledge, may be all that separates us from a catastrophic war that could potentially kill millions of people.

The history behind the Korean War, and U.S. military and covert actions concerning China, Japan, and Korea, are a matter of near-total ignorance in the U.S. population. The charges of “brainwashing” of U.S. POWs, in an ongoing effort to hide evidence of U.S. biological warfare experiments and trials, also has become entwined in the propaganda used to explain the U.S. post-9/11 torture and interrogation program, and alibi past crimes by the CIA and Department of Defense for years of illegal mind control programs practiced as part of MKULTRA, MKSEARCH, ARTICHOKE, and other programs.

I hope that readers will feel free to disseminate this article without any copyright reservations, as well as the ISC report itself, an orphaned document from the Cold War.

*

Jeffrey S. Kaye is a Psychologist (retired), blogger, author of “Cover-up at Guantanamo”.

Sources

Daniel Barenblatt, A Plague Upon Humanity: The Secret Genocide of Axis Japan’s Germ Warfare Operation, HarperPerennial, 2005

Tom Buchanan, “The Courage of Galileo: Joseph Needham and the ‘Germ Warfare’ Allegations in the Korean War,” The Historical Association, Blackwell Publishers, 2001

Dave Chaddock, This Must Be the Place: How the U.S. Waged Germ Warfare in the Korean War and Denied It Ever Since, Bennett and Hastings Publishers, 2013

Stephen Endicott & Edward Hagerman, The United States and Biological Warfare: Secrets from the Early Cold War and Korea, Indiana University Press, 1998

Stephen Endicott & Edward Hagerman, “Twelve Newly Released Soviet-era `Documents’ and allegations of U. S. germ warfare during the Korean War,” online publication, 1998, URL: http://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/12SovietDocuments.htm

Stephen Endicott & Edward Hagerman, “False Alarm? ‘The Bacteriological War of 1952’: Comment on Director Wu Zhili’s Essay,” online publication, June 1, 2016, URL: http://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/On%20WuZhili-false-alarm.pdf [accessed May 14, 2017]

Sheldon H. Harris, Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932–45, and the American Cover-up, rev. ed., Routledge Press, 2002

Linda Goetz Holmes, Guests of the Emperor: The Secret History of Japan’s Mukden POW Camp, Naval Institute Press, June 2010.

Jeffrey Kaye, “CIA Document Suggests U.S. Lied About Biological, Chemical Weapon Use in the Korean War,” Shadowproof, Dec. 10, 2013, URL: https://shadowproof.com/2013/12/10/cia-document-suggests-u-s-lied-about-biological-chemical-weapon-use-in-the-korean-war/# (accessed May 14, 2017)

Materials on the Trial of Former Servicemen of the Japanese Army Charged With Manufacturing Bacteriological Weapons [Testimony and Exhibits from the Khabarovsk War Crimes Trial], Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1950, published as free e-book at Google Books, URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=ARojAAAAMAAJ [accessed May 14, 2017]

Milton Leitenberg, “New Russian Evidence on the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations: Background and Analysis,” Cold War International History Project, Bulletin 11, 1998

Milton Leitenberg, “China’s False Allegations of the Use of Biological Weapons by the United States during the Korean War,” CWIHP Working Paper #78
March 2016, URL: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/chinas-false-allegations-the-use-biological-weapons-the-united-states-during-the-korean[accessed May 14, 2017]

Jeffrey A. Lockwood, Six-Legged Soldiers: Using Insects as Weapons of War, Oxford Univ. Press, 2010

Bernd Martin, “Japanese-German collaboration in the development of bacteriological and chemical weapons and the war in China,” in Japanese-German Relations, 1895–1945: War, Diplomacy and Public Opinion (Christian W. Spang, Rolf-Harald Wippich, eds.), Routledge, 2006

John Powell, “A Hidden Chapter in History,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 1981

Peter Williams and David Wallace, Unit 731: The Japanese Army’s Secret of Secrets, Hodder & Stoughton, 1989 [Note: The U.S. version of this book, published by Free Press, does not include Chapter 17 on the Korean War, which is only available in the British Hodder & Stoughton version.]

Notes

[1] Robert M. Neer, Napalm: An American Biography, 2013, Belknap Press, pg. 100.

[2] “Boris Pash and Science and Technology Intelligence,” Masters of the Intelligence Art series, U.S. Army Intelligence Center, Ft. Huachuca, undated. URL: http://huachuca-www.army.mil/files/History_MPASH.PDF (retrieved 1/20/2018)

Pash was later associated with activities of the CIA. We don’t know when his involvement with the Agency began. Watergate defendant E. Howard Hunt told Congressional investigators in 1976 Pash was involved in assassination activities for the CIA during the 1960s. See “Executive Session, Saturday, January 10, 1976, United States Senate, Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Washington, D.C.” URL: http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/1976-Executive-Session-Hunt-testimony-on-Pash.pdf (retrieved 1/20/2018)

[3] See URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Needham (retrieved 1/20/18). The article drew the information from Winchester, Simon (2008), The Man Who Loved China: The Fantastic Story of the Eccentric Scientist Who Unlocked the Mysteries of the Middle Kingdom. New York: HarperCollins.

[4] Leitenberg, Milton. (1998). Resolution of the Korean War Biological Warfare Allegations. Critical reviews in microbiology. 24. 169–94. 10.1080/10408419891294271.

[5] “Wu Zhili, ‘The Bacteriological War of 1952 is a False Alarm’,” September, 1997, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, Yanhuang chunqiu no. 11 (2013): 36–39. Translated by Drew Casey. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/123080

[6] “False Alarm? The Bacteriological War of 1952 — Comment on Director WuZhili’s Essay” by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman, Department of History, York University (ret.), June 2016, http://www.yorku.ca/sendicot/On%20WuZhili-false-alarm.pdf

[7]“Baptism By Fire: CIA Analysis of the Korean War Overview,” URL: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/collection/baptism-fire-cia-analysis-korean-war-overview

[8] For a full discussion, see “Updated: The Suppressed Report on 1952 U.S. Korean War Anthrax Attack,” https://valtinsblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/revealed-suppressed-report-on-1952-us.html

[9] Jeffrey S. Kaye, “Department of Justice Official Releases Letter Admitting U.S. Amnesty of Japan’s Unit 731 War Criminals,” Medium.com, May 14, 2017, URL: https://medium.com/@jeff_kaye/department-of-justice-official-releases-letter-admitting-u-s-amnesty-of-unit-731-war-criminals-9b7da41d8982

[10] URL: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/code-name-artichoke/

[11] Jeffrey Kaye, “CIA Document Suggests U.S. Lied About Biological, Chemical Weapon Use in the Korean War,” Shadowproof, Dec. 10, 2013, URL: https://shadowproof.com/2013/12/10/cia-document-suggests-u-s-lied-about-biological-chemical-weapon-use-in-the-korean-war/# (accessed May 14, 2017)

[12] For the actual memorandum document, see URL: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80R01731R003300190004-6.pdf

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Long-suppressed Korean War Report on U.S. Use of Biological Weapons Released At Last

U.S. Empire Still Incoherent After All These Years

February 21st, 2018 by Nicolas J. S. Davies

I recently reread Michael Mann’s book, Incoherent Empire, which he wrote in 2003, soon after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Mann is a sociology professor at UCLA and the author of a four-volume series called The Sources of Social Power, in which he explained the major developments of world history as the interplay between four types of power: military, economic, political, and ideological.

In Incoherent Empire, Mann used the same framework to examine what he called the U.S.’s “new imperialism” after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. He predicted that, “The American Empire will turn out to be a military giant; a back-seat economic driver; a political schizophrenic; and an ideological phantom.”

What struck me most forcefully as I reread Incoherent Empire was that absolutely nothing has changed in the “incoherence” of U.S. imperialism.  If I picked up the book for the first time today and didn’t know it was written 15 years ago, I could read nearly all of it as a perceptive critique of American imperialism exactly as it exists today.

In the intervening 15 years, U.S. policy failures have resulted in ever-spreading violence and chaos that affect hundreds of millions of people in at least a dozen countries. The U.S. has utterly failed to bring any of its neo-imperial wars to a stable or peaceful end.  And yet the U.S. imperial project sails on, seemingly blind to its consistently catastrophic results.

Instead, U.S. civilian and military leaders shamelessly blame their victims for the violence and chaos they have unleashed on them, and endlessly repackage the same old war propaganda to justify record military budgets and threaten new wars.

But they never hold themselves or each other accountable for their catastrophic failures or the carnage and human misery they inflict. So they have made no genuine effort to remedy any of the systemic problems, weaknesses and contradictions of U.S. imperialism that Michael Mann identified in 2003 or that other critical analysts like Noam Chomsky, Gabriel Kolko, William Blum and Richard Barnet have described for decades.

Let’s examine each of Mann’s four images of the foundations of the U.S.’s Incoherent Empire, and see how they relate to the continuing crisis of U.S. imperialism that he presciently foretold:

Military Giant

As Mann noted in 2003, imperial armed forces have to do four things: defend their own territory; strike offensively; conquer territories and people; then pacify and rule them.

Today’s U.S. military dwarfs any other country’s military forces. It has unprecedented firepower, which it can use from unprecedented distances to kill more people and wreak more destruction than any previous war machine in history, while minimizing U.S. casualties and thus the domestic political blowback for its violence.

But that’s where its power ends.  When it comes to actually conquering and pacifying a foreign country, America’s technological way of war is worse than useless.  The very power of U.S. weapons, the “Robocop” appearance of American troops, their lack of language skills and their isolation from other cultures make U.S. forces a grave danger to the populations they are charged with controlling and pacifying, never a force for law and order, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or North Korea.

John Pace, who headed the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq during the U.S. occupation compared U.S. efforts to pacify the country to “trying to swat a fly with a bomb.” 

Burhan Fasa’a, an Iraqi reporter for Lebanon’s LBC TV network, survived the second U.S. assault on Fallujah in November 2004.  He spent nine days in a house with a population that grew to 26 people as neighboring homes were damaged or destroyed and more and more people sought shelter with Fasa’a and his hosts.

Finally a squad of U.S. Marines burst in, yelling orders in English that most of the residents didn’t understand and shooting them if they didn’t respond.

“Americans did not have interpreters with them, “ Fasa’a explained, “so they entered houses and killed people because they didn’t speak English… Soldiers thought the people were rejecting their orders, so they shot them.  But the people just couldn’t understand them.”

This is one personal account of one episode in a pattern of atrocities that grinds on, day in day out, in country after country, as it has done for the last 16 years. To the extent that the Western media cover these atrocities at all, the mainstream narrative is that they are a combination of unfortunate but isolated incidents and the “normal” horrors of war.

But that is not true. They are the direct result of the American way of war, which prioritizes “force protection” over the lives of human beings in other countries to minimize U.S. casualties and thus domestic political opposition to war.  In practice, this means using overwhelming and indiscriminate firepower in ways that make it impossible to distinguish combatants from non-combatants or protect civilians from the horrors of war as the Geneva Conventions require.

U.S. rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have included: systematic, theater-wide use of torture; orders to “dead-check” or kill wounded enemy combatants; orders to “kill all military-age males” during certain operations; and “weapons-free” zones that mirror Vietnam-era “free-fire” zones.

When lower ranks have been prosecuted for war crimes against civilians, they have been acquitted or given light sentences because they were acting on orders from senior officers.  But courts martial have allowed the senior officers implicated in these cases to testify in secret or have not called them to testify at all, and none have been prosecuted.

After nearly a hundred deaths in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan, including torture deaths that are capital crimes under U.S. federal law, the harshest sentence handed down was a 5 month prison sentence, and the most senior officer prosecuted was a major, although the orders to torture prisoners came from the very top of the chain of command.  As Rear Admiral John Hutson, the retired Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy, wrote in Human Rights First’s Command’s Responsibility report after investigating just 12 of these deaths,

“One such incident would be an isolated transgression; two would be a serious problem; a dozen of them is policy.”

So the Military Giant is not just a war machine. It is also a war crimes machine.

The logic of force protection and technological warfare also means that the roughly 800 U.S. military bases in other countries are surrounded by barbed wire and concrete blast-walls and staffed mainly by Americans, so that the 290,000 U.S. troops occupying 183 foreign countries have little contact with the local people their empire aspires to rule.

Donald Rumsfeld described this empire of self-contained bases as “lily pads,” from which his forces could hop like frogs from one base to another by plane, helicopter or armored vehicle, or launch strikes on the surrounding territory, without exposing themselves to the dangers of meeting the locals.

Robert Fisk, the veteran Middle East reporter for the U.K.’s Independent newspaper, had another name for these bases: “crusader castles”– after the medieval fortresses built by equally isolated foreign invaders a thousand years ago that still dot the landscape of the Middle East.

Michael Mann contrasted the isolation of U.S. troops in their empire of bases to the lives of British officers in India, “where officers’ clubs were typically on the edge of the encampment, commanding the nicest location and view. The officers were relaxed about their personal safety, sipping their whisky and soda and gin and tonic in full view of the natives, (who) comprised most of the inhabitants – NCOs and soldiers, servants, stable-hands, drivers and sometimes their families.”

In 1945, a wiser generation of American leaders brought to their senses by the mass destruction of two world wars realized the imperial game was up.  They worked hard to frame their new-found power and economic dominance within an international system that the rest of the world would accept as legitimate, with a central role for President Roosevelt’s vision of the United Nations.

Roosevelt promised that his “permanent structure of peace,” would, “spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the expedients that have been tried for centuries – and have always failed,” and that “the forces of aggression (would be) permanently outlawed.”

America’s World War II leaders were wisely on guard against the kind of militarism they had confronted and defeated in Germany and Japan.  When an ugly militarism reared its head in the U.S. in the late 1940s, threatening a “preemptive” nuclear war to destroy the USSR before it could develop its own nuclear deterrent, General Eisenhower responded forcefully in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors in St. Louis,

“I decry loose and sometimes gloating talk about the high degree of security implicit in a weapon that might destroy millions overnight,” Eisenhower declared. “Those who measure security solely in terms of offensive capacity distort its meaning and mislead those who pay them heed. No modern nation has ever equaled the crushing offensive power attained by the German war machine in 1939. No modern country was broken and smashed as was Germany six years later.”

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the chief US representative at the London Conference that drew up the Nuremberg Principles in 1945, stated as the official U.S. position,

“If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

That was the U.S. government of 1945 explicitly agreeing to the prosecution of Americans who commit aggression, which Jackson and the judges at Nuremberg defined as “the supreme international crime.” That would now include the last six U.S. presidents: Reagan (Grenada and Nicaragua), Bush I (Panama), Clinton (Yugoslavia), Bush II (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Somalia), Obama (Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen) and Trump (Syria and Yemen).

Since Mann wrote Incoherent Empire in 2003, the Military Giant has rampaged around the world waging wars that have killed millions of people and wrecked country after country.  But its unaccountable campaign of serial aggression has failed to bring peace or security to any of the countries it has attacked or invaded.  As even some members of the U.S. military now recognize, the mindless violence of the Military Giant serves no rational or constructive purpose, imperialist or otherwise.

Economic Back Seat Driver

In 2003, Michael Mann wrote that,

“The U.S. productive engine remains formidable, the global financial system providing its fuel.  But the U.S. is only a back-seat driver since it cannot directly control either foreign investors or foreign economies.”

Since 2003, the U.S. role in the global economy has declined further, now comprising only 22% of global economic activity, compared with 40% at the height of its economic dominance in the 1950s and 60s.  China is displacing the U.S. as the largest trading partner of countries around the world, and its “new silk road” initiatives are building the infrastructure to cement and further expand its role as the global hub of manufacturing and commerce.

The U.S. can still wield its financial clout as an arsenal of carrots and sticks to pressure poorer, weaker countries do what it wants.  But this is a far cry from the actions of an imperial power that actually rules far-flung territories and subjects on other continents.  As Mann put it, “Even if they are in debt, the U.S. cannot force reform on them.  In the global economy, it is only a back-seat driver, nagging the real driver, the sovereign state, sometimes administering sharp blows to his head.”

At the extreme, the U.S. uses economic sanctions as a brutal form of economic warfare that hurts and kills ordinary people, while generally inflicting less pain on the leaders who are their nominal target.  U.S. leaders claim that the pain of economic sanctions is intended to force people to abandon and overthrow their leaders, a way to achieve regime change without the violence and horror of war. But Robert Pape of the University of Chicago conducted an extensive study of the effects of sanctions and concluded that only 5 out of 115 sanctions regimes have ever achieved that goal.

When sanctions inevitably fail, they can still be useful to U.S. officials as part of a political narrative to blame the victims and frame war as a last resort.  But this is only a political ploy, not a legal pretext for war.

A secondary goal of all such imperial bullying is to make an example of the victims to put other weak countries on notice that resisting imperial demands can be dangerous.  The obvious counter to such strategies is for poorer, weaker countries to band together to resist imperial bullying, as in collective groupings like CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), and also in the UN General Assembly, where the U.S. often finds itself outvoted.

The dominant position of the U.S. and the dollar in the international financial system have given the U.S. a unique ability to finance its imperial wars and global military expansion without bankrupting itself in the process.  As Mann described in Incoherent Empire,

“In principle, the world is free to withdraw its subsidies to the U.S., but unless the U.S. really alienates the world and over-stretches its economy, this is unlikely.  For the moment, the U.S. can finance substantial imperial activity.  It does so carefully, spending billions on its strategic allies, however unworthy and oppressive they may be.”

The economic clout of the U.S. back-seat driver was tested in 2003 when it deployed maximum pressure on other countries to support its invasion of Iraq.  Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Guinea, Angola and Cameroon were on the Security Council at the time but were all ready to vote against the use of force.  It didn’t help the U.S. case that it had failed to deliver the “carrots” it promised to the countries who voted for war on Iraq in 1991, nor that the money it promised Pakistan for supporting its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 was not paid until the U.S. wanted its support again in 2003 over Iraq.

Mann concluded,

“An administration which is trying to cut taxes while waging war will not be able to hand out much cash around the world.  This back-seat driver will not pay for the gas.  It is difficult to build an Empire without spending money.”

Fifteen years later, remarkably, the wealthy investors of the world have continued to subsidize U.S. war-making by investing in record U.S. debt, and a deceptive global charm offensive by President Obama partially rebuilt U.S. alliances.  But the U.S. failure to abandon its illegal policies of aggression and war crimes have only increased its isolation since 2003, especially from countries in the Global South.  People all over the world now tell pollsters they view the U.S. as the greatest threat to peace in the world.

It is also possible that their U.S. debt holdings give China and other creditors (Germany?) some leverage by which they can ultimately discipline U.S. imperialism.  In 1956, President Eisenhower reportedly threatened to call in the U.K.’s debts if it did not withdraw its forces from Egypt during the Suez crisis, and there has long been speculation that China could exercise similar economic leverage to stop U.S. aggression at some strategic moment.

It seems more likely that boom and bust financial bubbles, shifts in global trade and investment and international opposition to U.S. wars will more gradually erode U.S. financial hegemony along with other forms of power.

Michael Mann wrote in 2003 that the world was unlikely to “withdraw its subsidies” for U.S. imperialism “unless the U.S. really alienates the world and over-stretches its economy.”  But that prospect seems more likely than ever in 2018 as President Trump seems doggedly determined to do both.

Political Schizophrenic

In its isolated fantasy world, the Political Schizophrenic is the greatest country in the world, the “shining city on a hill,” the land of opportunity where anyone can find their American dream.  The rest of the world so desperately wants what we have that we have to build a wall to keep them out.  Our armed forces are the greatest force for good that the world has ever known, valiantly fighting to give other people the chance to experience the democracy and freedom that we enjoy.

But if we seriously compare the U.S. to other wealthy countries, we find a completely different picture.  The United States has the most extreme inequality, the most widespread poverty, the least social and economic mobility and the least effective social safety net of any technologically advanced country.

America is exceptional, not in the imaginary blessings our Political Schizophrenic politicians take credit for, but in its unique failure to provide healthcare, education and other necessities of life to large parts of its population, and in its systematic violations of the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions and other binding international treaties.

If the U.S. was really the democracy it claims to be, the American public could elect leaders who would fix all these problems.  But the U.S. political system is so endemically corrupt that only a Political Schizophrenic could call it a democracy.  Former President Jimmy Carter believes that the U.S. is now ”just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery.  U.S. voter turnout is understandably among the lowest in the developed world.

Sheldon Wolin, who taught political science at Berkeley and Princeton for 40 years, described the actually existing U.S. political system as “inverted totalitarianism.”  Instead of abolishing democratic institutions on the “classical totalitarian” model, the U.S.’s inverted totalitarian system preserves the hollowed-out trappings of democracy to falsely legitimize the oligarchy and political bribery described by President Carter.

As Wolin explained, this has been more palatable and sustainable, and therefore more effective, than the classical form of totalitarianism as a means of concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a corrupt ruling class.

The corruption of the U.S. political system is increasingly obvious to Americans, but also to people in other countries.  Billion-dollar U.S.-style “elections” would be illegal in most developed countries, because they inevitably throw up corrupt leaders who offer the public no more than empty slogans and vague promises to disguise their plutocratic loyalties.

In 2018, U.S. party bosses are still determined to divide us along the artificial fault-lines of the 2016 election between two of the most unpopular candidates in history, as if their vacuous slogans, mutual accusations and plutocratic policies define the fixed poles of American politics and our country’s future.

The Political Schizophrenic’s noise machine is working overtime to stuff the alternate visions of Bernie Sanders, Jill Stein and other candidates who challenge the corrupt status quo down the “memory hole,” by closing ranks, purging progressives from DNC committees and swamping the airwaves with Trump tweets and Russiagate updates.

Ordinary Americans who try to engage with or confront members of the corrupt political, business and media class find it almost impossible.  The Political Schizophrenic moves in a closed and isolated social circle, where the delusions of his fantasy world or “political reality” are accepted as incontrovertible truths.  When real people talk about real problems and suggest real solutions to them, he dismisses us as naive idealists.  When we question the dogma of his fantasy world, he thinks we are the ones who are out of touch with reality.  We cannot communicate with him, because he lives in a different world and speaks a different language.

It is difficult for the winners in any society to recognize that their privileges are the product of a corrupt and unfair system, not of their own superior worth or ability.  But the inherent weakness of “inverted totalitarianism” is that the institutions of American politics still exist and can still be made to serve democracy, if and when enough Americans wake up from this Political Schizophrenia, organize around real solutions to real problems, and elect people who are genuinely committed to turning those solutions into public policy.

As I was taught when I worked with schizophrenics as a social worker, they tend to become agitated and angry if you question the reality of their fantasy world.  If the patient in question is also armed to the teeth, it is a matter of life and death to handle them with kid gloves.

The danger of a Political Schizophrenic armed with a trillion dollar a year war machine and nuclear weapons is becoming more obvious to more of our neighbors around the world as each year goes by.  In 2017, 122 of them voted to approve the new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

U.S. allies have pursued an opportunistic policy of appeasement, as many of the same countries did with Germany in the 1930s.  But Russia, China and countries in the Global South have gradually begun to take a firmer line, to try to respond to U.S. aggression and to shepherd the world through this incredibly dangerous transitional period to a multipolar, peaceful and sustainable world.  The Political Schizophrenic has, predictably, responded with propaganda, demonization, threats and sanctions, now amounting to a Second Cold War.

Ideological Phantom

During the First Cold War, each side presented its own society in an idealized way, but was more honest about the flaws and problems of its opposite number.  As a former East German now living in the U.S. explained to me,

“When our government and state media told us our society was perfect and wonderful, we knew they were lying to us.  So when they told us about all the social problems in America, we assumed they were lying about them too.”

Now living in the U.S., he realized that the picture of life in the U.S. painted by the East German media was quite accurate, and that there really are people sleeping in the street, people with no access to healthcare and widespread poverty.

My East German acquaintance came to regret that Eastern Europe had traded the ills of the Soviet Empire for the ills of the U.S. Empire.  Nobody ever explained to him and his friends why this had to be a “take it or leave it” neoliberal package deal, with “shock therapy” and large declines in living standards for most Eastern Europeans.  Why could they not have Western-style political freedom without giving up the social protections and standard of living they enjoyed before?

American leaders at the end of the Cold War lacked the wisdom and caution of their predecessors in 1945, and quickly succumbed to what Mikhail Gorbachev now calls “triumphalism.”  The version of capitalism and “managed democracy” they expanded into Eastern Europe was the radical neoliberal ideology introduced by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher and consolidated by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.  The people of Eastern Europe were no more or less vulnerable to neoliberalism’s siren song than Americans and Western Europeans.

The unconstrained freedom of ruling classes to exploit working people that is the foundation of neoliberalism has always been an Ideological Phantom, as Michael Mann called it, with a hard core of greed and militarism and an outer wrapping of deceptive propaganda.

So the “peace dividend” most people longed for at the end of the Cold War was quickly trumped by the “power dividend.”  Now that the U.S. was no longer constrained by the fear of war with the U.S.S.R., it was free to expand its own global military presence and use military force more aggressively.  As Michael Mandelbaum of the Council on Foreign Relations crowed to the New York Times as the U.S. prepared to attack Iraq in 1990,

“For the first time in 40 years we can conduct military operations in the Middle East without worrying about triggering World War III.”

Without the Cold War to justify U.S. militarism, the prohibition against the threat or use of military force in the UN Charter took on new meaning, and the Ideological Phantom embarked on an urgent quest for political rationales and propaganda narratives to justify what international law clearly defines as the crime of aggression.

Image result for albright + powell

Madeleine Albright and Colin Powell

During the transition to the incoming Clinton administration after the 1992 election, Madeleine Albright confronted General Colin Powell at a meeting and asked him,

“What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”

The correct answer would have been that, after the end of the Cold War, the legitimate defense needs of the U.S. required much smaller, strictly defensive military forces and a greatly reduced military presence around the world.  Former Cold Warriors, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and Assistant Secretary Lawrence Korb, told the Senate Budget Committee in 1989 that the U.S. military budget could safely be cut in half over 10 years.  Instead, it is now even higher than when they said that (after adjusting for inflation).

The U.S.’s Cold War Military Industrial Complex was still dominant in Washington.  All it lacked was a new ideology to justify its existence.  But that was just an interesting intellectual challenge, almost a game, for the Ideological Phantom.

The ideology that emerged to justify the U.S.’s new imperialism is a narrative of a world threatened by “dictators” and “terrorists,” with only the power of the U.S. military standing between the “free” people of the American Empire and the loss of all we hold dear.  Like the fantasy world of the Political Schizophrenic, this is a counter-factual picture of the world that only becomes more ludicrous with each year that passes and each new phase of the ever-expanding humanitarian and military catastrophe it has unleashed.

The Ideological Phantom defends the world against terrorists on a consistently selective and self-serving basis.  It is always ready to recruit, arm and support terrorists to fight its enemies, as in Afghanistan and Central America in the 1980s or more recently in Libya and Syria.  U.S. support for jihadis in Afghanistan led to the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil on September 11th 2001.

But that didn’t prevent the U.S. and its allies from supporting the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and other jihadis in Libya less than ten years later, leading to the Manchester Arena bombing by the son of an LIFG member in 2017.  And it hasn’t prevented the CIA from pouring thousands of tons of weapons into Syria, from sniper rifles to howitzers, to arm Al Qaeda-led fighters from 2011 to the present.

When it comes to opposing dictators, the Ideological Phantom’s closest allies always include the most oppressive dictators in the world, from Pinochet, Somoza, Suharto, Mbuto and the Shah of Iran to its newest super-client, Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.  In the name of freedom and democracy, the U.S. keeps overthrowing democratically elected leaders and replacing them with coup-leaders and dictators, from Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954 to Haiti in 2004, Honduras in 2009 and Ukraine in 2014.

Nowhere is the Ideological Phantom more ideologically bankrupt than in the countries the U.S. has dispatched its armed forces and foreign proxy forces to “liberate” since 2001: Afghanistan; Iraq; Libya; Syria; Somalia and Yemen.  In every case, ordinary people have been slaughtered, devastated and utterly disillusioned by the ugly reality behind the Phantom’s mask.

In Afghanistan, after 16 years of U.S. occupation, a recent BBC survey found that people feel safer in areas governed by the Taliban.  In Iraq, people say their lives were better under Saddam Hussein.  Libya has been reduced from one of the most stable and prosperous countries in Africa to a failed state ruled by competing militias, while Somalia, Syria and Yemen have met similar fates.

Incredibly, American ideologists in the 1990s saw the Ideological Phantom’s ability to project counter-factual, glamorized images of itself as a source of irresistible ideological power.  In 1997, Major Ralph Peters, who is better known as a best-selling novelist, turned his vivid imagination and skills as a fiction writer to the bright future of the Ideological Phantom in a military journal article titled “Constant Conflict.” 

Peters imagined an endless campaign of “information warfare” in which U.S. propagandists, aided by Hollywood and Silicon Valley, would overwhelm other cultures with powerful images of American greatness that their own cultures could not resist.

“One of the defining bifurcations of the future will be the conflict between information masters and information victims,” Peters wrote. “We are already masters of information warfare… (we) will be writing the scripts, producing (the videos) and collecting the royalties.”

But while Peters’ view of U.S. imperialism was based on media, technology and cultural chauvinism, he was not suggesting that the Ideological Phantom would conquer the world without a fight – quite the opposite. Peters’ vision was a war plan, not a futuristic fantasy.

“There will be no peace,” he wrote. “At any given moment for the rest of our lives, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the U.S. armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault.”

“To those ends,” he added, “We will do a fair amount of killing.”

Conclusion

After reviewing the early results of the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003, Michael Mann concluded,

 “We saw in action that the new imperialism turned into simple militarism.”

Without solid economic, political and ideological bases, the Military Giant lacks the economic, political and ideological power and authority required to govern the world beyond its shores. The Military Giant can only destroy and bring chaos, never rebuild or bring order.

The sooner the people of the U.S. and the world wake up to this dangerous and destructive reality, the sooner we can begin to lay the new economic, political and ideological foundations of a peaceful, just and sustainable world.

Like past aggressors, the Military Giant is sowing the seeds of his own destruction.  But there is only one group of people in the world who can peacefully tame him and cut him down to size.  That is us, the 323 million people who call ourselves Americans.

We have waited far too long to claim the peace dividend that our warmongering leaders stole from us after the end of the First Cold War. Millions of our fellow human beings have paid the ultimate price for our confusion, weakness and passivity.

Now we must be united, clear and strong as we begin the essential work of transforming our country from an Incoherent Empire into an Economic High-Speed Train to a Sustainable Future; a Real Political Democracy; an Ideological Humanitarian – and a Military Law-Abiding Citizen.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Empire Still Incoherent After All These Years

Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow

February 21st, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

He may have been a lyricist for the Grateful Dead, but a component of John Perry Barlow‘s activism and corpus will forever be associated with a concept fast losing its gloss: internet freedom.

“A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” had a certain founding father’s imperative, and, along with that added enthusiasm, a degree of misunderstanding.  Like the mind expansion experiences he shared with Timothy Leary during the 1960s, it had a psychedelic edge to it, an LSD doctrine of interactive space. 

Governments, for instance, would be left outside its perimeters.  Rather than partners and participants, they were deemed rapacious enemies.  Cyberspace was “the new home of Mind.” In that mind, states would let citizens be. “You are not welcome among us.  You have no sovereignty where we gather.” 

It was axiomatic that any such space be free, a “global social space” inimical to despots and regulators, “naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose upon us… Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us.  They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.”  

In Barlow, we had a figure envisaging what was to come, and, in some ways, what was sliding into history.  According to The Economist, he “embodied a vanishing America.  His lyrics, like his lifestyle, were a world of cowboys, nature and passions.” In WELL (Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link), he found a virtual community that nourished a wild west, frontier vision of engagement.  

For Tim Berners-Lee, the British computer scientist most closely associated with the invention of the World Wide Web,

“Barlow’s dreams are needed even more today, in 2018, than when he wrote that manifesto.  We’re a long, long way from the utopia of peace, love and understanding, and we need people more than ever to evangelize for technology, and for the good.” 

Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was effusive about the vision of “the Internet as a fundamental place for freedom, where voices long silenced can find an audience and people can connect with others regardless of physical distance.” 

Cohn is keen to disprove the assertion that Barlow was overly naïve about the transcendent properties of an all emancipating Internet.

“Barlow knew that new technology could create and empower evil as much as it could create and empower good.”  

On reflecting on his 1996 declaration, Barlow noted a tendency to “make a straw man” of the piece, hoisting it up “as the sort of woolly-headed hippie nonsense you’d expect from techno-utopians like me”.  He conceded to its flaws, but was happy to live with it. 

Such a noble dream, and one that, to a large extent, remained such.  In the 1990s, virtual communities sharing online content became the subject of police interest, notably in the area of copyright infringement or hacking.  With the co-founding of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, he announced the arrival of pioneering internet advocacy. 

Central to such debates is the concept of Internet neutrality, one that remains as realistic as total free market enterprise.  Neither exist per se.  Both, however, are the aspirational positions of activists and, horrendously at times, government entities that do quite the opposite.  Caught in between are the market forces that also threaten access and usability. 

In December last year, Federal Communications Chairman Ajit Pai led a coup against the Open Internet Order, a measure that effectively killed off the rules of net neutrality.  The move, ironically enough, was meant to restore rather than clip internet freedom. 

 “When you get past the wild accusations, fear-mongering and hysteria” his plan, claimed Pai before the conservative R-Street institute, would “return us to the light-touch, market-based approach under which the internet thrived.”  

Mammon, not governments, would be permitted free rein.  

Pro-neutrality groups are busying themselves with legal challenges, but such measures affirm the traditional hostilities states and corporate entities show when control, and sovereignty, are seemingly challenged.  Human behaviour, exercised freely and in cyberspace, is anarchic.  

Pai’s approach seems almost soft relative to the more authoritarian examples that dispel illusions that the net is a playground for the emancipated and free.  China, for instance, supplies a grimly appropriate example of this, regularly censoring user platforms and content that would otherwise be available on sites.  The world of virtual private networks has also come in for licensing while those advocating democratic principles in online formats are bound to face hefty jail terms.  As Freedom House’s report on the subject of internet regulation in that country goes, “China was the world’s worst abuser of internet freedom in Freedom on the Net for the third consecutive year.” 

Utopianism has its awkward place, though it is always doomed to fail.  At least Barlow dared to dream about possibilities, about a realm of engagement that would take place in a world without matter.  As he conceded in predicting a digital Utopia, he hoped “to give Liberty a running start before the laws of Moore and Metcalfe delivered up what Ed Snowden now correctly calls ‘turn-key totalitarianism’.” Technological aspiration, in short, can only live up, or down to, the aims of the user.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
  • Tags:

Syria reportedly agreed to the Kurdish PYD-YPG “federalist” militia’s request to enter Afrin and stop the Turks’ military advance, though it still remains to be seen whether Damascus will actually carry through on this decision or not.

There have been conflicting reports on this topic all across the past week, but the official “Syrian Arab News Agency” (SANA) confirmed that the “Popular Mobilization Units” (PMU) will deploy to the region in order to thwart the Turks, debunking earlier claims that the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) will directly do so instead.

Even so, this would b e a very dangerous development if it actually happens because it could quickly lead to the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) entering the fray in support of their pro-government partners and thus sparking a conventional state-to-state war with Turkey. Syria has every sovereign right to deploy its own forces and those of its allies anywhere within its territory, but taking a step back from principled idealism and soberly assessing the reality of the situation, this might not be the wisest decision at the moment.

The Turkish Foreign Minister warned in no uncertain terms that his country’s military forces will not be stopped by the SAA or its allied PMU if they intervene on behalf of the PYD-YPG “federal” Kurds that Ankara equates with the terrorist-designated PKK, and it’s very likely that the war-weary and completely exhausted Syrian military might be routed by the much more powerful Turks if “push comes to shove”. Not only that, but there’s close to no possibility that Russia would get involved in “saving Syria” either since its military mandate is strictly for anti-terrorist purposes and President Assad’s closest advisor Ms. Bouthaina Shaaban confirmed that Moscow withdrew all of its ground forces except for a few remaining aircraft.

Syria situation map Feb 12, 2018

In addition, Dr. Vitaly Naumkin – Russia’s premier Mideast expert and the man who’s playing a crucial role in organizing Moscow’s peacemaking efforts in Syria – wrote in the position paper released at the beginning of the prestigious Valdai Club’s two-day conference earlier this week that

part of the government elite may have greater hopes for military victory than the dividends that negotiations would eventually pay”.

This is the strongest statement yet of Moscow’s growing impatience with Damascus’ refusal to enter into the “compromises” that President Putin suggested that the authorities make back in November in order to facilitate an internationally brokered peace to the conflict. On top of that, Damascus rejected the outcome of the “Syrian National Dialogue Congress” just last week, which may have prompted Naumkin’s stark warning about so-called ‘hardliners’ who might prospectively impede the peace process.

Bearing in mind this high-level official’s words and the fact that Russia withdrew most of its military forces from Syria, as well as Moscow’s visibly growing dissatisfaction with the Syrian government’s procrastination on making any tangible progress towards a “political solution”, there are concrete grounds for predicting that Russia would not support the SAA if they enter into conflict with the Turks, further amplifying the existential risk that Damascus faces if it allows the Kurds to “play them like a fiddle” and falls for this disastrous scenario. It might be for this reason why the authorities never carried through on their implied threat to dispatch conventional military units to Afrin, begrudgingly realizing after President Putin’s phone call with President Erdogan that Russia would “hang them out to dry” as they initiate what might have amounted to an act of “national suicide”.

Nevertheless, the situation is still highly combustible right now and a larger war could break out at any time due to even the slightest miscalculation by the Syrian side, thus leaving the whole world watching with bated breath to see what happens next.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria’s Afrin Move: “Artful Assistance to Allies” or “Armageddon in the Making”?

The Palestinian People Are Not Fooled Anymore

February 21st, 2018 by Rima Najjar

As a Palestinian, I am skeptical about Mahmoud Abbas’s address, billed by the press as “Abbas delivers rare address at UNSC meeting, which calls for two states.

Whereas I believe that BDS goals can be achieved through more than one political accommodation, including a two-state scenario in historic Palestine as a solution to its violent partition in 1948, I am skeptical about the ability or will of the international order to achieve this end without compromising Palestinian fundamental human rights. Read my answer to ‘Why is it so difficult to reform the United Nations Security Council?’ here.

Abbas is addressing a world order impotent to stand up to Israel – one that is also committed to Israel’s Jewish national identity and to advancing its national security. They are the very same players who have, without question, deceived the Palestinian people throughout the long decades of Oslo.

As the ESCWA report on Israel’s Apartheid noted in the introduction,

“the policies, practices and measures applied by Israel to enforce a system of racial discrimination threaten regional peace and security. United Nation resolutions have long recognized that danger and called for resolution of conflict so as to restore and maintain peace and stability in the region.”

Recognition has yet to translate into action as far as the U.N. is concerned.

Additionally, instead of unifying all segments of the Palestinian people (who are fragmented as a condition imposed by Israel) behind the goal of liberation, Abbas is cooperating with Israel and its allies in the escalation of the deprivation of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip – in order to pressure them into relinquishing their political objectives.

Such political maneuvering on Abbas’s part has turned the goal of the Palestinian people, as Karma Nabulsi expressed it, on its head:

“The goal of Palestinians is to unify for the struggle to liberate their land and return to it, and to restore their inalienable human rights taken by force – principles enshrined in centuries of international treaties, charters, and resolutions, and in natural justice.”

The creation of a Jewish state in Palestine dispossessed Palestinian Arabs, against their will, of land and property, as well as of their fundamental right to self-determination in their own homeland in favor of self-determination for Jews worldwide.

In my opinion, without addressing Israel’s legitimacy as a Jewish state in Palestine, the Palestinian people are unlikely ever to achieve self-determination in their own homeland. The right of the Jewish people to self-determination in a state of their own is a right acknowledged internationally today, but one that must be challenged, if only from a demographic perspective in Palestine.

As Albert T. Clay wrote in the February 1921 issue of The Atlantic:

“A visit to some of the better established Jewish colonies will not fail to awaken sympathy for Economic Zionism. No unbiased observer of past events could think of throwing obstacles in the way of those Jews who, being persecuted in certain lands, prefer to live in a community solely Jewish; or who, through historical sentiment, long to reside in a purely Jewish cultural community in the land of their ancestors. Only an extremist would deny the gratification of their desires to as many of these people as can be accommodated; yet it must be borne in mind that, as estimated by experts, the tiny country can support only about a million and a half additional inhabitants; which number, if all were Jews, would represent only one tenth of the fifteen millions in the world.”

The Palestinians have never held the bargaining chips in their tragedy and might as well go for broke – ending the Apartheid Zionist colonial regime in all of historic Palestine. We have spent enough time agreeing to piecemeal “solutions” during the so-called peace process that achieved nothing but unspeakable inhumanity and suffering.

*

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank.

The Crisis of Social Democracy: From Norway to Europe

February 21st, 2018 by Asbjørn Wahl

The crisis of social democracy is being debated throughout Europe. Several of the historically strong labour parties have almost been wiped out in elections while others seem unable to recover from defeat. In the last few years, a number of social democratic parties have ended up with only one-digit election results (Greece, Ireland, Iceland, The Netherlands, France), while others have experienced major setbacks. The Norwegian Labour Party, for example, has experienced two of its worst elections – 2001 and 2017 – since the 1920s. Significant parts of the trade union movement believe that the party made serious blunders in what should have been an easy victory during last year’s parliamentary elections.

There is no doubt that social democracy is in a deep international crisis, although conditions vary widely between different countries. In Norway, this is neither about the deputy leader Trond Giske’s sexual abuse case, nor about the party leader Jonas Gahr Støre’s class background, nor about the army of party bureaucrats that has increasingly taken on roles as political actors in the party. These cases may be understood as symptoms of the crisis facing the party, but nothing more. If we really want to understand the crisis of the Labour Party, or more generally, of social democracy, we will have to go a little deeper into the current historical juncture.

Class Compromise at the Root of the Crisis

The dominant role of social democracy in much of 20th century Europe can hardly be understood without an analysis of how the economy and class relations developed during this period. Most important in this connection is the shift from confrontation to compromise in the relationship between the trade union and labour movement on one side and the employers/right-wing forces on the other. This historic compromise between labour and capital was the result of comprehensive class struggles that shifted the balance of power in favour of labour. [Ed.: see “The Rise and Fall of the Welfare State.”] Employers viewed such a compromise as a tactical step in order to dampen and counteract the radicalism of a strong and growing trade union movement. The compromise developed over time, but in Norway it was formalized through the first Collective Basic Agreement between the Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions (LO in Norwegian) and the Norwegian Employers’ Association in 1935. That same year the Labour Party, with support from the Peasants’ Party, was able to win government power for the first time. Those were decisive events for the political development in Norway.

With this compromise – as well as the depression of the 1930s, the defeat of fascism through World War II and the existence of another economic system in the East – the foundation was laid for the golden age of social democracy. It was a real compromise, which changed the balance of power and forced employers eventually to grant a number of concessions to the trade union and labour movement – including the acceptance of major political interventions in the market. Thus, the basis was laid for great social progress for workers. The welfare state developed. The Norwegian, or Nordic, model came into existence.

From its foundation in 1887 to the class compromise of 1935, the Labour Party had emerged as a party of social justice – with socialism as the long-term goal. The fact that there has always been disagreement on the left about social democracy’s strategy and tactics is not the main point here. The important thing in this context is that the party emerged as a real mass organization for workers. The class compromise, however, did not only contribute to social progress; it also proved to have unforeseen effects. The compromise itself, and the Labour Party’s central role in implementing it through policy, had a strong transformative effect on the party’s organization as well as its politics. This development constituted the material basis for a political-ideological transformation and a deradicalization of the party – among other things through the development of a social partnership ideology. In short, the party changed from being a mass organization for working people into an administrator of the class compromise. It is here we find the seeds of today’s crisis of social democracy.

The Norwegian Model and Transformation of the Labour Party

The so-called Norwegian model is the trueborn child of social partnership ideology. There is little disagreement that such a social model developed based on the compromise. How this model should be understood, is a completely different matter. While it came about as a result of a very specific historical development in the struggle between labour and capital, in the Labour Party’s understanding it was gradually delinked from this fundamental conflict of interest. For the employers, the class compromise was a tactical move to undermine a strong and socialist orientation in the labour movement. For social democracy, however, it appeared as a higher form of reason – a collective sense based on the fact that employers also understood that cooperation, rather than struggle, was in their interest,as Norwegian social democrats reiterate.

Based on this social partnership ideology, social democracy then developed a comprehensive understanding of society where the economy (capitalism) could be governed by political regulation and market interventions (Keynesianism). In this way, a regulated, crisis-free capitalism could be created, while mass unemployment, poverty and misery, as in the 1930s, were relegated to history. The class struggle itself was tamed, and in many ways reduced to an institutionalized, collegial rivalry such as the biannual collective agreement negotiations.

This entire understanding was put to the test when capitalism again went into a crisis in the 1970s. Oil crisis, currency crisis, commodity crisis – and finally a full-scale economic crisis – displaced the post-war period of economic growth and stability. The social democratic policy of intervention in and regulation of the markets (Keynesianism) no longer worked. Stagnation and inflation arose in parallel (stagflation) and unemployment increased. Such a crisis was in many ways contrary to the prevailing social theory and ideology of the Labour Party. So were also the reactions of the employers and the political right, as “collective reason” gave way to an ever-increasing offensive against trade unions and the welfare state. Neoliberalism became the answer to the crisis from the employers and the right wing – not class compromise and joint solutions. In other words, the consensus-oriented labour movement was taken by surprise by this offensive.

The transformation of social democracy – from being a mass organization for workers, to becoming an administrator of the class compromise – made them unable to meet the attacks. Compliance towards the neoliberal offensive became the answer. Gradually, social democratic parties adopted more and more of the neoliberal agenda themselves – with privatization, deregulation and restructuring of the public sector to market-oriented New Public Management-inspired organizational and management models. This contributed further to strengthening neoliberalism within the Labour Party, as a large part of the state bureaucratic layer, which carried out this transformation, and where many ended up as well-paid directors, with strong self-interests, belonged to it. Thus, the party’s social basis was changed, something which makes it very difficult to turn or change its direction.

In fact, it is not a simple task to change a political organization. There are strong social, economic and political interests involved – as well as careerism, of course.

However, it is not just social democracy that struggles today. Both of the two main forces in the European post-war political landscape are experiencing formidable problems and major political turbulence. In a number of western European countries, the struggle between social democrats and so-called socially responsible conservative parties was dominant, and they often swapped positions. Both were linked to class compromises in different forms, and these characterized their policies. Now, however, the economic and political power relations have changed. The historical compromise between labour and capital has largely broken down, although the process is slower in the Nordic countries than in the rest of Europe.

The Resolution to the Crisis Lies in Building a Real Left Alternative

It is therefore not only the crisis of social democracy we are experiencing; it is the post-war political model in Europe, based on the historical class compromise, which is breaking down. In the first phase of this political crisis, new far-right parties emerged – viz Front National in France, the so-called freedom parties in Austria and the Netherlands, and the Progress Party in Norway. The lack of any alternative from social democratic and left-wing parties means they must take their share of responsibility for this development. They had no policy to take on the neoliberalist attacks on the social gains that had been won through the welfare state. In recent years, however, we have seen that new political alternatives have started to grow also on the left (Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, Momentum in the UK, and the newly established Power to the People in Italy). These are young and incomplete initiatives, which can fail (like Syriza) or succeed, but in any case will further develop through struggles and experiences, victories and defeats.

There is little evidence that the Labour Party will be able to transform itself into what we need as a liberating force in the current situation. The social basis for radical renewal is too weak and organizational barriers too strong. It is also a question what it means to rebuild social democracy. The thesis of a late Norwegian party ideologist, that “socialism is the policy that the Labour Party is pursuing at any time” is hardly enough. As social problems are increasing and ever more people are feeling insecure and unsafe, any party of the left will need to have more radical alternatives, visions and solutions – very different from the political centre or the right.

In the absence of real alternatives, parties of the existing social democratic order will probably still be able to win elections without any deeper transformation – when frustrated voters move from one political option to another as they realize that election promises are broken. This should hardly lead to any relief among leaders of contemporary, crisis-ridden social democratic parties. A growing number of workers, and young people in particular, have started to demand more radical solutions.

Or, as Antonio Gramsci famously said:

“The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

*

Asbjørn Wahl is the director of the Campaign for the Welfare State, an adviser for the Norwegian Union of Municipal and General Employees, and the Vice President of the Road Transport Workers’ Section of the International Transport Workers’ Federation. He is the author of The Rise and Fall of the Welfare State.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Crisis of Social Democracy: From Norway to Europe

Russiagate Suddenly Becomes Bigger

February 21st, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

It’s hard to know where to begin. Last Friday’s indictment of 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was detailed in a 37 page document that provided a great deal of specific evidence claiming that a company based in St. Petersburg, starting in 2014, was using social media to assess American attitudes. Using that assessment, the company inter alia allegedly later ran a clandestine operation seeking to influence opinion in the United States regarding the candidates in the 2016 election in which it favored Donald Trump and denigrated Hillary Clinton. The Russians identified by name are all back in Russia and cannot be extradited to the U.S., so the indictment is, to a certain extent, political theater as the accused’s defense will never be heard.

In presenting the document, Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, stressed that there was no evidence to suggest that the alleged Russian activity actually changed the result of the 2016 presidential election or that any actual votes were altered or tampered with. Nor was there any direct link to either the Russian government or its officials or to the Donald Trump campaign developed as a result of the nine-month long investigation. There was also lacking any mention in the indictment of the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton and Podesta e-mails, so it is to be presumed that the activity described in the document was unrelated to the WikiLeaks disclosures.

Those of the “okay, there’s smoke but where’s the fire” school of thought immediately noted the significant elephant in the room, namely that the document did not include any suggestion that there had been collusion between Team Trump and Moscow. As that narrative has become the very raison d’etre driving the Mueller investigation, its omission is noteworthy. Meanwhile, those who see more substance in what was revealed by the evidence provided in the indictment and who, for political reasons, would like to see Trump damaged, will surely be encouraged by their belief that the noose is tightening around the president.

Assuming the indictment is accurate, I would agree that the activity of the Internet Research Agency does indeed have some of the hallmarks of a covert action intelligence operation in terms how it used some spying tradecraft to support its organization, targeting and activity. But its employees also displayed considerable amateur behavior, suggesting that they were not professional spies, supporting the argument that it was not a government intelligence operation or an initiative under Kremlin control. And beyond that, so what? Even on a worst-case basis, stirring things up is what intelligence agencies do, and no one is more active in interfering in foreign governments and elections than the United States of America, most notably in Russia for the election of Boris Yeltsin in 1996, which was arranged by Washington, and more recently in Ukraine in 2014. From my own experience I can cite Italy’s 1976 national election in which the CIA went all out to keep the communists out of government. Couriers were discreetly dispatched to the headquarters of all the Italian right wing parties dropping off bags of money for “expenses” while the Italian newspapers were full of articles written by Agency-paid hacks warning of the dangers of communism. And this all went on clandestinely even though Italy was a democracy, an ally and NATO member.

Image on the right is Rod Rosenstein

Image result for rod rosenstein

Does that mean that Washington should do nothing in response? No, not at all. Russia, if the indictment is accurate, may have run an influencing operation and gotten caught with its hand in the cookie jar. Or maybe not. And Washington might also actually have information suggesting that Russia is preparing to engage in further interference in the 2018 and 2020 elections, as claimed by the heads of the intelligence agencies, though, as usual, evidence for the claim is lacking. There has to be bilateral, confidential discussion of such activity between Washington and Moscow and a warning given that such behavior will not be tolerated in the future, but only based on irrefutable, solid evidence. The leadership in both countries should be made to understand very clearly that there are more compelling reasons to maintain good bilateral working relations than not.

With that in mind, it is important not to overreact and to base any U.S. response on the actual damage that was inflicted. The indictment suggests that Russia is out to destroy American democracy by promoting “distrust” of government as well as sowing “discord” in the U.S. political system while also encouraging “divisiveness” among the American people. I would suggest in Russia’s defense that the U.S. political system is already doing a good job at self-destructing and the difficult-to-prove accusations being hurled at Moscow are the type one flings when there is not really anything important to say.

I would suggest that Moscow might well want to destroy American democracy but there is no evidence in the indictment to support that hypothesis. I particularly note that the document makes a number of assumptions which appear to be purely speculative for which it provides no evidence. It describes the Russian company Internet Research Agency as “engaged in operations to interfere with elections and political processes.” Its employees were involved in

“interference operations targeting the United States. From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016.”

The theme of Russian subversion is repeated throughout the indictment without any compelling evidence to explain how Mueller knows what he asserts to be true, suggesting either that the document would have benefited from a good editor or that whoever drafted it was making things up. Internet Research Agency allegedly “conduct[ed] what it called ‘information warfare against the United States of America’ through fictitious U.S. personas on social media platforms and other Internet-based media.” The indictment goes on to assert that

“By in or around May 2014, the ORGANIZATION’s strategy included interfering with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, with the stated goal of ‘spread[ing] distrust towards the candidates and the political system in general’”

with a

“strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Defendants posted derogatory information about a number of candidates, and by early to mid-2016, Defendants’ operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump (“Trump Campaign”) and disparaging Hillary Clinton. Defendants made various expenditures to carry out those activities, including buying political advertisements on social media in the name of U.S. persons and entities. Defendants also staged political rallies inside the United States, and while posing as U.S. grassroots entities and U.S. persons, and without revealing their Russian identities and ORGANIZATION affiliation, solicited and compensated real U.S. persons to promote or disparage candidates. Some Defendants, posing as U.S. persons and without revealing their Russian association, communicated with unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign and with other political activists to seek to coordinate political activities.”

Two company associates

“traveled in and around the United States, including stops in Nevada, California, New Mexico, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, and New York to gather intelligence. After the trip, [they] exchanged an intelligence report regarding the trip. The conspiracy had as its object the opening of accounts under false names at U.S. financial institutions and a digital payments company in order to receive and send money into and out of the United States to support the ORGANIZATION’s operations in the United States and for self-enrichment. Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts, including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349.”

Note particularly the money laundering and for-profit aspects of the Internet Research scheme, something that would be eschewed if it were an actual intelligence operation. There is some speculation that it all might have been what is referred to as a click-bait commercial marketing scheme set up to make money from advertising fees. Also note how small the entire operation was. It focused on limited social media activity while spending an estimated $1 million on the entire venture, with Facebook admitting to a total of $100,000 in total ad buys, only half of which were before the election. It doesn’t smell like a major foreign government intelligence/influence initiative intended to “overthrow democracy.” And who attended the phony political rallies? How many votes did the whole thing cause to change? Impossible to know, but given a campaign in which billions were spent and both fake and real news were flying in all directions, one would have to assume that the Russian effort was largely a waste of time if it indeed was even as described or serious in the first place.

And apart from the money laundering aspect of the alleged campaign was it even illegal apart from the allegations of possible visa fraud and money laundering? If the Russians involved were getting their financial support from the Moscow government then it would be necessary to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938, but if not, they would be protected by the Constitution and have the same First Amendment right to express their opinions of Hillary Clinton on blogs and websites while also associating with others politically as do all other residents of the United States. Many of the commenters on this Unz site are foreign and are not required either by law or custom to state where they come from.

And, of course, there is one other thing. There always is. One major media outlet is already suggesting that there could be consequences for American citizens who wittingly or unwittingly helped the Russians, identified in the indictment as “persons known and unknown.” A former federal prosecutor put it another way, saying “While they went to great pains to say they are not indicting any Americans today, if I was an American and I did cooperate with Russians I would be extremely frightened…” Politico speculates that “Now, a legal framework exists for criminal charges against Americans…” and cites a former U.S. district attorney’s observation that “Think of a conspiracy indicting parties known and unknown’ as a Matroyshka doll. There are many more layers to be successively revealed over time.”

Under normal circumstances, an American citizen colluding with a foreign country would have to be convicted of engaging in an illegal conspiracy, which would require being aware that the foreigners were involved in criminal behavior and knowingly aiding them. But today’s overheated atmosphere in Washington is anything but normal. Russia’s two major media outlets that operate in the U.S., Sputnik and RT America, have been forced to register under FARA. Does that mean that the hundreds of American citizens who appeared on their programs prior to the 2016 election to talk about national politics will be next in line for punishment? Stay tuned.

*

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is www.councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected].

Featured image is from the author.

Over the course of Trump’s first year in office a total of 112 people died in 10 separate mass shooting events. The list includes the nation’s deadliest attack in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017 which claimed 58 lives and injured over 800 victims.

These findings are rather acute for a President who ran on a pro-gun platform. Trump’s embrace of America’s biggest gun lobbying group, the National Rifle Association (NRA), was demonstrated in his speech last April where he became first President to publicly address the group since Ronald Reagan in 1983.

The advent of Trump’s Presidency followed one of the biggest booms in gun sales in American history. According to a Forbes report published in 2016, Obama’s tenure as President pushed firearm sales to a growth of 158%.[1] More than 157 million National Instant Criminal Background Checks (NICS), (a necessary procedure in most states for the procurement of firearms) were submitted between 2009-2016, a 45% increase over the Bush administration years.[2] Though the NICS statistics don’t provide the most accurate indicator for gun purchases, (since the data doesn’t account for rejected applications or where a person buys multiple firearms under one check), it is considered a worthy proxy for American domestic gun sales.

The reasons for the massive growth in gun sales during the Obama administration have been attributed to public fears for the tightening of gun laws. Media coverage of national debates on gun restrictions, spurred by the aftermath of mass shootings, have shown to prompt increases in gun purchases. A research study in California which tracked hand gun sales concluded that after the Newtown massacre in 2012 and the San Bernadino shooting in 2015 there was a noticeable spike in sales. The study also found that the “expected volume” across the state of California amounted to a 53% increase in handgun purchases after Newtown and 41% more handguns after San Bernadino.[3]

Despite the nod to pro-gun advocates, Trump’s promise to safeguard the interests of the Second Amendment has led to the first significant drop in NICS submissions in 14 years. As a result, major gun companies, such as Smith & Wesson and Sturm Ruger have both posted declining third quarter growth figures for July 2017 by 40% and 22% respectively.[4] This follows the latest announcement from fellow gun manufacturer Remington Outdoor, that it was filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Coined the “Trump Slump,” the systemic decline in gun sales in 2017 has underlined an ironic phenomenon of the American gun market.

Both the Vegas shooting and the massacre that befell parishioners at the Baptist church in Sutherland Springs, Texas less than six weeks later, where 25 people were killed, (making it the 5th largest mass shooting in American history) did not prompt similar increases in gun sales as witnessed during the Obama era. This is also in the view that many of these victims were white and predominately Republican voters. It is worth noting that another occurrence was the Congressional baseball shooting in June 2017 where a gunman opened fire on several US Republican congressmen. None were killed.

This begs the question. In an era of continued heightened fear, why haven’t recent events provided the same incentive for increased gun sales, especially considering that the victims appear to be hailing from pro-gun Republican demographics?

The most obvious answer is that a pro-gun President like Trump does not ferment fears of future gun law restrictions exhibited by the previous administration. Ironically Obama, who made it a priority in his second term, never signed any measures that placed restrictions on gun owners. It was the habits of the Mass Media to over-saturate mass shootings events, which placed Obama’s threats at gun reform into the forefront.

So why then all the fuss from the gun manufacturers? The overall decrease in gun sales, while significant, doesn’t necessarily set an moribund trend for the industry. In fact, 2017 is still considered a strong year judging by historical standards.

It seems likely that the gun industry has been exaggerating or possibly embellishing their demise in order to gain attention. Similar cry wolf tactics had been used previously by defence contractors following the signing of the Budget Control Act in 2011 which placed a budget cap on the Pentagon.

Gun manufacturers like Smith & Wesson and Remington Outdoor are no doubt signalling the administration that a form of gun promoting legislation to prompt firearm sales is warranted. Whether it is through policies designed to promote responsible gun ownership or because of the recent school shooting in Florida, another threat towards gun control legislation similar to the attempts made by Obama, President Trump will need to pacify the concerns of the companies that employ much of his voting base.

*

Andre Bermont is a freelance writer and Editor-in-Chief for www.cuibononews.com. Andre can be reached at [email protected]

Notes

[1] Miniter, Frank, “The Gun Industry Says It Has Grown 158% Since Obama Took Office,” Forbes, April 12, 2016. https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2016/04/12/the-gun-industry-says-it-has-grown-158-since-obama-took-office/#79c190ac7f4e 

[2] NICS Firearm Background Checks: Month/Year, FBI Official Website, https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year.pdf/view 

[3] Studdert, David, “Handgun Acquisition After Two Mass Shootings,” Annals on Internal Medicine, May 2, 2017. http://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2624284/handgun-acquisitions-california-after-two-mass-shootings 

[4] Mukherjee, Sy, “Why Donald Trump is Bad for Gun Sales,” Fortune, September 11, 2017. http://fortune.com/2017/09/11/trump-gun-sales-decline/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s First Year Ends in Twice as Many Mass Shootings Than Obama’s!
  • Tags:

The Coming Wars to End All Wars

February 21st, 2018 by Edward Curtin

“The compulsive hatred of Putin by many who have almost zero idea about Putin or Russian history is disproportionate to any rational analysis, but not surprising. Trump and Putin are like weird doppelgangers in the liberal imagination.” – John Steppling, “Trump, Putin, and Nikolas Cruz Walk into a Bar”

The Trump and Netanyahu governments have a problem: How to start a greatly expanded Middle-Eastern war without having a justifiable reason for one.  No doubt they are working hard to solve this urgent problem.  If they can’t find a “justification” (which they can’t), they will have to create one (which they will).  Or perhaps they will find what they have already created.  Whatever the solution, we should feel confident that they are not sitting on their hands. History teaches those who care to learn that when aggressors place a gun on the wall in the first act of their play, it must go off in the final act.

These sinister players have signaled us quite clearly what they have in store.  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.  As always, the media play along as if they don’t yet know what’s coming.  Everyone in the know knows what is, just not exactly when.  Andthe media wait with baited breath as they count down to the dramatic moment when they can report the incident that will compel the “innocent” to attack the “guilty.”

Anyone with half a brain can see the greatly increased anti-Russian propaganda of the past few weeks.  This has happened as the Russia-gate claims have fallen to pieces, as former CIA analyst Raymond McGovern, the late Robert Parry, Paul Craig Roberts, and others have documented so assiduously. All across the media spectrum, from the big name corporate stenographers like The New York Times, CNN, National Public Radio, The Washington Post to The Atlantic and Nation magazines and other “leftist” publications such as Mother Jones and Who What Why, the Russia and Putin bashing has become hysterical in tone, joined as it is with an anti-Trump obsession, as if Trump were a dear friend of Putin and Russia and wasn’t closely allied with the Netanyahu government in its plans for the Middle-East. As if Trump were in charge. “Russia Sees Midterm Elections as a Chance to Sow Fresh Discord (NY Times, 2/13), “Russia Strongman” (Putin) has “pulled off one of the greatest acts of political sabotage in modern history (The Atlantic, Jan. /Feb. 2018), “”Mueller’s Latest Indictment Shows Trump Has Helped Putin Cover Up a Crime” (Mother Jones, 2/16/18), “A Russian Sightseeing Tour For Realists” (whowhatwhy.com, 2/7/18), etc.

I am reminded of the turn to the right that so many “muckrakers” made during and after WW I.  Afraid of a revolt from below, bewitched by their own vision to articulate the world’s future, heady over their own war propaganda, and wanting to be on the safe side of the government crackdown on dissent (The Espionage Act, the Palmer Raids, etc.), many progressives of the era embraced a jingoism similar to the anti-Russia mania of today.

Only someone totally lacking a sense of humor and blind to propaganda would not laugh uproariously at today’s media nonsense about Russia, but such laughter would be infused with a foreboding awareness that as the Middle East explodes and U.S./NATO backed Kiev forces prepare to attack the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, the world is entering a very dangerous period.  And of course Trump has said, “The U.S. has great strength and patience but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.”  Totally destroy 26 million human beings.  While his bully buddy in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, recently said at the Munich Security Conference that Iran is “the greatest threat to the world,” compared it to Nazi Germany, and claimed it was developing ballistic missiles to strike deep into the United States.  “Iran seeks to dominate our region, the Middle East, and seeks to dominate the world through aggression and terror,” he said.  And he vowed to act against Iran and anyone who supported it – i.e. Lebanon and Syria (Russia).

Putin also, like all the mythic bogeymen, is portrayed as the new Hitler intent on conquering the world.  If the American public wasn’t so “sophisticated” and adept at seeing through lies – pause and laugh – we could expect some World War I posters with Russian soldiers (like The Huns), sharp teeth glistening, gorilla strong and beastly, holding American women in preparation for the kill or rape.  Last year, when Oliver Stone did the world the great service of releasing his four-part interview with Putin, he was bashed, of course.  Just as he was with his film JFK, the only movie in history to be reviewed and panned one year before its release by a Washington Post reviewer who didn’t see the movie but had a purloined preliminary script as his source.  The Washington Post:the object of the latest film drivel, The Post, portraying it falsely as the savior of the nation through the publication of the Pentagon Papers (which is another story).  The Washington Post – the CIA’s dear friend.

In his Putin interviews, Oliver Stone, a man of truth and honor, lets viewers catch a glimpse of the real Vladimir Putin.  Of course Putin is a politician and the leader of a great and powerful nation, and one should receive his words skeptically. But watching Stone interview Putin for four hours, one comes away – but I doubt few have watched the four hours –with a reasonably good sense of the man.  And putting aside one’s impressions of him, he makes factual points that should ring loud and clear to anyone conversant with facts.  One: that the U.S. needs an external enemy (“I know that, I feel that.”). Two: the U.S.A. engineered the coup d’état in the Ukraine on Russia’s border.  Three: the U.S. has surrounded Russia with US/NATO troops and bases armed with anti-ballistic missiles that can, as Putin rightly says to Stone, be converted in hours to regular offensive nuclear missile aimed at Russia.  This is a factual and true statement that should make any fair-minded person stand up in horror.  If Russia had such missiles encircling the United States from Cuba, Mexico, and Canada, what American would find it tolerable?  What would CNN and The New York Times have to say?  Yet these same people readily find it impossible to see the legitimacy in Russia’s position, resorting to name calling and illogical rhetoric. Russia is surrounded with U.S/NATO troops and missiles and yet Russia is the aggressor.  So too Iran that is also surrounded. These media are propagandists, that’s why.  They promote war, as they always have.  They are pushing for war with Russia via Syria/Lebanon/Iran and Ukraine, and they are nihilistically demonizing North Korea (as part of Obama’s pivot toward Asia and the encircling of China, as John Pilger has brilliantly documented in his film The Coming War on China) in what can only be called a conspiracy to commit genocide, as Dr. Graeme MacQueen and Christopher Black make clear in their Open Letter to the International Criminal Court.

We are moving toward a global war that will become nuclear if an international ant-war movement doesn’t quickly arise to stop it. Most people bemoan the thought of such a war to end all wars, but refuse to analyze the factors leading to it. It happens step-by-step, and many steps have already been taken with more coming soon. It’s so obvious that most can’t see it, or don’t want to.  The corporate main stream media are enemies of the truth; are clearly part of the continuation of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, and those who still rely on them for the truth are beyond reach. Douglas Valentine, in The CIA as Organized Crime, says the CIA has long aimed to use and co-opt the “Compatible Left, which in America translates into liberals and pseudo-intellectual status seekers who are easily influenced.” And he adds that the propaganda is not just produced by the CIA but by the military, State Department, and red, white, and blue advertisements that are everywhere.  Nothing has changed since the Church Committee hearings in the 1970s. Valentine adds:

All of that is ongoing, despite being exposed in the late 1960s.  Various technological advances, including the internet, have spread the network around the world, and many people don’t even realize they are part of it, that they’re promoting the CIA line.  “Assad’s a butcher,” they say, or “Putin kills journalists,” or “China is repressive.  They have no idea what they’re talking about but spout all this propaganda.

William Blake said it truly:

In every cry of every Man,
In every Infants cry of fear,
In every voice: in every ban,
The mind-forg’d manacles I hear

How to break the chains – that is our task.

*

Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely.  He teaches sociology at MassachusettsCollege of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Coming Wars to End All Wars

This article was originally published on July 31, 2015.

How are autism and cancer related? Two internationally known doctors may have lost their lives, because they knew about the connection between these two diseases.

Dr. Jeffrey Bradstreet, MD, an alternative autism specialist, and Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, MD, an alternative cancer specialist, saw the truth and were willing to step outside of the standard allopathic medical model for treating cancer and autism. They were pioneers in their respective fields and both recently died or perhaps were killed because of their successful treatments of sick, suffering and dying patients.

Death of Dr. Bradstreet

On June 19, 2015, Dr. Bradstreet reportedly shot himself in the chest after his offices were raided by U.S. FDA agents and State of Georgia law enforcement agents. Three days before his death, agents exercised a search warrant to gather information about the use of GcMAF with autistic patients in his clinic. [1]

Human GcMAF holds great promise in the treatment of various illnesses including cancer, autism, chronic fatigue and possibly Parkinson’s. Since 1990, 59 research papers have been published on GcMAF, 20 of these pertaining to the treatment of cancer. [2] 46 of these papers can be accessed through the GcMAF website. [3]

Dr. Bradstreet speaking at a conference. Image from Facebook page – Remembering Dr. Bradstreet.

When agents from the USFDA and local state of Georgia law enforcement raided Dr. Bradstreet’s clinic, they had a very specific agenda – they were after everything they could find pertaining to GcMAF. The search warrant stated in part that agents were to gather all Globulin component Macrophage Activating Factor (GcMAF), GCGlobulin, and/or any other products or component substances thereof that constitute misbranded drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

They were to collect all records, in whatever form, associated with the use of GcMAF. This included patient records.

Here is a link to the complete search warrant.

GcMAF is a Substance Produced in the Human Body

GcMAF is not a drug, but a natural substance produced in the human body. GcMAF was being produced in Europe and Dr. Bradstreet was using it with his patients. He was conducting clinical experiments the results of which were published in scientific medical journals. [4]

Scientific medical research is also being done on GcMAF for the treatment of terminal cancer. The results are very promising. [5]

Death of Dr. Gonzalez

On July 21, 2015 Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez died. The cause of death was indicated as a heart attack. At the time of this writing, results from an autopsy have yet to be published. He was reported to be in good health. [6, 7]

Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez. Image from Dr-Gonzalez.com.

Would a healthy man who understood how diet could be used to prevent, reverse and cure disease be someone who was likely to have a heart attack? Was his heart attack just a natural occurrence, or could it have been caused by an external intervention?

In 1975, testimony before the U.S. Congress indicated that a weapon had been developed to shoot a projectile into a victim without the victim’s knowledge, which would introduce a nearly undetectable substance into the body that would cause a heart attack. The victim would be killed without the telltale evidence of normal bloody assignation. [8] How much more sophisticated weaponry has been developed in the last 40 years since that testimony? Are there new ways to permanently silence doctors who stand alone on the outside of conventional medicine and who will not be quiet about the truth they see?

Are the causes of death for these two very well-known alternative medicine doctors coincidental? Are we being told the truth? Is there a connection between their research and their deaths? Was there research about to cut a large hole in the cancer treatment business and the vaccine business? Let’s take a closer look at GcMAF.

The Power of GcMAF to Cure Modern Diseases

What if there was a simple treatment that could reverse all forms of cancer without radiation, chemotherapy, or surgery? What if it was an unpatentable natural substance produced by the human body and could be given to boost the human immune system to such a degree that it could eradicate cancer from the body without side effects? What if that same substance could be given to autistic children and 85% of them would experience improvement in their autism and many would be completely cured? Wouldn’t that be wonderful!

Most people would think so, but there are many major corporations who would see such a substance as a major threat to their financial prosperity. It would be a major threat to the cancer treatment industry, the cancer drug manufacturing industry, and the vaccine manufacturing industry.

Many believe that substance exists and is called GcMAF. Its technical names are “group specific component macrophage activating factor” or “Vitamin D binding protein macrophage activating factor.” It is not a miracle drug – it is simply part of the human immune system. GcMAF reportedly activates special cells called macrophages in the human body that have the ability to destroy cancer cells and viruses. GcMAF reportedly also has the ability to treat and often completely cure autism. The connection between cancer and autism is GcMAF.

Nagalase Inhibits the Power of GcMAF to fight Cancer and Autism

The ability of GcMAF to do its normal job can be inhibited by the presence of a protein called alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase or nagalase for short. Nagalase is made by all cancer cells and viruses (HIV, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, herpes, Epstein-Barr virus, and others). [9]

When a person has cancer or a viral infection, the levels of nagalase increase and can be measured to assess the level of cancer or viral activity in the body. [10]

Nagalase blocks production of GcMAF, thus preventing the immune system from doing its job. The macrophages are still present in the body, but the nagalase prevents them from waking up and becoming active. This means that cancer and viral infections can grow unchecked while macrophages sleep. [11]

Nagalase and Autism

We also know that the levels of nagalase are elevated in children with autism. What is interesting here is that these children do not have cancer or life-threatening viral infections. In their case, the level of nagalase is elevated and is directly linked to symptoms of the autism spectrum. The result of the immune suppression caused by nagalase is seen in digestive disorders, sensory overload, and numerous types of processing dysfunction in the brain. Higher levels of nagalase are associated with higher levels of autistic symptoms.

Some autistic children do have high viral loads in their digestive system, which would explain the elevated nagalase. However, this is not always the case. If autistic children don’t have cancer or viral infections, then what is the source of their elevated nagalase levels? If nagalase wasn’t made in their bodies by cancer cells or viruses, then how did it get into the bodies of infants and young children?

Is Nagalase an Ingredient in Vaccines?

According to an informant who wishes to remain anonymous for reasons of personal safety, Dr. Bradstreet and other alternative medical researchers came to understand that nagalase is being introduced into the bodies of people who receive vaccinations. Dr. Bradstreet understood that people have different reactions to nagalase, and a small percentage of people do not experience suppression of their immune systems. However, for the majority, there is dangerous immune system suppression, which opens the door to cancer and autism. [12]

Were These Doctors about to Reveal the Truth about GcMAF and Nagalase?

Were Dr. Bradstreet and Dr Gonzalez about to explain to the public that one of the key causes of cancer and autism is nagalase, which is being injected into the body as a part of vaccines? [13] Is it possible that those who claim that they are preventing communicable diseases are actually creating cancer and autism? We will likely never know about their plans for disclosure – we can only wonder!

Was Dr. Bradstreet simply so upset over what the United States government did to his clinic that he just got depressed and took his own life? Was he just a quack who was out to fleece the parents of autistic children as the mainstream media suggest? Did he really kill children as some allege? [14]

Dr. Jeff Bradstreet – Image from YouTube.

Dr. Bradstreet was Planning to Make an Announcement about GcMAF

Dr. Bradstreet spoke at the 2015 AutismOne Conference in May of this year. He spoke about GcMAF toward the end of his hour long presentation. He made note of the fact that he had certain important announcements about this therapy that would be released in the near future. Whatever they were, he apparently didn’t live long enough to make them.

During his presentation, Dr. Bradstreet provided an introduction to the therapies that were provided by his clinic, and provided an explanation of how they help restore normal health to autistic children.

He specifically stated:

GcMAF products influence the endocannabinoid pathway. GcMAF has been one of the most powerful tools that I have ever used for autism. How many of you were GcMAF responders and thought it was amazing? How many of you are really pissed off that it is no longer available? I have a little announcement about that coming too. [15]

You may wish to listen to Dr. Bradstreet describe his clinical activities. This lecture was recorded a month before his death. Does this sound like a man who would crumble under pressure from the FDA?

What about the Other Suspicious Deaths of Doctors?

Various reports from Florida and other U.S. locations reveal that a number of alternative health doctors have been found dead or have gone missing without a trace. These events have occurred during the month that separated the deaths of Dr. Bradstreet and Dr. Gonzalez — June 19th through July 21st. [16]

Disinformation websites have already popped up and have begun to paint pictures in the mind of readers that all this is coincidence and the deaths of these nine doctors had nothing to do with their work. They insist that these events are all unrelated.

The available information about the other deaths is limited. It is hard to judge those situations, because the information about the work of these doctors and their deaths or disappearances is sketchy.

One thing, however, is true – these events create an image in the minds of alternative healthcare providers and their patients that we are entering into a new era of concern, where death may be a real consequence for those who dare to speak out in opposition to big pharma, the dominant conventional healthcare system, and the U.S. regulatory system that is controlled by international mega corporations.

Conventional Media Sources Specialize in Cursing Dead Doctors They Brand as “Quacks”

Conventional media reports of Dr. Bradstreet’s death paint a picture of quackery. They quickly apply the label “paranoid” to anyone who raises questions about the possibility of murder and conspiracy concerning his death and the growing list of dead doctors.

There is clear reason to be concerned. We are now living in an time when the pharmaceutical industry has just about taken total control over the healthcare system, just as the chemical industry has just about seized control over the food supply. How long will it be until the most vocal opponents to corporate domination of healthcare are simply driven out of the United States, or simply silenced under mysterious circumstances? It is a time for alternative minded doctors to become more vocal, and not to be silenced out of fear. It is a time for patients and their doctors to speak the truth about how our conventional healthcare system is killing far more people than it is helping.

A New Day for Health and Healing

There are some people who may not be affected by the nagalase in vaccines. However, for the majority, this substance is suppressing their immune system each time they receive a vaccine. [17] Some infants and children develop autism spectrum disorders as a result, and other children and adults develop cancer.

What would it mean for the call for mandatory universal vaccination of all children if it was understood that vaccinations cause autism spectrum disorder and cancer, and the prevention and treatment of these problems is to stop vaccinating damaged children and to administer weekly doses of GcMAF until they become healthy again? [18]

*

Notes

[1] “Controversial autism researcher, Jeff Bradstreet, commits suicide after FDA raid in Buford, authorities say,” Joshua Sharpe, Gwinnett Daily Post, 7/26/2015. http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news/2015/jun/25/controversial-autism-researcher-jeff-bradstreet/

[2] “GcMAF for the treatment of cancer, autism, inflammation, viral and bacterial disease,” David Noakes, Foundation for Alternative and Integrative Medicine, Retrieved 7/27/2015. http://www.faim.org/autism/gcmaf-treatment-cancer-autism-inflammation-viral-bacterial-disease.html

[3] GcMAF. https://gcmaf.se/

[4] Siniscalco D1, Bradstreet JJ, Cirillo A, Antonucci N.; “The in vitro GcMAF effects on endocannabinoid system transcriptionomics, receptor formation, and cell activity of autism-derived macrophages,” J Neuroinflammation. 2014 April, PMID: 24739187.

[5] Thyer L1, Ward E, Smith R, Branca JJ, Morucci G, Gulisano M, Noakes D, Eslinger R, Pacini S.; “GC protein-derived macrophage-activating factor decreases α-N-acetylgalactosaminidase levels in advanced cancer patients,” Oncoimmunology. 2013 August 1, PMID: 24179708.

[6] “Dr. Gonzalez – Individualized Nutritional Protocols – Enzyme Therapy,” Death Announcement on the website for his clinic. Retrieved 7/23/2015. http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/index.htm 

[7] Suzanne Somers testimony regarding the Death of Dr. Gonzalez, Retrieved 7/27/2015. https://www.facebook.com/suzannesomers/photos/a.10153072450038191.1073741829.55720163190/10153148183048191/?type=1 

[8] “The CIA’s Secret Heart Attack Gun,” Military.com, Retrieved 7/27/2015. http://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-heart-attack-gun/2555371072001/

[9] “Chapter 9: Nagalase: Friend and Foe?” The GcMAF Book, Timothy J. Smith, MD. http://gcmaf.timsmithmd.com/book/chapter/52/

[10] IBID.

[11] IBID.

[12] Explosive: The real reason Holistic Doctors are being killed and vanishing! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cALgIHETMDU

[13] IBID.

[14] “Anti-vaccine doctor behind ‘dangerous’ autism therapy found dead. Family cries foul,” Michael E. Miller, The Washington Post, June 29 2015, Retrieved 7/28/2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/29/anti-vaccine-doctor-behind-dangerous-autism-therapy-found-dead-family-cries-foul/ 

[15] “The Bradstreet Essence Protocal,” Dr. James Bradstreet, MD, Presentation from AutismOne Conference, Dated 5/22/2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I2Wr9ihvV0 

[16] “2 more MD’s (1 prominent holistic, & one of missing docs) found dead, bringing the total to 8,” Erin Elizabeth, Health Nut News, 7/23/2015. http://www.healthnutnews.com/2-more-mds-1-prominent-holistic-one-of-missing-docs-have-been-found-dead-bringing-the-total-to-8/ 

[17] “Explosive: The real reason Holistic Doctors are being killed and vanishing!” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cALgIHETMDU

[18] “Introduction: Routine Nagalase testing finds cancer early and GcMAF cures it” The GcMAF Book, Timothy J. Smith, MD. http://gcmaf.timsmithmd.com/book/chapter/43/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cancer and Autism: Mysterious Deaths of Alternative Health Doctors Who Have Real Cures Not Approved by the FDA

This article was first published on September 30, 2013.

Karen Hudes is a graduate of Yale Law School and she worked in the legal department of the World Bank for more than 20 years.  In fact, when she was fired for blowing the whistle on corruption inside the World Bank, she held the position of Senior Counsel. 

She was in a unique position to see exactly how the global elite rules the world, and the information that she is now revealing to the public is absolutely stunning.  According to Hudes, the elite uses a very tight core of financial institutions and mega-corporations to dominate the planet. 

Karen HudesThe goal is control.  They want all of us enslaved to debt, they want all of our governments enslaved to debt, and they want all of our politicians addicted to the huge financial contributions that they funnel into their campaigns.  Since the elite also own all of the big media companies, the mainstream media never lets us in on the secret that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way that our system works.

Remember, this is not some “conspiracy theorist” that is saying these things.  This is a Yale-educated attorney that worked inside the World Bank for more than two decades.  The following summary of her credentials comes directly from her website

Karen Hudes studied law at Yale Law School and economics at the University of Amsterdam. She worked in the US Export Import Bank of the US from 1980-1985 and in the Legal Department of the World Bank from 1986-2007. She established the Non Governmental Organization Committee of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association and the Committee on Multilateralism and the Accountability of International Organizations of the American Branch of the International Law Association.

Today, Hudes is trying very hard to expose the corrupt financial system that the global elite are using to control the wealth of the world.  During an interview with the New American, she discussed how we are willingly allowing this group of elitists to totally dominate the resources of the planet…

A former insider at the World Bank, ex-Senior Counsel Karen Hudes, says the global financial system is dominated by a small group of corrupt, power-hungry figures centered around the privately owned U.S. Federal Reserve. The network has seized control of the media to cover up its crimes, too, she explained. In an interview with The New American, Hudes said that when she tried to blow the whistle on multiple problems at the World Bank, she was fired for her efforts. Now, along with a network of fellow whistleblowers, Hudes is determined to expose and end the corruption. And she is confident of success.

Citing an explosive 2011 Swiss study published in the PLOS ONE journal on the “network of global corporate control,” Hudes pointed out that a small group of entities — mostly financial institutions and especially central banks — exert a massive amount of influence over the international economy from behind the scenes. “What is really going on is that the world’s resources are being dominated by this group,” she explained, adding that the “corrupt power grabbers” have managed to dominate the media as well. “They’re being allowed to do it.”

Previously, I have written about the Swiss study that Hudes mentioned.  It was conducted by a team of researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland.  They studied the relationships between 37 million companies and investors worldwide, and what they discovered is that there is a “super-entity” of just 147 very tightly knit mega-corporations that controls 40 percent of the entire global economy

When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a “super-entity” of 147 even more tightly knit companies – all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity – that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. “In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,” says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.

But the global elite don’t just control these mega-corporations.  According to Hudes, they also dominate the unelected, unaccountable organizations that control the finances of virtually every nation on the face of the planet.  The World Bank, the IMF and central banks such as the Federal Reserve literally control the creation and the flow of money worldwide.

At the apex of this system is the Bank for International Settlements.  It is the central bank of central banks, and posted below is a video where you can watch Hudes tell Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com the following…

“We don’t have to wait for anybody to fire the Fed or Bank for International Settlements . . . some states have already started to recognize silver and gold, the precious metals, as currency”

Most people have never even heard of the Bank for International Settlements, but it is an extremely important organization.  In a previous article, I described how this “central bank of the world” is literally immune to the laws of all national governments…

An immensely powerful international organization that most people have never even heard of secretly controls the money supply of the entire globe.  It is called the Bank for International Settlements, and it is the central bank of central banks.  It is located in Basel, Switzerland, but it also has branches in Hong Kong and Mexico City.  It is essentially an unelected, unaccountable central bank of the world that has complete immunity from taxation and from national laws.  Even Wikipedia admits that “it is not accountable to any single national government.”  The Bank for International Settlements was used to launder money for the Nazis during World War II, but these days the main purpose of the BIS is to guide and direct the centrally-planned global financial system.  Today, 58 global central banks belong to the BIS, and it has far more power over how the U.S. economy (or any other economy for that matter) will perform over the course of the next year than any politician does.  Every two months, the central bankers of the world gather in Basel for another “Global Economy Meeting”.  During those meetings, decisions are made which affect every man, woman and child on the planet, and yet none of us have any say in what goes on.  The Bank for International Settlements is an organization that was founded by the global elite and it operates for the benefit of the global elite, and it is intended to be one of the key cornerstones of the emerging one world economic system.

This system did not come into being by accident.  In fact, the global elite have been developing this system for a very long time.  In a previous article entitled “Who Runs The World? Solid Proof That A Core Group Of Wealthy Elitists Is Pulling The Strings“, I included a quote from Georgetown University history professor Carroll Quigley from a book that he authored all the way back in 1966 in which he discussed the big plans that the elite had for the Bank for International Settlements…

[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.

And that is exactly what we have today.

We have a system of “neo-feudalism” in which all of us and our national governments are enslaved to debt.  This system is governed by the central banks and by the Bank for International Settlements, and it systematically transfers the wealth of the world out of our hands and into the hands of the global elite.

But most people have no idea that any of this is happening because the global elite also control what we see, hear and think about.  Today, there are just six giant media corporations that control more than 90 percent of the news and entertainment that you watch on your television in the United States.

This is the insidious system that Karen Hudes is seeking to expose.  For much more, you can listen to Joyce Riley of the Power Hour interview her for an entire hour right here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on World Bank Whistleblower Reveals How the Global Elite Rules the World
  • Tags:

Washington Delivers New Ultimatum on Iran

February 21st, 2018 by Bill Van Auken

The US State Department has issued a fresh ultimatum on the Iran nuclear deal to Washington’s ostensible major allies in Europe, demanding that Germany, Britain and France commit themselves to altering the agreement along the lines demanded by President Donald Trump or face its unilateral abrogation by the US.

A secret State Department cable obtained by Reuters presents what are essentially the same demands made by Trump last January. At that time, he announced that he was prepared to relaunch all-out US economic warfare against Iran unless the European powers joined Washington in imposing a rewritten nuclear accord on Tehran, including provisions that the Iranian government cannot and will not accept.

The occasion for Trump’s threat was his reluctant announcement on January 12 that he had decided to waive the reimposition of US sanctions that were lifted as part of the nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He vowed that this would be the last time he issued such a waiver, unless his conditions were met. The next deadline for waiving the sanctions is May 12.

The message from the State Department to the European powers asks for their “commitment that we should work together to seek a supplemental or follow-on agreement that addresses Iran’s development or testing long-range missiles, ensures strong IAEA inspections, and fixes the flaws of the ‘sunset clause.’”

Washington has demanded that Iran grant International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors immediate and unlimited access to any site in the country, including military bases; the elimination of “sunset clauses” in the JCPOA, making time-limited restrictions on aspects of Iran’s civil nuclear program permanent; and drastically limiting, if not outlawing, Iran’s ballistic missile program.

While presented by Reuters and other media as a softening of the position outlined by Trump in January, the cable makes it clear that the US is continuing to present its nominal allies in Europe with an ultimatum.

“In the absence of a clear commitment from your side to address these issues, the United States will not again waive sanctions in order to stay in the Iran nuclear deal. If at any time the President judges that such commitment is not within reach, the President indicated he would end US participation in the deal.”

The cable’s “talking points” for US diplomats to advance Washington’s agenda in Europe stress “the Trump administration’s strategy to counter the Iranian regime’s reckless aggression,” which “addresses the full range of Iranian threats, of which Iran’s nuclear program is only one element.”

The clear implication is that Washington is embarked on a trajectory of war with Iran, either with or without the collaboration of its NATO allies in Berlin, London and Paris. Should they join with the US in ripping up the nuclear accord, it will set them on a collision course not only with Iran, but also with Russia and China, the two other signatories to the JCPOA.

The US has spelled out its own intentions in the Trump administration’s recent National Security Strategy, lumping Iran together with North Korea under the category of “rogue states” that represent a threat to US “national interests” and are to be confronted and defeated.

None of the European powers responded directly to the US cable, which the State Department itself refused to discuss. Asked about the US demands in an online media briefing, the French Foreign Ministry declared:

“The French position on the Iran nuclear deal is known. As the President of the Republic [Emmanuel Macron] has said, we reaffirm our full attachment to the global action plan and its strict implementation.” It added that Paris would “continue to talk about the Iran nuclear program with our European and American partners.”

The European powers are pursuing their own imperialist interests in the Middle East and are increasingly at odds with US interests and strategies. The lifting of sanctions against Iran was greeted by European corporations as an opportunity to generate a fresh stream of profits through billions of dollars in new investments and trade deals. Many of these plans remain unfulfilled because of concerns that the US will target companies with unilateral sanctions, and that their investments could go up in smoke in the event of a new and catastrophic US war in the Middle East.

While hostile to Iran’s growing influence in the region, the European powers are increasingly alarmed at the prospect that Washington’s strategy of forging a regional anti-Iranian alliance with Israel and Saudi Arabia, together with the other Sunni Gulf oil sheikdoms, will produce a military confrontation that could cut off oil supplies upon which Europe depends and unleash a political and refugee crisis that will spill onto the continent.

The remains of the F-16 jet that crashed in northern Israel (Source: RTE)

Washington has issued its latest ultimatum in the midst of an explosive escalation of regional tensions, driven in the main by US and Israeli aggression. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spelled out Tel Aviv’s aggressive stance against Iran in a bellicose speech to the Munich Security Conference on Sunday. Holding up what he claimed was a piece of an Iranian drone shot down over Israeli-occupied Syrian territory in the Golan Heights, he denounced Iran as “the greatest threat to the world,” equating it with Nazi Germany.

“We will act without hesitation to defend ourselves, and we will act if necessary not just against Iran’s proxies that are attacking us, but against Iran itself,” said Netanyahu, in a clear threat to attack Iran, an action that his government would undertake only with US backing.

Israel responded to the alleged overflight of the drone, which Tehran insists was launched by independent Syrian militia elements in Syria, by targeting Iranian personnel in Syria with air strikes. Syrian air defense units succeeded in shooting down an Israeli F-16 fighter jet, the first such loss for the Israeli Air Force since the early 1980s.

Speaking in response to Netanyahu at the Munich conference, Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, attributed the frenzied tone of Netanyahu’s speech to the downing of the warplane.

“The so-called invincibility of [Israel] has crumbled,” he said.

The US military and intelligence apparatus and its loyal stenographers in the US corporate media are churning out continuous war propaganda against Iran.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday, US national security advisor Gen. H.R. McMaster declared it was necessary to “act against Iran,” which he accused of arming a “network of proxies” that is “becoming more and more capable as Iran seeds more and more…destructive weapons into these networks.”

The New York Times published a lengthy piece Monday based on interviews with Israeli military officers and government officials along with representatives of US, Israeli and Saudi-funded think tanks alleging that Iran is “creating an infrastructure [in Syria] to threaten Israel.” Needless to say, the article made no mention of Israel’s own funding and aid for Sunni Islamist militias attacking the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.

The same issue of the Times carried an opinion piece by US ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley claiming, falsely, that a report issued by the United Nations proved that Iran has shipped missiles to the Houthi rebels in Yemen to fire at Saudi Arabia. The actual report found that “remnants” of the missiles were of Iranian origin, while providing no evidence as to how they got there.

Haley insists that the world must “act before a missile hits a school or a hospital and leads to a dangerous military escalation that provokes a Saudi military response.”

The column echoes the “big lie” methods pioneered by Nazi Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. That Saudi Arabia has been bombing Yemeni schools, hospitals, neighborhoods and infrastructure for nearly three years, killing some 13,000 Yemeni civilians and plunging the country’s population into the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet, goes unmentioned.

Haley is also silent on the fact that the US has provided the vast majority of the bombs and missiles dropped on the Yemeni people, while mounting logistical and refueling operations that make the mass slaughter possible.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington Delivers New Ultimatum on Iran

Video: Turkey Threatens to Strike Syrian Army

February 21st, 2018 by South Front

The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies continue preparations for a ground operation against militants in Damascus’ Eastern Ghouta. Now, government forces and warplanes target fortified positions, HQs and weapon depots belonging to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, Ahrar al-Sham and their allies.

Pro-militant sources and the mainstream media have already started a propaganda campaign targeting the SAA as the only side responsible for civilian casualties in the area. Various sources provide different numbers, but the key thing in these reports is that the number is high.

Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nsura) will be exterminated if powers having influence over the group fail to discipline it.

“That is why we are asking our Western colleagues, who have leverage on Jabhat al-Nusra, to make the effort to discipline this structure, as far as resolution of humanitarian problems is concerned, otherwise it will be destroyed,“ Lavrov said.

The Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) captured Iki Dam, Qudah Kuwi, Hajikanli, Hopkan, Darwish Ubasi, Diwan Al-Tahtaniyah and Mersava in the area of Afrin from the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG).

Amid reports that the YPG and the SAA have reached a deal over Afrin, Turkey has threatened to strike Syrian government forces should they enter Afrin to “provide protection” to the YPG.

“If the regime enters [Afrin] to clear out the YPG, then there is no problem. If they are entering to provide protection to the YPG, then no one can stop Turkey or Turkish soldiers,” Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said on February 19.

On the same day reports once again appeared that, government units are set to enter the Afrin area soon. However, the situation is still unclear.

*

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

BTC: 13iYp9CDYZwgSnFXNtpEKgRRqaoxHPr2MH, 

BCH:1NE49pQW8yCegnFCMvKuhLUnuxvTnxNUhf, 

ETH: 0x962b312a9d41620f9aa0d286f9d7f8b1769bfae6

Featured image is from South Front.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Turkey Threatens to Strike Syrian Army

The NATO defense chiefs’ meeting on February 14-15 was mainly devoted to sharing the defense burden and other issues routinely discussed at any event. As usual, there were turgid speeches with opaque meaning to leave one guessing what’s really behind those nice words. In fact, the alliance took two far-going decisions proving a clue to its plans for near future.

The ministers said yes to the creation of military Schengen to ease forces movements across the Old Continent. NATO is to do away with the cumbersome and lingering bureaucratic procedures hindering transportation of troops and hardware through territories of member states. One of the solutions is a standardized form used by European allies and partner states for granting permission for movements. Germany has offered to host the command center to implement the concept of free transit zone in view of its vast experience in providing logistical support.

It’s not red tape only. One thing leads to another. The military Schengen will inevitably result in additional expenditure to adapt the civilian infrastructure to military needs, upgrading roads, tunnels and bridges to enable hardware movements and heavy aircraft landings.

The decision is taken amid burgeoning preparations to boost military infrastructure near Russia’s borders. The fact that by signing the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act the bloc pledged not to deploy “substantial” ground forces on permanent basis close to Russia appears to be ignored and forgotten. With the document no longer valid, the bilateral military relationship will be deprived of any legal basis.

To augment the forces in East Europe, the Black Sea, the Baltics and the Scandinavian Peninsula the bloc needs new logistic hubs. Unobstructed large-scale transport movements become top priority for implementation of the war plans, such as concentrating combat-ready stocks for a full US brigade in Poland. So, the alliance is clearing the obstacles that hinder its ability to rapidly boost forward presence and concentrate forces for an attack.

The ministers announced another important decision using euphemisms to obfuscate the essence. NATO agreed to launch an assist and train mission in Iraq, “establishing specialist military academies and schools.” According to Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s priorities “in the South” include improving “the ability to react to future crises in the region, including with enhanced planning and exercise.” So, it’s not a pure training mission but rather a commitment to join the US campaign aimed at rolling back the Iran’s influence. The US cuts its forces in Iraq moving them to Afghanistan, where the situation is getting worse, and NATO is right here to fill the gap under the pretext of training and increased military aid. With military presence, which goes hand in hand with training missions, the alliance is on its way to prevent Iraq from falling into the Iran’s orbit and also reduce Russia’s influence in that country. Iraq is too important to be anything but pro-Western.

NATO is also lending the US a helping hand in Syria, the country viewed by Washington as a battlefield in the campaign to roll back Iran. French President Macron has just threatened to strike Syria if the information about the use of chemical weapons by its government is confirmed. The US has made it clear that it has no plans to leave or even reduce its presence in Syria after the defeat of the Islamic State. It will stay indefinitely. The purpose is to counter the threat from Iran. America has quietly launched a nation-building process in the Syrian territories under its control.

The ministers’ meeting of the multinational organization has expressed its readiness to dance to the US tune, confirming its commitment to raise defense expenditure up to 2% of GDP, spur military build-up in Europe, including the creation of two more commands, and join the US in its anti-Iran campaign in an attempt to remake the world in its own image. So, we have the same old song and dance with the alliance remaining in full saber-rattling mode.

*

Alex Gorka is a defense and diplomatic analyst.

Featured image is from the author.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dancing to US Tune: NATO Creates Military Schengen and Launches Iraq Mission

Featured image: Plahotniuk visiting Uncle Sam

A few days ago, former Romanian President Traian Basescu unveiled some explosive border-changing designs that the mainstream press has completely ignored. Known for his penchant for making bombastic statements, this time around Basescu literally outdid himself by announcing that, together with a few other deputies, he is planning to introduce in the Romanian parliament a resolution calling for “renunciation of the Ribbentrop – Molotov pact and derecognition of its consequences.”

The ideological wheeler-dealer Basescu, suspected of secret police ties under the Ceausescu regime who after its downfall was miraculously catapulted into ministerial positions under the new dispensation and subsequently served as mayor of Bucharest and Romania’s President, should not be taken lightly. The former Securitate asset is now a leading right-wing nationalist politician in NATO Rumania, with a cleaned up biography, and his statements and ambitions reflect the position of an influential political power bloc in Rumania.

Basesku’s demand for the restoration of Rumania’s “pre June 26 1940 borders,” which is what the initiative presented to parliament as the rejection of the consequences of the Ribbentrop – Molotov Pact amounts to, if adopted as official policy, is bound to have tectonic geopolitical repercussions in the region, unsettling established borders and raising tensions severely. In 1940, be it remembered, Hitler forced Romania to cede considerable portions of its territory to satisfy more favored Axis allies such as Hungary and Bulgaria, while the non-aggression pact with the USSR contained a secret clause for Romania to return to USSR former czarist provinces of Moldavia (now known as the Republic of Moldova), Bessarabia, and Northern Bukovina. The pro-nazi Romanian leadership was promised not just the restoration of these territories after the impending German attack on the USSR, but further compensation to the east at Russia’s expense if Romania participated enthusiastically in the planned Axis campaign initiate in June 1941. It did, and it briefly occupied Soviet territory up to Odessa (now Ukraine) and beyond. But that party lasted only until 1944, when the Soviets expelled all Axis forces from those regions.

That is history, of course. But the question that stands today is why is Basesku opening this can of warms, who put him up to it, and whose geopolitical objectives does the new round of turmoil it portends serve? As Russian-Ukrainian political analyst Rostislav Ishchenko sensibly points out, Basesku’s demagogic appeal for border revision could hardly be confined solely to Romania’s aspirations. What is to prevent Hungary from demanding the return of Hungarian-majority Romanian province of Bessarabia? Why shouldn’t Poland demand the return of large portions of Western Ukraine and even some parts of Lithuania which have undeniable historical links to the Polish state? Not to mention that a strong and revisionist Germany could then demand the return of its eastern provinces of Silesia and Pomerania, which had to be relinquished to Poland as victor’s spoils at the end of World War II? Not to overlook that Bulgaria could then comfortably revive its claims on eastern Macedonia (under whatever name). The dangerous international border-altering precedent set by Kosovo in 1999, and driven home with NATO Alliance’s benediction of its “independence” in 2008, may now come to haunt the wretched lands of Eastern Europe with full force.

So who is Romanian politician Traian Basescu, the public author of these potentially disastrous schemes and who might be his handlers? The usually convenient source, Wikipedia, gives us some edifying clues:

“Băsescu has focused on a strong strategic partnership with the United States, a relationship which, during the 2004 presidential campaign, he called the ‘Bucharest-London-Washington axis.’ In real terms, this meant a continued commitment to maintain Romanian troops in Afghanistan and a smaller contingent in Iraq, and an agreement signed in December 2005 between Romania and the U.S. to allow U.S. troops to use a Romanian military facility (Mihail Kogălniceanu International Airport). Băsescu is singled out in a report by Dick Marty, an investigator of the Council of Europe, on illegal activities of the US CIA in Europe, as one of the persons who authorized, or at least knew about, and must stand accountable for the black site at the Mihail Kogălniceanu military base from 2003 to 2005.”

These are some heavy pointers on whose behalf this actor is acting, most astute readers will agree.

Switching now to Moldova, an entity with strong historic and ethnic ties to both Russia and Romania, “Carnegie Endowment’s” Slovakia-based Eastern European expert Balash Yarabik has recently come up with some very interesting thoughts on the general subject under consideration. Hinting that the “orange revolution” era may be drawing to a close he stated that “the direction of our relationship with Lukashenko has now changed — we have come to realize that at this point in Eastern Europe governance has become a factor of extraordinary importance.”

Yarabik pointed out that the West is hugely disappointed with the results of the dashed hopes misplaced in the Ukraine’s reformers. The “reforms” never got off the ground, he said, mainly because of the obstruction of the “orange revolutionaries” themselves, with political chaos ensuing instead.

It seems that the stark difference between staging a revolution and governing a country is finally beginning to dawn on those who until recently were in the forefront of the former and gave little thought to the latter. Indeed, the Ukraine is a textbook example of this distinction.

Significantly, Yarabik points out a virtue of the oft-maligned Belarus regime that is otherwise rarely noted in the West:

“It is difficult to reach an agreement with Belarus, but once reached it is implemented. With the Ukraine, reaching agreement is easy, but then nothing happens. Right now, the Ukraine is a captured state under the control of oligarchs who obstruct the implementation of the international agreements signed by the Ukrainian government.”

This is an observation of more than casual significance made by a long-time regional Western operative and analyst. It just might herald a slight change of approach toward regimes in the Balkans and the post-Soviet space not yet admitted to the EU. It might even be regarded as a signal of sorts.

If that is correct, in the general context of Basesku’s border bashing initiative, it may suggest that the West’s patience with at least some of its corrupt Eastern European clients may be running out. For practical, not moral reasons, of course, but the consequences for those affected and destined to be swept away will be just the same.

Like Moldova’s “gray cardinal,” oligarch and leader of the ruling and farsically misnamed Democratic Party of Moldova, Vlad Plahotniuk.

Right now, although most people outside Moldova probably never heard of him, Plahotniuk is the most influential figure in his country. He controls the government and the legal system. What more could an oligarch ask for?
Just like neighboring Romania’s Basesku, Plahotniuk is the product of his time, the so-called period of transition that all countries of the USSR and the former socialist block had to go through. In 1991 he was graduated in agriculture, after which — having a disdain for farming — he secured for himself a job in a prison for underage delinquents, discharging duties having apparently little to do with the tilling of land. Anyway, Plahotniuk purchased his diploma rather than earning it in a regular way and, as was later clarified, the reason he so coveted a prison camp job is so that he could recruit young female inmates to work in foreign prostitution joints, in return for a nice honorarium for himself, of course. At the same time the clever protagonist of Western-inspired “transition” secretly video taped sex parties of Moldavia’s up and coming judges, parliament deputies, high officials, and diplomats with the incarcerated minors for blackmail purposes, which later came in very handy in facilitating his own rapid rise to wealth and power.

Having eventually become an oil and gas magnate, Plahotniuk swiftly increased his riches by entering the contraband fuel business. At present, the empire he has built up includes significant wine-producing enterprises in Moldova, a captive colored metals and oil export market, extensive media holdings (over half of Moldavia’s radio and television broadcast facilities are beholden to him), and a stranglehold on the banking system. He owns the “Nobil” air transport company, has a controlling interest in the Kishinev international airport and Danuve River international port facilities, owns the huge “Kodru” and “Nobil” hotel complexes, the “Drive” night club, “Asito” insurance company, to mention just a few of the more notable assets of this poster-boy transition winner calling the shots in EU and NATO friendly Moldova.

A brief synopsis of Plahotniuk’s dossier would be incomplete without mentioning that between 2007 and 2012 he was on Italy’s Interpol watch list, under suspicion of participation in organized crime and money laundering. (Shades of Montenegro’s Milo Djukanovic, clever readers will note.) But the climax of Plahotniuk’s oligarchic and political machinations was Moldova’s “theft of the century,” the disappearance from three Moldovan banks of approximately one billion euros (12,5 % of destitute Moldova’s GNP) that was transferred by European financial instituions for development projects. The vast funds were finally traced to the off-shore accounts of unknown owners in 2014. The gigantic scandal was the trigger of a wave of protest in March of 2015, much of it directed at Plahotniuk personally as the leading suspect in the scheme.

And what is a transitional oligarch without paid assassins in his employ? In March of 2012 Russian banker German Gorbuntzov was shot in London. Eventually extradited to Moldova, where he is now serving a prison sentence, the assassin Vitaliy Proka has publicly identified Plahotniuk as ordering the hit. Russian investigative authorities are now considering raising charges of murder against the oligarch.

As a political figure, Plahotniuk is no less prominent than as a leading “businessman”. After provoking a split in the then-ruling Communist Party, Plahotniuk formed his own “Democratic Party” with crony Marian Lupu as figurehead lider. With a media-created image of a new and fresh political force, the DP began a rapid rise in popularity.

However, under Plahotniuk’s ruinous direction from the shaddows the new party was treated as just another of the oligarch’s business assets and its public standing eventually plunged to dramatic lows, now around 3%.

Realizing that his political brain-child could not acquit itself creditably in the upcoming November 2018 elections, Plahotniuk launched a mixed election system scheme designed to gerrymander district boundaries in a way that would give him more parliamentary weight than he actually has. Moldova under the pressure of this ruthless and power hungry tycoon is on the verge of a gigantic political manipulation, with the results being that the next parliament could turn out to be the least legitimate in the country’s history, and with Western “good governance” mantras being embarrassingly exposed for the fraud that they are in the hands of its faithful local lackeys.

And, by the way, after engineering the arrest of his rival oligarch Vlad Filat in 2015, Plahotniuk’s effective control over Moldova’s government is now complete. That makes him — and those who facilitated this murky character’s rise to prominence — entirely responsible for the disastrous condition the country is in at the present time.

Marketing surveys bear that out unquestinably. A «CBS-AXA» agency survey conducted in September of 2017 reflected record levels of dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in Moldova and complete distruct of the established authorities. The “distrust all politicians” option scored a resounding 54%. When asked to write in the name of a politician they did trust, only 25% of the respondents bothered to name one. Clear evidence that Moldova is experiencing a period of deep frustration and disillusionment. That is the sum of Plahotniuk’s accomplishments as a politician.

If Balash Yarabik’s informed signals are to be read as political warnings, it would seem that the system implanted in Moldova by Western “partners” now needs some sprucing up. Time may be up for Plahotniuk and similar Eastern European oligarcical dinosaurs who are used to playing clever games with the Europeans, Americans, Russians, and would do the same with extraterrestrials if they ever showed up, just in order to gain a new lease on life for their massive robbery schemes. It would appear that all their “partners” are now fed up with them and their unpardonably obscene system of atrocious misgovernance, not because it conflicts with their moral values but because it threatens to implode the politically and economically profitable system of neo-colonial subjugation that was installed in Eastern Europe following USSR’s demise.

Hence all the fancy talk about returning to “good governance” by those who promoted crooks and chameleons like Basesku and Plahotniuk while it suited them in the first place. And hence also the border changing pseudo-nationalist demagoguery designed to rally the disillusioned masses around the few untarnished symbols left.

For Montenegro’s Milo Djukanovic and colleagues throughout the region, the message is clear that the “our son of a bitch” rule does not always ensure indefinite longevity.

In Moldavia a new generation of forty-something politicians has made its appearance, and they are chomping at the bit as they wait their turn. Whether their approach to earning economic and political capital is significantly different from that of their iredeemably corrupt elders remains to be seen.

But none of them — right or left, pro-Russian or pro-European — want to have anything to do with Plahotniuk and his repulsive and runinous style of governance. Perhaps, if given a chance, they might figure out a way to pull their country out of its current swamp.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Eastern European Oligarchs Are Gambling with Their Captive Countries’ Future

Why an Iraq War Inquiry Is More Necessary Than Ever

February 21st, 2018 by James ONeill

There has been a flurry of activity caused by the comments made by Green’s parliamentarians Adam Bandt and Richard di Natale over recently installed Liberal Senator Jim Molan. The facts relate to the Australian situation, but the issue has wider ramifications.

The ostensible reason for the attack on Molan was his sharing of two videos originating from a Neo Nazi far right group in the United Kingdom.

Bandt, who later withdrew his remarks, called Molan a “coward” and said that Molan should be prosecuted for his service in the Iraq war. In the Senate di Natale accused Molan of overseeing a “humanitarian catastrophe” nearly 15 years ago during the assault on Fallujah, Iraq.

Di Natale said that there was “a question that needs to be answered, and the only way with answer that is through an enquiry.”

Liberal politicians, from the Prime Minister downward, came to Molan’s defence, claiming that he was a “great Australian soldier” who “stood up for freedom.”

Lost among all the expostulations and threats of legal action were two key issues behind the remarks of both Bandt and Di Natale: were there war crimes committed in Iraq by Australian forces; and whether or not there should be an enquiry (as has happened in Canada, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) into the precise circumstances surrounding Australia’s involvement in that disastrous war.

Instead we have seen sustained attempts two divert from legitimate questions surrounding this issue. It has been variously suggested that Molan is not racist; that it is somehow scurrilous to question the conduct of Australia’s servicemen; and that Bandt and Di Natale had a view “that anyone who goes to war is a war criminal.” That simply does not address the real issues.

To answer the first of those questions one needs to go no further then the assaults on Fallujah, the first of which occurred in April 2004 and the second, codenamed Operation Phantom Fury, in October 2004.

Before the second attack began, citizens were instructed to leave, but that did not extend to men aged 15-45 who were prohibited from leaving. Once the bombing began, all exits from the city were sealed off. According to the Washington Post, electricity and water were also cut off. The Red Cross and other agencies were denied access to the city to deliver humanitarian aid and render medical assistance.

A United Nations special rapporteur, Jean Ziegler, described these action as a

”flagrant violation” of the Geneva Conventions. Mr Zeigler was unquestionably correct. Cutting off water and electricity and denying access to humanitarian aid is prohibited under Article 54 (Protocol 1) of the Geneva Conventions.

The attacking forces also seized the city’s only hospital, taking its staff prisoner, and also bombed to destruction two other medical clinics. Eyewitness accounts described Red Cross workers being denied entry to the city, and ambulances trying to enter the city being fired upon. This is also a breach of Article 8 of the Geneva Conventions (Protocol 1).

There were further eyewitness accounts of snipers shooting women and children in the street, and unarmed men carrying a white flag were also shot. The United States also admitted using chemical weapons, including white phosphorus, napalm and depleted uranium weapons. The use of such weapons are banned under Protocol III of the United Nations Convention on Certain Weapons that Australia ratified on 29 September 1983. The United States has refused to ratify this Convention.

General Molan has admitted his role in planning and directing the attacks in Fallujah in October 2004. It is a matter of public record that Molan was seconded from the Australian defence forces to US forces in April 2004 and served as chief of operations through 2005. An article in the Australian emphasized that Molan not only planned, but directed the 2004 assault on Fallujah.

The horrific consequences for civilians of this assault have also been documented, with extraordinarily high levels of birth defects, infant and maternal mortality, and various cancers. Patrick Cockburn in the Independent described the results reported by Busby and his co-researchers as worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There can be no serious argument therefore, that war crimes were committed in Fallujah (and elsewhere) in October 2004. Who then might be held responsible? Under the legal doctrine of common purpose, senior Australian officials are responsible for these attacks. Those individuals would include the defence Minister Robert Hill, the foreign minister Alexander Downer, and at the Prime Minister John Howard.

Under the doctrine of command responsibility Government and military officials can be held liable if they knew, or should have known, anyone under their command was committing war crimes and failed to prevent them from doing so. These principles are incorporated in the Statute of the International Criminal Court that Australia ratified on 27 June 2002 and which came into effect in Australian law on 1 September 2002.

Before persons alleged to have committed war crimes can be referred to the International Criminal Court however, the accused’s own State must take action against them, and only if that State is “unable or unwilling” to act will the ICC become involved.

There is legislation on the Australian statute books that is designed to provide a means off prosecuting alleged war criminals. The Howard government introduced a raft of legislative changes to the Criminal Code (Commonwealth) beginning in 2002 before the Iraq invasion. Part 5.3 of s100 of the Criminal Code, for example, creates the offence of a “terrorist act”. This is defined as being when there is serious harm to property or death caused with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, and with it the intention of coercing, or influencing by intimidation, the government of a foreign country, or intimidating the public or a section of the public.

It is submitted that this is precisely describes the actions of the Australian government and its officials, including military personnel, in the conduct of the Iraq War in general, and in specific instances of which Fallujah is a prime, but far from only example.

Successive Australian governments have refused to prosecute anyone involved in the events described above. The ICC’s requirement of a State being “unable or unwilling” to prosecute alleged war crimes has therefore been met. In these circumstances there is nothing to prevent a direct referral to the ICC Public Prosecutor who must then initiate their own inquiry.

It is this history that probably accounts for the reaction to questions raised about General Molan’s alleged responsibility for war crimes committed in Iraq. The politicians and mainstream media coming to his defence with frankly ridiculous and irrelevant claims are fully aware of their own potential liability for the events arising out of the original illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Di Natale was simply stating the obvious: there should have been a proper inquiry, there should be one now, and Australia’s persistent refusal to do so only undermines its frequently professed claims to being a strong supporter of the “rules based international order.”

*

James O’Neill is an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why an Iraq War Inquiry Is More Necessary Than Ever
  • Tags: ,

Dear Premier Rachel Notley:

I am writing you this open letter to defend myself against your attack on me personally and professionally. What is the evidentiary basis behind your characterization of my academic work as “repulsive, offensive and not reflective of Alberta”? Why have you decided to set yourself up, Premier Notley, as some sort of arbitrator to decide what scholarly work in Alberta universities meets the criteria of being “reflective of Alberta”?

Is your opinion about what is, or is not, “reflective of Alberta” to become a new test of how curriculum will be created and how faculty members will be chosen in this province? There are serious implications for academic freedom and free speech in this province when an Alberta Premier chimes in about the need to reflect her own own conception of Alberta values in higher education. 

What lies behind your decision to disseminate a caricature of me “standing at the head of the class” in order to “spread lies and conspiracy theories”?[1] Since I began teaching in the Department of Native American Studies at the University of Lethbridge in 1990, I have never once seen a student evaluation that reflects the kind of accusations you are pressing publicly on me. How is it you think you know more about me, including what goes on in my classroom, than my own students?

After a year and a half of being subject to a ruthless trial-by-media, a new process is only now being initiated that from my perspective allows me to come forward for the first time to tell my side the story before an investigating tribunal operating within the terms of our collective agreement. The process is going forward because of a court contestation that the U of L Board of Governors lost because of its unwillingness to adhere to the laws of labour relations in Alberta.

Whose advice was the Board depending on when its members put themselves in such an untenable position? Was the Board listening to the same stream of bad advice that you are now absorbing in constructing me as the anti-thesis of your simple-minded vision of higher learning in Alberta?

Before we have even started the process that has come about because of the determined stand of the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association (ULFA) and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), you, Premier Notley, chose to inject a politicized salvo into the onslaught of vituperation against me that began on Aug. 26 of 2016.

Here is how the University of Lethbridge Faculty Association described your ill-advised political intervention:

15 Jan., 2018

Re: Premier’s statement re Anthony Hall

The Faculty Association wishes to express its disappointment in the Premier’s words. As the union that represents Professor Hall in his employment relationship with the University of Lethbridge, the Faculty Association has endeavoured to have a fair and objective process employed for adjudicating Professor Hall’s academic scholarship and accountability through procedures in the collective agreement. We finally achieved this following significant effort and cost on our part and have a great deal of confidence in the appropriate academic procedures to which Professor Hall is now subject.

Having the Premier draw conclusions about the acceptability of Professor Hall’s academic work prior to any decision rendered by an expert panel of qualified academics has the potential to undermine this very process we have fought to achieve. At worse, though, these words have the real potential to bias the outcome of any such fair and objective process.

The Faculty Association has greatly appreciated the hard work the Premier and her government have done to advance the rights of post-secondary labour. We believe it is a dangerous precedent, however, for elected officials to intervene so directly in a complex labour matter such as this one.

Sincerely,

Andrea Amelinckx,

ULFA President

Cc Honourable Minister M Schmidt

One of the core points I intend to bring forward in my self- defense in the forthcoming process, is to describe the mounting of a negative media campaign against me based on the atrocious contents of a maliciously-engineered Facebook post. According to B’nai Brith Canada, the core agency in orchestrating this media deception, the post appeared on, and then disappeared from, my Facebook wall during an interval of a few hours on Aug. 26, 2016. I did not invite this digital item onto my Facebook wall. I did not sanction its abhorrent contents. In fact I condemned the post’s contents publicly in mid-Sept. when I first became aware of the digital item and the way that it was being deployed to destroy my reputation.

You, Premier Notley, were presented with a deceptive account of my relationship to the Facebook post long before I even knew about the B’nai Brith Canada operation. Recently I learned from the results of a FOIP investigation of the Alberta Ministry of Justice that on Aug. 27, 2016 you and other Alberta cabinet ministers were sent a slanderous account of the Facebook post as if it “came from my lips.” People in the inner circle of your office reported you had seen the communication that slanderously misrepresented me as an “advocate for the murder of Jews.”

If you would actually take a genuine interest in my academic work, Premier Notley, you would realize I have a record of studying all sorts of genocide and condemning this crime against humanity in all its manifestations, including in the Jewish Shoah.[2] You might have taken into account that in 2004 I won the Wilfred Eggleston Award for the best work of non-fiction by an Albertan author. In its review of this work, The American Empire and the Fourth WorldAlberta Views described the volume as “the first truly important Canadian book of the century.” It appears, Premier Notley, that you are contributing to making Alberta a dangerous and unwelcoming place for authors, artists and scholars that don’t stick to the party line on government-dictated orthodoxy.

Perhaps the people who lied to you about me in late August of 2016 are still holding you captive in terms of filtering the information that has caused you to think whatever it is you believe you know about me. The President of the University of Lethbridge, Dr. Michael J. Mahon, went along with the Facebook deception to suspend this tenured full professor on Oct. 3 and 4, 2016. I was pulled from the classroom in mid-term and banned from stepping foot on campus. This purge took place entirely outside the terms of the collective agreement between the university’s faculty and administration. Are you even aware of this central fact in the academic freedom case at the University of Lethbridge?

The suspension, initially without pay, essentially declared me guilty until proven innocent. Severe punitive measures were imposed on me all without even an ounce of adjudication by a neutral third-party. From the correspondence I have been receiving from all over the world, I can say my suspension quickly became a shot heard throughout the global academic realm, a shot signaling that an Albertan university is leading a precedent-setting attack on the institutions of tenure, peer review and academic freedom.

Now you have joined in that attack too, Premier Notley. You have allied yourself with the position of B’nai Brith Canada, the organization that recently interfered in the leadership race for the new leader of the federal NDP. The NDP federal leadership candidate, Niki Ashton, was attacked by the same organization that set in motion the trial-by-media campaign aimed at bringing about my professional and personal ruination.

According to B’nai Brith’s CEO Michael Mostyn, Ms. Ashton’s concern for the violated human rights of Palestinians people made her “an advocate for vile terrorists” and “convicted murders.” It was said to have revealed Ms. Ashton’s “defective moral compass.”[3]

What is your view, Premier Notley, of the condemnation directed at the new NDP federal leader, Jagmeet Singh, when B’nai Brith Canada took aim at him for intervening to provide a venue at the Ontario provincial legislature for a presentation by academic advocates of the rights of educator Nadia Shoufani. The condemnation directed at the current NDP federal leader came about in late Augusts of 2016 when Mr. Singh was MLA for the riding of Bramalea-Gore-Malton and Deputy Leader of the Ontario NDP.

At the same time as it was attacking Jagmeet Singh, B’nai Brith Canada was leading the effort to have Ms. Shofani, a Canadian of Palestinian and Christian background, criminalized by police and fired from her teaching job in the Dufferin-Peel Catholic School Board. The criticisms directed at Ms. Shoufani are similar to those directed at Ms. Ashton.

Similarly, the effort to criminalize Ms. Shoufani and bar her from the classroom anticipated the similar treatment to which I was about to be subjected later in 2016. The attack on Ms. Shoufani’s job and her reputation was based on allegations about her supposed “terror-supporting remarks” made in a Quds Day speech in Toronto in July of 2016.[4]

It seems, Premier Notley, your political intervention on the wrong side of the University of Lethbridge case reflects your reactionary alliance with the thought police and speech police at B’nai Brith Canada and its network of related agencies. Your reactionary stance identifies you with the backward policies of former NDP leader, Tom Mulcair, when he purged pro-Palestinian candidates from the federal election of 2015. This atrocious move was in all probably a significant factor in the disappointing electoral showing of the NDP as it lost its position of Canada’s Official Opposition Party. [5]

Now in Feb. of 2018 B’nai Brith Canada has resumed its efforts to quarterback the NDP, lobbying aggressively to stop a resolution from being put on the floor of the recent NDP convention.[6] The vote, nevertheless, was close, 189 for putting the resolution forward and 200 for sidelining it. The resolution included provisions on a Canadian boycott against products produced in the illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied West Bank.

Those supporting the boycott resolution included the unanimous backing of the Young New Democrats, 28 electoral riding associations covering six provinces, and many current and former MPs. Geneviève Nevin, a supporter of the resolution from Victoria, observed, “There’s a generational divide on this issue.” In his account of this divide within the NDP, journalist Derrick O’Keefe suggested Jagmeet Singh would be wise to look to the example of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Mr. Corbyn has mobilized on behalf of the Labour Party considerable electoral support from his attentiveness to the plight of Palestinian people under Israeli occupation.[7]

By siding so strongly with the U of L administration’s collaboration with the Israel lobby including B’nai Brith Canada and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, you have identified yourself and your government with agencies that condemned Hassan Diab wrongly as a terrorist. B’nai Brith Canada played a major role in calling for pulling the sociology teacher from his Carleton University classroom in Ottawa. This intervention helped set in notion a miscarriage of justice that saw the Lebanese Canadian academic incarcerated for a decade in Canada and France for a crime he didn’t commit.[8]

You have identified yourself and your government, Premier Notley, with notorious enemies of academic freedom who brought forward during the 50thanniversary of York University all sorts of false allegations much like those I am facing now. This fiasco unfolded when B’nai Brith Canada, the CIJA, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Jewish Defence League tried to shut down an academic conference on Israel/ Palestine at York University in 2009.

The effort to sabotage this academic initiative was foiled because the York University President, Mamdou Shoukiri, and the York University Board of Governors stood up for the imperatives of academic freedom.[9]

In 2018 in Alberta the equation is very different. The President and Board of University of Lethbridge have adopted the position of the Israel lobby. Now, Premier Notley, you have intervened to strengthen this political coalition favouring the stifling of free and open debate at Alberta universities.  Please consider revisiting your provocative and intellectually bankrupt position on this matter.

Yours Sincerely,

Anthony J. Hall

Professor of Globalization Studies,

University of Lethbridge

*

Notes

[1] Chuck Millar’s Letter to the Alberta Premier—11 January, 2018 at 

https://academicfreedomanthonyhall.ca/chuck-millars-letter-to-the-premier-january-11-2018/

Premier Notley indicated on November 24, 2017

There is no question that the views of this individual are repulsive, offensive and not reflective of Alberta. Our classrooms are a place for freedom of speech and expression but that does not mean individuals get to stand at the head of the class and spread lies and conspiracy theories. I am terribly disappointed to learn that this individual has been reinstated, but let me be clear that legislation that our government introduced did not give him his job back. I can confirm that this individual is now under investigation by a committee at the University.” 

[2] See, for instance Hall, Earth into Property” Colonization, Decolonization, and Capitalism (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010), Chapter 14, “Genocide and Global Capitalism,” pp. 655-711

[3] Tony Hall, “Palestinians, B’nai Brith and Canada’s New Democratic Party, Canadian Dimension, 30 July, 2017 at

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/palestinians-bnai-brith-and-canadas-new-democratic-party

[4] B’nai Brith Canada, “NDP Deputy Leader Facilitates Pro-Shoufani Press Conference at Queen’s Park,” 24 Aug., 2016 at

[5] Marion Kawas, “New Democratic Party Purges Candidates over pro-Palestinian positions in lead up  to Canadian elections,  Mondoweiss, 24 Aug., 2015 at 

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/08/democratic-candidates-positions/ 

[6] Aidan Fishman, “A Massive Defeat for Anti-Israel Forces as Pro-BDS Resolution Stalls at NDP Convention,” 16 Feb., 2018 at 

http://www.bnaibrith.ca/massive_defeat_for_anti_israel_forces_as_pro_bds_resolution_stalls_at_ndp_convention 

Shiri Moshe, “Israel Boycotters Face ‘Massive Setback’ at NDP Convention But Concerns Persist, Algemeiner, 16 Feb., 2018 at 

https://www.algemeiner.com/2018/02/16/israel-boycotters-face-massive-setback-in-ndp-convention-but-concerns-persist/ 

[7] Derick O’Keefe, “Palestinian Resolution Narrowly Stopped from Hitting NDP Convention Floor, Richochet, 16 Feb. 2018 at 

https://ricochet.media/en/2130/palestine-resolution-narrowly-stopped-from-hitting-ndp-convention-floor

[8] Judy Haven, “After 10 Years Hassan Diab is Finally Free,” Independent Jewish Voices Canada, at

http://ijvcanada.org/2018/diab-is-finally-free/

[9] Susan G. Drummong, Unthinkable Thoughts, Academic Freedom and the One-State Solution for Israel and Palestine (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2014); Jon Thompson, No Debate: The Israel lobby and free speech in Canadian universities (Toronto: Lorimer, 2011)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Academic Freedom at Alberta’s Universities: Open Letter to Premier Rachel Notley
  • Tags:

There are currently three global super-powers, three nations that lead the world: China, Russia, and U.S.

After World War II, until recently, the U.S. clearly dominated the world, not only culturally, with more influence over the world’s other cultures than any other single nation possessed, but also economically, with product-dominance throughout the world, and also militarily tied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and, then, after the Cold War, still possessing such military dominance, so that in 2006, America’s billionaires — as represented by the most-prestigious two agencies that represent their collective interests against the public, the Council on Foreign Relations and Harvard University — were actively promoting, broadly amongst foreign-policy academics, the idea that the U.S. should seek to occupy a position of such extreme military superiority over Russia, so that since 2006 the concept of “Nuclear Primacy” is reflected, by America’s power-centers, as being the correct goal for America, going forward, replacing the prior nuclear-strategic paradigm (since the 1950s) of “Mutually Assured Destruction,” or “M.A.D.,” in which nuclear weapons were (and, by Russia, still are) seen as purely defensive strategic military assets between the two nuclear superpowers, weapons whose only actual purpose, for either country, is to ward off a WW III — no usefulness at all in an actual aggressive military context. Thus, M.A.D. became replaced in America by Nuclear Primacy, nuclear weapons that are put in place to serve not only to ward off a nuclear attack, but also, ultimately, to win a nuclear war against the other nuclear super-power, Russia — nukes as aggressive weapons, by which the U.S. will (it has been expected, ever since 2006) soon be able to demand, and to receive, Russia’s capitulation, surrender, or else Russia will be destroyed by a U.S. nuclear first-strike, while U.S. casualties, from any presumably few Russian weapons that might make it through this ABM-BMD shield, will be kept to an “acceptably low” level, by virtue of that then-functioning ABM-BMD system, combined with increases in U.S. nuclear striking-power. This nuclear-primacy paradigm aims for America (its billionaires) to take over the entire world, including ultimately the world’s largest land-mass: Russia. 

But, now, twelve years later, America’s presumed early lead in such ‘defensive’ strategic weaponry has become, instead, ever more clearly, just a figment of America’s military-industrial complex’s (MIC’s) fervid marketing-campaign for the development and sale of such weapons, ever since U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s promised “Star Wars” program during the 1980s got the effort, toward a winnable nuclear war, started, as an alleged ‘defensive’ measure — not yet overtly the end of M.A.D. 

Soon after Reagan, the Soviet Union, and its communism, and its Warsaw Pact counter to America’s NATO military alliance, all simultaneously ended, in 1991, as a consequence of which, the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC), and especially the large U.S. manufacturers of nuclear-weapons systems, the companies that dominate the MIC, were becoming stranded, because the market for their costliest wares was now in limbo.

Though elimination of the Cold War wouldn’t have been an existential threat to these manufacturers, an end to the Cold War on the U.S. side would have threatened the market-values of those U.S. companies, which are controlled by U.S. billionaires, who have lots of clout in Congress. Thus, though the Cold War ended in 1991 on the Russian side, it secretly continued on the U.S. side (that is, amongst America’s super-wealthy, the people who control the U.S. Government — the main market for the MIC); and America’s strategic switch, away from M.A.D. to Nuclear Primacy (so as to unshackle their market from the prior politically imposed demand to maintain a nuclear balance between the two sides), has been a significant part of this secret continuation, by America, of the Cold War, while Russia’s Government continued instead to think in terms of the M.A.D. paradigm. (Russia’s weapons-manufacturers are still owned by the Government — socialized — so, there’s no need to grow their ‘market value’.)

In a strictly capitalist country, weapons-manufacturing is a major area of investment for billionaires, whose fortunes there rise to the extent that governments are buying their planes and bombs and missiles, especially those of the most sophisticated types, which are strategic weaponry, such as nuclear systems, which are the most profitable ones of all. Growth-at-all-costs has meant (and means) that the MIC is a cancer upon the entire world. (Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, on 17 January 1961, understated the problem.) Either the entire military will be a public entity, or else there will be (because of its privatized weapons-manufacturing) a tendency for the military to destroy everything else in order to continue to grow, like investors expect and demand — grow like cancer.

A major source of America’s decline was U.S. President George W. Bush, who came into office in 2001 when the Cold War could no longer excite the American public as being a threat (since the Soviet Union and its communism and its military alliance were now long gone), and a new demon thus needed to be brought before the American people, as warranting increased ‘defense’ expenditures. 9/11 came along just in time to fill this interim lack of a cause de guerre, to attack now Al Qaeda and other (as today’s U.S. President famously tags it) “radical Islamic terrorists.”  However, America’s spending on strategic weaponry requires instead focus against the other nuclear super-power as being the ‘enemy’, and this is what the end of M.A.D. and the start of Nuclear Primacy (which is manna from heaven for the ‘Defense’ contractors) have been all about: re-defining ‘the enemy’, from being a country with which peace must be maintained (M.A.D.), to becoming instead a country that should be outright conquered. And, amongst the lies which are necessary in order to sustain this switch (from M.A.D. to Nuclear Primacy), is the lie that ABMs have no aggressive function, but are ‘purely for defense’. This lie will enable the public to accept the spending of trillions of dollars of federal money on weapons whose sole real use will be conquering Russia — or, at least, the attempt to do so. 

Nobody makes public the identities of the individuals, in the U.S. and in its allied countries, who comprise the suddenly booming market for luxurious nuclear-proof deep-underground bunkers. But whomever these owners are, three things about them are obvious: they’ve got lots of money; they think that the prospect of a nuclear war is very real — worth their pre-paying for suitably luxurious long-term temporary accommodations deep underground; and they aren’t themselves one of the high government officials for whom the government’s taxpayers have already built such bunkers. (Or, perhaps, some of them do belong to the last of those three categories, but they’ve got so much extra money that they can easily afford to pay for more luxurious quarters than the taxpayers have already supplied them with.)

Quite similar to Donald Trump, but far more overtly faith-based than the hyper-secular former Miss Universe Pageant owner Trump, George W. Bush had a confidence like the Taliban and Al Qaeda do, that “God is on our side”, and so Bush acted as if he had no reason to test-out America’s ABM weapons before ordering and buying them (at the public taxpayer’s expense, and private billionaires’ profits, of course). Or, perhaps alternatively, Bush didn’t even care whether these weapons would work, but only whether the owners of the companies that would be manufacturing them would be satisfied with their profits, from the decisions that he was making, which so powerfully affected their profits. In any case, Bush’s focus on rushing forward with a U.S. ABM system demonstrated his strong commitment to the replacement of M.A.D., by Nuclear Primacy. The whole idea of Nuclear Primacy rests upon there being an effective U.S. ABM system installed so as to make the enemy’s retaliatory weapons ineffective. Bush pushed the ABM into production even before there was any indication that it would work. He did this even before the very concept of “Nuclear Primacy” was publicly introduced by the two chief agents for America’s aristocracy in 2006. What Harvard and the CFR promoted, was already the Government’s policy. While there were criticisms of Bush’s execution of the plan, there was no significant scholarly opposition against the Nuclear Primacy concept itself.

All subject-areas of expertise (and this refers to scientists, not to scholars) despised the religious faith-based President George W. Bush, much like they despise the secular faith-based President Donald Trump. For example, everyone knows that Trump has great difficulty finding experts who are willing to serve in his Administration. Similarly, in the October 2004 “Poll of Academic Economists” by the Economist, 59% of them answered “no” when asked “If you had a chance to work in a policy job in Washington, would you take it?” And when queried “For whom would you rather work?” Bush or his then electoral opponent Senator John Kerry, 81% chose Kerry — notwithstanding that, as a predominantly conservative lot, the economists did like onething about George W. Bush: “Outsourcing of jobs overseas,” which 86% of them rated to be either good or very good. (Of course, Trump claims to oppose that; so, in this regard, he’s even less acceptable to economists than Bush was.)

Under Bush, experts were even trying, with no success, to inform this conservative faith-based President about areas in the federal budget where substantial funds were being simply wasted, but his blind faith caused him to ignore such scientific warnings, and enormous federal waste resulted. For example, the science reporter William Broad headlined in The New York Times on 24 September 2003, “Report Sees Risks in Push for Missile Defense”, and opened, “The Bush administration’s push to deploy a $22 billion missile defense system by this time next year could lead to unforeseen cost increases and technical failures that will have to be fixed before it can hope to stop enemy warheads, Congressional investigators said yesterday. The General Accounting Office, in a 40-page report, said the Pentagon was combining 10 crucial technologies into a missile defense system without knowing if they can handle the task [and subsequently the same thing happened in order to produce the scandalously overpriced and insanely multi-functional F-35 jets], often described as trying to hit a bullet with a bullet.” The article quoted a former Pentagon weapons testing chief, who said that to deploy such an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system just a year hence as planned, would be to deploy “no more than a scarecrow, not a real defense” — in other words, a system that would almost certainly fail in any actual use — because so many parts of the system wouldn’t have been tested sufficiently to be designed functionally that soon. The prior (Bill Clinton) Administration, more attentive to such concerns, had established a schedule for testing the various parts of this complex system prior to any possible deployment. However, one of G.W. Bush’s first actions coming into office was to deploy an ABM system, even if it might not work, and to do the testing afterward. Bush, it seems, possessed the faith that if science were to fail to supply the system’s functionality, then God would certainly do so, for the benefit of “God’s People.” 

Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post thus headlined on 26 April 2004, “Dubious Threat, Expensive Defense” and closed: “Bush would spend twice as much on missile defense as on customs and border protection,” yet gain only “a rudimentary and uncertain defense against an unlikely long-range missile attack.” Diehl opined that, despite the transformed defense needs after 9/11, “The president who never admits error will stay the course.” 

Bush did stay the course: by the time of 14 February 2005, as the New York Times reported the next day, “The nation’s fledgling missile defense system suffered its third straight test failure.” Commented one scientist there, “It’s as if Henry Ford started up his automobile production line and began selling cars without ever taking one for a test drive.” But not quite: Bush had now taken his third ‘test drive’ — and all three failed. 

On 4 April 2005, the AP reported, “Congress is weighing how much to invest in the fledgling ballistic missile defense system, which has suffered setbacks and whose cost could easily top the $150 billion partial price tag the Bush administration has estimated.” Some congressional proponents of the ABM system were even quoted as saying that it had to be deployed in order to prevent future terrorist attacks, such as had occurred on 9/11. Of course, that allegation is absurd — 9/11 couldn’t have been stopped by an anti-missile defense system. But members of Congress aren’s so stupid as not to know this. That allegation was probably just a marketing-ploy sponsored in back-rooms by corporations such as Lockheed Martin, who might reflect their satisfaction with the statement, by donating to the ‘appropriate’ PACS.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress were financially shortchanging many of the nation’s authentic anti-terrorist needs. This $150 billion+ could have gone a long way toward achieving real protection (and/or toward serving non-defense needs), if it had been scientifically allocated. 

Were Al Qaeda to have been voting directly in the U.S. Congress, the ABM system would have had an easier time passing unchanged, exactly as Bush wanted. Al Qaeda would have been fervent Republicans — they were just as religious, and just as faith-obsessed, though in a different ‘inerrant Scripture’. If Donald Trump has faith in any ‘inerrant Scripture’, nobody knows what it is. But, he seems to have lots of faith in himself, even if experts in the respective subject-fields don’t.

By the present time, the failure of America’s entire ABM-BMD gamble — which was started under Reagan, begun being operationalized under G.W. Bush, and finally being installed by Barack Obama and now under Trump — is painfully clear. But success was never its actual goal: restoring the government’s growth in ‘defense’ spending (even while cutting now the government’s non-‘defense’ spending) is its real purpose. Those billionaires and centi-millionaires must be served, or else Congress-members will lose their seats to well-funded competitors in their own Party’s next primary. The system succeeds marvelously at doing what it’s intended to do: to serve the people who buy the Government — to serve the actual patrons of this ‘democracy’. Instead of being a democracy, it’s a government that’s bought and sold.

While America thus spends itself into becoming increasingly a third-world country, China and Russia pursue different objectives. Specifically in the case of Russia, its military spending is one-tenth of America’s, but, because Russia cannot afford to allow billionaires’ demands for private profit to constitute the incentive-system that drives the Russian Government’s military decisions, Russia has gone militarily from strength to strength, while post-WW-II America (spending ten times as much) has gone from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Syria, and yet America’s ‘news’media have cheered all of these evil billionaires’ invasions of those countries we wrecked, as if companies such as General Dynamics owned companies such as the Washington Post, and thus (with all that propaganda) the American public continue to respect America’s military higher than any other U.S. institution — despite such a long string of military failures by this country, despite spending ten times what Russia does on its military, and despite America’s military being the most corrupt part of the U.S. federal Government.

But, actually, America’s military spending is probably much higher than just ten times Russia’s, because America’s official figures — what SIPRI and others use, which is just the ‘Defense’ Department — excludes much of America’s military expenses, as a consequence of which, America’s official $617.1 billion FY 2019 expenditure for the Department of ‘Defense’ masks an actual annual military expense of $1,135.7 billion. That’s $1.36 trillion per year, to do things such as destroy Afghanistan, destroy Iraq, destroy Syria, destroy Libya, perpetrate coups such as in Ukraine, assist coups such as in Honduras, etc. But even that’s not the total ‘defense’ expenditure which taxpayers have bought for the billionaires, because, throughout its existence, the U.S. CIA has been getting unrecorded off-the-books billions from the international narcotics trade, starting in 1948, when it perpetrated a coup in Thailand and installed there a brutal regime that helped establish the CIA’s off-the-books funding-system, as I had mentioned in a prior article, where I discussed U.S. relations with Syria, in broader histrical context,

starting in 1949, when the U.S. CIA, under President Harry S. Truman, did its second coup d’etat, overthrowing a democratically elected progressive Government (the first having been Thailand 1948, where the CIA had installed an extremely barbaric dictator replacing the democratically elected government that had been headed by a staunch anti-fascist, and simultaneously set up the CIA’s off-the-books supplementary funding mechanism from the international narcotics-trade — a CIA practice which has continued till perhaps the present; and, furthermore, the infamous Nugan-Hand affair, which involved Thailand, definitely involved the CIA’s Michael Hand and William Colby; so, clearly, the CIA is funded off-the-books from the narcotics business, and America’s anti-narcotics laws thus are actually keeping narcotics-drug prices and resultant burglaries and CIA profits artificially high, funneling that illicit money into CIA coffers; and any method to defund the CIA down to its core intelligence-gathering function and to eliminate its coup-function, which is the function that took control in Thailand and Syria and then Iran and many more, would need to regulate — instead of to continue outlawing — drugs, which might be the main reason why it hasn’t yet been done: illegal drugs provide wealth to the CIA and other gang-lords, including some U.S. Government officials).

Another significant milestone in the development of the American elite’s plan to conquer Russia has been the overwhelming — more than 90% of the votes in both the U.S. Senate and House — support for the imposition in 2012 of economic sanctions against Russia, to punish the Russian Government for the alleged 2009 murder of one alleged anti-corruption whistleblower in a Russian prison, Sergei Magnitsky — the Magnitsky Act was passed, and was the first set of economic sanctions against Russia. (The evidence that Magnitsky had been a ‘whistleblower’, and the evidence that he was ‘tortured’ in prison, and the evidence that he wasn’t instead the American Bill Browder’s tax-accountant who had helped Browder in a complex tax-evasion scheme that had defrauded the Russian Government of $232 million, are all themselves fraudulent, and even are easily verified as being fraudulent, but both the U.S. Government, and the EU, ignored and continue to ignore all of it.) In order to have a ‘justification’ to attack Russia, an excuse is needed; and, since the ideological one — communism — ended in 1991, Russia needs to be at least a ‘dictatorship’; so, something such as the Magnitsky Act was necessary in order to get the military-industrial complex’a (MIC’s) PR ball rolling toward even-higher annual U.S. ’defense’ spending. However, that excuse, being a ‘dictatorship’ (with elections that are at least as honest as America’s are), isn’t enough. Russia also needs to be officially declared to be an ‘aggressor’ — an aggressive dictatorship — such as to have grabbed portions of its adjoining country, Ukraine. So, America’s Obama regime secretly started in 2011 planning, and then in February 2014 it carried out, a coup against and overthrowing the democratically elected and Russia-friendly Government of Ukraine, and installed there a fascist regime to replace the one that had received 75% of the vote in the Crimean region of Ukraine, and 90% of the vote in the Donbass region of Ukraine, so that both regions refused to be ruled by the Obama-installed rabidly anti-Russian Ukrainian regime, and Russia helped both of those two separatist regions on its borders, and even protected and accepted Crimea’s referendum-vote of over 90% to rejoin Russia, of which Crimea had historically been a part until the Soviet dictator in 1954 arbitrarily transferred it to Ukraine. So, now, the U.S. MIC has the excuses it wants, in order to place — and thus did place — its weapons and troops onto and near Russia’s borders, just a ten-minute missile flight-time to Moscow. 

This plan is moving forward, but nobody can yet say whether, or even when, the U.S. regime will invade. However, the U.S. regime and its NATO allies now also have the excuses that Russia has been holding ‘aggressive’ military exercises near its borders ‘threatening’ NATO countries on its border that might invade Russia, and Western ‘news’media have alarmed their publics against Russia’s ‘aggressive’ moves after its having ‘stolen’ Crimea and ‘attacked’ Ukraine in Donbass. And then there is yet more Russian ‘aggression’ when Syria requested and received Russia’s military assistance against the U.S.-backed jihadists who, since 2012, have poured, by the tens of thousands, from around the world, into Syria, to be led by the U.S.-backed Al Qaeda there, to overthrow the Syrian Government, which is allied with Russia. So, that too (the Syrian war) could produce a war between the U.S. and Russia; it could start over Syrian territory, where the U.S. insists on regime-change, but claims only to be ‘fighting terrorists’ there. Of course, regardless of whether the invader of Syria (the U.S.), or else the defender of Syria (Russia), wins, the loser in Syria, especially if it turns out to be the U.S. invader (i.e., if Syria remains one country instead of breaking apart, and if Assad becomes re-elected as President there), could then use that superpower-defeat in Syria, as constituting an excuse to invade the winning superpower there. This would be WW III, starting in Syria, instead of in Ukraine. The U.S. regime has set up those two scenarios. 

1984 has come in the real world, but the declining and former leading superpower, America (“Oceania” in George Orwell’s uncannily prophetic description of the future that he prematurely set to occur in 1984), is apparently determined to stay ‘on top’, even if it’s the last thing that anybody does. Can it really be that if the world of the future won’t be led by America’s billionaires, then it won’t exist at all? Do they really demand “My way, or the highway” — really? Are America’s billionaires (despite any ‘humanitarian’ pretenses they individually so often hypocritically express, both in the fictionalized and in the real version) so stunningly united in their actual psychopathy (likewise in both versions — “Big Brother,” and today’s reality)? Thus far, it seems that they are. None of them — not a one of these people who have the financial resources to bring the world’s most pressing issue honestly to the American public — is speaking out against the others on it, and devoting major funds to exposing the others for their pumping lies against Russia, and to exposing the truths about such things as ABMs and the MIC. And collectively they’ve got the American public fooled into admiring the MIC (“the Military”) above all other U.S. institutions. But whether America’s billionaires will carry their collective evil to the extreme, isn’t yet clear. They are the actual decision-makers regarding U.S. Government policy, but they are playing their cards — as usual — privately and secretly, until their game (whatever it may turn out to be) will already be finished.

Meanwhile, Russia and China each proceeds forward on its own priorities, which aren’t necessarily similar to those of the conquest-obsessed American Government.

*

This article was originally published by Strategic Culture Foundation.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Three Global Super-Powers. China, Russia and the U.S.

European Israel Public Affairs (EIPA) is a grand-sounding title for yet another pro-Israel lobbying group in the same general category as AIPAC in the US or CFI and BICOM in London.

This particular group of lobbyists for nuclear Israel is based in Brussels, ‘right beside the European Commission, European Council and within easy reach of the European Parliament..’ as they proudly proclaim on their website.

Their agenda is simple: to gain as much commercial advantage as possible in terms of political and economic ties with the EU notwithstanding that the foreign state they represent is in clear and gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 that demands the dismantling of all illegal settlements in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. That resolution was passed with the unanimous support of all 28 EU member states.

Yet this lobbying organisation has the ‘chutzpah’ to ask the EU for more trade and closer economic ties with EU members!   In fact, many European nations are currently re-evaluating their trading links with a Middle Eastern state that so blatantly treats both the United Nations and the EU Parliament with such contempt.

There is a contention that there should be an immediate ban on all EU trade with the state of Israel until such time as it re-joins the community of nations; undertakes to fulfill its obligations as a UN member state, complies with international law and respects human and civil rights.  That will entail the return of all Israeli settlers back to their homes in Israel; the dismantling of all settlements on occupied Palestinian and Syrian land and the immediate cessation of the 10 year blockade of essential goods against 2m civilians in Gaza.   Failing which, the state of Israel should be declared a ‘statu aliena non grata’.

Any member of the General Assembly of the UN must comply with the resolution of the majority and any non-member of the EU wishing to maintain trading links with Europe must first be compliant with their obligations under the UN Charter and also under the Geneva Conventions on Human Rights.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Israel’s Lobby Groups Seek Closer Political Ties with EU, De Facto Acceptance of Illegal Settlements
  • Tags:

Featured image: Monument to the Three Charters for National Reunification (or Reunification Arch), Pyongyang, DPRK

The PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics, which will go down in history as the “Peace Olympics”, has marked an important step forward in the Korean nation’s desire and striving for peace and for reunification of the Korean Peninsula. It has wrong-footed and nonplussed the US as a blow to their hostility to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and to keep it isolated with a divided Korean Peninsula.

The creation of a unified Korean sports delegation amongst other initiatives is significant; it has been 12 years since the two Koreas have marched together as one group in an Olympics with a flag displaying an undivided Korean peninsula. This is the first time the two countries have had a combined unified women’s team since 1991 when they had put together a single team for a table tennis championship in Chiba, Japan, and a youth soccer tournament. The unified table tennis team won the gold medal defeating China.

The stage was set a month before the games began, at the inter-Korean talks on January 9 to promote national reconciliation and reunification and solve all problems between themselves through bilateral dialogue and negotiations, and to dissipate mounting tensions due to U.S. threats to disrupt the Olympics with fire and fury. Representatives of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Republic of Korea (ROK) took the decision to “proactively cooperate in ensuring that the 23rd Winter Olympics and Paralympics in the south side area will be successfully held, providing an occasion for enhancing the prestige of the [Korean] nation,” ultimately resulting in a large DPRK delegation being sent to the games and the two Koreas marching as one in the opening ceremony, among other initiatives.

Photo shows joint Korean delegation entering PyeongChang Olympic Stadium at the opening ceremony, February 9, 2018, ending the parade of nations. The Korean Unification Flag takes centre stage and flashes across the stadium seats with the name “Korea.”

Instead of respecting this initiative, the sports media has taken up the theme of Washington and NATO that the creation of a unified Korean sports delegation of the ROK and DPRK athletes constitutes a “charm offensive,”a short-lived “manipulation” and a onetime symbolic stunt of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The sincere aspirations of the Korean people to unite their divided nation made short shrift of the views repeated ad nauseam by the imperialist press.

The Korean people have been striving for reunification and peace in the face of the attempts of the US to bring about regime change in the DPRK, attempts which include sanctions to starve and create widespread hardship for the people, attempts in which Canada is also complicit.

The “Peace Olympics” have shown that these attempts, though vindictive and punitive, are a miscalculation, and that sanctions, blackmail and military might have been stymied once again by the people’s striving for social and national liberation.

The historical context merits attention and cannot be falsified or ignored.

At the end of the Russo-Japanese War, Korea was declared a protectorate of Japan in 1905. Then in 1910 Korea was formally annexed and forcibly occupied by Japan. The resistance to Japanese occupation came to take the form of guerrilla warfare under the leadership of Kim Il Sung, who founded the Association for the Restoration of the Fatherland in 1936. This was the first national united front organisation of the Korean people. Central to its Ten-Point Programme was the overthrow of Japanese rule and the establishment of an army to fight for and defend Korean independence. This programme also laid out the nationalisation of industry and land reform, along with policies such as an eight-hour working day, equality of the sexes and free education. In this way, it connected together the aims of nation-building and social progress, with independence as their precondition.

The Korean people won their eventual victory over Japan’s colonial rule during the Second World War, and began to rebuild their nation anew, founding the Korean People’s Republic in August-September, 1945. However, with the onset of the Cold War as the Second World War drew to an end, the US sought to ensure its sphere of influence extended into the Korean peninsula.

Bordering both China and the Soviet Union, Korea was envisaged by the US as a key strategic base. Korea became artificially divided in 1945 in the aftermath of the Second World War as a direct result of the Cold War Truman Doctrine of the “containment of communism”. The establishment of the Republic of Korea (ROK) on August 15, 1948, in the US-occupied south set the seal on this division. This was then followed by the establishment of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) by the patriotic forces under the leadership of Kim Il Sung in the north on September 9, 1948. Thus two states in one Korean nation came into being.

Division was further entrenched by the US aggression and provocation of civil war which led to the Korean War of 1950-53. On defeat, the US constructed a concrete wall along the 38th parallel in an attempt to make the division of Korea permanent.

Ever since their country was divided, reunification has been the goal of the Korean people. US-led disinformation has repeatedly asserted that the DPRK is the obstacle to peace and security on the Korean peninsula, continuing the Cold War refrain that the DPRK is the warmongering party, and instead suggesting that the only path to reunification is regime change in the north through the interference of the US.

In fact, from the time that Korea was divided against the will and aspirations of the Korean people, it was President Kim Il Sung who provided consistent, timely and decisive leadership, including advancing the three principles of national reunification (May 1972), the Five Point Policy for National Reunification (June 1973), the plan for founding a Democratic Federal Republic of Koryoi (October 1980) and the 10-Point Programme of the Great Unity of the Whole Nation for the Reunification of the Country (April 1993). The DPRK has been the initiator of the principles behind all initiatives for peace and reunification since 1945.

In May 1972, Kim II Sung explained the three principles of national reunification at talks between the north and south of Korea held in Pyongyang:

“The three principles of realizing independent reunification without outside interference, achieving great national unity by transcending differences in ideas, ideals and systems, and reunifying the divided land by peaceful means without recourse to armed force, are the starting point of and the basis for the solution of our reunification question.”

These principles formed the basis of the historic North-South Joint Statement of July 4, 1972, which began:

“The parties have agreed upon the following principles for the reunification.

“First, the reunification must be achieved with no reliance on external forces or interference. It must be achieved internally.

“Second, the reunification must be achieved peacefully without the use of military forces against the other side.

“Third, both parties must promote national unity as a united people over any differences of our ideological and political systems.”

Subsequently, the five-point policy for national reunification was put forth in June 1973: to remove military confrontation and lessen tension; to achieve multilateral collaboration and interchange; to convene a Great National Congress; to institute a north-south Federation named the Federal Republic of Koryo; and to enter the UN under that name.

The three principles of national reunification won support at the 28th session of the UN General Assembly in 1973, which adopted a resolution dissolving the US-instigated “UN Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea.”

In 1975, the 30th session of the UN General Assembly voted by an overwhelming majority to adopt the DPRK’s demand for the dissolution of the UN High Command, the withdrawal of all foreign troops from south Korea and the replacement of the armistice agreement with a peace treaty.

In line with the three principles for reunification, Kim Il Sung in October 1980 advanced the key proposal for the creation of a single confederal state incorporating the two social systems that exist in the north and south. This state, to be named the Democratic Federal Republic of Koryo, would be administered by a single government, yet would be based on respect for and recognition of the ideas and social systems present in each of the two regions of the country. Each side would have autonomy under and be equally represented in this united national government, with equal rights and duties. Furthermore, the new republic would not be a party to any political or military bloc, but would pursue a policy in accord with the interests of the entire Korean people. President Kim Il Sung stressed that the DFRK should be a neutral state that does not join any political and military alliance or bloc. Unlike other federal states, the DFRK would be formed with a homogeneous nation, based on different social systems but composed of one nation and two autonomous regional governments within the framework of a unified state.

Between March 1981 and March 1982, over 1.6 billion people in 105 countries took part in an international signature campaign in support of the proposal for founding a Democratic Federal Republic of Koryo.

Kim Il Sung further elaborated these principles and proposals in his 10-Point Programme for National Reunification at the Supreme People’s Assembly of the DPRK in April 6, 1993:

“1. A unified state, independent, peaceful and neutral, should be founded through the great unity of the whole nation.

“2. Unity should be based on patriotism and the spirit of national independence.

“3. Unity should be achieved on the principle of promoting co-existence, co-prosperity and common interests and subordinating everything to the cause of national reunification.

“4. All political disputes that foment division and confrontation between fellow countrymen should be ended and unity should be achieved.

“5. The fear of invasion from both south and north, and the ideas of prevailing over communism and communisation should be dispelled, and north and south should believe in each other and unite.

“6. The north and south should value democracy and join hands on the road to national reunification, without rejecting each other because of differences in ideals and principles.

“7. The north and south should protect the material and spiritual wealth of individuals and organisations and encourage their use for the promotion of great national unity.

“8. Understanding, trust and unity should be built up across the nation through contact, exchange visits and dialogue.

“9. The whole nation, north, south and overseas, should strengthen its solidarity for the sake of national reunification.

“10. Those who have contributed to the great unity of the nation and to the cause of national reunification should be honoured.”

More than 1.73 billion people in some 150 countries participated in the signature campaign for supporting the 10-Point Programme of the Great Unity of the Whole Nation for the Reunification of the Country between April and October 1994.

In the 1980s and the early 1990s, the DPRK also offered disarmament and peace initiatives to create conditions for holding tripartite talks involving the US and south Korea in which a peace pact between the DPRK and the US and a non-aggression treaty between the north and south would have been on the table, as well as the phased pull-out of US troops from south Korea in keeping with gradual military reduction by the north and south, and ending the unstable situation of neither peace nor ceasefire.

It was in August 1997, after Kim Il Sung’s death in 1994, that his successor as leader Kim Jong Il formulated the three principles of national reunification, the ten-point programme of the great unity of the whole nation and the proposal of establishing the Democratic Federal Republic of Koryo as the Three Charters for national reunification, systematising and integrating these issues.

On June 15, 2000, then President of the ROK Kim Dae Jung is welcomed to Pyongyang by then leader of the DPRK Kim Jong Il, for the historic summit produced the North­South Joint Declaration.

These principles and proposals created the conditions for the signing of the historic June 15, 2000, North-South Joint Declaration between Kim Jong Il, as Chairman of the National Defence Commission of the DPRK, and President Kim Dae Jung of the ROK in Pyongyang. This event was of crucial importance in finding a way forward on the issue of reunification, achieving a national consensus in the conception of “By Our Nation Itself”.

The subsequent joint declaration on the development of the north-south relations, peace and prosperity issued at the north-south summit on October 4, 2007, was a practical programme for national unity being a comprehensive agreement building on the June 15 Joint Declaration and embodying the ideas of the Three Charters. The 2007 programme gave answers to practical and immediate issues arising in achieving the unity of the Korean nation, including the facilitation of the legal and institutional mechanism to develop north-south relations towards reunification, ending military hostility, easing tension and maintaining peace on the Korean peninsula, terminating the status of a cease-fire and instead establishing a durable peace regime, developing the national economy in a balanced way, economic co-operation for common prosperity, consolidating national culture, broadening humanitarian co-operation, securing the rights of the overseas compatriots and other goals.

In his 2015 New Year address, Kim Jong Un emphasized that the north and the south should refrain from seeking confrontation between their two systems, through absolutizing their respective ideologies and systems. They should resolve the reunification issue to their satisfaction through the common interests of the nation which transcend differences in ideology. In order to achieve national reunification in line with the desires and intentions of the nation, the Korean people have to reject foreign interference and firmly maintain the stand of “By Our Nation Itself”.

In his 2016 New Year address, Kim Jong Un underlined that national reunification is the most pressing and vital task facing the nation. He said that the Korean people should hold up the slogan “Let us frustrate the challenges by the anti-reunification forces within and without and usher in a new era of independent reunification!” and press on with the national reunification movement more vigorously. They should reject foreign intervention and resolve the issues of inter-Korean relations and national reunification independently in keeping with the aspirations and demands of the nation.

The Korean people’s own aim for peace and reunification, free from outside interference, has prevailed and set the tone and ensured that these Olympics will be known from now on as the “Peace Olympics.”

*

Note

i ”Koryo” was the name of a Korean kingdom that lasted from 918 to 1392, which was formed from the unification of separate earlier kingdoms, and came to cover the whole of the Korean peninsula. It is from Koryo that the name Korea derives.

All images in this article are from An Amateur Sport Website.


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

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

Reviews

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

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

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

WWIII Scenario

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on PyeongChang ‘Peace Olympics’: The Initiatives of the DPRK for Peace and Korean Reunification Over the Years

Over the past fifty years, the Munich Security Conference (MSC) has traditionally reflected the current state of world military affairs. Each February, more than 450 senior decision-makers from around the globe descend into Munich, Germany, to discuss current and future security challenges.

And while there have been times in recent years when the MSC demonstrated signs of hope and optimism, none of that was evident this year. This year’s motto “To the Brink – and Back?”- which seems to be an accurate portrayal of the current geopolitical situations in most regions. After several days of senior decision-makers bickering back and forth, the negativity in the atmosphere only means one thing: A global conflict between nuclear superpowers is lingering.

“I was hoping when I opened this conference on Friday that, in concluding the conference, I would be able to say we can delete the question mark. In other words: ‘We are back from the brink,’” former German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger said in closing remarks of the MSC. “I’m actually not sure we can say that,” he added.

The dangers of nuclear proliferation and talk of a “dire” global security situation dominated the security conference: from the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine, to U.S. allegations of Russia’s election-meddling, to territorial disputes between ex-Soviet republics, and even discussions about the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran: geopolitical doom and gloom was not short in all conversations during the meeting.

And, in the latest escalation, Bloomberg reports that the most fiery subject of the conference were the tensions surrounding Russia and the U.S over nuclear arms controls.

Addressing a conference hall in Munich packed with dignitaries, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned of the risks emanating from North Korea’s nuclear activities, which have ratcheted up tensions between Pyongyang and Washington.

“For the first time since the end of the Cold War, we are now facing a nuclear threat, a threat of a nuclear conflict,” Guterres told the gathering in the southern Bavarian city.

Conference Chairman Wolfgang Ischinger opened the event by warning that the world has moved too close to a “major interstate conflict” and faces a “dire reality.”

“We have too many unresolved crises, instabilities, and conflicts,” Ischinger warned.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov fired a shot at President Trump’s new 74-page nuclear doctrine calling for a modernization of America’s nuclear arsenal.

 

U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster shot back at Lavrov’s statements defending the U.S. nuclear posture, which calls for more low-yield atomic bombs and outlines explicitly Russia and China are the primary sources of security concern for the Pentagon.

“We will not allow Russia any of the power to hold the populations of Europe hostage,” he declared Saturday in Munich, appearing on stage minutes after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sounded the alarm on the U.S. military-industrial complex expansion since the collapse of Communism.

While the two countries have fulfilled the terms of another landmark nuclear weapons reduction treaty, New START, that accord expires in 2021 and there’s political pressure on President Donald Trump to let it expire because of the alleged Russian non-compliance with the INF treaty. Moscow in turn accuses Washington of itself breaking the intermediate-range pact.  So far, no formal negotiations are taking place on either issue.

And as the world devolves to another potential nuclear arms race, Javier Solana, NATO’s former secretary-general, and Sigmar Gabriel, Germany’s acting foreign minister, expressed alarm:

The most likely theater for nuclear conflicts would once again be here, in the center of Europe,” Gabriel told the conference.

Meanwhile Graham Allison, a Pentagon adviser under former U.S. President Ronald Reagan when the two superpowers were negotiating arms control, said he’s skeptical momentum will be found to revive START and the INF.

Arms control was developed primarily to prevent the “insane” possibility that Russia and the U.S. would annihilate each other due to miscalculation or accident, despite not even wanting to go to war, said Allison, now a professor of government at Harvard University. “Those risks remain today.”

Needless to say, a return to the nuclear arms race is the worst possible outcome: “according to Sergei Karaganov, a former Kremlin foreign policy adviser, the situation could get “much more dangerous” than during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, when the world was on the brink of nuclear war.”

Under New START, which followed from the 1991 START treaty and was signed in 2010, the Russian and U.S. arsenals are restricted to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads on no more than 700 deployed strategic missiles and bombers.

And, if that long-range missile pact isn’t prolonged and the INF collapses, “you have a situation where there are no limits on Russian and American nuclear forces,” said Steven Pifer, a former top State Department official and arms control expert, quoted by Bloomberg. In addition, Russia and the U.S. would stop exchanging data on each other’s nuclear arsenals and permitting regular inspections. “It would be less predictable, less secure, less stable,” Pifer said.

Russia would then likely respond to any U.S. move to station land-based intermediate-range missiles in Europe by deploying similar missiles to target “all the bases where these weapons will be,” said Igor Korotchenko, director of the Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade in Moscow.

“And the U.S. can’t stay safe over the ocean – we’ll create the same risk for the U.S. as they do for us in Europe,” he said.

In short: a full blown nuclear arms race coupled with Cold War 2.0.

* * *

Some experts,  such as Thomas Graham, ex-White House adviser under George W. Bush, remain optimistic, and believe Russia and the U.S. will blink when faced with the prospect of stepping into a void without the security of arms control.

Russia has proposed a 5-year extension to New START, to 2026, though it’s tying that to fixing complaints about the way the U.S. has complied with the treaty, the Interfax news service reported Feb. 16.

Others are not: “The chances are diminishing every day,’’ said Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian upper house of parliament.

Ian Bremmer, the founder of the Eurasia Group told Handelsblatt that,

“We’re in trouble, because, you know, pretty much every geopolitical conflict out there is escalating, none of them are getting fixed, and no one has any solutions. This was not a good meeting.”


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

by Michel Chossudovsky

Available to order from Global Research! 

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

Reviews

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

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

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

WWIII Scenario

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Munich Conference: “For the First Time in Decades We Are Facing Threat of Nuclear Conflict”

A Otan já votou antes de nós

February 20th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

Existe um partido que, mesmo sem aparecer, participa de fato nas eleições italianas: O Partido da Otan, formado por uma maioria transversal que apoia explicitamente ou consente tacitamente o pertencimento da Itália na Grande Aliança sob o comando dos Estados Unidos.

Isto explica por que, em plena campanha eleitoral, os principais partidos aceitaram tacitamente os compromissos assumidos pelo governo no encontro dos 29 ministros da Defesa dos países membros da Otan (pela Itália, Roberta Pinotti), em 14 e 15 de fevereiro em Bruxelas.

Primeiramente, os ministros participaram do Grupo de Planificação Nuclear da Otan, presidido pelos Estados Unidos, cujas decisões sempre são ultrassecretas. Reunidos como Conselho do Atlântico Norte, os ministros anunciaram, depois de apenas duas horas, importantes decisões (já tomadas em outra sede) para “modernizar a estrutura de comando da Otan, espinha dorsal da Aliança”.

Fica estabelecido um novo Comando conjunto para o Atlântico, situado provavelmente nos Estados Unidos, com o escopo de “proteger a linha marítima de comunicação entre a América do Norte e a Europa”. De tal modo, cria-se o cenário de submarinos russos que poderiam afundar os navios mercantes nas rotas transatlânticas.

Também se estabelece um novo Comando logístico, situado provavelmente na Alemanha, para “melhorar o movimento na Europa de tropas e equipamentos essenciais à defesa”. Desse modo, inventa-se o cenário de uma Otan obrigada a defender-se de uma Rússia agressiva, enquanto é a Otan que acumula forças agressivamente nas fronteiras com a Rússia. Sobre tal base serão instituídos na Europa outros comandos da componente terrestre para “melhorar a resposta rápida das nossas forças”.

Também está previsto um novo Centro de Operações Cibernéticas para “reforçar a nossa defesa”, situado no quartel general de Mons (Bélgica), sob a chefia do Comandante supremo aliado na Europa que é sempre um general estadunidense nomeado pelo presidente dos Estados Unidos.

Confirmou-se o empenho para aumentar as despesas militares: nos últimos anos os aliados europeus e o Canadá aumentaram em conjunto a despesa militar em 46 bilhões de dólares, mas isto é apenas o começo. O objetivo é que todos alcancem ao menos dois por cento do PIB (os EUA gastam quatro por cento), de modo a ter “mais dinheiro e portanto mais capacidade militar”. Os países europeus que até agora atingiram e superaram essa meta são: Grécia (2,32%), Estônia, Grã Bretanha, Romênia, Polônia.

A despesa militar da União Europeia – repetiu-se em um encontro com a representante exterior da União Europeia Federica Mogherini – deve ser complementar à da Otan.

A ministra Pinotti confirmou que “a Itália, respeitando a exigência dos EUA, começou a aumentar a despesa para a Defesa” e que “continuaremos nesse caminho que é o caminho da responsabilidade”. Assim, a rota está traçada. Mas não se fala disto na campanha eleitoral.

Enquanto sobre o pertencimento da Itália na União Europeia os principais partidos têm posições diversificadas, sobre o pertencimento da Itália na Otan são praticamente unânimes. Isto distorce todo o quadro.

Não se pode discutir sobre a União Europeia ignorando que 21 dos 27 países do bloco (depois do Brexit), com cerca de 90% da população, fazem parte da Otan sob o comando dos EUA. Não podem ser ignoradas as consequências políticas e militares – e ao tempo econômicas, sociais e culturais – do fato de que a Otan está transformando a Europa em um campo de batalha contra a Rússia, apresentada como um inimigo ameaçador: o novo “império do mal” que ataca por dentro “a maior democracia do mundo” com o seu exército de troll.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Artigo em italiano :

Ha già votato la Nato prima di noi

Publicado originalmente em Il Manifesto

Tradução de José Reinaldo Carvalho para o site Resistência

Manlio Dinucci é geógrafo e jornalista

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on A Otan já votou antes de nós

Ha già votato la Nato prima di noi

February 20th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

C’è un partito che, anche se non compare, partecipa di fatto alle elezioni italiane: il Nato Party, formato da una maggioranza trasversale che sostiene esplicitamente o con tacito assenso l’appartenenza dell’Italia alla Grande Alleanza sotto comando Usa. Ciò spiega perché, in piena campagna elettorale, i principali partiti hanno tacitamente accettato gli ulteriori impegni assunti dal governo nell’incontro dei 29 ministri Nato della Difesa (per l’Italia Roberta Pinotti), il 14-15 febbraio a Bruxelles.

I ministri hanno prima partecipato al Gruppo di pianificazione nucleare della Nato, presieduto dagli Stati uniti, le cui decisioni sono sempre top secret. Quindi, riunitisi come Consiglio Nord Atlantico, i ministri hanno annunciato, dopo appena due ore, importanti decisioni (già prese in altra sede) per «modernizzare la struttura di comando della Nato, spina dorsale della Alleanza». Viene stabilito un nuovo Comando congiunto per l’Atlantico, situato probabilmente negli Stati uniti, allo scopo di «proteggere le linee marittime di comunicazione tra Nord America ed Europa». Si inventa in tal modo lo scenario di sottomarini russi che potrebbero affondare i mercantili sulle rotte transatlantiche. Viene stabilito anche un nuovo Comando logistico, situato probabilmente in Germania, per «migliorare il movimento in Europa di truppe ed equipaggiamenti essenziali alla difesa». Si inventa in tal modo lo scenario di una Nato costretta a difendersi da una Russia aggressiva, mentre è la Nato che ammassa aggressivamente forze ai confini con la Russia. Su tale base saranno istituiti in Europa altri comandi della componente terrestre per «migliorare la risposta rapida delle nostre forze».

 

Previsto anche un nuovo Centro di Cyber Operazioni per «rafforzare le nostre difese», situato presso il quartier generale di Mons (Belgio), con a capo il Comandante supremo alleato in Europa che è sempre un generale Usa nominato dal presidente degli Stati uniti. Confermato l’impegno ad accrescere la spesa militare: negli ultimi tre anni gli alleati europei e il Canada l’hanno aumentata complessivamente di 46 miliardi di dollari, ma è appena l’inizio. L’obiettivo è che tutti raggiungano almeno il 2% del pil (gli Usa spendono il 4%), così da avere «più denaro e quindi più capacità militari». I paesi europei che finora hanno raggiunto e superato tale quota sono: Grecia (2,32%), Estonia, Gran Bretagna, Romania, Polonia. La spesa militare dell’Unione europea – è stato ribadito in un incontro con la rappresentante esteri della Ue Federica Mogherini – deve essere complementare a quella della Nato. La ministra Pinotti ha confermato che «l’Italia, rispettando la richiesta Usa, ha cominciato ad aumentare la spesa per la Difesa» e che «continueremo su questa strada che è una strada di responsabilità». La via dunque è tracciata.

Ma di questo non si parla nella campagna elettorale. Mentre sull’appartenenza dell’Italia all’Unione europea i principali partiti hanno posizioni diversificate, sull’appartenenza dell’Italia alla Nato sono praticamente unanimi. Questo falsa l’intero quadro. Non si può discutere di Unione europea ignorando che 21 dei 27 paesi Ue (dopo la Brexit), con circa il 90% della popolazione dell’Unione, fanno parte della Nato sotto comando Usa. Non si possono ignorare le conseguenze politiche e militari – e allo stesso tempo economiche, sociali e culturali – del fatto che la Nato sta trasformando l’Europa in un campo di battaglia contro la Russia, raffigurata come un minaccioso nemico: il nuovo «impero del male» che attacca dall’interno «la più grande democerazia del mondo» con il suo esercito di troll.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Ha già votato la Nato prima di noi

Among the more significant cases of United States’ determination in preventing independent nationalism, is with regard to Chile.

The Chilean example, starting under its 1970 democratically elected president Salvador Allende, was a telling one. Firstly, it lies in the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, Chile is “only” about 5,000 miles from the US border, and an independent path here was deemed an unacceptable threat.

In 1970, President Richard Nixon ordered the CIA to “make the [Chilean] economy scream” in order to “prevent Allende from coming to power or unseat him”. Nixon feared that Chile would become “another Cuba”. Despite friendly relations with Cuban leader Fidel Castro, Allende himself was not a Communist.

The Chilean President was a social democrat of the European model. Allende was born into a privileged family, who had a tradition of political involvement in progressive causes. Allende studied at the University of Chile, following his grandfather’s footsteps by becoming a physician.

Allende’s rise had drawn increasing panic from Washington, and indeed, the mask irresistibly slipped to reveal the face of imperialism. In 1973, National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger said,

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go Communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves”.

The crime of the Chilean people was its “irresponsibility” in wanting a brighter future for themselves. Kissinger further said that the “virus” of independence had to be crushed before it “spread contagion”. Allende’s presidential palace was bombed, with the president himself dying in the aftermath, along with thousands of others.

Augusto Pinochet and Henry Kissinger (Source: Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile / Wikimedia (CC BY 2.0 CL))

The murderous dictator Augusto Pinochet was installed in 1973, whom CIA reports had described as “hard working” and “honest”. In the midst of the bloodshed and economic inequality, Pinochet also stole $26 million of Chilean cash. He hid the millions in 120 bank accounts, many of them located offshore, while using bogus passports.

The suffering of Chileans paled in comparison to those in Vietnam and the rest of Indochina. When Allende was toppled in 1973, the war against Vietnam was reaching its agonising late stages with US troops finally pulling out. As with Chile, American concerns about Vietnam were primarily with regard independent policy – and its potential spread to the resource laden regions of south-east Asia.

In the early 1950s, the US had opposed rising Vietnamese nationalism, while supporting French efforts to re-colonize its former territory. This failed when the French were routed in early May 1954, by Ho Chi Minh’s Communist Viet Minh coalition.

This resulted in a political settlement the same year, at the Geneva Conference in Switzerland, which split Vietnam into two states, in the Korean mode. The US regarded these peace accords as “a disaster”, and prevented it from proceeding.

During the next year (1955), the US erected a puppet state in South Vietnam led by the dictator, Ngo Dinh Diem. It was a classic Western client regime, carrying out murders and torture on a vast scale. By the early 1960s Diem’s policies most likely killed between 70,000 to 80,000 people. This was all before the war against Vietnam had even begun.

Diem’s cruel suppression only led to increased resistance against his regime. By 1961, the situation was “out of control” with Diem close to being toppled by popular resistance. This would have been a shattering outcome for US strategic planners.

They were terrified of a “domino effect”. If the entirety of Vietnam came under Communist control, it could conceivably extend to other countries. Malaysia could be next. Or, worst of all, Indonesia – described by Richard Nixon in 1967 as “the greatest prize”, with its abundant riches.

The unmatched might of the US military was called upon. In early 1962, President John F. Kennedy directed the US Air Force to bomb South Vietnam en masse – disguising American aircraft with South Vietnamese markings. So began the 13-year war.

In 1963, the Kennedy administration learned the dictator Diem was making attempts at a peace deal with Communist North Vietnam. Kennedy and his liberal cabinet subsequently organized a coup in which Diem and his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, were assassinated. The war against Vietnam escalated until Kennedy himself was killed in late November 1963.

The conflict in Vietnam was continued with vigour by Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Nixon – as “secret wars” spread to the rest of Indochina, Laos and Cambodia. Little is known about the scale of destruction against these defenseless countries. Laos, which is slightly smaller than Britain, suffered the misery of being the most bombed nation in history.

By 1975, millions had died across Indochina. This part of Asia will be fortunate if it ever recovers, as unexploded mines and bombs continue to dot the countryside.

Nor was the punishment limited to Indochina. Indonesia, just over a thousand miles east of Vietnam, was also harassed mercilessly. In 1965, American intervention led to the democratically elected President Ahmed Sukarno being unseated after two decades in power.

President Sukarno was described by the famous Indonesian writer, Pramoedya Ananta Toer, as “the only Asian leader of the modern era able to unify people of such differing ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds without shedding a drop of blood”.

Much blood would be shed during the following 33-year reign of his Western-backed successor, General Hajji Suharto (in power, 1965-1998). Indeed, the Suharto regime inflicted “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century”.

The bloodshed rivalled Stalin’s purges. Up to a million people, mostly landless Indonesian peasants, were killed during widespread massacres against Communists, or Communist sympathisers, or simply anyone in the way.

With the body count having piled up during the initial genocide of 1965-1966, American corporations waded through the blood to pillage Indonesian resources. Suharto’s “paradise for investors” was to be exploited for full Western benefit.

James Reston, the New York Times’ then prominent voice, described the Suharto takeover as “a gleam of light in Asia”. Reston’s analysis was typical of mainstream commentary of Suharto. For over 20 years, one of the worst mass murderers of the post-World War II period was described as “a moderate leader”, “a moderating voice”, or “at heart benign”, someone who brought “stability” to the region. Later, the Bill Clinton administration described Suharto as “our kind of guy”.

The list continues. America supported apartheid South Africa in the 1970s and 1980s – while also backing Jonas Savimbi’s terrorist UNITA forces in Angola, 900 miles north of South Africa.

The US continued unabashed in their support for the monstrous Savimbi. This despite a CIA account describing him as “terribly brutal” and that “it wasn’t a good idea” to help him. Savimbi was even invited to the White House to meet Ronald Reagan, and later, George H. W. Bush.

In the meantime, South African terrorists were driven out of Angola by Cuban-led forces in early 1976. Years later, troops loyal to Fidel Castro also forced South Africa to end its illegal occupation of neighboring Namibia. America’s backing of South Africa’s racist regime continued right to the end of Reagan’s second term, in 1989.

That same year a UN report outlined that South African assaults on Namibia, Angola and Mozambique resulted in around 1.5 million lives lost.

Elsewhere in the 1980s, terrorist operations orchestrated by the Reagan administration cost about 200,000 lives across Latin America. It was called the first “war on terror”, as immediately declared by Reagan upon taking office in 1981.

In the Middle East, a rough estimate of four million people have died since the 1991 Gulf War to the current day. Indeed, the death toll may even be higher as a result of Western aggression, to prevent independence and allow control over oil resources. Nobody knows the precise body count in the Middle East, as the crimes have never been investigated.

*

This article was originally published by The Duran.

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ‘Virus’ of Nationalism Has Been Smashed Repeatedly with Dictatorships Installed by the US

There’s no defense like a good offense.

For weeks the unfolding story in Washington has been how a cabal of conspirators in the heart of the American federal law enforcement and intelligence apparatus colluded to ensure the election of Hillary Clinton and, when that failed, to undermine the nascent presidency of Donald Trump. Agencies tainted by this corruption include not only the FBI and the Department of Justice (DOJ) but the Obama White House, the State Department, the NSA, and the CIA, plus their British sister organizations MI6 and GCHQ, possibly along with the British Foreign Office (with the involvement of former British ambassador to Russia Andrew Wood) and even Number 10 Downing Street.

Those implicated form a regular rogue’s gallery of the Deep State: Peter Strzok (formerly Chief of the FBI’s Counterespionage Section, then Deputy Assistant Director of the Counterintelligence Division; busy bee Strzok is implicated not only in exonerating Hillary from her email server crimes but initiating the Russiagate investigation in the first place, securing a FISA warrant using the dodgy “Steele Dossier,” and nailing erstwhile National Security Adviser General Mike Flynn on a bogus charge of “lying to the FBI”); Lisa Page (Strzok’s paramour and a DOJ lawyer formerly assigned to the all-star Democrat lineup on the Robert Mueller Russigate inquisition); former FBI Director James Comey, former Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and – let’s not forget – current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, himself implicated by having signed at least one of the dubious FISA warrant requests. Finally, there’s reason to believe that former CIA Director John O. Brennan may have been the mastermind behind the whole operation.

Not to be overlooked is the possible implication of a pack of former Democratic administration officials, including former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and President Barack Obama himself, who according to text communications between Strzok and Page “wants to know everything we’re doing.” Also involved is the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and Clinton operatives Sidney Blumenthal and Cody Shearer – rendering the ignorance of Hillary herself totally implausible.

On the British side we have “former” (suuure . . . ) MI6 spook Christopher Steele, diplomat Wood, former GCHQ chief Robert Hannigan (who resigned a year ago under mysterious circumstances), and whoever they answered to in the Prime Minister’s office.

The growing sense of panic was palpable. Oh my – this is a curtain that just cannot be allowed to be pulled back!

What to do, what to do . . .

Ah, here’s the ticket – come out swinging against the main enemy. That’s not even Donald Trump. It’s Russia and Vladimir Putin. Russia! Russia! Russia!

Hence the unveiling of an indictment against 13 Russian citizens and three companies for alleged meddling in U.S. elections and various ancillary crimes.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume all the allegations in the indictment are true, however unlikely that is to be the case. (While that would be the American legal rule for a complaint in a civil case, this is a criminal indictment, where there is supposedly a presumption of innocence. Rosenstein even mentioned that in his press conference, pretending not to notice that that presumption doesn’t apply to Russian Untermenschen – certainly not to Olympic athletes and really not to Russians at all, who are presumed guilty on “genetic” grounds.)

Based on the public announcement of the indictment by Rosenstein – who is effectively the Attorney General in place of the pro forma holder of that office, Jeff Sessions (R-Recused) – and on an initial examination of the indictment, and we can already draw a few conclusions:

  • Finally, “collusion” is dead! If Mueller and the anti-constitutional cabal had any hint that anyone on the Trump team cooperated with those indicted, they would have included it. They didn’t. That means that after months and months of “investigation” – or really, setting “perjury traps” and trying to nail people on unrelated accusations, like Paul Manafort’s alleged circumvention of lobbying and financial reporting laws – and wasting however many millions of dollars, Mueller and his merry band got nothing. Zip. Zilch. Bupkes. Nada.The fake charge that Trump colluded with the Russians is exposed as the fraud it always was.
  • And yet, “collusion” still lives! But while there is no actual allegation (much less evidence) that any American, much less anyone on the Trump team, “colluded” with the indicted Russians, the indictment makes it clear that Moscow sought to support Trump and disparage Hillary. Thus, Trump is guilty of being favored by Russia even if there was no actual cooperation. It’s a kind of zombie walking dead collusion, collusion by intent (of someone else) absent actual collusion. Its purpose in the indictment is to discredit Trump as a Russian puppet, albeit an unwitting one. The indictment says the Russian desperados supported Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein too – so they’re also Putin’s dupes.
  • Any and every Russian equals Putin. Incredibly, nothing in the indictment points to any connection of those indicted to the Russian government! This is on a par with the hysteria over social media placements by “Russian interests” on account of which hysterical Senators demanded that tech giants impose content controls, or dimwit CIA agents getting bilked out of $100,000 by a Russian scam artist in Berlin in exchange for – well, pretty much nothing. (The CIA denies it, which leads one to suspect it is true.) Paragraph 95 of the indictment points to what amounted to a click-bait scam to fleece American merchants and social media sites from between $25 and $50 per post for promotional content. Paragraph 88 refers to “self-enrichment” as one motive of the alleged operation. That makes a lot more sense than the bone-headed claim in the indictment that the Russian goal was to “sow discord in the U.S. political system” by posting content on “divisive U.S. political and social issues.” What! Americans disagree about stuff? The Russians are setting us against each other! In announcing the indictment, Rosenstein said the Russians wanted to “promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed.” (He wagged his finger with resolve at that point.) It evidently doesn’t occur to Rosenstein that he and his pals have undermined public confidence in our institutions by perverting them for political ends.
  • Demonizing dissent. Those indicted allegedly sought to attract Americans’ attention to their diabolical machinations through appeal to hot-button issues (immigration, Black Lives Matter, religion, etc.) and popular hashtags (#Trump2016, #TrumpTrain, #MAGA, #Hillary4Prison). Have you taken a stand on divisive issues, Dear Reader? Have you used any of these hashtags? Are you reading this commentary? You too might be an unwitting Russian stooge! Vladimir Putin is inside your head! Hopefully DOJ will set up a hotline where patriotic citizens influenced without their knowledge can now report themselves, now that they’ve been alerted. Are you a thought criminal, comrade?
  • An amateurish, penny-ante scheme with no results – compared to what the U.S. does. At worst, even if all the allegations in the indictment are true – a big “if” – it would still amount to the kind of garden-variety kicking each other under the table that a lot of countries routinely engage in. As described in the indictment this gargantuan Russian scheme was (as reported by Politico) an “expensive [sic] effort that cost millions of dollars and employed as many as hundreds of people.” Millions of dollars! Hundreds of people! How did the American republic manage to survive the onslaught? Rosenstein was keen to point out for the umpteenth time that nothing the Russians are alleged to have done (never mind what they actually might have done, which is far less) had any impact on the election. That stands in sharp contrast to the lavishly funded, multifaceted, global political influence and meddling operations the U.S. conducts in nations around the world under the guise of “democracy promotion.” The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), along with its Democratic and Republican sub-organizations, can be considered the flagship of a community of ostensibly private but government-funded or subsidized organizations that provides the soft compliment to American hard military power. The various governmental, quasi-governmental, and nongovernmental components of this network – sometimes called the “Demintern” in analogy to the Comintern, an organization comparable in global ambition if differing in ideology and methods – are also coordinated internationally at the official level through the less-well-known “Community of Democracies.” It is oftendifficult to know where the “official” entities (CIA, NATO, the State Department, Pentagon, USAID) divide from ostensibly nongovernmental but tax dollar-supported groups (NED, Freedom House, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) and privately funded organizations that cooperate with them towards common goals (especially the Open Society organizations funded by billionaire George Soros). Among the specialties of this network are often successful “color revolutions” targeting leaders and governments disfavored by Washington for regime change – a far cry from the pathetic Russian operation alleged in the indictment.
  • Mitt Romney was right.” Already many of Trump’s supporters are not only crowing with satisfaction that the indictment proves there was no collusion but refocusing their gaze from the domestic culprits within the FBI, DOJ, etc., to a bogus foreign threat. “This whole saga just brings back the 2012 election, and the fact that Mitt Romney was right” for “suggesting that Russia is our greatest geopolitical foe,” is the new GOP meme. To the extent that Russiagate was less about Trump than ensuring that enmity with Russia will be permanent and will continue to deepen, this latest Mueller indictment is a smashing success already.

The Mueller indictment against the Russians is a well-timed effort to distract Americans’ attention from the real collusion rotting the core of our public life by shifting attention to a foreign enemy. Many of the people behind it are the very officials who are themselves complicit in the rot. But the sad fact is that it will probably work.

*

James George Jatras is an analyst, former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy adviser to the Senate GOP leadership.

Featured image is from Zero Hedge.

The History of Religious Intolerance

February 20th, 2018 by Luke Eastwood

In the world before Christianity and Islam took hold far more religions and philosophies existed than do now. Around the middle of the first millennium BCE Daoism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism began to become established and quickly spread in Asia, no doubt impacting on already long established religions of the time but without such wide-reaching repercussions.

These new religions appeared in a world where a vast amount of religions already existed. The Mesopotamian religion, is the oldest known and recorded organised religion, consisting of worship of some two thousand deities. Although not explicitly tied to the state and rulers (as was the case with Egypt) it was deeply embedded in the culture of the Sumerian, Akkadian, Babylonian and Assyrian empires over some four thousand years, spreading its influence over a vast region and, it is thought, influencing Canaanite, Greek and possibly Egyptian and Jewish religions during that time.

Like many other religions it co-existed with others and was transmitted by cultural shifts brought about by war and trade as various empires expanded and collapsed. Whether it was state sponsored or the ‘official’ religion throughout its empire, as in Egypt, is unclear but it does appear that their religiosity was at the core of their culture. In Egypt, their polytheistic religion, although transforming over time was clearly tied to the monarchy (Pharaohs) and implemented by a highly organised, state sponsored, priesthood, deeply embedded within the social and political hierarchy. As a great imperial power, its religion had a significant impact on other cultures and religions such as Greek polytheism and possibly some aspects of Christianity. Certainly the cult of Isis was widespread across the Greco-Roman world, throughout the Mediterranean region and also in parts of Africa.

Although it is generally regarded that religious intolerance was the norm in antiquity, it was not always the case. In India Buddhism and Jainism, alongside Hinduism, were allowed to flourish in the Mauyra and Gupta dynasties. In China Buddhism coexisted with Daoism and Confucianism along with folk religion over two millennia with very little suppression an intolerance in that time period. In the Achaemenid empire of Cyrus the Great (after 550BCE), religious tolerance was enshrined in the laws passed, covering an area thought to contain half the population of the world at the time. Within the much later Sassanid empire(around 400CE) Judaism, Manichaeism and Christianity were tolerated alongside Zoroastrianism which was dominant in western Asia. During such times both the environment and people were able to prosper – free from the constant destructive onslaught of war.

Unfortunately the situation was not to last. Both Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism, from being hugely popular faded into obscurity due to violent competition with Christianity and Islam. The political and religious union of the Roman empire following Constantine left little room for toleration of rival religions, including the Greco-Roman Paganism that had been so dominant for over a millennium. In Armenia and Georgia both Zoroastrianism and Paganism suffered as the state chose to enforce a policy of Christianity as the official religion, while at the same time centralising and consolidating economic and political influence. The 5th century ushered in a new era of religious persecution which also served to consolidate social and political power.

Islam quickly spread beyond Arabia following Muhammad’s death in 632, swiftly taking the Byzantine and Sassanid empires by storm, although Byzantium survived in gradual decline for another eight hundred years. Although current troubles surrounding Islamic extremism may lead many to think otherwise, Islam has historically had a more tolerant attitude to other religions than Christianity. Zoroastrianism, which was dominant in western Asia was persecuted by Islam and actively discouraged for a millennium. Despite this, today in Iran (often considered a pariah state) Christianity, Zoroastrianism and Judaism coexist peacefully alongside the majority religion of Islam, albeit with less rights.

At the end of the 11th century Pope Urban II initiated a Christian war against Islam in defence of Byzantium to reclaim the Holy Land. Two hundred years of Crusades ended ultimately in failure and led to the destruction of Byzantium in 1453 and Muslim incursions into Europe thereafter. Apart from a few decades, the Muslim Ottoman (Turkish) empire was at almost constant war with Christian Europe, until its final demise at the end of World War I. During the Crusades, and up until the end of the 17th century, Christians took the opportunity to also persecute Jews, with mass expulsions and massacres throughout Europe during much of that period.

The Muslim world also came under attack from the Mongols during the 13th century, the low point of which was the destruction of the 500 year Caliphate and city of Baghdad – bringing to an end the Abbasid dynasty and what was considered the golden age of Islam. Most of the Mongols were Tengriist but Genghis Khan permitted and encouraged religious freedom across his new empire, so long as he faced no resistance. Tough resistance from Muslim rulers led to a typical Mongol response, a bloodbath across the Islamic world, which almost destroyed Islam in Asia. Freedom of religion generally allowed Tengriism, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Manichaeanism, Taoism and Islam to coexist peacefully, although gradually three of the four Mongol Khanates became Muslim, with the Chinese Khanate adopting Tibetan Buddhism.

With the discovery of the Americas and subsequently the rounding of the Cape of Africa (Good Hope) in the 15th century, the Spanish and Portuguese unleashed a unprecedented wave of Christian oppression and religious intolerance far beyond it’s previous domains. Beginning with Columbus’ genocide in Hispaniola, religious persecution, enslavement, murder and environmental destruction took place across the New World and coastal Africa. Soon to be joined by other emerging imperial forces, such as England, a wave of colonisation, extermination and forced conversion took place, over hundreds of years. The repercussions of this are still very much in evidence today with continents environmentally ravaged and many peoples becoming extinct, diminished and relocated, with their indigenous cultures and religions completely or nearly destroyed.

Despite a gradual move towards secular governments throughout the world individual, organisational and state sponsored religious intolerance has continued to plague the world into the modern era. Some the most horrific religious oppression in history has occurred in the last century or so with the genocide of Armenian Christians by the Ottomans and the Nazi Holocaust against primarily Jews and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Religious and social oppression of Australian Aborigines, Native Americans, indigenous tribes in South America, in Apartheid South Africa and throughout the former Soviet Union and China has all taken place within the last hundred years.

Even now, the world has witnessed the barbarism of Daesh (Islamic State) in the Middle East and the recent oppression and migration of the Muslim Rohingya people in Myanmar by the Buddhist majority. Although only recently re-ignited this new horror is part of a long conflict that originated during World War II. Having been on opposing sides during the war, the Buddhist regime and the Rohingya have been in sporadic conflict since 1947, culminating with the mass eviction (in 2017) of Rohingya people into neighbouring Bangladesh.

Currently there are estimated to be some ten thousand distinct religions in existence in the world, despite the eradication of many faiths during our tumultuous history. Unfortunately we have still not figured out a way to co-exist in peace both on an international level, between theocratic states, or within individual religious communities.

Part of the problem, no doubt, is created by the adoption of religion at a state level. Where secularism or at least state guaranteed religious tolerance is the norm the level and frequency of religious intolerance is lower. Throughout our sad collective history there have been brief islands of calm, religious plurality and toleration, instigated at state level, that prove that peaceful co-existence was and still is possible.

Many religions claim to have the right answers, to be the one true religion or to have the sole authority of the divine. Given that there are so many religions in the world, it seems rather bizarre that just one could rightfully lay claim to exclusive divine approval. In truth what religion a person adheres to is largely dictated by social and geographical factors – the community and location in which one grows up.

If one is able to put aside the correctness of polytheism, henotheism (many aspects of the one) or monotheism, all religions point to the hand of the divine in the creation of the universe and life within it. In a certain sense all religions can be said to be both right and wrong at the same time, in that they describe or allude to the divine truths of our existence, but in a way that can hardly be satisfactory to all.

All religions have ideas about morality and decency but these are not necessarily the same and indeed are quite often contradictory. For instance, murder would generally be considered wrong, almost universally, however there are circumstances such as ‘honour killings’ in some religious cultures that are considered acceptable. However, in some religions even to kill a fly would be considered a great sin. So, who is to decide what is correct and what is not, who has a divine mandate and who does not?

As human beings we are somewhat like goldfish in a small tank – with our limited perception we attempt to understand the world around us and ourselves, to discover the nature of life and the universe and to find meaning within the chaos and confusion of life. Like the goldfish we are limited by our intelligence our senses and our placement within a universe that is bigger than our imaginings. I believe that it is true to say that our ability to comprehend the mysteries of existence are very limited, perhaps more so than we can possibly realise.

The belief in one true religion has been the cause of conflict the world over or been the justification for it. Religion has been misguidedly been used to justify war and colonisation, economic predation and the ecological destruction that accompanies it. While humanity has been foolishly arguing, fighting and jostling for dominance in the world we have been distracted from the raging fires that now surround us, that we have created ourselves.

It is clear that the ‘end times’ talked of in many faiths could well be upon us, but if that is so, it is surely not due to an act of God but as a result of our own carelessness, stupidity and obsession with competing with our fellow humans. At this time, we have the capacity to destroy the world with nuclear weapons or to poison it for many thousands of years through the careless use of nuclear power. We have taken warfare to new depths with increasingly efficient ways to slaughter one another, even without the direct involvement of human soldiers any more. Worse still, through over-population and over-exploitation of nature we are pushing the world towards ecological collapse; which could bring extinction for many species including our own.

While our governments waste fortunes on larger and more dangerous armies economic hardships and poverty continue to plague the world – the poor suffer the ravages of climate change while a powerful minority continue to feed their insatiable greed for more. Instead of being united by faith, albeit of different strands, peoples are often divided and turned against each other to the benefit of their manipulators and to the detriment of humanity and the world at large.

In truth we have reached a great crisis for humanity and for the world – climate change, caused by our shortsightedness, is merely one of the symptoms of our disease. It is well past the time when we should put aside our religious and ideological differences and focus on the great problems of our time i.e. saving humanity from itself.

In the past empires and civilisations collapsed due to economic, religious and ecological factors in addition to military failures. Such collapses were localised not systemic, but now we no longer have the luxury of repeating the mistakes of human history. If we continue down a path of violence, destruction, vast inequality and intolerance then there is little hope for humanity. History has proven that times of peace, cooperation and toleration are possible. If we can overcome our differences, while there is still time, and truly work together in cooperation to transform our societies then we at least have a chance to save humanity from an avoidable tragedy.

*

Luke Eastwood is a legal celebrant and writer in Ireland. You can view more of his work at www.lukeeastwood.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The History of Religious Intolerance

Selected Articles: Heightened Muslim Intolerance

February 20th, 2018 by Global Research News

We thank readers who have contributed to Global Research. If you have the means to make a small or large donation in support of our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture will be much appreciated.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

We likewise encourage you to re-post this selection of articles. Share through social media and discuss with your colleagues and friends.

*     *     *

Goofy Indictments Divert Attention from Criminal Abuses at the FBI and DOJ

By Mike Whitney, February 20, 2018

Think about what’s Mueller is really up to: He’s not just moving the goalposts, he’s loading them onto a spaceship and putting them on another planet. Where’s the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC computers and stole their emails? Where’s the proof that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia?

Mass Incarceration for Profit: The Dual Impact of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Unresolved Question of National Oppression in the United States

By Abayomi Azikiwe, February 20, 2018

The millions who are suffering in our society from the rising tide of racism and all forms of oppression cannot gain solace from the continued enrichment of a small minority of the population which shows blatant disregard and even contempt for the conditions of the downtrodden and destitute. Even here in the city of Detroit, the conditions and concerns of the majority African American population goes unheeded. The elusive emphasis by the powers that be is placed on making Detroit whiter and wealthier.

The Islamic State (ISIS), the Pentagon’s “Caliphate Project” and the “Global War on Terrorism”

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, February 20, 2018

Known and documented, Al Qaeda affiliated entities have been used by US-NATO in numerous conflicts as “intelligence assets” since the heyday of the Soviet-Afghan war. In Syria, the Al Nusrah and ISIS rebels are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance, which in turn oversees and controls the recruitment and training of paramilitary forces.

Muslims Face Increasing Discrimination, State Surveillance Under Trump

By Ali Mohsin, February 19, 2018

US President Donald Trump received another setback last week when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Richmond, Virginia, ruled against the latest version of his Muslim ban. In its ruling, the court stated that the ban is “unconstitutionally tainted with animus towards Islam” and that its central purpose is “to exclude Muslims from the United States.” Despite the ruling, “Muslim Ban 3.0” will remain in effect while the Supreme Court considers the case.

Women’s Rights in Syria

By Mark Taliano, February 19, 2018

Trudeau is destroying Syria through illegal sanctions, and through direct and indirect support of every single terrorist in Syria. Canada is a member of the NATO terror organization, which along with its allies, seeks to create “regime change” in Syria, — the highest crime according to Nuremburg Principles.

Trump Creates, Then Exacerbates, Crisis for Palestinian Refugees

By Prof. Marjorie Cohn, February 19, 2018

One of the most consequential actions Donald Trump took during the first year of his presidency was to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in December 2017. When the Palestinians predictably responded by pulling out of the US-led “peace process,” Trump retaliated by cutting US financial support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) by more than 50 percent.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Heightened Muslim Intolerance

Mapping Trump’s Empire: Assets and Liabilities

February 20th, 2018 by Prof. James Petras

The US empire spans the globe; it expands and contracts, according to its ability to secure strategic assets, willing and able to further military and economic power to counter emerging adversaries.

The map of empire is a shorthand measure of the vectors, reach and durability of global power and wealth. The map of empire is changing — adding and subtracting assets and liabilities, according to the successes and retreats of domestic and overseas power centers. While the US empire has been engaged in intense conflicts in the Middle East , the imperial map has been enlarged elsewhere at lower cost and greater success.

Enlarging the Empire

The US empire has substantially increased its scope and presence in several regions, especially in Latin America . The additions and enlargements include Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Central America, Peru and the Caribbean. The most important asset redrawing the empire in Latin America is Argentina. The US has gained military, economic and political advantages. In the case of Argentina , political and economic advances preceded military expansion.

Then US President Barack Obama and Argentine President Mauricio Macri

The US provided ideological and political support to secure the election of its client Mauricio Macri. The new Argentine President immediately transferred over $5 billion dollars to the notorious Wall Street Vulture speculator, Paul Singer, and proceeded to open the floodgates for a lucrative multi-billion dollar flow of financial capital. President Macri then followed up by inviting the Pentagon and US intelligence services to establish military bases, spy stations and training operations along its borders. Equally important, Argentina embraced the US directives designed to overthrow the government of Venezuela, undermine Bolivia ’s nationalist government under Evo Morales and pursue a policy of US-centered regional integration.

Argentina: A Client without an Economic Patron

While Argentina is a useful political and military addition to the US empire, it lacks access to the US market — it still depends on China – and has failed to secure a strategic trade agreement with the European Union. Washington has enlarged its military presence with a one-legged client.

Colombia and Mexico, long time US client states, have provided springboards for enlarging US influence in Central America, the Andean region and the Caribbean. In the case of Colombia, the US has financed its war of extermination against anti-imperialist insurgents and their peasant and working class supporters and secured seven military bases as launch pad for Washington’s destabilization campaign against Venezuela.

Mexico has served a multitude of military and economic functions – from billion dollar manufacturing platforms to multi-billion dollar laundering of narco-profits to US banks.

Brazil is the new addition to the empire with the ousting and arrest of the leaders of the Workers Party. The shift in political and economic power has enhanced US influence through its leverage over the wealthiest country in the continent. In sum,the US has enlarged imperial influence and control via its acquisition of Latin America. There is one caveat: At least in the cases of Brazil and Argentina, the US advance is tentative and subject to reversal, as it lacks firm economic and political foundations.

If Latin America reflects an enlargement and upsurge of US imperial influence, the rest of the global map is mostly negative or at best contradictory.

The empire-building mission has failed to gain ground in Northeast Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. In Europe, the US retains influence but it appears to face obstacles to enlarging its presence.

The key to the enlargement or decline of empire revolves around the performance of the US domestic economy.

Imperial Decline: China

The determination of the US in remapping the global empire is most evident in Asia. The most notable shift in US political and economic relations in the region has taken place with China’s displacement of the US as the dominant investment, trading infrastructure building and lending country in the region. Moreover, China has increased its role as the leading exporter to the US , accumulating trade surpluses of hundreds of billions of dollars each year. In 2017, China ’s trade surplus reached $375 billion dollars.

Against the relative economic decline of the US, Washington has compensated by widening the scope of its maritime-military presence in the South China Sea, and increased its air and ground forces in South Korea, Japan, Australia, the Philippines and Guam. As to how the bolstering of the US military presence affects the US ‘re-mapping’ of its imperial presence, it depends on the dynamics of the US domestic economy and its ability to retains its existing principal military clients – South Korea, Japan, Australia and the Philippines. Recent evidence suggest that South Korea shows signs of slipping outside of the US economic and military orbit. Seoul has trade issues with the US ‘protectionist agenda’ and opportunities to expand its trading links with China. Equally important, South Korea has moved toward reconciliation with North Korea, and downgraded the US military escalation. As goes South Korea, so goes the US military power base in northern Asia.

The US military strategy is premised on sustaining and expanding its client network. However, its protectionist policies led to the rejection of a multi-lateral trade agreement, which erodes its economic ties with existing or potential military partners. In contrast to Latin America, the US remaking of the imperial map has led to economic shrinkage and military isolation in Asia . US military escalation has poured even more deadly strategic US arms into the region, but failed to intimidate or isolate China or North Korea .

Re-mapping the Middle East

The US has spent several trillion dollars over the past two decades in the Middle East , North Africa and West Asia . US Intervention from Libya and Southern Sudan, Somalia , across to Syria , Palestine , Iraq , Iran and Afghanistan has resulted in enormous costs and dubious advances. The results are meagre except in terms of suffering. The US has spread chaos and destruction throughout Libya and Syria , but failed to incorporate either into an enlarged empire. The Middle East wars, initiated at the behest of Israel , have rewarded Tel Aviv with a sense of invulnerability and a thirst for more, while multiplying and unifying US adversaries.

Empires are not effectively enlarged through alliances with with armed tribal, sectarian and separatist organizations. Empires, allied with disparate, fractured and self-aggrandizing entities do not expand or strengthen their global powers.

The US has waged war against Libya and lost the political leverage and economic resources it enjoyed during the Gaddafi regime. It intervened in Somalia , South Sudan and Syria , and has gained enclaves of warring self-serving ‘separatists’ and subsidized mercenaries. Afghanistan , the US ’ longest war in history, is an unmitigated military disaster. After seventeen years of warfare and occupation, the US is holed up in the walled enclaves of the capital, Kabul . Meanwhile, the puppet regime feeds on multi-billion dollar monthly subsidies.

Iraq is a ‘shared’ imperial outpost — the result of fifteen years of military intervention. Kurdish clients, Sunni-Saudi warlords, Shia militia, Baghdad kleptocrats and US contractor-mercenaries all compete for control and a larger piece of the pillage. Every square meter of contested ‘terrain has cost the US five hundred million dollars and scores of casualties.

Iran remains forever under threat, but retains its independence outside of the US-Saudi-Israeli orbit. The US geo-political map has been reduced to dubious alliance with Saudi Arabia and its micro-clients among the Emirate statelets – which are constantly fighting among themselves – as well as Israel, the ‘client’ that openly revels in leading its patron by the nose!

Compared to the period before the turn of the millennium, the US imperial map has shrunk and faces further retrenchment.

The US-NATO-EU Map

Russia has reduced and challenged the US pursuit of a uni-polar global empire following the recovery of its sovereignty and economic growth after the disaster of the 1990’s. With the ascent of President Putin, the US-EU empire lost their biggest and most lucrative client and source of naked pillage.

Nevertheless, the US retains its political clients in the Baltic , the Balkans and Eastern and Central European regimes. However, these clients are unruly and often eager to confront a nuclear-armed Russia , confident that the US-NATO will intervene, in spite of the probability of being vaporized in a nuclear Armageddon.

Washington ’s efforts to recapture and return Russia to vassalage have failed. Out of frustration Washington has resorted to a growing series of failed provocations and conflicts between the US and the EU, within the US between Trump and the Democrats; and among the warlords controlling the Trump cabinet.

Germany has continued lucrative trade ties with Russia , despite US sanctions, underscoring the decline of US power to dictate policy to the European Union. The Democratic Party and the ultra-militaristic Clinton faction remains pathologically nostalgic for a return to the 1990’s Golden Age of Pillage (before Putin). Clinton ’s faction is fixated on the politics of revanchism . As a result, they vigorously fought against candidate Donald Trump’s campaign promises to pursue a new realistic understanding with Russia . The Russia-Gate Investigation is not merely a domestic electoral squabble led by hysterical ‘liberals.’ What is a stake is nothing less than a profound conflict over the remaking of the US global map. Trump recognized and accepted the re-emergence of Russia as a global power to be ‘contained’, while the Democrats campaigned to roll-back reality, overthrow Putin and return to the robber baron orgies of the Clinton years. As a result of this ongoing strategic conflict, Washington is unable to develop a coherent global strategy, which in turn has further weakened US influence in the EU in Europe and elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the intense Democratic onslaught against Trump’s initial foreign policy pronouncements regarding Russia succeeded in destroying his ‘pivot to realism’ and facilitated the rise of a fanatical militaristic faction within his cabinet, which have intensified the anti-Russia policies of the Clintonite Democrats. In less than a year, all of Trump’s realist advisers and cabinet members have been purged and replaced by militarists. Their hard core confrontational anti-Russia policy has become the platform for launching a global military strategy based on vast increases in military spending, demands that the EU nations increase their military budgets, and open opposition to an EU-centered military alliance, such as the one recently proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron.

Despite President Trump’s campaign promises to ‘pull-back’, the US has re-entered Afghanistan , Iraq and Syria in a big way. The Trump shift from global containment and realism to ‘rollback and aggression’ against Russia and China has failed to secure a positive response from past and present allies.

China has increased economic ties with the EU. Russia and the EU share strategic gas and oil trade ties. Domestically, the US military budget deepens the fiscal deficit and drastically threatens social spending. This creates a scenario of increasing US isolation with its futile aggression against a dynamic and changing world.

Conclusion

The Trump remaking of the global empire has had uneven results, which are mostly negative from a strategic viewpoint.

The circumstances leading to new clients in Latin America is significant but has been more than countered by retreats in Asia, divisions in Europe, turmoil domestically and strategic incoherence.

Remaking global empires requires realism – the recognition of new power alignments, accommodation with allies and, above all, domestic political stability balancing economic interests and military commitments.

The key shift from realism toward a recovered Russia to militarization and confrontation has precipitated the breakdown of the US as a unified coherent leader of a global empire.

The US embraces prolonged losing wars in peripheral regions while embracing destructive trade wars in strategic regions. It budgeted vast sums on non-productive activities while impoverishing state and local governments via sweeping tax ‘reform’ favoring the oligarchs.

Global remapping now involves a volatile and impulsive US-driven empire incapable of succeeding, while emerging powers are immersed in regional power grabs.

There is no longer a coherent imperial empire controlling the fate of the globe. We live in a world of political maps centered on regional powers and unruly clients, while the most incompetent, gossip-mongering politicians in Washington compete with an arrogant, benighted President Trump and his fractured regime.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Mapping Trump’s Empire: Assets and Liabilities

Featured image: A black-tail prairie dogs during the drought in New Mexico. (Source: David Eads)

Mention the plague and people naturally think of the Black Death during the 14th Century. Antibiotics have since made the plague a curable disease. But the plague is today sterilising ecosystems in the Western United States. And a warming climate could intensify these outbreaks and expand the plague’s range farther north and into higher altitudes. JUSTICE BURNAUGH investigates

***

The sun’s heat bears down on a desolate prairie dog colony in America’s Great Plains. Small mounds of dirt mark the entrances to an intricate network of tunnels below the surface.

The weeds that the prairie dogs grazed on have reclaimed the soil. A sign reads, “Caution: Prairie Dogs Have Plague. Keep People and Pets in Vehicles.”

This is the grim discovery for many biologists returning to study colonies that were thriving only weeks ago. These are the Dark Ages for prairie dogs in the American West.

A new vaccine

Considered a keystone species, black-tailed prairie dogs are an essential part of the American Grasslands. Their tunnels help fertilize the soil and provide shelter for nesting birds.

Many predators rely on prairie dogs as a food source. But the plague’s 100 percent mortality rate is shattering this delicate balance.

The plague evolved in Central Asia and made landfall in the United States in 1900 when trade ships from Hong Kong carrying infected rats docked in San Francisco.

The plague spread rapidly throughout the American West where native species like prairie dogs had no immunity to the exotic disease.

Disease researcher Dan Tripp is testing a new vaccine that protects prairie dogs against the plague. The vaccine is fed to the prairie dogs using pellets that are scattered across the colonies. The problem is getting to the prairie dogs before the plague does.

Fleas and rodents

“If you wait until after the plague hits to start vaccinating prairie dogs, then you’re too late,” Tripp said. “By the time you start noticing fewer animals, that’s just the tip of the iceberg of what’s going on below the surface.”

Climate change influences the frequency and severity of plague cycles. Rising temperatures throughout the American West have led to severe droughts and wildfires in some regions and devastating floods in others. This sporadic climate could impede vaccination efforts.

Tripp explained that as the climate wavers between extremes of above average rainfall and droughts, it becomes more difficult for scientists to predict and prevent plague outbreaks.

To understand how climate and plague outbreaks are linked, some scientists are finding their answers with the fleas — the culprits for spreading the plague from one host to another.

If there are more fleas, the chances that one of them is carrying the plague are greater. A popular theory argues that plague outbreaks follow wetter and cooler years, when it’s assumed that fleas and rodents are more abundant.

Wetter times

But new research shows that fleas increase during droughts, meaning that a warmer, drier climate could increase the severity of plague outbreaks in the American West.

Wildlife ecologists David Eads and Dean Biggins counted the amounts of fleas on prairie dogs during wet and dry years to understand how climate affects flea abundance.

The common assumption is that plague outbreaks are more likely during wet years when there are more fleas. To their surprise, they discovered that during a drought in New Mexico the amount of fleas on prairie dogs increased by nearly 200 percent.

“When you have a drought period, flea numbers might escalate on prairie dogs,” Biggins told The Ecologist. “And as fleas get more abundant, this could increase the circulation of plague.

“If we have more drought cycles intermixed with wetter times, which could happen with climate change, you could have more plague circulation.”

Abuzz with speculations

In their study, Eads and Biggins conclude that a lack of food and water during droughts might weaken prairie dogs’ defenses against parasites that spread the plague.

They observed that the fatter, healthier prairie dogs had fewer fleas compared to others that were starving. The study explained that female fleas that feed on starving rodents tend to produce more eggs and larvae.

In light of climate models that forecast frequent droughts, prairie dog colonies in the American West could be at greater risk of plague outbreaks.

When the plague arrived in the American West in 1900, newspapers were abuzz with speculations about where the plague would hit next.

People knew that fleas spread the plague, but those living in the frigid highlands of the Rocky Mountains believed that the fleas could never survive at such high altitudes. Mountain towns in the American West seemed safely out of reach.

Plague transmission

As the climate continues to warm, northern and high altitude regions that were too cold will become tolerable for fleas and other parasites.

A similar trend is seen with the northward spread of ticks in America, leading to more outbreaks of Lyme disease in the central United States and Canada.

On the Hawaiian island of Kaua’i, climate change is accelerating the spread of mosquito-borne diseases like malaria into ecosystems in higher elevations, where cooler temperatures are no longer a defense against infectious diseases.

Megan Friggens, an ecologist for the United States Forest Service, said that plague could spread into northern regions of the American West where warming temperatures allow fleas to survive and breed longer.

This increases the amount of fleas and the chances for plague transmission. But Friggens explained that as northern climates become more tolerable for the plague, southern states might become too hot for the plague to survive.

 “This heat limitation may actually cause this plague epicenter to shift to the north,” she said. “It may get too hot for fleas in the south, so that would shorten the window for plague transmission in southern regions. You may actually see more plague in northern states because fleas will have a longer [breeding] season.”

*

Justice Burnaugh is a freelance journalist living in the Colorado Rockies. He’s been interested in the plague since an outbreak struck a prairie dog colony near his home.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How Climate Change Could Intensify Plague Among Black-tailed Prairie Dogs in the American West
  • Tags:

North Korea: The Grand Deception Revealed

February 20th, 2018 by National Lawyers Guild International

The Report of the October 2003 National Lawyers Guild/American Association of Jurists Delegation to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea

I. The Delegation and its Purpose
II. First Impressions
III. The Role of Lawyers
IV. War Crimes
V. The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)
VI. The Countryside and Hours of Talk
VII. The Circus
VIII. Human Exchanges
IX. Particular Observations
A. The Juche idea of Socialism
B. The Role of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il
C. The Legal System
D. Education
E. Health Care
F. Housing
G. Work Conditions
H. Political System
I. Military Service
J. Reunification
K. The Role of Women
X. War and Peace
XI. Final Observations and Future Activities

***

I. The Delegation and its Purpose

On September 29th, 2003 four lawyers from the National Lawyers Guild of the United States, Peter Erlinder, Professor of Law at the William Mitchell School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, Neil Berman, Attorney in Boston, Massachusetts and Eric Sirotkin and Jennie Lusk, Attorneys in Albuquerque, New Mexico as well as a member of the American Association of Jurists, Christopher Black, Barrister in Toronto, Canada, traveled to North Korea, formally the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) at the invitation of the Korean Democratic Lawyers Association (KDLA).

We came to North Korea in order to increase bonds between lawyers in North Korea and the west, as well as to increase understanding between the peoples of North America and North Korea in order to reduce the risk of war between the DPRK and the United States of America.

The visit had several specific purposes: (1) to develop personal and professional relationships with lawyers in North Korea with a view toward understanding their legal system and its role in society, (2) to determine and understand the views of the people of the DPRK with respect to war and peace and its link to the problem of reunification of the “two” Koreas, and (3) to observe as best we could the real situation for the people of the DKRP in the context of the information being propagated in the western press of an Orwellian, totalitarian, impoverished and starving society – allegations which have been used by the United States to justify all its recent wars of aggression. We felt it essential to let the North Koreans know that many Americans and Canadians have a deep desire for peace and oppose the rhetorical “axis of evil” posture announced by the current U.S. administration.

Most of us met in Beijing as virtual strangers, but we parted company days later as friends, transformed by our experience. We came from different backgrounds, different areas of law and represented several political and philosophical points of view. We had one essential thing in common; the real fear of a war between the United States and the DPRK and a deep desire to know the truth. All felt misled over the years by the U.S. government through its misinformation used to justify wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. We no longer accept bald allegations of “widespread violations of human rights”, the need for a “war on terrorism”, war to destroy “weapons of mass destruction,” or the need to fight wars to preserve and expand our Western way of life. As world citizens we felt obliged to reveal the truth and to take steps to build, rather than destroy, relationships, even with those whom we may disagree.

The delegation met with KDLA members, government officials and military officers, and discussed comparative judicial systems and strategies for building bridges for peace between DPRK and the United States. We toured Pyongyang, traveled hundreds of kilometers into the countryside, visited the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) on the Northern side at the infamous joint use area of Panmunjom, and interviewed U.S. soldiers and business consultants from around the world who, much to our surprise, were discovered working in North Korea,

II. First Impressions

On September 29th we went to the embassy of the DPRK in Beijing to obtain our visas. It was there that our eyes first began to open. Also waiting for visas were a young Irishman who wanted to tour the country and a Canadian representative of Saskatchewan farmers providing aid to North Korean farmers, whose aid is matched by the Canadian government four to one. Before leaving to North Korea we had already become aware of the many nations in Europe and across the planet that have formal diplomatic relations with the DPRK, but we were not ready for the many international contacts we would make over the next week.

On September 30th we went to the international airport at Beijing to board the Air Koryo plane to Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea. It was at the Beijing Airport that the image of an isolated country truly began to dissolve. In the check-in line and afterwards on board the full plane we met our Canadian Saskatchewan consultant, a Swede who was going to help farmers learn how to handle cows, a couple of Congolese diplomats, British journalists, a Russian establishing art exchanges, a teacher from Liverpool and, from the sound of the different accents, people from several other countries.

At the airport in Pyongyang we waited for some time while bags were x-rayed coming into the country. One member reported much of her nervousness dissolve as she waited in line and watched guards laughing and joking with each other. It was not a highly charged and intimidating scene, and was more relaxed than most U.S. airport security.

We were met by Mr. Jo Chol Ryong and Mr. Bang Gum Chan of the Korean Democratic Lawyers Association and taken in a small bus to a large guesthouse just outside the city. It was grey and misty but we tried to take in everything we saw. Our first impression of the city was that it was large city of two million, green, fairly modern, quite beautiful in parts especially near the Taedong River. There were more cars than we had heard about, but their relatively low numbers meant quiet streets with primarily pedestrians and cyclists. People appeared active and heading home after a days work, as in most countries for that time of day.

The initial impression of some off the delegation was that there was a feeling of tension hanging in the air, as if they had been at war for a long time. We received some very questioning stares, but these would become mixed with smiles and inquisitiveness. Some delegates felt tense and a bit disoriented, but this proved to be a clash between our initial fears and concerns, and the stark reality of where we were. As we would tour the country and cities in the next few days, and have more human exchanges, this would dissipate.

Throughout the days ahead we were moved by the level of North Korean pride and determination to overcome obstacles, including diplomatic and economic ones by the United States, and sympathized with their need for perpetual readiness for war and their experience of centuries of invasions and occupations. The Korean experience must be viewed through this lens.

Some of the buildings we passed were impressive in size and style. But we noticed right away the complete absence of any old-style buildings. Nothing in the city was older than 50 years and most was much newer. The American planes had bombed the entire city multiple times in the Korean War and obliterated virtually everything in it. Indeed U.S. reports cite a general ordering a stop to the bombing of Pyongyang since “nothing worthy of a name” was left standing. A 1951 international women’s delegation reported U.S. bombers shooting fleeing civilians in the North Korean countryside.

The Delegation questions why such carpet-bombing of civilian urban areas is rarely prosecuted as a war crime. Clearly in light of the photographs we saw, the leveling of entire cities and civilian targets stands as a heinous act equivalent to the bombing of London, Coventry, Rotterdam, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and Hiroshima.
Upon arrival we had an unexpected experience. In the lobby of our guesthouse hotel was a large muscular fellow who was clearly not Korean. We asked where he was from and he said Hawaii. We were curious as to why there might be other Americans here and became more curious when he told us he was a Major with the U.S. Military. He was there with his unit on a joint project with the North Koreans to recover remains of U.S. soldiers during the Korean War. This seemed strange as we had been led to believe that we were on the verge of war with this country. Further discussions over the next few days with the soldiers in the unit served as important corroboration for our observations. The soldiers indicated that the DPRK was not what they had been led to expect, that people were very friendly to them and that they had traveled extensively in the countryside and the people appeared well fed. As we would also discover, they said. “Crops were growing everywhere,” In addition, it was surprising that the DPRK permitted the soldiers to install and use a radio to communicate with each other and the U.S. in our Pyongyang guest house.

III. The Role of Lawyers

After settling in we had a formal dinner with our hosts and a lawyer who was head of the Government Liaison for International NGOs, Mr. Ri Myong Kuk. He spoke of the DPRK’s Nuclear Deterrent Force being necessary in light of U.S. world actions. If the U.S. signed a peace treaty and non-aggression agreement with the DPRK, it would de-legitimize the presence of American troops in the South and lead to re-unification, he said. He then turned to all of our roles as lawyers, “It’s important that lawyers are gathering to talk about this as “lawyers regulate the social interactions within society and within the world.” He pointed out that our work parallels the responsibilities inherent on interactions between countries. He agreed that the path to peace includes “having to help open the heart.”

The delegation agree that lawyers have a key role to play in the current situation. The Korean standoff raises serious issues of international law that must be addressed. The history between the two nations is replete with promises and breached promises, something that lawyers deal with regularly. Simple promises, if they had been kept, could have changed the course of human history and despair on the peninsula. For example we read the armistice agreement signed at the DMZ in which Article IV promised, “within three months higher level meetings would be held to settle through negotiation the question of withdrawal of all foreign forces and peaceful settlement.” This was not accomplished because the U.S. refused to meet, despite requests over the years by the North Koreans to meet anywhere and anytime. Over fifty years later the troops remain and no peace treaty has been signed. South Korea never even signed the armistice agreement. The 1953 cease-fire agreement provided that both sides “shall not engage in any blockade of any kind of Korea.” This binding agreement appears to be violated by the U.S. conduct to intercept and discourage the transport of goods, food and other materials to the DPRK.

A lack of good faith in discussions, sometimes referenced in the law of contracts as a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, appears violated in many situations. Wendy Sherman, Clinton’s advisor on North Korea, had indicated that when they entered into the famous Agreed Framework of 1994, wherein the North Koreans would be trading their nuclear capability for two light water reactors and fuel oil, and in exchange for working toward normalizing political and economic relations, the Administration had no intention of complying with the agreement. The Clinton Administration believed the Kim Jong Il administration would collapse long before the U.S. had to provide the reactors. This lack of good faith in international relations surrounding a matter of such importance to the world would be against the common law if the breach of promises were between private parties.

Image result for bush kim jong il

Kim Jong Il shakes hands with former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at the Pae Kha Hawon Guest House in Pyongyang, North Korea, in 2000 (Source: Nhpr)

Couple this with the Bush administration declaration of North Korea as a member of the “axis of evil,” and advocating regime change, and we realize that the U.S. must be held accountable for its failure to deal fairing and in good faith with the DPRK. Our research demonstrates that it was the United States that breached nearly all of its obligations under the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework before the DPRK returned to its nuclear program. The delegation feels that the U.S. government cannot advocate the rule of law and democracy, when in fails to model it itself.

Clearly lawyers play an important part in pointing out breaches of agreements and violations of law, but more importantly we can help to demonstrate why trust has been violated by the conduct of the United States. Our group pondered what types of legal actions could be brought to illuminate the situation and bring peace. This will continue to be explored by the Project.

IV. AWWar Crimes

On our first night we met in out hotel room to de-brief from arrival. The enormity of our task as North American lawyers in the DPRK at this moment in history was clear. As we shared our feelings and thoughts, suddenly the world faded to darkness. The power outage had us scrambling for flashlights, solar lamps supplied in our rooms and candles. It was a strange moment and the silence was a stunning reminder of the role technology plays in our lives. Before leaving we had read articles that claimed that this “hermit kingdom” had no power at night and was a dark spot from space. President Bush presents this map in speeches to claim that “the light of freedom” shines only in the South. Yet, we would learn over the next few nights, and even later that evening, that this too was an exaggeration. We had power throughout the other nights of our visit, and with the exception of an occasional rolling blackout for a few minutes, the lights do shine in Pyongyang. We also saw lights on in blocks of apartment buildings as we drove through Pyongyang at night. We suspect that the photo from space was taken during one of the blackouts.

The next day we were taken around Pyongyang by our hosts to the “Victorious Fatherland Liberation War Museum.” The first part of the Museum addresses the struggle against the Japanese from 1925 until liberation in 1945. The “second stage” of the war is devoted to the war against” U.S. Imperialist Aggressors” and the victory they assert the North Koreans achieved in the war. Clearly the North Koreans, along with some million-plus Chinese forces, did preserve their territory during the war, but at great costs.

Before leaving on the trip we researched extensively about the Korean War in an effort to better understand the feelings and motivations of the North Koreans. We had not realized the extent of the level of destruction and human suffering during the war. In Washington we have monuments to the 53,000 U.S. soldiers who died, but there were more than 3.5 million victims of the war, resulting in one in ten Koreans being wounded or killed. The New York Times reported that 17,000,000 pounds of Napalm were sent to Korea in the first 20 months of the war. The North also suffered years of US bombing that leveled nearly the entire Country. The U.S. commander halted the strikes near the end of the war because, he said, there was “nothing standing worthy of a name.” More bomb tonnage was dropped on Korea by the U.S. than they dropped on Japan in the entire Pacific action in World War II. One delegation member exclaimed before the trip “Can you imagine the pain, anger and mistrust of the equivalent to a twin towers attack in every neighborhood?”

The museum has a broad collection of documents, photos and physical evidence of war crimes committed by the United States and its U.N. allies in the Korean War. The museum holds many documents captured in the American embassy by North Korean forces when they overran South Korean defenses in Seoul. Assuming they are legitimate, which they appear to be, the documents are compelling evidence that the United States planned an attack on North Korea in 1950 and used the South Korean army to claim an attack by North Korea. This allowed the United States to persuade the UN Security Council to vote, in the absence of two of its permanent members, the USSR and China, for support for a UN action under US command to repel the “attack form the North.” The museum presented the vote as invalid because of the absence of the USSR and China, concluding that the U.S. manipulated the absences, rendering the entire “police operation” in Korea illegal. In addition, the conclusion was that the illegal action was a cover for the attempt by the United States to conquer and occupy North Korea with a view toward potential invasions of Manchuria and Siberia. Members of our group took notes of these documents and photographs.

We were later provided with the reports on US War Crimes committed in Korea compiled during the war itself by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) in 1952 and the Report of the Committee of the Women’s International Democratic Federation in Korea in 1951. The National Lawyers Guild had been part of the IADL, which prepared their report in 1952. The reports are displayed prominently in the Museum and serve as important international legal corroboration of the DPRK positions.

The NLG delegation urges its membership to investigate further DPRK’s allegations that its protests of international law violations have been ignored by the United Nations. The international delegations in North Korea in 1951 and 1952 documented directly the violations, and DPRK evidence of biological and chemical warfare during the Korean War have been confirmed. The delegation urges that the 1951 and 1952 reports be reissued, offering the ill-informed people of the West another truth about the Korean War, and a means of understanding the reality of the fear Koreans live under every day, dreading and fearing a similar attack in the future.

It is important in international affairs to acknowledge and take responsibility for actions. The Japanese has had to express its “heartfelt apologies and remorse” over the pain inflicted in their occupation of Korea. The South African Truth and Reconciliation process has demonstrated that “without truth, you can have no reconciliation.” The atrocities committed under apartheid were exposed and the denial of the white community broken through the “truth” searching process.

The delegation concluded during this trip from their observations and the research already compiled that there were extensive violations of international law and possible war crimes committed during the Korean War that have never been prosecuted or exposed publicly. When the truth is more widely acknowledged, peace and understanding can follow.

The most graphic examples of war crimes became evident during over visit to the town of Sinchon in the province of Hwang Hoe. It was here that troops from the South and U.S. soldiers appear to have engaged in egregious war crimes. We strolled past rows of photographs and depictions of the attacks on civilians and photos of charred and decapitated bodies. Documentation seized from the South supported a policy of hunting and killing Communist party members “and their families.” We saw the documentary evidence of the over 500 people who had been forced into a ditch, doused with gasoline, and set on fire and left to burn to death. We stood in an air raid shelter with still walls blackened with burnt flesh where over 900 people, including, women and children huddled during the onslaught, while U.S. soldiers were seen pouring gasoline down the air vents of the “shelter” and setting it on fire. The murders were allegedly conducted and ordered by a U.S. officer named Harrison, who also dropped lit dynamite down a nearby shelter as well.

When we emerged from the shelter there were hundreds of North Korean soldiers being told the heartfelt story from a woman whose family had died at Sinchon. Her voice shook with emotion and the soldiers watched us carefully as we moved forward to place some flowers at the monument and mass grave site of Sinchon. Shame does not even begin to describe the feelings we experienced at Sinchon, but it has bolstered our commitment to work for peace and demonstrate that war cannot be an option.

V. The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)

One of the most dramatic moments of the trip came at the DMZ and the infamous joint use bunkers of Panmunjom. However, the drama was not what was expected. Before coming to the DPRK, we had read about the DMZ being the most tense and dangerous place on the planet. We were ready for a highly charged military fortress flanked by machine guns, barbed wire and masses of military personnel. That was not what we discovered.

The standoff at the bunkers where soldiers stare each other down across an imaginary line seemed filled with showmanship and a certain level of absurdity. When we arrived, U.S. and South Korean soldiers, reportedly chosen for their size, watched us through field glasses as we approached the borderline. We met in the joint use shared space and in the building where the armistice agreement was signed. The beautiful hills of the DMZ, along with the five rivers that poor into the lush landscape, make it more suited for an eco-park than a war staging ground.

Image result for demilitarized zone korea

South Korean soldiers patrol the barbed-wire fence of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) (Source: PressTV)

The drama came not from the military standoff, but from the heart-felt exchanges we had with military officers on the North side of this fractured land. When we arrived and descended the steps of the bus we were met by Major Kim Myong Hwan, the officer in charge of negotiations between the north and south in the DMZ. When he recognized one member of our delegation from a previous trip, they embraced him and a laugh and beautiful smile spread across his face. “Welcome my old friend,” he said. He and Peter then held hands as they laughed and reminisced through translation a short, but meaningful connection from two years prior that obviously had touched both of their hearts.

Major Kim smiled and shared his dreams of having wanted to be a writer or journalist, but described in more somber tones the story that led him and his five brother to “walk the line in the DMZ” as soldiers. He wanted to tell his story to us as Americans and as lawyers “because lawyers bare trust and justice in their hearts.” He softly assured us that their struggle is clearly “with the American Government, not the American people.” He described being “lonely for his family lost” at Sinchon – his grandfather strung up a pole and tortured, his grandmother dying from a bayonet in her belly. Tears welled up ion his eyes as he described his father being orphaned at six years old and his father’s inability as a young child to defend his family. “So we have to do it,” he said. Astutely, he declared that we “do not oppose the American People. We oppose U.S. hostile policy and its efforts to exercise control over the whole world and inflict calamity on other people.”

As we walked along an overlook he pointed to a South Korean outpost that still flew the United Nations Flag. To fly the UN flag, he said, is illegal, when they are not commanding nor funding the operation. The UN exists “to ensure peace,” not push to ignite a war. He regretted the UN supporting role in the war, but then stated that today most countries that took part in the UN operation now have formal diplomatic relations with the DPRK. He understood very well that “the UN is sometimes misused by the United States.”

At another location some miles away on the DMZ we met a Colonel who set up field glasses through which we could see across the divide. We could see a concrete wall built on the South side, a violation of truce agreements. The major described such a permanent structure as a “disgrace for the Korean people who are a homogenous people.” A loud speaker continuously blared propaganda and music from speakers on the south side. The irritating noise goes on for 22 hours a day, he said. Suddenly, in another surreal moment, the bunker’s loudspeakers began belting out the William Tell overture, better known in America as the theme from the Lone Ranger.

The Colonel urged us to help people see what is really going on in the DPRK, instead of basing their opinions on misinformation. He told us “We know that like us the peace loving people in America have children, parents and families.” We told him of our mission to return with a message for peace and that we hope to return someday and “walk with him together freely in these beautiful hills.” He paused and said, “I too believe it is possible.”

VI. The Countryside and Hours of Talk

Much is written about the alleged starvation, even referred to as intentional, of the North Korean people by their government. On our trips in the countryside, both north and south of Pyongyang, we covered nearly 500 kilometers. During that time we had the opportunity to see agricultural communities and small towns. We noticed that the people on the whole looked well dressed and active. We saw no one who looked malnourished or emaciated and our observations were confirmed by many of the foreigners we met who had dealings around the country. The DPRK has very little are able land and we saw crops being harvested everywhere it was possible to grow them. It appears every square inch of arable land is cultivated, and on the roofs of their country cottages people had planted vines of what looked like melons or squash. The people we passed on the road or in rural towns looked relaxed. The images of children heading to school or playing, or women sitting side saddle on bikes as their husbands pedaled, provided human moments that make war unthinkable. No one seemed dispirited or broken.

We noted that this was not the Orwellian society George Bush and much of the media is trying to portray. The countryside appeared to us to be more typical of the poorer part of Europe, for example rural Greece, or Spain or Portugal. Three members of the delegation who had experience in Africa noted that the country appeared much more prosperous than most places they had been in Africa. This was confirmed by the Congolese visitors we met, who indicated that people in many parts of the Congo would love to have the standard of living apparent in North Korea. The landscape, with its mountains in the background, and ravines, its trees, its rivers and arid parts, and houses with white walled, ochre tiled roofs was similar to southern parts of Europe.

Another surprise was the absence of a police presence throughout the country. We never saw a single policeman with a gun or even a club. The only police we saw were police officers, mainly women, directing traffic at certain intersections. There were occasional guard stations along the road down south as we approached the DMZ. We saw soldiers in many places, usually helping harvest crops or working in the fields or helping on a construction site. But we rarely saw a soldier armed. The contrast between North Korea and its lack of policemen and North America in which armed police in bulletproof vests are commonplace was more than striking – it was startling. If the presence or absence of armed policemen is a criterion for a free society then this speaks volumes about the nature of the two societies.

The towns we passed through although not rich by any means appeared prosperous enough and we could see factories in operation as well as farming. There was clearly a lack of farm machinery as most of the farming we saw was done by manual labor, but this is at least in part due to fifty years of sanctions, the inability to purchase the proper equipment, and fuel shortages related, in part, to shifts in policy by the DPRK in reliance upon the 1994 Agree Framework. We also saw several unrepaired bridges washed out and damaged during the floods in 1995-96 and more recently during a typhoon which devastated the country. We learned that the floods had been catastrophic, wiping out crops and homes, bridges and hydro-electric stations, and flooding mines. It is clear that they suffered from a series of calamities that would have left any country in devastation, regardless of its economic policies. It is to their credit that, despite these disasters, despite the continuing US economic embargo, and despite efforts among some nations to delay food and other aid in the hopes the current government will collapse, they have managed to survive and revive their economy and provide a basic standard of living. They freely admit that after the floods food shortages caused serious deprivations.

VII. The Circus

International relations can sometimes seem like a circus. So it was no surprise when we found ourselves one evening attending a circus performance in Pyongyang. It was a Cirque du Soleil type performance, with acrobats, ice-skating, and a live orchestra. The breathtaking spectacle was made more remarkable by the presence of a large number of soldiers and sailors in the audience who laughed loudly at the clowns and comics and oohed and aahed like the rest of us at the high wire acts. The monolithic robotic repressive army described in the western press became as it appears, a mere figment of the imagination, as we shared joy and laughter rather than threats and rhetoric. We realized that the governments of nations often forget that the alleged “enemy” is really made up of people with hearts and feelings, and that armies are often staffed by teenagers and young men and women. We are walking a tightrope in a nuclear standoff, but for a moment, all differences faded and smiling together at the folly of humanity ruled the day.

The circus also further dissolved the stories of North Korea’s isolation. People attending came from different parts of the world, and from everyday North Koreans as well. But most surprising was when a young man who asked in English where we were from approached us after the performance. It turned out he was with a group of tourists from… South Korea!

VIII. Human Exchanges

The key to the success of any delegation is to have as much human exchange as possible and to then encourage governments to address international relations through a human filter. Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu has eloquently stated that

Their humanity is caught up in our humanity, as ours is caught up in theirs…when I dehumanize you, I inexorably dehumanize myself….

One of our final contacts with people came picnicking along side groups of North Koreans along a crystal clear river in the mountains. We were surprised at the relaxed atmosphere among the people themselves and with us. After learning that there were Americans there, one group next to us sent us over a huge plate of clams. We spoke with them and exchanged hopes for peace and relayed greetings from the millions of peace-loving Americans. As we walked another group wanted to take our photos and to sing them a song. While the delegation disavows any notion of in-tune group harmony, we sang “We Shall Overcome” as the group clapped and smiled joyfully at this likely first for both of us. As we finished they surrounded us and joyfully filled our pockets with apples, as our eyes filled with tears of appreciation. Little did we know upon going to this country, where its populace was allegedly being starved, that we would have our pockets stuffed with produce!

When we returned to our hosts at our picnic site, we were entertained with beautiful Korean songs with each of them taking turns. Playfully each person would finish singing and they would point to another who had to step up and sing. We know that if the contest between the lawyers of each nation were singing that this would have ended with our defeat quite swiftly! We ended up singing old anti-war and protest songs by a creek in the woods of North Korea with pockets bulging with fruit. The threat of war seemed not only far away, but inconceivable.

On our way back to Pyongyang we stopped at a resort hotel in a valley below the picnic area to drop off our hostess who had prepared the food for our picnic, only to run into busloads of Chinese tourists. Isolation does not appear to be the objective of the DPRK. We remember that it was the government based Democratic Lawyers Group that had reached out and invited us to the DPRK.

On a side note, during these days with our hosts and with others we met we never got the impression that anyone felt afraid to talk to us or to approach us or to answer our questions. On the contrary, we were constantly impressed by the sincerity and directness of the Korean people. Our two hosts, Mr. Jo and Mr. Bang earnestly tried to answer all our questions on very aspect of society. No question seemed off limits or answered in an apparent desire to avert the truth. As trial lawyers we have substantial experience and training in telling when someone is being evasive or untruthful. As a group we concluded that we were not being misled, nor were answers intended to divert us from a deeper inquiry. We covered the gamut, including women’s involvement in the high levels of government, criminal justice, capital punishment, crimes against the state and nuclear weapons. Our hosts seemed eager to provide us information and share their experiences. We were treated to the sharing of family photos and laughter over children, ping-pong and the state of the world.

Others we encountered and spoke to also appeared to us to be sincere and direct in their responses to our questions and honestly were trying to make us understand them as a people and to understand their brand of socialism in Korea. We never felt we were being manipulated or used and we were not paraded in front of the media or used for any internal propaganda purposes. We felt like honored and respected guests.

IX. Particular Observations:

A. The Juche idea of socialism

Our delegation began an exploration of the Juche form of socialism developed by the North Koreans to better understand the goals and intentions for society in North Korea. An interesting expansion of socialist philosophy is present in the very symbol of the nation and Juche, wherein the hammer and sickle are joined by an artist’s calligraphy brush, symbolizing the intellegencia and artists, along with the industrial and agricultural workers.

In simple terms Juche is the Korean word for independence, which is the basis of their external and internal policies. The North Koreans consider that no country can maintain true independence of action unless they are truly sovereign. Having experienced multiple invasions over 5,000 years and believing that socialism can be constructed in a single country if the motivation is there, the North Koreans try to maintain as much independence as possible while recognizing their interdependency with the outside world. They also translate this into society itself. “Juche” is often translated as “self-reliance.”

For the North Koreans, Marx and Lenin were great revolutionaries insofar as analyzing capitalist society and its transformation into socialism is concerned, but they could not and did not understand what it meant for human beings to live in a socialist society. These 19th century philosophers could only speculate about what a socialist society would be like. The North Koreans believe that it was Kim Il Sung who developed a philosophy of a socialist society. While statutes and murals abound to the later founder of the Country, Kim Il Sung, we observed no references to Marx and other international socialist leaders.

The Koreans believe they have a way of looking at society that can maintain socialism and the revolutionary and humanistic forces that are needed too maintain and improve it. Kim Il Sung stated that individuals in the society must have independence, creativity and consciousness. If any one of those three is missing no one can be a complete progressive human being and no socialist society can exist. It is the North Koreans’ contention that the fall of the USSR can be primarily ascribed to the mistake of the Soviets in failing to create and sustain this idea and spirit in the USSR, the result being a loss of faith in the revolution in the USSR and a regressive slide back into capitalism.

This appears also to be their concern for China as well, that it has slipped into capitalism due to a complete misunderstanding of what a socialist society is and can be both for the collective society but also for the individual as well. Certainly our delegation’s observations in Mainland China supported that the market system is booming and that vestiges of Mao’s China appear hidden in the seams.

This notion of the role of the individual in socialist society and how it is actually being played out in North Korea will be one of the topics for further delegations to follow-up on. Whether the North Koreans can maintain their approach with increasing joint ventures with corporations and further tourism remains to be seen. Furthermore, unlike stated justifications for isolating other socialist regimes over the years, such as their desire to export revolution, similar concerns seem inapplicable in the North Korean context. We appear to be maintaining this state of war and isolation, not because they are a threat to the rest of the world, but soley because of their ideology.

B. The Role of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il

The U.S. government and press have continually demonized the leadership of North Korea as “evil dictators,” the “last emperors”, “ruthless.” and murderers of their own people. In fact, the U.S. President G.W. Bush went so far as to make insulting and discriminatory comments, calling Kim Jong Il a “pygmy” and that “little” dictator. This attack on leaders that appear to harness great respect from within their country appear misguided and intended to thwart peace. The delegation voiced concerns as to whether efforts to demonize and dehumanize another country’s leader aids in preparing the American people for another war. Saving face in Korean society, called ch’emyon, is very important and we urge our leaders to understand Korean culture when they deal with this complex nation. We cannot be respected unless we respect others.

One afternoon we visited the birthplace of Kim Il Sung, the first leader of the DPRK. He appears highly respected and much loved here because he fought his entire life for the sovereignty, independence and dignity of the Korean people, first against the Japanese, then against the Americans. Despite the allegations made by some in the west that a “personality cult” exists in North Korea, that was not our impression. On the contrary we found that their former leader Kim Il Sung is regarded in much the same way as people regard, for example, Mao in China, Churchill in WW II Britain, or Washington in the United States. Our visit to the birthplace, as one delegation member noted, might have been a stroll around Mt. Vernon – the home of George Washington.

Kim Jong Il appears to be respected as someone who continues to fight for the same principles as his father. He was not immediately appointed after his father’s death, but took a long period of mourning. The Korean Workers Party and National Assembly took much time and allegedly engaged in extensive discussion before electing him. He had been heading the military for some time and continued in this role in the interim. However, there appears to have been some chaos and an actual vacuum of leadership during this time-period. This may have contributed to the economic struggles of the late 1990’s.

We learned that under the Juche principle, a strong leader is necessary to guide the will of the collective as represented in the Workers Party and the Assembly. However, as discussed below, the North Koreans have an elaborate system from the shop or farm level up to receive input on key national issues. How well this is utilized is a project for further delegations, but to assert that there is no democratic participation, only top-down decisions, in the DPRK appears an exaggeration.

We did not meet Kim Jong Il, something that appears possible on a later delegation. We also cannot on such a short trip have sufficient time to assess the basis of his apparent support. However, the absence of weapons and visible military intimidation makes the usual explanation of a brutal intimidating dictatorship suspect. We do know that a state of war leads to a nation rallying around its leadership and North Korea has had the threat of war hanging over it for over fifty years. Until there is peace, it is unlikely that we will fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current leadership.

From all observations, in light of the survival of their nation under great pressure and great obstacles, it appears that there are many positives that are overlooked by the simplistic rhetorical bashing of the media. We can only conclude that the people we met appear to have genuine respect for the insights and actions of the “Dear Leader” who is guiding their country. Yet, we questioned whether challenging him openly would result in prison or other penalty. From our own experiences in the U.S. or Canada, we have seen people in our own countries persecuted for their beliefs and opinions. We have watched while Muslims are attacked or detained without due process, teachers fired if they opposed the war and brutal attacks by police against those opposing the war in Iraq. Look at the reaction to Michael Moore as “disloyal” for calling the war fictitious and saying to President Bush “Shame on you, Mr. President.”

Our hosts answered that such challenges to the Leadership rarely happen. The reasons for this might be tied to the Juche philosophy, the reluctance to question a leader during a state of war (something Americans can relate to), peer social pressure or, as some in the West allege, fear of retaliation. We simply cannot know about a broad cross-section of DPRK citizens from our short trip. As more delegations travel to the DPRK, and a peace economy and society prevails, we will begin to understand this relationship more.

One morning we traveled to the north of the country to beautiful Mt. Myohyang and the Museum of Presidential Gifts. The museum itself is impressive in size and architecture, but its placement is stunning. One overlook where we enjoyed some ginseng tea took our breath away and several of the delegation noted it was one of the most beautiful spots they had ever seen. The museum contains all the gifts given to Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il by visitors and leaders of other countries. The stated purpose of the museum is to share the gifts with all of society, but it also serves to project to the people the respect given to their leadership by the international community. These gifts comprise all types of works of art and other objects from every country in the world including the United States. It was a spectacular display of fine artwork, furniture and even a car.

Some of the gifts were breathtaking, some surprising. For instance there were two gifts from Jimmy Carter and even one from the Reverend Billy Graham, described as “the religious leader of America.” Whether that is Mr. Graham’s description of himself or the Koreans’ misunderstanding or an exaggeration of his position was unclear. Yet, most Americans would not have realized in this world of myths and rhetoric that the North Koreans not only allowed Billy Graham to come to North Korea, but permitted him to preach in churches there.

The delegation came away from North Korea believing that the U.S. administration spends too much time demonizing the leadership of North Korea and forgetting that it is also a nation of millions of people who are peace-loving and, in the words of the North Korean Colonel we met at the DMZ, of people who “have children, parents and families.” Even our own experience shows that during times of threats and war, the best and worst in governmental leaders comes out. When former U.S. Jimmy Carter went to North Korea in 1994 it was in part because he was shocked that with a crisis brewing, no one was speaking with Kim Il Sung. Carter and Kim met, dined together, took a boat trip and lived the Winston Churchill declaration that it is always better to “talk, talk, talk than to fight, fight, fight.” From the understandings of the needs of each side in that meeting, an agreed framework was negotiated by the Clinton White House that reduced the threat of war.

It is clear that the North Korean leadership is willing to meet at anytime with the United States. Secretary State Madeline Albright found Kim Jong Il to be not what she had expected in her visit to Pyongyang. In fact, Kim Jong Il had invited Bill Clinton in 2000 and a trip was being discussed at the end of his administration, but the election debacle of 2000 and developments in the Middle East ended that dream.

The delegation is greatly saddened by the shift from a policy of dialogue to one of demonization and commits to work to reverse this dangerous and provocative trend. It welcomes quite recent moves in the Bush administration to reconsider signing a non-aggression agreement, but urge them to also establish formal diplomatic and economic relations and agree on a timetable to remove U.S. troops. It takes more than promises to be non-aggressive, as a nation’s actions must reflect their words.

C. The Legal System

We were told that the legal system is based on the Napoleonic Code, but it appears to be more in line with the German Civil code, as introduced by the Japanese. There is a structured court system in both the criminal and civil fields, and that there is a system of family and tort law as well. In our short trip we could not learn the details of the DPRK legal system and we need to go back to learn more. We asked to be taken to courts and law faculties to speak to professors and students, but due to the short nature of the trip, and a misunderstanding about our arrival date, it was not possible to arrange. We have also asked to visit courts, but it was not possible on this trip.

Through discussions and research de discovered that the law of criminal procedure provides that court proceedings shall be open, but also contains a clause that allows a hearing to be closed if “there is a fear of exercising a bad effect on society.” Such a provision could lead to abuses and to better understand it we need a sense as to how many proceedings are really open. Is it used more broadly than some of the privacy and national security claims made in the U.S., or the current military tribunals for alleged terrorists, to justify closed or secret hearings? However, our hosts assured those of us from the delegation who plan to return, that our future delegations would include visits to the courts and meetings with more lawyers and judges.

We were struck by the design of the DPRK criminal justice system. We even found in a bookstore the Criminal Procedures Act of the DPRK in English. Several principles seem quite progressive and reflect more of restorative justice, than retributive justice. The prime objective of the criminal justice system is rehabilitation or setting an example, not punishment,. There is an element of the latter, as there are jail terms for crimes, but this is not the major thrust of their system. In fact, they have codified a process by which those affected by the decision or the conduct of the accused have a real role in the process and those that contributed to the delinquent act or were involved in educating the person (i.e. a parent or friend) have to be available in the process to receive a “lecture” from the court. Penalties include submitting the accused to “social” or “public education.” Those arrested are required to have their families notified within 48 hours. A defense counsel is to be provided to represent the rights of the accused.

We were told that there was no death penalty and that the maximum penalty for any crime is 12 years, with the objective being to try to determine why the person committed the crime and to help that person become a productive member of society. A lack of a death penalty was seen by the delegation as a sign of a civilized nation. There appear to be labor camps where people work out their sentences. No effort was made to hide the presence of these camps. The U.S. media’s recent reports on the poor conditions, high mortality rate and lack of proper care or food, in the camps requires further investigation. In light of the false and exaggerated claims about starvation in the country in general, these reports must be viewed with a grain of salt. We will ask to visit these camps on future delegations.

We asked about the penalties for crimes against the state and whether there was a separate system for those crimes. There is not, but provisions are made for crimes that present a “social danger.” This seems consistent with a socialist society organized around the “common good,” but very general and could be subject to abuse. How it is applied remains to be discovered. However, the North Koreans we met with seemed professed to not understanding how someone would really formally challenge the decisions of the collective, as there is, according to them, an elaborate mechanisms for participation and input at various levels off society.

D. Education

As in Cuba, education is free up to Ph.D level. University students are paid a small stipend. Universities and specialty colleges have been established for all regions of the country and entry is by competitive examination. Any student can apply to go to any university or college as long as they pass the entrance examination. After the completion of their education DPRK tries to place the students in the field in which they are trained. Apparently the country has the capacity to enroll between 40 and 60% of the high school students in university at this time.

E. Health Care

Again as in Canada, Cuba, and much of Europe, health care is completely free of charge. Moreover, doctors make house calls in rural areas. Every city has a main hospital and there are specialty hospitals in the larger towns. The system is then composed of regional, district and local clinics all staffed by doctors and nurses so that no one in the country is without medical care. Further, doctor visits each village or city district to ensure preventive techniques are used and that people are doing their best to keep fit. There is an on-going keep fit program in place in the country in which the population has to maintain a certain level of fitness appropriate for age categories. However, in light of economic sanctions there is a shortage of medical supplies.

The floods and drought periods caused disruption of the food supply and caused malnutrition but this appears to have been overcome and the population generally appeared in good condition. Contrary to claims that the disabled are hidden away by the secret regime, we observed disabled people in public who needed canes or had amputated limbs. Further, a woman with a developmental disability was among the friendly picnickers we encountered. According to the North Koreans, parents of children born with chronic conditions receive an extra stipend for their care at home, so long as they are able to stay in the home.

F. Housing

Housing is also free and consists either of fairly modern high rises or traditional cottage style houses with brick walls and tile roofs. While many of the high rises looked in need of paint or plaster, they appeared well kept and clean. On an evening drive through Pyongyang one of our delegation observed beauty and barber shops on the ground floor of an apartment building. We also observed work crews working on refinishing buildings within Pyongyang. While the homes lack many modern conveniences, we saw TV antennae attached to many of them. Housing is allotted by local peoples’ committees in each area who decide who in the area gets which accommodation taking into account various family needs and availability. Young people who are single and not away at school generally live with their parents until marriage at which time they are provided free accommodation.

G. Work Conditions

Labor unions exist but strikes are almost unknown as the government consults with the unions and managers on all aspects of work including wages and work conditions on what seemed to be a consensual basis. More needs to be learned about this process and the issues of unions in socialist states with only governmental employers are very complex. The next delegation hopes to tour plants and meet with worker groups.

Miners and steel factory workers—those whose labor is most dangerous and difficult — earn more than lawyers or doctors. The professionals take their reward out of the mental satisfaction of the job itself and the prestige which comes with it. So, unlike our society, it is those who work the hardest physically who make the most. Workers are encouraged to speak out if they have ideas on improving things and committees exist at the shop levels for input.

We received some magazines showing the foreign trade of the DPRK. One publication asserts that it has trade with over 100 countries and the government claims as a basis of trade policy that it is based on “the principle of independence, equality and mutual benefit.” The manufacturing sector produces generators, compressors, pumps, automobiles and trains; mines include lead, zinc, cadmium and steel. We saw photos taken within plants of very modern looking equipment, but did not have time to tour facilities. The textile plants and silk mills produce items and the many rivers make fisheries a growing business. Of interest was their development of solar battery production, seawater plants for health and longevity, peppermint oil, Insam ginseng and medicinal herbs.

H. Political System

As in Cuba and other one party socialist societies, North Korea has a system of direct democracy in which elections are held for local peoples committees, district and provincial committees and to the Supreme People’s Assembly. The absence of other parties is not considered a failing, as the entire society is socialist. The question of multiple parties did not even seem understandable to those we spoke to. The delegation questioned whether within that system, there is in fact more participatory democracy than in the American federal system or the parliamentary system in which democracy ceases to operate once the elections are over. It is more circular, with local committees sending up to the next level requests, complaints and so on and so on up to the national level with discussion, at least in theory at these levels and then feedback to the local level until an agreement is reached based on resources available and circumstances.

However, the issue is not whether we agree with DPRK’s system or feel that our democracy is better or more just. The sharing of ideas, principles and approaches can only come after establishing trust and building relationship. The delegation feels that it is incumbent on the United States to commit to peace and demilitarization of Korea and to agree to more exchanges. Through these exchanges ideas also change hands and both societies can benefit from the dialogue. Certainly we cannot say that only one political system is successful and generates a participatory and healthy society. We hope that future delegations can learn more about political dialogue within the DPRK system and share the pros and cons of our system without blame or judgment.

I. Military Service

Military service is compulsory for young men and lasts for three years. Young men can choose to defer their service until after university. Women are not obliged to serve in the armed forces, but a significant number do so out of a feeling of duty to the defense of the country. Substantial pride was evident in the manner in which troops appeared to hold themselves in public and through our personal contacts with officers at the DMZ as discussed above.

J. Reunification

The goal of the DPRK and the Republic of Korea (ROK) has been to reunify the country. Kim Il Sung, just prior to his death in 1994, wrote a statement that declared that the two countries must make all efforts to achieve reunification. A monument to that historic document is found on the north side of DMZ. The country has been one for 1300 years, and two for only 58. In 2000, a joint declaration arose after a meeting between the Presidents of the two splintered nations to use respective proposals for a confederation to promote reunification. They agreed to economic cooperation and exchanges in “civic, cultural, sports, public health, environment and all other fields.” The delegation urges the U.S. to support, rather than continue to frustrate, these efforts and exchanges. If the South Koreans can commit to such relations isn’t it incumbent upon the U.S. to follow its lead?

The DPRK officials provided us with their written proposal for unification that calls for a Federation with a joint Supreme Assembly to pass laws for the federation, but one that allows each side to maintain its systems of government. Whether this is achievable remains uncertain, but the point remains that both sides want to have a united and peaceful nation. Therefore, it is our observation that the U.S. “defenses” may be doing more than “protecting” the South Koreans.

In fact, a unified and peaceful Korea, with a combined population of 77 million people, coupled with the growing economic power of China and the increased trade with Japan, makes Asia an increasing threat to the economic prowess of the United States. Already China is the largest manufacturing country in the world and has had an unparalleled growth rate of 10-15% per year for over twenty years. It was the opinion of the delegation that by maintaining instability in Asia, the U.S. can maintain a massive military presence and keep China at bay in its relations with South and North Korea and Japan and use it as a lever against China and Russia.

With the pressure to remove the U.S. bases in Okinawa, the Korean military operation remains a central point of American efforts to dominate the region. Furthermore, when read in light of the Cheney/Rumsfield and right wing pronouncements for a New American Century and the Clash of Civilizations, wherein they plan to fight several simultaneous theatre wars to preserve Western culture against Islam and then Asia, it is clear there is more at work here than we are being told.

K. The Role of Women

Most of people we spent extensive time with were men. We asked about the Supreme Assembly and saw photos of it. Women had not achieved proportional representation there In talks about gender issues there appears to be a great deal of respect for women, and an indication that they are recognized as capable for any job. However, whether this translates into a cultural paternalism was not clear. Clearly the dress is conservative and women did not appear objectified in the same ways they sometimes are as in the west. We met several very strong assertive women who were guides at some of our stops and who clearly and strongly put forth the Country’s positions. However, our nightly dinners with DPRK lawyers were all male. Further, the women entertainers and guides we encountered were often in “traditional” dress of organza in stark contrast to the garb of women in other jobs. The North Koreans have invited us to send a woman’s attorney delegation this next year and assured us that they would make arrangements to have the delegation meet with women lawyers and judges.

X. War and Peace

The U.S. military estimates that a new Korean war would lead to as many as I million people killed, including 80-100,000 Americans, out of pocket expenses of over $100 billion and an impact on the region of over 1 trillion dollars. Therefore, war is not a viable or civilized option. Yet, the U.S. continues to spend from 20-30 million dollars a year to maintain equipment and the military in South Korea. The delegation feels that this money could easily be diverted to the U.S. for health care or other important social functions.

The fundamental foundation of North Korean policy is to achieve a non-aggression pact and peace treaty with the United States. The North Koreans repeatedly stated that they did not want to attack anyone, hurt anyone or be at war with anyone. But they have seen what has happened to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq and they have no intention of having that happen to them. It is clear that any U.S. invasion would be defended vigorously and that the nation can endure a long, arduous struggle.

The DPRK has given mixed signals on whether or not it has nuclear weapons. It refers to a “nuclear deterrent force.” One officer told us that they do not have such weapons and other officials indicated that they did. So one can conclude nuclear deterrent force exists, though it may be bluster to make the US think twice about an attack.

Nevertheless, the question is not whether the DPRK has such weapons, but whether the U.S., which has nuclear arm capability on the Korean peninsula, is willing to work with the North toward a peace treaty. In the end the cat and mouse game of “do they or don’t they” begs the question. We found North Koreans avid for peace and not attached to having nuclear weapons if peace can be established. However, in this age of “regime change” in Iraq, “pre-emptive war” doctrines, the U.S. efforts to develop low yield nuclear weapons and its abandonment of international treaties, it was not surprising to us that the DPRK would play the nuclear card. The tragedy is how can the American people fail to demand that their leaders exhaust all avenues of dialogue and peacemaking before even contemplating aggression and the continual deceptions being spun to justify maintaining a state of militarism on the Korean Peninsula.

XI. Final Observations and Future Activities.

Multiple reasons exist for having international delegations such as ours. First, we can be witnesses for peace and observe what is going on in another country. Second, we can carry messages of peace and friendship to countries under attack by our policies. Finally, we can carry back information to our country to have people better understand what is going on. We have engaged in all of these tasks and will continue to perform them. The above report seeks to share our observations and activities.

We are currently planning three delegations in the year 2004 and have invited DPRK to the National Lawyers Guild Convention in October 2004. One of the delegations will focus on women’s issues and one will combine the trip with a visit to South Korea for a regional progressive lawyers conference.

As to messages of peace we have taken steps to share them at every opportunity. Congressman Dennis Kucinich told the delegation to carry a message to Kim Jong Il that “there is someone running for President who won’t demonize him, genuinely believes in peace between our nations and will stop all the rhetoric.” At Mt. Myohyang we left a written message for all visitors to see that was immediately written out and translated in Korean:

To the People of the DPRK:

Thank you for the many inspirations from our trip to Mt. Myohyang and across the country. We carry you in our hearts as we head back to the United States and Canada to work for Peace, Friendship and a positive future for our nations and the our world.

The USA/CANADA NLG Peace Delegation October 2003

When we met with groups of people in parks or at gatherings, or even with soldiers along the DMZ, we let them know that there are millions of peace-loving Americans who are supportive of a peaceful co-existence with the DPRK. As with Americans before we left, the Koreans seemed relieved and hopeful that our trip can play a part in healing this conflict.

Upon leaving we left our hosts and the government with a message of thanks for their warm hospitality and declared:

We will return to America and Canada and join in the struggle to have the U.S. ends is aggression, establish full diplomatic relations and remove U.S. troops from Korea, thereby leaving the Koreans free to establish a peaceful unification.

On the nuclear issue, we believe that both sides should destroy all weapons of mass destruction and model for the world a peaceful relationship based upon respect, understanding and the principles of international law.

Already since our return we have appeared on television and radio, written articles, talked in Peace Centers, schools and meeting halls. We’ve held meetings with Presidential candidates and are drumming up support for further peace activities. Talks in the first few weeks have been given in Toronto, New Hampshire, Boston, Albuquerque, Los Angeles and Minneapolis.

The night before we left, one member from the delegation ran into the Congolese diplomats who had entered the country with us. They were asked what their experience of the country had been. They stated that they were shocked. That everything they had heard about North Korea, all the negative propaganda, was false. They added that it would be a dream for most Africans to have the life that people in North Korea had. They repeated that they were shocked and were intent on telling people so. It takes each of us to get the word out.

Upon leaving the country we met a Scottish businessman from Edinburgh who was enthusiastic about the country and was hoping to get in on the ground floor, a British journalist who was teaching web techniques and training on international stock markets to journalism students and government officials, and a Finnish nurse who had been there for three years. All had positive feelings for the country and its people, none wanted war and all hoped that the people of America would learn the truth. We carry their hopes and aspirations with us.

The people of the world have to be told the complete story about Korea and our government’s role in fostering imbalance and conflict. Action must be taken by lawyers, community groups, peace activists and all citizens of the planet, to prevent the U.S. government from successfully generating a propaganda campaign to support aggression in North Korea. The American people have been subjected to a grand deception. There is too much at stake to get fooled again. This peace delegation learned in the DPRK a significant piece of truth essential in international relations. It’s how broader communication, negotiation followed by maintained promises, and a deep commitment to peace can save the world – literally – from a dark nuclear future. Experience and truth free us from the threat of war. Our foray into North Korea, this report and our on-going project are small efforts to make and set us free.

Submitted by the 2003 NLG /AAJ Korea Peace Project Delegation

Neil Berman
Christopher Black
Peter Erlinder
Jennie Lusk
Eric Sirotkin

Venezuela’s National Constituent Assembly (ANC) passed a new law aimed at empowering the organised working class this past Tuesday. The Constitutional Law of Workers’ Productive Councils (CPTT) was a product of the ANC’s Workers’ Commission and was drawn up as part of a broad consultation process.

“It’s time for socialism,” stated President Maduro following the law’s approval.

“It’s impossible to think of socialism without the working class. The working class has always been and will be the driving force in the building of the future of socialism, in Venezuela, and in the entire world,” he continued.

Himself a former union leader, Maduro called on the workers to immediately incorporate themselves as CPTTs into the national body charged with enforcing Venezuela’s price controls and to get to work in ironing out bottlenecks and problems in the country’s industries.

According to Francisco Torrealba, head of the ANC Workers’ Commission and president of the Caracas Metro Workers’ Union, the legislation is aimed at increasing workers’ participation in national production.

“It is a law which has as its fundamental objective to foster, make possible, and achieve the leading participation of the workers of the nation, who are those who make it possible for us to have goods and services which have been systematically attacked by the economic war,” explained Torreabla.

“The councils of workers will have a leading role in the monitoring and effective control over what is going on in the factories… They will guarantee that we can elevate the production of goods and services to their highest possible levels, especially in those goods of massive consumption and primary necessity,” he added.

The CPTTs look to work alongside and not replace existing trade union organisations. They focus on involving the workers in the running of the workplace rather than protecting workers and workplace conditions, which falls under the purview of union representatives.

The National Constituent Assembly in session with representatives of the working class observing in the balcony

The National Constituent Assembly in session with representatives of the working class observing in the balcony. (Source: Venezuelanalysis.com)

Under Article 7 of the new law, other grassroots organisations will be incorporated into the councils, such as local women’s groups, communal councils, communes, ecological groups and others. The article explains that all spokespersons will be elected by the workers, and where possible include at least one woman, one person from the national Bolivarian Militia, and one person under 35 years of age.

Often production of basic goods in Venezuela is hindered or limited due to a breakdown of a single element in the productive chain. Once such example has been the recent shortage in bread, which was due to problems in importing flour.

Another example is the processing of crude oil into gasoline. In December, when international payments for the compound chemicals needed to facilitate such a process were withheld due to the new US financial sanctions against Venezuela, the entire productive process collapsed, resulting in long lines at gas stations nationwide. Further examples include public transport units not fit for use due to a shortages of repair parts, or egg production hindered by shortages of chicken feed. These problems have been further exacerbated by corruption, hoarding, and reselling of raw materials, among other illicit practices which have been at the center of an anti-corruption probe by Attorney General Tarek William Saab into the oil industry and import sector.

Articles 11 and 12 stipulate the responsibilities of the spokespersons of the councils, which include the responsibility to denounce corruption, hoarding and reselling of goods, and other economic crimes which are harshly punished by Venezuelan law. They are also charged with informing state authorities of problems in the productive process so as to enable their rapid resolution.

Workers’ councils have organically sprung up since 2005 and have been mostly concentrated in state-run industries. Since then, the councils have been pushing for the passing of a law to regulate and safeguard their existence and activities. Legislation for such a law, initially introduced into the National Assembly by the Communist Party of Venezuela in 2005 as the Socialist Workers’ Councils Law, had been bouncing around different commissions ever since without ever reaching a vote, despite massive pro-government majorities in parliament until 2016.

However, due to the lack of any legislation backing their existence, councils have often been ignored or persecuted by workplace management, both in the private and public sectors, such as in Tromerca, the state-run tram system in Merida State, in which numerous workers were illegally fired two years ago for organising a council.

In response to past problems of illegal firing of workers trying to organise their workplace, Article 15 of the law declares “workplace irremovability” of workers involved from the moment the management is notified of the organisation of a CPTT, while Article 19 outlines sanctions of any management member who obstructs the development of the CPTT.

Following the law’s approval, ANC President Delcy Rodriguez took to Twitter to celebrate the law’s passage stating,

“From the ANC we have fulfilled our responsibilities to the workers of the country! The historic driving force of the socio-economic transformation of Venezuela.”

ANC deputy Yahiris Rivas explained that workers’ councils have “been working in the last few months in a progressive way and have shown positive results in productive levels.”

“The councils look to contribute to the productivity, efficiency, and stocking of productive goods,” she added, highlighting that the councils will work closely with the Local Productive and Suplly Councils (CLAPs) which distribute subsidised food directly to the communities.

Rivas also explained that one of the major objectives of this law is “to consolidate popular power in the working class”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Venezuelan Constituent Assembly Approves Workers’ Councils Law
  • Tags:

Meddling for Empire: The CIA Comes Clean

February 20th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

“We’ve been doing this kind of thing [electoral meddling] since the CIA was created in 1947.” Loch K. Johnson, New York Times, Feb 17, 2018

Electoral meddling has become the gruel of US politics for months, and more servings are being promised in the wake of the indictments against 16 Russians and Russian entities dished out Robert Mueller last week.  Such actions can, when taken in isolation, seem sensible.  Righteous indignation can be channelled appropriately, and given the suitable icing of exceptionalism.

One of the difficulties behind the podium stance of virtue taken by the US political establishment on Russian interference in the country’s electoral process is one of simple hypocrisy.  In the game, and importantly theatre, of international relations, the shove, give, and take are all powerful incentives. Express outrage, by all means, but do so with a certain sentient awareness that you have been as culpable as your opponent of the same charge.

Idealism, however, is the magic mushroom that clouds such assessments.  Filled with pride and a sense of purpose, individuals such as former CIA director James Woolsey are happy to first say that the CIA “probably” inserts its nose in the electoral affairs of other states, then justify it.

Friday’s encounter with Laura Ingraham of Fox News was sufficiently frank, if unsettling, in pulling down any pretence about the role of US power and its self-justified assertiveness in the electoral processes of other states.  “Have we ever tried to meddle in other countries’ elections?” posed Ingraham.  “Oh, probably,” came the humoured response, “but it was for the good of the system in order to avoid communists taking over.”

Then came a few points of illustration: “For example, in Europe, in ’47, ’48, ’49, the Greeks and the Italians, we CIA…” Ingraham, at that point, charged in with an interruption, asking whether the US “did that anymore”.  “We don’t mess around in other peoples’ elections, Jim?”

Faux, tinselled idealism is indeed an ugly sight of kitsch.  From a man familiar with the dark arts and antics of an organisation he once ran, it was hard to keep it in.  “Well… Only for a very good cause.” Through good causes, catastrophe breeds its dark spawn.

Down from the clouds of unreality that remains Fox News, former intelligence officers have been even more candid, thrilled to confess to something as natural as eating.  “If you ask any intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,” comes the view of Steven L. Hall, who left the CIA in 2015 after 30 years of service.  Not only had the US “absolutely” carried out operations in influencing elections, he hoped “we keep doing it.”

Long time student of the CIA, Loch K. Johnson, elaborates on the characteristics of such interferences.

“We’ve used posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners – you name it.  We’ve planted false information in foreign newspapers.  We’ve used what the British call ‘King George’s cavalry’: suitcases of cash.”

It takes the sober touch of a study such as that of Dov H. Levin to show that Great Powers intrude, impose and meddle with gluttonous dedication.  Electoral systems will be tinkered with; candidates will be sponsored and cultivated.  Friendliness towards the great power in question will be encouraged, while enemies within that state will be defamed and denigrated.

The “stakes”, as Levin puts it in the International Studies Quarterly (2016), are high for “foreign actors”. Elections in a particular country, whether democratic or even mildly authoritarian, can “lead to major shifts” in polices domestic and foreign.

Levin’s point is to argue that certain powers will find it irresistible to poke and prod through the undergrowth of a state supposedly at risk of changing course.  “Their methods range from providing funding for their preferred side’s campaign (a tactic employed by the Soviet Union in the 1958 Venezuelan elections… to public threats to cut off foreign aid in the event of victory by the disfavoured side (as the United States did during the 2009 Lebanese elections”.

Such interventions are impossible to be deemed good, as Woolsey would have it, despite the erroneous view that US involvement has been to assist political opponents against authoritarianism.  In some instances, they are impressively disastrous, installing such murderous regimes of the quality of Pinochet in Chile.

In others, they reaffirm the order of things – take the re-imposed status of vassalage on Australia after the overthrow of the Whitlam government in 1975.  The CIA role there is well documented yet discussed with a pinch of interest by Australians who tend to overlook the depravities of their paternal superpower. This, perhaps more than anything else, is the tragic realisation of electoral interference. It bankrupts and corrodes.  But most disturbingly for US critics of the Russian operation, it affirms that the system wasripe for bankrupting.

*

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

“If the election is ‘disrupted’ by voters changing their votes due to Russians posting on Facebook, then the problem is not that Russians are posting on Facebook, the problem is that voters are changing their votes based on posts they read on Facebook.” Bill H, comments line Sic Semper Tyrannis 

“God help America. We’ve lost our damn minds.” Publius Tacitus

Robert Mueller’s Friday night indictment-spree, is a flagrant and infuriating attempt to divert attention from the damning revelations in the Nunes memo (and the Graham-Grassley “criminal referral”) which prove that senior-level officials at the FBI and DOJ were engaged in an expansive conspiracy to subvert the presidential elections by spying on members of the Trump campaign. The evidence that the FBI and DOJ “improperly obtained” FISA warrants to spy on Trump campaign affiliate, Carter Page, has now been overshadowed by the tragic massacre in Parkland, Florida and the obfuscating indictments of 13 Internet “trolls” who have not been linked to the Russian government and who are being used to conceal the fact that the 18 month-long witch hunt has not yet produced even one scintilla of hard evidence related to the original claims of “hacking or collusion”.

Think about what’s Mueller is really up to: He’s not just moving the goalposts, he’s loading them onto a spaceship and putting them on another planet. Where’s the evidence that Russia hacked the DNC computers and stole their emails? Where’s the proof that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia? That’s what we want to know, not whether some goofy Russian troll was spreading false information on Facebook. That has nothing to do with the original charges. It’s just politically-motivated gibberish that proves Mueller has nothing to support his case. After a full year, the investigation has failed to produce anything but a big goose egg.

According to the indictment, the alleged Russian trolls “posted derogatory information about a number of candidates” and its “operations included supporting the presidential campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump…and disparaging Clinton.”

Big whoop. If people are so malleable that they can be brainwashed by some suggestive posting on Facebook, then maybe we should abandon democracy altogether. But that’s not what this is really about, is it? Because if it was, Mueller would have posted the contents of those nefarious Russian comments in the indictment…WHICH HE DIDN’T because he knows it’s all obfuscating bullsh** designed to make the sheeple think evil Putin is dabbling in our precious elections.

Oh, and here’s a little tidbit the MSM managed to overlook in their typically-hysterical coverage. This is from journalist Alexander Mercouris at the pro-Russia website, The Duran: (If you think your delicate mind might be brainwashed by Russian propaganda, please, shield your eyes!)

“The third thing to say about the indictment – and a point which has been almost universally overlooked in all the feverish commentary about it – is that it makes no claim that the Russian government was in any way involved in any of the activities of the persons indicted.

Nowhere in the indictment is the Russian government or any official of the Russian government or any agency of the Russian government mentioned at all. Nor at any point in the indictment is it suggested that any of the persons indicted were employed by the Russian government or were acting under its instructions or on its behalf….” (The Duran, Alexander Mercouris)

No Ruskis involved? But how can that be? We were assured that diabolical Russia is behind everything bad that happens in America. Has evil Putin been sleeping on the job??

Yes, it’s true that the Internet Research Agency, LLC, is in fact located in St. Petersburg but–as yet–there is no known connection between the company and the government. And, if there was, you can bet that Mueller would have exploited it for all it’s worth.

By the way, Mueller’s presumption that the hackers were trying to influence the election, is just that, a presumption. It has no basis in fact whatsoever. It is mere speculation like the rest of the claptrap he’s come up with. The more reasonable explanation is that the hackers were trying to make a little dough on “pageviews or clicks” rather than trying to persuade voters to vote for one candidate or the other. Here’s more from the indictment:

” Defendants and their co-conspirators began to track and study groups on U.S. social media sites dedicated to U.S. politics and social issues. In order to gauge the performance of various groups on social media sites, the organization tracked certain metrics like the group’s size, the frequency of content placed by the group, and the level of audience engagement with that content, such as the average number of comments or responses to a post.”

WTF! Isn’t this what everyone is doing, including the Intel agencies, advertisers, media and corporations? So now it’s a crime? Give me a break!

Here’s a blurb from the comments-line at Sic Semper Tyrannis:

“The “conspiracy” started in 2014, and cost a whopping $1.2 MILLION, which includes salaries, tech support, and bonuses. The indictment includes info that the Russians ran ads supporting Black Lives Matter, Muslims, Jill Stein, Ted Cruz, Rubio, and Trump. They also organized rallies in support of, and in opposition to Trump and Hillary Clinton. They continued their activities up into 2017, still organizing pro-Clinton and pro-Trump rallies. At one point, the indictment says that the Russians ran an ad that reached 59,000 people, which is laughable, people with a camera in their kitchen get more views than that. Essentially, after about 1.5 years of investigating “Russian collusion” this is all they’ve come up with.” –London Bob, Sic Semper Tyrannis

And here’s more from the indictment:

“U.S. law bans foreign nationals from making certain expenditures or financial disbursements for the purpose of influencing federal elections. U.S. law also bars agents of any foreign entity from engaging in political activities within the United States without first registering with the Attorney General.”

This is mind-numbingly stupid. Does Mueller really think he can cobble together a case against 13 foreign-born defendants based on the thin gruel of Russian support for “Black Lives Matter, Jill Stein and Donald Trump?” Good luck with that, Bob.

Political analyst Paul Craig Roberts summarizes how absurd the indictments are in a Friday article tiled “The Result of Mueller’s Investigation: Nothing”:

“How did the 13 Russians go about sowing discord? Are you ready for this? They held political rallies posing as Americans and they paid one person (unidentified) to build a cage aboard a flatbed pickup truck and another person to wear a costume portraying Hillary in prison clothes….”

The whole thing is ridiculous and anyone with half a brain knows it’s ridiculous. The only reason this fiasco continues to drag on, is because the mandarins in the US National Security State run everything in America and they’ve decided that they can invent whatever reality suits their foreign policy agenda and the rest of us will simply accept it in silence or be denounced as “Putin apologists” or “Kremlin stooges”. Fortunately, facts and reason appear to be getting the upper hand which why the deep state powerbrokers are getting so desperate. They’re now genuinely concerned about what might “come out” and who might be exposed.

Do the names John Brennan or Barack Obama ring a bell?

Indeed. I’m sure both names would factor quite large in any seriously impartial and thorough investigation of the Russiagate conspiracy.

One last thing for all you supporters of Donald Trump. I suggest you carefully examine his latest tweet on the topic. Here it is:

“Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong – no collusion!” Donald Trump, Twitter

As I expected, Trump is going to save his own skin, but allow the “Bigger Lie” to persist. It looks to me that Trump may have cut a deal with his deep state antagonists to support their spurious claims of Russian meddling as long as they exonerate him on the charges of collusion. That means, he will NOT use his power as President to try to uncover the roots of Russia-gate fabrication. (that would probably expose the former Directors of the CIA and NSA and, perhaps, even the former president of the United States, who likely gave Brennan the greenlight to set the wheels in motion.) All of these suspects will go uninvestigated, unindicted, and unpunished just like the perpetrators of the Iraq War, just like the perpetrators of the Financial Meltdown, and just like the perpetrators of all the major crimes against the American people. As always, it is complete and total immunity for Parasite Class while the rest of us have to play by the rules. But you probably already knew that.

Trump will get off the hook while the rest of us languish in permanent ignorance of how the shadow government really works. You heard it first here.

*

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Goofy Indictments Divert Attention from Criminal Abuses at the FBI and DOJ
  • Tags:

Note: This is a lecture which was delivered at the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Detroit on Sunday February 18, 2018. Abayomi Azikiwe presented the sermon or message for the day on the history and contemporary significance of mass incarceration and its link to the enslavement and continued national oppression of the African American people.

***

I want to express my deep appreciation to the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Detroit for extending another invitation to me to speak from this pulpit.

This institution remains as a vital source of inspiration for people in the city of Detroit from various backgrounds. Providing a platform for progressive ideas and social movements is critical during this time period.

As the United States faces profound challenges in the areas of race relations, class exploitation, the rights of immigrants, women and other marginalized groups, the threat of world war and other potential calamities, it is of utmost necessity that those concerned with advancing society towards a sustainable peace and social equilibrium have the opportunity to discuss these issues in a calm and reasonable fashion. Much of the discourse within the corporate and government-sponsored media does not lend itself to finding solutions to the monumental problems we are grappling with in contemporary times.

On a daily basis we are bombarded with images of displacement, dislocation, injuries, death and destruction. Although the U.S. is touted as a “peaceful” and “prosperous” country, “the wealthiest nation in the world”, there is much uncertainty, fear, trepidation and alienation.

The regularity of mass shootings, domestic violence, racial antagonism, misogyny and other forms of bigotry contradicts the official narrative which permeates the propaganda advanced by the mainstream press and the spokesperson for the administration in Washington, D.C. A cloud of routine avoidance of the real issues which concern humanity represents a dangerous phenomenon.

Image on the right is Abayomi Azikiwe

We have heard repeatedly from the oval office of President Donald Trump that the economy is booming, with unemployment being at its lowest levels in history accompanied by skyrocketing business confidence in regard to investment and job creation. Of course these claims are not accurate. Even if they were it would not automatically wipe away the tears of family members and friends of those killed recently in the school shooting in south Florida.

Such fabrications cannot provide food, clothing and shelter to the tens of millions of impoverished people in this country and the billions more around the world. These delusions of grandeur cannot cover-up the loss of life in the theaters of war which the Pentagon is involved in throughout the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and Latin America.

The millions who are suffering in our society from the rising tide of racism and all forms of oppression cannot gain solace from the continued enrichment of a small minority of the population which shows blatant disregard and even contempt for the conditions of the downtrodden and destitute. Even here in the city of Detroit, the conditions and concerns of the majority African American population goes unheeded. The elusive emphasis by the powers that be is placed on making Detroit whiter and wealthier.

When an assertion is made that African American unemployment is at its lowest level in history we must recognize this as another falsehood emanating from a distorted view of the origins and development of America as a nation-state. In fact Africans were the only people brought to the shores of the former British colony of Virginia and other such outposts during the 17th and 18th centuries with a fulltime job waiting for them on the tobacco, sugar and later cotton plantations of east coast and the south.

The Thirteenth Amendment and the Continuance of African Slavery

This year represents the 150th anniversary of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which was ratified by the required number of states by 1868. Ostensibly the Fourteenth Amendment provided citizenship to African people who had been subjected to enslavement for two-and-a-half centuries.

Nonetheless, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 passed by Congress was designed to essentially provide the same guarantees related to due process and non-discrimination, empowering the federal government and its three branches of the executive, legislative and judicial structures to enforce these measures and to take punitive action against any persons or institutions which sought to deny African people such inherent privileges.

Just three years prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment into federal law, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed in January by Congress and ratified later in December of 1865. This measure was supposedly designed to legally free Africans from slavery. However, a careful reading of the Thirteenth Amendment illustrates its dubious character, language which both frees people from involuntary servitude yet making exceptions under the guise of criminal conviction and sentencing.

The Thirteenth Amendment reads in Section One:

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, nor any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Then Section Two states:

“Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Understanding this contradictory character of the Thirteenth Amendment sheds light on the utilization of the criminal justice system in the perpetuation of bondage for the purpose of institutional racism and class exploitation. Why was it necessary to include language which maintained involuntary servitude within the prison system?

Any answer to this question must begin with the explanation that slavery is an economic system. It is a mode and relationship of production which is designed for the maximization of profit for the few landholding gentry. It was the Triangular Trade and chattel slavery which provided the wealth that spawned the rise of industrial monopoly capitalism beginning in the 19th century.

Two African historians documented this transformative economic process during the 1930s and 1940s. These scholars and political actors were Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois of the U.S. and Dr. Eric Williams of the Caribbean island-nation of Trinidad and Tobago.

Du Bois in his pioneering work entitled “Black Reconstruction in America: An Essay Toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to Reconstruct Democracy in America, 1860–1880”, published in 1935, said that: “Slowly but mightily these black worker were integrated into modern industry. On free and fertile land Americans raised, not simply sugar as a cheap sweetening, rice for food and tobacco as a new and tickling luxury; but they began to grow a fiber that clothed the masses of a ragged world. Cotton grew so swiftly that the 9,000 bales of cotton which the new nation scarcely noticed in 1791 became 79,000 in 1800; and with this increase, walked economic revolution in a dozen different lines. The cotton crop reached one half million bales in 1822, a million bales in 1831, two million in 1840, three million in 1852, and in the year of secession, stood at the then enormous total of five million bales. Such facts and others, coupled with the increase of the slaves to which they were related as both cause and effect, meant a new world; and all the more so because with increase in American cotton and Negro slaves, came both by chance and ingenuity new miracles for manufacturing, and particularly for the spinning and weaving of cloth.” (p. 10)This same study continues noting in regard to our subject today:

“As slavery grew to a system and the Cotton Kingdom began to expand into imperial white domination, a free Negro was a contradiction, a threat and a menace. As a thief and a vagabond, he threatened society; but as an educated property holder, a successful mechanic or even professional man, he more than threatened slavery. He contradicted and undermined it. He must not be. He must be suppressed, enslaved, colonized. And nothing so bad could be said about him that did not easily appear as true to slaveholders.” (pp. 12-13)

Nearly a decade after Du Bois penned Black Reconstruction Eric Williams published Capitalism and Slavery in 1944. This study focused largely on Britain pointed to the direct trajectory of profit-making under the slave system and the rise of industry.

In chapter five of the book, Williams observes:

“Britain was accumulating great wealth from the triangular trade. The increase of consumption goods called forth by that trade inevitably drew in its train the development of the productive power of the country. This industrial expansion required finance. What man in the first three-quarters of the eighteenth century was better able to afford the ready capital than a West Indian sugar planter or a Liverpool slave trader? We have already noticed the readiness with which absentee planters purchased land in England, where they were able to use their wealth to finance the great developments associated with the Agricultural Revolution. We must now trace the investment of profits from the triangular trade in British industry, where they supplied part of the huge outlay for the construction of the vast plants to meet the needs of the new productive process and the new markets.” (p. 98)

Williams goes on to chronicle the leading industries in Britain and their origins within African slavery. Banking, insurance, shipping and manufacturing were all fueled by the profits accrued from the super-exploitation of Africans.

Consequently, the economic system of slavery provided the necessary social ingredients to build a new mode and relationship of production, being capitalism. Through the new system mass production and international trade grew by leaps and bounds.

African slaves held in bondage and tortured in the United States

The transitional period from chattel slavery to industrial capitalism required regimentation and mechanisms to enforce conformity with the priorities of the social order. After the independence of the thirteen colonies from London, slavery continued. Alongside the system grew the correctional institutions which were designed to reinforce the status-quo. Some of the first prisons were established in the northeastern state of Pennsylvania.

However, as slavery expanded in the South, both law-enforcement and correctional facilities took on added significance. From the 1820s to the 1850s, Washington, D.C. itself was a major base for private prisons which held and later transported Africans to the slaveholding areas of the South.

Although President Thomas Jefferson signed into law provisions which prohibited the Atlantic Slave Trade in the U.S. in 1807, human bondage continued as a thriving enterprise. Inter-state trade in African people was rapidly expanding as cotton became the major industry of production and export.

A major institution designed to facilitate the domestic slave trade were private prisons. The opponents of this practice sought to have it regulated or outlawed during the 1820s to the 1850s. However, the private prisons continued operations well into the period leading up to the Civil War from 1861-1865.

There were many cases of free Africans being arrested and later sent into slavery. This was the fate of Gilbert Horton who was arrested in 1826 and held for a month on charges of being a runaway slave. A Congressman from Pennsylvania, Charles Minor, severely criticized the use of private prisons to service the slave system during the Horton matter. Horton was not released until he was able to provide references from Poughkeepsie which could substantiate that he was not a fugitive from bondage.

Many others were not so fortunate as to escape the clutches of the slave traders. One African woman in 1816 being held in a private prison in Washington, D.C. became so distraught that she attempted to take her own life. Anna as she is known through the records of the day, jumped from the third floor of a well-known slave prison. These events prompted Virginia Congressman John Randolph to speak out against the proliferation of such institutions.

Randolph called for the convening of a committee to investigate the circumstances prevailing in the private prisons in the nation’s capital. Randolph conveyed the plight of Anna stressing:

“A woman, confined among others, in the upper chamber of a three story private prison, used by the slave dealers in their traffic, was driven, by sorrow and despair at the idea of being separated from all that she held dear, to throw herself from the window upon the pavement.”

Evan Taparata in the 2016 article referenced above says of the period:

“Despite attention to private prisons in DC, substantive reform was elusive. In a renewed push to end the slave trade in 1848, Representative John Crowell of Ohio doubled down on the lack of oversight and visibility of private prisons. Crowell knew of a private prison near the Smithsonian Institute on the National Mall. The Smithsonian, Crowell noted, ‘was founded here for the diffusion of knowledge among men, and in full view of this Capitol, and the stripes and stars that float so proudly over it. But I fear, sir,’ Crowell continued, ‘we shall not be favored with the information’ about the injustices occurring in that prison.”

The Use of Private Prisons and State Correctional Facilities in the Aftermath of Slavery

Of course this practice of having private prisons as lucrative businesses at the service of chattel bondage did not end with the Civil War and the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. Efforts to maintain African people as a principal source of free labor were maintained through a series of laws and social practices.

By 1877, the federal government under President Rutherford B. Hayes withdrew any semblance of national support for Black Reconstruction. The Ku Klux Klan and other white terrorist organizations were founded to restore the supremacy of the slaveholding class through intimidation, the denial of economic freedom and lynching.

African Americans continued to hold office in local and state structures within certain southern states such as Tennessee, South Carolina and North Carolina into the 1880s and 1890s. Overall however, there was very limited or no right held by African people that the white rulers were bound to respect.

Anna leaps off slave prison amid horrendous conditions in Washington, D.C. 

The infamous Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896 ruled that segregation was perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution. African Americans could be separated from whites on the basis that their facilities were equal to those of Europeans. This was clearly a false premise since enslavement, institutional racism and national oppression were mechanism devised by the ruling class to enable the ruthless denial of rights for the purpose of economic exploitation.

This remained the law of the land until 1954 when the Brown v. Topeka case related to segregated public schooling was deemed a violation of U.S. jurisprudence. Separate but equal was inherently unconstitutional said the Warren court. Subsequently though, almost nothing was done on the federal, state and local levels of government to breakdown Jim Crow.

It would take a persistent Civil Rights Movement which petitioned the courts for implementation of existing constitutional amendments and laws from the mid-1950s through the late 1960s along with mass protests, boycotts and urban rebellions which broke open the U.S. political and social system. Further legislation in 1957 (Civil Rights Act), 1964 (Civil Rights Act), 1965 (Voting Rights Act) and 1968 (Fair Housing Act) added additional measures re-emphasizing what had already been enacted from the Reconstruction era of 1865 to 1875.

Leading up to this period of the 1950s and 1960s, Taparata conveys as well:

“Yet private interests continued to play a major role in the prison industry. African Americans arrested in the Jim Crow South faced the prospect of convict leasing, a system of labor in which states leased out prisoners to private contractors who were more interested in boosting profit margins than ensuring safe working conditions and upholding the citizenship rights of African Americans.”

Many people were ensnarled in this process which specifically targeted African Americans through racial profiling. Charges of vagrancy, robbery, rape, assault, murder and other crimes became reasons to lock up African Americans forcing them into slave labor projects led by private businesses.

Untold numbers of people died on work crews which were composed of African Americans denied due process and the right to adequate legal representation. This same process continued openly well into the middle decades of the 20th century.

In some cases the private and state-sponsored prisons were former plantations where slaves were held and exploited for decades. Angola prison in Louisiana is one such example.

A widely-recognized book and PBS documentary by Douglas A. Blackmon documents the practice of forced slave labor during the late 19th and 20th centuries. Southern and Northern corporate magnates profited immensely from the continuation of slavery after the Civil War and subsequent constitutional amendments purportedly outlawing slavery and the systematic mistreatment of African Americans.

Blackmon paints a horrendous portrait of conditions facing the former enslaved Africans:

“Under laws enacted specifically to intimidate blacks, tens of thousands of African Americans were arbitrarily arrested, hit with outrageous fines, and charged for the costs of their own arrests. With no means to pay these ostensible ‘debts,’ prisoners were sold as forced laborers to coal mines, lumber camps, brickyards, railroads, quarries, and farm plantations. Thousands of other African Americans were simply seized by southern landowners and compelled into years of involuntary servitude. Government officials leased falsely imprisoned blacks to small-town entrepreneurs, provincial farmers, and dozens of corporations—including U.S. Steel—looking for cheap and abundant labor. Armies of ‘free’ black men labored without compensation, were repeatedly bought and sold, and were forced through beatings and physical torture to do the bidding of white masters for decades after the official abolition of American slavery.”

Mass Incarceration for Profit in the Post-Civil Rights Era

The passage of Civil Rights legislation, the emboldened African American political culture and the advent of a new stratum of public figures and social groups did not arise without institutional resistance. Concessions granted to African Americans were carried out under extreme pressure brought about through a series of inter-related actions and global circumstances.

Cold War attitudes linked the demand for equality and self-determination to world Socialism and Communism. After 1947, the administration of President Harry S. Truman oversaw the purging of trade unionists, artists, professionals and business people whose loyalty to U.S. capitalism and imperialism was questioned.

Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy held hearings where people were questioned vehemently about their possible beliefs in Communism. Such extreme displays of paranoia and persecution waned by the late 1950s although the underlying assumptions about the real objectives of creating a society based on equal rights and due process was still held up in suspicion.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) made no distinction between Civil Rights, Black Nationalism and Communism. Any effort aimed at elevating the status of African American was deemed to be automatically subversive.

Leaders and organizations such as the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was investigated and destabilized right along with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and the Black Panther Party (BPP). Systematic efforts were made through surveillance, the planting of slanderous material in the media and the framing of activists in concocted criminal plots were designed to both discredit and disrupt political activities.

Political assassination, long term prison sentences and forced exile were part and parcel of a program of social containment aimed at driving African Americans back into Jim Crow and slavery. With the assassination of Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik Shabazz) in February 1965, Dr. King in April 1968 as well as the imprisonment and exile of other African American leaders while criminalizing their organizations, served to hamper the burgeoning struggle for genuine freedom and national liberation.

The advent of hundreds of urban rebellions and other acts of militant resistance during the mid-to-late 1960s and early 1970s were met with firm government repression. This state suppression of the rights of African Americans coincided with the re-structuring of the world capitalist system.

Municipalities such as Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Gary etc., lost millions of job held by African Americans. This was compounded by the outright defeat of U.S. imperialism in Southeast Asia by 1975. African liberation movements won significant victories in the late 1970s and early 1980s which weakened the grip of imperialism over the peoples of the planet.

Therefore, glancing back over these years it is not surprising that after 1980 there was a drastic increase in the rate of incarceration in the U.S. Over these 38 years, the prison population in the country has increased by 500 percent.

African Americans are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. A recent study by the Sentencing Project documents this racialized system of incarceration where African Americans and others are subjected to slave labor conditions and torture.

An article published in the Guardian reveals that:

“Black Americans were incarcerated in state prisons at an average rate of 5.1 times that of white Americans, the report said, and in some states that rate was 10 times or more. The US is 63.7 percent non-Hispanic white, 12.2 percent black, 8.7 percent Hispanic white and 0.4 percent Hispanic black, according to the most recent census. The research was conducted by Ashley Nellis, a senior research analyst with the Sentencing Project, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit that promotes reforms in criminal justice policy and advocates for alternatives to incarceration. Nellis found that in five states, the disparity rate was more than double the average. New Jersey had the highest, with a ratio of 12.2 black people to one white person in its prison system, followed by Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Vermont. Overall, Oklahoma had the highest rate of black people incarcerated with 2,625 black inmates per 100,000 residents. Oklahoma is 7.7 percent black. Among black men in 11 states, at least 1 in 20 were in a state prison.”

Overall the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) indicated that 35 percent of state prisoners are white, 38 percent are African American, and 21 percent are of Latin American descent. Combined Black and Brown people constitute nearly 60 percent of the incarcerated population in the U.S.

This process of mass incarceration serves several purposes. These men and women are forced to work under slave labor conditions therefore enhancing the profits for corporate interests which benefit both directly and indirectly from this set of circumstances.

Also the incarceration of oppressed peoples contains them socially and politically. These persons are withdrawn from the formal labor market allowing for the racially split workforce to remain dominant.

Large numbers of Black and Brown people funneled through the police stations, jails, prisons, and under judicial and law-enforcement supervision serves to reinforce stereotypes and pseudo-scientific notions of inferiority among the nationally oppressed. Whites are encouraged through this state of affairs to dismiss claims by African Americans and Latinos that they are actually victims of discrimination. These racist beliefs are reproduced through the jury selection process, verdicts, imprisonment and the treatment of former convicts within society.

The Sentencing Project provides data as well on the rise of private imprisonment over the last few decades. A report issued by them reveals:

“Private prisons in the United States incarcerated 126,272 people in 2015, representing 8 percent of the total state and federal prison population. Since 2000, the number of people housed in private prisons has increased 45 percent. States show significant variation in their use of private correctional facilities. For example, New Mexico and Montana incarcerate over 40 percent of their prison populations in private facilities, while states such as Illinois and New York do not employ for-profit prisons. Data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) show that in 2015, 28 states and the federal government incarcerated people in private facilities run by corporations including GEO Group, Core Civic (formerly Corrections Corporation of America), and Management and Training Corporation.”

This report continues emphasizing the numbers supplied by the Bureau of Justice Statistics which say:

“21 of the states with private prison contracts incarcerate more than 500 people in for-profit prisons. Texas, the first state to adopt private prisons in 1985, incarcerated the largest number of people under state jurisdiction, 14,293. Since 2000, the number of people in private prisons has increased 45 percent, compared to an overall rise in the prison population of 10 percent. In six states, the private prison population has increased 100 percent or more during this period. The federal prison system experienced a 125 percent increase in use of private prisons since 2000 reaching 34,934 people in private facilities in 2015.”

There has been a decline of 8 percent in the rate of incarceration in private prisons between 2012 and 2015. Nevertheless, with the coming to power of the Trump administration, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed a policy of the previous President Barack Obama to decrease and phase out the use of private prisons for the housing of federal inmates.

The Trump administration has continued the persecution of undocumented and documented immigrant communities. Many of these inmates are housed in private prisons.

A former official of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has recently joined GEO, a major owner of private prisons as alluded to earlier. In late May 2017, Daniel Ragsdale, the former deputy commander at ICE, announced he would be resigning his position with the government to take up employment at GEO Group, which is the second largest private prison corporation in the U.S.

This career move by Ragsdale is surely aimed at strengthening the revenue-generating capacity of such private enterprises through the transferal of government funds. These policies go almost unnoticed by the general public which is whipped up into a false sense of insecurity through the xenophobic propaganda of a supposed threat from immigrants.

Conditions in these private correctional facilities which house immigrants are reportedly extremely dangerous. Inmates with health problems face imminent peril as in other publically-controlled institutions, medical treatment is routinely denied.

Long Term Implications of Mass Incarceration and the Privatization of Prisons

Placing people within correctional institutions for extended periods of time only benefits the racist capitalist system in the U.S. Although there may be an illusory sense of security through mass incarceration, deportations and the denigration of incarcerated persons, it is not in a real sense curbing crime and enhancing social stability.

Moreover, this system of criminalization of the nationally oppressed, the poor and immigrants is unsustainable. These conditions in existence within the U.S. further tarnish the image of the country by exposing America as a bastion of repression and national discrimination.

Slavery by any other name remains unjust. Involuntary servitude has no place within a democratic society. Methods of complete integration and the right to self-determination is the only solution to racial polarization and economic exploitation.

In recent years there has been a resurgence of activism within the prison population. Inmates have engaged in hunger strikes and work stoppages in protest against the dehumanizing conditions they are living in on a daily basis. From Georgia, to Florida and California, these prisoners are signaling to the broader society that change is inevitable.

Whether this change will be peaceful is largely up to the ruling class and their government allies who benefit from mass incarceration. Eventually the system will implode endangering the inmates and the elites who hold them captive.

Those of us concerned about eliminating racism and class exploitation must view the struggle of prisoners as an integral aspect of the movement to end injustice in the U.S. It is within our interest to tear down the existing system and create a society based on equitable security and mutual understanding among peoples.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Mass Incarceration for Profit: The Dual Impact of the Thirteenth Amendment and the Unresolved Question of National Oppression in the United States
  • Tags:

The US and European press have both published stories accusing the Russian government, and in particular, the Russian military, of the so-called “NotPetya” cyberattack which targeted information technology infrastructure in Ukraine.

The Washington Post in an article titled, “UK blames Russian military for ‘malicious’ cyberattack,” would report:

Britain and the United States blamed the Russian government on Thursday for a cyberattack that hit businesses across Europe last year, with London accusing Moscow of “weaponizing information” in a new kind of warfare. Foreign Minister Tariq Ahmad said “the U.K. government judges that the Russian government, specifically the Russian military, was responsible for the destructive NotPetya cyberattack of June 2017.” The fast-spreading outbreak of data-scrambling software centered on Ukraine, which is embroiled in a conflict with Moscow-backed separatists in the country’s east. It spread to companies that do business with Ukraine, including U.S. pharmaceutical company Merck, Danish shipping firm A.P. Moller-Maersk and FedEx subsidiary TNT.

British state media, the BBC, would report in its article, “UK and US blame Russia for ‘malicious’ NotPetya cyber-attack,” that:

The Russian military was directly behind a “malicious” cyber-attack on Ukraine that spread globally last year, the US and Britain have said.

The BBC also added that:

On Thursday the UK government took the unusual step of publicly accusing the Russia military of being behind the attack.  “The UK and its allies will not tolerate malicious cyber activity,” the foreign office said in a statement. Later, the White House also pointed the finger at Russia.

Yet despite this “unusual step of publicly accusing the Russian military of being behind the attack,” neither the US nor the British media provided the public with any evidence, at all, justifying the accusations. The official statement released by the British government would claim:

The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre assesses that the Russian military was almost certainly responsible for the destructive NotPetya cyber-attack of June 2017.  Given the high confidence assessment and the broader context, the UK government has made the judgement that the Russian government – the Kremlin – was responsible for this cyber-attack.

Claiming that the Russian military was “almost certainly responsible,” is not the same as being certain the Russian military was responsible. And such phrases as “almost certainly” have been used in the past by the United States and its allies to launch baseless accusations ahead of what would otherwise be entirely unprovoked aggression against targeted states, in this case, Russia. The White House would also release a statement claiming:

In June 2017, the Russian military launched the most destructive and costly cyber-attack in history.  The attack, dubbed “NotPetya,” quickly spread worldwide, causing billions of dollars in damage across Europe, Asia, and the Americas. It was part of the Kremlin’s ongoing effort to destabilize Ukraine and demonstrates ever more clearly Russia’s involvement in the ongoing conflict. This was also a reckless and indiscriminate cyber-attack that will be met with international consequences.

Considering claims that this is the “most destructive and costly cyber-attack in history,” it would seem imperative to establish evidence beyond doubt of who was responsible. No Evidence From Governments Confirmed to Possess the Means to Fabricate Attribution Yet, so far, this has not been done. Claims that Russia’s military was behind the attacks seems to be built solely upon private analysts who have suggested the attacks appear to have originated in Russia.

However, as it was revealed by Wikileaks in its Vault 7 release, exposing cyber hacking tools used by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the origin of attacks can be forged. USA Today in an article titled, “WikiLeaks: CIA hacking group ‘UMBRAGE’ stockpiled techniques from other hackers,” would admit:

A division of the Central Intelligence Agency stockpiled hacking techniques culled from other hackers, giving the agency the ability to leave behind the “fingerprints” of the outside hackers when it broke into electronic devices, the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks alleges as it released thousands of documents Tuesday.

The article continues by pointing out:

The documents also suggest that one of the agency’s divisions – the Remote Development Branch’s UMBRAGE Group – may have been cataloguing hacking methods from outside hackers, including in Russia, that would have allowed the agency to mask their identity by employing the method during espionage.  “With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types, but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the ‘fingerprints’ of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from,” Wikileaks said in a statement.

Not only does this ability allow the CIA to carry out espionage that if discovered would be attributed to other parties, it also allows the CIA to conduct attacks the US government and its allies can then blame on foreign states for the purpose of politically maligning them, and even justifying otherwise indefensible acts of aggression, either militarily, or in the realm of cyberspace.

Evidence provided by the UK and US governments would have to establish Russia’s role in the “NotPetya” cyberattack beyond mere attribution, since this is now confirmed to be possible to forge. The UK and US governments have failed to provide any evidence at all, likely because all it can offer is mere attribution which skeptics could easily point out might have been forged. NATO Had Been Preparing “Offensive” Cyber Weapons 

As previously reported, NATO had been in the process of creating and preparing to deploy what it called an “offensive defense” regarding cyber warfare. Reuters in an article titled, “NATO mulls ‘offensive defense’ with cyber warfare rules,” would state:

A group of NATO allies are considering a more muscular response to state-sponsored computer hackers that could involve using cyber attacks to bring down enemy networks, officials said.

Reuters would also report:

The doctrine could shift NATO’s approach from being defensive to confronting hackers that officials say Russia, China and North Korea use to try to undermine Western governments and steal technology.

It has been repeatedly pointed out how the US, UK and other NATO members have repeatedly used false pretexts to justify military aggression carried out with conventional military power. Examples include fabricated evidence of supposed “weapons of mass destruction (WMD)” preceding the 2003 US invasion of Iraq and the so-called “humanitarian war” launched against Libya in 2011 built on fabricated accounts from US and European rights advocates.

With UMBRAGE, the US and its allies now possess the ability to fabricate evidence in cyberspace, enabling them to accuse targeted nations of cyber attacks they never carried out, to justify the deployment of “offensive” cyber weapons NATO admits it has prepared ahead of time. While the US and European media have warned the world of a “cyber-911″ it appears instead we are faced with “cyber-WMD claims” rolled out to justify a likewise “cyber-Iraq War” using cyber weapons the US and its NATO allies have been preparing and seeking to use for years. Were Russia to really be behind the “NotPetya” cyberattack, the US and its allies have only themselves to blame for decades spent undermining their own credibility with serial instances of fabricating evidence to justify its serial military aggression. Establishing that Russia was behind the “NotPetya” cyberattack, however, will require more evidence than mere “attribution” the CIA can easily forge.

*

Ulson Gunnar is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-UK Accuse Russia of “NotPetya” Cyberattack, Offer Zero Evidence

This article was first published by Global Research on September 4, 2014. It sheds light on the role of US intelligence in “war on terrorism” propaganda and the hate campaign against Muslims. 

***

A 2010 Washington Post article authored by former Army Intelligence Officer Jeff Stein features a detailed account of how the CIA admittedly filmed a fake Bin Laden video during the run up to the 2003 Iraq war.

The article, which includes comments from multiple sources within the CIA’s Iraq Operations Group, explains how the agency had planned to “flood Iraq with the videos” depicting several controversial scenarios.

“The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory,” the article states. “The actors were drawn from ‘some of us darker-skinned employees.’”

Other CIA officials admitted to planning several fake videos featuring former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, one of which would depict the leader engaged in sexual acts with a teenage boy.

“It would look like it was taken by a hidden camera,” said one of the former officials. “Very grainy, like it was a secret videotaping of a sex session.”

According to one official, the video ideas were eventually scrapped due to the CIA officers, who spent their careers in Latin America and East Asia, not understanding “the cultural nuances of the region.”

“Saddam playing with boys would have no resonance in the Middle East — nobody cares,” a third former CIA official said. “Trying to mount such a campaign would show a total misunderstanding of the target. We always mistake our own taboos as universal when, in fact, they are just our taboos.”

The article does however admit that one specific psyop was successfully implemented, linking to a document from the Rand Corporation that explains the program.

“According to histories of the 2003 invasion, the single most effective ‘information warfare’ project, which originated in the Pentagon, was to send faxes and e-mails to Iraqi unit commanders as the fighting began, telling them their situation was hopeless, to round up their tanks, artillery and men, and go home,” the article states. “Many did.”

While the aforementioned videos were never released, the much looked over admission of such psychological operations raises questions in light of the recent ISIS beheading videos.

Only days after Infowars’ questioned several discrepancies in the James Foley beheading video, top British forensic experts concluded that the video was likely staged using “camera trickery and slick post-production techniques.”

“After enhancements, the knife can be seen to be drawn across the upper neck at least six times, with no blood evidence to the point the picture fades to black,” an analyst said.”I think it has been staged. My feeling is that the execution may have happened after the camera was stopped.”

Given the brutality seen in many of ISIS’ grainy, low quality cell phone videos from Iraq and Syria, many have also begun questioning why the “beheading” video’s hide the actual beheading while also exhibiting more advanced editing techniques and high definition cameras.

While no one questions the tragic fate of both James Foley and Steven Sotloff, other questions have been raised in light of who discovered the most recent video: the SITE Intelligence Group (Search for International Terrorist Entities).

“One of SITE’s founders, Rita Katz, is a government insider with close connections to former terrorism czar Richard Clarke and his staff in the White House, as well as investigators in the Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Homeland Security according to SourceWatch,” notes Infowars’ Kurt Nimmo.

The most glaring issue still remains the United States government’s involvement in creating ISIS, recently pointed out by General Thomas McInerney.

“We backed I believe in some cases, some of the wrong people and not in the right part of the Free Syrian Army and that’s a little confusing to people, so I’ve always maintained….that we were backing the wrong types,” McInerney said.

While the Obama Administration admits to having no strategy against ISIS, internal sources claim the President has received intelligence on their rise for more than a year. Even as reports come in on possible ISIS attacks in the Southern US, the President still refuses to secure the border as border gates are left wide open.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on ISIS Beheadings of Journalists: CIA Admitted to Staging Fake Jihadist Videos in 2010

Among Global Research’s most popular articles in 2016.

Hillary is Dangerous. She Means What She says? Or Does She?  (M. C. GR. Editor)

*      *      *

On July 3, 2015, presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton addressed a hand-picked audience at a Dartmouth College campaign event. She lied calling Iran an “existential threat to Israel… I hope we are able to get a deal next week that puts a lid on (its) nuclear weapons program.”

Even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran. They are the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism.

They use proxies like Hezbollah to sow discord and create insurgencies to destabilize governments. They are taking more and more control of a number of nations in the region and they pose an existential threat to Israel.

We…have to turn our attention to working with our partners to try to reign in and prevent this continuing Iranian aggressiveness.

Fact: US and Israeli intelligence both say Iran’s nuclear program has no military component. No evidence whatever suggests Tehran wants one. Plenty indicates otherwise.

As a 2008 presidential aspirant, she addressed AIPAC’s annual convention saying:

The United States stands with Israel now and forever. We have shared interests….shared ideals….common values. I have a bedrock commitment to Israel’s security.

(O)ur two nations are fighting a shared threat” against Islamic extremism. I strongly support Israel’s right to self-defense (and) believe America should aid in that defense.

I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats. I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas’ campaign of terror.

No such campaign exists. The only threats Israel faces are ones it invents.

Clinton repeated tired old lies saying Hamas’ charter “calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel.”

“I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.”

She backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time:

I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.” She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike weapons entirely for offense.

*

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hillary Clinton: “If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We Would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them.”

This article was first published on GR on January 2015.

Within the mainstream medical and scientific community there is an unassailable pseudo-truth that vaccines are safe and effective, whether administered individually or in combination. Within the vaccine injured children and autism movements there is also an unchallenged belief that vaccines are effective but not always safe. In this case, vaccine-injured children or adult family members were simply one of the rare cases where they received a hot lot vaccine or possessed biomolecular abnormalities, such as mitochondria dysfunction, and suffered the consequences. Even many parents with two children developing neurological complications after vaccination, will continue to follow the recommended vaccine schedule. Any medical physician, scientist, nurse, public health advocate, politician, or journalist who questions the myth of vaccine safety and efficacy are often immediately attacked, ridiculed, and designated a conspirator.  In fact, the pro-vaccine propaganda machine sends forth articulate doctors and university scientists to engage in ad hominin personal attacks against vaccine dissenters. 

However, what if all of these individuals and their organizations, their shadow lobbying foundations and think tanks, are wrong? What if the vaccine paradigm itself is flawed? What if vaccines have never been soundly confirmed to be safe and effective? What if the CDC, vaccine manufacturers, and the leading vaccine advocates knew of these discrepancies and contradictions, yet intentionally ignored them against the public interests and the well being of the American population?  After several decades of studying the scientific literature regarding vaccines, following the money trails, and interviewing many dozens of toxicologists, immunologists, research physicians, pediatricians, and medical journalists the vaccine paradigm can now be accurately deconstructed with real independent science. The year, 2014, has been a particularly dismal year for the pro-vaccine movement. We are presenting the science that has unfolded during the past twelve months as indicative of a collapse in the modern vaccine paradigm.

Last year, 2014, may well be the watershed year marking the demise of the vaccine era.  Without any recent credible and sound biological science to support their claims for vaccines’ efficacy and safety, the vaccine complex and its federal allies have been forced to rely upon courts of law and the ignorance of an inept mainstream media to further promulgate their flawed mythologies to advance the vaccine agenda.

Rarely does a whistleblower emerge from the federal health agencies. Government and corporate entities that are notoriously hierarchical, such as the CDC, FDA, and Health and Human Services, ruthlessly prevent dissention from their ranks. In the Obama era, when whistleblowers are persecuted more than ever before, it is an act of great courage for a person to come forth and reveal government malfeasance, corruption, and criminal behavior.  Therefore, it was a shocking surprise last year when a senior epidemiologist at the CDC, Dr. William Thompson, acted upon his moral conscience and released thousands of pages of CDC documents with research data to Congress that unveil the agencies long history of fraudulent studies and medical cover-ups that hid the serious failures and health risks of vaccines.

Dr. Thompson is a distinguished scientist who has worked at the CDC since 1998. Prof. Brian Hooker, a specialist in molecular and cellular systems, and the first person to be contacted by Dr. Thompson, stated during a recent broadcast that the released documents are not simply a smoking gun. Rather it is a “wildfire.”  Dr. Thompson is currently cooperating with members of a Congressional subcommittee. Thousands of American parents with vaccine damaged children, suffering from permanent neurological impairment and autism, await a trial that will finally bring to justice many of the nation’s top health officials.

Dr. Thompson, who co-authored and published research on vaccine thimerosal mercury—still included in some vaccines, especially the influenza vaccine—has  admitted he was part of the CDC’s conspiracy to obscure scientific evidence proving thimerosal and the MMR vaccine as causal factors for autism.  During an interview on the Autism Media Channel, he stated that he would never give his pregnant wife a flu shot because of its high concentration of mercury.  “I don’t know why they still give it to pregnant women,” Dr. Thompson stated. “That’s the last person I would give mercury to.”[1]   After reviewing some of the CDC data received by Dr. Thompson, as well as data records acquired through freedom of information submissions, Prof. Hooker discovered that the CDC has known since 2001 that children exposed to thimerosal in utero were 800 percent more likely to regress into autism.  This data was intentionally excluded from the CDC paper published in the journal Pediatrics in an effort to disprove a thimerosal-autism association.  During the radio broadcast, Prof. Hooker unearthed evidence that the CDC has known for a decade that children receiving the MMR vaccines on schedule were nearly 300 percent more likely to regress into autism compared to children whose parents decided to withhold the vaccine until after the child was older.

Americans are rapidly losing confidence in the CDC. According to National Consumers League poll, over two-thirds of Americans believe vaccines cause autism, which the CDC categorically denies.[2] Almost two months after the media reported on the Thompson revelations, a CBS News poll showed public approval of the CDC nosedived to 37%, down from 60% the previous year. Vaccine apologists and the major media claim this large decrease is due to the CDC’s dismal handling of the Ebola crisis; however, Thompson’s whistleblowing received over 750 million Twitter impressions indicating that vaccine efficacy and safety is far more on the public’s mind.[3] Positive endorsement of the CDC would plummet further if the public knew the full extent of CDC officials lying to Congress and their conspiracy to commit medical fraud for over a dozen years. Imagine the tens of thousands of children and families who would have been saved from life-long neurological damage and immeasurable suffering if the CDC was not indebted to protecting the toxic products of the pharmaceutical industry and was serving the health and well-being of American children?

The Thompson whistleblowing case is the tip of the iceberg and now putting the vaccine establishment into a panic. Nevertheless, 2014 was a dreadful year for the vaccine establishment and other medical revelations provide further encouragement for parents to withhold or refuse vaccination.

The Council of Foreign Relations Mistakenly Proves the Largest Outbreaks of Infectious Diseases Are Within the Most Highly Vaccinated Populations.

An early 2014 report released by the Council of Foreign Relations to identify countries with the highest rates of disease outbreaks, accidently revealed that the most highly vaccinated populations are also those with the greatest number of outbreaks for those same infectious diseases.  This was especially the case for measles, mumps, rubella, polio and pertussis outbreaks.  The US, Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand, and Japan—each with the highest number of mandated vaccines—led the list of nations. The Office of Medical and Scientific Justice, which analyzed the report, concluded that the Council’s report clearly suggests the theory of “herd immunity” is failing or was flawed to begin with.  Given the repeated incidences of infectious outbreaks in populations with 94% or more vaccine compliance, and the emergence of new viral strains, the concept of herd immunity should be forgotten. The Office offers several possibilities to explain the report: 1) vaccines are increasingly becoming ineffective and causing “immune dysfunction,” and 2) “vaccine antigen responses” may be reprogramming viruses while weakening the immune systems of the most vaccinated individuals.[4]

Another World Health Organization Influenza Debacle 

Predicting the particular influenza strains to protect populations has never been a fine art.  We might remember the doom and gloom scenarios spread by the WHO and CDC over the H1N1 swine flu in 2009. The federal agencies of warning for a viral apocalypse, which never occurred, had as much credibility as Y2K and New Age Mayan predictions at the turn of the millennium.  At their best, flu vaccines remain around 60% efficacy according to official health statistics. However, the World Health Organization’s predictions for this year’s flu strains were a bust. The match was such a failure that the CDC was forced to warn the American public that the 2014-2015 flu vaccine was only 23% effective, off by 77%.[5]  Given that the 2012-2013 flu season was only 27% effective for the 65 years-plus age group, it can be estimated that this year’s flu shot is near useless for the elderly. Predictive methodologies to determine which flu strains emerge during any given influenza season have more in common with primitive mathematical divination than sound science.  For the 1992-1993 and 1997-1998 seasons, the vaccine concoction of flu strains was only 16% effective. Katherine Severyn, who monitors the actual WHO prediction results and compares them with CDC claims has stated that, “depending upon the study cited, [flu] vaccine efficacy actually ranges from a low of 0%.” [6]

Year after year, the US government spends approximately a billion dollars to purchase flu vaccines from the pharmaceutical cartel. Year after year, these vaccines prove to be capable of immunizing only a modest portion of the population. Since the CDC estimates it will have purchased 151-156 million flu shots to dump off this year, there is little else it can do except fudge science, release misleading propaganda and continue to distribute a useless snake oil.

More Bad News for the Influenza Vaccine

An ineffective seasonal vaccine is the least of the flu shots problems.  In December 2014, the Department of Justice released its report outlining compensation paid out to vaccine injured victims.  Based upon the statistics, the flu vaccine has been shown to be the most dangerous reported. Fifty-nine percent of awarded flu vaccine injuries were for Guillain-Barre Syndrome.[7]

Although, a final report of injuries and death from this year’s influenza vaccines won’t be made public until the end of 2015, the 2013-2014 vaccines accounted for over 93,000 adverse reactions, including 8,888 hospitalizations and 1,080 deaths according to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).[8] By the CDC’s own omission, the VAERS database only accounts for approximately 10% of adverse vaccine events. Do the math and the actual number far outweighs reported complications from contracting wild flu viruses.

Although, earlier research has shown that influenza vaccines contribute to adverse inflammatory cardiovascular alternations, which are lethal to senior citizens, and significant inflammation in pregnant women that may be associated with an increase in pre-term births and preeclampsia, new studies published in 2014 should raise further alarm:

A team of Finnish scientists at Finland’s National Institute for Health and Welfare, recorded 800 cases of narcolepsy associated with Glaxo’s flu vaccine Pandemix.  Vaccine ingredients other than the viral antigen or engineered component, are most often believed to be the primary culprits to adverse vaccine reactions. The Finnish research, on the other hand, indicated that the Glaxo vaccine’s altered viral nucleotide likely contributed to the sudden rise in sleeping sickness.[9] Dr. Paul Offit, the premier media celebrity for the vaccine establishment, has repeatedly made claims that infants can safely withstand tens of thousands of viral antigens; therefore, according to Offit, parents should not fear innumerable vaccinations at a single time.  This new finding on the contrary, sends a warning to all pregnant women and parents that it is not simply vaccines’ many toxic ingredients that pose worry, but the bioengineered viral components are also potentially life threatening.

For almost a decade, the CDC has known influenza vaccines are ineffective in the elderly but continues to market them without hesitation. Hence in November 2014, five senior citizens at an assisted living facility in Dacula, Georgia, died within week after all residents were vaccinated.[10] During the previous year’s flu vaccine trials, Sanofi Pasteur’s  Fluzone killed 23 elderly participants during the vaccine trial. Nevertheless, the vaccine was approved and continues to be marketed towards senior citizens.[11]

The Mumps Vaccine: Another Useless Shot

The question whether the mumps vaccine should have ever been put on the market has been debated since the 1950s. Over fifty years ago the nation’s chief federal epidemiologist, E.H. Lossing, warned that the mumps vaccine, which doesn’t provide lifelong immunity, would create a far more medically dangerous and costlier problem for people who become infected as adults.[12] At its best, the mumps vaccine may protect a person for 2 years, according to Dr. Greg Poland, head of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group.[13]  In 2014, there were over 1000 mumps cases and all outbreaks occurred in highly vaccinated populations.[14] It was far worse in 2006, writes Lawrence Solomon for the Huffington Post. During that year 84% of the 6,500 mumps cases were fully vaccinated young adults.  Among the almost 450 mumps cases in the American South last year, only 3 were unvaccinated.  What is more disturbing, researchers at the Bordeaux University Hospital in France, found that vaccinated adults were contracting a particularly malignant strain of mumps that contributed to meningitis, inflammation of the testicles, and hearing impairment.[15]

Secondary Transmission of Measles from a Fully Vaccinated Woman

A study published in a 2014 issue of the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases confirmed that not only may measles occur in vaccinated individuals, but a 2011 measles outbreak in New York City may have had its source in a fully vaccinated individual. Not only did the vaccinated woman, dubbed “Measles Mary”, contract the disease, but she also passed it to four others, two who were vaccinated. This is the first confirmed medical case of secondary measles transmission causing an outbreak. Earlier in the year, another study confirmed that individuals vaccinated against pertussis can be infectious carriers of the virus and can likely infect others who either do not respond immunologically to the pertussis vaccine or who are unvaccinated.[16]

The conclusion is that the B. pertussis vaccinated individual now endangers the health of the unvaccinated and vaccinated alike.

Earlier, a far greater blow against the efficacy of the measles vaccine came when Dr. Gregory Poland, Editor in Chief of the journal Vaccine and founder of the Mayo Clinic’s Vaccine Research Group, published a surprising statement that the measles vaccine has a poor record of efficacy. Despite the high 95% measles vaccination compliance of children entering kindergarten, and the CDC’s propaganda that the vaccine has defeated the virus, measles outbreaks are rising. For the first half of 2014, there were 16 large measles outbreaks in the US. Dr. Poland does not believe this is due to unvaccinated individuals, but because of the failure of the vaccine.[17]

These types of vaccine failures, which are also occurring far more frequently in pertussis outbreaks, further puts to rest the herd immunity hypothesis.

A Bad Year for the Pertussis Vaccine

Outbreaks of whooping cough have been increasing annually. However, state and local health authorities investigating and gathering statistics on pertussis outbreaks are discovering the highest numbers of infected persons among the vaccinated.  Mississippi, with the highest vaccination rate in the country, has shown significant increases in whooping cough cases, with only 9% of those infected being unvaccinated. Across the nation, the most highly infected are those who have received three or more pertussis shots and boosters.

However, it was in Australia last year that the government’s National Center for Immunization and Research of Vaccine Preventable Diseases found that the pertussis vaccine effectiveness is waning far more rapidly than expected, even among vaccinated 3 year olds.[18]

While the mainstream media and the vaccine establishment have launched a brutal campaign to blame unvaccinated individuals for the recent upsurge in pertussis infections, the CDC has publicly announced the contrary. Dr. Anne Schuchat from the CDC has stated, “We know there are places around the country where there are large numbers of people we aren’t vaccinated. However, we don’t think those exemptors are driving this current wave. We think it is a bad thing that people aren’t getting vaccinated or exempting, but we cannot blame this wave on that phenomenon.”[19]  What Americans need to know is that more virulent strains of B. pertussis have emerged that are not covered by current DpT vaccines. Earlier, Australian immunologists suggested that the emergence of a new vaccine-resistant B. pertussis strain may be due to over vaccination. What the world is witnessing with antibiotic resistant organisms, due to the over use and abuse of antibiotic medications, is similarly occurring with viruses targeted by vaccines.

Would You Like Some Depression with Your Rubella Vaccine?

It is common to feel out of sorts and depressed when feeling ill and under the weather. But might a vaccine be the cause for the depression? In 2014 medical departments at Hebrew University in Israel and the Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry in Germany, two of the world’s most distinguished institutes, published a double blind study revealing that teenage girls vaccinated with attenuated rubella virus had a statistically significant increase of induced bouts of depression up to ten weeks. The increase in post-vaccine depression occurred among girls in lower socioeconomic brackets. Today with over 50% of school age children in America living in poverty, the rubella vaccine is now contributing to serious psychological episodes and problems that are repeatedly reported in the mainstream psychological literature.[20]

Put a Hold on that Hepatitis B Vaccine`

Although an association between multiple sclerosis and the hepatitis B vaccine has been debated for over 15 years, the CDC continues to categorically deny this relationship.  However, a 2014 retrospective French study investigating the sudden spike in multiple sclerosis cases since 1993, identified France’s mass Hepatitis B vaccination program as the perpetuator for a doubling of MS cases within a few years. MS is a demyelinating disease of the nerves. The French scientists suspect that a vaccine protein contributed to the breakdown of myelin.  Again, it is not only the non-viral ingredients we should be scared about. In the US there are 10,000 new cases of MS annually, and infants are vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine immediately after birth.[21]

The Safety of Paul Offit’s Rotateq Vaccine Questioned, Again

Sayer Ji, editor of GreenMedInfo, noted that the Rotateq vaccine against the rotavirus, developed by Paul Offit for Merck, contained a live simian retrovirus that has likely infected millions of children around the world. The study was published in the prestigious Journal of Virology in 2010. Yet a more recent 2014 study published in Advances in Virology identified another viral contaminant in Offit’s vaccine: a baboon endogenous virus “likely due to the monkey cell line in which Rotateq was produced from.”  Only time will tell whether Offit’s contaminated vaccine will have the impact of the tainted polio vaccine with the carcinogenic S40 virus.[22]

Exposing the Fraud of the Human Papilloma Vaccine (HPV)

A paper out of the University of California at Berkeley and appearing in the October 2013 issue of Molecular Cytogenetics came to public attention last year to suggest that cervical cancer may not be caused by the human papilloma virus. If the theory is correct that may prove that the HPV vaccines Gardasil and Cervarix do not prevent cervical cancer at all.[23]

Moreover, researchers at the University of Guelph in Canada reported that the HPV vaccine acts upon a “mechanism” by which the vaccine is altering transmission leading to higher oncogene expression among vaccinated girls. The implications from this research is that the vaccine is driving the evolution of viral virulence, similar to what is being observed with vaccines for pertussis, mumps and measles.[24]

Chickenpox Vaccine is Shown to Increase Disease Rates

Again, 2014 has been a dismal year for the pro-vaccine community. Even the chickenpox vaccine, long thought to be safe and effective, is failing with the others.  Back in 2005, South Korea mandated the varicella vaccine to all children under15 months. Regardless of the country’s 97% compliance—well, above herd immunity’s claims to eradicate infectious disease—chickenpox infections have not declined and in fact have increased three-fold between 2006 and 2011.[25]

Conclusion

The vaccine establishment is desperate. The ghosts of their fraudulent science, manipulated research, misleading propaganda across mainstream media and in the blogosphere are returning to haunt them. The pro-vaccine pundits are rapidly losing credibility as increasing numbers of parents and young adults educate themselves about vaccine efficacy and their health risks.  If it were left for an open scientific debate between pro-vaccinators and those opposing vaccines, the former would not have sound science on their side.

It is time for a national debate to end vaccine madness. As further research emerges, as the vaccine paradigm is further stripped away, future generations will be looking back upon vaccination as a barbaric, primitive practice.

NOTES

1  http://naturalsociety.com/epidemiologist-cdc-says-never-give-pregnant-wife-flu-shot/

2  http://www.nclnet.org/survey_one_third_of_american_parents_mistakenly_link_vaccines_to_autism

3  http://naturalsociety.com/american-public-officially-loses-faith-cdc/

http://whitetv.se/sv/inget-fritt-medium-i-sverige/1106-council-on-foreign-relations-cfr-visar-att-ovaccinerade-aer-friskare-aen-vaccinerade.html  (Sweden)

5  http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/12/3/flu-vaccine-ineffective.html

6  Richard Gale and Gary Null, “Flu Vaccines: Are They Effective and Safe?”  Progressive Radio Network, September 28, 2009

http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/why-are-so-many-healthy-people-dying-from-the-flu-after-receiving-the-flu-shot/#sthash.21InKK2H.dpuf

8  http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2014/11/11/last-years-flu-vaccine-killed-and-injured-over-93000-us-citizens-will-this-year-be-any-different/

9  http://www.globalresearch.ca/finnish-scientists-identify-link-between-glaxosmithklines-swine-flu-vaccine-pandemrix-and-narcolepsy/5423154

10  http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/6-seniors-die-after-flu-shot-at-assisted-care-center-in-georgia/

11  http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/23-seniors-died-after-receiving-this-years-flu-shot-sold-by-pharmacies/

12  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lawrence-solomon/mumps-in-nhl_b_6351358.html

13  http://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2014/12/16/nhl-mumps-outbreak-whats-up-with-the-vaccine/

14  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25391635

15  http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/27/cid.ciu105

16  http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/27/cid.ciu105

17  http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/measles-cases-are-spreading-despite-high-vaccination-rates-whats-going-on/2014/06/23/38c86884-ea97-11e3-93d2-edd4be1f5d9e_story.html

18  http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/17/pertussis-vaccine-for-whooping-cough-effects.aspx

19  http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/t0719_pertussis_epidemic.html

20  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11268375

21  http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12026-014-8574-4#page-1

22  http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/breaking-news-millions-children-infected-vaccine-safety-experts-rotateq-vaccine

23  http://sanevax.org/hpv-not-cause-cervical-cancer/

24  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25429011

25  http://naturalsociety.com/97-compliance-chicken-pox-vaccine-still-causes-outbreaks/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Vaccine McCarthyism. What If the Vaccine Paradigm Itself Is Deliberately Flawed?

The AR-15: Weapon of Choice for Mass Shooters

February 19th, 2018 by Claire Wang

Featured image: Vigil at Tam High School in Mill Valley for the victims of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida. Photo credit: Fabrice Florin / Flickr (CC BY-SA 2.0)

When news broke Wednesday of yet another horrific mass shooting on school grounds, this time in the upscale community of Parkland, Florida, the all too familiar shock and sorrow were soon replaced by a sense of resignation that nothing would change.

Nikolas Cruz, an expelled student, opened fire in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and killed 17 people, three of whom were faculty members. Fourteen teenagers will never go to prom or attend college, but somehow this chapter feels like just another chapter in America’s tragic narrative about gun control instead of a turning point.

Three of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in modern US history have now occurred in the last five months. As with some other mass shootings, a trail of breadcrumbs led up to the Parkland massacre.

The FBI received a tip last September about an ominous YouTube comment from a user with the same full name as Cruz: “I’m going to be a professional school shooter.” After admitting that it couldn’t confidently identify the person behind the account, the bureau apologized Friday for failing to follow up on another tip it received in January from someone close to Cruz who was alarmed by his affinity for violence.

Cruz’s social media account was another clue. It featured images of firearms and a slaughtered toad. In fact, his erratic, often violent behavior so alarmed teachers that they prohibited him from wearing a backpack on campus.

Many an op-ed will be devoted to speculating about the shooter’s motives, which may once again be rooted in psychological dysfunction. But the social and political circumstances that enabled Cruz to execute his plan have remained relatively unchanged in the last six years.

Since the Sandy Hook tragedy in 2012, when 20 first graders were murdered, five of the six deadliest massacres have featured an AR-15, the most popular semi-automatic rifle in the US. The death toll cracked double-digits in every instance.

The popularity of the AR-15 can be largely attributed to its accessibility. Anyone without a criminal record or domestic abuse felony can buy a firearm in Florida. Because the legal age to purchase the AR-15 is 18, Cruz, who is 19, was old enough to buy an assault rifle.

Lax regulations combined with the weapon’s capacity for carnage make the AR-15 the dream weapon for mass shooters. Equipped with box magazines that hold 30 rounds each and can be replaced quickly, the gun can spit more than a hundred rounds in mere minutes.

Given the recent rise in mass shootings, it may not come as a surprise that a majority of Americans support stricter gun laws. But the National Rifle Association’s relentless lobbying and advertising, aimed primarily at the GOP, impedes efforts to enact comprehensive reform. Among the top 100 House beneficiaries of NRA donations, 95 are Republican.

Many of them, along with their colleagues in the Senate, are quick to shower victims with “thoughts and prayers.” What they have not done, however, is limit or ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons or require a mental health check to purchase a gun.

In the videos below, New York Times reporters discuss the AR-15, and ABC News reporter Pierre Thomas explains how the infamous Columbine massacre inspired a generation of copycat shooters.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The AR-15: Weapon of Choice for Mass Shooters
  • Tags:

US President Donald Trump received another setback last week when the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, located in Richmond, Virginia, ruled against the latest version of his Muslim ban. In its ruling, the court stated that the ban is “unconstitutionally tainted with animus towards Islam” and that its central purpose is “to exclude Muslims from the United States.” Despite the ruling, “Muslim Ban 3.0” will remain in effect while the Supreme Court considers the case. 

The decision by the Fourth Circuit has been cautiously welcomed by Muslims, many of whom have endured prolonged separation from their loved ones as a result of the ban.The Muslim ban has always been a reactionary gimmick aimed at shoring up the most backward elements of Trump’s political base and whipping up anti-Muslim hysteria in the country.  It was clearly designed to reinforce the bogus notion that Muslim-Americans and Muslim immigrants constitute a unique threat to “national security.”

The consistent, calculated attempt by Trump and his supporters to portray ordinary Muslims as potential security threats has had a devastating impact on Muslim-Americans, contributing to an increase in hate crimes against Muslims and fostering a general climate of fear and uncertainty within the community.  There are also indications that the government is planning a further crackdown on the democratic rights of Muslims, with increased surveillance of Muslim communities in the works. Indeed, reports from around the country this month demonstrate how the US is increasingly becoming hostile territory for Muslims.

Earlier this month, the non-profit organization, South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT) released a report that showed a dramatic rise in incidents of harassment and violence against South Asians and Arabs. SAALT documented 302 of these incidents between November 2016 and November 2017, representing a 45 increase in the number of incidents recorded in the year leading up to the 2016 elections.  Non-Muslim South Asians, including Hindus and Sikhs, are also targeted by racists in increasing numbers, demonstrating that sometimes a dark-skinned appearance is enough to invite insults and attacks from the bigots. According to the SAALT report, 20 percent of the perpetrators of the incidents of harassment and violence it recorded directly referenced Trump or one of his policies, indicating a strong link between Trump’s anti-Muslim vitriol and the uptick in attacks on Muslims and South Asians. The SAALT report reinforced the findings of the FBI’s latest Uniform Crime Report, which was found a 20 percent increase in hate crimes against Muslims in 2016.

In addition to the rising incidents of harassment and violence against Muslims, there are signs that the federal government intends to ratchet up spying against the Muslim community. Two weeks ago, Foreign Policy magazine obtained a draft report, produced by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the request of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in which the CBP recommends subjecting Sunni Muslim immigrants, including permanent residents, to long-term surveillance.  In its report, the CBP declared that a broad range of Sunni Muslims are potentially “vulnerable to terrorist narratives,” based on so-called “risk indicators” such as being young, male and having origins in the “Middle East, South Asia and Africa.”  Last October, it was also revealed that the DHS plans to collect social media information from all immigrants to the US, including permanent residents and naturalized citizens.  The draconian measure would have a powerful and destructive chilling effect on Muslims throughout the US, forcing them to think twice before openly expressing their political views.

While the latest news from the DHS is ominous indeed, it should be pointed out that the assault on the democratic rights of Muslims began long before Trump came to power.  This was underscored earlier this month when the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) revealed that, in 2016, the Boston Police Department (BPD) used social media monitoring software to spy on the private conversations of Muslims.  The BPD had a list of “trigger words” such as “ummah” (community) and “Muslim Lives Matter,” that activated the software.  The BPD’s spying program was eventually discontinued, with no evidence that it prevented any crimes.

One might expect that the police, busy as they are hounding the working class and racial minorities, would have little time to engage in such activities.  However, the BPD’s spying program is nothing new.  In fact, it pales in comparison to the massive spying operation carried out by the New York Police Department (NYPD) in collaboration with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in the years following 9/11. In 2010, the Associated Press uncovered the existence of the NYPD-CIA spying program, which included the monitoring of Muslim students groups across 16 college campuses across the Northeast in 2006-2007.  The Associated Press had also discovered that, for several years, the NYPD had been spying on mosques and Muslim-owned businesses, even sending informants to monitor sermons.  Ordinary Muslims going about their daily lives had their license plate numbers recorded and faces photographed.

The use of paid informants by US authorities is particularly sinister. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is believed to have more than 15,000 informants on its payroll.  It is known to recruit Muslims of dubious character for the purpose of manufacturing “terror plots” to ensnare vulnerable Muslims. The informants are trained to seek out young, impressionable, often unemployed and isolated Muslims known to have expressed “radical views.”  After gaining their trust, including through favors such as providing money, the informants then bend over backwards to convince their targets to carry out an attack.  In his 2013 book, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism, investigative journalist Trevor Aaronson showed that only 1 percent of the more than 500 defendants charged with federal terrorism offenses in the decade following 9/11 were actually involved in terrorist activities.  In the overwhelming majority of cases, the “terror plots” were entirely cooked up by the informants. One of the more infamous examples of this FBI tactic was the case of the Newburgh 4, which involved the entrapment of 4 deeply impoverished African-American from Newburgh, NY on bogus terrorism charges after an FBI informant gained their trust by providing both financial and emotional support to the vulnerable men.

The FBI is continuing to use informants, as demonstrated by the ongoing case of Samy Hamzeh, a Muslim man from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Hamzeh, who believed that the Masons were involved in a plot to discredit Islam by supporting ISIS, was arrested in 2016 after he purchased two machine guns from a paid FBI informant who had previously been a trusted friend, allegedly for the purpose of attacking a Masonic center. According to his lawyers, Hamzeh is a “Palestinian Walter Mitty” who was manipulated and exploited by self-serving informants.

The use of paid informants by the FBI is revelatory in that it shows the determination of US authorities to exaggerate the threat posed by Islamic terrorism.  If Muslim terrorists can’t be found, they must be created. If one takes an objective look at the studies done on the attitudes and values of Muslim-Americans, it’s difficult to conclude that they pose a danger to their non-Muslim neighbors. Muslim-Americans tend to reject the more retrograde aspects of Islam, preferring to conform to 21st century norms and values. For example, last year, the results of a survey by the Pew Research Center showed that, in contrast to white evangelical Christians, the majority of Muslim-Americans believe that homosexuality should be accepted by society.  Another Pew survey showed that the majority of Muslims in the US support the right to an abortion in most cases.  Interestingly, the Pew survey conducted last year found that 24 percent of Muslims raised in the US have left the religion altogether, no longer identifying as Muslim.Indeed, the only people talking about Sharia law in this country are the Muslim-obsessed bigots of the far-right, whose forces are known to engage in terrorist activities at much greater rates than Muslim-Americans and Muslim immigrants.

The increasing marginalization of Muslims in the US has been part of a continuous process, underway since 9/11.  The process started under George W. Bush, was escalated by Barack Obama, and has intensified significantly Trump’s, whose open flirtation with fascism is bringing about a qualitative change in the lived experience of Muslim-Americans. The whipping up of anti-Muslim sentiment by the American ruling class has definite political aims. These include dividing the working class along racial and religious lines, building domestic support for US imperialism’s wars and interventions in Muslim-majority countries, and cracking down on the democratic rights of all Americans in the name of “national security.”  The tactics used against Muslims are also beginning to be utilized against non-Muslims, particularly against political activists. For example, the spying software used by the Boston Police Department against Muslims in 2016, was also used against Black Lives Matter protestors in 2014, and even against Boston high school students opposing austerity measures.

These are the methods of a ruling elite with nothing to offer working people other than growing inequality, poverty and endless war.

*

Ali Mohsin is an independent writer. He has a Master’s degree in Political Science and a special interest in issues affecting workers in the US, Pakistan and globally.  He can be reached at [email protected]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Muslims Face Increasing Discrimination, State Surveillance Under Trump
  • Tags:

Citing intelligence sources, the representative of Donetsk, Eduard Basurin, has stated that British instructors have arrived in the Donbass, at the locations of the Ukrainian Forces.

“In the area of 93rd separate mechanized brigade in the vicinity of the city of Volnovaha, a group of foreign instructors has arrived – led by a representative of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, for the purpose of training of Ukrainian servicemen on how to carry out sabotage and subversive activities,” said Basurin.

“In addition to the British, from February 5th to the 9th, a delegation of the US military will join the Brits. They will assess the expenditure of funds that Washington has allocated to the army.”

The DPR stressed that rotation of the Ukrainian military has been completed in the Mariupol district. The marines which came to replace the infantry brigade have participated in the NATO exercises in Georgia in September 2017.

“It is possible that the commander of the 36th Marine Brigade will give an order in the near future to carry out provocative actions and practice the skills gained” said Basurin.

Experts admit that the arrival of foreign instructors directly to the region may indicate possible plans for the escalation of the situation. The director of the Center for Strategic Studies, Ivan Konovalov stated that

“the essence of what is happening is that the training of servicemen of the Armed Forces and soldiers of the National Guard was so far, carried out in zones away from the so-called ATO. And now they decided to change the format and conduct training in conditions that are close to combat. We can assume that they will conduct local combat operations of a sabotage character, to check the preparedness of their men. ” said Konovalov.

The same opinion is held by the vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Vladimir Anokhin, who believes that Kiev is planning a major offensive operation in the region.

“There are a number of factors that can be used to judge that Ukraine is preparing for large-scale hostilities – possibly late February or early March. This may well be related to the elections in Russia, ” the expert said.

Note that the UK launched a training program for the Ukrainian military under the name “Orbital” in February 2015. Then it sent 75 military doctors to the country, who provide medical help on the ground. In July 2017 Orbital was extended until 2018. During this time, about 6 thousand Ukrainian soldiers were trained in its framework.

In addition to Britain, Canadian specialists who come to the country within the framework of NATO’s Unifer mission are also training Ukrainian soldiers. In March last year it was reported that 200 instructors had arrived from Canada. The US has recently spent $ 22 million to equip a military training center near Lviv, to accommodate the new training programme.

Overall, there are currently an estimated 900 foreign instructors and foreign mercenaries in the Ukraine.

“We know of about 129 instructors from the United States, Canada, Turkey, Algeria, Lithuania, Latvia, Britain, who coordinate the actions of the Ukrainian units,” said Basurin.

In addition to the above, about 500 people are part of the Georgian National Legion and the Hungarian Battalion Magyar. He also noted that there are about 200 people belonging to international private military companies.

*

This article was translated from Russian by Inessa Sinchougova for Fort Russ.

Featured image is from Fort Russ.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What’s Brewing? British, American, Canadian Advisers Arrive in Donbass
  • Tags:

Women’s Rights in Syria

February 19th, 2018 by Mark Taliano

 Syrian women are helping to save Syria and all of humanity against the scourge of Western-supported terrorism.

The Canadian government, on the other hand, is destroying women’s rights (and all human rights) in Syria and beyond.  If the truth were ever accepted by broad-based populations, then our government, led by those who project progressive fronts, would be exposed as the misogynist, life-hating rot that it is.

Trudeau is destroying Syria through illegal sanctions, and through direct and indirect support of every single terrorist in Syria. Canada is a member of the NATO terror organization, which along with its allies, seeks to create “regime change” in Syria, — the highest crime according to Nuremburg Principles.

All Syrians, but especially Syrian women, have much to lose if the Canadian government’s diabolical ambitions are realized.

Amany Ashy[1] lives in a government-secured area of Syria where she is headmistress of a high school.  She explains that life for women in government-secured areas hasn’t changed much. She explains that

The government supports women’s right and liberty before and now. We have the liberty to choose our work , to wear whatever we like , to choose the type of education we want and even to fight side by side with the army. We have the safety to go at anytime during day or night.

She also explains that

men now are busy fighting with the army or trying hard to work double shift after the crazy raise of prices and after the sanctions. Women’s life as the life of all Syrian has been affected badly by the sanctions. The prices of food and vegetables have become double. Medicine prices are very high and some are not available.

Life in terrorist-occupied areas, however, is entirely different, and alien to Syria and to most Syrians. Ashy explains that

women in the areas controlled by the US- backed terrorists have no rights at all. They have to wear a black uniforms to cover their bodies and this uniform must be very simple and loose and if any women try to break their rules they take them to Hespah (prison). They keep them imprisoned for hours and force them to buy a uniform that they have and agree on … Women are prevented from going to schools or working any kind of job that they don’t approve of.

Ashy adds that the government respects freedom of thinking and religion and that nobody has the right to interfere in someone’s religion.

Saudi Arabia, one of Canada’s allies in the war for terrorism and against human rights is both a fountainhead of terrorism and Wahhabism, and it is this Wahhabi ideology that prevails in terrorist-occupied areas of Syria.  It is also this Wahhabi ideology (takfiri/salafi) that is referenced in a 2012 DIA document[2] (14-L-0052/DIA/287) which laid out clearly the West’s plans to destroy Syria, one of the 7 countries targeted for destruction as enumerated by General Wesley Clark.

As the U.S and its terrorist allies occupy the oil rich areas of Eastern Syria – also laid out in the aforementioned DIA document — Canadians should remember that this war, like its predecessors in Libya, Iraq and beyond, was sold to them and continues to be sold to them through outrageous, constantly repeated, war lies.

*

Notes

[1]Amany Ashy is a pseudonym for an actual Syrian source. She shared her narrative in a private Facebook message dated 2 October, 2017.

[2] Brad Hof, “2012 Defense Intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State ‘in order to isolate the Syrian regime.’ “ LEVANT REPORT THE REAL MIDDLE EAST, DEBUNKING THE SOUND BITES. 19 May 2015. (https://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/) Accessed 18 February, 2018.


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

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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Women’s Rights in Syria

West Asia in Flux, Resistance and Liberation: Palestine, Syria, Iran

February 19th, 2018 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

A series of events linked to West Asia in the last nine months has brought to the surface the under-currents and cross-currents in the region’s perennial struggle between occupation and hegemony, on the one hand, and resistance and liberation, on the other. It is crucial to understand how these events are related to one another, to connect the dots, as it were, in our attempt to make sense of what is unfolding in the world’s most strategic – and most dangerous – region.

We shall show how five events – two in Syria, two related to Iran and one concerning Palestine driven by some of the same interests and agendas are all inter-connected and how they in turn are linked to Yemen, Qatar and Lebanon. The roles played by Israel and Saudi Arabia, needless to say, will figure prominently in all this. Their roles are intimately intertwined with that of the United States of America, the hegemonic power that has dominated West Asia for at least five decades.

Syria

One of the most dramatic events in the politics of the region occurred on the 10th of February 2018. Syrian ground to air missiles downed an Israeli F-16 and damaged another F-15 fighter plane. The Israeli planes had infiltrated Syrian air space with the aim of destroying a Syrian drone air base. Since the beginning of the Syrian war in March 2011, Israel had launched no less than eight incursions into Syria seeking to emasculate Syrian military defences. However, this time Israeli air power was confronted with devastating effect. The Syrian ability to retaliate shocked the Israeli military and political elite. As analyst Elias Akleh put it,

“Warning sirens wailed in many Israeli towns in the north, Israelis hurried into shelters and Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv had temporarily halted air traffic. He continues that on Sunday (11th February) Israel spread its iron dome on its northern border “while sending more reinforcements south on the border with Gaza Strip.”

The remains of the F-16 jet that crashed in northern Israel (Source: RTE)

To cover up the embarrassment arising from an act of naked aggression, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly concocted the tale of a drone from an “Iranian drone base” in Syria violating Israeli air space and Israel being forced to retaliate which was how its fighter plane “crashed” within Syrian territory. It should be emphasised that there are no Iranian drone bases in Syria. The tale had to be spun not only to exonerate Israel but also to cushion the shock of Syria’s successful assault on an F-16 equipped with the “latest American defensive Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) that is supposed to defend the plane from missile attacks.” It is telling that

“the very expensive ECM failed to defend the plane against the older 1960s technology of the Russian S-200 missile that hit the planes.”

The implication of this for Israel and the US, its protector, is far-reaching. It is Israel’s air superiority which is at the core of its military superiority that has enabled it to dominate West Asia. Israeli air-power annihilated the Egyptian air-force in the 6 day war in 1967. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirakin 1981. In Lebanon, it rained bombs in the 34 day war in July 2006. Gaza has been bombed a number of times, the 2014 assault being the latest. It is not just infrastructure that has been destroyed; thousands of civilians have died because of Israeli air-power. As a result of all this, Israeli air-power had acquired a halo of invincibility. That halo disappeared in smoke on the 10th of February.  What does this mean for Israel’s ability to continue its military dominance of the region? This question has become critical because strategically situated Syria is now backed to the hilt not just by Hezbollah and Iran but also by militarily powerful Russia. Is this the beginning of a change in the power equation in West Asia?

The other event in Syria also offers some insight.Because US backed rebels in Syria, a substantial portion of whom were part of various terrorist outfits have been defeated by the Bashar al-Assad government supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, elites in Washington sought to save face by finding a foothold at the Syria-Turkey border by arming and financing some 30,000 Kurds tied to the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) which for decades has been fighting the Turkish government. This has naturally infuriated the Turkish government of Recep Erdogan. Other governments in the region that have sizeable Kurdish populations such as Iraq and Iran have also condemned the US plan which they fear will pave the way for the establishment of an independent Kurdish state that all four states (Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran) are opposed to. Israel incidentally endorses the idea of an independent Kurdish state since it serves its agenda of fragmenting states in West Asia. The US plan which appears to have been put on hold has been particularly adverse for its relations with NATO ally, Turkey.

Iran

If the US has piqued Turkey, the former’s animosity towards Iran which goes back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, has reached a new peak under President Donald Trump. In spite of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) re-affirming that Iran is complying with the 2015 nuclear deal that it forged with the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, Trump insists that Iran has violated the deal which he, in any case, regards as a bad deal that should be re-negotiated. It is only because the European Union refuses to go along with Trump and agrees that there has been Iranian compliance, that Trump has re-certified the deal for the time being. The Iranian nuclear deal is not the only issue on which serious differences are developing between US and Europe. The question of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel which will be analysed shortly is yet another major global concern on which Europe has a different take. Are challenges in West Asia prompting Europe to adopt a different course in international relations a course which will make it more independent of the US?

The US’s negative attitude towards Iran is also reflected in its never-ending machinations to oust the government in Tehran.  The Washington elite, backed by Israel and Saudi Arabia tried ‘regime change’ again in late December 2017 by eagerly endorsing demonstrations in a few cities focusing initially on unemployment, inflation and corruption. The demonstrations fizzled out partly because they lacked mass appeal. Their failure proved if proof was needed that regime change through external manipulation is stupid and infantile. It has undermined further the credibility of the US and its anti-Iran partners in West Asia.

Palestine

An even bigger blow to the US and Israel was Trump’s public announcement that his country recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel a recognition that the US Congress had  accorded in 1995 – and intended to move its embassy to that city. The opposition to the announcement was massive with 128 countries out of 193 in the UN General Assembly demanding that the US government withdraw the declaration. They rejected it because it violated international law, was unjust to the Palestinians and would subvert any peace effort.

16-year old activist, Ahed Tamimi (Source: Middle East Monitor)

The question one should ask is whether this announcement is actually a preliminary step towards a so-called ‘Peace Plan’ that will witness Palestinians being given small pieces of land in the West Bank  over which they would exercise limited authority apart from keeping Gaza while effective control of all these fragments, would remain in Israeli hands. It is quite conceivable that to implement this Bantustan, the Israeli elite will seek the cooperation of the Saudi elite. One can be absolutely certain that such an unjust move will be rejected outright by the Palestinians, other Arabs, the Muslim masses, and indeed, people everywhere who cherish fairness and human dignity.

If the Saudi elite colludes with the Israeli elite on this, it would be partly because it needs the material support of the US in the pursuit of its agenda in Yemen, Qatar and Lebanon. In each of these countries, its explicit goal is to establish its dominance and curb what it perceives as “Iranian influence.”  Both US and Israel have given approval to the Saudis. In Yemen, the US has been supplying weapons to the Saudi-led coalition that has been bombarding one of the poorest countries in the world. Israel is uneasy about Qatar’s ties with Iran. The Israeli elite is even more determined than the Saudi elite to crush the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

There is therefore a convergence of motives among the elites of the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.While their individual and collective determination to perpetuate their power in West Asia has a lot to do with this convergence, their enmity and antagonism towards Iran is also the glue that holds them together. It is connecting these dots that link the various actors in the region that is crucially important at this juncture.

However much the desire to perpetuate their power, our analysis has shown that the unfolding scenario in West Asia is not in favour of the US or Israel or Saudi Arabia. The events in Syria and Iran are major setbacks for all three of them. The Jerusalem-Palestine debacle is a huge blow to the US and Israel while the imbroglio in Yemen, the quagmire in Qatar and the failure to force the Hezbollah out of government in Lebanon through the botched resignation of Prime Minister Saad Hariri,all testify to Saudi recklessness. These events taken together have made a significant dent upon the politics of occupation and hegemony in West Asia.

But let’s make no mistake about this. Neither occupation nor hegemony is about to end anytime soon. Genuine liberation is still a distant horizon. Nonetheless, it is incumbent upon us to recognise that the power equation in the region is changing. The situation is in flux. A new pattern of relations is emerging which will marginalise some of the existing actors. Russia’s more purposive role, Iran’s positive and growing influence, the ability of the Syrian people and their leaders to hold the fort in the midst of great adversity, the Hezbollah’s strategic astuteness and most of all the sacrifice and suffering of the courageous people of Palestine and the region as a whole will be the determinants of a new and bright future for West Asia.

*

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on West Asia in Flux, Resistance and Liberation: Palestine, Syria, Iran

Wall Street Journal article by Juan Forero (2/13/18) ran with the headline “Venezuela’s Misery Fuels Migration on Epic Scale.” The subhead stated, “Residents Flee Crumbling Economy in Numbers That Echo Syrians to Europe, Rohingya to Bangladesh.”

Forero’s article quoted a UN official: “By world standards, Colombia is receiving migrants at a pace that now rivals what we saw in the Balkans, in Greece, in Italy in 2015, at the peak of [Europe’s] migrant emergency.” Further on, Forero says, “The influx prompted Colombian officials to travel to Turkey last year to study how authorities were dealing with Syrian war refugees.”

Two enormous problems with the way Forero and his editors have framed this article should immediately stand out:

  1. Colombia’s population of internally displaced people is about 7 million, and has consistently been neck and neck with Syria’s.  According to the UNHCR, as of mid-2016, Colombia is also the Latin American country which has the most number of refugees living outside its borders: over 300,000, mainly in Venezuela and Ecuador. Forero and his editors picked the wrong country to compare with Syria.
  2. Greece and Italy do not share a border with Syria, nor do the Balkans as they are generally defined. Colombia and Venezuela, by contrast, share a very long border.  Forero’s comparison, therefore, excludes states that border Syria. Three of those bordering states—Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey—collectively absorbed 4.4 million Syrian refugees by 2016; five years after war broke out in Syria, Turkey alone took in almost 3 million.

It’s very important to expand on the first point.  Colombia is a humanitarian and human rights disaster, and has been for decades, in very large part due to its close alliance with the United States. Thanks to Wikileaks (CounterPunch2/23/12), we know that US officials privately acknowledged estimates that hundreds of thousands of people were murdered by right-wing paramilitaries, and that the killings have nearly wiped out some indigenous groups. Those genocidal paramilitaries have worked closely with the Colombian military that Trump Chief of Staff John Kelly praised in 2014 as a “magnificent” US partner.  “They’re so appreciative of what we did for them,” raved Kelly.

Colombian military police (cc photo: Pipeafcr/Wikimedia)

Colombian military police (cc photo: Pipeafcr/Wikimedia)

Praise for Colombia’s government has also come from the liberal end of the US establishment, albeit with much more subtlety than from Kelly. In 2014, a New York Times editorial (9/21/14) stated that “Colombia, Brazil and other Latin American countries should lead an effort to prevent Caracas from representing the region [on the UN Security Council] when it is fast becoming an embarrassment on the continent.” So to Times editors, Colombia is a regional good guy that must lead its neighbors in shunning Venezuela.

Colombia’s current president, Juan Manuel Santos, was minister of Defense from 2006 to 2009. From 2002 to 2008, the Colombian military murdered about 3,000 civilians, passing them off as slain rebels. As human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik explained (Huffington Post, 11/20/14) , the International Criminal Court (ICC) “concluded that these killings were systemic, approved by the highest ranks of the Colombian military, and that they therefore constituted ‘state policy.’” The murders occurred with the greatest frequency between 2004 and 2008, which Kovalik observed “also corresponds with the time in which the US was providing the highest level of military aid to Colombia.”

If Colombian and US officials evade prosecution for all of this, it will be with the help of corporate media—as well as the severe limitations powerful governments impose on international bureaucracies like the ICC. Kovalik remarked:

You might say, no official of the US can be prosecuted by the ICC because the US has refused to ratify the ICC treaty. While this may appear to be true, this did not stop the ICC from prosecuting officials from the Sudan—also not a signatory to the ICC.

The closest Forero came in his article to even hinting at any of these gruesome facts was when he wrote that “Colombia has long had troubles of its own, including integrating former Communist guerrillas from a civil conflict that only ended recently.”  The “conflict” has not exactly “ended,” given that 170 leftist political leaders and activists were assassinated in 2017.

Putting aside Forero’s epic distortions by omission regarding Colombia, what about his reporting about migration from Venezuela? He wrote:

Nearly 3 million Venezuelans—a tenth of the population—have left the oil-rich country over the past two decades of leftist rule. Almost half that number—some 1.2 million people—have gone in the past two years, according to Tomás Páez, a Venezuelan immigration expert at Venezuela’s Central University.

In April 2002, Páez signed his name to a quarter-page ad in the Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional that welcomed the dictatorship of Pedro Carmona, then head of Venezuela’s largest business federation, who was installed after a US-backed military coup briefly ousted the late President Hugo Chavez. I’ve written before (ZNet1/16/17) about Western outlets—New York Times (11/25/16), Reuters (10/15/14) and Financial Times (8/22/16)—citing Páez without disclosing his anti-democratic record.

The World Bank has compiled data over the years on the numbers of Venezuelan-born people living abroad. The numbers point to far smaller migrations than Páez has estimated:

Population of Former Venezuelan Residents Living Abroad

Data in table can be found here, here,here and here.

During the years Chavez was in office (1999–2013), the World Bank’s figures tell us Venezuelans living abroad increased by about 330,000. By 2013, Páez was estimating that about 1.3 million had left—about 1 million more than World Bank estimates. Would journalists ignore data published by the World Bank in favor of estimates by Páez if he were a staunch supporter of the Venezuelan government?

During those 1999–2013 years, the World Bank figures also say that the number of Colombian-born people living in Venezuela grew by 200,000. Forero’s article implies that migration from Colombia to Venezuela ended in the “late 20th century.”

The World Bank has not updated migration data past 2013, but there is no doubt there was a huge increase in migration from Venezuela since its economy entered into a very deep crisis starting in late 2014. (For an overview of the important role of US policy in creating the crisis and now deliberately making it much worse, see my op-ed, “US Policy a Big Factor in Venezuela’s Depression”—Tribune News Service2/2/18.)

According to a Colombian university study of Venezuelan migration to Colombia, it averaged about 47,000 per year from 2011–2014, then increased to 80,000 per year in 2015–16.

US government data show migration from Venezuela to the United States increasing from about 7,000 per year before 2013 to 28,000 per year by 2015, including Venezuelans who have entered without authorization.

Venezuelan Born Population in the United States

Numbers in the table can be found here and here.

From 2000 to 2013, the United States was the destination for about 30 percent of Venezuelan-born people who left to live abroad, according to the World Bank figures. If the Colombian university study and US government data are accurate, then the United States has been the destination for about 20 percent of Venezuelan migrants after 2013. That would mean about 140,000 Venezuelans per year were leaving to live abroad by 2016.

That is not remotely comparable to the 5 million Syrians who fled the country in the first five years following the civil war—and that doesn’t include over a million per year who fled their homes inside Syria (the internally displaced).

That Forero would even try to force this comparison into his article speaks volumes. It’s not hard to guess why it was made, given that US has bombed Syria regularly and has had Venezuela’s government in its crosshairs for almost two decades.

*

Joe Emerberger is a writer based in Canada whose work has appeared in Telesur English, ZNet and Counterpunch.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Colombian and Venezuelan Refugee Crisis: Mainstream Media Distortion

American Violence: Disorganized and Organized

February 19th, 2018 by Frank Scott

“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do”: Samuel P. Huntington 

The latest American slaughter of innocents  – at home instead of abroad – has led to the usual outpourings from political leaders expressing prayers and sympathy and then switching to attacks on the evil weapons wielders that completely avoid the social system relying on massive weapons production and their wielding by military forces glorified for making wars.

The bloody horror in Florida that took seventeen lives is known to everyone in the USA but that same population is kept relatively ignorant of the bloody horror being perpetrated everyday in Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Palestine/Israel – to mention only the Middle East – by people using the armaments we sell them, when they’re not being used by our own military which we train to use our weapons to kill people; foreigners, until further notice.

The guilt tripping about guns belonging to individuals from what passes for liberals and the protection of the right of individuals to have guns from what passes for conservatives is the two-sides-of-the-same-coin debate that does nothing to stop the massive profits of the weapons industry and the attempted perpetuation of the empire represented by those profits.

The military styled murder weapon used by the mentally troubled killer of innocents in Florida is the same one used by allegedly normal military personnel to mass murder innocent foreigners who are made to seem enemies and adversaries in the same way the troubled Floridian may have seen his innocent victims. And the nature of a society which has suicides increasing along with mass murders often committed by the suicidal must be distracted by consciousness control which highlights alleged deformities in individual character while protecting a diseased social organism now devouring its own along with outside victims.

It is much easier to feel the shock and pain when we see innocent americans suffering at the hands of a usually mentally ill individual but the mind management that keeps us from seeing the massive horrors that our social weapons problem produces under the control of a mentally deranged political economics are never dealt with in what passes for a debate between people manipulated to disrespect one another instead of the system that manipulates them into an easy to control divided population of identity groups that can’t possibly act as a democracy. This even as that false definition of reality is driven through the skulls of both into thinking what each has is democracy and the other threatens it. Honest well meaning conservatives reduced to geeks confronted by sincere dedicated liberals reduced to twits while the weapons makers continue banking hundreds of billions and leave them clawing at one another with charges and countercharges at a court owned and operated by the capitalist munitions industry.

The guaranteed outcome of this demlib-repcon hissy fit form of politics is the continued economics of mass murder when what we need is a united confrontation with the minority power that needs to be replaced in order to save all and not just some of the future victims. Until we do that, suicides, mass murders both foreign and domestic, and further economic collapse are not merely threatened but assured.

*

This article was originally published by legalienate.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on American Violence: Disorganized and Organized
  • Tags:

Mike Pence’s boorish and disgraceful behavior at the Pyeongchang Olympics illustrates why the United States can play no constructive role in the easing of tensions on the Korean Peninsula.  In just 48 hours, the overbearing Vice President managed to insult or embarrass everyone he encountered including South Korean President Moon Jae-in and his honored guest from the north, Kim Yo-jong.  Pence flaunted his contempt for the Korean people by humiliating their leaders, shrugging off their hospitality, and scoffing at their joint efforts for peace.  He acted like an arrogant proconsul who only deigns to visit his subjects in order to treat them with condescension and scorn. His behavior proved to the world that he is a blustery, egotistical bonehead who doesn’t have the slightest regard for the feelings of others.

Before he’d even set foot on Korean soil, Pence had already started stirring up trouble by announcing “the toughest and most aggressive round of economic sanctions on North Korea ever”. The announcement, that was made a day earlier in Tokyo, was clearly designed to exacerbate already strained relations and put a damper on any negotiations currently underway between North and South. The belligerent VP wanted to make sure that any attempts at rapprochement between Pyongyang and Seoul would be swiftly thwarted by the Washington overlords. Far from an isolated incident, Pence’s preemptive announcement follows a familiar pattern of heavy-handed intervention into Korea’s domestic affairs that stretches back more than 6 decades with the aim of derailing any promising move towards national reconciliation or détente. The western media has done an impressive job in concealing Washington’s malignant role in Korea’s politics. By focusing on imaginary threats from the North, they have obfuscated the real source of the divisions, the distrust, and the hostility. Washington.

Pence childishly showcased his meeting with a defector from the North in order to humiliate the delegation from the DPRK before even meeting with them. He then reiterated the administration’s commitment to conduct massive joint-military drills with the South following the Winter Games in order to apply “maximum pressure” on the North. The needlessly provocative military exercises– which are a source of endless aggravation in Pyongyang– include “decapitation” drills that simulate the capturing and killing of the North’s supreme leader, Kim jong-un. Is it any wonder why Pyongyang thinks it needs nuclear weapons to defend itself?

Virtually all of Pence’s activities and statements were designed to incite animosity,  generate suspicion, or prevent any progress towards a lasting peace. The sole purpose of the VP’s trip was to preserve the status quo, that is, to make sure the country remains permanently split into warring camps that justify Washington’s military occupation, thus, protecting  US commercial interests while maintaining control of a strategically-located territory that is a critical part of Washington’s plan to dominate Asia. Pence is merely following the century’s old maxim for preserving imperial power: Divide and conquer. The US doesn’t want a peaceful, prosperous, unified Korea, it wants a fragmented, garrison state where cheap labor is abundant and the politicians dance to Washington’s tune.  That was the objective when Washington installed its lackeys in the Capitol in 1953 and that’s the goal today.

Pence’s visit was highlighted by one mortifying gaffe after another making it the worst diplomatic disaster since Prince Philip asked his Aborigine hosts during a trip to Australia if they “still threw spears at each other.”  Fortunately, in Philip’s case,  he was clever enough to grasp his mistake and quickly make amends. Not so the fatuous Pence who in a short two-day stretch snubbed his hosts and their guests by ducking out of an extravagant state dinner he was expected to attend, by refusing to shake hands with  Kim Jong-un’s  younger sister,  and by stubbornly remaining seated while the united North-South Korean team entered the Olympic stadium to the rapturous applause of the crowd. If Pence hoped to project the image of a man who felt he was superior to all others, he certainly succeeded. It is doubtful, however, that he won the love and admiration of the Korean people who are now, undoubtedly, rethinking their relationship with the pompous and trouble-making United States.

Pence’s blundering visit helps to confirm that the United States cannot play a constructive role in resolving the thorny issues between North and South. Pyongyang and Soule will have to convene a regional summit on denuclearization headed by China and Russia while demanding the immediate cessation of all joint-military exercises in the South. The North should agree to take verifiable steps to decommission its nuclear arsenal and allow international weapons inspectors free reign to conduct their work, in exchange for the gradual lifting of economic sanctions, the progressive strengthening of economic ties with the South, and the incremental, but total withdrawal of all US troops and military personnel pending proof from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that the North is in “full compliance” with the restrictions it has willingly accepted in order to normalize relations with the South and terminate Washington’s 65 year military stranglehold of the peninsula.

Peace will not flourish in Korea until the occupation ends.

*

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Obnoxious Pence Shows Why Korea Must End US Occupation