VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Turkey’s shelling, bombing and invasion of northern Syria has nothing to do with protecting its borders and national security.

Its aggression has everything to do with wanting territorial expansion, along with longstanding hostility toward the Kurds, including its own citizens, an estimated 14 million people, residing mainly in southeastern and eastern Anatolia.

On Sunday, US Defense Secretary James Mattis defended Turkish aggression in Syria, saying

“Turkey is a NATO ally.”

“It’s the only NATO country with an active insurgency inside its borders. And Turkey has legitimate security concerns,” adding:

“Turkish was candid. (It’s) easy to understand” why it’s concerned about conflict in Syria spilling cross-border into its territory.

“They warned us before they launched the aircraft that they were going to do it. We are very alert to it. Our top levels are engaged and we’re working through it.”

Fact: Turkey threatens Syrian territory, not the other way around.

Fact: Throughout seven years of US aggression on Syria, Erdogan supported ISIS and other terrorist groups in the country, allied with Washington’s playbook, wanting Assad toppled and northern Syrian territory annexed.

  • No active insurgency exists in Turkey, a nation at war with its own Kurdish people, along with anyone challenging Erdogan’s despotic rule.
  • Throughout the war in Syria, no spillover into Turkish territory occurred. No threat of it exists.
  • Turkey is a NATO country with the second largest military force in the alliance after America’s.
  •  The Trump administration wants Erdogan allied with its imperial agenda against Russia. He’s an opportunist, playing the US and Russian cards at the same time, currently leaning more toward Moscow than Washington, why Mattis and other administration officials are concerned.

Russia is going along with Turkish aggression in northern Syria. Instead of condemning it, its Foreign Ministry urged restraint, an unacceptable response, Ankara taking full advantage.

NATO’s website has nothing about Turkey’s ongoing aggression, supporting it through silence.

Syria is the only nation strongly denouncing Ankara’s invasion and terror-bombing of its territory. It’s operation is expanding. Ankara announced a large-scale Menbeij offensive in the Aleppo governorate.

Heavily armed US-backed Kurdish YPG fighters control the area able to hit back hard against Turkish aggression. US forces are deployed nearby.

Fighting in the area hasn’t begun. Whatever its plans, Turkey’s military won’t attack areas near US positions.

The announced Menbeij offensive may be more bluster than reality. Washington’s acquiescence with Turkish aggression suggests a deal struck between both sides.

The same goes for Russia, failing to condemn what’s ongoing. Military chiefs from both countries met in Moscow before Turkish aggression began.

Without at least tacit approval from Moscow and Washington, Erdogan most likely wouldn’t have launched his latest aggression in northern Syria.

Ankara’s Prime Ministry office of Public Diplomacy issued a statement, saying its military aims to take control of a 10,000 square km area in northern Syria, including Afrin.

Claiming it’s to secure its borders from a terrorist threat is utter rubbish. Erdogan supports terrorists in Syria.

He wants northern Syrian territory annexed, seizing and maintaining control over as much as possible.

He’s pursuing his objective with virtually no opposition from Washington and Moscow – other than meaningless tepid rhetoric.

He heads Turkey’s Justice and Development Party. His main opposition Republican People’s Party, the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), and recently formed IYI (Good) Party all lent support to his northern Syria aggression.

He’s free to do what he pleases, flagrantly violating international law, the world community largely turning a blind eye to what demands condemnation.

*

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US and Moscow “Green Light” Turkish Aggression in Northern Syria

It’s official: as of midnight Saturday, the US government has shut down following a failure in the Senate to strike a funding deal. Government funding was due to run out after Dec. 8 but was twice extended, most recently through Jan. 19, at which point the US encountered what’s officially called a “spending gap,” which triggers an official halt to Washington’s work.

In retrospect, this is hardly a novel development, as history shows there have been 18 previous closures starting in 1976, with the last one taking place in September 2013. Almost all of the funding gaps occurred between FY1977 and FY1995. During this 19-fiscal-year period, 15 funding gaps occurred.

asd

Additionally, seven of the funding gaps commenced with the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1. The remaining 11 funding gaps occurred at least more than one day after the fiscal year had begun. Ten of the funding gaps ended in October, four ended in November, three ended in December, and one ended in January.

asd

According to the CRO, funding gaps have ranged in duration from one to 21 full days, with six of the eight lengthiest funding gaps, lasting between eight days and 17 days, occurred between FY1977 and FY1980—before the Civiletti opinions were issued in 1980 and early 1981. After the issuance of these opinions, the duration of funding gaps in general shortened considerably, typically ranging from one day to three days. Of these, most occurred over a weekend.

* * *

So now that the US government is taking some time off for only the second time this century, here is a summary of what actually is shut down until the funding gap is closed, courtesy of Bloomberg.

1. What happens if the government shuts down?

Many, though not all, federal government functions are frozen, and many, though not all, federal employees are furloughed. Agencies in the executive branch, the one with the largest workforce and budget, regularly review shutdown plans that spell out what work must continue, and how many employees will be retained, during a “short” lapse (one to five days) and one that lasts longer.

2. Which government functions cease?  

The ones that draw headlines are closures of national parks, monuments and the Smithsonian museums in Washington. Other activities that may stop if the shutdown lasts more than a few days include the processing of applications for passports and visas; new enrollments in experimental treatments under the National Institutes for Health; and the maintenance of U.S. government websites, including ones used by businesses and researchers. Mortgage approvals can be delayed by furloughs at the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Housing Administration. The last shutdown, which lasted 16 days in 2013, delayed release of Labor Department monthly employment reports, Commerce Department data on retail sales and housing starts and a monthly Fed report on industrial production that uses Labor Department data. Also delayed was approval of drilling applications at the Bureau of Land Management, consideration of applications for small business loans and the start of the Alaska crab season, which relies on harvest levels apportioned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

A breakdown by organization:

The Treasury Department, which includes the IRS, will send home more than 83 percent of its 88,268 workers.

  • About 1,000 employees will stay in place to manage debt, monitor domestic and international financial markets and policy coordination. Another 2,800 workers are exempt from the shutdown to avoid any disruptions with debt borrowing functions, debt collection, investment, debt accounting and Social Security disbursements.
  • At the IRS, tax refunds could take longer, depending how long the shutdown lasts. The agency lists work related to issuing refunds among tasks that won’t be excepted from the shutdown. But it wasn’t expecting to begin accepting 2017 tax returns until Jan. 29.
  • Other IRS functions to be suspended include audits, non-automated collections and processing 1040X amended returns, according to a contingency plan dated Jan. 17. (A more detailed list can be found here.)

White House

The Executive Office of the President will be dramatically pared down, according to a memo released on Friday night.

  • The memo called for reducing the total number of workers in the office to 659, out of about 1,715 people on staff.
  • The White House Office, a subset of the executive office that includes many of the functions closest to the president’s decision making, will be cut from 371 staffers to just 152.
  • Twenty-one people will remain at the Executive Residence, as well as one person at the vice president’s residence.
  • Fourteen staffers will be working at the Office of the Vice President, from 16.
  • The National Security Council will retain all but one of its 45 staffers.
  • Eight people will remain at the Council of Economic Advisers, from 24.

Securities and Exchange Commission

Operations at the Securities and Exchange Commission are set to be sharply curtailed.

  • Despite collecting fees from participants in the markets it regulates, Wall Street’s main regulator will shrink its staff to about 300 employees from almost 4,600, according to an agency plan posted in December.
  • The SEC plans to keep operating its Edgar corporate-filing system. But it won’t approve registrations for investment advisers, issue interpretive guidance, or review many pending applications or registrations for new financial products.
  • The commission will continue to deal with emergency enforcement actions like temporary restraining orders against accused market cheats. And it will continue to monitor its system for tips, complaints and referrals and operate its information systems, according to the plan.

Commodity Futures Trading Commission,

At the country’s main swaps regulator, the vast majority of activity will likewise grind to a halt.

  • Under a plan submitted to the White House on Friday, just 69 essential employees will remain on the job to try to ensure “to the extent practicable, the oversight of the derivatives markets and to police those markets to ensure they are free of fraud and manipulation.”
  • Still, the “vast bulk” of work by the commission will cease, according to the plan. For example, the agency’s enforcement division will stop reviewing and investigating new victim complaints, or taking new actions against violators. Much market oversight activities will also cease.

Business and Economy

The shutdown is likely to postpone the release of market-moving economic data, depending how long it continues.

  • In 2013, the Labor Department’s monthly employment report for September was delayed by 18 days, while the release of October figures was pushed back a week.
  • Department of Commerce data were also delayed, including retail sales and housing starts, along with industrial-production figures from the Federal Reserve.
  • The Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, which publishes data important to livestock and crop traders, won’t be releasing any reports on any day the government is shut down, according to department spokesman Damon Thompson.
  • For the central bank’s functions that aren’t related to economic data, it’s likely to be business as usual, since the Fed doesn’t rely on money appropriated by Congress to operate. That means checks will still be cleared and FedWire, used by the financial industry for large, time-sensitive credit payments, will continue to run.
  • The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which relies on user fees and doesn’t get tax dollars, said it has enough money to remain open “for a few weeks” to process the hundreds of thousands of applications for patents on new inventions or trademarks for new products.
  • The Federal Communications Commission has funds to remain open through Jan. 26, spokesman Brian Hart said in an email. During the 2013 shutdown, the agency stopped accepting filings and ceased certifying that new electronic devices don’t cause interference.
  • Farm Service Agency offices in rural counties nationwide will be closed, and federal farm payments won’t be processed, according to the Agriculture Department.

Workplace Safety & Labor

Many programs at the Department of Labor designed to help workers will stop. Other federal offices designed to protect workers’ rights will also close their doors.

  • The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which enforces contractors’ compliance with labor and civil rights laws, will cease operations.
  • The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program will stop processing new requests for assistance from workers who’ve lost their jobs to competition or offshoring.
  • The National Labor Relations Board will stop handling cases.
  • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces workplace civil rights laws, will cease investigating charges and answering questions from the public.
  • The Occupational Safety and Health Administration will send home three-quarters of its staff, and suspend most workplace safety inspections. Some exceptions will be made, such as investigating “imminent danger situations,” addressing first responders’ warnings of “high risk of death” and following up on “high-gravity serious violations.”

Law Enforcement & Courts

The law exempts from the shutdown those employees who are deemed necessary to protect life or property. Most types of law enforcement and criminal justice fit into that category.

  • About 83 percent of the Justice Department’s 115,000 employees will continue to report to work if the government shuts down, according to the department’s contingency plan. Criminal litigation will continue without interruption; non-essential civil litigation is to be curtailed or postponed.
  • The Federal Trade Commission will suspend antitrust investigations not related to mergers. Merger reviews by the FTC and the Justice Department will continue. The agencies say they will go to court to challenge deals if necessary.
  • Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have enough money from sources like fines and filing fees to continue most operations through Feb. 9, according to Jackie Koszczuk, a spokeswoman with the Administrative Office of the Courts.
  • The Department of Homeland Security will remain largely unaffected, with 87 percent of its 232,860 employees deemed exempt from the shutdown. The department includes the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service.

National Security & Foreign Affairs

  • At the Defense Department, military personnel are expected to report for duty, but won’t get paid until the shutdown ends. As for civilian workers, those performing activities excepted from the shutdown, such as protecting property or lives or supporting combat operations, will likewise have to work; the rest can stay home. That doesn’t mean the department isn’t affected.
  • A shutdown can mean halting maintenance of weapons and other defense systems. Payments also stop for a range of services, including everything from money to contractors to death benefits for families of those killed in the line of duty.
  • Another casualty of a shutdown: at military bases around the country, so-called commissaries — what civilians might call grocery stores — will shut down, a complication for families at remote locations, according to Rebecca Grant, a military analyst and president of IRIS Independent Research in Washington.

The effects of a shutdown on foreign and trade policy may be minimal.

  • The State Department issued guidance on Friday saying that passport and visa services, as well as other agency functions, will stay open until the money runs out. Many bureaus in the department have reserves because they’re funded every few years or with money that can be saved indefinitely rather than spent within a year.
  • “The department will continue as many normal operations as possible,” said the guidance, posted on the State Department website. “Operating status and available funding will need to be monitored continuously and closely, and planning for a lapse in appropriations must be continued.”
  • The State Department says no new travel or “representational events” should be arranged. However, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson hasn’t decided yet on whether to cancel a trip to Europe planned for next week.
  • A shutdown is unlikely to affect U.S. involvement in talks next week in Montreal on a new North American Free Trade Agreement, since negotiators from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office would be designated as essential staff.

Health

About half the staff at the Department of Health and Human Services will be furloughed, according to a plan posted on the department’s website Friday. The resulting changes will reverberate across a range of functions that affect the average person.

  • The Food and Drug Administration will be “unable to support the majority of its food safety, nutrition, and cosmetics activities,” according to the shutdown plan. It will also stop conducting “routine establishment inspections, some compliance and enforcement activities, monitoring of imports” and other programs.
  • The Centers for Disease Control said its “immediate response to urgent disease outbreaks, including seasonal influenza, would continue.” It added that it would be “unable to support most non-communicable disease prevention programs.”
  • The National Institutes of Health, which typically treats only those people for whom standard treatments don’t work, will stop admitting most new patients.
  • Food-safety inspections and other critical functions will continue at the Department of Agriculture.
  • Federally mandated nutrition programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and school-feeding initiatives, will continue, but the Women, Infants and Children program and other assistance from the discretionary budget may be in danger of running out of funds.

* * *

3. Which government functions continue?

Activities related to national security (like the military services), safety and order (air traffic control, law enforcement) and medical care (veterans’ hospitals) are among the essential activities that carry on. So does the U.S. mail, since the Postal Service has its own funding stream. U.S. Treasury debt auctions continue, Social Security and Medicare checks get mailed, food stamps are distributed. Federal courts are open but their work is subject to disruption.

4. How many federal employees stay home?

In the 2013 shutdown, the number of executive-branch employees who were furloughed on a given day peaked at 850,000, or about 40 percent of the workforce.

5. Do federal employees get paid?

Eventually. When a shutdown happens, most federal employees — there are about 2.8 million of them now — are placed on unpaid furlough. Though there “appears to be no guarantee” that they will eventually be paid, in practice they always have been, retroactively, via legislation passed by Congress, according to the Congressional Research Service.

6. How often does this happen?

There have been 12 shutdowns since 1981, ranging in duration from a single day to 21 days, according to the Congressional Research Service. The 21-day one, in December 1995 and January 1996, was a famous budget showdown that pitted President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and the Republican House speaker, Newt Gingrich. Shutdowns over budget disagreements are different (and less grave) than what would happen if the U.S. breached its debt ceiling and defaulted on some of its obligations. That’s never happened — though its specter, too, will grow if Congress doesn’t reach a budget deal in the next several weeks.

7. What happened prior to 1981?

Until then, “funding gaps” didn’t result in shutdowns; agencies operated mostly as normal, and their expenses were covered retroactively once a deal was reached. Benjamin Civiletti, attorney general under President Jimmy Carter, put an end to that. With legal opinions issued in 1980 and 1981, he established that government work generally must cease until Congress agrees to pay for it. His rulings were codified in the Antideficiency Act, which, in theory at least, authorizes fines or prison terms to federal employees who dare work for free during a shutdown.

8. How Do Markets React

Markets have tended to shrug off shutdowns as long as the debt limit is not involved. The 1995, 1995-96, and 2013 government shutdowns had a modest effect on financial markets. The dollar weakened slightly in all three cases in the few days following each shutdown, with a further leg down in 2013 as the debt limit deadline approached. Treasury yields did not react meaningfully at the start of these shutdowns. The equity market reaction was inconsistent, with a slight decline in the early days of the December 1995 and October 2013 episodes, but no real change around the November 1995 shutdowns.

asd

This time around, the debt limit deadline is around six weeks away from the Treasury’s target, and even farther from our own estimate, so unless the shutdown lasts for over a month, the market should largely ignore it.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Now that the US Government Has “Shut Down”, Here’s What Actually “Shuts Down”
  • Tags:

How many people did it take to waste this life, starting with himself?

Green Mountain homeboy Nathan Giffin was 32, white, and holding a BB pistol at his side when multiple police shot him multiple times outside the Montpelier High School he had once attended. Reportedly, Giffin had admitted addictions to cocaine and heroin, and maybe he even had an intent to die from suicide by cop. If so, he succeeded. Nine Vermont police officers pumped him full of bullets, dropping him on the spot as he stood passively at the far end of a football field after almost an hour standoff.

How is this not an extrajudicial execution that never should have happened?

The video of the shooting is clear. Giffin appears distracted, uncertain, he takes three slow steps forward, one backwards, then four to his left. Then he drops. This is a full-on shooting of a wandering young man by a disorderly firing squad that continues shooting for about three seconds after Giffin is down, mortally wounded.

Police handcuff him on the ground, but the video does not show anyone administering medical attention. Giffin died in an ambulance on the way to the hospital, where he was declared dead.

Before releasing the victim’s name, police released information about his criminal record dating back to 2002, when Giffin was 17. It is unclear whether he was known to any of the cops who killed him.

This was Tuesday morning, January 16. According to reports, at about 9:30 Giffin used his realistic-looking BB pistol to hold up a State Employees Credit Union. He fired no shots and no one was hurt. He fled the bank on foot, crossing the street onto the grounds of the high school, which was in session. Somehow (it’s not clear how) police cornered Giffin on the bleachers of the fenced-in athletic field at the school. The school went on lockdown. Details of the standoff with the police are few. The “crisis negotiation team” was there, but there are no reports of any negotiation or other meaningful communication with Giffin. Police say that he made both threatening and suicidal statements, and that he ignored orders to surrender his gun. A witness quoted police taunting Giffin: “You going to run away now?” Somehow police were unable to avoid killing a defenseless drug addict who posed no serious threat, all of which they could have known in time. Students in the school reportedly took pictures of the killing as it unfolded.

Giffin’s BB pistol, a Umarex 40XP, looked quite real, apparently. Maj. Glenn Hall of the Vermont State Police rationalized the killing of a non-threatening man who hadn’t fired a shot this way:

I certainly can’t rationalize why someone would do this, I don’t know if there is an explanation, but certainly if you want people to believe that you have a real gun, this is as close as you can get… They look real. It would be literally impossible for anyone to tell it’s not real, from a distance certainly, and even sometimes up close.

Hall added that he didn’t even know whether the BB pistol was loaded. Asked why the nine officers chose to shoot Giffin, Hall said he had no clue, although he put it this way:

“The reason that those officers choose to use deadly force are all part of the investigation. Investigators will want to hear from them, what led them to use deadly force.”

Nine police officers with a single reflexive thought? Are they trained that way?

A nurse who knew Giffin when he was younger and hung out with her daughters recalled him as “a sweet kid with a rough life.” She said that Giffin as a high schooler was a regular at her house and his nickname was “Milhouse,” after a character in the Simpsons.

He was very kind and respectful to me, and grateful to be able to spend time at our house with our family…. The kids group was kind of like an extended family for themselves as well. It’s a challenging time in a person’s life to be in your teens, so it kind of reminded me of ‘The Breakfast Club’ a little bit…. We’re all heartbroken. Obviously, a lot happened between high school and now, but the person that we knew was a lovely guy…. He was kind of like adorably goofy, and he had glasses, and in little ways he did look like Milhouse….I know that whatever was going on, he was struggling and suffering, and I will wait to see what the police investigation uncovers about him being shot by nine police officers.

Although she hadn’t seen him for more than ten years, the nurse said her daughter also remembered Giffin as “a very sweet soul who was very caring.”

(photo: Nathan Griffin. Police photo.)

former 2003 classmate remembered Giffin similarly:

“He was a great kid all the way through school. He was very friendly, very upbeat, very funny – funny to be around.”

As reported by police, Giffin’s criminal record includes convictions for cocaine possession, theft, burglary, and armed bank robbery (state and federal), but no violent crimes. He was sentenced to two years for the federal bank hold-up. He was most recently arrested for Christmas day burglaries. In a police affidavit after his arrest, Giffin said he was “sick of living like this.” He was to appear in court on those charges two days after he died. That court appearance had been delayed to allow Giffin to get drug treatment.

The nine police officers who shot or shot at Giffin are on paid administrative leave while the investigation continues.

Two of the nine officers have been through this before. Sgt. Lyle Decker and Trooper Christopher Brown were among five officers who shot and killed another 32-year-old man with a realistic-looking BB pistol in Poultney, Vermont, last summer. The crisis negotiation team was also there. Even though the perceived threat turned out not to be actual, the officers were cleared of wrongdoing in the case where the man, an accused wife-beater, was pointing the BB pistol down at them from a second story window. After an investigation, the state’s attorney ruled that the killing was justifiable homicide under the law and the officers’ decision to use deadly force was reasonable.

Giffin’s life and death appears to be a years-long personal and social failure. The challenge to society is to figure out how to care for a damaged child before he drops out of high school, becomes a drug addict, a criminal, a convict, with less and less chance of recovery until he is publicly executed.

It’s small consolation that no police officers or others were physically hurt in this cultural crime.

*

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Nine Vermont Cops Execute Non-Threatening Addict Holding BB Gun
  • Tags:

As the Carillion crisis unfolds the numbers continue to confirm that for decades, companies, privatisation and extreme capitalism have failed in their basic business responsibilities and ends up threatening just about every strand of public life one way or another. In the meantime, tens of thousands of jobs are also threatened, the pension fund will need bailing out and dozens of infrastructure projects are thrown into question.

This is just one of a number of corporate failures that lies at the door of government of all tribes. With just £29 million left in cash to service over £2 thousand million worth of debt, the failure of this company only goes to demonstrate just how reckless and incompetent this model of never-ending growth, dividend payouts and exorbitant pay for senior staff gets, because it all ends in foolish risk taking – at all costs.

The examples of this unfolding scandal continues to take away the breath of normal sane people.

This is Money has just reported that:

“The company’s demise leaves thousands of small firms it owes money to facing heavy losses. It is feared up to 30,000 businesses may be facing losses totalling up to £1billion. But small companies may get less than a penny back for every pound they are owed, according to a report by accountant EY. “Smaller firms and the self-employed are likely to bear the brunt of this crisis while the corporate giants involved in this sorry saga are unlikely to pay up” – Mike Cherry, national chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses.

The Times (paywall) also reports that:

One decorating firm said its workers had been turned away from the site of Google’s £1 billion headquarters in King’s Cross, London, and told they could not retrieve their tools. Builders working on the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, constructed under a private finance deal involving Carillion, were told they had been sacked and the gates to the site were locked.”

The Canary reports another dismal circumstance of out-of-control government hell bent on extreme neoliberal capitalism: “It has emerged that the boss of the collapsed public sector contractor Carillion also heads up a tax-avoiding fracking company. And like Carillion, the firm is in financial trouble, with the government at one point threatening to dissolve it.” The Canary went on to say that: “The group has identified that Keith Cochrane, Carillion’s interim Chief Executive, is also the Non-Executive Chairman of Third Energy. He was appointed on 4 September 2017, less than two months after Carillion made him its interim Chief Executive when it issued its first profit warning.

The Mirror Reports other impacts we are unlikely to hear much about – the personal stories of those whose hard work and endeavor will be crushed:

Two war heroes are facing financial ruin after becoming the latest victims of the Carillion collapse. Former soldiers Josh Lee and James Crisp took just four years to build up £1.3million-a-year Larc Construction. But they have lost more than £200,000 over Carillion’s failure, forcing them to lay off 15 workers including ex-comrades.

And all of that was going on when it’s previous boss Richard Howson joined the board of a major Scottish oil company called Wood, formally the Wood Group, in the wake of the construction firm’s profit warnings earlier in the year. Ironically, he served on the board’s business ethics committee. Wood Group changed its name to Wood in October last year following a £2.2bn merger with Amec Foster Wheeler.

Wood announced in 2017 that it won a contract as sole supplier of inspection qualification services to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station and there are many reports that Howson is still a director of this company. However, he resigned (quite probably pushed) three days ago as his toxic legacy and the scandal with Carillion continues to implode with great political embarrassment to the Conservative party ethos of privatisation, which has yet again proved to be a failure to the public interest.

As TruePublica reported a few days ago, the vultures were already overhead as far back as 2015. Hedge funds had been waiting to cash in on Carillion’s collapse and ended up raking in hundreds of millions from the debacle. “Marshall Wace – whose co-founder Sir Ian Marshall was a major leave backer in the Brexit campaign – was the biggest winner as Carillion’s shares tumbled last July after a profit warning. Its bet made a tidy profit on paper of £19.1 million pounds in just three days.”

We went further to say that the writing was on the wall and yet the government stood and watched this collapse. The hedge funds did not stand by:

“Another big winner is the US-based investment giant BlackRock – which recently hired former chancellor George Osborne on a salary of £650,000 for one day a week – the world’s biggest fund manager made over £16 million across its funds. Other UK hedge funds that have coined it from Carillion’s decline include Thunderbird Partners which profited to the tune of £14.5 and Immersion Capital which stood to make over £11.4 million.

In all, hedge funds have made around £300 million from the debacle since spotting that the Government contractor was in trouble as early as 2015.”

It is needless to say that there is more to come with this crisis.

*

Featured image is from TruePublica.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Carillion Scandal – “Small Companies to Get a Penny Back for Every Pound They Are Owed”
  • Tags:

Trump’s National Defense Strategy

January 22nd, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

On Friday at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Defense Secretary Mattis explained the Trump administration’s imperial project – its aim for global dominance.

America’s phony war on terrorism will continue, cover for its global war OF terrorism on humanity at home and abroad.

“(G)reat power competition – not terrorism – is now the primary focus of US national security,” said Mattis – at a time when the nation’s only threats are invented ones.

“This strategy is fit for our time, providing the American people the military required to protect our way of life, stand with our allies and live up to our responsibility to pass intact to the next generation those freedoms we enjoy today,” he roared.

US militarism, belligerence and permanent war agenda threaten world peace, stability and security. That’s what “our way of life” is all about, along with serving America’s privileged class exclusively at the expense of peace, equity and justice.

Post-9/11, the nation’s “freedoms” eroded greatly on the fabricated pretext of protecting national security, including waging phony war on terrorism America created and supports.

Its reckless agenda is humanity’s greatest threat. Its National Defense Strategy is all about offense, waging endless wars of aggression, targeting all sovereign independent countries for regime change, wanting US control over planet earth, its resources and populations.

Washington seeks imposition of authoritarian rule over all nations, partnering with NATO, Israel and other rogue allies – not Russia and China, as Mattis falsely claimed.

Trump’s National Defense Strategy calls for greater military spending than already. Mattis explained it, saying

“(o)ur competitive edge in every domain of warfare – air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace – is eroding,” adding:

“To those who would threaten America’s experiment in democracy: if you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day.”

No nations can challenge what doesn’t exist. America is a plutocracy, not a democracy, run by and for its corporate interests and super-rich – presidents, Congress and the courts serving them, media scoundrels supporting them.

Mattis lied claiming North Korea and Iran “threaten regional and even global stability” – a US imperial threat, its agenda risking catastrophic nuclear war, threatening life on earth if launched.

Russia and China aren’t “revisionist” powers. They don’t threaten their neighbors or any other countries. Nor do they wage wars of aggression like America.

US economic policies are “predatory,” not China’s. Like Russia, it seeks cooperative relations with other nations. America’s agenda seeks dominance, naked aggression its favored strategy.

No Russian adventurism exists, a US specialty. Moscow isn’t “undermining the international order from within the system by exploiting its benefits while simultaneously undercutting its principles and ‘rules of the road.’ “

Washington wants the exclusive right to stipulate rules it demands all other nations obey.

“We are going to build a more lethal force…We will strengthen traditional alliances while building new partnerships with other nations,” Mattis roared, part of Washington’s rage for endless wars.

“We will develop enduring coalitions to consolidate gains we have made in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere, to support the lasting defeat of terrorists as we sever their sources of strength and counterbalance Iran,” the defense strategy document said.

Washington created and supports ISIS and likeminded terrorist groups, using them as imperial foot soldiers in current US war theaters and others to come.

Trump’s National Defense Strategy, his National Security Strategy, and Nuclear Posture Review are all about advancing America’s imperium – the greatest ever threat to life on earth.

*

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

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

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

A Genuine Actor: Francesco Serpico

January 22nd, 2018 by Edward Curtin

“There are unconscious actors among them and involuntary actors; the genuine are always rare, especially genuine actors.” – Friedrick Nietzche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

“Any artist [person] who goes in for being famous in our society must know that it is not he who will become famous, but someone else under his name, someone who will eventually escape him and perhaps someday will kill the true artist [person] in him.” – Albert Camus, “Create Dangerously”

“It ain’t me you’re lookin for, babe.” – Bob Dylan, It Ain’t Me, Babe

Enter

The set was real but illusionary: A legendary old New England hotel dressed festively for Christmas and the holiday season.  Norman Rockwell’s magical realism.  The lobby full with merriment, the cozy fire dancing to the sweet sound of violin and piano Christmas music mixed with a subtle alcoholic fragrance.  Main Street U.S.A.  Snow on the street and the classic strains of “White Christmas” in the inner air.  A mythic setting for meeting a legendary actor.

But as I entered the dimly lit set, the legend was nowhere to be seen.  I approached the spot where the musicians were playing and didn’t see him in the room opposite.  Then, as I was greeting two actors with bit parts that I knew (unconscious actors, I should add), out of the shadows came a laughing Russian spy obviously dressed as a Russian spy, one red star on his hat, walking stick in hand.  He and I were there to have a drink and enjoy the music that would allow us to talk privately without being overheard.  A few hours earlier he had sent me a strange message from Epicurus:  “It is impossible to lead a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly (‘justly’ meaning to prevent a person from harming or being harmed by another).”

What did this cryptic message mean?   The day before I had met a leading expert on the CIA on the same set and we had discussed the criminal activities of the Agency, how they dissembled and lied in their self-declared mission to defeat communism everywhere, even where it didn’t exist.  Those people were great at creating false myths, counter-myths, and Hollywood/media narratives to discombobulate a public already lost in an entertainment culture.  Now I was meeting this crazy Russian whom I heard say to some passing actors that he was a communist, and then he said something in Latin that totally perplexed them, which made him laugh.  A woman approached him and said she liked his hat.  Again he replied in Latin with a Russian accent and her face dropped.  Then we all laughed. She blushed, the scent of flirtation in the badinage. Was this guy serious or a comic having fun?

Off to the bar he and I went for some vino, wisecracks spewing from the mad Russian’s mouth. Heads turned to watch our passage, for even on this movie set, his costume stood out.

The True Man

As we settled in a corner with our drinks,a joyous warmth enveloped us.  Play-acting was fun.  Francesco was good at it.  Here in the Red Lion Inn in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, no one took him for the legendary New York City Detective, Frank Serpico, shot in the face for being a whistleblower before the word became commonplace, and made mythic through the 1973 movie, Serpico.  To the people surrounding us, he was just an amusing guy in an interesting hat, a man having fun with a buddy.

At a round table in front of the chairs we were sitting in, a group of six middle-aged adults sat playing cards. They were not conversing. Frank mentioned that they reminded him of those pictures of dogs playing cards.  He got up and asked them if they were playing for high stakes.  They laughingly said no, just for amusement.  And what game were they playing? I asked.  A children’s game, the woman said. It was a perfect scene from a spoof, and Frank whispered to me, “The masses are deluded with TV, Hollywood, and children’s games.  Let’s bark.”

“Become who you are,” advised Nietzsche.  Frank had done that; had always done it, despite decades of having to escape the mythic maskedman Hollywood had made of him when Al Pacino played him in 1973, creating the legendary persona behind which the real person is expected to disappear, held hostage by the mask.   While all persons are, by definition, masked, the word person being derived from the Latin, persona, meaning mask, there are those who are nothing but masks – hollow inside.  Empty.  No one home.  Unconscious and involuntary actors living out a script written by someone else.  Not Frank Serpico.He has consistently been an unmasker, a truth-teller exposing the fraud that is so endemic in this society of illusions and delusions where lying is the norm.

The Lone Ranger

Frank Serpico (2017)

Frank has always understood masks. When he was an undercover cop, he used his play acting skills to save his life.  In the recent documentary film, “Frank Serpico,” directed by Antonino D’Ambrosio, he says he told himself: “You’re going on the stage tonight.  The audience is out there.  I told myself I was an actor and I had to sell my role.  I got my training in the streets of New York where I played many roles from a doctor to a derelict and how well I played those roles my life depended on it.” His acting skills were his protection, but these acts were performed in the service of protecting the citizens he had vowed to protect.  Genuine acts.

Shakespeare was right, of course, “all the world’s a stage,” though I would disagree with the bard that we are “merely” players.  It does often seem that way, but seeming is the essence of the actor’s show and tell.  But who are we behind the masks?  Who is it uttering those words coming through the masks’ mouth holes (the per-sona, Latin, to sound through).  In Frank’s case, the real man is not hard to find.  Never was. From a young age he was incorruptible.  When he became a cop and took his oath, he was the same honest guy, though not fully aware of the dishonesty that pervades society at all levels.

When this honest cop was lying in a pool of his own blood on the night of February 3, 1971, having been shot in the face in a set-up carried out by fellow cops, Frank Serpico heard a voice that said, “It’s all a lie.”  In that moment as he fought for his life, he realized a truth he had previously sensed but never fully grasped in its awful reality.  His honesty, his refusal to be a corrupt cop like so many others, his allegiance to the sacred oath he took when he became a police officer, was returned with a violent snarl by the liars he walked among.  And in that moment he was determined to live and return their lies with more truth, which he did in his subsequent eloquent testimony to the Knapp Commission that was investigating police corruption in the New York Police Department because of him.

The After Life

Al Pacino in Serpico (1973)

But then came the rest of his life, not a small thing.  Lionized and damned as a “rat” by many cops recreated through the superb actor’s mask of Al Pacino in the film Serpico, his legend was created by the celebrity machine.  His truth was turned into a Hollywood myth; a true American hero became a cool movie star.  But unlike a movie actor or entertainer, he was still Frankie the honest boy who became an honest cop, and he wanted to become who he was, not an actor playing someone else.

Police work was his “calling,” he told me.  It is a word with deep religious roots.  A vocation (Latin, vocare, to call).  The mythographer Joseph Campbell has written eloquently of “the call” in The Hero with a Thousand Faces.  When one is called by this mysterious voice that many call God, this call to adventure and authenticity – the hero’s way, he terms it – one is faced with a choice whether to accept or refuse.  Campbell writes:

[It]signifies that destiny has summoned the hero and transferred his spiritual center of gravity from within the pale of his society to a zone unknown.  This fateful region of both treasure and danger may be variously represented: as a distant land, a forest, a kingdom underground, beneath the waves, or above the sky, a secret island, lofty mountaintop, or profound dream state; but it is always a place of strangely fluid and polymorphous beings, unimaginable torments, superhuman deeds, and impossible delight.

From the start of his police work, Frank sensed he was moving in “a zone unknown” and danger lurked along the way, but he had accepted the call.  Like the heroes in all the authentic myths, he could not be sure where it was all leading.  He came to realize that it led to the depths of hell, the frightening underworld through which the hero must transit or perish.The dark night of the soul.  A near death experience at the hands of the monsters.  Unimaginable torments.

Let Me Be Frank

But dawn broke slowly, the same rosy-fingered dawn that greeted Odysseus as he contemplated the next step on his journey “home” from the war zone. So Frank left home, set sail for Europe, and although a wounded warrior, he took up the rest of his life.  “Some may say I’m full of it,” he said to me, “but my life has been like a serendipitous dream, one scene after another.”  This may surprise those who think of him only as Frank Serpico, the heroic and honest cop.  But that was a role he played, something he did, not who he was. He has led a colorful, exciting, and adventurous life, but not because of the movie and book about his cop’s life.  His name Frank, after all, means a free man, and Frank is the epitome of a free-spirited soul, always trying to escape others’ definitions of him.  Sitting with our wine amid the music, he said:

I wanted to be who I was before the shooting.  Back then I knew more people and they knew me.  Friends.  Afterwards they made me into their own image. They were looking for perfection, but I wasn’t perfect.  So I became more guarded and felt I was living under a microscope.  Even among friends, if we were playing a game in which you could make up things, like a word game, and pretend just for fun, and I did it like them, they would look at me as if I couldn’t, that if I did, I was betraying myself as the honest cop.  I had become the legendary honest cop to them, not Frank, a guy who had lived up to his oath to be an honest cop, but who was also a regular person, not a celebrity.  So I’ve had to deal with people being drawn to me because they think I’m a celebrity.  I’m not an actor.  I’m the real thing.

I was drawn to him because I sensed he was a compañero, similar to old, authentic friends I had grown up with in the Bronx.  Guys with consciences, not crooks.  Friends who could laugh and joke around.  From our first meeting we connected: each of us dressed in individual camouflage – he, the bearded, aging Village hippie, concealing a conscience-stricken Italian-American kid from Brooklyn; me, sporting the look of an Irish-American something from the Bronx, concealing a conscience-stricken radical thinker and writer.  Birds of a feather under different plumage, costumes concealing our true identities.  Real play acting.

And then there was that Catholic thing.Both of us products of New York Catholic families and schools.  Thus conscience does not necessarily make cowards of us all. It also calls to us be honest, brave, and frank, despite the corruption of religious institutions.  Nietzsche again:  “‘Christianity’ has become something fundamentally different from what its founder did and desired….What did Christ deny?  Everything that is today called Christian.”  Frank hated school, and when he attended St. Francis Prep he was beaten by a religious Brother.  Then, when this teacher died and was being waked, Frank looked at him in the coffin and found himself, to his own amazement, crying for the man.  “That’s how deep it goes into you,” he said to me, “you end up crying for your tormentor.”  And while I understood his point of criticism that a corrupt society reaches into the cradle to poison us from the start, I thought there was more to it, some deep human empathy in that boy’s soul.  In the man’s.  Like Nietzsche, I sense in Frank a Romantic at heart.  He once wrote a poem in which he said:

I was taught religion and all about race
I was taught so well I felt out of place

But now I am a man and have no one to blame
So I must forget words like guilty, stupid, and shame.

And with the help of my soul I’ll remember the way
And get back where I was on that very first day.

Then he added in prose:

“The God I believe in is not just my God, but the God of all beings no matter what language they speak….I have no use for man-made religion….They profane the name of Christ but none follow in his footsteps save a few perhaps like St Francis and even Vincent Van Gogh.”

The few: St. Francis and Van Gogh.  Telling choices.  The wounded artist with a primal sympathy for the poor and the saint who drew animals to him out of love for all beings.  St. Francis Prep where Frank was first wounded by a sadist, a sign of things to come.  And later, the lover of nature who lives in the country and feeds birds that eat out of his hands.  The man who has written a beautiful essay about Henry David Thoreau.  And the artist/genuine actor who writes, plays musical instruments, has acted in theatre, is producing a  film about former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, another maverick who has also come in for severe criticism.

The Lying Rats

“What has been your reaction over the years to having been harshly criticized as a “rat” by so many N.Y. cops?” I asked him.

“I took it as a joke,” he said.  “I am a rat.  It’s my Chinese zodiac sign.”  But turning more serious, he added, “I never broke bread with these people, so I never could rat on them.  I was never a part of them.

In fact, when I was asked to wear a wire to record guys I worked with, I said absolutely not.  I wasn’t out to catch individuals, but to warn of corruption throughout the system, from bottom to top in the Police Department.  It’s the system I wanted to change, so in no way was I ever a rat.”

“What sustained you all these years?  Was it faith, love, family – what?

”It was wine, women, and song,” he replied with a smile, as he held up his glass for a toast.

As we were walking through the crowded lobby, a woman was rocking in a rocking chair.  Frank burst into song about a rocking chair to amuse me; then told me he was once sitting outside a café and someone approached him to act in a production of William Saroyan’s The Time of Your Life.  He said to the guy, “But I’m not an actor.”  “But you look the part of the Arab in the play,” was the reply.  So he took the part of the unnamed Arab and got to recite the most famous lines: “No foundation all the way down the line. No foundation all the way down the line.”  A refrain that echoes Frank’s take on American society today.  “It’s all a lie” or “No foundation all the way down the line” – little difference.

Until we see through the charade of social life and realize the masked performers are not just the politicians and celebrities, not only the professional actors and the corporate media performers, but us, we won’t grasp the problem.  Lying is the leading cause of living death in the United States.  We live in a society built of lies; lying and dishonesty are the norm.  They are built into the fabric of all our institutions.

Later he quoted for me the preface to that play, words dear to his heart:

In the time of your life, live-so that in that good time there shall be no ugliness or death for yourself or any life your life touches.  Seek goodness everywhere, and when it is found, bring it out of its hiding place and let it be free and unashamed. Place in matter and flesh the least of the values, for these are the things that hold death and must pass away.  Discover in all things that which shines and is beyond corruption. Encourage virtue in whatever heart it may have been driven into secrecy and sorrow by the shame and terror of the world.  Ignore the obvious, for it is unworthy of the clear eye and kindly heart.  Be the inferior of no man, or of any man be superior.

Remember that every man is a variation of yourself.  No man’s guilt is not yours, nor is any man’s innocence a thing apart.  Despise evil and ungodliness, but not men of ungodliness or evil.  These, understand.  Have no shame in being kindly and gentle but if the time comes in the time of your life to kill, kill and have no regret.  In the time of your life, live so that in the wondrous time you shall not add to the misery and sorrow of the world, but shall smile to the infinite delight and mystery of it.

A Genuine Actor       

And so I came to understand those words of Epicurus that this Thoreau-like bon-vivant had sent me.  A pleasant life must be a just life, and if one is wise, and if one prevents people from harming or being harmed by others, one has chosen wisely and well.  That is the way of the genuine actor.  As Nietzsche meant it, a genuine actor is an original, one whose entire life is a work of art in which one begets oneself, or becomes who one is, as the Latin root of genuine (gignere, to give birth, to beget) implies.  In a world of phony actors, Frank Serpico the real man, stands out.

He stood out long ago when he so courageously came forward to light a lamp of truth on the systemic corruption within the NYPD, and despite paying a severe price in suffering that almost cost him his life, he continues to speak out. Having spent a decade in exile in Europe where he entered into deep self-reflection (“There’s nothing outside that isn’t inside,” he says), he returned “home” still passionately committed to shining a light on all that is evil but taken for normality that harms people physically and spiritually.

Image result for frank serpico + colin kaepernick

Source: NY Daily News

To this day his conscience gives him no rest.  He is still fighting by lending his name and presence to cases of police corruption, injustice, racism, the silencing of dissidents, etc. He does not live in the past.  A while ago he protested with some NYC cops the deplorable treatment of the football player Colin Kaepernick by the National Football League. Just recently he spoke out for justice in the egregious 2004 police fatal shooting of Michael Bell, Jr. in the family driveway in Kenosha, Wisconsin.  Supporting a video being distributed to 10,000 registered voters in a quest to get a public inquest, Frank wrote:

This video equals the cell phone footage that captured the shooting of Walter Scott in South Carolina.  Such compelling and condemning evidence of a cover-up and abuse can no longer be ignored.  For the sake of justice in American policing, Attorney General Brad Schimel and DA Michael Graveley must reopen this investigation if society’s trust in their police is ever to be restored.

But before anyone gets caught up in hero worship of the genuine hero that Frank is (not a pseudo-hero deceptively created by the celebrity and propaganda apparatus), his parting words are worth remembering.  In this corrupt society, you had best not get ensnared in mythic fantasies about heroes coming to the rescue. It ain’t him, babe, it ain’t him you’re looking for.

When you see injustice and corruption, when you open your eyes and see lying and deceit everywhere, you must be your own hero; you must be courageous and act.  “Take care of it yourself,” he says.

Or in the words of Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, a book that serendipitously fell into his hands when he was alone in a friend’s humble chalet in the Swiss Alps and shocked him with its relevance to his own experience: “‘This is my way, where is yours?’ thus I answered those who asked me ‘the way.’  For the way, that does not exist.”

*

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

Remember when Dr. Ronny Jackson announced that Donald Trump doesn’t have cognitive issues because he passed a 10-minute test? Well, we beg to differ after hearing the former reality show star’s speech in the Rose Garden that was streamed live to the March for Life crowd on the National Mall. Trump was pro-choice before running for office, by the way.

After bashing Roe vs. Wade, Trump came out in full opposition to women giving birth in the ninth month of pregnancy.

“Right now in a number of states, the laws allow a baby to be born from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month. It is wrong,” Trump said. “It has to change.”

Watch:

The Internet reacted in disbelief.

Thanks for your input, President Crazy Pants. Now, if he’s talking about an abortion procedure during the ninth month, there’s no such thing, so either way, he’s insane and so are the people behind him nodding their heads in agreement.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Trump: Babies Should Not Be Born in the Ninth Month of Pregnancy, This ‘Has to Change’
  • Tags:

From Nanjing to Okinawa – Two Massacres, Two Commanders

January 22nd, 2018 by Norimatsu Satoko

In her articles published in the Ryukyu Shimpo on 4 and 31 December, Satoko Oka Norimatsu reminds us of three important things. First, of the meaningfulness of formally remembering lessons learned from significant historical events that occurred outside the bounds of our home countries. Second, of the importance of connecting the dots when explaining how the outrages committed by Japanese soldiers towards the civilian population during the Battle of Okinawa can be traced back to atrocities that the Imperial Japanese Army committed in Nanjing and other parts of China. Third, she questions whether men who only avoided being tried for war crimes by taking their own lives can be given pride of place in a commemorative setting.

In these dangerous times, those with the authority and capability to unleash tremendous harm upon hundreds of thousands of people should take a moment to consider the lessons from the past. ME

1. Responsibility to face up to aggression (4 December, 2017)

Year-end during which we remember war

December is an important month in terms of Japan’s war memory. The 8th (the 7th in Western memory, because the attack on the Malay Peninsula, Pearl Harbor and other places is remembered on both sides of the date-line) is the 76th anniversary of the commencement of the Asia-Pacific War in which Japan launched attacks on the colonies of the Western powers in the Pacific and Southeast Asia in an attempt to secure the natural resources required to continue to pursue its war of aggression on the China continent. The 13th is the day on which we remember that 80 years have passed since the Nanjing Massacre, one of the most heinous atrocities known to humankind. In addition, this year, as though bookended by these two anniversaries, on the 10th the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. At the acceptance ceremony Setsuko Thurlow, who contributed to the adoption in July of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by the United Nations, will give a speech on behalf of the victims of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

On 24 July, 2017, Ontario Legislature member Soo Wong (3rd from left) and members of Chinese- and Japanese-Canadian communities together held a press conference to support Bill 79.

From the end of 2016, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Canada, where Thurlow lives, has deliberated over Bill 79, which seeks to proclaim 13 December, the date in 1937 on which Nanjing fell to Japanese forces, as Nanjing Massacre Commemorative Day. In the multicultural society that Canada is, precedents exist for anniversaries of dates of historical significance, such as “Holocaust Memorial Day” being proclaimed as commemorative days. Obstruction from Japan and local deniers of history has meant that Bill 79 has not yet become law, but a motion of considerable weight was passed unanimously on 26 October.

Out of deference to the Japanese government, some Japanese Canadians have opposed this bill, but there is a move within the younger generation to support it. Based upon the perception that Japanese Canadians experienced the injustice of being interned in camps during the war, and feeling a responsibility to show solidarity with the struggle for justice of others, an open letter of approval was sent to Premier of Ontario Kathleen Wynne in the name of “Japanese Canadians for Bill 79.”

Several Canadians of Okinawan heritage were among those who put their names to the letter. One of those, Ms. M, explained why she came forward to put her name to the letter. Her grandfather had been recruited into the Imperial Japanese Army and while his experience did not overlap with the Nanjing Massacre, he took part in four campaigns in China. When Ms. M found this out, she said that she couldn’t hold back the tears at the thought that her grandfather had probably killed many people. According to her grandmother, her grandfather was a changed man after he returned to Okinawa after the war – he was violent and drank to excess. In the e-mail I received from Ms. M, she wrote, “I signed the letter because I sensed that I had to on behalf of my grandfather.”

An irrepressible surge of emotion came over me when I read these words. With the Okinawan people having been forcefully Japanized (kominka), Ms. M’s grandfather was conscripted, and had taken part in Japan’s war of aggression as a member of the Imperial Army. The psychological scars that he bore from that experience destroyed the remaining years of his life. The weight of Ms. M’s decision to sign the open letter supporting the establishment of the Nanjing Massacre Commemorative Day cannot be adequately expressed in words. If I can say anything, it is that it has made me sense the magnitude of my responsibility as a Japanese who writes about this aspect of history even more strongly. The fact that the men at the top in the Japanese 32nd Army, Commander-in-Chief Ushijima Mitsuru and Chief-of-Staff Cho Isamu, played leading roles during the Nanjing Massacre also means that what occurred in Nanjing is strongly connected with Okinawa. This year, I plan to spend 13 December, the 80th anniversary of the massacre, in Nanjing.

2. Reimei Memorial Tower an insult to Asia (31 December, 2017)

Massacres that link Okinawa and Nanjing

“Nanjing Massacre” refers to a series of atrocities including massacre, mass rape, pillage and arson committed by the Japanese Army against Chinese civilians, wounded and surrendering soldiers, prisoners-of-war and stragglers who had given up arms. These violations of the international law of war occurred over a period of more than three months from early December 1937, during the Nanjing Campaign, which followed the three-month long Battle of Shanghai and prior to that, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident on 7 July, from which time Japan’s war of aggression in China moved into full swing.

Numerous historical studies, materials and witness testimonies have established beyond any doubt that several hundred thousand people were either killed, or lost family members, and if they survived, bore physical and psychological wounds for the rest of their lives. It is shameful that Japan, which was the aggressor in Nanjing, is now the only country in the world where people who deny this historical fact exist among the ranks of government officials and intellectuals and so are in a position to influence society.

Given that well over one hundred thousand residents were brutally killed in the three months during which the Imperial Japanese Army fought in Okinawa, the battle there has points in common with Nanjing. Despite former prime minister Konoe Fumimaro’s February, 1945 advice that defeat would be inevitable, Emperor Hirohito opted to continue hostilities, thereby dragging the people of Okinawa into a war with the United States in which there could be only one outcome. The Battle of Okinawa, the realities of which surely allow it to be referred to as the “Okinawa Massacre,” has close connections with the atrocities committed not only in Nanjing but also throughout China.

Of the main units deployed to defend the main island of Okinawa, the 24th Division had previously been deployed in the puppet state of Manchukuo and the 62nd Division had been in Shanxi Province in North China. Many of the troops in these divisions had been involved in atrocities such as bayoneting POWs to death or the rape of local women. As a result, behavior towards Okinawan civilians such as forbidding them to surrender, forcing death upon them or even killing them, reflected the manner in which the commanders down to the lowest ranking troops in the Imperial Army had operated on the Chinese mainland.

Ushijima Mitsuru

Cho Isamu

From 13-15 December I went to Nanjing, where experts guided me around the various sites where the atrocities occurred. I attended the National Memorial Day commemorative event held on 13 December and was able to meet two survivors who lived through the horror that occurred in Nanjing 80 years ago. Given that in Japan discussion of this terrible incident tends to be focused on the number of victims, it was a truly precious experience to be in a position to sense the pain of people who had actually been involved.Of particular significance is the fact that Commander-in-Chief of the 32nd Army Ushijima Mitsuru and Chief-of-Staff Cho Isamu were both involved in the Nanjing Massacre. After spending time in North China and in the Battle of Shanghai, Ushijima was the commander of the 36th Infantry Brigade, thereby controlling the 23rd and 45th Infantry Regiments within the 6th Division, which entered Nanjing from the South. These two regiments carried out the mass killings at Jiangdongmen where the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall is located and at the various gates on the western side of the Nanjing Wall. The 45th Infantry Regiment proceeded north from the Jiangdongmen area, attacking Chinese attempting to flee upstream along the southern bank of the Yangtze River. The commanding officer of the 6th Division, Lieutenant General Tani Hisao, who ranked above Ushijima, and company commander Captain Tanaka Gunkichi of the 45th Infantry Regiment, who ranked below him, were both sentenced to death in the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal. Cho Isamu served jointly as an intelligence officer in the Central China Area Army commanded by Matsui Iwane, who was sentenced to death for command responsibility in the Nanjing Massacre in the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, and as aide-de-camp for Prince Asaka Yasuhiko who led the Shanghai Expeditionary Army. Within the Shanghai Expeditionary Army was the 16th Division, which can be described as the key culprit in the Nanjing Massacre. Known for his firebrand character, numerous witness accounts document the fact that Cho issued orders for mass executions of captured Chinese soldiers. Among them is testimony that he used the expression “Yatchimae!” meaning “Deal to them!” There are statements recorded that when faced with troops who hesitated to kill civilians, Cho said, “This is how you kill someone,” and stepped forward to cut a person down with his sword. Cho related how the soldiers, jolted into action, moved as one to begin the slaughter.

Three days before going to Nanjing I had stood at Mabuni Hill in Okinawa in front of the Reimei Memorial Tower, which commemorates Ushijima and Cho. Unquestionably the first-class seat on Mabuni Hill, you will not see a higher spot in whatever direction you look. In this manner, men who can be called war criminals responsible not only for the “Okinawa Massacre,” but also for the Nanjing Massacre, are honored. Is this not an insult not only to Okinawa and the Okinawan people, but to China and indeed all Asian countries that carry memories of Japanese aggression?

Reimei Memorial Tower on the highest point of Mabuni Hill

Reimei Memorial Tower bears calligraphy of former Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru

On this occasion, travelling as I did from Okinawa to Nanjing, I could not help but think that the true nature of the Battle of Okinawa became clear to me when I considered it in the context of the bigger picture of Japanese aggression in Asia. In keeping with the spirit of the concluding statement at the Okinawa Peace Memorial Museum totally rejecting the “affirmation or glorification of war”, I feel responsible as a Japanese to take issue with the Reimei Memorial Tower.

Original articles appeared in Ryukyu Shimpo on 4 and 31 December, 2017.

Translator’s supplementary notes:

Mabuni-no-oka (Mabuni Hill) stands at the southwest corner of the Peace Memorial Park in Itoman, in the southern area of the main island of Okinawa. This is where Ushijima and Cho set up their Headquarters cave before committing suicide during the night of 22 June 1945, so it is effectively the scene of the death throes of the shattered 32nd Army. These days, Mabuni is the venue for the main commemorative ceremonies held on 23 June (Okinawa Memorial Day) and as such it has a special significance for the people of Okinawa.

Immediately east of the hill is the Cornerstone of Peace, a monumentunveiled on 23 June 1995 in memory of the fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of Okinawa and the end of World War II. The names of over two hundred and forty thousand people who lost their lives during the battle are inscribed on the concentric arcs of the monument’s black granite walls. They include not only Okinawans but Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Koreans and Americans among others. The Cornerstone of Peace was erected with three philosophies in mind: to remember those who were lost and pray for peace, pass on the lessons of war, and to provide a place for meditation and learning.

Up a slight slope on the eastern side of the Cornerstone of Peace is the Memorial Museum that Satoko refers to. The Memorial Museum is clear in its position rejecting the “affirmation or glorification of war.” The inscriptions on the monuments erected by local Okinawan authorities in the Itoman area in the years immediately after the war are similarly unambiguous. The words inscribed on the likes of the Himeyuri Memorial Tower, the Kenji Memorial Tower and the Konpaku Memorial Tower are simple statements of fact overlaid with expressions of grief.

On Mabuni-no-oka, where the Reimei Memorial Tower is located, there are several dozen monuments that were mostly erected by the various prefectures of Japan during the mid-1960s to pay homage to the soldiers from their respective regions. The inscriptions on these monuments are notable for having three features: reference to soldiers fighting bravely, no mention of the suffering of Okinawans caught up in the battle, and no heartfelt statement expressing a desire for peace. As the monument dedicated to the souls of the commanders of the 32nd Army, the Reimei Memorial Tower has attracted criticism for adulating men who played central roles in the tragedy that unfolded in Okinawa in 1945.

In keeping with the desire of Imperial Headquarters to prolong the struggle and therefore buy time to prepare for what was expected to be the decisive struggle for the main islands of Japan, the commanders of the 32nd Army decided in late May to withdraw southwards from Shuri towards the Kyan Peninsula directly impacted upon the tragic scale of the “Okinawa Massacre.”

Almost three weeks later, on 17 June, from his Headquarters cave in Mabuni near where the Reimei Memorial Tower now stands, with only the shattered remnants of the 32nd Army left, Ushijima ignored US General Buckner’s proposal for surrender. The choice was to allow the carnage to continue to the bitter end.

The withdrawal from Shuri towards Kyan meant that the closing stages of the battle would be fought with thousands of fleeing civilians caught in the crossfire. It resulted in three more weeks of civilians having their food supplies stolen by or even being murdered by Japanese soldiers, being forced out of caves and shelters into the US bombardment or dying from starvation or malaria.

According to historian Hayashi Hirofumi, between half and two thirds of the civilian casualties in the Battle of Okinawa occurred during the weeks after the order was given to withdraw from Shuri.

*

Translated and introduced by Mark Ealey

Original articles appeared in Ryukyu Shimpo on 4 and 31 December, 2017.

Satoko Oka Norimatsu is Director of the Peace Philosophy Centre, a peace-education organization in Vancouver, Canada, with a widely-read Japanese-English blog on topics such as peace and justice, war memory and education in East Asia, US-Japan relations, US military bases in Okinawa, nuclear issues, and media criticism.

Mark Ealey is a New Zealand-based freelance translator specialising in Japanese foreign relations. In recent years he has focussed on Okinawan affairs, with his most recent publication being Descent into Hell – Civilian Memories of the Battle of Okinawa, a joint work with the late Alastair McLauchlan.

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on From Nanjing to Okinawa – Two Massacres, Two Commanders
  • Tags:

From Nanjing to Okinawa – Two Massacres, Two Commanders

January 22nd, 2018 by Norimatsu Satoko

In her articles published in the Ryukyu Shimpo on 4 and 31 December, Satoko Oka Norimatsu reminds us of three important things. First, of the meaningfulness of formally remembering lessons learned from significant historical events that occurred outside the bounds of our home countries. Second, of the importance of connecting the dots when explaining how the outrages committed by Japanese soldiers towards the civilian population during the Battle of Okinawa can be traced back to atrocities that the Imperial Japanese Army committed in Nanjing and other parts of China. Third, she questions whether men who only avoided being tried for war crimes by taking their own lives can be given pride of place in a commemorative setting.

In these dangerous times, those with the authority and capability to unleash tremendous harm upon hundreds of thousands of people should take a moment to consider the lessons from the past. ME

1. Responsibility to face up to aggression (4 December, 2017)

Year-end during which we remember war

December is an important month in terms of Japan’s war memory. The 8th (the 7th in Western memory, because the attack on the Malay Peninsula, Pearl Harbor and other places is remembered on both sides of the date-line) is the 76th anniversary of the commencement of the Asia-Pacific War in which Japan launched attacks on the colonies of the Western powers in the Pacific and Southeast Asia in an attempt to secure the natural resources required to continue to pursue its war of aggression on the China continent. The 13th is the day on which we remember that 80 years have passed since the Nanjing Massacre, one of the most heinous atrocities known to humankind. In addition, this year, as though bookended by these two anniversaries, on the 10th the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, Norway. At the acceptance ceremony Setsuko Thurlow, who contributed to the adoption in July of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons by the United Nations, will give a speech on behalf of the victims of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

On 24 July, 2017, Ontario Legislature member Soo Wong (3rd from left) and members of Chinese- and Japanese-Canadian communities together held a press conference to support Bill 79.

From the end of 2016, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Canada, where Thurlow lives, has deliberated over Bill 79, which seeks to proclaim 13 December, the date in 1937 on which Nanjing fell to Japanese forces, as Nanjing Massacre Commemorative Day. In the multicultural society that Canada is, precedents exist for anniversaries of dates of historical significance, such as “Holocaust Memorial Day” being proclaimed as commemorative days. Obstruction from Japan and local deniers of history has meant that Bill 79 has not yet become law, but a motion of considerable weight was passed unanimously on 26 October.

Out of deference to the Japanese government, some Japanese Canadians have opposed this bill, but there is a move within the younger generation to support it. Based upon the perception that Japanese Canadians experienced the injustice of being interned in camps during the war, and feeling a responsibility to show solidarity with the struggle for justice of others, an open letter of approval was sent to Premier of Ontario Kathleen Wynne in the name of “Japanese Canadians for Bill 79.”

Several Canadians of Okinawan heritage were among those who put their names to the letter. One of those, Ms. M, explained why she came forward to put her name to the letter. Her grandfather had been recruited into the Imperial Japanese Army and while his experience did not overlap with the Nanjing Massacre, he took part in four campaigns in China. When Ms. M found this out, she said that she couldn’t hold back the tears at the thought that her grandfather had probably killed many people. According to her grandmother, her grandfather was a changed man after he returned to Okinawa after the war – he was violent and drank to excess. In the e-mail I received from Ms. M, she wrote, “I signed the letter because I sensed that I had to on behalf of my grandfather.”

An irrepressible surge of emotion came over me when I read these words. With the Okinawan people having been forcefully Japanized (kominka), Ms. M’s grandfather was conscripted, and had taken part in Japan’s war of aggression as a member of the Imperial Army. The psychological scars that he bore from that experience destroyed the remaining years of his life. The weight of Ms. M’s decision to sign the open letter supporting the establishment of the Nanjing Massacre Commemorative Day cannot be adequately expressed in words. If I can say anything, it is that it has made me sense the magnitude of my responsibility as a Japanese who writes about this aspect of history even more strongly. The fact that the men at the top in the Japanese 32nd Army, Commander-in-Chief Ushijima Mitsuru and Chief-of-Staff Cho Isamu, played leading roles during the Nanjing Massacre also means that what occurred in Nanjing is strongly connected with Okinawa. This year, I plan to spend 13 December, the 80th anniversary of the massacre, in Nanjing.

2. Reimei Memorial Tower an insult to Asia (31 December, 2017)

Massacres that link Okinawa and Nanjing

“Nanjing Massacre” refers to a series of atrocities including massacre, mass rape, pillage and arson committed by the Japanese Army against Chinese civilians, wounded and surrendering soldiers, prisoners-of-war and stragglers who had given up arms. These violations of the international law of war occurred over a period of more than three months from early December 1937, during the Nanjing Campaign, which followed the three-month long Battle of Shanghai and prior to that, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident on 7 July, from which time Japan’s war of aggression in China moved into full swing.

Numerous historical studies, materials and witness testimonies have established beyond any doubt that several hundred thousand people were either killed, or lost family members, and if they survived, bore physical and psychological wounds for the rest of their lives. It is shameful that Japan, which was the aggressor in Nanjing, is now the only country in the world where people who deny this historical fact exist among the ranks of government officials and intellectuals and so are in a position to influence society.

Given that well over one hundred thousand residents were brutally killed in the three months during which the Imperial Japanese Army fought in Okinawa, the battle there has points in common with Nanjing. Despite former prime minister Konoe Fumimaro’s February, 1945 advice that defeat would be inevitable, Emperor Hirohito opted to continue hostilities, thereby dragging the people of Okinawa into a war with the United States in which there could be only one outcome. The Battle of Okinawa, the realities of which surely allow it to be referred to as the “Okinawa Massacre,” has close connections with the atrocities committed not only in Nanjing but also throughout China.

Of the main units deployed to defend the main island of Okinawa, the 24th Division had previously been deployed in the puppet state of Manchukuo and the 62nd Division had been in Shanxi Province in North China. Many of the troops in these divisions had been involved in atrocities such as bayoneting POWs to death or the rape of local women. As a result, behavior towards Okinawan civilians such as forbidding them to surrender, forcing death upon them or even killing them, reflected the manner in which the commanders down to the lowest ranking troops in the Imperial Army had operated on the Chinese mainland.

Ushijima Mitsuru

Cho Isamu

From 13-15 December I went to Nanjing, where experts guided me around the various sites where the atrocities occurred. I attended the National Memorial Day commemorative event held on 13 December and was able to meet two survivors who lived through the horror that occurred in Nanjing 80 years ago. Given that in Japan discussion of this terrible incident tends to be focused on the number of victims, it was a truly precious experience to be in a position to sense the pain of people who had actually been involved.Of particular significance is the fact that Commander-in-Chief of the 32nd Army Ushijima Mitsuru and Chief-of-Staff Cho Isamu were both involved in the Nanjing Massacre. After spending time in North China and in the Battle of Shanghai, Ushijima was the commander of the 36th Infantry Brigade, thereby controlling the 23rd and 45th Infantry Regiments within the 6th Division, which entered Nanjing from the South. These two regiments carried out the mass killings at Jiangdongmen where the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall is located and at the various gates on the western side of the Nanjing Wall. The 45th Infantry Regiment proceeded north from the Jiangdongmen area, attacking Chinese attempting to flee upstream along the southern bank of the Yangtze River. The commanding officer of the 6th Division, Lieutenant General Tani Hisao, who ranked above Ushijima, and company commander Captain Tanaka Gunkichi of the 45th Infantry Regiment, who ranked below him, were both sentenced to death in the Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal. Cho Isamu served jointly as an intelligence officer in the Central China Area Army commanded by Matsui Iwane, who was sentenced to death for command responsibility in the Nanjing Massacre in the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, and as aide-de-camp for Prince Asaka Yasuhiko who led the Shanghai Expeditionary Army. Within the Shanghai Expeditionary Army was the 16th Division, which can be described as the key culprit in the Nanjing Massacre. Known for his firebrand character, numerous witness accounts document the fact that Cho issued orders for mass executions of captured Chinese soldiers. Among them is testimony that he used the expression “Yatchimae!” meaning “Deal to them!” There are statements recorded that when faced with troops who hesitated to kill civilians, Cho said, “This is how you kill someone,” and stepped forward to cut a person down with his sword. Cho related how the soldiers, jolted into action, moved as one to begin the slaughter.

Three days before going to Nanjing I had stood at Mabuni Hill in Okinawa in front of the Reimei Memorial Tower, which commemorates Ushijima and Cho. Unquestionably the first-class seat on Mabuni Hill, you will not see a higher spot in whatever direction you look. In this manner, men who can be called war criminals responsible not only for the “Okinawa Massacre,” but also for the Nanjing Massacre, are honored. Is this not an insult not only to Okinawa and the Okinawan people, but to China and indeed all Asian countries that carry memories of Japanese aggression?

Reimei Memorial Tower on the highest point of Mabuni Hill

Reimei Memorial Tower bears calligraphy of former Prime Minister Yoshida Shigeru

On this occasion, travelling as I did from Okinawa to Nanjing, I could not help but think that the true nature of the Battle of Okinawa became clear to me when I considered it in the context of the bigger picture of Japanese aggression in Asia. In keeping with the spirit of the concluding statement at the Okinawa Peace Memorial Museum totally rejecting the “affirmation or glorification of war”, I feel responsible as a Japanese to take issue with the Reimei Memorial Tower.

Original articles appeared in Ryukyu Shimpo on 4 and 31 December, 2017.

Translator’s supplementary notes:

Mabuni-no-oka (Mabuni Hill) stands at the southwest corner of the Peace Memorial Park in Itoman, in the southern area of the main island of Okinawa. This is where Ushijima and Cho set up their Headquarters cave before committing suicide during the night of 22 June 1945, so it is effectively the scene of the death throes of the shattered 32nd Army. These days, Mabuni is the venue for the main commemorative ceremonies held on 23 June (Okinawa Memorial Day) and as such it has a special significance for the people of Okinawa.

Immediately east of the hill is the Cornerstone of Peace, a monumentunveiled on 23 June 1995 in memory of the fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of Okinawa and the end of World War II. The names of over two hundred and forty thousand people who lost their lives during the battle are inscribed on the concentric arcs of the monument’s black granite walls. They include not only Okinawans but Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Koreans and Americans among others. The Cornerstone of Peace was erected with three philosophies in mind: to remember those who were lost and pray for peace, pass on the lessons of war, and to provide a place for meditation and learning.

Up a slight slope on the eastern side of the Cornerstone of Peace is the Memorial Museum that Satoko refers to. The Memorial Museum is clear in its position rejecting the “affirmation or glorification of war.” The inscriptions on the monuments erected by local Okinawan authorities in the Itoman area in the years immediately after the war are similarly unambiguous. The words inscribed on the likes of the Himeyuri Memorial Tower, the Kenji Memorial Tower and the Konpaku Memorial Tower are simple statements of fact overlaid with expressions of grief.

On Mabuni-no-oka, where the Reimei Memorial Tower is located, there are several dozen monuments that were mostly erected by the various prefectures of Japan during the mid-1960s to pay homage to the soldiers from their respective regions. The inscriptions on these monuments are notable for having three features: reference to soldiers fighting bravely, no mention of the suffering of Okinawans caught up in the battle, and no heartfelt statement expressing a desire for peace. As the monument dedicated to the souls of the commanders of the 32nd Army, the Reimei Memorial Tower has attracted criticism for adulating men who played central roles in the tragedy that unfolded in Okinawa in 1945.

In keeping with the desire of Imperial Headquarters to prolong the struggle and therefore buy time to prepare for what was expected to be the decisive struggle for the main islands of Japan, the commanders of the 32nd Army decided in late May to withdraw southwards from Shuri towards the Kyan Peninsula directly impacted upon the tragic scale of the “Okinawa Massacre.”

Almost three weeks later, on 17 June, from his Headquarters cave in Mabuni near where the Reimei Memorial Tower now stands, with only the shattered remnants of the 32nd Army left, Ushijima ignored US General Buckner’s proposal for surrender. The choice was to allow the carnage to continue to the bitter end.

The withdrawal from Shuri towards Kyan meant that the closing stages of the battle would be fought with thousands of fleeing civilians caught in the crossfire. It resulted in three more weeks of civilians having their food supplies stolen by or even being murdered by Japanese soldiers, being forced out of caves and shelters into the US bombardment or dying from starvation or malaria.

According to historian Hayashi Hirofumi, between half and two thirds of the civilian casualties in the Battle of Okinawa occurred during the weeks after the order was given to withdraw from Shuri.

*

Translated and introduced by Mark Ealey

Original articles appeared in Ryukyu Shimpo on 4 and 31 December, 2017.

Satoko Oka Norimatsu is Director of the Peace Philosophy Centre, a peace-education organization in Vancouver, Canada, with a widely-read Japanese-English blog on topics such as peace and justice, war memory and education in East Asia, US-Japan relations, US military bases in Okinawa, nuclear issues, and media criticism.

Mark Ealey is a New Zealand-based freelance translator specialising in Japanese foreign relations. In recent years he has focussed on Okinawan affairs, with his most recent publication being Descent into Hell – Civilian Memories of the Battle of Okinawa, a joint work with the late Alastair McLauchlan.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on From Nanjing to Okinawa – Two Massacres, Two Commanders
  • Tags:

Introduction

The Asia-Pacific Journal – Japan Focus is pleased to present Hideki Yoshikawa’s account of recent developments in the ongoing (20-year) contest between the people and government of Okinawa and the governments of the United States and Japan.

Readers of this journal will be well aware of the general tenor of this struggle, of the reversal of his anti-base construction stance by then Governor Nakaima in December 2013, allowing the national government to commence works to reclaim part of Oura Bay in Northern Okinawa (offshore from Henoko) for base construction. Ten months later, in December 2014, an aroused electorate dismissed Nakaima from office and delivered the Governorship (by a massive, 100,000 vote majority) to an avowed opponent of the reclamation/base construction plan, Onaga Takeshi. Another ten months followed before Onaga duly (in October 2015) “cancelled” (torikeshi) the reclamation license.

From November 2015, the dispute was subjected to a series of judicial and semi-judicial actions. Works were suspended for one year from March 2016, but the main proceedings issued in a December 2016 Supreme Court ruling that found against the prefecture. The Governor thereupon “cancelled” (torikeshi) his original cancelation order, and site works resumed in April 2017. The prefecture launched a related suit in the Naha District Court July 2017 seeking a suspension of the Bay works, but as of January 2018 no judgment has yet issued.

Over the past year, Governor Onaga has many times spoken of his intent to rescind (tekkai) the December 2013 reclamation permit (i.e., going beyond his October 2015 “cancellation,” which he cancelled in December 2016). There is no question that he has such power, although there is also no question that its exercise would be subject to immediate judicial challenge by the national government. Consequently it is understandable that he should choose with great care how and when to exercise it.

However, while almost one year has now passed without any sign of Onaga actually implementing his tekkai promise, daily hundreds of truckloads of material are delivered to the Oura bay construction site, and from late 2017 that daily convoy has been supplemented by shipments from Oku port, in the far north of Okinawa Island. Governor Onaga issued a permit for that, and then in December issued similar permits for use of facilities at two other ports, Nakagusuku and Motobu.

*

Map of Okinawa showing route of land-fill materials, Source: Hideki Yoshikawa

Relying on dump-truck delivery of materials, and assuming a delivery rate of about 175 trucks per day (the rate as of late December 2017), to deliver the necessary three million tons would take a staggering 46 years, and only then, upon such a site, could actual base construction commence. So the government is intent on speeding up the works, either by massively increasing the tempo of road transport delivery or by resort to delivery by sea, or more likely both. The sea delivery has the great advantage from the government view of being more difficult for citizens to block. Either way, the process threatens to overwhelm the infrastructure of Okinawa’s north.

With the Onaga Prefectural government seemingly engaging in endless procrastination, and the national government, through the Okinawan Defense Bureau, steadily stepping up the tempo of sea-wall construction works, uncertainty spreads within the Okinawan anti-base movement. Could it be that Governor Onaga is going to betray them (as most believe his predecessor, Nakaima, did in December 2013? How credible is Onaga’s stance, as a supporter of the US-Japan Security Treaty and the Okinawa base system who opposes only the specific Henoko project and the deployment of the Osprey? Is he, despite the confusing signals he issues, engaged on a complex but consistent strategy to achieve the main goal – stopping Henoko?

On 4 February, Okinawan voters go to the polls in Nago City to elect a new mayor. In 2010, they chose Inamine Susumu, on a platform of “no new base on land or sea within Nago City.” They re-elected him in 2014 and now he seeks a third term. He has proven a major thorn in the side of government construction plans, so the Abe government attaches a high priority to defeating him. The national government, along with the LDP and Komeito party organizations, have pledged full backing to his opponent, Toguchi Taketoyo. Anywhere else but Okinawa it would be unimaginable that the central government would interfere so blatantly to promote its candidate in a local government election. As part of this intervention, the Chief Cabinet Secretary recently held meetings with heads of various Nago City wards (Henoko, Kushi, and Toyohara) and Higashi and Kunigami Villages, bypassing the city administration in an attempt to subject the city to national government control. Moreover, from 2015 it has been making significant subsidy payments to these districts, rising from 39 million yen in 2015 to 120 million yen for 2018) to try to ensure defeat of Inamine and the city’s submission. This was surely in breach of the constitution’s clauses on regional self-government. Meanwhile the national government reduces each year the regular budgetary allocation to Okinawa prefecture, plainly to punish Governor Onaga for his non-cooperation.

Apart from the ongoing turmoil due to the Henoko-Oura Bay base construction project, Okinawans continue to suffer the depredations of night and day helicopter and Osprey flights, often over residential areas, at intolerable noise levels, and occasionally sending fully armed forces on parachute drops or (December 2017) accidentally dropping potentially lethal objects in the vicinity of houses and schools. They do not forget the periodic base personnel-related road accidents, sometimes causing death, or the sexual assaults, most notoriously the rape-murder of April 2016. The Abe government’s defense and security policies exact a heavy toll on them. They continue to resist.

Yoshikawa here presents a detailed account of the Henoko-Oura Bay issue as of January 2018. (GMcC)

What is happening with the Onaga Administration?

As the year 2018 began in earnest, the people of Okinawa are trying to figure out where their Governor, Onaga Takeshi, is taking them in their fight against the construction of a U.S. military base in Henoko-Oura Bay in the north of Okinawa island. On November 3, 2017, the Okinawa Times reported that Governor Onaga had in September, behind closed doors, issued a permit to companies under contract to the Okinawa Defense Bureau to use Oku port in the north of Okinawa Island for transport of materials for base construction.1 With the permit in hand, the Okinawa Defense Bureau has moved to accelerate its construction work, transporting landfill materials from Oku port to Henoko-Oura Bay by sea, thus avoiding protesters’ road blockage on the land.

The report surprised, confused, and angered many people in Okinawa because it contradicted the Governor’s pledge that he would do all in his power to stop the base construction. Many contend that the Governor should instead have used his discretionary power to refuse to issue the permit.

In response, Onaga reiterated his “everything in my power” pledge, provided explanations, and to placate the rising tide of criticism, indicated that it is now “considering revoking the permit.”2 However, a growing number of people are questioning whether Governor Onaga is sincere about his pledge, and they call on the Okinawa prefectural government to take immediate action to rectify the situation.

What is happening with the Onaga administration? How are the people of Okinawa reacting to this unsettling situation? Will they continue to resist the base construction? The following offers an analysis of recent developments in Okinawa.

Explanations by the Onaga Administration

According to a statement issued by the Governor and a transcript of a press conference held on November 15,3 the Onaga administration and the prefectural government decided to issue the permit because, upon review of the applications received in June, they could find no flaws. Consulting with their legal advisers, they concluded that they needed to adhere to the principles of fair and equal application of laws and exercise of administrative discretion and that they could not deviate from the “standard practices” of prefectural governments’ issuing use-permits even though these particular applications were for U.S. military base construction. Governor Onaga stressed that his government had taken extra time, a few months instead of the usual two weeks, to review the application.

Governor Onaga also claimed that the permit, issued under the Port and Harbor Act, pertained only to the keeping of landfill materials and the berthing of ships at the port, not to transport of landfill materials from the port by sea. He stressed that for transport by sea from the port of such landfill materials, the companies and the Okinawa Defense Bureau should have applied for a separate permit under the Land Reclamation Act, indicating that the Bureau and companies were in breach of the Act. On November 15, the same day Governor Onaga held a press conference, his administration sent a letter to the Bureau requesting it to stop transporting landfill materials by sea.

K-1 and N-5 Seawall Construction, © Yamamoto Hideo

Seawall construction at K-1, N-5 and K-9 as of early January 2018. Red lines indicate that seawall construction is under way. Source: Hideki Yoshikawa

The Okinawa Defense Bureau, however, repudiated the Governor’s claims. It insists that the land reclamation permit which was issued by former Governor Nakaima Hirokazu in December 2013 enabled the Defense Bureau to transport landfill materials by sea from Oku port to Henoko-Oura Bay.4 They noted that Governor Onaga had lost his lawsuit in the Japanese Supreme Court in December 2016 over his withdrawal (torikeshi) of the land reclamation permit.5

Meanwhile, a high-ranking prefectural official told the Okinawa Environmental Justice Project that the Onaga administration and its lawyers were concerned that a refusal to issue a permit would be construed as a failure to comply with the law and administrative duty. The official explained that the Onaga administration had decided that any action that could be deemed unlawful should be avoided, especially because the prefectural government is already in court battling the Japanese government over the issue of a reef-crushing permit (see below). Such concerns outweighed those over possible public backlash that the Onaga administration would face over issuing the permit.

The official acknowledged, however, that not consulting with the people of the Oku district prior to making its decisions, and not publically disclosing the information on the issuance of the permit in a timely manner, were mistakes and that the Okinawa prefectural government needed to rectify the situation. On November 14, 2017, 10 days after the Okinawa Times’ report on the issuance of the permit, the Okinawa prefectural government held a formal meeting with the people of the Oku district and on the very next day, Governor Onaga issued the above-mentioned statement, explaining its actions and asking for understanding from the Okinawan public.

Patience, Anger, and Doubt: Local Reactions and Moves by the Onaga Administration

When the Okinawa Times report on the issuance of the permit came out at the beginning of November, the Japanese government was starting construction of the N-1 and D-5 seawalls. Since the Onaga administration vehemently condemned the start of new seawall construction,6 people in Okinawa were surprised and confused by the report. However, two contrasting reactions have been manifest among the Okinawan public.

Staunch supporters of Governor Onaga remain willing to accept the Onaga administration’s explanations for issuance of the permit. Seeing the administration’s actions as tactical they hold to the view that his administration government will prevail in the end to stop the construction. They argue that if the people of Okinawa do not support the Onaga administration’s actions and explanations, it would mean the negation of their 20-years of struggle against base construction.

On the other hand, a growing number of people feel angry and betrayed. Many now question whether Governor Onaga and his government are sincere and serious about stopping the base construction. These reactions are evident especially among protesters who are already weary from daily protests, continuing now for years, at Camp Schwab and Henoko-Oura Bay, as they now have to head off also to the distant port of Oku.

Protesters at Oku Port, © Kitaueda Tsuyoshi 

In this context, the actions taken by two prominent supporters of Governor Onaga and of the anti-base construction movement are significant. Yamashiro Hiroji, chair of the Okinawa Peace Movement Center, demanded an emergency meeting with the prefectural government. At that meting, held in on November 15, he openly criticized Governor Onaga for breaking his pledge. He demanded that Onaga “stop talking” and withdraw the permit for use of Oku port.7

Yamauchi Tokushin, a former national Diet member and symbolic figure in Okinawa’s peace movement over decades who was also present at the November 15 meeting, on November 29 wrote a sharply critical article for the Okinawa Times blaming prefectural government officials for ill-advising the Governor on the issuance of the permit. Criticizing the prefectural officials for acting as if they were “petty officials from the Japanese government,” he demanded that the prefecture revoke the permit.

Meanwhile, on November 23, the Oku District Association adopted a resolution opposing use of the port by the Okinawa Defense Bureau.8 On November 28, the Association sent a delegation to the Okinawa Defense Bureau to protest, and in response the Bureau temporarily suspended the sea transport of landfill materials from the port. The Association aso sent a delegation to the prefectural government to demand that it withdraw the permit.9

Facing anger, doubt, and criticism from the Okinawan public, the Onaga administration has announced that it is “considering” revoking the permit for use of Oku port, reiterating that Governor Onaga is committed to stopping the base construction.x So far, however (as of mid-January 2018), it has taken no such action.

Instead, on December 7, the Onaga administration issued another permit to the Okinawa Defense Bureau for the use of Nakagusuku port by tugboats accompanying ships from Oku port to Henoko-Oura Bay. Following the Onaga administration’s issuance of these permits, on December 11, Mayor Takara Fumio of Motobu Town in northern Okinawa also issued a permit for the Defense Bureau to use the port of Motobu.11 Both the Onaga administration and Mayor Takara provided the same explanations as had been given earlier by the Onaga administration: they had reviewed and found no flaws in the companies’ applications and they needed to adhere to the principles of fair and equal application of the law and exercise of administrative discretion.

With the issuance of those new permits, the negative public sentiment towards the Onaga administration might have been expected to intensify. However, two U.S. military aircraft-related incidents distracted the Okinawan public. On December 7, a small cylindrical object belonging to the U.S. military fell on the roof of a nursery school with school children playing in the school garden as a U.S. military aircraft flew over the area.12 On December 13, 2017, a window from a U.S. military helicopter fell on the grounds of an elementary school while students were taking physical education class.13 Both the nursery school and elementary school are located near the U.S. Marine Corp’s Futenma Air Station, the very military base that the construction at Henoko-Oura Bay is planned to replace. As Governor Onaga quickly condemned the U.S. military for the accidents, public sentiment to press his administration over the issuance of the permits was deflected.

As of January 17, 2018, the Okinawa Defense Bureau is transporting landfill materials from the port of Motobu to Henoko-Oura Bay, while remaining ready to resume transport operations at the port of Oku, and, however limited the Onaga administration may claim it is, seawall construction is underway. What is one to make of this situation?

Querying the Onaga Administration’s Strategy

It can be argued that the Onaga administration’s issuance of the permits was a consequence of two things: its own overall (unwise) strategic decisions in the fight against base construction on the one hand and the way the Japanese government has been able to take advantage of its strategic errors on the other.

As discussed in an earlier paper,14 having lost its supreme court battle against the Japanese government over Governor Onaga’s withdrawal (torikeshi) of the land reclamation permit, the Onaga administration chose to fight in “lesser battles” first, only then moving on to the main battle over the land reclamation permit. Lesser battles are to be (or have been) fought with Governor Onaga’s administrative power over the issuance of (ancillary) permits for coral reef crushing, coral transplant, changes to the reclamation and construction plans, and so forth. The main battle remains to be fought over Governor Onaga’s administrative power to revoke (tekkai) the land reclamation permit. Issued by former Okinawa Governor Nakaima in 2013, suspended in 2015 and reinstated following the Supreme Court ruling in 2016, the land reclamation permit provides the principal legal ground for land reclamation work and thus for base construction.

It appears that the Onaga administration assumed that the lesser battles could slow construction work and provide legal and moral grounds that could be used against the Japanese government when Governor Onaga finally revokes the land reclamation permit. Perhaps it still hopes at least for this delay effect.

The Japanese government, however, has been able to turn the Onaga administration’s strategies against it. When the Onaga administration prepared to take the Okinawa Defense Bureau into an administrative battle over the reef-crushing permit in April 2017, claiming that the Okinawa Defense Bureau needed a permit from Governor Onaga, the Japanese government simply dismissed those claims. Having persuaded the local fishermen’s association to renounce their fishing rights to Henoko-Oura Bay, the government insisted that it was not necessary to obtain any permit from the Governor. The Okinawa Defense Bureau then began seawall construction in April 2017.

This situation forced the Onaga administration to file a suit in the Naha District Court against the Japanese government in July 2017.15 That suit has in turn placed the Onaga administration in a bewildering situation. Now the burden of proof rests on the prefecture to show that the Japanese government has violated prefectural ordinances and regulations. In the Japanese system of government, this is extremely difficult, and it appears to be exhausting the Onaga administration and the prefectural government.

As mentioned above, many within the Onaga administration feel that to engage in a court battle the Okinawa prefectural government must present itself to the court as a thoroughly law-abiding entity. Thus, when the Okinawa Defense Bureau applied for ancillary permits such as to use the ports of Oku and Nakagusuku, to transplant corals, and to conduct a survey in Henoko-Oura Bay, the Onaga administration and prefectural government believed they had no choice but to review the applications and, provided there were no flaws, grant the permits.16 As a kind of delaying tactic, they sent inquiry letters and directives demanding information and explanation to the Okinawa Defense Bureau, but such tactics had very limited effect.

It can also be argued that the Onaga administration’s strategy undermined its own efforts, facilitating the “tatewari gyosei” (“vertically compartmentalized administration”) of the Okinawa prefectural government to its detriment. As with any local government bureaucracy in Japan,17 different sections of the Okinawa prefectural governments are often influenced more by their counterpart ministries of the central government than by other sections of the prefectural government. Co-ordination among different sections of the prefectural government is also often minimal and there is a tendency among officials not to intervene in the affairs of other sections. To counteract these bureaucratic tendencies in its fight against base construction, the Onaga administration created in June 2015 the Henoko Base Construction Countermeasures Division Executive Office within the Governor’s Office.18 The Henoko Executive Office is staffed by members of different departments including the Department of Civil Engineering and Construction and the Department of Environment.

However, the Onaga administration’s strategy to fight lesser (thus compartmentalized) battles first has rendered the tatewari gyosei a de facto mode of operation. Rather than giving top priority to the Onaga administration’s basic “No” stance against construction, each section of the prefectural government has tended to operate in accordance with its narrowly defined responsibilities and duties. Thus, when the Department of Civil Engineering and Construction, the principal department in charge of issuing use permits for ports, finally decided to issue permits for the ports of Oku and Nakagusuku in the name of Governor Onaga, important environmental issues were barely taken into consideration. Despite the fact that environmental impacts from base construction have been observed and there have been violations of environmental conditions on which former Governor Nakaima approved the land reclamation in 2013,19 and even though there could have been sufficient reasons for Governor Onaga to revoke (tekkai) the land reclamation permit, these environmental issues were seen as falling outside the administrative responsibilities of the Department of Civil Engineering and Construction reviewing the applications for port use.

Against this backdrop of the Onaga administration’s tactics and the Japanese government’s counter maneuvering, there has been a resurgence of calls for a prefectural referendum to be held to help push Governor Onaga to revoke the land reclamation permit, in other words to engage in the main battle.20 The proponents of such a referendum insist that a prefectural referendum opposing the base construction at Henoko-Oura Bay would provide Governor Onaga with a strong legal foothold in a likely lawsuit filed by the Japanese government against the Governor, and argue that the Governor cannot, or should not, revoke the permit without public backing demonstrated by such a referendum. They have proposed a referendum to be held at the same time as the gubernatorial election scheduled for November 2018.

Others have argued however that the people of Okinawa in 2014 elected Governor Onaga to revoke the land reclamation permit and he has reason to do so without a referendum. They insist that a referendum would be time consuming and require a great deal of effort, and given the present state of the base construction the Governor and the people of Okinawa have neither time nor energy to spare. Some even go further to argue that such referendum would give the Governor an excuse to postpone revocation of the land reclamation permit.21

Governor Onaga and his administration have not taken a stance on the referendum proposal. Nor have they indicated when or how the Governor will use his power to revoke the land reclamation permit. While insisting that the Governor will revoke it at an appropriate time, they tightly guard information on what many consider as the Governor’s last resort strategy, fearing that the Japanese government will take advantage of whatever information comes available.22

Meanwhile, it is reported that the Onaga administration is preparing to propose its own alternative plan to close Futenma Air Station, aiming to challenge the Japanese and U.S. governments’ insistence that “the relocation [of Futenma] to Henoko is the only solution.”23 This latest move can also be understood as a manifestation of the Onaga administration’s frustration with the fact that, while stressing the importance of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, most governors of Japan’s other prefectures are unwilling to host (or even discuss hosting) U.S. military bases or training in their prefectures. In other words, they persist in “free riding” on the US-Japan Security Treaty at Okinawa’s expense.24 The Onaga administration’s alternative plan likely incorporates the recommendation laid out by the Tokyo and Washington-based think-tank, “New Diplomacy Initiative,” which calls for development of a “new rotational system” for the U.S. Marine Corps stationed in the Pacific.25 Apparently, the Onaga administration is contemplating presenting its alternative plan during Governor Onaga’s visit to Washington D.C. in March 2018.

Governor Onaga addressing the United Nations, © Hideki Yoshikawa

Many in Okinawa seem to have been unable to form an opinion about the Onaga administration’s latest move as it has provided no details on the alternative plan. Others argue that this late move is a waste of time and energy as they see that it alone would have no impact on the Japanese and U.S. governments. Still others criticize the whole idea as just a way for the Onaga administration to distract the attention of the Okinawan public from the fact that it has not taken effective action, including revoking the land reclamation permit, to stop base construction.26

By proposing such an alternative plan as its own for whatever reason, the Onaga administration would be bound to face more problems. Such an action would contradict the Governor’s previous stance that it is the responsibility of the central government to come up with alternatives to the Henoko plan, and it would also undermine the long held stance by the Okinawan public against militarization since it would appear to engage Okinawa in military strategic planning.27 Moreover, if it also involved naming of alternative (or rotational) sites in other prefectures in Japan or within Okinawa, a backlash, similar to what the Hatoyama administration experienced in the recent past, would be inescapable.28 Questioned about this, one high ranking Okinawa prefectural official told the Okinawa Environmental Justice Project that the Onaga administration could not propose such an alternative plan as its own without support from the Okinawan public, and thus public discussion needs to begin. It remains to be seen whether and how the Onaga administration could promote such public discussion and it remains questionable whether the administration could make this new strategy meaningful. .

As the year 2018 began, the people of Okinawa nervously awaited the Onaga administration’s next action and many who oppose base construction are preparing their own next actions. In this, they share the view that they do their best to prevent the Japanese government from taking advantage of any emerging public discord, whether over the Onaga administration’s strategies, the proposed prefectural referendum, or the sincerity and seriousness of Governor Onaga’s pledge to fight the base construction. Many also believe that such public discord can be resolved only through effective action taken by the Onaga administration.

Can the Onaga administration and the people of Okinawa fight back?

An overwhelming majority of the people of Okinawa oppose base construction at Henoko-Oura Bay. The most recent opinion poll conducted by the Ryukyu Shimpo (in September 2017) shows that 80 percent of people aged 18 years or older oppose base construction and only 14 percent approve it.29 In response, the Onaga administration asks the people of Okinawa to understand that it is doing its best to stop it while arguing that its overall strategy has slowed down construction and will work in the end to stop it. It is painfully obvious, however, that, after the supreme court’s ruling against Governor Onaga’s withdrawal of the land reclamation permit, the Onaga administration’s strategy has failed to stop contruction. Instead, both the Japanese and U.S. governments can point to the current state of construction work as a fait accompli, and claim that despite its strong anti-base construction rhetoric, the Onaga administration, by issuing permits, is actually supporting base construction.

If the Onaga administration is serious about stopping base construction and continuing fighting against the Japanese and U.S. governments with the support of the people of Okinawa, it has to take urgent action to thwart any claim that construction work is a fait accompli. It needs to reconsider its overall strategy and to take concrete steps towards the revocation of the land reclamation permit. In other words it must shift its focus to the main battle. Any delay in revoking the permit, including a referendum to support the Governor’s action, should be regarded as contrary to Governor Onaga’s pledge and to Okinawa’s 20-year struggle against the base construction.

The Onaga administration needs to refuse to issue any more permits relating to base construction and to revoke the ancillary permits it has issued so far. In other words it has to be smarter about how it conducts its lesser battles. For this, it should take a close look at how Nago City Mayor Inamine Susumu has used his mayoral power to stop base construction.30 In 2014, Mayor Inamine and Nago city officials engaged in a series of exchanges with the Okinawa Defense Bureau regarding the Bureau’s applications for consultation (kyogi sho) on its proposal for necessary changes to the original construction plans. Citing flaws in the applications, the Mayor and Nago city repeatedly demanded that the Bureau revise them. Eventually the Bureau withdrew one of its applications regarding the proposed changes to the diversion of the Mijya river running through Camp Schwab, a critical component of the base construction works.31 Since then, there has been no consultation between the Bureau and the Mayor and Nago city. The city has forced the state to stumble in its otherwise forceful rush towards base construction.

In order to engage in both main and lesser battles, the Onaga administration urgently needs to develop a coherent policy on base construction to which all sections of the Okinawa prefectural government are committed. Such policy should not be based on “standard practice” or narrowly defined responsibilities and duties in the tatewari gyosei of the prefectural government. It should be built upon Governor Onaga’s pledge and the voice of the people of Okinawa against the base construction as well as upon review of the impact of base construction on the environment of Henoko-Oura bay. Above all, it should be rooted in comprehensive and critical review of the position of all U.S. military bases on Okinawa.32

Most importantly, the Onaga administration has to make sure that the way it challenges base construction is transparent and maximizes collaboration with the Okinawan public, especially those who have opposed the construction and who possess expert knowledge in the fields of civil engineering, public administration, law, the environment, and strategies of internationalization.33

Only through such collaboration between the Onaga administration, officials of the prefectural government and the Okinawan and Japanese civil society and international support, can the construction of the U.S. military base at Henoko-Oura Bay be stopped.

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my appreciation to officials of the Okinawa prefectural government for providing valuable information through formal meetings and personal communication. I also express my appreciation to Gavan McCormack of Australian National University, Sato Manabu of Okinawa International University, Shimabukuro Jun of the University of Ryukyus, and Abe Mariko of the Nature Conservation Society of Japan for their advice and suggestions for this article. The sole responsibility for the content of the article lies with the author.

*

Hideki Yoshikawa is an anthropologist who teaches at Meio University and the University of the Ryukyus in Okinawa. He is the International director of the Save the Dugong Campaign Center and Director of the Okinawa Environmental Justice Project.

Gavan McCormack is emeritus professor of Australian National University and an editor of The Asia-Pacific Journal. 

Notes

1Henoko koji Okinawa ken ga okuko no shiyo o kyoka Onaga kensei de hatsuka Umikara sekizai unpane [Henoko construction work: Okinawa prefectural government issued use-permit for Oku port; it is the first such permit issued under Onaga prefectural administration. Stone materials will be sea transported],” The Okinawa Times, November 3, 2017.

2Considering revoking the permission to use Oku Port of the new Henoko base construction,” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 16, 2017.

3The Ryukyu Shimpo published a full statement and a full transcript of a press conference by Governor Onaga in its November 15 publication. See “Okuko kara no kaijyo hannyu ‘Aratana jitai ga detekitteiru’ [Sea-transportation from Oku port; a new situation has emerged],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 15, 2017.

4’Minato o kyoko shiyo’ kunigamison okuku ga chushi yosei boeikyoku ha ‘kenni kyoka eta’ [‘The port forcefully used’; the Oku community of Higashi village demands a halt to the use of port; the Defense Bureau claims ‘it has obtained permission from the prefectural government’],” The Okinawa Times, November 28, 2017.

5Okinawa in tight spot as top court sides with gov’t in Henoko reclamation case,” The Mainichi. December 21, 2016. 

6More seawall construction at site of new US base despite presence of endangered coral,” The Mainichi,November 6, 2017.

7Oku shiyo kyoka shimindantai ga tekkai wo yosei Yamashiro shi ra chiji wo hihan [Civil groups request withdrawal of use-permit for Oku port; Mr. Yamashiro and others criticize Governor],” The Okinawa Times, November 16, 2017.

8Kunigami Oku ko shiyo ni ku ga hantai ketsugi Henoko shinkichi eno sekizai hanshutsu [Oku community adopted a resolution against use of Oku port in Kunigami for transport of stone materials for Henoko new base construction],” The Okinawa Time, November 24, 2017.

9’Oku ko no shiyo torikeshi wo’ Oku kumin ga ken ni yosei [‘ Withdraw use permit!’ People of Oku community request prefectural government],” The Okinawa Times, November 28, 2017. 

10Considering revoking the permission to use Oku Port of the new Henoko base construction,” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 16, 2017.

11Motobu cho ga shiyo wo kyoka Henoko shinkichi heno sekizai hanso de shiyo kikan ha 12 nichi kara 31 nichi [Motobu Town allows use of Motobu port for transport of stone materials for Henoko new base from 12th through 31st],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, December 12, 2017.

12Koyama, Kentaro, “U.S. aircraft part falls on nursery roof, sparks outcry,” The Asahi Shimbun, December 8, 2017.

13Window falls from U.S. military chopper onto Okinawa school grounds,” Kyodo News, December 13, 2017.

14Yoshikawa, Hideki, “Seawall Construction on Oura Bay: Internationalizing the Okinawa Struggle,” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, June 1, 2017, Volume 15 | Issue 11 | Number 1

15Okinawa files new legal battle over U.S. airfield off Henoko,” The Asahi Shimbun, July 25, 2017.

16Okuko kara no kaijyo hannyu ‘Aratana jitai ga detekitteiru’ [Sea-transportation from Oku Port, A new situation has emerged],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 15, 2017.

17For discussion on the Central government’ control over local governments and the tatewari gyosei, see McVeigh, Brian J. (1998/2013), The Nature of the Japanese State: Rationality and Rituality, Nissan Institute/ Routledge Japanese Studies Series, Routledge.

18The website of Henoko Base Construction Countermeasures Division Executive Office provides information mainly in Japanese on how the prefectural government fights the base construction. 

19In a letter sent to Governor Onaga on December 28, 2017, the Nature Conservation Society of Japan requests the Governor to revoke the land reclamation permit. The letter outlines environmental impacts from base construction including loss of sea grass beds, feeding grounds for dugongs, and alteration of the sea floor from more than 500 concretes blocks placed in Oura Bay. It also points out that ships transporting landfill materials from Oku and Motobu ports to Henoko-Oura Bay are in violation of the conditions on which former Governor Nakaima granted land reclamation permission because they operate in dugongs’ habitats.

20See “2018nen Okinawa chijisen to dojitsu jishi? Shinkichi sanpi tou ‘kenmin tohyo” kento, kengikaiyoto no nerai [Ruling party prefectural assembly members consider prefectural referendum at the same time as 2018 gubernatorial election], The Okinawa Times, December 23, 2017.

See also “Henoko kenmin tohyo de sanpi chijisen doujitsu osoi [yes or no; prefectural referendum to be held on the same day as gubernatorial election; it would be too late],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, December 26, 2017.

Ben Arakaki and Satoko Norimatsu debated the pros and cons of such a referendum in The Okinawa Times between March and May 2017.

21Henoko shin kichi: ‘kenmin tohyo ni nigeruna’ Yamashiro gicho ga Onaga chiji ni kugi [‘Don’t seek help in prefectural referendum’ chairperson Yamashiro warns Governor Onaga],” The Okinawa Times, December 26, 2017.

22See Governor Onaga’s statement and press conference transcript in “Okuko kara no kaijyo hannyu ‘Aratana jitai ga detekitteiru’ [Sea-transportation from Oku port; a new situation has emerged],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 15, 2017.

23Henoko no daitai an okinawa ken ga chakushu futenma heisa e dokuji an [Okinawa prefecture began to develop alternatives for Henoko plan: own plans to close Futenma],” The Okinawa Times, January 1, 2018.

For the U.S. and Japanese governments’ insistence on the Henoko Plan, see the transcript of the joint press conference held by Defense Secretary James Mattis and Defense Minister Inada Tomomi in February 2017.

24See, for example, “Zenkoku chiji anketo: Okinawa no kichifutan keigen ni shokyoku teki [Survey on governors of Japan: Unwilling to help reduce the burden of U.S. military bases in Okinawa],” The Mainichi Shimbun, December 13, 2017.

25Yanagisawa Kyoji, Yara Tomoharu, Handa Shigeru, and Sado Akihiro, A New Vision for Okinawa and Asia-Pacific Security: A Recommendation from the New Diplomacy Initiative (ND) (Tokyo: New Diplomacy Initiative, February 2017). 

26Nakasone Isamu, “’Koji susumu henoko shinkichi; ‘daitai’ an teiji no shini ha nanika [Henoko new base construction underway; What is the real purpose of (proposing) an ‘alternative’ plan?],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, January 10, 2018.

27See Kihara Satoru “Onaga chiji no henoko daitai an ha gongo dodan [Governor Onaga proposing an alternative to the Henoko plan is deplorable]” at his blog site.

I am thankful to Gavan McCormack, Satoko Norimatsu, and Steve Rabson for their discussion of this issue.

28McCormack, Gavan and Norimatsu Oka Satoko, “Chapter 6 The Hatoyama Revolt” in Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2012).

29Recent poll shows 72 % of Okinawans deem the Osprey “dangerous” as 68% suggest withdrawal,” The Ryukyu Shimpo, September 28, 2017.

30For information on the Nago Mayor’s administrative power to stop base construction, see this Diet Questions document (shitsumon shuisho) submitted in January 2014 by Diet House of Representative Member Kantoku Teruya here.

31For information on the exchange between the Nago City Mayor’s Office and Okinawa Defense Bureau, see this document provided at the website of the Nago City Office. 

32See Sato Manabu, “’Henoko soshi no housaku’ Anpo no jijitsu hattshin wo ‘jinken’ shucho dewa todokazu [Strategies to stop Henoko; spread facts about the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty; “human rights issues” are not enough],” November 24, 2017. The Ryukyu Shimpo.

33With the help of environmental NGOs, the Okinawa prefectural government is in contact with the International Union for Conservation of Nature regarding the base construction at Henoko-Oura Bay. See Governor Onaga’s letter to IUCN Director Inger Anderson, here.

Also, the Okinawa prefectural government exchanges information with U.S. and Japanese NGOs involved in the “dugong case” in the U.S. federal court after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Appeals Court ruled in August 2017 against the U.S. Department of Defense.

See “’Shinkichi kensetsu soshi de renkei o’ jyugon sosho beigawa bengo danga kento kyodo kakunin [‘Collaborate to stop new base construction’ U.S. plaintiff group and Okinawa prefectural government confirm their collaboration],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 29, 2017.

See Helen Christophi, “9th Circuit Revives Fight for Endangered Dugong on Okinawa,” The Courthousenews, August 21, 2017.

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on U.S. Military Base Construction at Henoko-Oura Bay and the Okinawan Governor’s Strategy to Stop It
  • Tags: ,

Introduction

The Asia-Pacific Journal – Japan Focus is pleased to present Hideki Yoshikawa’s account of recent developments in the ongoing (20-year) contest between the people and government of Okinawa and the governments of the United States and Japan.

Readers of this journal will be well aware of the general tenor of this struggle, of the reversal of his anti-base construction stance by then Governor Nakaima in December 2013, allowing the national government to commence works to reclaim part of Oura Bay in Northern Okinawa (offshore from Henoko) for base construction. Ten months later, in December 2014, an aroused electorate dismissed Nakaima from office and delivered the Governorship (by a massive, 100,000 vote majority) to an avowed opponent of the reclamation/base construction plan, Onaga Takeshi. Another ten months followed before Onaga duly (in October 2015) “cancelled” (torikeshi) the reclamation license.

From November 2015, the dispute was subjected to a series of judicial and semi-judicial actions. Works were suspended for one year from March 2016, but the main proceedings issued in a December 2016 Supreme Court ruling that found against the prefecture. The Governor thereupon “cancelled” (torikeshi) his original cancelation order, and site works resumed in April 2017. The prefecture launched a related suit in the Naha District Court July 2017 seeking a suspension of the Bay works, but as of January 2018 no judgment has yet issued.

Over the past year, Governor Onaga has many times spoken of his intent to rescind (tekkai) the December 2013 reclamation permit (i.e., going beyond his October 2015 “cancellation,” which he cancelled in December 2016). There is no question that he has such power, although there is also no question that its exercise would be subject to immediate judicial challenge by the national government. Consequently it is understandable that he should choose with great care how and when to exercise it.

However, while almost one year has now passed without any sign of Onaga actually implementing his tekkai promise, daily hundreds of truckloads of material are delivered to the Oura bay construction site, and from late 2017 that daily convoy has been supplemented by shipments from Oku port, in the far north of Okinawa Island. Governor Onaga issued a permit for that, and then in December issued similar permits for use of facilities at two other ports, Nakagusuku and Motobu.

*

Map of Okinawa showing route of land-fill materials, Source: Hideki Yoshikawa

Relying on dump-truck delivery of materials, and assuming a delivery rate of about 175 trucks per day (the rate as of late December 2017), to deliver the necessary three million tons would take a staggering 46 years, and only then, upon such a site, could actual base construction commence. So the government is intent on speeding up the works, either by massively increasing the tempo of road transport delivery or by resort to delivery by sea, or more likely both. The sea delivery has the great advantage from the government view of being more difficult for citizens to block. Either way, the process threatens to overwhelm the infrastructure of Okinawa’s north.

With the Onaga Prefectural government seemingly engaging in endless procrastination, and the national government, through the Okinawan Defense Bureau, steadily stepping up the tempo of sea-wall construction works, uncertainty spreads within the Okinawan anti-base movement. Could it be that Governor Onaga is going to betray them (as most believe his predecessor, Nakaima, did in December 2013? How credible is Onaga’s stance, as a supporter of the US-Japan Security Treaty and the Okinawa base system who opposes only the specific Henoko project and the deployment of the Osprey? Is he, despite the confusing signals he issues, engaged on a complex but consistent strategy to achieve the main goal – stopping Henoko?

On 4 February, Okinawan voters go to the polls in Nago City to elect a new mayor. In 2010, they chose Inamine Susumu, on a platform of “no new base on land or sea within Nago City.” They re-elected him in 2014 and now he seeks a third term. He has proven a major thorn in the side of government construction plans, so the Abe government attaches a high priority to defeating him. The national government, along with the LDP and Komeito party organizations, have pledged full backing to his opponent, Toguchi Taketoyo. Anywhere else but Okinawa it would be unimaginable that the central government would interfere so blatantly to promote its candidate in a local government election. As part of this intervention, the Chief Cabinet Secretary recently held meetings with heads of various Nago City wards (Henoko, Kushi, and Toyohara) and Higashi and Kunigami Villages, bypassing the city administration in an attempt to subject the city to national government control. Moreover, from 2015 it has been making significant subsidy payments to these districts, rising from 39 million yen in 2015 to 120 million yen for 2018) to try to ensure defeat of Inamine and the city’s submission. This was surely in breach of the constitution’s clauses on regional self-government. Meanwhile the national government reduces each year the regular budgetary allocation to Okinawa prefecture, plainly to punish Governor Onaga for his non-cooperation.

Apart from the ongoing turmoil due to the Henoko-Oura Bay base construction project, Okinawans continue to suffer the depredations of night and day helicopter and Osprey flights, often over residential areas, at intolerable noise levels, and occasionally sending fully armed forces on parachute drops or (December 2017) accidentally dropping potentially lethal objects in the vicinity of houses and schools. They do not forget the periodic base personnel-related road accidents, sometimes causing death, or the sexual assaults, most notoriously the rape-murder of April 2016. The Abe government’s defense and security policies exact a heavy toll on them. They continue to resist.

Yoshikawa here presents a detailed account of the Henoko-Oura Bay issue as of January 2018. (GMcC)

What is happening with the Onaga Administration?

As the year 2018 began in earnest, the people of Okinawa are trying to figure out where their Governor, Onaga Takeshi, is taking them in their fight against the construction of a U.S. military base in Henoko-Oura Bay in the north of Okinawa island. On November 3, 2017, the Okinawa Times reported that Governor Onaga had in September, behind closed doors, issued a permit to companies under contract to the Okinawa Defense Bureau to use Oku port in the north of Okinawa Island for transport of materials for base construction.1 With the permit in hand, the Okinawa Defense Bureau has moved to accelerate its construction work, transporting landfill materials from Oku port to Henoko-Oura Bay by sea, thus avoiding protesters’ road blockage on the land.

The report surprised, confused, and angered many people in Okinawa because it contradicted the Governor’s pledge that he would do all in his power to stop the base construction. Many contend that the Governor should instead have used his discretionary power to refuse to issue the permit.

In response, Onaga reiterated his “everything in my power” pledge, provided explanations, and to placate the rising tide of criticism, indicated that it is now “considering revoking the permit.”2 However, a growing number of people are questioning whether Governor Onaga is sincere about his pledge, and they call on the Okinawa prefectural government to take immediate action to rectify the situation.

What is happening with the Onaga administration? How are the people of Okinawa reacting to this unsettling situation? Will they continue to resist the base construction? The following offers an analysis of recent developments in Okinawa.

Explanations by the Onaga Administration

According to a statement issued by the Governor and a transcript of a press conference held on November 15,3 the Onaga administration and the prefectural government decided to issue the permit because, upon review of the applications received in June, they could find no flaws. Consulting with their legal advisers, they concluded that they needed to adhere to the principles of fair and equal application of laws and exercise of administrative discretion and that they could not deviate from the “standard practices” of prefectural governments’ issuing use-permits even though these particular applications were for U.S. military base construction. Governor Onaga stressed that his government had taken extra time, a few months instead of the usual two weeks, to review the application.

Governor Onaga also claimed that the permit, issued under the Port and Harbor Act, pertained only to the keeping of landfill materials and the berthing of ships at the port, not to transport of landfill materials from the port by sea. He stressed that for transport by sea from the port of such landfill materials, the companies and the Okinawa Defense Bureau should have applied for a separate permit under the Land Reclamation Act, indicating that the Bureau and companies were in breach of the Act. On November 15, the same day Governor Onaga held a press conference, his administration sent a letter to the Bureau requesting it to stop transporting landfill materials by sea.

K-1 and N-5 Seawall Construction, © Yamamoto Hideo

Seawall construction at K-1, N-5 and K-9 as of early January 2018. Red lines indicate that seawall construction is under way. Source: Hideki Yoshikawa

The Okinawa Defense Bureau, however, repudiated the Governor’s claims. It insists that the land reclamation permit which was issued by former Governor Nakaima Hirokazu in December 2013 enabled the Defense Bureau to transport landfill materials by sea from Oku port to Henoko-Oura Bay.4 They noted that Governor Onaga had lost his lawsuit in the Japanese Supreme Court in December 2016 over his withdrawal (torikeshi) of the land reclamation permit.5

Meanwhile, a high-ranking prefectural official told the Okinawa Environmental Justice Project that the Onaga administration and its lawyers were concerned that a refusal to issue a permit would be construed as a failure to comply with the law and administrative duty. The official explained that the Onaga administration had decided that any action that could be deemed unlawful should be avoided, especially because the prefectural government is already in court battling the Japanese government over the issue of a reef-crushing permit (see below). Such concerns outweighed those over possible public backlash that the Onaga administration would face over issuing the permit.

The official acknowledged, however, that not consulting with the people of the Oku district prior to making its decisions, and not publically disclosing the information on the issuance of the permit in a timely manner, were mistakes and that the Okinawa prefectural government needed to rectify the situation. On November 14, 2017, 10 days after the Okinawa Times’ report on the issuance of the permit, the Okinawa prefectural government held a formal meeting with the people of the Oku district and on the very next day, Governor Onaga issued the above-mentioned statement, explaining its actions and asking for understanding from the Okinawan public.

Patience, Anger, and Doubt: Local Reactions and Moves by the Onaga Administration

When the Okinawa Times report on the issuance of the permit came out at the beginning of November, the Japanese government was starting construction of the N-1 and D-5 seawalls. Since the Onaga administration vehemently condemned the start of new seawall construction,6 people in Okinawa were surprised and confused by the report. However, two contrasting reactions have been manifest among the Okinawan public.

Staunch supporters of Governor Onaga remain willing to accept the Onaga administration’s explanations for issuance of the permit. Seeing the administration’s actions as tactical they hold to the view that his administration government will prevail in the end to stop the construction. They argue that if the people of Okinawa do not support the Onaga administration’s actions and explanations, it would mean the negation of their 20-years of struggle against base construction.

On the other hand, a growing number of people feel angry and betrayed. Many now question whether Governor Onaga and his government are sincere and serious about stopping the base construction. These reactions are evident especially among protesters who are already weary from daily protests, continuing now for years, at Camp Schwab and Henoko-Oura Bay, as they now have to head off also to the distant port of Oku.

Protesters at Oku Port, © Kitaueda Tsuyoshi 

In this context, the actions taken by two prominent supporters of Governor Onaga and of the anti-base construction movement are significant. Yamashiro Hiroji, chair of the Okinawa Peace Movement Center, demanded an emergency meeting with the prefectural government. At that meting, held in on November 15, he openly criticized Governor Onaga for breaking his pledge. He demanded that Onaga “stop talking” and withdraw the permit for use of Oku port.7

Yamauchi Tokushin, a former national Diet member and symbolic figure in Okinawa’s peace movement over decades who was also present at the November 15 meeting, on November 29 wrote a sharply critical article for the Okinawa Times blaming prefectural government officials for ill-advising the Governor on the issuance of the permit. Criticizing the prefectural officials for acting as if they were “petty officials from the Japanese government,” he demanded that the prefecture revoke the permit.

Meanwhile, on November 23, the Oku District Association adopted a resolution opposing use of the port by the Okinawa Defense Bureau.8 On November 28, the Association sent a delegation to the Okinawa Defense Bureau to protest, and in response the Bureau temporarily suspended the sea transport of landfill materials from the port. The Association aso sent a delegation to the prefectural government to demand that it withdraw the permit.9

Facing anger, doubt, and criticism from the Okinawan public, the Onaga administration has announced that it is “considering” revoking the permit for use of Oku port, reiterating that Governor Onaga is committed to stopping the base construction.x So far, however (as of mid-January 2018), it has taken no such action.

Instead, on December 7, the Onaga administration issued another permit to the Okinawa Defense Bureau for the use of Nakagusuku port by tugboats accompanying ships from Oku port to Henoko-Oura Bay. Following the Onaga administration’s issuance of these permits, on December 11, Mayor Takara Fumio of Motobu Town in northern Okinawa also issued a permit for the Defense Bureau to use the port of Motobu.11 Both the Onaga administration and Mayor Takara provided the same explanations as had been given earlier by the Onaga administration: they had reviewed and found no flaws in the companies’ applications and they needed to adhere to the principles of fair and equal application of the law and exercise of administrative discretion.

With the issuance of those new permits, the negative public sentiment towards the Onaga administration might have been expected to intensify. However, two U.S. military aircraft-related incidents distracted the Okinawan public. On December 7, a small cylindrical object belonging to the U.S. military fell on the roof of a nursery school with school children playing in the school garden as a U.S. military aircraft flew over the area.12 On December 13, 2017, a window from a U.S. military helicopter fell on the grounds of an elementary school while students were taking physical education class.13 Both the nursery school and elementary school are located near the U.S. Marine Corp’s Futenma Air Station, the very military base that the construction at Henoko-Oura Bay is planned to replace. As Governor Onaga quickly condemned the U.S. military for the accidents, public sentiment to press his administration over the issuance of the permits was deflected.

As of January 17, 2018, the Okinawa Defense Bureau is transporting landfill materials from the port of Motobu to Henoko-Oura Bay, while remaining ready to resume transport operations at the port of Oku, and, however limited the Onaga administration may claim it is, seawall construction is underway. What is one to make of this situation?

Querying the Onaga Administration’s Strategy

It can be argued that the Onaga administration’s issuance of the permits was a consequence of two things: its own overall (unwise) strategic decisions in the fight against base construction on the one hand and the way the Japanese government has been able to take advantage of its strategic errors on the other.

As discussed in an earlier paper,14 having lost its supreme court battle against the Japanese government over Governor Onaga’s withdrawal (torikeshi) of the land reclamation permit, the Onaga administration chose to fight in “lesser battles” first, only then moving on to the main battle over the land reclamation permit. Lesser battles are to be (or have been) fought with Governor Onaga’s administrative power over the issuance of (ancillary) permits for coral reef crushing, coral transplant, changes to the reclamation and construction plans, and so forth. The main battle remains to be fought over Governor Onaga’s administrative power to revoke (tekkai) the land reclamation permit. Issued by former Okinawa Governor Nakaima in 2013, suspended in 2015 and reinstated following the Supreme Court ruling in 2016, the land reclamation permit provides the principal legal ground for land reclamation work and thus for base construction.

It appears that the Onaga administration assumed that the lesser battles could slow construction work and provide legal and moral grounds that could be used against the Japanese government when Governor Onaga finally revokes the land reclamation permit. Perhaps it still hopes at least for this delay effect.

The Japanese government, however, has been able to turn the Onaga administration’s strategies against it. When the Onaga administration prepared to take the Okinawa Defense Bureau into an administrative battle over the reef-crushing permit in April 2017, claiming that the Okinawa Defense Bureau needed a permit from Governor Onaga, the Japanese government simply dismissed those claims. Having persuaded the local fishermen’s association to renounce their fishing rights to Henoko-Oura Bay, the government insisted that it was not necessary to obtain any permit from the Governor. The Okinawa Defense Bureau then began seawall construction in April 2017.

This situation forced the Onaga administration to file a suit in the Naha District Court against the Japanese government in July 2017.15 That suit has in turn placed the Onaga administration in a bewildering situation. Now the burden of proof rests on the prefecture to show that the Japanese government has violated prefectural ordinances and regulations. In the Japanese system of government, this is extremely difficult, and it appears to be exhausting the Onaga administration and the prefectural government.

As mentioned above, many within the Onaga administration feel that to engage in a court battle the Okinawa prefectural government must present itself to the court as a thoroughly law-abiding entity. Thus, when the Okinawa Defense Bureau applied for ancillary permits such as to use the ports of Oku and Nakagusuku, to transplant corals, and to conduct a survey in Henoko-Oura Bay, the Onaga administration and prefectural government believed they had no choice but to review the applications and, provided there were no flaws, grant the permits.16 As a kind of delaying tactic, they sent inquiry letters and directives demanding information and explanation to the Okinawa Defense Bureau, but such tactics had very limited effect.

It can also be argued that the Onaga administration’s strategy undermined its own efforts, facilitating the “tatewari gyosei” (“vertically compartmentalized administration”) of the Okinawa prefectural government to its detriment. As with any local government bureaucracy in Japan,17 different sections of the Okinawa prefectural governments are often influenced more by their counterpart ministries of the central government than by other sections of the prefectural government. Co-ordination among different sections of the prefectural government is also often minimal and there is a tendency among officials not to intervene in the affairs of other sections. To counteract these bureaucratic tendencies in its fight against base construction, the Onaga administration created in June 2015 the Henoko Base Construction Countermeasures Division Executive Office within the Governor’s Office.18 The Henoko Executive Office is staffed by members of different departments including the Department of Civil Engineering and Construction and the Department of Environment.

However, the Onaga administration’s strategy to fight lesser (thus compartmentalized) battles first has rendered the tatewari gyosei a de facto mode of operation. Rather than giving top priority to the Onaga administration’s basic “No” stance against construction, each section of the prefectural government has tended to operate in accordance with its narrowly defined responsibilities and duties. Thus, when the Department of Civil Engineering and Construction, the principal department in charge of issuing use permits for ports, finally decided to issue permits for the ports of Oku and Nakagusuku in the name of Governor Onaga, important environmental issues were barely taken into consideration. Despite the fact that environmental impacts from base construction have been observed and there have been violations of environmental conditions on which former Governor Nakaima approved the land reclamation in 2013,19 and even though there could have been sufficient reasons for Governor Onaga to revoke (tekkai) the land reclamation permit, these environmental issues were seen as falling outside the administrative responsibilities of the Department of Civil Engineering and Construction reviewing the applications for port use.

Against this backdrop of the Onaga administration’s tactics and the Japanese government’s counter maneuvering, there has been a resurgence of calls for a prefectural referendum to be held to help push Governor Onaga to revoke the land reclamation permit, in other words to engage in the main battle.20 The proponents of such a referendum insist that a prefectural referendum opposing the base construction at Henoko-Oura Bay would provide Governor Onaga with a strong legal foothold in a likely lawsuit filed by the Japanese government against the Governor, and argue that the Governor cannot, or should not, revoke the permit without public backing demonstrated by such a referendum. They have proposed a referendum to be held at the same time as the gubernatorial election scheduled for November 2018.

Others have argued however that the people of Okinawa in 2014 elected Governor Onaga to revoke the land reclamation permit and he has reason to do so without a referendum. They insist that a referendum would be time consuming and require a great deal of effort, and given the present state of the base construction the Governor and the people of Okinawa have neither time nor energy to spare. Some even go further to argue that such referendum would give the Governor an excuse to postpone revocation of the land reclamation permit.21

Governor Onaga and his administration have not taken a stance on the referendum proposal. Nor have they indicated when or how the Governor will use his power to revoke the land reclamation permit. While insisting that the Governor will revoke it at an appropriate time, they tightly guard information on what many consider as the Governor’s last resort strategy, fearing that the Japanese government will take advantage of whatever information comes available.22

Meanwhile, it is reported that the Onaga administration is preparing to propose its own alternative plan to close Futenma Air Station, aiming to challenge the Japanese and U.S. governments’ insistence that “the relocation [of Futenma] to Henoko is the only solution.”23 This latest move can also be understood as a manifestation of the Onaga administration’s frustration with the fact that, while stressing the importance of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, most governors of Japan’s other prefectures are unwilling to host (or even discuss hosting) U.S. military bases or training in their prefectures. In other words, they persist in “free riding” on the US-Japan Security Treaty at Okinawa’s expense.24 The Onaga administration’s alternative plan likely incorporates the recommendation laid out by the Tokyo and Washington-based think-tank, “New Diplomacy Initiative,” which calls for development of a “new rotational system” for the U.S. Marine Corps stationed in the Pacific.25 Apparently, the Onaga administration is contemplating presenting its alternative plan during Governor Onaga’s visit to Washington D.C. in March 2018.

Governor Onaga addressing the United Nations, © Hideki Yoshikawa

Many in Okinawa seem to have been unable to form an opinion about the Onaga administration’s latest move as it has provided no details on the alternative plan. Others argue that this late move is a waste of time and energy as they see that it alone would have no impact on the Japanese and U.S. governments. Still others criticize the whole idea as just a way for the Onaga administration to distract the attention of the Okinawan public from the fact that it has not taken effective action, including revoking the land reclamation permit, to stop base construction.26

By proposing such an alternative plan as its own for whatever reason, the Onaga administration would be bound to face more problems. Such an action would contradict the Governor’s previous stance that it is the responsibility of the central government to come up with alternatives to the Henoko plan, and it would also undermine the long held stance by the Okinawan public against militarization since it would appear to engage Okinawa in military strategic planning.27 Moreover, if it also involved naming of alternative (or rotational) sites in other prefectures in Japan or within Okinawa, a backlash, similar to what the Hatoyama administration experienced in the recent past, would be inescapable.28 Questioned about this, one high ranking Okinawa prefectural official told the Okinawa Environmental Justice Project that the Onaga administration could not propose such an alternative plan as its own without support from the Okinawan public, and thus public discussion needs to begin. It remains to be seen whether and how the Onaga administration could promote such public discussion and it remains questionable whether the administration could make this new strategy meaningful. .

As the year 2018 began, the people of Okinawa nervously awaited the Onaga administration’s next action and many who oppose base construction are preparing their own next actions. In this, they share the view that they do their best to prevent the Japanese government from taking advantage of any emerging public discord, whether over the Onaga administration’s strategies, the proposed prefectural referendum, or the sincerity and seriousness of Governor Onaga’s pledge to fight the base construction. Many also believe that such public discord can be resolved only through effective action taken by the Onaga administration.

Can the Onaga administration and the people of Okinawa fight back?

An overwhelming majority of the people of Okinawa oppose base construction at Henoko-Oura Bay. The most recent opinion poll conducted by the Ryukyu Shimpo (in September 2017) shows that 80 percent of people aged 18 years or older oppose base construction and only 14 percent approve it.29 In response, the Onaga administration asks the people of Okinawa to understand that it is doing its best to stop it while arguing that its overall strategy has slowed down construction and will work in the end to stop it. It is painfully obvious, however, that, after the supreme court’s ruling against Governor Onaga’s withdrawal of the land reclamation permit, the Onaga administration’s strategy has failed to stop contruction. Instead, both the Japanese and U.S. governments can point to the current state of construction work as a fait accompli, and claim that despite its strong anti-base construction rhetoric, the Onaga administration, by issuing permits, is actually supporting base construction.

If the Onaga administration is serious about stopping base construction and continuing fighting against the Japanese and U.S. governments with the support of the people of Okinawa, it has to take urgent action to thwart any claim that construction work is a fait accompli. It needs to reconsider its overall strategy and to take concrete steps towards the revocation of the land reclamation permit. In other words it must shift its focus to the main battle. Any delay in revoking the permit, including a referendum to support the Governor’s action, should be regarded as contrary to Governor Onaga’s pledge and to Okinawa’s 20-year struggle against the base construction.

The Onaga administration needs to refuse to issue any more permits relating to base construction and to revoke the ancillary permits it has issued so far. In other words it has to be smarter about how it conducts its lesser battles. For this, it should take a close look at how Nago City Mayor Inamine Susumu has used his mayoral power to stop base construction.30 In 2014, Mayor Inamine and Nago city officials engaged in a series of exchanges with the Okinawa Defense Bureau regarding the Bureau’s applications for consultation (kyogi sho) on its proposal for necessary changes to the original construction plans. Citing flaws in the applications, the Mayor and Nago city repeatedly demanded that the Bureau revise them. Eventually the Bureau withdrew one of its applications regarding the proposed changes to the diversion of the Mijya river running through Camp Schwab, a critical component of the base construction works.31 Since then, there has been no consultation between the Bureau and the Mayor and Nago city. The city has forced the state to stumble in its otherwise forceful rush towards base construction.

In order to engage in both main and lesser battles, the Onaga administration urgently needs to develop a coherent policy on base construction to which all sections of the Okinawa prefectural government are committed. Such policy should not be based on “standard practice” or narrowly defined responsibilities and duties in the tatewari gyosei of the prefectural government. It should be built upon Governor Onaga’s pledge and the voice of the people of Okinawa against the base construction as well as upon review of the impact of base construction on the environment of Henoko-Oura bay. Above all, it should be rooted in comprehensive and critical review of the position of all U.S. military bases on Okinawa.32

Most importantly, the Onaga administration has to make sure that the way it challenges base construction is transparent and maximizes collaboration with the Okinawan public, especially those who have opposed the construction and who possess expert knowledge in the fields of civil engineering, public administration, law, the environment, and strategies of internationalization.33

Only through such collaboration between the Onaga administration, officials of the prefectural government and the Okinawan and Japanese civil society and international support, can the construction of the U.S. military base at Henoko-Oura Bay be stopped.

Acknowledgement

I would like to express my appreciation to officials of the Okinawa prefectural government for providing valuable information through formal meetings and personal communication. I also express my appreciation to Gavan McCormack of Australian National University, Sato Manabu of Okinawa International University, Shimabukuro Jun of the University of Ryukyus, and Abe Mariko of the Nature Conservation Society of Japan for their advice and suggestions for this article. The sole responsibility for the content of the article lies with the author.

*

Hideki Yoshikawa is an anthropologist who teaches at Meio University and the University of the Ryukyus in Okinawa. He is the International director of the Save the Dugong Campaign Center and Director of the Okinawa Environmental Justice Project.

Gavan McCormack is emeritus professor of Australian National University and an editor of The Asia-Pacific Journal. 

Notes

1Henoko koji Okinawa ken ga okuko no shiyo o kyoka Onaga kensei de hatsuka Umikara sekizai unpane [Henoko construction work: Okinawa prefectural government issued use-permit for Oku port; it is the first such permit issued under Onaga prefectural administration. Stone materials will be sea transported],” The Okinawa Times, November 3, 2017.

2Considering revoking the permission to use Oku Port of the new Henoko base construction,” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 16, 2017.

3The Ryukyu Shimpo published a full statement and a full transcript of a press conference by Governor Onaga in its November 15 publication. See “Okuko kara no kaijyo hannyu ‘Aratana jitai ga detekitteiru’ [Sea-transportation from Oku port; a new situation has emerged],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 15, 2017.

4’Minato o kyoko shiyo’ kunigamison okuku ga chushi yosei boeikyoku ha ‘kenni kyoka eta’ [‘The port forcefully used’; the Oku community of Higashi village demands a halt to the use of port; the Defense Bureau claims ‘it has obtained permission from the prefectural government’],” The Okinawa Times, November 28, 2017.

5Okinawa in tight spot as top court sides with gov’t in Henoko reclamation case,” The Mainichi. December 21, 2016. 

6More seawall construction at site of new US base despite presence of endangered coral,” The Mainichi,November 6, 2017.

7Oku shiyo kyoka shimindantai ga tekkai wo yosei Yamashiro shi ra chiji wo hihan [Civil groups request withdrawal of use-permit for Oku port; Mr. Yamashiro and others criticize Governor],” The Okinawa Times, November 16, 2017.

8Kunigami Oku ko shiyo ni ku ga hantai ketsugi Henoko shinkichi eno sekizai hanshutsu [Oku community adopted a resolution against use of Oku port in Kunigami for transport of stone materials for Henoko new base construction],” The Okinawa Time, November 24, 2017.

9’Oku ko no shiyo torikeshi wo’ Oku kumin ga ken ni yosei [‘ Withdraw use permit!’ People of Oku community request prefectural government],” The Okinawa Times, November 28, 2017. 

10Considering revoking the permission to use Oku Port of the new Henoko base construction,” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 16, 2017.

11Motobu cho ga shiyo wo kyoka Henoko shinkichi heno sekizai hanso de shiyo kikan ha 12 nichi kara 31 nichi [Motobu Town allows use of Motobu port for transport of stone materials for Henoko new base from 12th through 31st],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, December 12, 2017.

12Koyama, Kentaro, “U.S. aircraft part falls on nursery roof, sparks outcry,” The Asahi Shimbun, December 8, 2017.

13Window falls from U.S. military chopper onto Okinawa school grounds,” Kyodo News, December 13, 2017.

14Yoshikawa, Hideki, “Seawall Construction on Oura Bay: Internationalizing the Okinawa Struggle,” The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, June 1, 2017, Volume 15 | Issue 11 | Number 1

15Okinawa files new legal battle over U.S. airfield off Henoko,” The Asahi Shimbun, July 25, 2017.

16Okuko kara no kaijyo hannyu ‘Aratana jitai ga detekitteiru’ [Sea-transportation from Oku Port, A new situation has emerged],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 15, 2017.

17For discussion on the Central government’ control over local governments and the tatewari gyosei, see McVeigh, Brian J. (1998/2013), The Nature of the Japanese State: Rationality and Rituality, Nissan Institute/ Routledge Japanese Studies Series, Routledge.

18The website of Henoko Base Construction Countermeasures Division Executive Office provides information mainly in Japanese on how the prefectural government fights the base construction. 

19In a letter sent to Governor Onaga on December 28, 2017, the Nature Conservation Society of Japan requests the Governor to revoke the land reclamation permit. The letter outlines environmental impacts from base construction including loss of sea grass beds, feeding grounds for dugongs, and alteration of the sea floor from more than 500 concretes blocks placed in Oura Bay. It also points out that ships transporting landfill materials from Oku and Motobu ports to Henoko-Oura Bay are in violation of the conditions on which former Governor Nakaima granted land reclamation permission because they operate in dugongs’ habitats.

20See “2018nen Okinawa chijisen to dojitsu jishi? Shinkichi sanpi tou ‘kenmin tohyo” kento, kengikaiyoto no nerai [Ruling party prefectural assembly members consider prefectural referendum at the same time as 2018 gubernatorial election], The Okinawa Times, December 23, 2017.

See also “Henoko kenmin tohyo de sanpi chijisen doujitsu osoi [yes or no; prefectural referendum to be held on the same day as gubernatorial election; it would be too late],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, December 26, 2017.

Ben Arakaki and Satoko Norimatsu debated the pros and cons of such a referendum in The Okinawa Times between March and May 2017.

21Henoko shin kichi: ‘kenmin tohyo ni nigeruna’ Yamashiro gicho ga Onaga chiji ni kugi [‘Don’t seek help in prefectural referendum’ chairperson Yamashiro warns Governor Onaga],” The Okinawa Times, December 26, 2017.

22See Governor Onaga’s statement and press conference transcript in “Okuko kara no kaijyo hannyu ‘Aratana jitai ga detekitteiru’ [Sea-transportation from Oku port; a new situation has emerged],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 15, 2017.

23Henoko no daitai an okinawa ken ga chakushu futenma heisa e dokuji an [Okinawa prefecture began to develop alternatives for Henoko plan: own plans to close Futenma],” The Okinawa Times, January 1, 2018.

For the U.S. and Japanese governments’ insistence on the Henoko Plan, see the transcript of the joint press conference held by Defense Secretary James Mattis and Defense Minister Inada Tomomi in February 2017.

24See, for example, “Zenkoku chiji anketo: Okinawa no kichifutan keigen ni shokyoku teki [Survey on governors of Japan: Unwilling to help reduce the burden of U.S. military bases in Okinawa],” The Mainichi Shimbun, December 13, 2017.

25Yanagisawa Kyoji, Yara Tomoharu, Handa Shigeru, and Sado Akihiro, A New Vision for Okinawa and Asia-Pacific Security: A Recommendation from the New Diplomacy Initiative (ND) (Tokyo: New Diplomacy Initiative, February 2017). 

26Nakasone Isamu, “’Koji susumu henoko shinkichi; ‘daitai’ an teiji no shini ha nanika [Henoko new base construction underway; What is the real purpose of (proposing) an ‘alternative’ plan?],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, January 10, 2018.

27See Kihara Satoru “Onaga chiji no henoko daitai an ha gongo dodan [Governor Onaga proposing an alternative to the Henoko plan is deplorable]” at his blog site.

I am thankful to Gavan McCormack, Satoko Norimatsu, and Steve Rabson for their discussion of this issue.

28McCormack, Gavan and Norimatsu Oka Satoko, “Chapter 6 The Hatoyama Revolt” in Resistant Islands: Okinawa Confronts Japan and the United States (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2012).

29Recent poll shows 72 % of Okinawans deem the Osprey “dangerous” as 68% suggest withdrawal,” The Ryukyu Shimpo, September 28, 2017.

30For information on the Nago Mayor’s administrative power to stop base construction, see this Diet Questions document (shitsumon shuisho) submitted in January 2014 by Diet House of Representative Member Kantoku Teruya here.

31For information on the exchange between the Nago City Mayor’s Office and Okinawa Defense Bureau, see this document provided at the website of the Nago City Office. 

32See Sato Manabu, “’Henoko soshi no housaku’ Anpo no jijitsu hattshin wo ‘jinken’ shucho dewa todokazu [Strategies to stop Henoko; spread facts about the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty; “human rights issues” are not enough],” November 24, 2017. The Ryukyu Shimpo.

33With the help of environmental NGOs, the Okinawa prefectural government is in contact with the International Union for Conservation of Nature regarding the base construction at Henoko-Oura Bay. See Governor Onaga’s letter to IUCN Director Inger Anderson, here.

Also, the Okinawa prefectural government exchanges information with U.S. and Japanese NGOs involved in the “dugong case” in the U.S. federal court after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Appeals Court ruled in August 2017 against the U.S. Department of Defense.

See “’Shinkichi kensetsu soshi de renkei o’ jyugon sosho beigawa bengo danga kento kyodo kakunin [‘Collaborate to stop new base construction’ U.S. plaintiff group and Okinawa prefectural government confirm their collaboration],” The Ryukyu Shimpo, November 29, 2017.

See Helen Christophi, “9th Circuit Revives Fight for Endangered Dugong on Okinawa,” The Courthousenews, August 21, 2017.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on U.S. Military Base Construction at Henoko-Oura Bay and the Okinawan Governor’s Strategy to Stop It
  • Tags: ,

The Social and Economic Achievements of North Korea

January 22nd, 2018 by Carla Stea

This article first published in June 2017, refutes the mainstream media’s interpretation that North Korea, which was totally destroyed during the Korean war (1950-53) is a backward country and that its citizens live in a state of abysmal poverty.

“My conscience leaves me no other choice than to break the betrayal of my own silences…I know that the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government.”  The Reverend Martin Luther King, Recipient of the Nobel Peace prize.

“The United Nations which was created to prevent the scourge of war has become an instrument of war.”  Former U.S Attorney General Ramsey Clark

Introduction

Washington, D.C.  White House tape recordings, April 25, 1971

President Nixon: “How many did we kill in Laos?”

National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger: “In the Laotian thing, we killed about ten, fifteen thousand”

President Nixon: “See the attack in the North Vietnam that we have in mind..power plants, whatever’s left, POL (Petroleum) the docks..and I think we ought to take the dikes out. Will that drown people?”

Kissinger: “About two hundred thousand people.”

Nixon: “I’d rather use the nuclear bomb.  Have you got that Henry?”

Kissinger: “That, I think, would just be too much.”

Nixon: “The nuclear bomb, does that bother you?  I just want you to think big for Christ sakes.”

May 2, 1972

Nixon: “America is not defeated.  We must not lose in Vietnam…The surgical operation theory is all right, but I want that place bombed to SMITHEREENS  If we draw the sword, we’re going to bomb those bastards all over the place.  Let it fly, let it fly.”

Former President Jimmy Carter: “More than any other nation in the world, the US has been involved in armed conflict and has used war as a means of resolving disputes…I listed 10 or 15 wars and I could have listed 10 or 15 more.  The rest of the world, almost unanimously, looks at America as the No. 1 warmonger.  That we revert to armed conflict almost at the drop of a hat.”  (April 10, 2014).

***

Upon my return, on May 25, 2017 from the DPRK I was appalled by the totalitarian mind-set revealed by the fifteen members of the UN Security Council who supported the new Chapter VII  Resolution 2356, increasing the strangling sanctions against the DPRK, a heroic , progressive, admirable people desperately trying to defend themselves from any repetition of the barbaric slaughter inflicted upon their nation, with the criminal collusion of the UN Security Council, during the first Korean War, 1950-1953.  The unanimous support for the new sanctions by all 15 Security Council members is shameful.  All fifteen members of the Security Council, including the United States, know, categorically, that the DPRK will not attack another country unless they are attacked first, or provoked intolerably.

The United Nations is, once again, demonstrating that it is an annex of the US Pentagon.  It had seemed, with the Russian-Chinese veto of Chapter VII Resolutions against Syria, in recent years, that the UN had some dignity as an independent organization.   On June 2, the UN Security Council revealed that each and every member is under the thumb of the U.S., and willing to unleash a barbaric and criminal attack against a tiny Asian country that is a successful example of a socialist system, and still enduring, despite the criminal sanctions that have so far been inflicted upon that noble people by a racist society that still seeks to impose its will throughout the Eurasian continent.  As General MacArthur said, “the Pacific Ocean is an Anglo-Saxon lake.”

When the great statesman, Lakhdar Brahimi was asked why the United Nations premises and personnel are attacked, repeatedly, in recent years, Brahimi replied that the UN is no longer perceived as an impartial organization, but is now perceived as a party to disputes.  There is no more glaring example of the United Nations craven servility  to the United States dictate than the Security Council’s unanimous support of the viciously punitive sanctions against the DPRK, a country that must be described as a paradise for children, providing excellent, up-to-date health care and education, free of charge, an achievement that few western capitalist countries can demonstrate.

Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, asserted that

“A lie told one thousand times becomes accepted as truth.”

The way the West portrays DPRK (Source: Andre Vltchek)

One of the greatest successes in totalitarian brainwashing has been achieved by the Western Media, which dominates too many people in the West, and within the UN system, who, ignorant of the realities of life within the DPRK, nevertheless challenged me with arrogance when I described what I had discovered during my actual, personal visit to the DPRK. None, and I repeat, none of these people had ever visited the DPRK, yet they held forth with aggression exceeded only by their ignorance, insisting, like imbeciles, that they, despite their complete dearth of accurate knowledge, knew what I had seen.

Part I

After just returning from an in-depth visit to the DPRK, it is difficult, if not impossible to convey in words, or even in photographs, the absolutely awe-inspiring achievements of the people and government of North Korea, who following an unspeakably barbarous attack by the US and South Korea, which, with shameful collaboration by the United Nations, obliterated their entire country, heroically rebuilt their nation.

Today, North Koreans heroically persevere in their socialist development, despite the criminal sanctions being inflicted upon the DPRK by the UN Security Council, which is attempting, in craven servility to US “interests,” to demolish this noble example of an economically and socially equitable and democratic society.  The DPRK remains an example of the courageous pursuit of social and economic justice, despite the existential menace to their survival resulting from the relentless and deadly threats from the overwhelming military power of the ongoing US and South Korean military “exercises” at their border, (exercises entitled “decapitation of the head of government,”) and economic and atomic blackmail by the US, and its servile Security Council.

DPRK Free Public Housing (Source: Andre Vltchek)

Prior to my visit, I was invited to submit a list of activities and people I wanted to visit in Pyongyang.  Almost all my requests were honored during this visit.

When I stepped off the Korya jet onto the airport of Pyongyang, I had no idea of what to expect, beyond the propaganda blitz and dire predictions of danger, preconceptions that had overwhelmingly corrupted the minds of almost everyone in the West, and at the United Nations at the mere mention of North Korea. I knew instinctively, based on past experience with such propaganda, that the truth must inevitably be entirely different from the horror stories I had been told by even the more educated and sophisticated of my colleagues.

But nothing I had heard had prepared me for this discovery of a nation of courageous, loving people, of great intellect, whose efforts to create a society of economic and social justice and equality were succeeding, beyond my wildest hopes and expectations, and despite the barbaric Gestapo-style sanctions inflicted upon these remarkable people by the US and its puppet creation, the UN Security Council.

My discovery began on the Air Korya jet transporting me from Beijing to Pyongyang, and the conversation I began with the North Korean man sitting next to me.  He was not the dour, fearful person the propaganda had led me to expect, but a friendly and riotously funny raconteur, who described North Korea as one of the last socialist countries left in the world.  As we spoke with the lovely flight attendant sitting opposite us, he whispered to me that she was a spy. I replied:  “Which side is she spying for, the CIA or North Korea?” He then added the man sitting in the row behind us was a spy.  I peeked through the seats, and said that the man behind us was sleeping. My new Korean acquaintance said that the man behind us was only pretending to be asleep. I finally realized that my new acquaintance was teasing me, and knowing that I am American, was playing upon the preconceptions he knew I had been indoctrinated with. We discussed the current chaotic world, and as the short flight ended, and he thanked me for an interesting conversation, I realized that these North Koreans might be more interesting, and charming than I had been led to expect.

Awaiting me at the Pyongyang airport was Mr. Jang Su Ung, the interpreter and guide I had requested when I had presented my long list of requests, in submitting my visa application from New York. The North Koreans could not have chosen a more perfect guide for my journey throughout their capital, a man whose infinite patience, sensitivity and  sophisticated intellect were so well suited to my own insatiable curiosity and temperament that my entire visit became the seamlessly happy discovery of a nation of people of surpassing intelligence and dedicated to those humanitarian values I had despaired of ever finding. The totalitarian campaign demonizing North Korea had prepared me for the exact opposite.

I was whisked to the lovely Kobangsan guest house, and immediately upon arrival I was greeted by the elegant and gracious Mr. Ri Yong Pil, Deputy Director-General of the North American Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He thanked me for my prior articles about his country, and invited me to a dinner that evening. After I had changed out of my pink sneakers and into more formal attire, we enjoyed a long dinner of delicious Korean cuisine and a candid, comprehensive discussion of the current extraordinarily complex realities of today’s world, and North Korea’s unique situation within it. I asked the most probing, undiplomatic questions, avoiding evasions and confronting the most controversial issues. I raised the question of the infamous Kirby Report, which I had already studied in depth, and discovered to be a propaganda fabrication based upon reports by defectors who were highly paid for the their gruesome fabrications, and the more grotesque their stories were, the more highly paid they were.  The chief defector, upon whose account Michael Kirby’s Report was chiefly based, Shin Dong-hyuk, subsequently admitted he had lied and falsified his statements, which were, in fact repudiated by the defector community itself. Knowing my questions might be embarrassing for my host, but knowing, also that my probe was essential for the authenticity of my own investigation, I asked Mr. Ri about the identity of these defectors. He replied that some of the defectors had been imprisoned for rape, and other crimes, and that these were not “political prisoners,” as Michael Kirby’s Report falsely alleged. It is important to mention that Michael Kirby has never visited North Korea, and his “commission of Inquiry” is based entirely on hearsay, which was subsequently revealed to be fraudulent. UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, Ivan Simonovic admitted that the Kirby report by the Commission of Inquiry (based on statements  by defectors highly paid to provide the salacious fabrications they understood were sought by the “inquiry,”) does not meet the standard of proof required for admission as evidence in a court of law.

Mr. Ri advised me that, although China had recently turned back two North Korean ships delivering coal to China, in submission to the abhorrent UN sanctions, in fact many nations and industrialists were eager to do business in North Korea, and to invest in developing the DPRK’s rich resources.  The UN’s outrageous sanctions are comparable to the embargo the US placed upon Cuba for decades, and which many astute businessmen, in the US and elsewhere, regarded as counter-productive and idiotic.

Mr. Ri emphasized that the North Korean government and economy, in particular, was based upon the principle of self-reliance, and had avoided, whenever possible, becoming excessively dependant upon any other country, and this explained North Korea’s ability to sustain their progressive, humanitarian social programs despite the punitive and criminal UN sanctions which were attempting to strangle the nation. He mentioned, with greatest respect, that when, recently, severe floods devastated the northern part of the DPRK, causing many deaths and destruction of people’s homes, President Kim Jung-un immediately suspended work on less essential structures in Pyongyang, and directed the workers to go to the northern flooded area, and build new homes for the flood victims. His immediate assistance to the victims was admired by everyone in the country.

One of the many theatres in Pyongyang (Source: Andre Vltchek)

The dinner, my introduction to the DPRK government, lasted several convivial and illuminating hours, and Mr. Ri revealed zero ideological rigidity or fanaticism, and absolutely no belligerence or aggression toward any other country, including the American people.  His focus was upon sustaining and protecting the economic and social programs providing dignified and fulfilling lives for the citizens of the DPRK.  I disclosed to him, and to Mr. Jang, in confidence, that I was present at a reception in New York when a famous and respected American mainstream reporter, accredited to the UN said to Chinese Ambassador Liu:

“If I were Kim Jong-un witnessing the attack on Libya, and the torture-murder of Gaddafi, after he had abandoned their nuclear program, I’d hold on to my nukes!!!”

The morning of May 19 we visited the Okryu Children’s Hospital, which can only be described as a miraculous tribute to the children of North Korea, a design so comforting and respectful of children’s needs that the building itself helps to relieve the trauma, for both children and their parents, of children’s illnesses and injuries, which are treated by expertly trained physicians and nurses, with the most up-to-date equipment.  There are similar hospitals throughout the country, and physicians at other facilities consult, by skype with medical staff at the main Pyongyang hospital, and where cases are too complex or cannot be handled at regional hospitals, children needing more complicated surgery or emergency treatment, are transported by helicopter to the main hospital in Pyongyang for the more extensive treatment necessary.  There is a helicopter landing facility, or helipad, just outside the hospital.

All medical treatment is free of charge, and all children throughout North Korea have access to these medical facilities.  I have never, anywhere, seen any children’s hospitable of comparable high quality and concern for the particular physical and emotional needs of children – and their parents.  The physical therapy section for children born crippled, or with leg deformities which render them unable to walk, was absolutely extraordinary, teaching exercises which built – or rebuilt their foot and leg muscles, transforming them from cripples into children free to walk and run and play normally.  And the diligence with which the children practice these healing rehabilitating exercises is both inspiring and profoundly moving.

Just prior to entering this hospital, I noticed a detail which revealed a world of information about the North Korean women.  To my amazement, a woman entering the hospital with her child was wearing gold stiletto high heels – she was indeed glamourous and elegant, confounding my expectations.  This exploded the stereotypical myth that Korean people are attired in drab, dowdy clothes, exposing their impoverished, degraded condition that the outside world so erroneously attributes to them.  I then noticed, with fascination, that other women, too, wore glamourous high heels, often combined with elegant clothing and colorful parasols protecting them from the sun.  I mentioned to Mr. Jang that I emphasize this detail, because a woman’s shoes, especially high heels, are very often an expression of her self-esteem.  And these women, throughout Pyongyang, evidently enjoy high self-esteem.  And as my visit progressed, I recognized that the DPRK has achieved notable progress on gender-equity, one of the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

Next, that morning, we visited the Ryugyong Ophthalmic Hospital, which provides the most modern, up-to-date treatment for everything from Glaucoma to Macular Degeneration.  I can attest to the expert level of their facilities, as I had my own monovision contact-lenses checked there, and the results of their examination were identical to those of my top ophthalmologist in New York.  These hospitals are filled with patients of all ages, and all of whom receive treatment completely free of charge.  Mr. Jang informed me that physicians and their families have all their expenses paid by the government, so that the doctors are free to concentrate, without distraction, exclusively upon the needs of their patients, thereby providing their patients with the optimal level of care.

Ryugyong General Ophthalmic Hospital Opens

Ryugyong General Ophthalmic Hospital (Source: KFAUSA.org)

That afternoon we visited the Pyongyang High School No. 1, where, at my request, I visited classes of biology, chemistry and physics.  They invited me to look through the microscope with which the students were examining the composition of plants, and I saw the greatly enlarged veins of a leaf.  In the chemistry class, I discussed with the students the chemical substances they were studying, and when I saw the beautiful woman teaching the class I mentioned to my translator that these students might fall in love with their chemistry teacher, and like the new French President, Emanuel Macron, might marry this beautiful teacher, probably 25 years older than they, as the French President Macron had done.  My remark, in jest, was conveyed to the teacher, who laughed, and understood my reference, and my translator, with sincere amusement enjoyed my observation, irreverent though my comment was!  The physics students explained that the object I noticed on their desks was a gyroscope, and we discussed their plans and ambitions as the future physicists of the DPRK.

These science classes included both girls and boys.  I explained that I was a visitor from the United States, and I look forward to the future friendship of our countries.  All the students agreed with my hopes.  They were normal, delightful, beautiful, and (I was told) occasionally mischevious children, the future of their country.  Outside the school were basketball and tennis courts.  The Schools throughout the country are free of charge, and education is compulsory throughout the DPRK.

Afterward, I discussed this visit with Mr. Jang, who advised me that this level of students are serious and diligent, as they are preparing for exams to enter the college and universities.  I mentioned to Mr. Jang that the educational level of the parents would contribute to the students’ performance on examinations, and I mentioned that the children of factory and agricultural workers would be deprived of the intellectual enrichment that children of professional and intellectual workers would receive, and these differences might affect their examination performance. Mr. Jang replied that, in fact, all factories had schools and other educational facilities on their actual premises, so that factory workers had access to all educational facilities both during and after their working hours, to correct any inadequacies in their educational preparation, which thereby enabled them to impart to their children information similar to that provided by their professional or intellectual comrades.  Agricultural workers are also provided with access to educational facilities, to supplement their education.

Saturday Morning, May 30, we visited the Monument Tower to the Worker’s Party of Korea, depicting the Korean struggle, under the leadership of Kim Il Sung, for independence from Japanese imperialism.  I was intrigued by the symbol of the WPK, which Mr. Jang explained to me as follows: whereas other symbols of communist parties depict the sickle and hammer, symbolizing both the industrial worker and agricultural worker, in the center of the DPRK symbol is a pen, signifying the  prestige of the intellectual worker in North Korean society.  This was a revelation, and may explain the great success of the DPRK in developing an advanced socialist society, prevailing over renewed attempts to obliterate the entire country, and speeding ahead with scientific achievements, medical developments, green technology, clean energy, space satellites, and now the development of the nuclear weapons that are essential to protect the country from another attack by the US-ROK aggressors, or by Japan, or aggressive imperialist invasions by any other country.

Unlike other ill-advised attempts to dispatch intellectuals to manual work, Kim il Sung’s decision to afford prestige to the intellectuals propelled North Korea’s development, and it remains today so successful a model of socialist  economic and social development and its achievement is so threatening to the deteriorating capitalist economies of the US and Western Europe that those capitalist countries are pathologically obsessed with destroying what their own systems cannot achieve.

The UN sanctions are deliberately isolating the DPRK, and forcing it into an economic and political ghetto, in persecution for its chosen economic and political path of development, and way of life.  This is no different from the Nazis forcing the Jews into a ghetto in Warsaw.  The UN sanctions are suffocating the industries of the DPRK, just as the Gestapo forced the closing of Jewish businesses in the ghetto.  And this preceded the extermination of a people in Europe, as the UN Sanctions against the DPRK may well be preceding attempts to exterminate that people in Asia

Western Capitalist countries are confronting economic crises, with ill-advised “austerity measures” destabilizing Germany, Italy, France, England, dismantling social protections, provoking riots and increasing terrorist attacks.  Scapegoating the DPRK is a distraction, and North Korea remains an impediment to Western Capitalist hegemonic control of Eurasia.  Geographically, Korea, which borders on Russia and China is the gateway to the Asian continent.  General Douglas MacArthur, aware of the military and strategic importance in the situation of Korea raved,

“By occupying all of Korea we could cut into pieces the one and only supply line connecting Siberia and the South…, control the whole area between Vladivostok and Singapore…nothing would then be beyond the reach of our power.”

Aerial view of the Sci-Tech Complex (Source: Explore DPRK)

On the afternoon of May 20, we visited the Sci-Tec Hall, a dazzling exhibition of the DPRK’s scientific achievement, from space satellites to clean energy technology, and my guide, the exquisite Ms. Kim Won Sim, a theoretical physicist, was the quintessence of elegance, personal and intellectual, and when she mentioned her interest in the Schrodinger equation and quantum theory, I replied that I had also been fascinated by advanced mathematics, which I studied years ago as an undergraduate at Bennington College, and later at Columbia University, and I had a particular interest in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

At that moment, she understood my thinking, and a bond was forged between a North Korean woman physicist and an American woman journalist, who were united by Schrodinger and Heisenberg, sharing a language transcending national boundaries and the insanity of war.  Like so many other North Korean women, I noticed that her complexion had a translucent purity, and I did not know whether this was the result of a special moisturizer unknown in the West, or simply good health.

I confessed to Ms. Kim, as to no one else, why I had given up science – I had not integrated or differentiated a function in decades.  Nevertheless, as she now knew that I was well acquainted with these subjects, she promised to present me with a mathematical puzzle.  Though I protested that I had not looked at a mathematical equation for three decades, I could not resist the temptation of her challenge.

After showing me the special rooms providing scientific equipment and facilities for the disabled, including the blind, and the enchanting rooms and displays introducing science to children, and innumerable other scientific exhibits of achievements in fields of bioengineering, marine and space technologies,  and their scientific and technological principles, trends in agriculture, hydraulics, hydrometeorology, metal, rail transport, architecture, electronics, to mention only a few displays,  she presented me with the mathematical puzzle she had promised.

When I had determined the correct method of solving it, sequentially, she advised me that it required 127 steps to complete, and as I was already late, and had only minutes left, I could not complete the task, which, in any case, she informed me I had already basically solved.  She insisted, however, before we parted, on teaching me how to say “Hello” in Korean, which opened up another new world of discovery to me, when, each time I greeted a Korean child in their own language, they bowed, politely, deeply and ceremoniously to me, and I, in turn curtsied to them.

I spoke freely and at random to people I met in all places, and I greeted North Korean soldiers in their language, stating that I am a US citizen, and our two countries should be friends.  They unhesitatingly agreed, as all barriers of nation, race, language and stereotyped preconception dissolved and the human connection replaced those artificial, alienating obstacles.In these transformative days I forgot the past, all programming and indoctrination, as I became assimilated in the rich intellectual and humanitarian culture of North Korea.

Our day ended at the Mirae Scientist Street, where Mr. Jang showed me the housing community where the scientists and their families live, free of all expense, as all facilities, including medical, necessary for their families were supplied without charge, so that the scientists were unfettered by worry about supporting their families, and were able to concentrate their minds on their scientific endeavor.  This was another clue to the rapid scientific development of North Korea.

As we drove back to the Kobangsan Guest House for dinner, I witnessed a sight of unforgettable beauty: we passed a rural area of agricultural workers in a field.  On the field was spread a gorgeous hot pink blanket, and on the blanket was a little girl of approximately 6 or 7 years, dancing, for her own amusement, and that of any observer.  Where she learned those dance movements I do not know, but her precision and delight in her own performance were riveting to behold.  She was most probably the child of one of the agricultural workers, awaiting the end of the work day when the family would return home for supper, and she was practicing her dance movements as she waited for her parents.  Her pleasure and her skill were obvious.  I regret that I did not ask Mr. Jang to stop the car immediately to take a video of that beautiful child in her brightly colored dress, as she graced the field on that golden afternoon.

Part II

The Perversion of “Human Rights” as a Weapon of Mass Destruction

The corruption of the concept of “human rights” for use as a weapon of mass destruction has been perfected at the United Nations.  As Michael Bassett points out in his essay: “Modern Warfare Korea: the Weaponization of Human Rights”:

“For decades, the American government has shaped and harnessed mass hysteria,“ according to Andrew Burt, “to achieve American political ends abroad. The UN North Korea human rights Commission of Inquiry conveniently established itself within four months of Kim Jong-il’s death.

As PhD. Candidate Steve Haarink points out,  “Since 2006 every Commission of Inquiry has preceded military action that worsened human condition.”….. “The National Endowment for Democracy heavily finances those NGO’s who develop such hysteria.  …Governments intentionally manufacture and harness human rights hysteria. “…..While NED is the go-to organization for financial support amongst North Korea Human Rights NGO’s, the Department of Defense finances a vast human rights industry…..”  “Following international media big and small, especially from the US, one acutely gets the feeling that human rights awareness campaigns operate like bombs – they target, they explode, and they seek to destroy all that is in sight.  They are about precisions, but like bombs their explosions can be exactly the opposite – imprecise, unpredictable, and indiscriminate in their maiming.  Though their campaigns impact thinking here, their devastation is always across the border – foreign land, foreign lives, and foreign necessary cost of winning.  Human rights awareness campaigns have transformed North Korea Human Rights NGO’s into US government-funded information warfare contractors….” “First, it is known that a lying Iraqi defector influenced the decision-making process that led the US into Operation Iraqi Freedom – a war that destabilized the Middle East, leaving it in ruins.  Second, North Korean defectors have been known to organize secret disinformation campaigns to sway public opinion in their interests….”  “Collapsing a country is no easy task.  The strategy, or so it appears, consists of several campaigns occurring simultaneously.  It is unknown to the author who – if any single person – is orchestrating the overall “North Korea Operation,” but it is apparent that there is a concerted effort to forcibly collapse the regime.

Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in 1991:

“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

In 1993 the distinguished Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Murray Kempton wrote me a personal letter describing the National Endowment for Democracy as a “repellant and vicious pest,” and those words perfectly describe the NED’s proteges, the “celebrity defectors,”  central to the militarized disinformation campaign.  As Shen Dong-hyak’s falsifications have disgraced him, a new rock-star defector, YeonMi Park makes over $12,000.00 per speech, slandering the DPRK with her disinformation campaign,with much more money in the offing.  Indeed, contriving disinformation slandering the DPRK is becoming a very profitable industry, a lucrative profession comparable to the oldest one.

One afternoon, as we drove to a meeting, Mr. Jang brilliantly analyzed the methods and purpose of the sanctions.  To paraphrase what he said:  The sanctions depress and degrade the quality of life for the people in a nation, who, in misery and frustrationeventually  blame and attack the government, bringing about its collapse, and causing regime change, and this is accomplished without military intervention.

On the April 28, 2017 Ministerial Level Security Council meeting, Russia’s Deputy-Minister Gatilov stated:

“Sanctions should not be used either economically to suffocate the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea nor to worsen the humanitarian situation.  This applies in particular to the illegitimate unilateral restrictions targeting civilian areas not associated with the country’s nuclear missile programmes.  Such sanctions are the reason for the serious deterioration in the living conditions of the North Korean people, which, incidentally, was identified as a cause for alarm in the most recent report of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.  They are justifiably very alarmed about that.  We must acknowledge that the humanitarian exemptions provided for by the Security Council’s sanctions regime essentially do not work.  Because of the ban on correspondent relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, it is impossible to purchase abroad the goods and food stuffs necessary for the economy.  Because of the way the financial and banking system works, it is very difficult to obtain funding for the United Nations humanitarian agencies that are still working in the country.  Since Pyongyang cannot replenish its foreign currency reserves owing to the existing restrictions, it could find itself in a situation where it is impossible for it to give the United Nations the funds that are to be channeled to it, as permitted by the Committee.  A separate issue is the situation with regard to foreign diplomatic missions in Pyongyang.  We should not allow a situation in which diplomatic missions continue to experience difficulties in carrying out their work because of the restrictions imposed on the country.  We have repeatedly raised this issue at meetings of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), but as a result of the obstructionist position taken by its individual members, the situation has not changed at all.”

Among the most despicable examples of hypocrisy and double standards contained in Resolution 2356, adopted under Chapter VII, is the passage stating:

“Expressing great concern that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s prohibited arms sales have generated revenues that are diverted to the pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles while the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea citizens have unmet needs.”

The above passage is a grotesque travesty of concern, and a projection by the United States of its own brutal and inhumane investment in nuclear weapons while the needs of the American people are ignored, and while the taxes of the American people are stolen to fund “upgraded” nuclear weapons – and war.  By April, 2016 the United States government invested one trillion dollars in developing and modernizing nuclear weapons, a nuclear “revitalization program,” including five classes of improved nuclear arms and associated delivery vehicles, building nuclear weapons that are smaller, stealthy and precise. At Los Alamos, New Mexico, senior military, nuclear weapons officials convened in Albuquerque to promote $1 trillion nuclear weapons plan.  The meeting was organized by the “Strategic Deterrent Coalition” (SDC) and by Northrup Grumman, Boeing, Orbital ATK, BAE Systems, etc., and directly funded by the Air Force. Present at the meeting are Speakers:  Adm. Cecil Haney, Commander of the US Strategic Command, Lt. General Jack Weinstein, Dep. USAF Chief of Staff for Nuclear Integration, General Robin Rand, Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command, and others, including the Mayor of Albuquerque Richard Berry.

As was stated by an opposition group,

“The fairly tight-knit, militarist, anti-environmental political faction shaped and sustained by the nuclear weapons enterprise in New Mexico has worked with considerable success to undermine labor, environmental protection, and socially-progressive policies in our state for many years.  Their negative influence has strongly contributed to the poor economic and social outcomes we see.  Our fawning loyalty to the nuclear weapons mission, to the two big labs and to Kirtland among the other bases is a political addiction, a sickness.”

While the United States invests $1 trillion tax dollars in “revitalizing nuclear weapons,”  Save the Children Federation, based in Fairfield Connecticut reports that:

“The United States continues to have one of the highest infant mortality rates among high-income industrialized countries…In 2015 an estimated 23,455 babies in the United States died before their first birthday – more than the combined total of infant deaths in 40 European countries during the same year.  Nine small, impoverished rural counties in Texas reported a combined average mortality rate of more than 22 per 1,000 live births in 2013..”

“One in every five children lives in a household that does not have regular access to food.” “Millions of families across America struggle to put healthy food on their tables.  One in every five children lives in a household that does not have regular access to food throughout the year.Nearly 1 in every 3 households with an income below the poverty threshold experienced food insecurity in 2015.  In addition, more than half a million children live in households with ‘very low food security,’ according to the latest government figures.  Children in these households face a much higher risk of malnutrition, obesity and hunger, which could hinder their physical and mental development and reduce their chances of growing up strong and healthy….Overall, 13.1 million children lived in households that lacked access to adequate food sometime during 2015.  Of greatest concern are the estimated 541,000 children who live in households that experienced ‘very low food security.’  For these children, the situation was ‘so severe that caregivers reported that children were hungry, skipped a meal, or did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food.”

“Lack of education traps children in poverty.  Each year an estimated 750,000 students drop out of school and join the ranks of some 5.5 million U.S. youth aged 16-24 who are neither in school nor working.  For millions of young adults, they have dropped out of school and now face a life of endless struggle, with few prospects of finding a job with a livable wage, buying a home or supporting a family.  “

“Child abuse and drug dependence also disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of U.S. children each year.  In 2015 there were 683,000 reported  victims of child abuse.  Three out of four were victims of neglect.  17 percent were physically abused and 8 percent were sexually abused…..Drug overdose deaths among teens and young adults have skyrocketed”

June 2, 2017:  USA Today reports

“Homelessness in Los Angeles hits a new high after county supervisors declare a state of emergency.”

More than 57,000 people are homeless in Los Angeles County.  In New York City, 60,000 are homeless, as reported in Gothamist.  On any given night, 600,000 people are homeless in the United States.  This condition of homelessness often deprives these people of the right to vote, as photo identification containing home address are required in some states, so the poorest, the homeless in the United States are also disenfranchised.

The Los Angeles Times features a May 31, 2017 article by Carla Hall that states:

“Homelessness is everywhere, and if you thought this fog of misery was beginning to lift, think again.  In fact, the new numbers are grim.   The number of homeless people has risen a startling 20% in the City of Los Angeles.”

What is the American government doing for the American people?  The government invests huge sums in nuclear weapons, but almost nothing in poverty alleviation.

While I was in North Korea, many people told me that their President Kim Jung-un loves children, and there is strong evidence of this in the many facilities available to encourage and assist children in health, education, and recreational activities enticing for children, including a “Dolphinarium,” during which positively reinforced trained dolphins perform, and plump sea lions sit in front of an audience packed with children, shaking their fins with children’s hands, and kissing members of the audience, then waddling off behind their trainers, as the children stared with enchantment.  At the circus, both children and adults gasp at the phenomenal skill and daring of acrobatic trapeze artists!

On May 22 I met with Dr. Lee Ki Song, an official in the Institute for Economy of the Academy of Social Science.  During our two hour meeting we discussed the necessity for more equitable global distribution of wealth and access to health care and education, and Dr. Lee discussed the need for the anti-imperialist countries to unite to oppose the aggression of imperialist powers, and he affirmed the right of the countries victimized by imperialism to defend themselves from the multi-pronged forms of attack upon their lives.

For the sake of brevity, I must omit many of the fascinating events I witnessed, but it would not be possible to close without describing my visit to the “Victorious Fatherland Liberation War Museum,” with its miniature reconstruction of the horrors of the United States-Republic of Korea attack upon North Korea during 1950-1953.  The brief documentary film clips showed President Truman, General MacArthur and Dulles methodically and psychopathically planning that attack, and gloating over their own cleverness in planning a surprise attack on North Korea on Sunday, June 25, when it was so unexpected, and the people of North Korea, unprepared for the attack, would suffer the greatest shock.  The documentary ended with the terrorized faces of the North Korean children, whose lives were instantly blown apart.  I suddenly wept at the realization that after the Armistice, MacArthur was replaced by other psychopathic generals, but the horrors of imperialism were repeated in country after country, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, human lives were decimated, nations exploited and bled white, and exorbitant war profits fattened the bloated bank accounts of that 1% whom Oxfam states now have more wealth than the rest of the world combined.  “A global network of tax havens further enables the richest individuals to hide $7.6 trillion dollars.”

This was the process the US government also used to destabilize and overthrow the democratically elected government of Goulart in Brazil, replacing him with a fascist military government subservient to US corporations.  This process was repeated to destabilize and overthrow the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende in Chile, replacing his government by one of the most vicious fascist dictatorships in history, a puppet installed and supported by the U.S., a Chilean fascism whose police routinely forced live rats into the vaginas of female political prisoners, as reported by David Remnick in the Washington Post, in 1986.  I worked, as a reporter, in both Brazil and Chile during the years of those horrific dictatorships, and I can never forget.  And in the North Korean War Museum I remembered everything.

Imperialism is a cancer that spreads and morphs and adapts its methods to changing conditions, and it has now metastasized and spread its cancer to the UN Security Council.  The United Nations has never apologized to Iraq for Security Council Resolution 678 which authorized the US-UK “Coalition” to use “all necessary means,” in attacking Iraq, and which Finland’s President Martii Ahtissari reported “destroyed the infrastructure necessary to support human life in Iraq.”  The UN has never apologized to Libya for Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorized US-NATO to use “all necessary measures,” and which entirely destroyed the Libyan state, transforming it into an incubator for terrorism.

One can only hope that now, witnessing the carnage of Security Council action, DPRK President Kim Jong-un will also use “all necessary means” to protect his astoundingly brave and beautiful people, and their chosen humanitarian way of life.

The DPRK President, though ridiculed by the American press, is evidently very dedicated to his people, attending to the needs of orphans, and the disabled, providing the highest level of education for his people, building factories to supply women with excellent leather shoes, while the UN sanctions are designed to degrade the intellectual and cultural level of the North Korean people.  This has nothing to do with the nuclear weapons production.  This is a US driven UN plan to degrade the culture of North Korea, a form of cultural genocide, alongside the sanctions  crushing  the economy, reducing the lives of the North Korean people to a level that will become intolerable.

Just in case this “full court press,” intended to eviscerate the lives of these heroic North Korean citizens does not succeed, we can count on attempts to assassinate Kim Jung-un, as were reported by the Financial Times, and the New York Times, and the Pyongyang Times in May, when a CIA-South Korean plot to assassinate the President of DPRK, using bio-chemical substances, was discovered.

This article began with quotes from three great American patriots, Reverend Martin Luther King, former President Jimmy Carter, and former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, denouncing our country’s violence.  History will condemn the current US-led United Nations assault on the DPRK as one of the greatest crimes of the twenty-first century.

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.

Featured image: Andre Vltchek

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Social and Economic Achievements of North Korea

Selected Articles: US Military Confrontation with Russia and China

January 21st, 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.

*     *     *

“Explosive”, “Shocking” and “Alarming” FISA Memo Set to Rock DC, “End Mueller Investigation”

By Zero Hedge, January 21, 2018

All hell is breaking loose in Washington D.C. after a four-page memo detailing extensive FISA court abuse was made available to the entire House of Representatives Thursday. The contents of the memo are so explosive, says Journalist Sara Carter, that it could lead to the removal of senior officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice and the end of Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation.

Why Trump’s North Korea ‘Bloody Nose’ Campaign Is a Big Bluff

By Gareth Porter, January 21, 2018

The Trump administration’s leaks of plans for a “bloody nose” strike on North Korean nuclear and/or missile sites is only the most recent evidence of its effort to sell the idea that the United States is prepared for a first strike against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). But the “bloody nose” leak—and the larger campaign to float the idea of a first strike against North Korea—isn’t going to convince Kim Jong Un or anyone else who has paid close attention to the administration’s propaganda output.

Pentagon Unveils Strategy for Military Confrontation with Russia and China

By Bill Van Auken, January 21, 2018

The Trump administration’s defense secretary, former Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, rolled out a new National Defense Strategy Friday that signals open preparations by US imperialism for direct military confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia and China.

Chinese Engineer’s Disappearance in Pakistan Takes on Geopolitical Significance

By James M. Dorsey, January 21, 2018

Thirty-six-year-old Chinese engineer Pingzhi Liu went missing almost a month ago. It took Pakistani authorities three weeks to classify Mr. Liu’s disappearance as a likely kidnapping that could have significant political and economic consequences.

Body of Evidence Suggests New US Biological Warfront Opening Up

By Henry Kamens, January 20, 2018

We know that the Richard E. Lugar Centre in Tbilisi is actually a biological weapons lab. It has always been assumed that the US Department of Defense took over this facility, alongside a string of others in the former Soviet Union, for offensive purpose, and that the “scientific research” into animal and human diseases it claims to be carrying out is merely a front for developing new biological strains, viruses and bacteria, and then testing them on the Georgian population and the agricultural industry, without asking for consent, and even developing new generation vaccines and cures which are often experimental, naturally donated or supported by the US Department of Defence and German medical research facilities.

How the Establishment Undermines American Democracy

By Philip Giraldi, January 20, 2018

There is a growing consensus among many observers in Washington that the national security agencies have become completely politicized over the past seventeen years and are now pursuing selfish agendas that actually endanger what remains of American democracy.

Continuity of Agenda: US Encirclement of China Continues Under Trump

By Ulson Gunnar, January 21, 2018

The United States has pursued a decades-long policy of encircling, containing and if possible, undermining China as part of a larger strategy of achieving and maintaining what US policy papers call “primacy” over Asia.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: US Military Confrontation with Russia and China

The United States has pursued a decades-long policy of encircling, containing and if possible, undermining China as part of a larger strategy of achieving and maintaining what US policy papers call “primacy” over Asia.

US policy has led to deeply-rooted networks operating within China’s borders and along China’s geopolitical peripheries to divide and destabilize the immense and increasingly powerful Asian state. These networks are funded and supported regardless of who occupies the White House. While the rhetoric shifts from president to president regarding “why” the US is providing so-called “activists” and “opposition” fronts aid, the aid and the agenda it serves continues.

Under current US President Donald Trump’s predecessor President Barack Obama, this ongoing policy was marketed to the American and international public as the “Pivot to Asia.” It was spun as a means for the US to reengage with Asia but in reality constituted an overt attempt to co-opt the governments of China’s neighbors and break up the region’s growing ties with Beijing.

Obama’s “Pivot” was a failure, but one within the greater context of a general decline in US primacy both in the Asia Pacific region and around the world.

Under Trump, this policy of encircling and containing China continues. It is now marketed to the public as an “Indo-Pacific” strategy, with the US forced to court India, Australia and Japan on the fringes of Asia Pacific after failing to make progress within Asia Pacific itself.

It is important to understand just how long-term these polices are so that when Trump announces them to the public, the public understands that it is not “Trump’s” policy, but simply Trump continuing to carry out the agenda of the very special interests (the so-called “Deep State”) he vowed to resist upon taking office.

Understanding that these policies serve special interests and at the cost of the American public helps inoculate the public to rhetoric claiming that confronting China and destabilizing Asia is somehow part of “making America great again.”

Tibet

Tibet is one of the oldest and most clear-cut examples of a political controversy used by Washington to target and undermine Beijing’s credibility.

The centerpiece of US strategy in Tibet has been an independence movement led by the Dali Lama, the so-called spiritual leader of Tibet and a political figure the US through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has backed both politically and militarily since at least as early as the 1950s.

Upon the US State Department’s own website under a section titled, “Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, Volume XXX, China: 341. Memorandum for the 303 Committee,” it is admitted that:

The CIA Tibetan program, parts of which were initiated in 1956 with the cognizance of the Committee, is based on U.S. Government commitments made to the Dalai Lama in 1951 and 1956. The program consists of political action, propaganda, paramilitary and intelligence operations, appropriately coordinated with and supported by [less than 1 line of source text not declassified].

The report also states that:

In the political action and propaganda field, Tibetan program objectives are aimed toward lessening the influence and capabilities of the Chinese regime through support, among Tibetans and among foreign nations, of the concept of an autonomous Tibet under the leadership of the Dalai Lama; toward the creation of a capability for resistance against possible political developments inside Tibet; and the containment of Chinese Communist expansion—in pursuance of U.S. policy objectives stated initially in NSC 5913/1.2 [6 lines of source text not declassified]. 

It should be noted that the document specifically mentions “the containment of Chinese Communist expansion.”

The policy of creating “autonomous” regions within a sovereign state aimed at “lessening the influence and capabilities” of a targeted central government is a policy that should look familiar to any impartial observer of contemporary US foreign policy. It is not only precisely the same policy the US openly pursues in the occupation and attempted partitioning of the Syrian Arab Republic, but it is also the very same policy the US is pursuing in another region of China, its western Xinjiang province.

Separatist Terrorism in Xinjiang

China’s western province of Xinjiang is home to some 21 million people. Of those 21 million, less than half are of the Turkic ethnic group known as Uyghurs. Practitioners of Islam, the US has used terrorist networks developed within NATO member Turkey to infiltrate, pervert and radicalize a fringe minority of the Uyghur community while the US itself openly funds and promotes separatism via political opposition fronts and across local and international media.

Turkey’s notorious “Grey Wolves” terrorist organization was wielded by NATO during the Cold War as a tool of political coercion. It is still used today by US-NATO interests both within Turkey and beyond, even as far as Southeast Asia. The Grey Wolves have been implicated in training and arming terrorist cells within Xinjiang.

Overt US support for separatists in Xinjiang can be easily found on the US State Department-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) website. The US is so extensively engaged in political subversion within China that it was necessary to divide its funding of subversive activities into multiple categories: China (Hong Kong)China (Mainland)China (Tibet) and China (Xinjiang/East Turkistan).

US support for separatism is exposed forthright with the inclusion of the term “East Turkistan,” it being the name of the political entity US-backed agitators and militants seek to carve off from Chinese territory. Over a quarter of a million US taxpayer dollars is allotted annually to the World Uyghur Congress (WUC), a Germany-based front with offices in Washington DC headed by Rebiya Kadeer who openly pursues separatism and who also refers to China’s Xinjiang province as “East Turkistan.”

The US in its various policy papers regarding regime change elsewhere around the world has repeatedly admitted that “peaceful” movements like the WUC attempts to portray itself as are unlikely to succeed without an armed component to prevent a targeted government from simply uprooting foreign-funded sedition. Thus, just as the US State Department admitted it has done in Tibet, the US is clearly engaged via NATO-proxies and separatist political fronts it openly funds and directs, in efforts to “lessen the influence and capabilities” of Beijing in Xinjiang by attempting to create the “autonomous” region of “East Turkistan.”

Demonstrations in Hong Kong 

Hong Kong was taken by the British Empire from China by force and occupied for over a century. When the British finally departed Hong Kong in 1997, it imposed upon Beijing demands instituting what is known as the “one country, two systems” under the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

In essence, the British attempted to maintain Hong Kong as a political and economic foothold despite “returning” it to Beijing’s control. Beijing has since incrementally dismantled this arrangement and has steadily reasserted its sovereignty over its returned territory.

To counter this, the US and its European allies have organized, funded and directed “pro-democracy” protests in Hong Kong who focus primarily on coercing Beijing to uphold the UK’s parting demands.

The so-called “Umbrella Revolution” in 2014 was a textbook example of what is now widely known as a “color revolution.” The protests consisted of leaders openly funded by the US State Department including Martin Lee who had literally visited Washington DC (NED event including full video here) pleading for aid just months before the protests unfolded.

Another political figure crafted by America’s immense media influence is Joshua Wong, a university student who repeatedly denied his sudden fame and political influence stemmed from ties with Washington, but who eagerly traveled to Washington DC to collect an award from NED subsidiary, Freedom House, upon the protests’ conclusion.

The “pro-democracy” protests in Hong Kong, when put into context of Washington’s long-term strategy to contain and encircle China, are transparently illegitimate. While figures like Wong insist they are pursuing “democracy” and “self-determination” for Hong Kong, with their movement entirely propped up by the United States and its European allies it is clear that they represent foreign interests, specifically at the expense of any notion of “democracy” or “self-determination” for Hong Kong.

Destabilizing Southeast Asia 

It is clear enough that China is being systematically targeted and undermined within its own borders by US foreign policy stretching from the end of World War II and continuing to present day. However, just as important, are US efforts to encircle, contain and undermine China along its peripheries.

This includes Southeast Asia where the US has spent decades attempting to influence and control the region. This included the outright invasion of Vietnam, proxies wars fought in neighboring Laos and Cambodia and political upheaval the US has sponsored everywhere from Myanmar to Malaysia and Thailand to Indonesia.

During the administration of US President George Bush Jr., the US had lined up proxy regimes in Thailand under Thaksin Shinawatra, Malaysia under Anwar Ibrahim and Myanmar under Aung San Suu Kyi. To a lesser extent, Cambodia under Hun Sen served US interests until only recently.

However, of these four nations, only Myanmar represents a partial success. Thailand has ousted Shinawatra and his proxies from power, Anwar Ibrahim resides in prison and Cambodia has increasingly built ties with Beijing at Washington’s expense.

Still, US-funded networks seek to impede Southeast Asian ties with China through a variety of activities including political destabilization and terrorism. The US also funds organizations posing as environmental and human right activists that impede regional development driven by Chinese infrastructure projects under the guise of protecting the environment and the livelihoods of villagers living near the future sites of rail, dam and other major projects.

In any given nation across Southeast Asia, the US NED along with its various subsidiaries and partners can be found fueling social division, conflict and even attempting to impede security operations against suspiciously convenient terrorism. More recently, the US under Trump has increased subversive activities in Thailand and Cambodia as both nations move to further uproot US-backed opposition groups.

Upon a map, if China finds itself facing US-backed subversion along the west in Tibet, Xinjiang and its short border with US-occupied Afghanistan and to the east with US troops literally stationed in Korea and Japan, then US subversion in Southeast Asia represents a third front of adversity fueled by Washington and one that now continues under Trump’s “Indo-Pacific” strategy.

Afghanistan and the Korean Peninsula 

Of course, there are multiple theories to explain Washington’s perpetual occupation of Afghanistan including its proximity to Pakistan, Russia and Iran. But Afghanistan also shares a short border with China. A US military presence on China’s far western border helps bookend America’s substantial military presence in Korea, Japan and the Philippines to China’s far east.

The US continues occupying South Korea following an armistice signed in 1953 marking the effective end of the Korean War. The US has since intentionally and continuously provoked North Korea, creating a strategy of tension and thus perpetually justifying its military presence on the peninsula. The US has openly and repeatedly called for regime change in North Korea. It has published entire policy papers detailing strategies for the invasion, occupation and subjugation of North Korea.

And while the US insists its presence on the Korean Peninsula is a matter of global peace and security, it is transparently obvious that it remains involved in and in fact fueling the conflict for the sole purpose of maintaining a military presence toward China’s east as part of its wider, long-term containment policy.

Rearming Japan

After Japan’s defeat in World War II, the island nation adopted a pacifist foreign policy. It had refused to involve itself in foreign interventions and maintained what it termed Self-Defense Forces. Its constitution prohibits its rearmament and the use of warfare to resolve disputes. The constitution states specifically:

1. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

2. In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Yet, now as the US finds its influence in Asia Pacific waning, there have been attempts to pressure the Japanese government to amend its constitution and help augment US military aggression across the region.

Far from a conspiracy theory, prominent Western policy analysts openly acknowledge this in their coverage of Japan’s defense policy.

Defense News in a 2015 article titled, “Japan Pursues Rearmament, Despite Opposition,” would report that:

Efforts by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to normalize Japan’s security posture and bolster its US alliance against China hit an obstacle when the Lower House Commission on the Constitution declared Abe’s moves unconstitutional. Still, Japan is expected to pass legislation around August to expand the nation’s ability to better support the US in the defense of Japan.

In a minor bombshell, on June 4, Setsu Kobayashi, professor emeritus of Constitutional Law at Keio University and member of the Lower House Commission on the Constitution, said provisions allowing limited rights of collective self defense as promoted by the Abe administration are unconstitutional.

“Paragraph 2 of Article 9 does not grant any legal standing for military activities abroad,” Kobayashi is reported to have said. “Going to war abroad to help a friendly nation is a violation of Article 9,” he said.

Japan possesses the ability to more than adequately defend itself from any aggressor, including China. Furthermore, if free of Washington’s coercive influence bending Tokyo toward confrontation with Beijing, China and Japan could forge economic and defense pacts of their own that would make possible confrontations even more remote than they already are.

US “ties” to Asian states including Japan represent a rather transparent effort to augment US primacy, offering little incentive to those being used. Japan, in other words, is viewed as an expendable buffer between US hegemonic ambitions and the states it is targeting to achieve that hegemony. Japan would then be first to pay the price for Washington’s geopolitical miscalculations vis-à-vis Beijing. 

That these policies have been pursued for decades, indifferent to the White House’s occupants helps shed light on those special interests that truly drive US policy and use political theater like that provided by the current Trump administration as cover to continue doing so with impunity. In the past when the US held uncontested global hegemony, both after World War II and again shortly after the Cold War, America paid few direct consequences for its actions abroad.Today, however, as US hegemony wanes and a multipolar balance of global power emerges, the US will increasingly pay a price for its attempts to cling to its unipolar “international order.” It is a price that the American people will pay economically and in terms of blood of their armed forces, a price that American special interests will continue shifting onto the American people themselves for as long as possible.Trump’s campaign mantra of “make America great again” echoes hallow in the face of this reality, exemplified in Asia in terms of US policy versus Beijing, but a reality that is repeated across the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe and beyond. As long as Trump continues pursuing policies put forth by unelected special interests at the cost of those who voted him into office, America’s position internationally will continue to fold and as more resources are poured into futile efforts to reverse this otherwise irreversible trend, America will never be “great” again.

*

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 New Eastern Outlook.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Continuity of Agenda: US Encirclement of China Continues Under Trump
  • Tags: ,

On January 18, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and Iranian-backed militias liberated the village of Qaytal fom Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) in southern Aleppo and almost closed the eastern Idlib pocket.

Late on the same day, ISIS reportedly captured thirty villages, including Rasm al-Dhaba, al-Muwaylah, abu Ajwa, Muakar Shamali, Huma, Najm Al-Zuhur, Umm Qurun and Rasm Arira, in northeastern Hama and southwestern Aleppo from Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).

According to reports, some of HTS members withdrew from the area to avoid being encircled by the SAA while the rest of them just joined ISIS.

The pro-opposition news outlet Enab Baladi also reported that ISIS fighters started an advance to reach the SAA-held village Tell Daman in order to open a route towards Idlib province.

The ISIS Hunters of the SAA’s 5th Assault Corps have repelled a suicide vehicle borne improvised explosive device attack by ISIS in the Euphrates Valley. According to the unit’s media wing, the attack was an attempt to break the blockade imposed by government forces on ISIS units in the Homs desert.

On January 18, two ISIS VBIEDs attacked the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in Gharanij in southeastern Deir Ezzor, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). The ISIS-linked news agency Amaq added that ISIS fighters targeted a gathering of SDF fighters and destroyed a Humvee with an ATGM.

According to SOHR, ISIS still controls the villages of Abu Hassan, al-Bubadran, al-Baghuz, al-Susah and al-Shaafah as well as large parts of Hajin, Gharanij and al-Bahra on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River.

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson decided to say that Washington has no plans to create a 30,000-strong border force in northern Syria and claimed that the issue has been “misportrayed”.

“We are not creating a border security force at all,” he said.

However, just few days ago, the Pentagon officially announced the creation of this border force.

“The Coalition is working jointly with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to establish and train the new Syrian Border Security Force (BSF). Currently, there are approximately 230 individuals training in the BSF’s inaugural class, with the goal of a final force size of approximately 30,000,” spokesman for the US-led coalition Colonel Thomas F. Veale said. “The base of the new force is essentially a realignment of approximately 15,000 members of the Syrian Democratic Forces to a new mission in the Border Security Force as their actions against ISIS draw to a close.”

Meanwhile, Turkish Chief of General Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar and National Intelligence Organization (MİT) Undersecretary Hakan Fidan met in Moscow with Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and other officials for talks on Syria.

It does not look like Ankara is ready to see the US as a reliable partner in this conflict.

*

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

Featured image is from South Front.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syrian Troops Almost Closed Eastern Idlib Pocket

The Deep State, Russiagate, and Donald Trump

January 21st, 2018 by Anthony Newkirk

From the new book by journalist Michael Wolff about bickering inside the current White House to President Donald J. Trump‘s latest foul-mouthed display, the year is beginning with a lot of distracting “news” about U.S. national politics. Of course, the situation is fueled by Trump himself, with his addiction to publicity.

Admittedly, Trump is an unusual president in the sense that one-percenters have tended to keep at arm’s length from the Oval Office (at least directly). But The Donald’s been in our lives for many years. Maybe incompetent, he’s never been shy. Take his Russian business ties; he appeared at the end of a 2013 music video starring the son of Russian oligarch Aras Agalarov.

More than personality searches, though, things-Trump make more sense in the context of the deep state, a term cropping up in all forms of media lately. A popular interpretation is it has something to do with covert government actions. Referring to security services and criminal groups operating outside the law, the term traces the term’s actual can be traced to the Ottoman Empire. Turkey’s Kurdish minority would often be targeted by deep state operations. The shooter in the 1981 assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II belonged to a far-right group tied to the Turkish branch of Operation Gladio.

Recently in The Nation, historian Greg Grandin suggested that the deep-state concept is best understood in the context of all competing interests in the power structure, including both the intelligence community and big business.

Aside from Swiss bank accounts and high-profile assassinations, little is really secret about the deep state. A good example is the controversy about Russian interference in the Election of 2016. Here are the highlights of what is publicly known about “Russiagate”:

In the summer of 2016, a hacker, or group of hackers (“Guccifer 2.0”) stole tens of thousands of documents from the Democratic National Committee’s server and gave them to Wikileaks, which thereupon released them to the public. The DNC claimed the material came from “the Russians.” At the same time, a joint CIA-FBI-NSA probe began under the auspices of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. A few weeks later, the FBI warned that election systems in Arizona and Illinois were infiltrated by foreign actors.

In October 2016, Wikileaks released thousands of emails drafted by Clinton campaign director John Podesta. In addition to behind-the-scenes workings of the campaign, the emails dealt with Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street speeches and the Clinton Foundation. Whereupon, a DNC law firm hired Fusion GPS to collect information on how the Kremlin tried to suborn Trump. Fusion GPS hired a former British spy to write a report. Based on hear-say, the Steele dossier was passed to U.S. intelligence agencies. The Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats in December. President Vladimir Putin kicked 755 U.S. diplomats out of Russia several months later.

A year ago, the ODNI committee released an Intelligence Community Assessment summary. It argues Putin authorized cyber hacks of the election. Although it does “not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election” or “analyze US political processes or US public opinion,” the report sees a pattern of Russian media interference. Then there’s this statement in small print:

“Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation and precedents.”

The report was embraced by the bipartisan establishment and mainstream media as gospel truth.

On March 20 2017, then-FBI director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee. He said a cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC named Cloud Strike concluded “with high certainty” in the spring of 2016 that Russian cyber-spies hacked the DNC. Shortly after, the FBI started a “counter-intelligence” probe of Trump-Kremlin ties. Interestingly, Comey had already told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the DNC refused to give the Bureau direct access to its computer servers (so his later claim to the same committee that Trump wasn’t under FBI investigation was technically consistent).

In early May, The Donald fired Comey. Within days, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed Robert Mueller to run a probe of Russian election meddling. Comey was Mueller’s FBI successor.

The witch hunt picked up tempo in the summer of 2017, sweeping up leftwing dissidents. The Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed documents possessed by Jill Stein in connection to her Green Party presidential campaign. Pressure was brought to bear on Black Live Matter too. Trump was a pretext. The first articles of impeachment filed against him in the House in July were dismissed in December. A few days later, high-level Department of Justice official Peter Strzok was kicked off the Mueller probe for making anti-Trump comments.

Evidence is even emerging that the Clinton campaign preferred Trump as its general election opponent.

Historian Jackson Lears recently wrote that the “religion of the Russian hack” is a manifestation of domestic austerity and wars of aggression abroad. He wonders why the intelligence community should be revered when it’s no secret it opposes democracy and peace.

Russiagate shows how deeply ingrained is the ideology of American Exceptionalism. There are many examples. Take self-described liberal Van Jones talking about Russia’s “active attack on our country.”

Russiagaters are self-serving. Investor Bill Bowder, beloved of the mainstream media these days, vents outrage about Russia’s oligarchs. Yet his self-righteous words ring hollow when his own activities are considered. In November, Donna Brazile, who briefly ran the DNC after Debbie Wasserman Schultz lost the position in the summer of 2016, claimed the Democratic primary was rigged by the Clinton campaign. But in a book released at the same time, she argues there was also Russian hacking.

What’s little heard from establishment circles is the reason why the election was subverted: The DNC favored Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders and voter suppression guaranteed the favored outcome. Wikileaks emails show DNC operatives plotting to subvert the Democratic primary. Related to this are the emails written by Clinton when she was Secretary of State. They suggest she used her office to raise funds for the Clinton Foundation; they also shed light on the Obama administration’s negotiation of the Uranium One agreement with Putin. 

According to the New York Times, the Justice Department knew about Bill Clinton’s 2010 overtures to Russian nuclear regulatory authorities. The FBI “investigation” that began in the summer of 2015 ended with Mrs. Clinton’s absolution over a year later.

There are many conclusions we can make about this. One lesson stands out: The only response America’s deep-state elites have to growing public dissension with neoliberalism is to promote organized hysteria at the risk of explosive contradictions, be they in the form of conspiracy theories like Russiagate or fraudulent presidents like Donald Trump.

*

Anthony B. Newkirk is an assistant professor of history at Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Arkansas.

A well-renowned Jamaican reggae singer, Bob Marley once sang, “many more will have to suffer… many more will have to die… don’t ask me why”. ‘Natural Mystic’ is not just a grand spectacle of entertainment. ‘Natural Mystic’ symbolically describes a contemporary world that is plagued by war, disease, poverty, hunger, growing inequalities, economic crises, realpolitik and environmental degradation. When these problems unfold before our eyes daily, we cannot desist from the belief that the world is plunging further into anarchy.

We frequently use the term ‘anarchy’ to express social disorder, lawlessness and political instability. The term ‘anarchy’ was used several times in opinion articles that were submitted to the Jamaica Gleaner in order to highlight the exorbitant levels of crime and violence in Jamaica and the calls for more pro-active crime-fighting solutions.

Additionally, the term ‘anarchy’ was the most profound concept that has been emphasized throughout Robert Kaplan’s 1994 classic journal article, ‘The Coming Anarchy’. Kaplan (1994) provided an extensive predictive analysis of contemporary issues in international relations by opening his discussion with the scenario of youth gangs seizing the property and assets of political officials in Sierra Leone; as a result of poor governance and lack of equal opportunities.

He further delved into the monstrous consequences of persistent underdevelopment in particular regions where health and food insecurity becomes unbearable. While we rest our deepest fears on the bed of utopian aspirations for a better world, we will be forced to gradually acknowledge several harsh realities. We will be forced to gradually acknowledge that self-interests will always overrule collective values and we will be forced to gradually acknowledge that anarchy is deliberately manufactured in the chess board game of global politics.

The findings of the 2017 Oxfam International Report entitled ‘The Economy for the 99%’ exposed the fallacies of neoliberal economic development. The report outlined that the bottom ten per cent (10%) earned less than $3 in year between 1988-2011 while the incomes of the top one per cent (1%) increased 182 times as much. These alarming statistics can be attributed to the fact that neoliberalism is an unseen, violent force that sees development as a means to an end. Development as a means to end ranges from the humanitarian crisis of famine in South Sudan and Yemen, child labour in the farms of Togo, environmental disasters in the Caribbean and Latin America, discriminatory sentiments against minorities, unequal power relations among men and women, strikes for better salaries and decent work and limited access to public facilities such as health care, education, housing, clean drinking water and social security.

In a time of neo-liberal hegemony where difference is dangerous and alternative views are silenced, we need to revisit the importance of the Capabilities Approach to Development which was discussed by Nobel Peace Prize Winner for Economics, Amartya Sen in his book ‘Development As Freedom’. Amartya Sen (1999) warned us that development must not be seen as a mere means to end but rather it should be seen as process of expanding real freedoms that people should enjoy while removing major sources of unfreedom. He also cited that poverty, tyranny, poor economic opportunities, marginalization, neglect of public facilities and repression as major sources of unfreedom. Sen has observed the growing unequal wealth and income distribution despite the high levels of economic growth and productivity. Hence, the neo-liberal hegemony is deceptive because the prosperity that it promises is not congruent with the war waged against humanity through a rigid, oligarchic exercise.

Poor economic opportunities and poverty create a ripple effect of other social problems such as crime and violence. This is quite applicable to Jamaica where the nation is gaining local and international attention over the management of its national security issues where citizens are extremely concerned about the sharp spike in murders, political ineptness of the state and the recent travel advisory to tourists that was issued by the United States of America. Crime in Jamaica stems from a wide variety of issues but the most outstanding factors are poor economic opportunities, marginalization and poverty. These factors are legacies of the plantation institution in which ownership, wealth and production has been dominated by a few individuals based on social class and skin colour. Political independence has not transformed the organization of the economy and other social institutions but has instead perpetuated the powerlessness of vulnerable groups of people in society. As a result, powerlessness is translated into violence.

The 2014 Latin American Public Opinion Project Survey shared that Jamaica’s inequality rate using the Gini Co-efficient Index stands at 59.6, one of the highest rates in Latin America and the Caribbean. The stark paradoxes of Jamaica’s development predicament was announced by market studies analyst, Don Anderson who explained that while economic indicators are at an all-time high for the business class in Jamaica, poverty has doubled since 2006.

Listening to Anderson’s commentary on Television Jamaica (TVJ) has helped me to realize that the logic of the market has been fully embraced and incorporated without deft examination or criticism. On the contrary, while Sen has advocated for individual participation in the market to achieve economic freedom, he also argues that the market needs effective regulation from the state in order to ensure equity. Equity, according to Sen, is an organizing principle that enables the expansion of freedoms for people despite their differences but, are we serious in our commitment to building a more just and equitable world or is it another grand rhetoric echoed at public conferences and summits?

*

Tina Renier lives in Jamaica and is currently a final year student at the University of the West Indies, Mona pursuing a Bachelor of Science in International Relations.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Revisiting ‘Development as Freedom’ in the Age of Neoliberal Hegemony
  • Tags:

Boss Tweet’s Generals Already Run the Show

January 21st, 2018 by Marshall Auerback

Much has been written about our Twitterer-in-Chief and the tortured response to his presidency, particularly within the GOP.  As a recent example, Frank Bruni of the New York Times lamented the fate of Senator Lindsey Graham, who has now become one of Donald Trump’s biggest defenders on mainstream shows such as “Meet the Press”. Bruni, however, reminds us that during the presidential campaign of 2016, Graham described then candidate Trump as the “world’s biggest jackass”, even as he now praises POTUS, thereby personifying “his party’s spastic, incoherent, humiliating response to Trump across time and its fatally misguided surrender.”

Appearances to the contrary, Bruni actually has got it “bass ackwards”.  In reality, Trump is well into the process of surrendering his presidency to the GOP establishment and what one of us has termed the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex” (MICC ). It’s worth recalling that Senator Graham, along with his erstwhile colleague, John McCain, have consistently acted as leading supplicants for the Department of Defense, as well as staunch Cold Warriors who long opposed Trump’s attempts to shift US foreign policy in a more Russo-friendly direction.  They (like Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign) also reacted with horror to the views expressed by Trump during the campaign when he questioned NATO’s eastward thrust, the power transformation in the western Pacific, Syria, Iraq, the Middle East altogether.

But for all of the talk of “Russia-gate” and collusion with Putin, Trump has in fact quietly been shifting US foreign policy in a direction which if anything is becoming decidedly more hawkish and militarized than has occurred under any American presidency since the early days of the Reagan Administration. Just last December, Trump Administration officials confirmed that the State Department approved a commercial license authorizing the export of Model M107A1 Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories to Ukraine. These weapons were requested as early as 2014, but were long rejected by President Obama, who saw the sale as a needless risk elevation in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict. (Ironically, Trump also initially resisted the inclusion in the GOP Platform of selling said weapons to the Ukraine, and this was subsequently cited by many as further “proof” of Boss Tweet’s collusion with Russia.)

More recently, the President directed the Department of Defense to conduct a new “Nuclear Posture Review January 2018” (NPR).  The mission statement of the draft review, recently leaked to the Huffington Post, is:

[T]o ensure a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent that safeguards the homeland, assures allies, and deters adversaries. This review comes at a critical moment in our nation’s history, for America confronts an international security situation that is more complex and demanding than any since the end of the Cold War. In this environment, it is not possible to delay modernization of our nuclear forces and remain faithful sentinel s of our nation’ s security and freedom for the next generation as well as our own.

The NPR draft, then, opens the door wider for using “precision” limited nuclear options in response to conventional and cyber threats.  In effect, this NPR, if signed into law by Trump, locks in Obama’s massive nuclear modernization program, as well as expanding it significantly by putting small “precision-guided” nuclear warheads on SLBMs, among other things.

If Boss Tweet signs the NPR, he also will be approving and entrenching the political engineering of new SLBMs and ICBMs, the new Bomber, a new missile launching nuclear submarine, a new nuclear cruise missile, a whole panoply of new nuke-hardened space-based C3ISR systems, a new family of nuclear warheads, the addition of precision guidance to the B-61 “dial-a-yield” bomb, a massive modernization of the nuclear lab infrastructure, and much more.

So much for being Putin’s poodle! The implementation will certainly formalize the restart of the Cold War by adopting the precision nuclear strike mentality envisioned in the January 1988 report entitled Discriminant Deterrence, just as the Cold War was ending.  This report was  published by the Commission on Integrated Long Term Strategy, co-chaired by the noted Cold Warriors Fred Ikle and Albert Wohlstetter, and whose members have included, inter alia, the likes of Henry Kissinger (now apparently advising Jared Kushner after advising HRC during the 2016 campaign), Samuel Huntington, and the recently deceased Zbigniew Brezinski.

Once the political engineers are done spreading the nuke contract dollars to most, if not all, congressional districts, the whole program will be locked in for up to 50 years.  Any attempt to reverse this will be met by the usual tricks of the Pentagon: selective leaks to sympathetic journalists at the NYT & WaPo, along with threats to cut back at domestic bases, as well as the contracts themselves, which are will be important sources of employment and political patronage in local Congressional districts.   If this was indeed Mr. Putin’s gambit in 2016, then he has seriously miscalculated.

About the only possible silver lining in the restart of the Cold War is that the MICC no longer needs to use the cover of the global war on terror to prop up its long term budgets.  The endless cycle of military budget one-upmanship which characterized most of the Cold War will reassert itself because both Moscow and Beijing are bound to respond, regardless of what Boss Tweet says his intentions are.

These are but a few examples of Trump’s policy reversals, along with the absurd notion that he would “drain the swamp”, introduce a “fantastic tax reform” that would largely benefit the middle class, give us a great healthcare system, and finally, develop a foreign policy that would allow the US to enjoy a closer and more collaborative relationship with Russia. Many of the very same people who once fretted about Trump and nuclear codes now applauding as he signs off on missiles and bombs and an escalation of the conflict in the Ukraine.

So to come back to Frank Bruni’s point: There is method to the apparent mad about-face by Graham and others in the GOP.  As for the so-called #TheResistance, most are still so obsessed with the Mueller investigation that they have failed to see that a soft coup has already taken place under their collective noses (indeed, with their recent approval of the FISA courts, it appears that the Democrats’ cries of alarm about the fate of our Republic are but crocodile tears). Why impeach Boss Tweet when he is so good to the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex (MICC) and the economic Oligarchs, while providing distracting entertainment to the masses and the press?  If it takes a new Cold War and a further subversion of our democracy to kneecap Donald Trump, well, one is all for it.

In short, Boss Tweet* has become the DC Swamp’s useful idiot and he will do as he is told with the help of Republicans in Congress, like Lindsey Graham (as well as many complicit Democrats – who have been sucked into the vortex of the renewed Cold War, in part by virtue of their opportunistic embrace of “Russiagate” – not to mention the corrupted intelligence community).  Trump can eat all of the Big Macs he wants, release his inner Klansman to his heart’s content, amuse himself by watching “Fox & Friends”, and enrich his family, so long as he plays ball with “his generals”, the Koch Brothers, Wall Street, Big Pharma and the rest of the One Percenters. So long as James Mattis gets to feed the big bucks to the MICC unhindered, or Charlie Koch gets a free ride by the Environmental Protection Agency, life will remain good at the White House for the First Family. There will be no impeachment or invocation of Article 25, because the president has been neutered.

No doubt, the press will continue to express abhorrence with every new obscenity or controversial tweet, lament the decline of our political parties, and the Mueller investigation will continue to act as a major distraction.  Meanwhile, the constitutional safeguards that have long been the bedroom of the republic will continue to be eviscerated.  Welcome to Versailles on the Potomac!

*

Note

*A term ingeniously coined by Paul Street in this article: “An Idiot Surrounded by Clowns”: Why Trump (Still) Sits in the White House

Featured image is CC by 2.0.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Boss Tweet’s Generals Already Run the Show
  • Tags:

Before our eyes we have clear growing evidence the US is gathering force to launch war against North Korea. And not just the visibility of carrier led battle fleets in the South China sea, there are also all the other “world events” fitting into first strike preparation scenario from the US.

For instance the Hawaii nuclear strike alert terrifying the population of Hawaii Saturday 13th January. Are we to believe this was as simple as an operational error? Accidentally pressing a single button?

I don’t think so for one minute. It must be near impossible to activate a major strike alarm system without highest level authority with multiple keys to active the system. And to note of all US cities it was Hawaii, halfway between Korea and continental USA, not any other US city.

Which leaves open the plausibility alarm activation authorisation was from the highest levels in the USA, to strike terror in the minds of citizens US wide that such a strike from North Korea is a real and credible possibility. This then playing its part priming the US population for justification for a US first strike on North Korea.

Further evidence of preparation is then the Korean selected Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Vancouver Monday 15th Jan. This meeting notably not including The People’s Republic of China or the Russian Federation, let alone the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The summit with single minded interest on blockading North Korea into deeper isolation has then been in all but name a war summit. Notably engaging most of the Western supporting nations in the 1950-53 Korean War. A war in which the USA with overwhelming air power, including mass use of napalm (as in Vietnam), destroyed North Korea with 2 million Korean casualties.

Further evidence again for preparation could not be more evident in the build up of US battle fleets in South China Sea. Three carrier battle fleets complete with hundreds of cruise missiles and stealth attack aircraft, who knows how many polaris nuclear submarines in Korean waters, along with nuclear strike squadrons of B-2 and B-52 bombers on Guam.

Belligerence and threat on an enormous scale. And of course when the US does strike that will be an enormous distraction away from a president who must know in his bones, from the chaos he is sowing world-wide, along with the FBI Mueller inquiry, his own time is running out.

This huge build up of US forces, at risk any day of precipitating war even if not specifically intended, needs then to be roundy condemned by I would hope every thinking human being on the planet. As it is, from the West, blinding mass ignorance amplified through Western mass media.

Korean people building bridges – making progress

But then strikingly as we now see the people of Korea left to their own politics are finding their way. High level positive meetings taking place. North Korea will bring athletes to the Winter Olympics and, in accord with the spirit of the Olympics, have announced North and South will march together at the opening ceremony under one Korean flag. This then a huge boost for the Korean peninsular and people, and for world peace. A time of optimism and for building trust.

And more than this DPRK will contribute national bands to the Olympics. This then will be DPRK Moranbong hugely popular all female band. Wonderful performances from highly accomplished young musicians and singers. The best of Korea that is iron curtain shut out by Western propaganda. Not by the Koreans – the most welcoming and friendly of people, to those who ask and show some respect.

And indeed look further into DPRK culture and we find so many gems. Again I have never in the West seen a more deeply moving operatic musical than DPRK’s The Flower Girl. A powerfully moving drama with wonderful actors actresses expressing the oppression and struggles faced by so many in our world, East and West.

On all counts taking a sweep of modern 20th century history North Korean people are to my mind some of the bravest in the world. Truly heroic. They took as much horror bombing and probably more than Vietnam and survived and to their huge credit, grounded in their founding philosophy Juche, self-reliance and independence, rebuilt their US annihilated country. Beautiful clean modern working cities. A huge credit to any nation.

Why not nuclear armed DPRK – there are sound universal deterrent reasons

Why then should DPRK not have nuclear defence to protect their country ? Look what the US and West does to countries that have no nuclear defence : Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria – bombed to shreds, millions die, countries set back decades, when it suits the West. But the US thinks twice and twice again when it’s the Russian Federation, or the People’s Republic of China, with nuclear deterrents.

The West needs to grow up and quickly before we have nuclear war on the planet led by a Western leader who clearly has yet to work his way through adolescence. We need to focus on the gathering thunder. There is no doubt in my mind many at the highest command levels in the USA will be thrilled with a high technology bomb delivery war – on yet again another country far from the USA.

The US military all ranks will be excited. But then new game station generations have forgotten Vietnam and the Korean War that was disregarded long ago hence its epitaph “The Forgotten War”. No matter that one and a half million Korean civilians men women and children died in the war, in their own towns and homes. And indeed, as I would say to anyone planning war, get a sledgehammer and high octane burner and go to work on your nearest and dearest, including your children. That is the true horror of warfare all the more horrific when it is phosphorus high octane napalm bombing of civilian cities.

In all consideration the deepest of deep tragedies for humanity that the West cannot see how, in conflict, belligerents mirror each other’s behaviour. It is the US that brings huge military armadas to the South China Sea. Wouldn’t any country be terrified with such enormous destructive fire power on their doorstep, from a USA that seven decades ago bombed their country flat ?

Give the Korean people the space to reconcile north and south

In huge contrast what we see in the East is what has been lost from all sight in our mass consumption West and that is the Wisdom of the East. They have the wisdom to understand that small scale shared positive experience, as in engaging jointly in the Winter Olympics, is the way that people one to one begin to get to know one-another. And from that you quietly build. Not on world stages shouting one another down : “Fire and Fury” with the even more juvenile “Mine’s bigger than yours”. No different to Bush’s “Shock and Awe” twenty years ago which then spawned wars to this day throughout the Middle East.

The USA – showing itself time and again to be the most dangerous and mentally weak country on the planet – needs to demilitarise in South Korea and leave the Korean people to work out their own future. And that is weak USA on the point we don’t need in a modern 21st century world battle fleets along with bellicose threats. That speaks of weakness, not strength. Strength is having the courage to use world politics through an inclusive United Nations. The courage to use dialogue and communication. The courage to pursue and take risks, for peace. And in that earning respect and building confidence in our world.

All the Western propaganda from the 1950s that Communism was sweeping South Asia refused to recognise the fact that vast numbers in Asia did and still do hold to socialist and communist values. Now then seven decades later the US needs to step back and leave the Korean people to assess their different political systems and work out how best to make this work for Korea. Parallel nations at peace, or integration of the best of systems both sides of the 39th parallel. If Western US led market capitalism is so superior to centralised communism it will speak for itself. Not need enormous battle fleets and militarisation to enforce one political ideology on another.

That such massive forces are in play with potential planet destroying consequences with millions of lives destroyed only goes to show the huge lack of self-confidence in those who take the lead wielding these weapons. It is Korea’s huge misfortune at the end of WW2 – following decades of brutal Japanese occupation – to end up on a world tectonic plate between Capitalism and Communism. We now have an absolute duty to help this country build safety and security into the 21st century.

Trump’s Plan B for Syria: Occupation and Intimidation

January 21st, 2018 by Mike Whitney

On January 17,  Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced the creation of a de facto autonomous Kurdish state in east Syria that will be supported by the United States and defended by a US-backed “proxy” army of occupation. Tillerson’s announcement was made at a confab he attended at Stanford University at the Hoover Institute. According to The Hill:

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Wednesday outlined a new U.S. strategy in Syria, hinging on maintaining an indefinite military presence in the country with the goal of ousting the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad and keeping militant groups at bay.

Speaking at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Tillerson sought to make the case for an extended U.S. military role, backed by a United Nations-brokered political solution, in the war-torn country.

A U.S. withdrawal, he said, would likely have disastrous consequences.

“Total withdrawal would restore Assad and continue brutal treatment of his own people,” Tillerson said. (Tillerson outlines plan for long-term US military role in Syria”, The Hill)

Tillerson’s comments underscore the fact that recent setbacks in the 7-year-long conflict, have not dampened Washington’s determination to topple the elected government of Syria and to impose its own political vision on the country.  They also confirm that the United States intends to occupy parts of Syria for the foreseeable future.  As the article clearly states:

The secretary’s remarks on Wednesday signaled his most explicit endorsement yet for long-term U.S. military presence in the country.  (The Hill)

On Thursday, Tillerson backtracked from his earlier statement saying his comments had been “misportrayed”.

“That entire situation has been misportrayed, misdescribed, (and) some people misspoke. We are not creating a border security force at all,” (Tillerson said)

Regrettably, the media did not “misportray” Washington’s intentions or policy. In fact, the details have been circulating since last weekend when an article appeared in The Defense Post announcing the creation of 30,000 man border security force. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

The U.S.-led Coalition against Islamic State is currently training a force to maintain security along the Syrian border as the operation against ISIS shifts focus. The 30,000-strong force will be partly composed of veteran fighters and operate under the leadership of the Syrian Democratic Forces, CJTF-OIR told The Defense Post.

“The Coalition is working jointly with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to establish and train the new Syrian Border Security Force (BSF). Currently, there are approximately 230 individuals training in the BSF’s inaugural class, with the goal of a final force size of approximately 30,000,” ….Public Affairs Officer Colonel Thomas F. Veale said….

“The BSF will be stationed along the Euphrates River Valley – marking the western edge of the territory within Syria currently controlled by SDF – and the Iraqi and Turkish borders,” he said. (The Defense Post)

As we have noted before, Washington is determined to throw up an iron curtain along the Euphrates consistent with its plan to split Syria into smaller parts, support the central government’s enemies, and create a safe haven for launching attacks on the government in Damascus. Seen in this light, the 30,000-man “border security force” is not a border security force at all, but a slick Madison Avenue-type sobriquet for Washington’s proxy army of occupation.  The fact that “The Coalition told The Defense Post that ‘north army’ was not a recognized term in Syria,” indicates the importance Washington places on its particular “product branding”.  The “border security force” (BSF) moniker helps to conceal the fact that Washington has armed and trained a mainly-Kurdish proxy-army to pursue Washington’s strategic objectives in Syria which include toppling the government of Bashar al Assad, splintering the country into smaller tribal-run territories, and installing a compliant stooge in the Capitol who will follow Washington’s diktats.

In order to achieve those goals, Washington has had to make critical concessions to its Kurdish allies in the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which is ‘an alliance of militias in northern and eastern Syria dominated by the Kurdish YPG.’  The Kurds expect the US to honor its demands for a Kurdish homeland, an autonomous statelet carved out of Syria’s northeast quadrant, the portion of territory east of the Euphrates captured during the fight against ISIS.  Tillerson’s announcement confirmed that the US will support the defense of this territory by its Kurdish proxies inferring that the Trump administration has thrown its weigh behind the unilateral creation of a Kurdish state in east Syria.  (Publicly, the US opposes the creation of Kurdistan, but its actions on the ground, indicate its support.) Naturally, this has not gone-over well with the other countries in the region that have struggled to contain Kurdish aspirations for a homeland. The leaders of Syria, Iran, Iraq and Turkey all oppose the emergence of a Kurdistan, although Turkey’s president Erdogan has been the most outspoken by far. According to the Turkish daily Hurriyet:

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan  threatened to thwart the creation of a U.S-backed 30,000-strong border security force manned mostly by the People’s Protection Units (YPG) in northern Syria. Turkey’s armed forces completed preparations for an operation against the YPG in their strongholds Afrin, in northwestern Syria, and Manbij, in northern Syria, Erdoğan said on Jan. 15 at an opening ceremony in Ankara.

“The operation may start any time. Operations into other regions will come after,” the president said, noting that the Turkish army was already hitting YPG positions.

“America has acknowledged it is in the process of creating a terror army on our border. What we have to do is nip this terror army in the bud,” Erdoğan said….“We won’t be responsible for the consequences.” (The Hurriyet)

It’s worth noting that the US never consulted its NATO ally, Turkey, before initiating its current plan. This suggests that the foreign policy wonks who concocted this misguided scheme must have thought that Erdogan and his fellows would be duped by the paper-thin public relations smokescreen of “border security”.  Washington’s reliance on Information Operations and propaganda may have clouded its judgement and impaired its ability to understand how their public relations scam could blow up in their faces. (which it did.)

Despite the foofaraw, there’s nothing new about Washington’s determination to establish a permanent military presence in Syria, in fact, that has been the plan from Day 1. The basic US strategy in Syria has been modified many times in the last few years, particularly after Syrian forces liberated Syria’s industrial hub, Aleppo, which was the turning point in the conflict. Since then, news has circulated about a Plan B, which accepts the reality that Assad will remain in power after the war has ended, but redirects US efforts towards more achievable goals like seizing the vast expanse of land east of the Euphrates which can be used for future regime-destabilizing operations.

The basic outline for Plan B was presented in a Brookings Institute report by chief military analyst, Michael O’ Hanlon.  Here’s a clip from his 2014 article  titled “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war”:

…the only realistic path forward may be a plan that in effect deconstructs Syria….the international community should work to create pockets with more viable security and governance within Syria over time… Creation of these sanctuaries would produce autonomous zones that would never again have to face the prospect of rule by either Assad or ISIL….

(“Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war“, Michael E. O’Hanlon, Brookings Institute)

The occupation of east Syria by Kurdish proxies is consistent with O’ Hanlon’s basic plan to fragment the country and create pockets of resistance that will be supported by the US. It is a variation of the divide and conquer theme the US has used in numerous times in the past.

Plan B is Washington’s fallback position now that regime change is no longer within reach. The strategy suggests that Washington never planned to leave after ISIS was defeated, but always intended to stay on to establish bases in the east, (According to Bloomberg News, the US now has 10 permanent bases east of the Euphrates)  support an army of occupation, and continue the war against the current government. That’s still the plan today, notwithstanding Washington’s failed attempt to conceal its motives behind its pathetic “border security force”.   Erdogan and the rest have already seen through that sham and expressed their unhappiness.

The problem with Plan B is that it presumes that Russia and its coalition partners will try to liberate Kurdish-held east Syria and, thus, get bogged down in a bloody and protracted conflict that turns out to be a strategic nightmare as well as a public relations disaster. This is the scenario that Washington is hoping for. In fact,

Trump’s chief national security advisor  Lieutenant General H.R McMaster has written extensively on the topic and explained exactly how to undermine the efforts of an advancing army. Here’s an excerpt from a  presentation McMaster gave at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on May 4, 2016. He said:

 “…what is required to deter a strong nation that is waging limited war for limited objectives on battlegrounds involving weaker states … is forward deterrence, to be able to ratchet up the cost at the frontier, and to take an approach to deterrence that is consistent with deterrence by denial, convincing your enemy that your enemy is unable to accomplish his objectives at a reasonable cost rather than sort of an offshore balancing approach and the threat of punitive action at long distance later, which we know obviously from – recent experience confirms that that is inadequate.”

“Forward deterrence”? This needs to be clarified.

What McMaster is saying, is that, instead of threatening to retaliate at some time in the future,  the US should use ‘deterrence by denial’, that is, make it as hard and as costly as possible for Russia to achieve its strategic objectives. (McMaster’s comments focus on Russia’s involvement in Syria.) By supporting its Kurdish fighters and establishing permanent US bases, McMaster thinks the US can frustrate Russia’s effort to restore Syria’s borders which is one of the primary goals of the mission.  The objective of forward deterrence is not to win the war, but to prevent the enemy from winning.  The downside to this theory is that– when neither side prevails– there is no political settlement, no end to the fighting, and no path for returning people to their homes so they can resume their lives in peace and security.  It is, in fact, a plan designed to perpetuate the suffering, perpetuate the destruction and perpetuate the bloodletting. It’s a solution that provides no solution, a war without end.

More importantly, “Forward deterrence” is a military strategy that ignores the broader political situation which has been adversely impacted by Washington’s ‘border security forces’ announcement. Now the cards are on the table and all the main players can see what the US really has up its sleeve.  Leaders in Syria, Iraq, Iran and particularly Turkey can see that Washington is not an honest broker, but a crafty and cold-blooded opportunist willing to throw even its allies under the bus to achieve its own narrow geopolitical objectives.

As a result, Erdogan has moved closer to Russia which has sent up red flags in Washington as one would expect.  After all– in the broader scheme of things–  Turkey is more important to the US than Ukraine. It is the essential landbridge and energy hub that is destined to bind Europe and Asia together into the world’s biggest free trade zone. If Turkey breaks out of Washington’s orbit and moves into Moscow’s camp, Washington’s plan to ‘pivot to Asia’  will collapse in a heap.

So while McMaster might think that forward deterrence will prevent Russia from achieving its objectives, it’s clear that the policy is already working in Putin’s favor. Every miscue that Washington makes only adds to Putin’s credibility and reputation as a reliable partner. Simply put: The Russian president is gradually replacing Washington as the guarantor of regional security. This is a tectonic development and one that US powerbrokers will definitely regret in the future.

A ‘changing of the guard’ is underway in the energy-rich Middle East, and Washington is the odd-man-out.

*

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].

Featured image is from UNC – CFC – USFK | CC BY 2.0.

German opposition leader Sahra Wagenknecht on Tuesday added her voice to calls to dissolve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the wake of US President-elect Donald Trump‘s controversial remarks concerning the military alliance.

“NATO must be dissolved and replaced by a collective security system including Russia,” Wagenknecht told Germany’s “Funke” media group.

Wagenknecht, who leads the opposition Left Party in parliament, added that comments made by the future US president “mercilessly reveal the mistakes and failures of the [German] federal government.”

Read full article here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on German Opposition Leader Calls for Security Union with Russia, Dissolution of NATO
  • Tags:

Trump Ends Protections for El Salvador Immigrants.

January 21st, 2018 by Pablo Alvarado

On Monday, January 8, the Trump administration announced that it would end protections for immigrants from El Salvador who had previously been covered under Temporary Protected Status in the U.S. since 2001. TPS is a legal designation for immigrants from certain countries which have experienced life-threatening situations, such as a natural disaster or war, and grants those migrants protection from deportation and the ability to work legally in the US. The termination of TPS for Salvadorans will take effect on September 9, 2018.

Pablo Alvarado is Executive Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), a coalition of worker-centered organizations across the country that defend day laborers from exploitation and extreme immigration enforcement, help people find jobs and recover wages, and train workers in health and safety.

I spoke with Alvarado on Tuesday, January 9th, the day after the Trump administration announced its decision to rescind TPS status for Salvadorans.

“A lot of our members are people who come from Central America and particularly Honduras and El Salvador,” said Alvarado. “A significant proportion are beneficiaries of Temporary Protected Status for Salvadorans, which protects about 200,000 people with documents from deportation.”

***

Dennis Bernstein: I know you have been in meetings all day, developing strategies, and dealing with the huge amount of fear that is sweeping through communities that you represent and advise on a daily basis. What is your first gut response to this latest move by Trump?

Pablo Alvarado: This action on the part of the Trump administration is not just an act of cruelty but also of hatred and of bigotry.  This president decided to terminate an incredible program that has facilitated the immigration of thousands and thousands of migrants.  Today, 30% of these people own homes, over 90% have jobs.  And yet, in an act of cruel racism, this administration has decided to get rid of this program.

Their motivation is very clear: to reduce the number of non-white immigrants.  They are scared of the changing demographics in our country.  This is their way of slowing down the emergence of a new majority.  They are no longer just going after undocumented people, they are taking away the papers of people with documents.

Dennis Bernstein: You are from El Salvador yourself.  Could you talk a little bit about the kinds of violence that people fled during this period of US-supported death squads?

Pablo Alvarado: It is important to note how many times the US has intervened in Central America.  The latest case is our recognition of a president in Honduras that 80% of the Honduran people don’t want.  Honduras will continue to be in flames for months to come.  Already death squads are emerging and activists have been disappeared and tortured. Children are being gassed while protesting.

All of this will lead to even greater poverty and feed the cycle of migration.  This is the same thing that the United States has done in El Salvador, in Nicaragua, and throughout the region.  The widespread gang violence in El Salvador is something that was imported from Los Angeles.  I can tell you that my two brothers, who are teachers and make $450 a month, are being extorted by gang members.

Temporary protected status was introduced following the great earthquake [of 2001] but the reality is that El Salvador has not yet recovered from that natural disaster.  The country is still in dire circumstances.  There are many villages that subsist on the remittances of family members who are here in the United States.  This action by the Trump administration is going to lead to an even larger humanitarian crisis.

Dennis Bernstein: Do you see this as a form of ethnic cleansing?

Pablo Alvarado: It is clearly an effort, as I said, to slow down the emergence of a new majority.  This has always been the strategy of the people around Trump.  They refer to it as “attrition through enforcement.”  This involves making the lives of immigrants so miserable that they will want to pack their bags and leave on their own.  Ending TPS is essentially a step in that direction.

It is interesting, right-wing pundits say that it is the Democrats who want to allow these immigrants to come because they want to turn them into Democratic voters.  This is so ridiculous.  These people are leaving their countries not to be able to vote here.  They are fleeing violence and extreme poverty and persecution.  Any country that respects human rights is going to want to provide safe haven to people fleeing such conditions.

Dennis Bernstein: What kinds of actions are you planning to take now?

Pablo Alvarado: We recently put together the National TPS Alliance, a coalition of about 50 committees of TPS recipients across the country who have come to Washington several times and are coming again in the first week of February.  Prior to this recent decision, they were already doing lobbying work, trying to persuade politicians from both sides of the aisle of the seriousness of their plight.

Out of those conversations, four legislative proposals have been introduced to provide a permanent solution for TPS holders.  The administration may want to see TPS fade away in 18 months but we are determined to make these proposals a reality.

*

Dennis J Bernstein is a host of “Flashpoints” on the Pacifica radio network and the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom. You can access the audio archives at www.flashpoints.net.

All hell is breaking loose in Washington D.C. after a four-page memo detailing extensive FISA court abuse was made available to the entire House of Representatives Thursday. The contents of the memo are so explosive, says Journalist Sara Carter, that it could lead to the removal of senior officials in the FBI and the Department of Justice and the end of Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation.

These sources say the report is “explosive,” stating they would not be surprised if it leads to the end of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation into President Trump and his associates. –Sara Carter

A source close to the matter tells Fox News that “the memo details the Intelligence Committee’s oversight work for the FBI and Justice, including the controversy over unmasking and FISA surveillance.” An educated guess by anyone who’s been paying attention for the last year leads to the obvious conclusion that the report reveals extensive abuse of power and highly illegal collusion between the Obama administration, the FBI, the DOJ and the Clinton Campaign against Donald Trump and his team during and after the 2016 presidential election.

a

Lawmakers who have seen the memo are calling for its immediate release, while the phrases “explosive,” “shocking,” “troubling,” and “alarming” have all been used in all sincerity. One congressman even likened the report’s details to KGB activity in Russia. “It is so alarming the American people have to see this,” Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan told Fox News. “It’s troubling. It is shocking,” North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows said. “Part of me wishes that I didn’t read it because I don’t want to believe that those kinds of things could be happening in this country that I call home and love so much.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., offered the motion on Thursday to make the Republican majority-authored report available to the members.

The document shows a troubling course of conduct and we need to make the document available, so the public can see it,” said a senior government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the document. “Once the public sees it, we can hold the people involved accountable in a number of ways.”

The government official said that after reading the document “some of these people should no longer be in the government.” –Sara Carter

Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz (R) echoed Sara Carter’s sentiment that people might lose their job if the memo is released:

I believe the consequence of its release will be major changes in people currently working at the FBI and the Department of Justice,” he said, referencing DOJ officials Rod Rosenstein and Bruce Ohr.

Meanwhile, Rep. Matt Gatetz (R-FL) said not only will the release of this memo result in DOJ firing, but “people will go to jail.”

Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino says “Take it to the bank, the FBI/FISA docs are devastating for the Dems.”

The dossier was used in part as evidence for a warrant to surveil members of the Trump campaign, according to a story published this month. Former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier in 2016, was hired by embattled research firm Fusion GPS. The firm’s founder is Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who has already testified before Congress in relation to the dossier. In October, The Washington Post revealed for the first time that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC that financed Fusion GPS.

Congressional members are hopeful that the classified information will be declassified and released to the public.

We probably will get this stuff released by the end of the month,” stated a congressional member, who asked not to be named. –Sara Carter

Releasing the memo to the public would require a committee vote, a source told Fox, adding that if approved, it could be released as long as there are no objections from the White House within five days

Reactions from the citizenry have been on point:

Even WikiLeaks has joined the fray, offering a reward in Bitcoin to anyone who will share the memo:

Of all the recent developments in the ongoing investigation(s), this one is on the cusp of turning into a genuine happening.

*

Featured image is from daggernews.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Explosive”, “Shocking” and “Alarming” FISA Memo Set to Rock DC, “End Mueller Investigation”
  • Tags:

 

UK-based NGO Airwars has offered a reckoning of the 2017 air operations of the US-led coalition against ISIS, involving attacks in both Iraq and Syria. The number of civilians killed increased dramatically, with estimates suggesting that they roughly tripled from 2016.

In 2016, they documented an estimated death toll of between 1,243 and 1,904 non-combatants, but in 2017, the estimate was a minimum of 3,923, and potentially as many as 6,102 non-combatants killed.

That’s a huge increase, and a troubling one, in no small part because the US doesn’t admit it’s even happening, with Pentagon assessments putting deaths at no more than a few hundred annually, and around 800 over the entire past four years.

Airwars attributed the escalating toll in part to the fact that 2017 saw an increase in strikes, and an increased focus on densely populated cities. They also suggested the Trump Administration’s relaxing of restrictions on airstrikes, and view of the ISIS war as a “war of annihilation” are factors.

*

Jason Ditz is news editor of Antiwar.com.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US-Led Coalition Civilian Killings Tripled in Iraq and Syria in 2017. NGO

The Trump administration’s leaks of plans for a “bloody nose” strike on North Korean nuclear and/or missile sites is only the most recent evidence of its effort to sell the idea that the United States is prepared for a first strike against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). But the “bloody nose” leak—and the larger campaign to float the idea of a first strike against North Korea—isn’t going to convince Kim Jong Un or anyone else who has paid close attention to the administration’s propaganda output.

That’s because national security adviser H.R. McMaster and other senior advisers know the Trump administration has no real first-strike option that is not disastrous. A review of the entire campaign to suggest otherwise reveals the leak has been spun in the hope of creating pressure on Pyongyang.

Telegraph story said the administration was “drawing up plans for a ‘bloody nose’ military attack on North Korea to stop its nuclear weapons program,” but “one option” is destruction of a missile launch site before a missile test.

Wall Street Journal article on Jan. 9 reported that administration officials were still “debating whether it’s possible to mount a limited military strike against North Korea on sites without provoking an ‘all-out’ war on the Korean peninsula.”

The Trump administration began its first-strike campaign with the leak of a much more aggressive story last April. Three NBC News reporters published a story that “multiple intelligence officials” had told them the U.S. was “prepared to launch” such a strike against nuclear or missile targets, or even against cyber and special operations targets, if U.S. intelligence had indications of an impending nuclear test.

That threat turned out to be without substance. On July 3 and again on July 28, the DPRK carried out tests of its Hwasong-14 ICBM, and on Sept. 3, it carried out its sixth nuclear test—all without any retaliatory response from the Trump administration.

After the two ICBM tests, McMaster was asked in an Aug. 5 interview with MSNBC’s Hugh Hewitt whether the administration was preparing the public for a first strike against North Korea. McMaster’s response did not present a case for such a strike but attributed it to Trump’s insistence.

If the DPRK has “nuclear weapons that can threaten the United States,” he said, “it’s intolerable from the president’s perspective … so, of course, we have to provide all options to do that … and that includes a military option.”

McMaster’s failure to make a clear policy argument for the first-strike option—based on the idea that Kim Jong Un is unstable or irrational and not subject to the logic of deterrence—showed that the U.S. intelligence community has adopted an assessment that the North Korean leader is a careful, calculating decision-maker with no interest in attacking the United States with nuclear weapons. The deputy chief of the CIA’s Korea Mission Center, Yong Suk Lee, even went to the unusual lengths to make the center’s assessment public at a conference in Washington last October. In his presentation, Lee referred to Kim Jong Un as a “very rational actor,” adding that “bluster and rhetoric aside,” he has “no interest” in going to war against the United States. Lee even described Kim’s “long-term goal” as being to “come to some kind of power agreement with the United States and remove U.S. forces from the peninsula.”

A few days after the MSNBC interview, U.S News reported that people familiar with McMaster’s thinking about North Korea had confirmed he agreed with the consensus within the intelligence community and the military that Kim is a “rational actor who is seeking nuclear weapons to deter an attack on North Korea, not to attack the United States or its allies.”

Nevertheless, McMaster refused to give up that theme, even if it was not based on rational argument. In an interview with ABC on Aug. 13, McMaster asked how “classical deterrence theory” could “apply to a regime like the regime in North Korea? A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people? A regime that poses a continuous threat to its neighbors in the region and now may pose a threat, direct threat, to the United States with weapons of mass destruction?” And in a Dec. 3 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News, McMaster said,

“I don’t think you or anybody else is willing to bet the farm—or a U.S. city—on the decision-making, rational decision-making of Kim Jong Un.”

In the same Fox News interview, McMaster asserted that the DPRK would “use that weapon for nuclear blackmail and then to quote, you know, unify the peninsula under the red banner.” Two weeks later in an interview with the “PBS NewsHour,” McMaster referred again to the idea that Kim’s “intentions likely involve nuclear blackmail.” But he cited nothing to indicate that such North Korean “nuclear blackmail” could work, suggesting again that it is an argument of political convenience rather than of conviction for McMaster.

In an interview with Evan Osnos of The New Yorker in September, McMaster began to gravitate toward a different argument: that the North Koreans had “proliferated just about every capability they’ve ever produced, including chemical weapons and a nuclear reactor.” And he argued that others in the region would want their own nuclear weapons if “a rogue regime developed nukes and got away with it.”

But McMaster’s claims about North Korean chemical and nuclear weapons proliferation were irrelevant to a first strike, and spurious. His charge of chemical weapons proliferation by North Korea was based on nothing more than an Aug. 21 Reuters story, whose lead declared, “Two North Korean shipments to a Syrian government agency responsible for the country’s chemical weapons program were intercepted in the past six months, according to a confidential United Nations report on North Korea sanctions violations.”

But the full story reveals the U.N. report in question said nothing indicating the North Korean goods intercepted were related to chemical weapons. It said an unidentified state believed two shipments from North Korea bound for Syria that had been intercepted were part of a contract between North Korea and KOMID, the Korea Mining and Development Trading Corporation, which has acted as a Syrian contractor for the Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSRC). In the past, SSRC has been responsible for both ballistic missiles and chemical weapons, as the story noted, but KOMID has been blacklisted in the past for its role in importing parts for ballistic missiles, not for chemical weapons. The story implied that the goods interdicted had to do with Syrian Scud missiles and repair of surface-to-air missiles and other air defense systems.

McMaster’s allusion to the alleged North Korean proliferation of a nuclear reactor involves a 2007 claim Israel’s Mossad gave to the George W. Bush administration about a nuclear reactor being built secretly in the Syrian desert with North Korean help. But the expert on North Korea’s nuclear reactor from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), who analyzed the Israeli evidence made public by the CIA, has explained to me in great detail why the technical evidence showed the site in question could not have been a North Korean reactor. In fact, the IAEA itself had found clear evidenceno such North Korean reactor was found at the site but had deliberately withheld it from the public.

McMaster’s argument that U.S. allies and other East Asian states will get their own nuclear weapons in the absence of denuclearization of North Korea is more realistic but also more complicated. For one thing, both South Korea and Japan have been flirting with nuclear weapons for decades, beginning before North Korea had a nuclear weapon. A first strike against North Korea, by triggering a war that could engulf the Korean Peninsula and Japan, would threaten a nasty end to the U.S. alliances with those states.

McMaster’s weak and ineffective effort to make a U.S. first strike against North Korea credible helps to unravel the real purpose of the campaign. His failure to offer even a pretense of a real rationale for such an unprovoked attack stands in sharp contrast to the Bush administration’s assiduous preparation of a sophisticated campaign of deception on Saddam’s Iraq. And in contrast to that earlier campaign, few in the national security elite have embraced the idea of a first strike against North Korea.

In short, the whole effort to sell the idea that starting a war with North Korea is a serious option has all the hallmarks of a strategic bluff. Some of those watching North Korea policy most closely are convinced that the main target of the campaign is not North Korea but China, which the Trump administration recognized from the beginning is the only power in a position to put effective pressure on the DPRK regime over its nuclear and missile program.

But few people outside the administration believe that China will save Trump’s bacon. In the end, Trump, like all his post-Cold War predecessors, will have to choose between ineffective threats and real negotiations with North Korea that deal with its demands for security and normalization of relations.

*

Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist, historian and author who has covered U.S. wars and interventions in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen and Syria since 2004.

Daniel Ellsberg is perhaps the premier whistleblower of all time, the man who in 1971 dragged the Pentagon Papers out of top-secret darkness into the light. Yet even as excerpts from the papers’ 7,000 pages were being published by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other newspapers, Ellsberg was sitting on an entire second set of secrets, having nothing to do with Vietnam: all his material on nuclear policy, such as the operational plans for general nuclear war that he had drafted for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his job as a RAND Corporation defense analyst.

With the Vietnam War raging, Ellsberg made what he calls a “tactical judgment” to release those papers first, holding off on the nuclear material until the fallout (so to speak) from the Vietnam revelations had settled. As he faced trial, he entrusted the nuclear papers to his brother Harry, who hid the cache in a compost heap and later moved it to the local dump to evade FBI searches. But the papers were irrevocably lost when the dump was later ravaged by a tropical storm.

Ellsberg’s new book, “The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner,” is his revelation of what was in those lost papers, made possible not only by his prodigious memory and note-keeping but also the declassification and release of much of the material through official channels and Freedom of Information Act requests (many filed by Ellsberg himself). Speaking with the authority of an insider who was intimately involved with nuclear strategy and policymaking at the highest levels, he reveals that practically everything the American public believes about nuclear war and nuclear weapons is, quite simply, a “deliberate deception.”

From the beginning of the Atomic Age, says Ellsberg, the true purpose of our nuclear arsenal, the whole terrifying array of warheads and delivery systems in all their vast numbers and varieties, has not been the “defense” of our country. It has not been, as trumpeted by politicians and generals (and as believed by citizens and schoolchildren), to “deter” an adversary from launching a nuclear attack against the U.S. It is the maintenance of a first-strike nuclear force —not so much for the purpose of launching a deliberate surprise attack on anyone else, but to be ready to respond instantly to any threat with a pre-emptive strike that would cripple an adversary’s assault and forestall damage to the U.S. That policy not only explains the need for an arsenal of thousands of diverse nuclear weapons, but also why every president since Truman, including Obama (and of course Trump), has steadfastly refused any official declaration of “no first use” of nukes by the United States. In fact, Ellsberg reveals, despite the endless rhetoric about American values and dedication to peaceful humanistic ideals, the possibility of the United States being the first to use nuclear weapons since Nagasaki has never been off the table.

Ellsberg observes that despite all the near-misses and crises, much has been made of the canard that no nuclear weapons have been used since 1945, encouraging a belief in some sort of magical “nuclear taboo” that’s saved us up till now and will continue to do so. He answers Donald Trump’s infamous question “If we have them, why can’t we use them?” with the stark rejoinder that we do and have used nukes many times since Nagasaki. U.S. presidents, says Ellsberg, “have used them in the precise way that a gun is used when it is pointed at someone in a confrontation, whether or not the trigger is pulled. To get one’s way without pulling the trigger is a major purpose for owning the gun.” And he provides a list of 25 specific examples in which a president did just that. Nuclear war is not only not “unthinkable,” it has been a reliable tool of U.S. diplomacy since World War II.

The book is divided into two parts, the first a memoir/confession, similar to Ellsberg’s 2002 book “Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers,” chronicling his own intellectual and moral evolution from dedicated Cold Warrior to whistleblower, as he discovers one disturbing fact after another: that, contrary to public belief and stated practices, the authority to use nuclear weapons does not rest solely with the president; that the entire apparatus of atomic Armageddon rests on a far more precarious hair trigger than advertised, vulnerable to accident or miscalculation, as has nearly happened on many occasions; and that the nuclear crises of the Cold War, particularly the Cuban missile crisis, came even closer to catastrophe than generally known. From a strictly biographical perspective, the story makes clear Ellsberg’s motivations for leaking the Pentagon Papers: the burning desire to do something, anything, to alter and perhaps reverse what he considered to be a disastrous path for his country.

In the second part, Ellsberg steps back a bit to adopt a somewhat more academic perspective, drawing on his experiences at RAND and the Pentagon. It’s here that we get a good taste of the analytical talents he employed throughout his career in the halls of official secrecy, as he considers such matters as how the principles of “just war” policy were corrupted to allow for the mass bombings of civilians and then extended into nuclear policy; the distorted rationale for the hydrogen bomb; the little-known fact that some Manhattan Project scientists feared the atomic bomb might actually ignite the Earth’s atmosphere and destroy all life; and the certainty of devastating climatic change — a “nuclear winter” or “nuclear autumn” — awaiting as a consequence of even a limited nuclear exchange.

It’s that prospect that gives the book its provocative title. While Ellsberg examines in detail the ideas and proposals for an actual Strangelovian “doomsday machine” as originally conceived by the RAND physicist Herman Kahn in 1960, he notes that the construction of any such device would be ultimately redundant. We already have a doomsday machine, and we’ve been living with it since at least the 1950s. And it’s not Russian or Chinese or Iranian or North Korean. It’s all-American, contained in the heart of all the combined warheads invented and constructed and deployed by the United States since 1945, all the weapons sleeping in silos and submarines and the bellies of aircraft, all the weapons supposedly protecting us and guaranteeing us safety from attack. Without any contributions from anyone else, the arsenal of the United States, now and for decades, has been more than sufficient to induce a nuclear winter on its own.

‘We humans almost universally have a false self-image of our species,” Ellsberg writes, believing that “monstrous, wicked policies … can only be conceived and directed and carried out by monsters.”

But those who created this threat to humanity were normal and ordinary people. Given our long and dismal history, our willingness to burn and maim and kill each other on massive scales, and our irrepressible inventiveness at devising ever more efficient and destructive weapons, the only possible conclusion is that “this is not a species to be trusted with nuclear weapons.”

Given our irrepressible inventiveness at devising ever more destructive weapons, the only possible conclusion is that “this is not a species to be trusted with nuclear weapons.”

But, Ellsberg stresses, we can yet dismantle the “dizzyingly insane and immoral” Doomsday Machine that we have constructed. Toward that end, he describes a number of definitive steps that can be taken immediately, beginning with adopting a no-first-use policy, eliminating land-based ICBMs, and de-alerting the current U.S. arsenal from the hair-trigger posture it continues to maintain. To quote Dr. Strangelove himself, “It requires only the will to do so.” It’s true that he was speaking of building a doomsday machine, not dismantling it. But the truth remains that it is possible to reverse our path toward, as Ellsberg puts it, “an irreversible, unprecedented, and almost unimaginable calamity for civilization.”

Ellsberg harbors no illusions that “The Doomsday Machine” is going to change the mind of anyone in Congress, the Pentagon, or the White House. But by bringing these secrets to light, he hopes to inspire American citizens to bring a new level of pressure to bear on the powers that be, just as the Pentagon Papers did four decades ago. One can only hope Daniel Ellsberg’s singular combination of moral credibility and personal knowledge will work its magic one more time to forestall an even greater tragedy than the Vietnam War.

*

Mark Wolverton is a science writer, author, and playwright whose articles have appeared in Undark, Wired, Scientific American, Popular Science, Air & Space Smithsonian, and American Heritage, among other publications. His most recent book is “A Life in Twilight: The Final Years of J. Robert Oppenheimer.” In 2016-17, he was a Knight Science Journalism fellow at MIT.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dismantling Doomsday: Daniel Ellsberg on the Risk of Nuclear Apocalypse

The German social democrat and conservative parties have finally agreed in a rotten compromise to form yet another not-so-grand coalition with the increasingly unpopular Angela Merkel as Chancellor. With this, it’s clear that Berlin is on automatic pilot in regard to such divisive policies as accepting hundreds of thousands of new refugees from southern hemisphere war zones such as Libya or Syria. In stark contrast to Berlin’s open policy, four countries in Central Europe—Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia—are steadfast in their refusal and rejection of the Brussels-mandated compulsory refugee policies and are rallying more open support across the EU for more national self-determination. In this not all levers of power lie in Berlin.

The growing resistance of the four, united as the Visegrád Group, is opening a potential breakup of the European Union as Brussels steadfastly refuses to budge on policy and the populations across the EU stare on with disbelief and increasingly vote more national-oriented candidates such as the newly-elected Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz of the Austrian Peoples’ Party.

The concerted effort of Brussels and the liberal media to demonize leaders such as Hungary’s Viktor Orban, as some modern variant of fascist for defending national sovereign rights to decide who is welcome to become citizen and who not, is increasingly falling on deaf ears for ordinary Europeans who are bewildered at why their politicians refuse to abandon a clearly counterproductive refugee policy.

Orban Comes to Germany

Shortly before the German coalition talks concluded, Hungarian Prime Minister Orban made a three-day visit to meet with the leaders of the conservative CSU party in Bavaria. There Orban declared that 2018 would be the “year for restoring the people’s will.” He clarified what he meant:

“The people’s will is clear. The people do not want to live under the threat of terrorism; they want security, they want their borders to be protected, and they want their leaders to take those people out of the Schengen Area who have no reason to be there.”

On April 8 Orban faces re-election in a national vote where US hedge fund speculator and political NGO operative, Hungarian-born George Soros, is financing a massive effort to defeat Orban and his Fidesz party, though the opposition at present is very divided.

In neighbor state the Czech Republic on 13 January voters gave incumbent Presidential candidate and euro-skeptic Milos Zeman a clear lead, though not the 50% needed to avoid a runoff. Zeman has criticized EU Russian sanctions and called for building economic ties to China as have other Central European states. He is also sharply critical of EU refugee policies. Together with Hungary and Poland, Prague has refused to contribute to the mandatory refugee resettlement quotas against strong pressure from the European Commission.

The third strong proponent of the national right to determine who is citizen in its borders is Poland.

In December the EU Commission announced that it would sue Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for refusing to take in refugees. The EU is also suing Hungary for passage of a new higher education law that would likely force closing of the Central European University backed by George Soros and opposes a Hungarian law requiring foreign-financed NGOs such as those backed by Soros to file as “foreign funded.” Soros-backed NGOs in the EU are major proponents of major refugee inflows into the EU.

And changes to the Polish constitution in terms of the judiciary led the EU Commission to exercise its controversial Article 7 procedure which could ultimately lead to suspension of Polish EU voting rights after Polish President Andrzej Duda defied Brussels warnings and signed the judicial reform. Because the Article 7, which has never been used until now, requires unanimous EU support, it is not likely as Orban’s Hungary has openly declared it will side with Poland. That leaves Brussels, increasingly seen as autocratic and desperate, with only the option to suspend EU aid to the Polish economy. Were that to happen, some Polish observers predict a Polish EU exit, a so-called Polexit, is possible, even likely. EU President, former Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has warned Poland could leave the EU if Brussels funds are cut.

The economic chicken game

What is becoming a game of political chicken between Brussels, backed by especially France and Germany, to force mandatory refugee quotas on the member states of eastern Europe could prove very risky for above all Germany, the strongest economy in the EU. The very states Berlin is pressuring to join its refugee policy—Hungary, Poland, Slovenia and the Czech Republic—far from being helpless banana republics or economically in dire straits—as a group, the so-called Visegrád Group, constitute Germany’s largest trading partner, larger as a group than France or China.

With the UK Brexit departure from the EU, there will be a major shift in voting weighting among the remaining EU member states. The major benefactor of this shift will be the Visegrad 4, especially Poland. If they maintain a common opposition to Brussels on key policies such as mandatory refugees, their political influence could become felt as never before.

In 2016 according to the German Federal Statistics Office, foreign trade with Visegrad 4 countries amounted to 256 billion euros, exceeding German-China trade by more than 86 billion euros and German-French trade by more than 90 billion euros. As a recent analysis by the Dutch economics group GEFIRA points out, Central Europe has become the major recipient of Germany’s production investments, as well as a place where German companies are often relocated, employing already more than half a million workers. Labor costs in Central Europe are far less than in Western Europe and education is much better, a legacy from the communist-era stress on education.

The Visegrád Group countries are second only to the United States in supplying to German

exporters, which is vital for the continued competitiveness of the German economy.

The V4 countries have a collective GDP equal to that of Turkey; they are economically indispensable to the “Old Union”, including Germany, which is treating Central European countries condescendingly and patronizingly.

Brussels’ bureaucratic elite and the Western media are depicting Central Europeans as simple-minded fascists, a grave mistake bred from a special kind of bureaucratic arrogance. Before events come to a breakup of the EU from the east, especially now that a new Austrian government under Sebastian Kurz’s Austrian People’s Party has made clear their opposition as well to the Soros-Merkel-Brussels ongoing refugee policies, it might make sense to de-escalate the confrontation on the issue of refugees in the Visegrad 4 countries. If it fails to soften its stance, Germany and the German role in Europe could be the big loser along with the EU itself.

*

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Refugee Dilemma: Germany Plays Economic Chicken with Central Europe

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Last year on January 20, he was sworn into office as America’s 45th president.

Every populist promise made was breached straightaway. Instead of draining the swamp, he filled it with neocons, Wall Street predators, hawkish generals, and billionaires.

He assured government of, by and for its privileged class exclusively, the way it’s always been in America from inception, the nation a fantasy democracy, not the real thing – far worse than ever since the neoliberal 90s, notably post-9/11.

The myth of the anti-establishment candidate vanished straightaway after Trump’s inauguration.

He’s a dirty politician like most others in Washington – responsible for enormous harm to countless millions at home and abroad.

He didn’t become a billionaire by being a good guy. Now he’s president and commander-in-chief of the nation’s military with his finger on the nuclear trigger he may be itching to squeeze.

He curries favor with rogue states like Israel and Saudi Arabia, vilifies sovereign independent ones, marks them for regime change, waging endless wars of aggression and phony war on terrorism like his predecessors.

Instead of pursuing peace and stability, he grievously breached international law, waging state terrorism globally, violating fundamental human and civil rights at home and abroad.

He pledged improved relations with Moscow. They’re more dismal than ever. His defense secretary called Russia and China America’s main adversaries. Is military confrontation planned against them?

Most workers in Trump’s America struggle to get by on rotten part-time or temp jobs paying poverty wages.

They’re one missed paycheck from homelessness, hunger and deprivation, an uncaring nation doing nothing to help, pretending prosperity exists at a time of protracted Main Street Depression.

Trump’s promise of the great GOP tax cut heist lifting all boats was a bald-faced lie. He, corporate predators, and the nation’s super-rich will benefit hugely. Most ordinary Americans will pay higher taxes when the law sunsets.

Trump’s year ago inaugural address was filled with empty promises – broken straightaway in office.

Trump: “We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people.”

Fact: Only privileged ones and corporate predators benefit from Trump’s policies.

Trump: “(W)e are transferring power from Washington, DC and giving it back to you, the American people.”

Fact: The “people” he meant are the nation’s rich and powerful, no others.

Trump: “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.”

“Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left, and the factories closed.”

“The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories…”

“That all changes, starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment. It belongs to you.”

Fact: Things were dismal for ordinary Americans when Trump entered office.

They’re far worse than ever now – a nation beautiful only for its privileged few, most others exploited so they can benefit hugely.

That’s the deplorable state of the nation under Trump, his rogue’s gallery of administration officials, extremist bipartisan congressional members, and federal courts, stacked with right-wing extremists.

The words “Equal Justice Under Law,” adorning the Supreme Court Building’s cornerstone, belie its decisions, arguments, and “supreme” allegiance to wealth, power, privilege, not “We the people.”

Privilege always counted most in America since its founding. The prevailing fiction about an egalitarian nation is belied by the extreme disparity between super-wealth and ordinary people struggling to get by.

America was always ruled by men, not laws, who lie, connive, misinterpret and pretty much do what they want for their own self-interest and powerful allies.

“The people” who matter most are the nation’s rich, well-born and able, the ones John Adams said should run the country.

Trump: “January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.”

Fact: They’re more exploited, otherwise abused, and “forgotten” than ever.

Each changing of the guard in Washington assures dirty business as usual continuing. Names and faces change. Policies inflicting enormous harm on countess millions stay the same or worsen.

Things today are more dismal and disturbing than any time in modern memory. The nation is permanently at war, including against its own ordinary people, its poor and most vulnerable harmed most.

Police state laws established growing tyranny, heading toward full-blown – freedom in America eroding, maybe disappearing altogether ahead.

Instead of fulfilling his inaugural promises, Trump proved he’s just another dirty politician.

He may be the first US president to use nuclear weapons since Harry Truman at a time some nations his administration marks for regime change can retaliate with their own – risking armageddon.

*

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Deplorable First Year in Office. “Dirty Politics”
  • Tags:

Public-Private Partnerships (P3s): Corporate Collapse Highlights Risks of Privatization

January 21st, 2018 by Canadian Union of Public Employees

The collapse of Carillion, a global privatization corporation, illustrates the risky nature of public-private partnerships (P3s) and contracting out. Carillion is involved in 10 P3s across Canada, primarily in hospitals in Ontario, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories. Two hospitals are still in development.

It is unclear how Carillion’s equity stakes and facilities management contracts in many Canadian P3s, as well as the contracted-out services they provide, will be dealt with as part of the company’s asset liquidation. CUPE believes the infrastructure and services in which Carillion plays a role should be brought back under public control – all public infrastructure should be publicly financed, owned, maintained and operated. The UK government has committed to provide funding to maintain public services carried out by Carillion staff, subcontractors and suppliers. The company’s 6,000 workers in Canada should have their work contracted in, with good wages and working conditions.

A bad track record

Carillion was the lead company in the consortium that built the P3 Brampton Civic Hospital, a project the Ontario Auditor General found to have cost $200 million more than if the province had borrowed to build it publicly. A more recent auditor’s report found that 74 P3 projects cost the province $8 billion more than if they had been procured publicly.

Just last December, a damning 2017 Ontario Auditor General report showed that hospitals are being gouged by P3 contractors for maintenance work not covered under the original P3 contract. Several hospitals are in long-term disputes with P3 maintenance companies over these contracts which often last for 30 years. The report does not name individual corporations.

This problem is not limited to Ontario. The Saskatchewan NDP has shown that Carillion and another corporation were scheduled to get paid $185 million over a 30-year contract for maintenance of a P3 hospital in North Battleford, Saskatchewan – more than $6 million per year for a brand new facility. As a comparison, the former Prairie North Health Region spent $3.1 million on repairs and maintenance at all hospitals and facilities.

In 2016, the authority responsible for Halton, Ontario health care issued a notice about door failures, flooding and slow service provider response and rectification times at the recently-built Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital. The facilities management contract at the time was held by Carillion. Subsequently Carillion sold its equity stake and facilities management rights to Fengate, another privatization corporation.

Carillion has been involved in the following Canadian P3s:

  • Stanton Territorial Hospital Renewal
  • Saskatchewan Hospital North Battleford
  • Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital
  • Forensic Services and Coroner’s Complex
  • Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
  • Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre
  • Sault Area Hospital
  • Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre M-Wing Expansion
  • Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
  • William Osler Health Centre (Brampton Civic Hospital)

The company has also faced an investigation by the Ontario government over its salting of highways. Carillion is responsible for eight highway winter maintenance contracts in the province in addition to contracted-out highway maintenance in Alberta.

A game of corporate poker and profit-making

P3s put public services at risk due to the unpredictable and volatile operations of corporations. Ownership stakes in P3s can change hands resulting in a rotating door of corporate involvement that destabilizes public services. In this case, Carillion is going under and its equity stakes and facilities maintenance contracts will likely be auctioned off.

In Canada, over 20 equity sales of P3s have taken place with at least seven ending up owned by corporations in tax havens. In one case, equity in the Vancouver General Hospital Diamond Centre P3 hospital has changed hands twice since 2007 and is now owned by an investment company located in Guernsey, a tax haven depriving the BC government of needed tax revenue.

Each time these equity stakes change hands, big profit is made from our public infrastructure. Research in Europe showed the average annual rate of return on P3 equity sales from 1998-2016 was a staggering 28.7 per cent. It’s clear who has the losing hand in this P3 equity poker game: the public.

*

Featured image is from Canadian Union of Public Employees.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Public-Private Partnerships (P3s): Corporate Collapse Highlights Risks of Privatization
  • Tags:

Thirty-six-year-old Chinese engineer Pingzhi Liu went missing almost a month ago. It took Pakistani authorities three weeks to classify Mr. Liu’s disappearance as a likely kidnapping that could have significant political and economic consequences.

Identifying the mysterious disappearance as a kidnapping is not only embarrassing because Mr. Liu was one of thousands of Chinese nationals working in Pakistan that are guarded by a specially created 15,000-man Pakistani military unit.

It is also awkward because it coincides with apparent Chinese questioning of aspects of the $56-billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a crown jewel of China’s Belt and Road initiative, and increasingly strained relations between Pakistan and the United States.

Mr. Liu was accorded military protection even though his project, the Karot Hydropower Plant, located near the Pakistani capital of Islamabad, is not part of CPEC. Karot was the first project financed by China’s state-owned $40 billion Silk Road Fund, established in 2014 by President Xi Jinping to foster increased investment in Eurasia.

Mr. Liu went missing on December 20 while on night duty. He was last seen walking out of a tunnel at around 3.30am while talking on his phone. No claim for his potential kidnapping or ransom has been made.

The fact that Mr. Liu was working on a project in Punjab rather than Balochistan, a troubled region with a history of attacks on Chinese personnel, has set alarm bells off.

China last month warned its nationals in Pakistan, a country plagued by religious and ethnic militancy, of plans for a series of imminent terrorist attacks on Chinese targets

“It is understood that terrorists plan in the near term to launch a series of attacks against Chinese organisations and personnel in Pakistan,” the Chinese embassy in Pakistan said in a statement on its website.

The embassy warned all “Chinese-invested organisations and Chinese citizens to increase security awareness, strengthen internal precautions, reduce trips outside as much as possible, and avoid crowded public spaces”.

Police have twice detained for interrogation Chinese and Pakistani workers associated with the Karot project. They are also introducing security and vetting measures for Pakistani nationals working with Chinese personnel.

If proven to be a kidnapping, Mr. Liu’s disappearance could not have come at a more awkward moment. China has signalled that it is considering freezing further CPEC-related investment until the country’s domestic situation stabilizes. China is believed to have so far invested $29 billion of the $56 billion committed.

“Political events in Pakistan have sent China in a watchful mood… I am concerned if we continue to throw surprises to the outside world, then anyone can be forced to rethink their economic investments,” Pakistan’s chief CPEC negotiator, Ahsan Iqbal, told Pakistani daily The News.

China had earlier decided to redevelop criteria for the funding of CPEC-related infrastructure projects in an apparent effort to enhance the Pakistani military’s stake in the country’s economy at a time that the armed forces are flexing their political muscle.

The Chinese decision that reportedly led to the suspension of funding for three major road projects valued at a total of $850 million – the upgrading of the Dera Ismail Khan-Zhob motorway and the Karakorum highway as well as construction of a 110-kilometre road linking Khuzdar and Basima – suggested that Beijing was not averse to exploiting its massive investment in the Belt and Road to shape the political environment in key countries in its authoritarian mould.

The possible investment freeze threw into doubt China’s reliability as Pakistan’s all-weather friend at the very moment that the Trump administration announced that it was cutting almost all security aid to Pakistan, believed to total more than $1 billion, until it deals with militant networks operating on its soil.

Pakistan, in response and in advance of a visit by a United Nations Security Council team to evaluate Pakistani compliance with its resolutions, has sought to crack down on the fundraising and political activities of Muhammad Hafez Saeed, an internationally designated terrorist accused of having masterminded the 2008 attacks in Mumbai.

Pakistan’s predicament could worsen if Mr. Trump, who has targeted Pakistan in blunt tweets in the past month, decides to tighten the screws beyond cutting aid by taking further punitive action such as sanctioning Pakistani military officials, revoking Pakistan’s non-NATO ally status; increasing drone strikes beyond Pakistan’s tribal areas; designating Pakistan as a state sponsor of terror, and/or pressuring international financial institutions to blacklist Pakistan.

The sensitivity of the timing of Mr. Liu’s disappearance was heightened by the fact that some in Pakistan appear to doubt whether CPEC will be the magic wand for Pakistan’s economy and regional geopolitical position that Pakistani and Chinese leaders make it out to be.

Criticism of CPEC has focused on doubts about the financial viability of various projects, Pakistan’s ability to repay related debts, a lack of transparency, and assertions that Chinese nationals were usurping Pakistani jobs.

In a rare challenging of Chinese commercial terms Pakistan recently withdrew from a Chinese-funded dam-building project.

Pakistani Water and Power Development Authority chairman Muzammil Hussain charged that “Chinese conditions for financing the Diamer-Bhasha Dam were not doable and against our interests.” China and Pakistan were also at odds over ownership of the $14 billion, 4,500 megawatts (MW)-hydropower project on the Indus River in the country’s problematic region of Gilgit-Baltistan near disputed Kashmir.

Earlier, a State Bank of Pakistan study concluded that exports of marble to China, Pakistan’s foremost rough-hewn, freshly-excavated marble export market, and the re-export to Pakistan of Pakistani semi-processed marble was “hurting Pakistan’s marble industry to a significant extent.”

report by the Pakistani Senate, that has repeatedly criticized CPEC’s lack of transparency and Chinese commercial policies, concluded that China would for the next four decades get 91 percent of the revenues generated by the port of Gwadar.

The vanishing of Mr. Liu, if proven to be a criminally or politically motivated kidnapping, threatens in the current environment to put Pakistan between a rock and a hard place. Its relationship with its traditional ally, the United States, is on the rocks while its ties to China are proving to be more complex than Pakistani leaders had envisioned.

Amid domestic political instability, anti-government protests, and pressure to come clean in its getting a grip on militancy, Pakistani democracy may be saddled with the bill.

While neither the United States nor China can afford a complete rupture, neither has a clear strategy to help Pakistan stabilize. China’s solution appears to be tacitly supporting a greater role of the military in Pakistani politics – a formula that has in the past failed to produce results and is more part of the problem than part of the solution.

*

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title as well as Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, co-authored with Dr. Teresita Cruz-Del Rosario and Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Chinese Engineer’s Disappearance in Pakistan Takes on Geopolitical Significance

The Trump administration’s defense secretary, former Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis, rolled out a new National Defense Strategy Friday that signals open preparations by US imperialism for direct military confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia and China.

Speaking at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland, Mattis made clear that the strategy, the first such document to be issued by the Pentagon in roughly a decade, represented an historic shift from the ostensible justification for US global militarism for nearly two decades: the so-called war on terrorism.

“Great power competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of US national security,” Mattis said in his speech, which accompanied the release of an 11-page declassified document outlining the National Defense Strategy in broad terms.

A lengthier classified version was submitted to the US Congress, which includes the Pentagon’s detailed proposals for a massive increase in military spending.

Much of the document’s language echoed terms used in the National Security Strategy document unveiled last month in a fascistic speech delivered by President Donald Trump. Mattis insisted that the US was facing “growing threat from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia, nations that seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models.”

The defense strategy goes on to accuse China of seeking “Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global preeminence in the future.”

Russia, it charges, is attempting to achieve “veto authority over nations on its periphery in terms of their governmental, economic, and diplomatic decisions, to shatter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and change European and Middle East security and economic structures to its favor.”

“China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea,” it states. “Russia has violated the borders of nearby nations and pursues veto power over the economic, diplomatic, and security decisions of its neighbors.”

In what appeared to be a threat directed against both Russia and China, Mattis warned,

“If you challenge us, it will be your longest and worst day.”

Both Moscow and Beijing issued statements condemning the US defense strategy. A Chinese spokesman denounced the document as a return to a “Cold War mentality.” Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, told a United Nations press conference:

“It is regrettable that instead of having a normal dialog, instead of using the basis of international law, the US is indeed striving to prove their leadership through such confrontational strategies and concepts.”

A government spokesman in Moscow characterized the document as “imperialistic.”

Like the National Security Strategy released last month, the defense strategy also singles out North Korea and Iran as “rogue regimes,” charging them with destabilizing regions through their “pursuit of nuclear weapons or sponsorship of terrorism.” It accuses Tehran of “competing with its neighbors, asserting an arc of influence and instability while vying for regional hegemony.”

The document calls for the preparation for war across what it describes as “three key regions”: the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East. The document also makes brief references to Latin America and Africa, asserting the necessity of US imperialism striving for hegemony on both continents. It makes clear that these continents are arenas for the global “great power” struggle that forms the core of the strategy, asserting that a key aim in Africa is to “limit the malign influence of non-African powers.”

What emerges clearly from the Pentagon document is a vision of US imperialism besieged on all sides and in mortal danger of losing global dominance. It reflects the thinking among the cabal of retired and active-duty generals that dominate the Trump administration’s foreign policy that the past 16 years of unending wars in the Middle East and Central Asia have failed to further US strategic interests, creating a series of debacles, while grinding down the US military.

“Today, we are emerging from a period of strategic atrophy, aware that our competitive military advantage has been eroding,” the document states. “We are facing increased global disorder, characterized by decline in the long-standing rules-based international order—creating a security environment more complex and volatile than any we have experienced in recent memory. Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.”

The Pentagon’s aim, according to the defense strategy, is to ensure that the US remains “the preeminent military power in the world” able to “ensure the balance of power remains in our favor,” “advance an international order that is most conducive to our security and prosperity” and “preserve access to markets.”

The thrust of the document is a demand for a vast buildup of the American war machine, which already spends more than the next eight countries combined, including nearly triple the military spending of China and roughly eight times the amount spent by Russia.

A failure to implement the huge military spending increases that the Pentagon is demanding—the Trump White House has called for a $54 billion increase in the military budget, while Congressional leaders have suggested an even bigger hike—will result “in decreasing U.S. global influence, eroding cohesion among allies and partners, and reduced access to markets that will contribute to a decline in our prosperity and standard of living,” the declassified summary of the defense strategy warns.

Despite having siphoned trillions of dollars out of the US economy to pay for the past 16 years of war, Mattis and the defense strategy present the American military as an institution that has been virtually starved of resources, unable to meet “readiness, procurement, and modernization requirements.”

The overriding objective in terms of modernization is the buildup of the US “nuclear triad”—Washington’s array of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and strategic bombers, capable of destroying life on the planet many times over.

The document said the Pentagon will seek to upgrade all aspects of its nuclear war-fighting apparatus, “including nuclear command, control, and communications, and supporting infrastructure.” It added that “Modernization of the nuclear force includes developing options to counter competitors’ coercive strategies, predicated on the threatened use of nuclear or strategic non-nuclear attacks.” In other words, the US military is prepared to launch a nuclear war in response to a conventional or cyberattack.

Tellingly, the Pentagon document uses the words “lethal” and “lethality” 15 times to describe the aims of Mattis and his fellow generals in regard to their proposed military buildup. Clearly, what is being prepared is a level of mass killing far beyond the bloodbaths carried out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere.

In Mattis’s speech there was a strong element of resentment toward the civilian government and its constitutional control over the military. He described US troops being compelled to “stoically carry a ‘success at any cost’ attitude, as they worked tirelessly to accomplish the mission with inadequate and misaligned resources simply because the Congress could not maintain regular order.”

Mattis warned that the war plans outlined in the document will require “sustained investment by the American people,” noting that “past generations” had been compelled to make “harsher sacrifices.”

These new “sacrifices” will take the form of savage cuts to essential social services, including the gutting of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, with the transfer of resources to the military, the arms industry and the financial oligarchy.

The National Defense Strategy released Friday constitutes a grave warning to working people in the US and throughout the world. Driven by the crisis of their system, America’s capitalist ruling class and its military are preparing for a world war fought with nuclear weapons.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pentagon Unveils Strategy for Military Confrontation with Russia and China

US, Turkey React as Syrian Forces Move into Idlib

January 20th, 2018 by Tony Cartalucci

The Syrian government with support from its Russian, Iranian, and Lebanese allies has embarked on a major military operation to retake parts of Syria’s northern governorate of Idlib. As it does so, the US and its regional allies are rushing to position themselves to ensure the permanent partition of Syria is achieved.

As Syrian forces push deeper into Idlib they have come up against a large amount of foreign-provided weaponry including US anti-tank missiles and even fleets of armored vehicles including Panthera F9 armored personnel carriers – joint-developed by the UAE and Ukraine and manufactured in Turkey.

Despite the formidable arsenal provided to militants – the majority of which fight under the banner of Al Qaeda and its affiliates – Syria and its allies maintain air superiority. The US tried – and failed – to establish what US policymakers have called a “safe haven” or “buffer zone” in northern Syria where US military might could provide shelter for militants from Syrian and Russian airpower.

While the US has successfully established such a zone in eastern Syria – the closest it came to doing so in northern Syria is NATO-member Turkey’s “Euphrates Shield” occupation zone and the smaller “Idlib Shield” zone which both border territory held by hostile Kurdish militants.

Recently announced plans by the US to create a 30,000-strong “border defense force” comprised of US-armed and funded Kurdish militants may be intentionally designed to grant Turkey a pretext to begin widening its occupation zones to provide cover for the remnants of militants likely to be evicted from much of southern Idlib.

Reports that Turkey is preparing an offensive to widen its occupation westward into Idlib are already circulating in the media.

The BBC in its article, “Syria crisis: Why Turkey is poised to attack Kurdish enclave Afrin,” would report:

Turkish television channels have been reporting from the Syrian border every top of the hour with pictures showing the deployment of troops, tanks and armoured vehicles. 

“The countdown has begun for Turkey’s operation against Afrin,” said one pro-government channel. 

Its correspondent underlined that the troops on the border were already pointing at what the authorities term terrorist targets within Syria. There were also reports of Turkish artillery shelling the area. 

It should be noted that Afrin is located between territory Turkey is currently occupying. Turkish troops, should they seize Afrin, would effectively have expanded Turkey’s “Euphrates Shield” by 30 miles (53 km) and present an opportunity to for its troops to link up with troops of Turkey’s “Idlib Shield.” This would create a large, singular buffer zone within which US-NATO forces could harbor militants driven back by Syria’s most recent offensive.

Depending on Turkey’s success, the zone could be expanded even further, even as far as including Idlib city itself – thus granting the US an opportunity to present it as a second Syrian “capital” much in the way Benghazi was used in Libya during US-led regime change there. There remains, however, the fact that Idlib is openly occupied and administered by Al Qaeda, making the proposal of transforming it into an “opposition capital” particularly dubious.

Meanwhile, the US itself continues its own uninvited, illegal occupation of Syrian territory east of the Euphrates. Having previously justified the invasion and occupation of Syrian territory under the guise of fighting the so-called “Islamic Sate” (ISIS) – with the terrorist organization’s defeat – the US has now claimed it must remain in Syria to “counter Iranian influence.”

The Hill in an article titled, “State official indicates US military role in Syria post-ISIS centered on Iran,” would claim:

A State Department official on Thursday suggested the U.S. military’s role in Syria post-Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) will be focused on Iranian activities.

David Satterfield, acting assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs, was responding to a question from Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) about what function U.S. troops serve in Syria besides fighting ISIS, as Satterfield and other U.S. officials have indicated the military will be staying the country past the terrorist group’s defeat.

The Hill would continue, stating:

Satterfield then offered: “We are deeply concerned with the activities of Iran, with the ability of Iran to enhance those activities through a greater ability to move materiel into Syria. And I would rather leave the discussion at that point.”

Washington’s apparently shape-shifting Syrian policy should come as no surprise. The entire proxy war against Syria the US has waged since 2011 was always intended to eventually involve Iran. The abortive US-backed “protests” in Iran in late December 2017 marked what is likely only the first of many attempts to come in which Iran itself is directly targeted. The US occupation of Syrian territory will be difficult for Damascus and its allies to contest without being drawn into a direct military confrontation. Turkey’s occupation may be easier to confound, but if sufficient political will exists to maintain it along with US backing, it could effectively result in a Golan Heights-style occupation of Syrian territory that provides a long-term geopolitical pressure point versus Damascus for years to come.

And while US efforts to destroy Syria have fallen short, the US now permanently occupies territory within one of Iran’s closest and most important regional allies. Like a splinter under the skin turning septic, the US occupation will remain a constant potential source of wider infection both for Syria and the rest of the region.

The successes or failures of both Syria and its allies and Turkey in northern Syria over the following weeks and months will determine just how big a splinter is left as the conflict enters its final phases.

*

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US, Turkey React as Syrian Forces Move into Idlib

We know that the Richard E. Lugar Centre in Tbilisi is actually a biological weapons lab. It has always been assumed that the US Department of Defense took over this facility, alongside a string of others in the former Soviet Union, for offensive purpose, and that the “scientific research” into animal and human diseases it claims to be carrying out is merely a front for developing new biological strains, viruses and bacteria, and then testing them on the Georgian population and the agricultural industry, without asking for consent, and even developing new generation vaccines and cures which are often experimental, naturally donated or supported by the US Department of Defence and German medical research facilities.

There is much evidence that these strains are being tested on the population, ironically even pundits got-it-right. More measurable evidence includes the sudden unexplained spikes in various diseases, human and plants, mortality rates. One also needs to mention the great reluctance of medical people in Georgia to talk about such things, other than off the record and in total confidence, not even to be recorded.

Fewer are even willing to discuss the fact that, after millions of dollars have been spent on this “research lab”, because of flawed engineering and substandard safety standards. Ironically it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find a single research paper published in Georgian, and even the clinical studies are done in secret—and without informed consent. Josef Mengele, Nazi doctor, would be impressed with the Georgian project.

This is not all.

The present Georgian government made a great show of taking over this lab as soon as it took office, due to public concern about it, but the US Department of Defense still claims to run it regardless. A number of foreign contract staff at the centre had returned home to die, too many for these to be natural cause, unrelated deaths. If anyone starts asking questions, problems will result, as Ragnar Skrea Norwegian Journalist found out after attacked at his home by mast men within hours of visiting the lab several years ago.

He thought at the time that robbery was not the purpose and suspected that the attack was connected to him having information on the planned production of biological weapons in Georgia. He had been carrying out journalistic investigation regarding the allegation.

Even if the production of biological weapon does not start in Georgia, the government does not appreciate to expose the information that there is reserve of biological bacteria in the country,” said Skre in an interview with the Georgian Human Rights Centre.

All these things are matters of public record; even VOA tries to provide a smokescreen for its actual purpose, claiming that it is “politics-and-not-science” is why should Russia is concerned.

But recent developments suggest that the lab has other functions, including the links between DNA groups and bio weapons. It is not simply observing the effects of new biological strains by studying them by manipulating them. There is a strong possibility that one of its purposes is to inflict upon Georgia already proven viruses and bacteria, which no one needs to test.

Many in Russia and Arab countries suspect that they are likely the target of such research. Russian Senator Klintsevich claims that

“It is no secret that different ethnic groups react to biological weapons in different ways and that is why the West is meticulously collecting material all across Russia.”  

In short, this and other labs, in Kenya, Thailand and Ukraine are not preparing weapons for future use by its favoured terrorists but by stockpiling them for a rainy day: using them itself: conducting its own biological terrorism against its friends rather than its enemies. It is no accident that it partners with the Army Medicine’s US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command in carrying out infectious disease surveillance and research, purportedly develop better diagnostics, treatments and vaccines. Naturally all this is in violation of the Bio Weapons Convention, but that is a moot issue when the research is outsourced to Grey Zones as Georgia, under the flimsy guise of human and animal health.

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain: Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.

One of the people who ended up in a hospital for investigating what is going on in the Richard E. Lugar Centre is Jeffrey Silverman, who has lived in Georgia for over 25 years, and thought he had seen it all until the nature of this lab became clear. He has contributed some of his thoughts and experience to the book “Putin’s Praetorians”, written by NEO and Veterans Today contributor Phil Butler.

Silverman has brought to our attention a message he received from someone who apparently wrote to him out-of-the-blue. He recognised this message as the action of someone with a story to tell, who may have difficulty making the right people hear it.

Given the contents, this might be surprising in some countries, but not in Georgia.

Killing Hope – “Survival is Insufficient”

The message is from one Per Have. It reads:

“Dear Mr. Silverman,

I am writing to you after having read Putin’s Praetorians, and in particular your chapter.

Being a retired veterinarian specialising in animal virus diseases I am particularly interested in the spread of the devastating virus disease of pigs known as African Swine Fever (ASF). This infection had its origin in warthogs and other indigenous pigs in Sub-Saharan Africa.

ASF was introduced into Portugal and Spain around 1960, but has since been eliminated from the Iberian Peninsula. Quite surprisingly, it then surfaced in Cuba and other Caribbean islands at the beginning of the ’70s, where it proved to be detrimental to pig farming and the livelihood of poor people. It was suspected that it was introduced to cause economic damage by anti-Castro rebels supported by CIA (as mentioned in W, Blum, and “Killing Hope”).

In 2007 ASF appeared in Georgia, and has since spread to Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and most recently several Eastern EU countries. It is currently the greatest threat to pig production in the EU, because it is maintained in the wild boar population, which is expanding in Europe and in which it is practically impossible to control.

It does not stop there, and as in the US, where there is compelling evidence that the CIA released whooping-cough bacteria into the open air in Florida, followed by an extremely sharp increase in the incidence of the disease in the state that year. The following year, another toxic substance was disseminated in the streets and tunnels of New York City (Blum).

Officially, it is assumed (but not proven) that the virus was brought to Georgia via swill unloaded from ships in Black Sea harbours. The [apparent] fingerprints of the virus trace it back to South-East Africa. Having read your accounts on the biological warfare activities in Georgia, the question which comes to mind is whether the introduction of ASF was entirely accidental?

I don’t know the answer to this question, but I have also not seen anyone try to answer it. I wonder if you might have any info which could shed more light on these events.

Silverman responds:

I have read your message, and I think the question is very well worth the effort of asking. I will present it to the so-called experts in the Georgian Ministry of Health and Science, and to the Lugar Lab via the mainstream media in Georgia.

What went on in Cuba, based on your materials is going on in Georgia, such as Task 33, a “Plan for Incapacitation of Sugar Workers,” as part of a scheme to develop a plan for incapacitating large sections of the sugar workers by the covert use of BW [biological weapons] or CW agents, and I suspect the loses in the hazelnut industry in Western Georgia is a pilot for what is planned for Turkey next.

There is no coincidence that the US military is involved, and how such attacks are backstopped by the bio warfare experts from Fort Detrick, Maryland. BTW, I too have a background in agriculture, spending much of my youth on a farm, having a BSc and MSc in vocational agriculture, and I even worked on the university swine farm in my student days.

Based on the information I have had access to, material from insiders working in the lab and my own background in bio and chemical weapons, US Army, there is little doubt in my mind that ASF was intentionally released as an experiment to play havoc on the Russian economy. I will be looking into this, and will see what kind of literature review I can come up with, as Georgia is mostly surrounded by Muslim countries, and Turkey may be the next target, and the virus did not affect the wild pigs in Georgia as it did the domestic herds.

DNA Specific Weapons

But how the hell can one prove one version or the other? DNA strain – South East Africa, which could be Mozambique, not well known for its pork production “husbandry” – or for having the facilities to identify or weaponise any virus, and even if it was South Africa, who may well have the facilities and know how, I very much doubt there is the political appetite to get involved in this kind of adventure. Then too there is the theory that various strains of diseases are being designed to deal with Russians and Middle Eastern populations.

I am nearly always drawn to the cock up theory. I know a friend who spent some time looking at a story about strain of mildew that affected heroin harvests in Afghanistan – reducing it by as much as 80 percent. The Soviets had [allegedly] developed it in Abkhazia and at other plant warfare facilities in Georgia after the Soviet invasion.

More recently, it turned out that neither the Brits nor Americans would touch it as it would be biological warfare and set a precedent. If they wouldn’t do it in Afghanistan where there was a kinetic war, partly funded by heroin and the arms trade, then I doubt anyone would do it to get a very minor economic advantage—at least in a world when better minds make the decisions.

Ways out at the front

It will be interesting to see what response, if any, Silverman and Have get to their questions once this information is shared with the Georgian media. What we do know already is that Donald Trump took office stating that he wanted to cut US military commitments, after its people have long supported ever-increasing spending on being the self-appointed policeman of the world.

All Trump has actually done so far is threaten all kinds of wars and make US military action ever more likely, all bark and not bite. But he knows, as do his military brass, that the US war machine is being stretched too thin. Simply in order to maintain its existing influence the US has to find another way to project force. With some of its former allies now looking at other protectors, in tandem or as replacements, the US needs more conflict simply to stand still.

During the Cold War one of the issues frequently talked about was that although both sides had nuclear weapons, the West would have had to use them first, due to the size of the Soviet Bloc’s conventional forces. The West didn’t want to do that, which is why the various disarmament treaties such as SALT were largely a Western initiative. Nuclear arms limitation would bring parity, and thus peace, because it would stop the West from having to resort to such weapons, and this—being in itself a warlike gesture.

We do not live in the Cold War world now, but we are witnessing the rise of China and a gradual loss of US influence which its own behaviour has brought upon itself. US allies are increasingly less willing to sign up to US regime change schemes, such as the Syrian conflict, and then be told by The White House that they need to pay for a greater portion of them themselves. Nor do they appreciate being told who else they can talk to if they are friends of the US, or that they are harbouring terrorists just because the US isn’t arming and paying that particular bunch of terrorists today, though it might next week.

The US is losing the conventional power game. But it still doesn’t want to nuke everyone, merely to threaten to, by putting ever more missiles in ever more bases. So the US needs biological warfare to do what it can’t do in any other way. It can destabilise its enemies, and keep its allies under control, in the biological sphere when it can’t project other types of force.

In effect, this is what Trump said on the campaign trail, as it provides the way he can square the circle of threatening all kinds of countries and still cutting conventional military expenditure, the things people see, like men and tanks. Other countries will also have to pay for a share of a US/NATO biological warfare programme, but how much of it will be on the books?

There are different degrees of classified information, and the secrecy surrounding the work of the Lugar lab and other research facilities in Georgia, which are supposed to be a “scientific institutes”, suggests that whatever goes on there is not being fully accounted for, or properly audited, because it can’t be. Trump’s business career demonstrates that he knows effective ways to save money on paper, whatever the reality.

Pigs do fly

At least the US is consistent. Whenever its actions are called into question anywhere, you can find parallels with previous US actions which give an idea of what is really going on, and even which intelligence training schools the perpetrators went to. For example, regime change has a long history of prior analogies.

Back in 1977 the San Francisco Chronicle reported on its front page that anti-Castro terrorists introduced African Swine Fever into Cuba in 1971, just as Per Have suggests, despite the fact he probably never read this article. As in the more recent case in Georgia, the virus entered Cuba by boat through friendly ports and halted pork production, thereby damaging the Cuban economy.

Those involved in transmitting the virus may not have been aware of what it was, but they were well paid for doing the job, much better than they would have been for ordinary cargo. As in the Georgian case, the US did not admit involvement, and could not have done, as the Nixon White House had banned chemical warfare at this time. But no one else could have developed the virus, introduced it in the matter they did and paid the operatives so well to do it.

Following the international embarrassment of the ironically-named Bay of Pigs fiasco, the US had few offensive options in Cuba in 1971. Military action was off the table, and propaganda wasn’t working with the very people it should have, those who were suffering privation from the Castro regime but were enchanted by the promise of the riches some exiles were making. When all else had failed, the US used pigs to try and ruin the country.

The present Georgian government, though pro-US, is not as compliant as the criminal gang which preceded it. It wants to run more of the show itself, and move away from the dirty deeds of the previous regime. So it needs to be shown who’s boss, without scaring other partners. Sending a deadly virus which ruins the pork industry was as good a way of doing this as the previous Georgian government’s favourite method, which was cutting the domestic electricity at strategic times when the country was actually exporting electrical energy.

A plus B

The US ostensibly moved its biological facilities into Georgia to study new strains of disease which were naturally occurring in livestock, and under control. The real reason however, to take control of the left over stocks of especially dangerous pathogens storied there, under the veil of threat reduction.

This may explain why the Lugar Centre has not produced public research papers – it can’t find naturally occurring bio agents, only ones it put there and researches. But as always, Georgia has been used as the template for the region – what happens there will be rolled out in other friendly regional states sooner or later, if the US sees an advantage in it—and the timing is right.

Testing biological agents on the population through takes time and a willing government that will turn a blind eye. Furthermore, you have to keep at least some of the effects quiet. Poisoning of pigs can be blamed on the virus itself, the transmission can be claimed as a natural accident or the work of hostile powers, and the effects can be broadcast to the skies so everyone goes running to their protectors.

If you were a military man who couldn’t achieve the same objectives by sending troops in, which second option would you choose? It is all about finishing the job and making the World Safe for Democracy, US-styled Democracy.

One only needs to take a look Emily St. John Mandel, and her work of fiction, Station Eleven, where 99 percent of the World’s population has been wiped out within hours and days of spread of the mysterious Georgia Flu, unknowingly brought to the United States via virus-carrying airline, naturally filled with passengers from Russia.

Enough similarities abound with the fictitious Georgia Flu/Lugar Bio Weapons Lab and/or “the real-life Ebola virus to challenge the interest of conspiracy theorists. Any level-headed reader will raise an eyebrow and wonder what if … could this?”

*

Henry Kamens is a columnist, expert on Central Asia and Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from the author.

Erdogan’s Turkey: When Knives Cut Both Ways

January 20th, 2018 by Brett Redmayne-Titley

“A Leader should be like a father… he helps the country grow, teaches it, provides for its future. Erdogan? He is no father to Turkey.” – Turkish citizen on the streets of Istanbul.

On the streets, cafes, and carpet shops of Istanbul a very different story than the one presented by western media is developing about the true allegiance of Turkey’s president Recep Tayyip Erdogan. While he continues to play a dangerous international game between Russia and the NATO/Israeli/US alliance his biggest future enemy walks the streets of his realm… the Turkish people. And he knows it.

While walking the ancient hilly streets here in Istanbul, where the ill-fated Occupy/Turkey movement and the purported, “coup” once reared its populist head in the huge Taksim Square, police presence here is massive, intentional and obvious.

Since the coup of July 15, 2016, most street corners now have patrol cars sitting idly, their flashing lights always on, two cops per car, sitting inside doing little but smoking fat non-filtered Turkish cigarettes and staring at the passers-by. Six different police uniforms can be observed along with those of three different branches of military garb. The uniform seen most is a simple, very new looking royal blue and black jacket with “Polis” emblazoned on the back in white six inch letters. While some carry automatic weapons and/or pistols, these jackets are also worn by women whose only weapon seems to be a purse, young Turks in jeans who stand in groups observing the crowd, and rough looking characters in jeans and track shoes who walk about, fingers on the triggers of Kalashnikovs. In the tourist centers, such as Galata Bridge, police indiscriminately accost Arab looking passers-by; demanding their passports. They leave the many Asian and very few Caucasian tourists alone.

One of the many MRAP style vehicles

Nowhere in Istanbul is this police presence not obvious. The grim faces of these gendarmeries have already had the desired effect on the people. Istanbul is unusually unfriendly. From the airport staff to bus drivers, and subway attendants they too showcase the same dark, narrowed eyes of suspicion exemplified by the police presence. These are the faces of the new Turkey. Erdogan’s Turkey.

Considering that President Erdogan has publicly stated that his preferred example of successful governance is Nazi Germany, it thus comes as no surprise that this long ago defeated example of authoritarian power is now his direction for his quest for unlimited, everlasting power.

This fact is not lost on the Turks who believe the coup of 2015 to be manufactured, similar to Hitler’s Reichstag Fire, thereby providing him the reason to put tens-of-thousands of Turkish citizens- judges, doctors, journalists, and teachers- in prison while next arranging his Supreme court to his fancy which allowed for a new national constitution which gave him virtually unchecked power over every aspect of Turkish life. Considered at that time by the western power triumvirate to be well within their sphere of influence, western media has given all of this a pass by failing to report it or fabricating false truths of support that are as distorted as the 2016 coup itself.

Consider the false western narrative that

1) There was an externally influenced coup to unseat Erdogan and

2) it was authorized by Fethullah Gulen from his hiding place in America.

To the Turks, these mistruths fail to reveal that Gulen and Erdogan shared power and business interests for more than 15 years as the latter continued to grow in power and that they have always been and continue to be very close friends. Here on the streets, they add to this illumination that Erdogan came out unscathed in this coup while conveniently out of the country and avoiding arrest while the coup was actually a paltry effort at best being little more than the closing of the Galata Bridge by a few tanks that restricted the exit of the people from Istanbul’s “modern city” and Taksim square where the Turks had gathered en mass. The result of this convenient theatre was that Erdogan immediately culled from them the intelligentsia of Turkey, without any evidence of their participation, off to prison. Per 1936 Germany, this was step one… and carried out to perfection.

This rouse continued as this past week as Erdogan again continued to demand the return of his supposed arch-enemy and past best friend Fethullah Gulen.

“If you’re not giving [Gulen] to us, then excuse us, but from now on whenever you ask us for another terrorist, as long as I am in office, you will not get them,” stated the Turkish president.

Rather than arrest him, should he be handed over, to the Turks it is more likely that the two would, in reality, sit down for a nice chat and a tulip glass of strong, delicious Turkish tea.

Although predominately missing in the Western press, none of this is any secret to the Turks who are also well aware of Erdogan’s propagation of ISIS by being the financial pipeline of Syria’s stolen oil to Turkish ports, his use of Kirkuk air base to bring new ISIS fighters to the Syrian border and shipments of US weapons into Syrian opposition hands… long before the western media finally acknowledged this obvious truth.

Incorrect news reporting would have one believe that the Kurdish vs. Erdogan issue resides exclusively outside the Turkish borders in Northern Syria in proposed Kurdistan and that Gulen is its sponsor while tucked safely away in the US. Missing here is the fact that Gulen is not Kurdish and that of the 80 million Turkish citizens, more than 25 million are Kurdish and all lived in Turkey in harmony for centuries. Most of Turkey still do. But Erdogan demonized the Kurds by falsely blaming them as well as “religious cleric” Gulen in his growing effort to divide the country along religious lines. This is merely convenient propaganda since the Kurds like the rest of Turkey love their country and would prefer continued peace. Many believe that Erdogan’s goal is a civil war; a war that he believes will make him all-powerful as one side of the country fights the other and then reaches out to him for salvation. This appears to be accurate.

 

President Erdogan’s penchant for creating chaos was clearly shown this week when, as reported to by the Libya Herald, Greek authorities confirmed they had boarded and seized a ship carrying potential explosive making materials from Turkey to Misrata, Libya intended for US-backed leader Haftar. The Hellenic Coast Guard Headquarters confirmed this. Further, this is one of the ports previously used to export Syrian oil stolen by ISIS. Further, at this point, nothing moves within Turkey without Erdogan’s approval.

With this, Erdogan is an example of US foreign policy. He does not mind internal chaos in fact many Turks believe this to be his actual goal for their country: Civil war. Many Turks report their distaste for their  president’s recent theatre appearance in supposedly supporting the Palestinians in lieu of the US president Trumps decision to rob them of a Jerusalem capital and note the unreported news that in the aftermath of the tragic, peaceful Mavi Marmara attempt to bring needed supplies to Gaza- during which nine people were slaughtered by Israeli IDF soldiers- that before Israel would agree to pay cash provided as reparations to families of the dead Turks, Erdogan did then agree already to allow Israel to take Jerusalem for their capital. Although unproven, it is fixed in the opposition voices and does share the ring of truth considering that in the wake of the series of US hurricanes this past year, FEMA required aid recipients to sign an oath to Israel… not America.

There is now a caution in the people’s voices when one travels in Turkey; a hush that invades every political discussion or prognostications of what will befall this pluralistic society. The coup and its results are in the minds of all, as is the massive purge of innocent Turks. Here, Erdogan ignores history and human nature, preferring to believe in the current examples being shown by El-Sisi in Egypt, MBS in Saudi Arabia, Netanyahu in Israel, Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen and worldwide US hegemony: that his new military might makes him right no matter what and that force will override the fundamental desire of the Turks for peace and freedom. This, of course, ignores the historical results and demise of Hitler, Mussolini, and Pol Pot. When one speaks with Turks, there is anger in their eyes despite the hushed tones of hopeful resistance. One Turkish Kurd distilled this reality:

 The history of Turkey, back to the time of Ataturk [who gained Turkish independence from the World War One Allied powers] … even before… is that of the knife. When war comes- if it does- Erdogan will meet the Turkish again. Then, he too will meet the blade of the knife!”

After a beautiful six mile walk through the streets and along the massive rock lined harbour that passed through this military gauntlet and now finally arriving at Taksim Square, a similar police presence comes into view surrounding the square. A huge white,  military vehicle- seemingly an exact copy of the US made MRAP- with machine gun turret-  sits parked, a fence ringing it while its black uniformed operators play cards, smoke and drink coffee just behind. They too are not friendly. These, like the many other multi- uniformed police here in Istanbul are Erdogan’s troops. Like their master, they are not loyal to the Turks….they are loyal to power for power in a failing Turkish economy is job security: theirs.

The Turkish economy is in dire straights and many Turks believe this is yet another tool that Erdogan intends to use to divide their country via discontent. Istanbul is an amazing city full of examples of splendour, its ancient mosques reaching skyward across the hills that overlook the harbour of commerce that has been here for millennia. This city is worth any traveler’s money, but tourism is a fraction of its former pre-coup days despite the Lira crashing in value. Although this is January and the slowest tourism month of the year, shop owners and cafe operators report that the tourist income in substantially down since the coup. On a normally busy Friday night restaurants are virtually empty, their many tables and chairs sitting vacant. The hawkers for each sing out their friendly solicitations, but there is a tone of desperation and futility as they try to attract travellers.

While a declining economy may be the beginning of Erdogan’s fall from grace, many believe this is part of his ultimate plot. This opinion is not only bolstered by the many Turks, but by the foreign economic western press. A Feb. 6, 2016, article by The Economist stated clearly what many Turks already suspect:

“… sustained growth will require a change of attitude, beginning at the top. A sophisticated market economy cannot be run by offering favours for loyalty… Similarly, companies that own media outlets have been cut out of business in other fields if they fail to toe the line. Firms with the right contacts, say critics of the government, have done well, winning not just direct state contracts but privileged access to deals. “They [Erdogan’s Gov’t] used to be giving, sacrificing for the public good,” says an Istanbul news editor. “Now they are taking, using all the redistributive power of the state.”

These comments are much more important given the facts that Turkey was debt free in June of 2013 after having completely paid off all IMF loans but that now, since the coup Erdogan has already driven Turkey back into more than a US$500 billion debt or over 50% of GDP…in less than five years!

On the long walk back from Taksim Square and now approaching the famous Blue Mosque and another huge square, the Hippodrome, which sits in front of the mosque with Istanbul University at one end. Even on this day something strange is happening police presence is suddenly even more dramatic and surrounds a series of all-black US style SUVs and all-black stretch limousines. Anyone attempting to get near is frisked and searched. The cops are very unfriendly. A helicopter circles over head. Once inside this fenced cordon, I ask if anyone speaks English and a nice man offers his help. “It’s the president,” he whispers since there are six police with automatic weapons within earshot. ” Its Erdogan!”

As we pull back from the metal barricade to chat more, I wonder how many professors here are still missing from their students and classrooms. This stranger tells me that he is Syrian from Palmyra having moved his family to Turkey after his hotel was destroyed due to an American bombing. He would like to leave Turkey, but is jovial, good-natured, despite his loss, offering to show his hospitality at his home later that day. Preparing to depart, with a hearty handshake he concludes our conversation.

“All people should be able to be free,” he says smiling. “They should have chances…to have a future for their families… to have peace… to have…” and he stops searching for the right word.

Happiness?” offered this reporter.

Inshallah [if Allah [God] wills],” he agreed.

Here lies the problem. For in Turkey God has little influence on the values of the new king.

*

Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 150 in-depth articles over the past seven years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis that has led to multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, KXL Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out and many more. He can be reached at: [email protected].

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Erdogan’s Turkey: When Knives Cut Both Ways
  • Tags:

Here it goes again! Several countries of Oceania (also known as South Pacific Nations), or however you want to call that vast, beautiful but thoroughly devastated part of the world, have voted “for Israel”, “for the United States’ proposed resolution at the United Nations”, and therefore, “against Palestine”.

As reported on December 22, 2017 by Al Jazeera:

“The United Nations General Assembly has voted by a huge majority to declare a unilateral US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital “null and void”.

At an emergency session of the General Assembly on Thursday, 128 countries voted in favour of a resolution rejecting US President Donald Trump’s controversial decision on December 6.

Nine countries voted against, while 35 abstained.

Trump had earlier threatened to cut aid to UN members who would vote against his decision.”

Did scarcely inhabited island-nations that are lost in the middle of a tremendous body of water, go crazy?

After all those horrific nuclear experiments committed there,against their people, by the United States, France and the UK; could local people sincerely believe that the truth as seen from Washington is the only legitimate truth on Earth?

After the naked modern-day colonialism, which is being implemented by Australia, New Zealand, and France, and, of course, by the United States, have the people of Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia become blind?

After total dependency, after decades of humiliation and virtual slavery, do the inhabitants of Oceania believe that their fellow victims in Palestine do not have the right to live in their own state, without barbed wire; that they shouldn’t have their own historical capital?

The answer to all these question is, actually: “No”.

They do what they are doing simply and only because they have no choice.

*

When working on my bookOceania, travelling all over the South Pacific, I visited a Jesuit priest and the region’s prominent intellectual, Francis X. Hezel. Our encounter took place in the capital of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) – Pohnpei.

Father Hezel has been amassing important materials and documents in his private archive, proving beyond any doubts that the US occupation of Micronesia after WWII led to a dramatic decrease of life expectancy and the standard of living of the islanders. He explained:

“Life here became shorter, and much worse than under the Japanese imperial rule. And this was not some ‘Communist propaganda’. It is written right here, in the report produced during that period by the US Department of State.”

But back to ‘voting’, or what is often called “vote selling”. Father Hezel offered a very explicit story to illustrate the reality:

“One day I had an entire television crew from Israel parked at my office. I had no idea what they were doing here. Why would they travel so far, to such a small and insignificant country? Finally I understood: the Israeli public was fascinated with this place; they wanted to know who are those people who keep voting in the U.N. against most of Security Council resolutions, in this way supporting Israel and the United States against the entire world…”

In my book Oceania, I later wrote:

“Pacific Island votes at the UN are openly for sale, especially when peace in the Middle East is at stake. To illustrate the absurdity of the game: at a time when several countries in the region are becoming uninhabitable as a result of global warming, both Nauru and Kiribati, itself one of the sinking nations and therefore a victim, voted against the Kyoto Protocol.

But it is not only profit that propels tiny nations in Oceania to sell their votes; it is also the fear of retribution.

“In the late 90’s our government voted at the UN against the US on the issue of landmines, recalled the then Foreign Minister of Marshall Islands (RMI), Tony deBrum. “As a result, our party lost the elections.””

US Star Wars base on Kwajalein, Marshall Islands

In December 2017, out of the nine countries that voted against the UN resolution, one was the United States itself, while the other eight were: Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Marshall Islands, FSM, Nauru, Palau, and Togo. Two were de facto US semi-colonies in Latin America, ruled by brutal pro-Washington cliques, one a tiny and dependent African nation, while four were the Micronesian and Polynesian nations and of course, Israel.

*

The Pacific Island nations are selling their votes, for profit or out of fear.

The West is also using them in an attempt to isolate China.

Presently, six countries of Oceania, have fully established diplomatic relations with Taiwan, after being, as was described to me by the former Foreign Minister of RMI, Tony deBrum, “encouraged” by the West.

These countries are: Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

At least three of them – Tuvalu, Marshall Islands and Kiribati – are at the frontline of the climate change disaster: they are becoming uninhabitable due to the global warming and consequent rising of sea level.

Stumps of palm trees – Kiribati

China is the only country that has been willing to, altruistically, help the countries of Oceania: by building anti-tsunami walls, by planting mangroves, by elevating schools, hospitals and government buildings, or by building sports facilities in places where around 90% of adults is suffering from diabetes, often due to dumping there some of the most unhealthy food from the US, Australia and elsewhere.

The more successful China got in helping South Pacific nations, the more ‘encouragement’ Taiwan received from the West; an ‘encouragement’ to come, to corrupt local ‘elites’, and to push China away. Any country that recognizes Taiwan as an independent nation gets diplomatic relations with China (PRC) broken immediately. Everyone knows it. And there is not one Western country that would take such an insane step.

After China leaves, the countries of Oceania can only rely on the pathetic, cynical and hypocritical “foreign aid” offered by the West, while their corrupt leaders negotiate with New Zealand and Australia the final ‘evacuation project’. Entire countries like Tuvalu may soon be forced to move abroad.

*

The selling of votes by South Pacific Island nations appears to be shameful, but in fact it is nothing else than an act of total desperation.

The Empire has reached great mastery in implementing the “divide and rule” strategy.

The victims, often defenseless and robbed of everything, are forced to vote against those who are suffering similar fate at the opposite side of the world.

Palestinians are involuntarily living in a cage.

People of Oceania, who used to be the greatest seamen, are surrounded by the vastest expanse of water on Earth, but in the same time they are confined to tiny specks of land, often scarred by Western military bases. Trash and decay are everywhere. Hopelessness rules.

Oceania knows almost nothing about ‘modern Palestine’. Palestinians know almost nothing about Oceania.

Empire looks dumb but it is not. It is ‘only’ evil. It knows everything about both parts of the world. And it is torturing them relentlessly and with perverse sadistic delight.

*

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.

This article was originally published by New Eastern Outlook.

All images in this article are from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Palestine, Israel, the US, and How the South Pacific Countries Are Selling Their Votes

Just as the Senate Judiciary Committee was getting ready to conduct an oversight hearing today with newly appointed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, her department, along with the Justice Department (DOJ) released a misleading report aimed at stoking anti-immigrant sentiment. The headline of a press release trumpeting the report stated: “Three Out of Four Individuals Convicted of International Terrorism and Terrorism-Related Offenses were Foreign Born.” The obvious goal of the report, which was issued pursuant to the president’s infamous Muslim ban executive orders, is to gin up fears of foreigners, especially Muslims, and to support Trump’s xenophobic immigration agenda. As has previously been noted, publishing lists of crimes allegedly committed by a particular category of people – such as Jews or communists – is a tried and true means of painting them as a threat.

Context is, of course, key. As Shirin Sinnar argued in an earlier Just Security post, any list of terrorism cases that excludes domestic terrorism (such as Dylann Roof’s shooting spree at an African-American church in Charleston, South Carolina) is fundamentally misleading:

“If you exclude all convictions for ‘domestic terrorism’ at the outset, how can you draw any overall conclusions on the citizenship status or national origin of those convicted of terrorism?”

Indeed, according to an April 2017 Government Accountability Office report, “far right wing extremist groups” had perpetrated 73 percent of deadly attacks in the U.S. Similarly, while 549 convictions for terrorism and terrorism-related charges may sound like a lot by itself, it is worth recalling that this is the total number over 15 years. In other words, there were 35.6 on average per year. And even by the Trump administration’s own count, only 26.8 were foreign or foreign-born. These numbers are minuscule compared to the overall amount of crime in the United States, where the number of murders per year remains above 15,000, even in our relatively secure times. Similarly, the report claims that 1,716 aliens have been removed from the U.S. due to “national security concerns.” This is even less than the proverbial drop in the bucket compared to the 15 million-plus people who have been deported from 2001 through 2016.

Another manifestation of the nativism that rules this administration is the insistence on distinguishing not just between citizens and non-citizens, but also between Americans who were born here and those of us who were naturalized. In addition to highlighting the number of naturalized citizens that it claims were involved in terrorism, the DHS-DOJ report notes that it was unable to verify the “citizenship status of the parents” of the U.S. citizens on the list. It seems that investigating ancestry is now central to counterterrorism and immigration policy – the only question is how many generations back the administration will dig to prove its claim that immigration poses a national security threat. The move reminds me of Trump’s insistence that the Indiana-born federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University was a biased “Mexican.”

The examples picked to be showcased in the report are clearly intended to further the president’s particular policy agenda. All of the examples cited are Muslim, of course, but they do not seem to have been selected on the basis of the threat posed to people in the U.S., or even the severity of the conduct. Not one of the examples included was born an American. Instead, they tick other boxes. Five out of the eight came to the U.S. through relationships with family members, or as the administration likes to call it: “chain migration.” Over the same period, almost 11 million people migrated to the U.S. under this type of preference. One of the examples listed came to the U.S. through the diversity lottery and another was the child of someone who won the diversity lottery. That’s out of almost 750,000 people who came here through the program. They even found one refugee – literally one out of a million — who came to the U.S. between 2001 and 2016. The threat posed by these people is obviously insignificant. The intent to highlight examples that fit with the Trump administration’s immigration priorities is equally obvious.

While the intent behind the report is clear, the numbers it relies on are either deliberately inflated or unverifiable. To begin with, the report doesn’t distinguish between individuals who voluntarily moved to the U.S. and those who were extradited here specifically to be prosecuted and who clearly cannot be categorized as “immigrants.”

The report’s analysis claims to be based on a list maintained by DOJ’s National Security Division, which identifies 549 individuals convicted of “international terrorism-related charges” in federal courts between Sept. 11, 2001 and Dec. 31, 2016. It closely tracks with a 2016 analysis led by Attorney General Jeff Sessions when he was a senator. The problem is that like the Sessions analysis, today’s report by DHS and DOJ lumps together terrorism convictions and the undefined category of “terrorism-related charges.” While the DOJ list cited by the new report has not been made public, the list published just a year earlier provides a good proxy for understanding the flaws contained within the current analysis. The 2015 list included 627 individuals, approximately half of whom were convicted for “terrorism-related” offenses. These were individuals who prosecutors thought might have a connection to terrorism, but were never even charged with a terrorism offense. While it is impossible to say whether some of these might properly be counted as terrorism, there is reason to distrust this number: In 2013, the DOJ Inspector General found that the Justice Department was significantly overstating its “terrorism-related” convictions.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration seems determined to send the message that people coming to the U.S., especially from Muslim countries, are determined to carry out terrorist attacks and harm Americans. However, earlier DOJ numbers show that a total of 40 convictions (or less than three per year) were related to planned terrorist attacks on the U.S. Typically, a large majority of terrorism charges are for material support. According to a study by Fordham University’s Center on National Security, almost 70 percent of all ISIS-related convictions from May 2014 to June 2016 were for material support. Material support can include conduct such as traveling abroad to join a terrorist group, but it can also be as limited as sending a few hundred dollars to someone overseas or even translating a document. Finally, many – by some counts close to half – of terrorism prosecutions involve FBI sting operations, which are often criticized for ensnaring individuals with no connection to terrorist groups or capacity for carrying out violence.

There is far more to say about today’s report, including its obviously biased treatment of violence against women, as well as the suggestion that the government’s many and varied watch lists actually bear a real relationship to the threat of terrorism. But it’s clear that this report has but one purpose: to buttress weak and xenophobic arguments for a restrictive immigration policy.

*

Faiza Patel is Co-Director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Former Senior Policy Officer at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Follow her on Twitter (@FaizaPatelBCJ).

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Administration’s Fuzzy Math on Terrorist Origins Is More than Misleading – It’s Dishonest
  • Tags:

Avoiding Armageddon in Korea or Launching a War for the Ages

January 20th, 2018 by Prof. Rajan Menon

Most people intuitively get it. An American preventive strike to wipe out North Korea’s nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, or a commando raid launched with the same goal in mind, is likely to initiate a chain of events culminating in catastrophe.  That would be true above all for the roughly 76 million Koreans living on either side of the Demilitarized Zone. Donald Trump, though, seems unperturbed. His recent contribution to defusing the crisis there: boasting that his nuclear button is “bigger and more powerful” than that of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

The president’s high school locker-room braggadocio provided rich material for comedians and maybe for shrinks.  Meanwhile, there remains the continuing danger of a war in the Koreas, whether premeditated or triggered accidentally by a ship seized, an aircraft downed, a signal misread… you get the picture.  No serious person could dismiss this scenario, but even the experts who track the evidence closely for a living differ on just how probable it is.  In part, that’s because, like everyone else, they must reckon with a colossal wild card — and I’m not talking about Kim Jong-un.

The Pessimists

On one side are those who warn that President Trump isn’t blowing smoke when he talks, or tweets, about destroying North Korea’s nuclear warheads and missiles, the infrastructure supporting them, and possibly even the whole country.  By now, it’s common knowledge that his national security officials — civilian and military (the distinction having blurred in the Trump era) — have been crafting plans to strike before that country’s nuclear arsenal becomes fully operational.

No one who listened to PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff interviewing National Security Adviser Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster just after the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy in December could simply dismiss the warnings as those of so many Cassandras.  McMaster dutifully summarized that document, which included a pledge to “respond with overwhelming force to North Korean aggression and improve options to compel denuclearization.”  When Woodruff then asked whether he believed war was becoming more likely by the day, he agreed, adding that “the president has asked us to continue to refine a military option, should we need to use it.”

Others who should be in the know have offered even scarier prognoses.  During an interview with ABC News on the last day of 2017, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen claimed that, while McMaster and Defense Secretary James Mattis had stayed Trump’s hand so far, their ability to continue to restrain such a “disruptive” and “unpredictable” president was diminishing.

“We’re actually closer to nuclear war with North Korea and in that region,” he concluded, “than we’ve ever been.”

Then there’s Trump himself.  He has long since moved from saying, as he did last May, that he would “be honored” to meet Kim Jong-un “under the right circumstances” to warning, in August, that if North Korea threatened the United States, it would “be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.” In September, he upped the ante again in a speech to the U.N., declaring that he would “have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea” if that were needed to defend the United States.

Left unspecified was Trump’s definition of “defend.”  Would additional North Korean nuclear and missile tests pose a sufficient threat for him to order a preventive war?  Was his red line a fully operational North Korean nuclear force?  Or did he mean that he would retaliate in kind only if Pyongyang were to attack the United States, Japan, or South Korea with nuclear weapons? If either the first or second scenario represents his threshold, then Mullen’s dire assessment can’t be discounted as hyperbole. If it’s the third, the world can breathe a bit easier for now, since there’s no conceivable reason for Kim Jong-un to attack a country with nuclear weapons, least of all the United States, except in response to the potential destruction of his state.

In his latest gyration, having failed to scare Kim into denuclearization, Trump has welcomed talks between Seoul and Pyongyang that he had only recently discounted and, predictably, taken credit for a turn of events that has sidelined him.  He even suggested that the United States could eventually join the negotiations, meant in part to prevent a conflict during the February Winter Olympics in Seoul, and reacted positively to the possibility that they might continue even after the games end.

Of course, this president can turn on a dime, so such words mean next to nothing and should offer no solace.  After all, on two occasions he derided Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s efforts to defuse the crisis through negotiations, declaring,

“I told Rex Tillerson, our wonderful Secretary of State, that he’s wasting his time trying to negotiate with little Rocket Man.  Save your energy, Rex, we’ll do what has to be done.”

The Optimists (Well, Sort of)

On the opposing side of the how-likely-is-war debate are the optimists, a different coterie of journalists, ex-officials, and policy wonks.  Their basic point boils down to this: yes, Trump has made fire-and-brimstone statements about North Korea, but chalk up the endless bombast to his problem with impulse control and his desire to feed red meat to his base, while scaring Kim.

Unfortunately, you can’t put much stock in this take either — not once you consider the accompanying caveats. Gideon Rachman, an Asia specialist and Financial Times columnist, is typical of this crew in concluding that war on the Korean peninsula is unlikely — only to liken the current atmosphere in Washington to the one that prevailed just before the 2003 Bush administration invasion of Iraq.  For good measure, he adds that Lindsey Graham — super-hawk, Trump confidant (to the extent that anyone is), and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee — believes that war is “inevitable.” (This is optimism?)  Rachman’s fallback suggestion is that Australia, Japan, and South Korea won’t support a preventive strike on North Korea.  Now ask yourself this: How often does Donald Trump take others’ advice?  When is the last time you heard him say “multilateralism”?

Jeffrey Lewis, a well-regarded expert on nuclear weapons, discounts the likelihood of war for a different reason.  He thinks Trump’s bombast is so much bluster, designed to jangle Kim’s nerves and drive the North Korean leader to relinquish his nuclear cache lest an out-of-control American president vaporize his regime.  Given what we now know about the present occupant of the Oval Office, that might be a modestly convincing thought if Lewis didn’t introduce his own qualifiers.  He believes Trump’s faith that China, in hopes of getting economic rewards from the United States, will eventually persuade (or coerce) Kim to denuclearize is misplaced because Beijing lacks the necessary clout in Pyongyang.  Indeed, Kim doesn’t trust China and has killed or sidelined those whom he suspects of being pro-Chinese.

Lewis also lays out a range of possibilities, each of which could trigger a spiral toward war. These include North Korea shooting down an American reconnaissance aircraft or sinking a South Korean naval vessel, both of which, he reminds us, Pyongyang has done in the past (the first in 1969, the second in 2010) — when it still lacked nuclear weapons.  So Lewis’s American-style optimism doesn’t offer any more grounds for cheer than Rachman’s British variant.

Where does this lack of consensus on the likelihood of war leave us?  The answer: no one can really assess the gravity of the danger, particularly because the man who occupies the White House is arguably the most volatile president we’ve ever had.

It’s no pleasure to quote former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, but when it comes to the probability of war in the Koreas, it’s hard not to be overwhelmed by the “known unknowns.”

What We Do Know

The inability to fathom just how close we may be to war there doesn’t mean we know nothing about the Korean crisis that’s worth knowing.

We know that North Korea has long been committed to building nuclear weapons and produced small quantities (six to thirteen kilograms) of weapons-grade plutonium as early as 1992.

We know that North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which it joined in 1985) in 2003; that it detonated its first nuclear weapon in 2006 during the rule of Kim Jong-il, the father of North Korea’s current leader; and that it has conducted five other tests since then in 2009, 2013, 2016 (twice), and 2017 — four of them after Kim Jong-un took power in December 2011.

We know that North Korea has been no less dogged in building and testing ballistic missiles, beginning in 1984, and that the Hwasong-15, test-fired last November (with an apogee of 2,800 miles and an estimated range of 8,100 miles), has the capacity to strike the continental United States.  And Pyongyang has gone beyond liquid-fuelled missiles (that require prolonged, telltale preparations to launch), testing solid-fueled variants, which can be fired at short notice.

We know that Pyongyang is close to producing, or has already produced, a warhead that can be placed atop an intercontinental ballistic missile and survive the heat and stress encountered on reentering the earth’s atmosphere.  In other words, North Korea is without question effectively a nuclear weapons state, which means Kim Jong-un’s claim, in his 2018 New Year’s Day speech, that he has a nuclear button on his desk may not be an idle boast (even if no literal button exists).

Finally, we know that American threats and military maneuvers on and around the Korean peninsula, a series of U.N. Security Council sanctions since 2006, and behind-the-scenes diplomacy by China and Russia have not induced Pyongyang to change course, even though China, in particular, recently imposed draconian limits on energy exports to that country, which could potentially cripple its struggling economy.

The Denuclearization Fantasy

No one (outside of Pyongyang) could celebrate a nuclear-armed North Korea, but no one could reasonably be surprised by it either.  Nuclear weapons have long served as a symbol of exclusivity for great powers and their regional cohorts.  It’s no accident that all the Security Council’s permanent members are nuclear states.  Having accorded such weaponry supreme prestige, who could be shocked that other countries, even relatively small and poor ones, would try to acquire them as well and refuse to be cowed by political or economic pressure.

Despite various campaigns for nuclear disarmament, the current nuclear states have not shown the slightest inclination to give them up; so the promise of a nuclear-free world rings hollow and is unlikely to persuade states that really want nukes not to build them.  Beyond conferring status, these weapons make attacking a country that has them dangerous indeed, providing a de facto guarantee against regime change.

The North Koreans have made this point more than once, citing the fates of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, each of whom gave up his country’s nuclear program and then was taken down by the United States.  The idea that the leaders in Pyongyang are simply paranoid maniacs or can’t possibly believe that they face such a threat from the United States (which already fought one war on the Korean peninsula) is preposterous.  If you were Kim Jong-un, you’d probably build nuclear weapons.

The upshot: short of a war, there’s no chance of denuclearization. That, in turn, means: were Trump and his generals to launch an attack on North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and even a single warhead capable of striking the United States survived, Pyongyang might well use it to retaliate.  According to the experts who engage in such grisly estimates, a 15-kiloton nuclear weapon (equivalent to “Little Boy,” the atomic bomb the U.S. dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945) that lands somewhere in, say, Los Angeles would kill more than 100,000 people immediately and yet more thereafter.  To put this in perspective, bear in mind that the estimates of the yield of the warhead North Korea tested last September run as high as 250 kilotons.  And don’t forget that, even if it couldn’t effectively reach the United States, the North could still target either South Korea or Japan, causing a devastating loss of lives and sending shockwaves through the global economy.

And even if Kim couldn’t retaliate with nuclear weapons, he could still order the thousands of artillery pieces his military has trained on the South Korean capital, Seoul, to fire.  The metropolis and its satellite towns are home to nearly 25.5 million people, half of the country’s total population, so the death toll would be enormous, even taking into account the limitations of the North’s artillery.  And given that some 28,500 American troops and nearly 137,000 American civilians are based in South Korea, many close to the border, Trump’s reported remark to Lindsey Graham that, in the event of such a war, people will “die over there” is not just callous in its disregard for Korean lives, it’s ignorant.  Even an American commando raid into North Korea could trigger a wider war because the North Korean leadership might reasonably regard it as a prelude to a larger attack.

The bottom line?  Trump could fulfill his vow never to allow North Korea to become a nuclear-armed power only by resorting to a preventive war, as Pyongyang hasn’t been and is unlikely to be moved to disarm by sanctions or other forms of pain.  And a preventive war would be calamitous.

Stopping the War Machine

Here’s a prerequisite for avoiding war in Korea: stop believing in the North’s denuclearization, attractive and desirable as it might be (if achieved through diplomacy).

It doesn’t follow, however, that war can’t be avoided.  Kim Jong-un and his inner circle are not, in fact, irrational beings immune to deterrence.  Their paramount aim is to ensure the survival of the North Korean state. Starting a nuclear war would destroy it.  Yes, many people have perished in North Korea (whether due to repression or famine), but deterrence worked in the cases of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and China’s Mao Zedong, both of whom enacted policies that killed millions. Mao supposedly even boasted that China could survive a nuclear war because of its huge population.

Coming to terms with the reality of a nuclear-armed North Korea and trusting in deterrence may not sound like a perfect ending, but under the circumstances it’s undoubtedly the best way to avert catastrophe.  And that, unquestionably, is the urgent task.  There are other ways, down the line, to make the Korean peninsula a better place through dialogue between the two Koreas, by drawing the North into the regional economy and reducing troops and weaponry on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone.  These shouldn’t be ruled out as infeasible.

For them to happen, though, South Korea would have to separate itself from Trump’s war plans by refusing to allow its sovereign space (land, sea, and air) to be used for such a preventive war.  The symbolism would be important even if Trump could strike in other ways.

Seoul would also have to build on two recent positive developments that emerged from a surprise January 9th meeting between the Koreas.  The first is the agreement on Kim Jong-un’s proposal (initially advanced by the South last June) to send a North Korean contingent to the February Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea.  The second flowed from South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s follow-up idea of restoring the hotline between the countries and beginning discussions of how to tamp down tensions on the peninsula.  (Pyongyang shut down the hotline in February 2016 after South Korea’s conservative government closed the Kaesong joint industrial zone located in the North, which then employed more than 50,000 North Koreans.)  Moon’s suggestion doubtless eased the way for the subsequent agreement to hold future military talks aimed at reducing the risks of war.

There are further steps Seoul could take, including declaring a moratorium on military exercises with the United States — not just, as now (with Washington’s consent), during the February Olympics and the Paralympics that follow and end in March, but without a preset time limit. While such joint maneuvers don’t scare Pyongyang, moves like flying American B1-B bombers and F-15C fighter jets in international airspace off North Korea’s coast do ratchet up the tension.  They increase the chances of one side concluding that the other is about to attack.

Trump may continue his threats via Twitter and again denigrate the value of negotiations with Pyongyang, but South Korea is a powerful country in its own right. It has a $1.4 trillion economy, the 11th largest in the world (versus North Korea’s paltry $32.4 billion one), and ranks sixth in global exports.  It also has a formidable military and will spend $34 billion on defense in 2017 — more than North Korea’s entire gross domestic product.  It is, in short, anything but the Asian equivalent of a banana republic for which Donald Trump should be able to write the script.

Trump’s generals and the rest of the American foreign policy establishment won’t welcome independent initiatives by Seoul, as witness the condescending remark of a former official about the hazards of South Korea “running off the leash.”  Predictably, mainstream warnings have already begun.  Cunning Kim Jong-un wants to drive a “wedge” between the United States and South Korea.  He’s trying to undo the sanctions.  Agreeing to talks with Pyongyang will only communicate weakness.  The United States must demonstrate its resolve and protect its credibility.  And so it goes.

Policies based on these shibboleths, which portray South Korea as an American dependency, have brought us to the brink of war.  Continuing them could push us over the edge.

*

Rajan Menon, a TomDispatch regular, is the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the Powell School, City College of New York, and Senior Research Fellow at Columbia University’s Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies. He is the author, most recently, of The Conceit of Humanitarian Intervention.

I wish Caryl Churchill would write a follow up to her play Seven Jewish Children and call it Seven Palestinian Children.

Churchill’s play, first produced in February of 2009, was “for Gaza”, and was predictably received along political lines, either as a “heartfelt lamentation” on one side and “wantonly inflammatory” on the other — inflammatory in the same way as the mere broadcasting of Palestinian ongoing oppression at the hands of the Jewish state on Facebook is regarded as “incitement”.

The play depicts seven small scenes, each set in a significant episode of Jewish history, including the 1947 takeover of Palestine by Jews and the ongoing obscenity of the Palestinian Nakba. No children’s voices are heard in the play — we only hear adult voices struggling with how to explain each historical occurrence to an innocent, vulnerable Jewish child. It begins with the horror of the Holocaust — “Tell her she can make them go away if she keeps still /By magic/But not to sing” — and ends with the violence perpetrated by the Jewish state on innocent Palestinians.

“Tell her, tell her about the army, tell her to be proud of the army. Tell her about the family of dead girls, tell her their names why not, tell her the whole world knows why shouldn’t she know? tell her there’s dead babies, did she see babies? tell her she’s got nothing to be ashamed of. Tell her they did it to themselves. Tell her they want their children killed to make people sorry for them, tell her I’m not sorry for them, tell her not to be sorry for them, tell her we’re the ones to be sorry for, tell her they can’t talk suffering to us.”

Although the Jewish children addressed in the play are never seen on the stage, the audience has a clear picture of their innocence and vulnerability, first as victims themselves, and then as unknowing participants in the Palestinian tragedy, being fed “narratives” meant to shape their world view about the non-Jewish world.

“.. tell her I wouldn’t care if we wiped them out, the world would hate us is the only thing, tell her I don’t care if the world hates us, tell her we’re better haters, tell her we’re chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? tell her all I feel is happy it’s not her.”

This “us” or “them” narrative is a standard Israeli narrative that no one buys into any more. It’s all too clear now that Palestinians, who lived a predominantly agrarian life style in the 1940s, were helpless, politically and materially, in pushing back the tide of immigrant colonizing Jews descending on Palestine, helpless in the face of imperial deceptions, just as they are helpless today in the face of Israel’s military might and the deceptions of the superpower broker. Rather, the reality is, “it’s us and us.”

The choice is not one between Jews and Palestinians, but one between a Jewish state vs. international law, justice and human rights for Palestinians and Jews. However, what must come first, as Omar Barghouti has so well expressed it in what he calls “ethical decolonization”, is the restoration of all Palestinian human rights and reparations made to them.

So what would Caryl Churchill have adults tell Palestinian children had she written the play in that way? It’s a question I asked my students at The Arab American University in Jenin (AAUJ) several years ago when they were preparing to put on the play on campus. The consensus was, “Tell them they must resist dispossession and subjugation, as their fathers and grandfathers have done.”

*

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.     

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “Ethical Decolonization”and the Restoration of all Palestinian Rights and Reparations
  • Tags:

Egypt’s purported military deployment to Eritrea is threatening to spark a multinational conflagration in the powder keg Horn of Africa region.

This part of the world has always been tense and at risk of war, especially in the past few years ever since Ethiopia began constructing the Grand Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile River. The Horn of Africa became a zone of competition in the “Gulf Cold War” following the GCC and Egypt’s campaign against Qatar last year, and it’s this combination of water wars and proxy wars that makes the region so volatile. The latest developments concern Egypt’s purported dispatch of troops to the western Eritrean base of Sawa near the Sudanese border, which in turn prompted Khartoum to recall its ambassador from Cairo, officially declare a “potential security threat from Egypt and Eritrea” in the area, and fortify the frontier.

Egypt and Eritrea both deny that any troops were sent to Sawa, but some reports indicate that this move was actually in response to Turkey clinching a deal to develop the Sudanese island of Suakin near Port Sudan late last year which some observers suspect to be a front for secretly building a naval base in the Red Sea. Ankara and Cairo have been at odds with one another ever since President Sisi’s 2013 coup against pro-Turkish Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi and President Erdogan’s apparent sponsorship of this same organization that’s banned in Egypt and most of the GCC states. Both parties evidently have interests in the Horn of Africa and now seem to be countering one another in this strategic space.

Greater Horn of Africa map

Greater Horn of Africa map (Source: author)

President Erdogan’s visit to Khartoum late last year was recently followed by Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki’s trip to Cairo last week where he met with his Egyptian counterpart and both leaders pledged to “support the security and stability in the region”, hinting that the rumors about the development of fast-moving military ties between the two allies in the War on Yemen might actually be true. If so, then this would be a very destabilizing event because of Eritrea’s history of supporting armed militants in the surrounding states, including the Al Shabaab terrorist group that resulted in the country’s ongoing sanctioning by the UNSC since 2009.

 

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir told his Russian counterpart in late November that the US wants to divide his country into five parts, and it appears as though he’s now convinced that Eritrea is tasked with executing this scenario just like it’s already trying to do against Ethiopia. Egypt, which has a serious bone to pick with Ethiopia over the Grand Renaissance Dam and is presently experiencing very strained relations with Sudan over this issue and Khartoum’s port deal with Ankara, likely sees a strategic opportunity to “kill three birds with one stone” by destabilizing its two regional rivals while establishing a military patronage relationship with an envisioned client state crucially located at the mouth of the Bab el Mandab chokepoint.

Egypt and Eritrea are now aligning against Ethiopia and Sudan, with Saudi Arabia and the UAE supporting the former pair while Qatar and Turkey back the latter one. China has a naval base in nearby Djibouti while Russia was offered one in Port Sudan, so both multipolar Great Powers have a stake in the peaceful outcome of this developing crisis and could potentially help mediate a solution to it just like how Beijing suggested it could do last summer between Eritrea and Djibouti.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Jan 19, 2018:

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Egyptian-Eritrean Military Axis Might Make the Horn of Africa Crisis Explode

Why this title? – Because Greece doesn’t have to continue playing the card of the victim, nor being masochist. Greece seems to suffer under the Stockholm Syndrome – she is in love with her hangman. Greece could change this. Exit the prison, exit the EU and exit the euro. Greece could return to her sovereign national currency, her own sovereign central bank, make her own monetary policy and implement it with a sovereign public banking system that works solely for the Greek economy. Within less than 10 years Greece would have recovered and would even be able to pay back some of her illegally begotten debt.

Although, here it must be added, according to international law, most of Greece’s debt was imposed by the troika under illegal circumstances. It’s also called “odious debt”, the description of which reads “In international law, odious debt, also known as illegitimate debt, is a legal doctrine that holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interest of the nation, should not be enforceable. Such debts are, thus, considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state.” This doctrine is complemented by a similar one inscribed in the charter of the IMF that says that the IMF shall not make any loans to a country in distress, that will unlikely be able to reimbursed the debt and pay the debt service.

There is not a day that goes by without Greece making the headlines as being abused by the troika (IMF, European Central Bank – ECB and the unelected European Commission – EC) and by the Germans. Here are three of the latest examples, but there are many more – “Destroying Greek, Plundering Greece. The Latest Update” (by Leonidas Vatikiotis); “Austerity: Public Hospital Halts Chemotherapy, turns away Cancer Patients, because ‘Budget Exceeded’”; and “Greece Crisis: Cancer Patients Suffer as Health System Fails” (Giorgos Christides).

Already years ago, The Lancet reported an increase in Greek suicide rates and child mortality. The misery is indeed real and mounting every day. The western imposed atrocities also abound on a daily basis. Salary cuts – and at least five pensions reductions since 2010, an almost completely dismantled social safety net. Those who depend on it are generally poor. More than 4 million people out of a population of 11 million live at or under the poverty line; 15% live in absolute and abject poverty. About 28% of children live in absolute poverty, meaning malnutrition and diseases, stunting growth and brain development. At least a generation of Greek may be in part intellectually challenged, possibly implying health hazards and restricting economic development over the next 20-some years. Unemployment is hovering around 25% – 30%, with close to 50% for youth (18-35 years). The outlook is grim and promises to become even grimmer.

Public hospitals and schools are either privatized or closed because of lack of budget. Medication is scarce, as part of imposed import restrictions, imposed by Greece’s lovely European neighbors and allies or overseas masters. Specialized and expensive medication, for example cancer medicine, are especially scarce. People die from flu, from colds, from pneumonia – even intestinal diseases that could normally be healed as a matter of routine, but there are not enough antibiotics available. Austerity – budget cuts. Thanks to the brothers from Europe – and again their masters form overseas.

Greece has absolutely no control over her budget anymore. She had to sign this responsibility over to Brussels for what? – another ‘rescue package’ – what else. In September 2016, the Greek Parliament had to approve hurriedly, in less than a week’s time, a 2000-page text of legislation, drafted by Brussels in English, unreadable in this short time for most of the Greek Parliamentarians, with which the Greek Parliament signed away not only all of the publicly owned enterprises and infrastructure to the “European Stability Mechanism” (ESM) for 99 years, during which period all of it may be offered to fire sale prices for privatization, or outright demolition; but, as if this was not enough, the Parliament also signed away its sovereign authority over the Greek budget to Brussels.

Can you imagine? This in the 21st Century. It has not happened since in 1933 the Bundestag, the German Parliament, signed over all decision-making power to the “Führer” – Mr. Adolf Hitler. This is outright EU imposed fascism. The world watches silently – and in full complicity – the literal dismantling of a sovereign country, with the esclavisation and impoverishment of the population that goes with it.

This, though, is not news. It’s rather well-known. It has been written about umpteen times, by umpteen journalists and writers, to greater or lesser extent criticizing the troika, the Greek government, the EC / IMF / BCE imposed austerity, as all three know very well that austerity does not work, nowhere. Never did.

So, why repeat it here, in yet another article? – Because it must be said again and again, and repeated ever so often, until the Greek governing body listens. Greece could stop this bloodletting and misery for the majority of her people almost instantly – by quitting the euro, and by quitting the European Union. She would not be left alone. Acts of Solidarity would come from Asia, Latin America and even Africa. Such offers were already made in 2014 and 2015. But they were not heeded, since the Greek elite wants to part of the EU elite, rubbing elbows, being part of this nefarious club. Many pictures, too many, have been circulating of Mr. Tsipras and his buddies laughing and cajoling with the Lagarde’s and the Junker’s of this world.

Greece could have exited the EU and Eurozone from day one – with the first rescue package in 2010. But she didn’t, for whatever reason. Maybe personal threats to the Tsipras family and Government and / or the “left-wing” Syriza party? – We don’t know, but all is possible in a western civilization where opponents of the Master hegemon in Washington and his dark handlers, are simply assassinated. John Perkins, explains clearly how this works in his bestseller “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”.

But what about integrity of the leaders, of the party, their obligation to the Greek people? Integrity and support foremost to the average Greek, not the Greek elite which way before the troika-Germany onslaught, transferred billions of their euro holdings to Switzerland and other western safe havens. The Tsipras Government’s duty to the vast majority of Greek, who have to survive from their daily work and miserable pensions, has been betrayed. For these people integrity would have called for quitting the Eurozone and the EU.

Why holding on to a European Union that only despises Greece by its non-action, by watching passively over the destruction of their brother? There are no trustworthy allies in the EU. They are all beholden to Brussels and to Washington. There are only greedy enemies. Greece has been singled out as an example for worse to come. Other mostly southern EU countries that were given the insulting name, PIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain), would be treated equally, i.e. sucked into oblivion – if they would dare to resist the systematic milking by the western financial system.

This EU – euro system cannot be reformed. And since abolishment or the simple collapse which is clearly written on the wall, is being extended at all cost, including the blood and lives of the Greek population, there is only ONE WAY for Greece to safe itself – LEAVE THE EURO – LEAVE THE EU.

Greece’s debt today (January 2018) is € 320.2 billion, or 190.4% of GDP (€ 168.2 billion) – and steadily mounting – with an annual interest of € 17.6 billion, increasing at the rate of € 557 per second (€ 48.1 million per day) – See the Greek Debt Clock. So, there is no relief in sight, no matter what western pundits and the IMF are saying. All lies, as is usual in the western world. Greece will never get out of her mountain of debt, while being a member of the euro-zone and the EU.

Greece – wake up, you have the opportunity to walk out of the EU and save the lives of more than half of your population, who are at risk of famine and deadly diseases – Mr. Tsipras and Co. no matter what lengthy theories and economic projections the elite economists who want to save their billions of euros hidden in safe havens, will present to you – it is your duty, your civil obligation as an elected official, elected by the people, to honor the people’s lively interests and to exit this horrendous repressive and abusive club, called European Union.

Greece – you must regain your sovereignty.

Leaving the EU and the euro does not mean you are leaving Europe. Greece, as every pupil knows, is geographically anchored in Europe. Greece is one of the most dramatically beautiful southern European countries and will continue to be visited by millions of tourists from around the world, and naturally from Europe. Other nations will want to trade and deal with Greece and her charming, friendly and smiling people. Friendliness and beauty is one of the key trademarks of Greece. Greece will gain even more respect for standing up for herself.

It’s late – but never too late. Take back your local autonomous currency, take control of your economy through local public banking with low or no interests to stimulate yours – the Greek economy – not the German, not the European economy, but the Greek national economy. Within less than 10 years Greece would have recovered from the current depression. Others have done it, like Argentina, or even Germany, especially after WWII. You will not be left alone. Support, if needed, will be there, particularly from the East, from where the future is. Think of China’s One Belt Initiative (OBI) – which already is linked up with Greece through the Greek port of Piraeus. OBI is a multi-trillion-euro economic development program that will encompass China, Russia, Eurasia, eventually all the way to the western rim of Europe, securing jobs, scientific and cultural development, transcontinental land-and sea transport, trading and more – over the next few hundred years. The west is gone; passé. It’s greed and war-driven economy is slowly but surely committing suicide.

If Greece is not seizing this last-ditch opportunity to exit the euro and to exit the EU, to literally safe her people’s skin, one might legitimately ask, has Greece become a convenient victim, subservient to its own elite and the Brussels-Washington masters, or is she simply masochistically enjoying her misery, borne, incidentally, by 80% of her population?

*

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 21st Century (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Greece – Convenient Victim or Complacent Masochist? The Devastating Social Impacts of IMF-ECB-EC “Economic Medicine”
  • Tags:

It is exactly as I told you. Russiagate is a conspiracy between the FBI, the DOJ, and the Hillary campaign to overturn Donald Trump’s election. We have treason committed at the highest levels of the FBI and Department of Justice and the Democratic National Committee.

If you believed one word of Russiagate, you now must laugh or cry at your incredible gullibility.

This scandal should also bring down the presstitute media who have done the dirty work for the conspiracy against Trump.

*

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

Featured image is from The Duran.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Russiagate Has Blown Up in the Face of Its Originators—the FBI, DOJ, and Hillary
  • Tags: ,

“My guess is the elites letting Team Trump rig the election with faith based voting machines and blocking minorities from voting means the fracking crash is going to happen faster than our rulers expected, he will be able to implement nastiness in response and take the blame for the economic impact.”  – Mark Robinowitz [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

As these words go to publication, millions are expected to take to the streets in centres across the United States, Canada and around the world, all in demonstrations timed with the anniversary of President Trump’s inauguration.

The thrust of the Womens’ March on Washington and its various affiliates is getting more women involved in electoral politics and ratcheting up the voter-turn-out as the mid-term Congressional elections approach.

Healing social divides, most notably around gender, sexual orientation, race, and immigration seem to be the defining issues motivating citizens to action. Interestingly, there seems to be less attention paid to urgent human security concerns related to military interventions, surveillance culture, and economic upheaval.

By and large, elected representatives are prisoners to other forces entrenched in society. In particular, the various corporate lobbies, or ‘special interests’ arguably have much more of an influence on decision-making than the gender of the politician in question. Further, an advanced technological civilization has basic material requirements in terms of energy and resources that need to be met to secure the prosperity of society members at all levels.

Analysts like Peter Dale Scott invoke the concept of the ‘Deep State’ as a way of referring to a permanent governing infrastructure behind the scenes that attends to these fundamental building blocks of society. The approach, at least in the U.S., typically involves forms of violence against the vulnerable including military expansionism, covert activities, and theft.

If elites are able to finance and manipulate election campaigns and election results in their favour, then what are the economic and other considerations in the background prompting the election of Trump and directing his policies in the future? That is the subject of this week’s Global Research News Hour radio program.

We first hear from J. David Hughes, author of two reports on shale oil and gas plays in the U.S. released in December 2016. He is convinced that the Energy Information Administration is overly optimistic about the energy picture of the U.S. and that a near-future short-fall of domestic supply could have damaging long term implications for America’s ‘energy independence.’ This interview was originally conducted a year ago.

Next we speak to commentator and past guest Mark Robinowitz. Robinowitz maintains that Trump was installed a year ago in order to take the fall for an inevitable economic collapse and to introduce unpopular military and other measures which would likely be continued under a future president, Democratic or Republican, male or female.

Robinowitz updates us on his thinking, elaborating on who exactly comprises the different factions within the U.S. ‘Deep State’.

J. David Hughes is an earth scientist who has studied the energy resources of Canada for four decades, including 32 years with the Geological Survey of Canada as a scientist and research manager. He is also a fellow with the Post Carbon Institute.

Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture practitioner and publisher of oilempire.us as well as jfkmoon.org. He is based in Eugene, Oregon.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in everyThursday at 6pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes:

  1. http://oilempire.us/trump.html#p7EPMc1_1

Complex Power Play in Libya

January 20th, 2018 by Richard Galustian

The fighting around the vicinity of Tripoli’s Mitiga airport continues with the airport still closed, in flames.

As previously reported, seasoned US State Department man, Jeffery Feltman, now with the UN, recently visited Libya followed on the heels of the French Foreign Minister Le Drain, to persuade all parties to adhere the the LPA agreement – an impossibility.

The GNA Government and post of Prime Minister for Fayez Serraj was ‘created’ by the UN in December 2015, enough time, you would think, to get a grip on at least the capital.

But further information has come to light that the continuing attack on the Prison located in the grounds of Mitiga Airport, that started last week, has additional objectives. They were designed, not only to free Islamic extremists like AQ and ISIS members held in the prison run by Abder Raouf Kara’s RADA force. But also reports did not reveal that the attacking militias had belonged, until then, to the forces loyal to the government appointed by the UN, of Fayez Serraj but, and here is the real kicker, they were also, and still are, close allies of former ‘rogue’ Islamic extremist Prime Minister Khalifa al Ghwell and radical religious Grand Mufti al Ghariani based in Tripoli still (sometimes Misrata too!). These two gentlemen are seeking to destabilise the UN’s PM Fayez Serraj any way they can.

This is Matiga Airport before the attack (Source: author)

As a consequence, Serraj reached out to eastern Libya strong man, Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar, which, if he agrees to become involved, could have the effect of isolating even destroying the Mitiga attacking militias and their radical allies both in Tripoli and in Misrata.

Initially the RADA militia force countered the attack with assistance from 10 or so other militias ‘loyal’ (paid mercenaries in effect) to the UN Libyan appointed government, including those led by a key militia player, Haitem Tajouri. They were assisted by an American reconnaissance aircraft based in Pantelleria, which flew over Tripoli while fighting started last Monday. Begs the question why they didn’t mobilise aircraft from Pantelleria when Ambassador Stevens was being attacked in Benghazi, but that’s another story.

Its worth for a moment to discuss this Base. Though the international airport in Malta is used by Italian, British, French and US aircraft of varying types to undertake surveillance operations in particularly in Libya’s Gulf of Sirte, the most mysterious position, used by mainly US intelligence forces to watch over the Tunisian and Libyan skies, remains at Pantelleria.

This small Italian island, under 60 km off the coast of Klibia in Tunisia, has become a busy airfield for ‘private’ air intelligence companies, who rent aircraft not only to the US but also to other countries like France, Italy and the EU.

Meanwhile Russian officials are rumoured to want to construct a military base near Tobruk, but Russia is anyhow at the moment increasingly active in its support for Field Marshall Khalifa Haftar. Russian military intelligence officers are in Tobruk and Benghazi and Russian Special Forces are said to be giving close support to some of Haftar’s elite units.

But Russia’s political involvement in Libya is even more important than its military one. The meeting in mid-December in Moscow between Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov and Bechir Saleh, Col. Muammar Gaddafi’s former chief of staff, purpose was to develop tribal contacts overall in Libya but, above all, in the southern Fezzan region, where Saleh still has especially good contacts with the tribes.

Moscow in turn also has contacts in Tripoli and Misrata via the very effective Chechen connection. Russian-Libyan contact group chairman Lev Dengov, who is also a special adviser to Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, keeps regular contact with Haftar’s opposition factions in Tripoli and Misrata.

The complex super power Libyan game between the West, in the form of the US, UN, EU & NATO, continues with opposing equal intrigue from the Russians.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Complex Power Play in Libya
  • Tags:

Gallup surveyed in 134 countries in 2017, and on January 18th reported that:

Median approval of U.S. leadership across the 134 countries surveyed in 2017 reached 30%, the lowest point since Gallup began tracking this measure annually in 2007. Disapproval of U.S. leadership increased almost as much as approval declined. The 43% median disapproval, up 15 points from the previous year, was a new record as well, not only for the U.S. but for any other major global power [there were three others — Germany, Russia, and China — that] Gallup asked [this question] about in the past decade.

The map showing country-by-country results indicates declining approval of U.S. leadership in all countries in the Western Hemisphere, except no change in Jamaica and Trinidad-&-Tobago. There were 9% decline of approval of America’s leadership in Venezuela, and declines ranging from 14% to 40% in all other countries throughout the Western Hemisphere. The biggest decline in the Hemisphere, 40%, occurred in Canada.

In Europe, there were declines in all countries except improvements (increased approval) in Macedonia 15%, Belarus 11%, Poland 8%, Slovakia and Montenegro 7%, Russia 6%, and Ukraine 4%. The biggest change was the 42% decline in approval of U.S. leadership in Norway, but close behind that was the 38% decline in Netherlands. Norway, Canada and Netherlands exhibited the biggest of all the declines in approval of U.S. leadership, among all the 134 nations surveyed.

In Asia (including some Middle Eastern countries), there were increases only in Israel 14%, Iraq 9%, Lebanon and Azerbaijan 7%, Nepal 6%, Kazakhstan 5%, Mongolia 4%, Uzbekistan 2%, and Tajikistan and Palestine 1%.

Africans seem to be the most pleased of all peoples with the change from Obama to Trump. There were approval-increases by 17% in Liberia, 8% in Mauritius and Benin, 7% in Ethiopia, 6% in Sierra Leone, 5% in Ghana, 4% in Chad and Algeria, 2% in South Sudan, and 1% in Nigeria and Zambia and Morocco. The biggest decline in approval was 17% in Tanzania. Egypt and Saudi Arabia weren’t included among the 134 sampled countries. 

Here were the results Gallup reported regarding the leadership in the three other countries: China, Russia, and Germany.

In 2017, globally among the 134 countries, 41% approved of the leadership in Germany. 31% approved of the leadership in China. 30% approved of the leadership in U.S., and 27% approved of the leadership in Russia. The figure regarding Russia had reached its all-time low of 22% in 2014, due to U.S. propaganda for U.S. President Barack Obama’s coup in Ukraine ending democracy there in February 2014 (it was portrayed instead as a ‘revolution’ in Ukraine, which ‘had a mostly democratic and liberal character’), and propaganda against Russia’s response to that U.S. coup, which coup had actually instituted fascism and even outright nazism in Ukraine, though Ukraine’s new leaders were lionized by the U.S. Congress as heros of democracy. Even outright nazis from the new government were honored by Western legislatures. During that same year, 2014, when America pulled off its bloody coup in Ukraine, America’s leadership was globally approved by 45%. In that year, Germany’s leadership was approved by 41%. China’s leadership was approved by 29%. And, as mentioned, Russia’s approval was 22% — half of America’s. Now that Trump has become the U.S. President, that U.S./Russia ratio has declined from 45%/22% in 2014, to 30%/27% — from around two-to-one in America’s favor, to near equality between the two nations’ leaderships’ global approval. Whereas Obama had fooled the world to think that he’s a decent person, Trump doesn’t seem even to care much about what the world-at-large thinks of him.

*

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 Gallup: Global Disapproval of U.S. Leadership Has Soared Under Trump
  • Tags:

How the Establishment Undermines American Democracy

January 20th, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

There is a growing consensus among many observers in Washington that the national security agencies have become completely politicized over the past seventeen years and are now pursuing selfish agendas that actually endanger what remains of American democracy. Up until recently it has been habitual to refer to such activity as the Deep State, which is perhaps equivalent to the Establishment in that it includes financial services, the media, major foundations and constituencies, as well as lobbying groups, but we are now witnessing an evolutionary process in which the national security regime is exercising power independently.

In a devastating critique former Central Intelligence Agency operations officer John Kiriakou has described how the Democratic Party, as part of its frenzied effort to bring down President Donald Trump, has embraced a whole group of former intelligence and law enforcement officers who appear to be on the same side in seeking a more responsible and accountable executive branch but who are in reality pursuing their own agenda.

Formerly intelligence and law enforcement agencies acted under the direction of the White House but without any political bias. Transitions from Democratic to Republican administrations were consequently seamless for the employees of CIA, FBI, DIA and the NSA, but this has changed. In the 2016 election a line-up of retired senior officers from those organizations openly supported the Clinton campaign and even went so far as to construct elaborate conspiracy theories regarding Trump and his associates, including the claim that Donald Trump is actually an agent of Russia.

The desire to discredit and ultimately delegitimize Trump even involved some active duty senior officers, including John Brennan, Director of CIA, who exploited Agency relationships with foreign intelligence services to develop information on Trump, and James Comey of the FBI who initiated an investigation of Trump’s associates. Both were involved in the later surfacing of the notorious Steele Dossier, a collection of fact mixed with fiction that sought to destroy the Trump presidency even before it began.

Kiriakou cites recent activity by Brennan as well as former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden as well as former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, all of whom have been politically active. The three men appear frequently on television as self-described “senior statesmen,” but, as Kiriakou observes they are “…monsters who have ignored the Constitution…and international law. They have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.” They together with lesser figures like George Tenet, Jose Rodriguez, Michael Morell and John McLaughlin authorized technical spying on nearly everyone, torture, rendition of suspects so they could be tortured by others, random killing of “profiled” foreigners and targeted killing of American citizens. Brennan was in charge of a “kill list” for President Barack Obama.

Former Reagan Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts meanwhile asks why liberal international organizations like Amnesty International are fundraising to oppose Trump when the real threat to a better and safer world and country is coming from the largely unaccountable “security agencies, the police, the neoconservatives, the presstitute media and the Republican and Democratic Parties?”

Antiwar activist Justin Raimondo also picks up the gauntlet, describing how the national security agencies and the Democratic Party have joined forces to create a totally false narrative that could lead to nuclear war. They and the media appear to truly believe that

“…the country has been taken over by Vladimir Putin and the Russian State…Trump is an instrument in their hands, and the independence of the United States has been fatally compromised: the president and his top aides are taking their orders from the Kremlin.”

He concludes that

“Our intelligence agencies are at war with the executive branch of government…to reverse the [2016] election results.”

Raimondo believes that Trump is being particularly targeted because his unpredictability and populism threaten the wealth and power of the elites and he notes

“If you think they’ve ruled out assassination you’re being naïve.”

Raimondo believes that something like a civil war is coming, with the war party Establishment fighting to defend its privileged global order while many other Americans seek a return to normal nationhood with all that implies. If true, the next few years will see a major internal conflict that will determine what kind of country the United States will be.

*

Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest.

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on How the Establishment Undermines American Democracy
  • Tags:

Feed the Homeless in America, Get Fined or Arrested

January 20th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

The state of homelessness in America is appalling, a largely unreported issue, the problem ignored by Washington, doing little or nothing to address it.

According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, on any given night, over 550,000 Americans are homeless – forced to sleep outside, in an emergency shelter or transitional housing.

Homelessness is a poverty issue, affecting the working poor and unemployed – housing and rental costs increasingly unaffordable.

In 2014, around seven million Americans doubled-up with family or friends, for many prelude to homelessness.

A recent HUD report revealed increased homelessness last year, saying it comes at a time of an affordable housing crisis.

According to an Apartment List National Report, rents were higher in 89 of America’s 100 largest cities last year.

A 2017 National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP) report, titled Housing not Handcuffs, said laws criminalized homelessness in 187 cities since 2006 – prohibiting sleeping in public places, living in vehicles and sharing food.

The NLCHP explained

“(a)lthough many people experiencing homelessness have literally no choice but to live outside and in public places, laws and enforcement practices punishing the presence of visibly homeless people in public space continue to grow.”

In too many places across America, the nation’s homeless are criminalized for their misery – instead of federal, state and local authorities taking responsible steps to alleviate the problem.

National Alliance to End Homelessness CEO Nan Roman explained “(u)nsheltered homelessness is on the rise, and major cities are feeling it most,” adding:

“Ending homelessness is a complex, long-term effort. For several years we’ve seen homeless systems become more efficient and effective and getting people into housing.”

“But the effectiveness of the homeless assistance efforts cannot make up for the increasing number of people who become homeless because they simply cannot afford housing.”

“In the short run, we will need more investment in effective homelessness programs. In the longer run, we need to address the increasing inability of poor and low income people to find affordable places to live.”

In California on a single night in 2016, over 20% of the state’s 39 million residents experienced homelessness – a shocking indictment of a major inadequately addressed issue.

New York City ranks highest in US homelessness, followed by Los Angeles, Boston, Washington, DC, San Francisco, and Phoenix.

The Chicago Coalition of the Homeless estimates around 125,000 Chicagoans experience homelessness over the course of a year – a major problem any time, a serious health issue in frigid weather.

Some cities prohibit feeding the homeless. Atlanta issues fines. So do Houston and Daytona Beach. Tampa arrests people feeding the homeless without permit permission.

According to the National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH), at least 33 US municipalities prohibit handing out free food.

El Cajon in suburban San Diego arrested 12 activists from the Break the Ban group for feeding homeless city residents. A 2017 ordinance prohibits it.

Volunteer Matthew Schneck said

“(i)f I’m going to be arrested for something, let it be for feeding the homeless.”

“It was absolutely necessary to beak this law until they were willing to enforce it, and, now that they have, we will continue this fight in court,” Shane Parmely stressed.

Mark Lane called the ban “an excuse,” explaining

“we have a problem with Hepatitis A, but you don’t battle that by not feeding homeless people.”

“You battle that by giving them proper restroom facilities, proper hand washing facilities, and vaccinations, education.”

The ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties condemned the arrests, executive director Norma Chavez Peterson saying:

Dr. Martin Luther King was deeply concerned about ending poverty and hunger in America.”

“I have no doubt that if he were alive today, (he’d) stand with people who would share food with the hungry; and he would stand against those who would call this a crime.”

An uncaring nation is the real issue, serving its privileged class exclusively, largely ignoring hardships its most vulnerable people endure.

*

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

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Feed the Homeless in America, Get Fined or Arrested
  • Tags:

2017 saw the US scorched by record-breaking wildfires in California, record-breaking rainfall events like Hurricane Harvey in Houston (just one of the three most expensive hurricanes to ever hit the US, which all occurred in 2017), damaging hail events, tornadoes, and extreme droughts that wiped out crops.

These extreme weather events, most of which were fueled at least in part by anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD), cost the US nearly a third of a trillion dollars ($306 billion) over the past year.

That is more money than the US government spent on transportation, housing and community, international affairs, energy and the environment, and science, combined, in 2015.

Read full article here.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Costs of 2017 US Weather Disasters Demolish Previous Record
  • Tags:

A review of a classified document outlining what is described as extensive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse was made available to all House members Thursday and the revelations could lead to the removal of senior officials in the FBI and Department of Justice, several sources with knowledge of the document stated. These sources say the report is “explosive,” stating they would not be surprised if it leads to the end of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation into President Trump and his associates.

The House Intelligence Committee passed the motion along party lines Thursday to make the classified report alleging extensive ‘FISA Abuse’ related to the controversial dossier available to all House members. The report contains information regarding the dossier that alleges President Trump and members of his team colluded with the Russians in the 2016 presidential election. Some members of the House viewed the document in a secure room Thursday.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., offered the motion on Thursday to make the Republican majority-authored report available to the members.

“The document shows a troubling course of conduct and we need to make the document available, so the public can see it,” said a senior government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the document. “Once the public sees it, we can hold the people involved accountable in a number of ways.”

The government official said that after reading the document “some of these people should no longer be in the government.”

The document also apparently outlines “several problematic” issues with how FISA warrants were “packaged, and used” state several sources with knowledge of the report.

Over the past year, whistleblowers in the law enforcement and intelligence community have revealed to Congress what they believe to be extensive abuse with regard to FISA surveillance, as previously reported. 

The dossier was used in part as evidence for a warrant to surveil members of the Trump campaign, according to a story published this month. Former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the dossier in 2016, was hired by embattled research firm Fusion GPS. The firm’s founder is Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who has already testified before Congress in relation to the dossier. In October, The Washington Post revealed for the first time that it was the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC that financed Fusion GPS.

Congressional members are hopeful that the classified information will be declassified and released to the public.

“We probably will get this stuff released by the end of the month,” stated a congressional member, who asked not to be named.

But the government official, who viewed the document said

“it will be tough for a lot of people to see this and especially the media, which has been attempting to de-emphasize the dossier. It’s going to punch a hole in their collusion narrative.”

The House vote to make the report available to all members is a major step in exposing the long-guarded classified documents obtained by the House Intelligence Committee over the past year. It allows members of the House to view the report and could quickly lead to a motion to declassify the report for the public, numerous House members told this reporter.

“It’s a (House Intelligence) committee document that deals with the assessment on the Department of Justice, FBI and the oversight work that is being conducted by the committee,” said a congressional source, which spoke on condition that they not be named.

*

Sara Carter is an award winning National Security/War Correspondent. 

Featured image is from the author.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Bombshell House Intelligence Report Exposing Extensive FISA Abuse Could Lead to the Removal of Senior Government Officials
  • Tags:

Imperial Disaster

January 19th, 2018 by Mark Taliano

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently announced that the U.S. occupation of Syria would continue until three conditions are met:

  • ISIS must be destroyed
  • Assad must go
  • Refugees must be returned to Syria

His words are an obscenity. They are also a smokescreen to disguise actual realities and imperial intentions. Not only is the U.S. occupation criminal according to Nuremburg Principles, but the diktats themselves are either unattainable or redundant, and therefore doomed to fail – which is the intent.

The first demand, that ISIS must be destroyed is intentionally unattainable since ISIS are U.S. assets, and so they will be there as long as the U.S. is there. The U.S. has no intention of eliminating its foremost pretext for waging war against humanity.

Leading Australian academic expert on the Middle East, Jeremy Salt, explains in these words what we should already know:

The war on Syria goes on. It is not over as many have said: but for outside intervention it never would have started. Even though the ISIS has been virtually destroyed in Syria, thus fulfilling the rationale for its forces being there, the US is refusing to leave. It has been playing a double game, declaring war on the ISIS while clandestinely cooperating with it in various ways. It wanted a Salafist principality in eastern Syria and the Islamic State gave it one. ISIS fighters criss-crossed the Syrian desert, towards Mosul and Palmyra, without the US intervening, although satellite reconnaissance would clearly have shown these lines of pickup trucks kicking up the summer dust. US Special Forces passed through Islamic State positions on the way to Deir al Zor, the US shipped takfir fighters out of Raqqa with their families and the US has been training takfiris rebranded as ‘rebel’ fighters at its Al Tanf base.[1]

And Salt’s accurate assessment above only scratches the surface of the West’s duplicity and criminality. Tillerson’s repugnant statements also included this gem, as reported by Daniel McAdams in “Breaking – Tillerson Unveils ‘New’ US Syria Plan: ‘Assad Must Go!’ ”:

“US troops will remain in Syria to prevent the Syrian government from re-establishing control over the parts of Syria abandoned by a defeated ISIS. So the legitimate government of Syria will be prevented by an illegal United States military occupation from reclaiming its own territory? This is supposed to be a coherent policy?”[2]

McAdams is describing longstanding US policy of using terrorist assets such as ISIS as place- setters. ISIS will occupy, destroy, terrorize, and depopulate an area so that “liberators” can take their place as new occupiers.[3]

Tillerson’s Regime Change utterance, the familiar “Assad must go!” refrain, also represents criminal duplicity, since it is the Syrian government and its allies who are defeating Western terror proxies in Syria. If Assad goes, the terrorists will stay.

As McAdams points out, Libya (which pre-invasion had the highest HDI in Africa) now hosts slave auctions[4] (as well as being a terrorist hub), about half a million have perished in Iraq (from 2003-2011)[5] thanks to that invasion (and this figure does not include over 500,000 children and about one million others murdered by pre-war sanctions). And of course the neo-Nazi infested Kiev junta’s downward-spiraling political economy – another imperial project – is also a disaster.[6]

Finally, the diktat that refugees must be returned to Syria is also beyond ridiculous, since they are already flooding back into liberated areas of Syria, and they will never flood back to a U.S.-occupied, sectarian, terrorist- infested Syrian. But again, that is the duplicitous intent.

The U.S. and its Coalition vassals – including Canada – seek to destroy Syria.  If Tillerson’s demands are met, this is what will happen. And the overseas holocaust will deepen. Those who control the crumbling U.S. Empire must surely be Satanic.

*

Notes

[1]Jeremy Salt, “The US Coalition-Financed ‘Siege’ of East Ghouta Supported by BBC Propaganda.”  21WIRE

16 January, 2018. (http://21stcenturywire.com/2018/01/16/us-coalition-financed-siege-east-ghouta-supported-bbc-propaganda/) Accessed 18 January, 2018.

[2] Daniel McAdam, “Breaking – Tillerson Unveils ‘New’ US Syria Plan: ‘Assad Must Go!’ “ Ron Paul Institute For Peace And Prosperity. 17 January, 2018. (http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/january/17/breaking-tillerson-unveils-new-us-syria-plan-assad-must-go/#.Wl_h52wyWOU.twitter) accessed 18 January, 2018. 

[3] Mark Taliano, “War Crimes As Policy.” Global Research. 17 November, 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/war-crimes-as-policy/5618777) Accessed 18 January, 2018.

[4]Slave auctions in Libya caught on camera.” News.com.au. 4 December 2017. (https://nypost.com/2017/12/04/slave-auctions-in-libya-caught-on-camera/) Accessed 18 January, 2018.  

[5] Kerry Sheridan, “Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says.” Agence France Press . 15, October, 2013/Updated 06 December, 2017. (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html) Accessed 18 January, 2018.  

[6] Alexander Mercouris. “2017: The Ukrainian economy’s dismal year|

Ukrainian economy continued to weaken as inflation rose and living standards fell.” The Duran.

13 January, 2018. (http://theduran.com/2017-ukrainian-economys-dismal-year/) Accessed 18 January, 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

Big Power Diversions: Olympic Diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula

January 19th, 2018 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

The more overtures, sudden but entirely appropriate, being made by North Korea to their South Korean counterparts, the more concern seems to emanate from quarters in Washington and Tokyo.  A recurring streak in these engagements is the fear that Pyongyang is simply prevaricating, distracting and diverting: they are having us all for fools.

This betrays the whole premise of how US policy, and to a good degree that of Japan, has been linked to an obsession to place nuclear weapons dismantling and removal as a first step of talks rather than a final outcome with an enduring peace settlement

Such a settlement, by its very composition, would have to normalise affairs between both Koreas, end the armistice with a peace treaty, with the possible icing on the cake being a Nuclear-Weapons Free Zone. But surely, a declaration of non-hostility on the part of Washington might be a good start? 

Initial freezes in terms of testing (ballistic weapons, the nuclear program) complemented by a suspension or delay of large military exercises by the United States and South Korea, would then follow as a way of smoothing the way.

In many security channels, this might seem like very large pie in a very distant sky. Various powers, led by the United States, see a North Korean nuclear weapons program as satanic, untenable, the freakish sore of the international comity.  It must be removed, excised, disarmed, or shackled.  But even in the darkest moments of theatre, bluster and boisterousness, talks have been taking place.  There have been discussions, albeit quietly held, reverberating in the background.  

These talks have lead, in balletic, searching format, to Olympic diplomacy.  In a sense, it is fitting.  The Olympics have often been the scene of protest, propaganda and boycotts, a grandiose and costly hypocrisy that crushes the host city even as it drains its coffers.  But this occasion at Pyeongchang promises to be slightly different, returning the games to their initial, if contrived purpose: to promote peaceful engagement in sporting ventures and a cessation of hostilities for the duration of the event.

The security mandarins in Washington and Tokyo are seemingly not convinced.  Last weekend, it transpired that President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, had made a secret journey to San Francisco to discuss North Korea’s nuclear weapons program with Japan’s Shotaro Yachi of the national security council, and officials from South Korea.  The agenda item – the recent resumption of communications between Pyongyang and Seoul – was treated with some scorn, with Olympic diplomacy here deemed a diversion that will have little if any impact on the nuclear weapons program.

Again, the narrow horizon, the chatter of small minds prevailed, evinced by such remarks by McMaster to Fox News’ Bret Baier at the Reagan National Security Forum in California.  For McMaster, the nuclear program is a bacillus that requires expunging with immediacy, leaving little, if any room, for accommodation.  Being alarmed is a way of being.

“I think it’s increasing everyday,” he spoke with orthodox, rehearsed urgency. “It means we’re in a race.  We’re in a race to be able to solve this problem.”

(On this score, McMaster is hardly being original, having insisted on this futile contest for months.)  While there were “ways to address this problem short of armed conflict” this was a “race because he’s getting closer and closer and there’s not much time left.”  Such a sinister suggestion, the self-clapping in irons that restricts diplomacy because the war monger longs to reach for his weapon.

As Leon Sigal, Director of the Northeast Asia Security Project at the Social Science Research Council explained to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee last year, denuclearisation was the “ultimate goal”.  However, “demanding that Pyongyang pledge that now will only delay a possible agreement, enabling it to add to its military wherewithal and bargaining leverage in the meantime.”

This point is being insistently ignored by a set of policy makers in Washington, leaving no room for manoeuvring, theatre, dissimulation, in short, all aspects that are vital to the resolution of lingering disputes.  Senator Lindsey Graham, for one, claimed on Wednesday that Seoul was “undercutting what Trump’s trying to do” in allowing Pyongyang to participate at the Winter Olympics.

What McMaster is alluding to is brutal, surrendering simplicity: come out with your hands up, surrender your weapons, and all will be well.  He does this by insisting that,

“The greatest immediate threat to the United States and to the world is the threat posed by the rogue regime in North Korea and his continued efforts to develop a long range nuclear capability.”

In Vancouver, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson carried out his usual double act in a press conference following a meeting with Canadian, Korean, Japanese and UN Command officials.  He began with “one policy and one goal”: “the complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.”  The pressure of sanctions, long shown to be ineffective in having any actual impact on Pyongyang’s weapons program, would continue, albeit in a more targeted way.  Combating the evasion of sanctions and interdiction to prevent “ship-to-ship transfers” was also discussed.

Then came a slight adjustment in tone: while “maximum pressure”, one designed to push Pyongyang to denuclearisation talks, buttressed by a “resolute military option” had been the object of the Trump administration, Vancouver provided a different setting, featuring “constructive discussions about how to push our diplomatic efforts forward and prepare for the prospects of talks.”  All to the good, though heavily qualified by the next spurt of bellicosity from President Trump himself.

*

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 Big Power Diversions: Olympic Diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson vowed yesterday that American imperialism will not relent from its neo-colonial ambition to overthrow the Russian- and Iranian-backed Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad. In a display of imperialist arrogance, Tillerson declared that the US will maintain military forces inside Syria indefinitely and not accept any government in Damascus that does not function as an American client state.

Tillerson reaffirmed the determination of the US to pursue regime-change in Syria in a speech to the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California. It was fitting that his address was hosted by former Bush administration National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, an individual who should be indicted for war crimes for her role in the illegal invasion of Iraq.

The fraudulent pretext that the sole motive of the US in Syria was to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been cast aside. Throughout his speech, Tillerson repeatedly denounced Iran for supporting the Syrian government. The representative of the power that invaded Iraq and props up monarchical dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states accused Tehran of seeking “dominance in the Middle East.” He declared that the US was committed to “reducing and expelling malicious Iranian influence from Syria.”

Tillerson also demanded that Russia cease its backing for Damascus and “put new levels of pressure on the regime” to step aside and accept the installation of an American-controlled puppet state. The US objective, he asserted bluntly, was the “departure of Assad.”

The criminality, and hypocrisy, of the American ruling class has no limit. Amid the hysterical accusations of “Russian meddling” in the US elections, Tillerson baldly asserted that the United States will decide the fate of Syria. Among the political forces that the US is working with are the very Islamist extremists that Washington exploited to justify its intervention into the seven-year civil war that has ravaged the country.

The recklessness of the policy outlined by Tillerson is immense. In pursuit of regime-change, the US is seeking to effectively partition Syria, formally carving off the north into an American protectorate under the control of Kurdish nationalist forces, while placing the eastern region of the country under Islamist militias.

Tillerson asserted that the US will channel so-called reconstruction aid into the areas held by its proxies, while seeking to enforce an economic embargo against the areas controlled by the Syrian government. The US zone will be protected from Syrian forces by the 2,000 US military personnel already in the country, and by US Air Force assets based in Iraq and the Gulf states.

The day before Tillerson’s speech, a spokesperson for the US forces in the Middle East announced plans to assemble and arm a 30,000-strong anti-Assad militia. Among those whom the US intends to enlist are hundreds of former ISIS fighters and members of Al Qaeda-linked Islamist militias, such as the Al Nusra Front.

A major aim of the US plans is to sabotage and derail the Russian-led steps toward the convening of talks on ending the civil war in Syria. A conference is scheduled to take place in Sochi, Russia next month, to which various anti-Assad factions have been invited. Now, these elements have instead been provided with open-ended US military and financial backing to continue fighting.

It is estimated that the Syrian war has resulted in at least 500,000 deaths since 2011. More than five million people have fled the country as refugees, and at least six million more have been displaced from their homes within Syria. Entire cities and towns have been reduced to rubble by the indiscriminate bombardments carried out by all sides in the murderous conflict.

Tillerson’s speech portends not only the continuation of the horrors inflicted on the Syrian masses, but a major escalation of the violence.

The US agenda has been rejected by the Syrian government already. The Syrian foreign ministry issued a statement that said:

“The American military presence on Syrian land is illegitimate and represents a blatant breach of international law and an aggression against national sovereignty.”

Immediately on the horizon is the danger of large-scale military confrontations between US-backed forces, on one side, and the Syrian Army and the Iranian, Iraqi and Lebanese volunteers who are fighting alongside it in various Shiite militias. Having defeated rebel forces elsewhere in the country, the focus of Syrian government operations is shifting to retaking opposition-held territory in the north and east. In the air, these operations are still backed by Russian aircraft and helicopter gunships.

The obvious question posed by Tillerson’s speech is whether American forces will attack Russian aircraft, with all the ramifications such an action would carry.

There is also the danger that US attacks in Syria could lead to open war with Iran or ignite a new civil war inside Iraq, with Shiite militias taking up arms against the American-backed government in Baghdad.

Turkey, a NATO ally of Washington, is no less opposed to the US plans. The Turkish government insists that the US-backed Kurdish nationalist YPG militia is a front for the separatist Kurdish Workers Party (PKK), which it condemns as a “terrorist” organisation and has brutally suppressed inside Turkey for decades. Last weekend, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan bitterly accused the Trump administration of “creating a terror army on our border.”

While Tillerson’s speech yesterday gave verbal reassurances to “address Turkey’s concern with PKK terrorists” and vowed “close cooperation,” the fact remains that Washington is backing a formation that the Turkish ruling class views as a threat to its internal stability and territorial integrity. Erdogan has made repeated warnings that Turkey is prepared to invade northern Syria to prevent the YPG from consolidating the area into a de-facto Kurdish statelet. What would be the response of the United States?

The new stage in US imperialist intrigue in the Middle East is a further indictment of the myriad pseudo-left formations that supported the conspiracy to overthrow the Assad regime, claiming that the American-backed rebels were carrying out a “revolution” for “democracy.” All those who opposed the US regime-change operation, including the World Socialist Web Site, were accused of “knee-jerk anti-imperialism.”

Seven years on, the pro-imperialist character of the US proxy forces, whether it be the Kurdish nationalist formations or the Al Qaeda-aligned Islamist militias, is undeniable. As was the case from the outset, they are serving as Washington’s tool to undermine Iranian and Russian influence in the Middle East and assert American dominance over the oil-rich region.

The outcome is the vastly heightened danger of a regional war or war between nuclear-armed powers.

*

Featured image is from South Front.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Announces Indefinite Deployment of Military Forces in Syria
  • Tags: ,

How do Canadians look at the sequence of Nuclear Scare events in the Far East – culminating, for now, in Vancouver, Canada on Tuesday, January 16? What do Canadians make of the strange events? Are the scare events real? Or are we Canadians being brainwashed?

We know that the warning systems for detection of long-range, inter-continental ballistic missiles have been working for many decades almost without a hitch …. Have they begun failing … just now, conveniently?

A few days ago (Saturday in Hawaii, January 13, 2018) not only did someone push the wrong button – that sent out a warning of an approaching missile, but it took people at the system thirty-eight minutes to change the message. (It might be wrong to say “to correct the error” because it may not have been an error.) 

And … in a way that throws more suspicion on the matter …  it happened again on Tuesday, January 15, in Japan.  That alert, sent out by the national broadcaster, was recalled after two minutes. One way of looking at the sequence is that Hawaii is a U.S. State and a fake message can be kept working for longer than in Japan, a U.S. satellite that, nonetheless, has some independence. (A person can imagine the Japanese agreeing to a fake warning in Japan, but only for a very brief time.)

And why would a Japanese broadcaster (which has sent such “J Alerts” in the past when North Korea really sent missiles in the direction of Japan as part of testing) send a fake “J Alert” to a population that is very sensitive when it comes to nuclear matters? Who knows why the alert systems in two locations would fail just as … just as … Canada and the U.S.A. were sponsoring a meeting (not in Ottawa or Washington) but in North America’s most northern big, Pacific city: Vancouver, British Columbia, in order to talk (privately and publicly) about the ways they have  – to beat up North Korea.

The important points to register are that at the closed meeting (1) Russian and China were not invited (nor was North Korea), (2) the countries invited were all allies of the U.S.A. in its war in Korea in the 1950s to prevent Korea from choosing its own form of government, and (3) recent talk out of Washington is that it is possible to have a winning war against North Korea “without huge loss of life” [a sly way of saying without using nuclear bombs, perhaps] … and, we may assume,  the occasion of Olympic Games may just do the trick … when North Korea’s guard may be down.

In the “closed-door-talks” in Vancouver we do not know what agenda was put forward. We do not know what actions were agreed upon. We only know the Public Relations speeches given by Tillerson and Freeland.

That brings us to the “international event” in Vancouver, Canada, hosted by U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Canada’s Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland (who, one may speculate, is not a free agent since she was caught seriously lying to Canadians – and the world – about her Nazi collaborationist Ukrainian grandfather.  That means, one has to believe, she is vulnerable at all times to being attacked internationally or by power at home … if she doesn’t play the game set out for her by Canada’s “masters”.)

If the events of the last week are connected (as they seem to be) then Canadians may have been subjected to a huge Brainwash. Fake intercontinental missile events just before “closed-door-talks” with a lot of public “reasoning” and no real information released in Vancouver … all making clear that the U.S.A. and its craven colonial partners want to ramp up sanctions and enforcement of sanctions against North Korea (“wicked”, “mad” North Korea which wants to protect itself against U.S. invasion). But the Vancouver gathering may want more – a non-nuclear war with North Korea (while there is time!!!)

And all is set out in Vancouver by agents who are hawkish-but-reasonable-to-the-brainwashed … agents who have already made of North Korea a Public Relations Madhouse (for we, the brainwashed) because the country, North Korea, wants Defence Structures that assure the U.S. cannot do to North Korea what it has done to Iraq, Libya, and … until stopped … Syria (which, nevertheless, has been torn to shreds by the U.S. desire for ‘regime change’ there – a phrase meaning a shift from independent government to the status of a U.S. colony). And here in the U.S. colony, in Vancouver, all of us among the brainwashedknow the U.S.A. is our dearest friend and always has been.  And it has even been suggested (in a roundabout way) that if we cooperate on this matter – (who knows? no promises) – Canada may get what it wants as a devoted colony in the NAFTA talks (deadlocked as I write).

Some will say I am indeed brainwashed … by some electronic mole from North Korea planted in my brain as I sleep….  And – in this precarious world – who knows? The ‘some’ who say that may be right. And so we have to think and be alert … in all directions.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Hawaii, Japan “False Alerts” of a North Korea Attack. We Are Brainwashed
  • Tags: ,

In 2018 twelve Latin American countries from Mexico to Peru will hold elections at different levels, presidential, legislative and municipal. [1] Of the twelve elections, seven are for their respective presidents in Costa Rica, Cuba, Paraguay, Colombia, México, Brazil and Venezuela. What are the expectations? I will focus on four of those elections: Mexico and Colombia because they might represent more typical or traditional electoral processes in Latin America and also because they have certain relevance in the region; and Venezuela and Cuba, because they operate on distinct social premises and they represent unique processes based on special circumstances, like Venezuela, or based on independently developed social model like Cuba.

Mexico

Geopolitical analyst Andrew Korybko wrote a year ago in The Duran,

“Donald Trump is inspiring a new generation of Mexican nationalists.” [2]

Andrés Manuel López Obrador (agosto 2017).jpg

Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

This may well explain the reported lead of left-leaning nationalist Andrés Manuel López Obrador (nicknamed AMLO) at the polls. He had been an unsuccessful challenger in previous presidential elections and is now running as a candidate for the coalition Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional (MORENA – Movement of National Regeneration).

His next contender may be rightwing Ricardo Anaya, candidate for an odd coalition of the conservative Partido Accion Nacional (PAN – National Action Party) – that formed government twice with Vicente Fox (2000) and Felipe Calderon (2006) – and the leftist Partido de la Revolución Democrática (PRD – Party of the Democratic Revolution).

The reasons why elections in Mexico are important are multiple. On the social front, Mexico is the recipient of the new anti-immigration policy of U.S. President Trump threatening with deportations and a closure of the border with a solid wall, that by all accounts is a contentious issue among Mexicans on both sides of the border.

On the trade front, Mexico is under the insecurity of what will happen with the NAFTA agreement. Will it be revised or cancelled all together? This may turn out to be a divisive issue among voters bound to sway them to one or the other candidate if they even make it to the polls.

Perhaps AMLO’s popularity is making a few people in Washington nervous when they also hear that he is considered to be another Hugo Chavez determined to increase public expenditures to fight poverty, which is not a minor issue in Mexico.

It is important to mention that there are no socialist parties candidates because parties like the Communist Party of Mexico or the Workers’ Revolutionary Party are not officially registered and therefore do not take part in the elections.

Colombia

Elections in Colombia will take place in May and cannot be dismissed because the country is the main U.S. political-military grip on the rest of the region through its U.S. bases, and therefore holds unique influence. Venezuela is surely watching this outcome with some concern. That situation is expected to continue even when candidates are forming new alliances to distance themselves from the old conservative guard, and a brand new political party is in the picture.

The former FARC, now a political party using the same initials but renamed Fuerza Alternativa Revolucionaria del Común (Alternative Revolutionary Force of the Common [People]), will participate in the elections following the recent Peace Accord with the Santos government. The FARC ex-commander, Rodrigo Londoño (aka Timoleón Jiménez or Timochenko) is now a presidential candidate. His chances of winning the elections are not great but he definitely represents a different option if Colombians would like to seek one. Londoño has a clear advantage among farmers and indigenous people in small rural areas where the FARC had support, however, he must appeal to the urban population with clear programmatic alternatives in order to hold real chances.

The other aspiring candidates try hard to appear to be different to the Colombian voters by forming new coalitions. For instance, the rightwing Centro Democrático (Democratic Centre), founded by former president Alvaro Uribe, has elected Ivan Duque as its presidential candidate and has an alliance with the Partido Conservador (Conservative Party), but they both coincide in their fierce opposition to the Peace Accord and in favour of giving a tax break to multinationals.

On the other hand, the centre-left Coalición Colombia (Colombia Coalition) will present Sergio Fajardo as its candidate. It is another alliance of several parties that favours the Peace Accord with the FARC and promises to fight corruption.

It is unlikely that the president will be elected in the first round of polls. The second round will take place in June.

Venezuela

If the previous two elections in Venezuela in 2017 for governors and city mayors are any indication, without doubt Nicolas Maduro will be re-elected as president in November 2018 if not earlier.

Despite the serious U.S. threats of military intervention, severe sanctions and virtual financial blockade affecting Venezuela’s oil industry, Maduro’s main political platform is based on social programs, together with fighting corruption and strengthening the economy that is now seriously critical. The Maduro government has shown tangible commitment to the wellbeing of the population and has consistently called to peace and dialogue with the opposition despite the street violence of 2017.

However, the extreme rightwing opposition has refused to participate in most elections and has claimed electoral fraud without any foundation. This attitude is likely hiding the lack of popular support that would become evident if the largely divided opposition participated in elections.

So far Venezuelans have given a clear mandate to Chavismo and the governing party Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela (PSUV – United Socialist Party of Venezuela) in what is called Bolivarian Revolution. The ideology is based on an unrelenting sense of sovereignty and independence with a strong commitment to a constitutional and democratic process leading to peace, and a declared rejection of any type of U.S. intervention.

Cuba

The fourth important election in 2018 will take place in Cuba on April 19. Although the election is for the more than 600 members of the National Assembly of the People’s Power, the event has implications for the country’s presidency due to its unique process.

Raul Castro declared last year that he would not seek re-election to the legislature; so Cubans can expect a change in what is called the “historical leadership”. But according to observers, the change will have no transcendence on the Cuban social system and people’s lives.

There are several reasons that make the Cuban election unique:

1) There are no political parties involved, not even the Communist Party of Cuba can nominate or have candidates.

2) Individual candidates (who are not required to be party members) are nominated at their community (district) level, and elected by direct secret ballot to become members of the National Assembly of People’s Power (or Parliament) for a five year mandate.

3) Half of the National Assembly members must come from social organizations, i.e. students, women, labour organizations, etc. in order to have a cross-sectional representation of society in the decision making.

4) It is the newly elected legislative body that elects, from among themselves, 31 members of the Council of State to run the daily tasks of the country while the National Assembly is not in session.

5) The Council of State in turn selects who will be the president of the country and other high ministerial officials. [3]

Because of this unique electoral process with no direct vote for a predetermined presidential candidate, predictions are also more complex. The one thing that we can safely predict is that Cuba will remain socialist for the foreseeable future.

Concluding remarks

There is no doubt that in 2017 Operation Condor 2.0 has been underway in Latin America and has caused a regressive impact in the region, which make the round of new elections in 2018 particularly important to watch.

Under normal circumstances in democratic and internally determined processes we would focus on the political issues been offered by candidates and political parties during their election campaigns. However, elections in Latin America, and in many other countries for that matter, present more intricacies and often are those intricacies that determine the outcome of presidential elections. More specifically, lack of transparency, foreign interference or electoral fraud is a real prospect when democracy is just a handy label but not the practice. [4] Let the current situation in Honduras be a case in point.

If Mexicans would dare to lean to the left with Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, an electoral fraud becomes a real possibility as political analyst Andrew Korybko suggests and AMLO himself fears. [5] In fact, a U.S. pre-emptive info war, which is accusing Russia of “meddling” in the Mexican elections, has already started. [6] We all know where that leads.

A similar situation could arise in Colombia where voters could see the FARC, the new player in the game, as a clear break from the traditional bourgeois parties and their morphed versions. However, given the lack of support for the referendum on the peace accord in 2016 with less than 50% of votes and about 60% abstentions, the rightwing parties may be feeling safe.

In a different scenario, Colombians, especially those who have normally abstained from voting, may be alerted and react to the fact that, in the same year that the Santos government was recognized for its achievement on peace, 170 social leaders were murdered in the country. [7]

Contrary to mainstream media propaganda, Venezuela has proven to have transparent and fair elections. When in 2015 the governing party, PSUV, lost the majority in the National Assembly, there was no cry of fraud. Instead, the rightwing Assembly botched its opportunity of push their political agenda by attempting to swear in deputies fraudulently for which it was declared in contempt.

As mentioned before, the accusations of electoral fraud from some elements of a divided opposition may be more a pretext for excluding themselves from the election process for fear of showing the poor popular support they have. In the presidential elections this year it is expected that the Venezuelan opposition will do the same.

However, at the time of writing, conversations on “coexistence” and “combating economic aggression” are taking place in the Dominican Republic between some more moderate groups of the opposition and the government. That may change things as an agreement may be reached and other presidential candidates may be postulated.

From an international point of view it is disconcerting that some governments like Canada, the U.S. and the European Union would take sides and become protectors of the more radical opposition instead of supporting those within the opposition that are willing to negotiate. This requires a separate analysis but what transpires is not edifying for those “democratic” governments.

Outstanding as an outlier is the electoral system in Cuba. It is rarely spoken about and when it is, the mainstream media describes it as “not democratic”. But there is more to it than meets the eye.

Most strikingly, at no point there is money involved in the process. In fact, there are no expensive political campaigns and, with a few exceptions, National Assembly members do not receive additional pay aside from what they perceive from their regular job, which they maintain during their mandate. In such an open and decentralized system with no parties or money interest, it is hard to conceive any possibility of fraud. In fact, if the trend of previous elections continues, more than 95% of the population will turn out to vote freely with only a fraction of spoiled ballots. This must be looked at in comparison with the voters turn out in multiparty systems.

Finally, the year 2018 might turn out to be a very busy year for the U.S. State Department, CIA and the Southern Command headquarters (SOUTHCOM), located in Doral, Florida. To watch and control so many elections requires a high state of alert, intelligence gathering and readiness to intervene in order to defend their kind of “democracy”. I say this quite consciously because I take it for granted that the U.S. government will continue to interfere in the internal affairs of Latin America unless unity, “not only economic but political”, becomes a reality, as Fidel Castro said.

*

Notes

[1] http://www.celag.org/calendario-electoral-2018-2019/

[2] http://theduran.com/donald-trump-stimulates-mexican-nationalism/

[3] For a more detailed description of Cuba’s electoral system consult: “Cuba and its Neighbours – Democracy in Motion” by Canadian author Arnold August [Fernwood Publishing, 2013]

[4] Further reading about interventions in Latin America: “Open Veins of Latin America” by Eduardo Galeano [Monthly Review Press, 1977] and “Masters of War – Latin America and U.S. Aggression” by Clara Nieto [Seven Stories Press, 2003]

[5] https://orientalreview.org/2017/12/30/2018-outlook-latin-america/

[6] https://orientalreview.org/2018/01/13/us-meddling-mexicos-election-accusing-russia/

[7] https://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/170-Social-Leaders-Killed-in-Colombia-in-2017-Report-20180107-0011.html

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Elections in Latin America in 2018 – A Preview of Four Cases

Today TransCanada released a statement claiming it had garnered enough shipping commitments for the Keystone XL pipeline to make it financially viable. To get that support TransCanada requires a bailout pledge from Canada’s Alberta government to ship 50,000 barrels of oil per day for 20 years, Alberta Premier Rachel Notley’s office confirmed. TransCanada has yet to announce whether they intend to build the pipeline, even if the remaining numerous legal and regulatory hurdles are overcome. In response to this news, Adam Scott, Senior Advisor, Canada at Oil Change International, released the following statement:

“When even Enbridge is calling this a subsidy, you know Alberta’s XL bailout is another desperate attempt at a lifeline for a pipeline that will never be built. Keystone XL would be a disaster for the climate, and watching governments bend over backwards to be a part of that is heartbreaking in a year where you could barely catch your breath between climate disasters.

“Any project that needs a government bailout amid a quagmire of ongoing legal and regulatory challenges has little chance of moving forward.

“Nebraskans, supported by communities across the continent, continue to stand up against the pipeline, and they will not stop until this saga ends with TransCanada abandoning this doomed project.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Alberta’s XL Bailout a Desperate Attempt to Save TransCanada’s Doomed Keystone XL
  • Tags:

If the proposed Monsanto-Bayer merger goes through, the new company would control more than 25 per cent of the global supply of commercial seeds and pesticides. Monsanto held a 26% market share of all seeds sold in 2011. Bayer sells 17% of the world’s total agrochemicals and also has a seeds sector. If competition authorities pass the deal, the combined company would be the globe’s largest seller of both seeds and agrochemicals.

It marks a trend towards consolidation in the industry with Dow and DuPont having merged and Swiss seed/pesticide giant Syngenta merging with ChemChina. The mergers would mean that three companies would dominate the commercial agricultural seeds and chemicals sector.

In response to the Monsanto-Bayer merger, after it was announced in 2016 the US National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson issued the following statement:

“Consolidation of this magnitude cannot be the standard for agriculture, nor should we allow it to determine the landscape for our future… We will continue to express concern that these megadeals are being made to benefit the corporate boardrooms at the expense of family farmers, ranchers, consumers and rural economies… [there is an] alarming trend of consolidation in agriculture that has led to less competition, stifled innovation, higher prices and job loss in rural America.”

For all the rhetoric that we often hear about ‘the market’ and large corporations offering choice to farmers and consumers, the evidence is restriction of choice and the squeezing out of competitors. Over the years, for instance, Monsanto has bought up dozens of competitors to become the largest supplier of genetically engineered seeds with seed prices having risen dramatically.

Consolidation and monopoly in any sector should be of concern to everyone. But the fact that the large agribusiness conglomerates specialize in a globalised, industrial-scale, chemical-intensive model of farming should have us very concerned. Farmers are increasingly reliant on patented corporate seeds, whether non-GM hybrid seeds or GM and the chemical inputs designed to be used with them. Monsanto seed traits are now in 80% of corn and more than 90% of soybeans grown in the US.

By its very nature, the economic model that corporate agriculture is attached to demands expansion, market capture and profit growth. It might bring certain benefits to those farmers who have remained in agriculture, if not for the 330 farmers in the US who leave their land every week (according to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service).

But in the US, ‘success’ in agriculture has largely depended on over $51 billion of taxpayer handouts over a 10-year period to oil the wheels of a particular system of agriculture designed to maintain corporate agribusiness profit margins. And any ‘success’ fails to factor in all the external social, health and environmental costs. It is easy to spin failure as success when the parameters are narrowly defined.

Moreover, the exporting of Green Revolution ideology and technology throughout the globe has been a boon to transnational seed and agrochemical manufacturers, which have benefited from undermining a healthy, sustainable indigenous agriculture.

The main players in the global agribusiness sector rank among the Fortune 500 corporations. These companies are high-rollers in a geo-politicised, globalised system of food production whereby huge company profits are linked to the worldwide eradication of the small farm (the bedrock of global food production), bad food, poor healthrigged tradeenvironmental devastationmono-cropping and diminished food and diet diversity, the destruction of rural communities, ecocidedegraded soilwater scarcity and droughtdestructive and inappropriate models of development and farmers who live a knife-edge existence and for whom debt has become a fact of life.

Does the world need it?

Britain is a leader in intensive, corporate-dominated agriculture. But is this the model of agriculture the world should rely on?

Let us turn to campaigner and environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason to appreciate some of the consequences of this model. She has just written an open letter to Professor Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer for England and Chief Medical Advisor to the UK government. Although written to Davies, the letter is intended for the four Chief Medical Officers of Health for England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland and Public Health England.

Her letter is essentially a plea to highly placed officials to act.

Mason provides a stark reminder of the impacts of the agrochemical/agribusiness sector, its political power and its effects on health. She draws attention to a report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, which states unequivocally that the storyline perpetuated by the likes of Bayer’s Richard van der Merwe (in this piece) saying we need pesticides and (often chemical-dependent) GMOs to feed the world is a myth.

The report is severely critical of the global corporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of the “systematic denial of harms”, “aggressive, unethical marketing tactics” and heavy lobbying of governments which has “obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions”.

The authors of the report call for a comprehensive new global treaty to regulate and phase out the use of dangerous pesticides in farming and move towards sustainable agricultural practices. They say:

“excessive use of pesticides is very dangerous to human health, to the environment and it is misleading to claim they are vital to ensuring food security.”

Mason notes that chronic exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility. Certain pesticides can persist in the environment for decades and pose a threat to the entire ecological system on which food production depends.

One of the report’s authors, the UN expert on Toxics Baskut Tuncakwrote in the Guardian:

“Our children are growing up exposed to a toxic cocktail of weedkillers, insecticides, and fungicides. It’s on their food and in their water, and it’s even doused over their parks and playgrounds. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the most ratified international human rights treaty in the world (only the US is not a party), makes it clear that states have an explicit obligation to protect children from exposure to toxic chemicals, from contaminated food and polluted water, and to ensure that every child can realise their right to the highest attainable standard of health. These and many other rights of the child are abused by the current pesticide regime. These chemicals are everywhere and they are invisible. The only way to protect citizens, especially those disproportionately at risk from exposure, is for governments to regulate them effectively, in large part by adhering to the highest standards of scientific integrity.”

Mason offers Sally Davies and her colleagues evidence that suggests rising UK Mortality rates point to a critical, unprecedented health epidemic. Arguing that the heavy use of agrochemicals in the UK is a major contributory factor, she notes Cancer Research UK (CRUK) is protecting the agrochemical industry due to its strategic influence. As a result, the mainstream narrative on cancer focuses on the role of alcohol (see this also) and ‘lifestyle choices’ while sidelining the strong evidence that agrochemicals are having.

Rosemary Mason asks Sally Davies if she is aware that the UK Department of Health is working with industry, again citing evidence in support of her claim.

As someone who has written extensively on the adverse impacts of glyphosate, Mason refers Davies to research that links Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup with liver damage.

If the National Health Service in the UK is experiencing a crisis – as indeed it is – due to rising rates of morbidity (not withstanding the effects of poor funding and creeping privatisation), surely these spiralling rates of diseases must be addressed. And where better to start by shining the light on agrochemicals rather than blaming individuals for lifestyle choices and alcohol consumption? 

For instance, a report by ‘Children with Cancer UK’ in 2016 said there were 1,300 more cases per year of cancers in children, particularly in young adults, compared with 1998. While the medical correspondent from The Telegraph has mentioned pesticides as a possible cause, a spokesperson from CRUK said there is no evidence of environmental factors.

Among the various statistics Mason provides are those indicating that colon cancer had risen by 200%, thyroid cancer has doubled, ovarian cancer is up by 70% and cervical cancer is up by 50% since 1998.

Yes, despite the evidence, the corporate media in Britain is silent about pesticides, which partly results from the corporate sponsorship of the UK Science Media Centre; so any science against the corporations can be suppressed by interested parties, including AstraZeneca, Coca Cola, Syngenta, BP and Monsanto.

While Mason produces figures to show the massive increase in a range of agrochemicals over the years, the Chief Scientist for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Professor Ian Boyd, points out that once a pesticide is approved there is no follow up. There is also no follow up as to the impacts of not just one chemical but the cocktail of agrochemicals out there and how they interact when in the human body and within the environment.

And let’s not forget that many of these agrochemicals were fraudulently placed on the commercial market in the first place without proper testing.

Readers can read Mason’s letter in full here, where she also discusses a potential UK-US trade deal with the US and the impacts on the lowering of food and environmental standards and subsequent relations with the EU.

The impacts of the Monsanto-Bayer deal and the contents of Rosemary’s letter to the Chief Medical officers of the UK are just the tip of an iceberg. There is a lot more that could and has been said on the impact of agribusiness giants on the globalisation of bad food and poor healthecological degradationsoil healthocean dead zones as well as the chemical contamination of our food by the handful of food conglomerates that now increasingly dominate the supply chain.

Alternative approaches and solutions exist but the political influence and financial clout of transnational corporations means that ‘business as usual’ prevails.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Corporate Monopolies Will Accelerate the Globalisation of Bad Food, Poor Health and Environmental Catastrophe

Peace Should be Integral to the Women’s March

January 19th, 2018 by Cindy Sheehan

There is one thing missing from the upcoming Women’s March publicity and philosophy: the urgent need for Peace not War!

The March will speak out against hate, discrimination and exploitation. That’s good.

The March will also speak out strongly in favor of equality, women’s reproductive choice and respect for all people regardless to disability, gender, orientation, etc.. That’s also good.

But the subject of US military aggression and war is essential. We hope that many marchers will include this in their signage and discussions. Despite many antiwar groups and individuals actively advocating for “peace” to be in the platform/demands of the March, this is the second year peace is being minimized or ignored by the organizers.

For the past century the US has intervened aggressively against governments the Washington establishment does not like. A partial list includes Philippines, Korea, Guatemala, Iran, Cuba, Chile, Vietnam,Angola, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Panama, Somalia,  Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, Honduras,  Libya and Syria!

These acts of “regime change”  have killed millions of people including many thousands of our own youth, both women and men. They have resulted in hundreds of thousands returning home injured physically or psychologically. Mothers, wives, sisters, aunts, and other family and friends have been profoundly, permanently, and unnecessarily handed a lifetime of pain and sorrow because of the US war machine.

Shouldn’t it be a priority to change the policies and acts of economic aggression and military intervention that result in violence, war and destruction?

Shouldn’t we address the causes of the refugee crisis as well as the symptom? After all, most refugees never wanted to leave their homelands.

We are sure that most of the women and allies who will be attending the Women’s March agree with us on the need for action and protest against our ongoing wars.

The escalating military budget is driving our country further and further into debt. Meanwhile infrastructure is decaying, health care and housing is diminishing and education is underfunded. College students now graduate with astronomical student debt. Meanwhile there is growing police oppression.

We must include PEACE in our march because unless we can stop the trend, a nuclear war is going to destroy civilization.  There is no such thing as a winnable nuclear war. Resisting the war machine and dismantling ALL nukes should be essential elements in our activism. The continuity of human life on our planet is at stake. These are Women’s issues.

As we demand a change in tone and behaviour in the White House, we must also demand a change in US international foreign policy away from militarism and aggression.

The demand for peace not war should be integral to the Women’s March.

*

Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Specialist Casey Sheehan who was killed in Iraq in 2004; she is an antiwar activist, author of seven books, Executive Producer and host of Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox.

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist.  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Peace Should be Integral to the Women’s March
  • Tags:

Why Bitcoin’s Fallen by Half

January 19th, 2018 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

I recently was asked for my view of why Bitcoin prices have collapsed nearly by half this past week. From a high of near $20,000, it fell below $10,000. Other ‘altcoins’ (Ethereum, Ripple, etc.) have collapsed in price as much or more. Why after rising from $900 this time in 2017, and peaking at nearly $20,000 by late last year, has the price collapsed? Will it recover to prior peaks? Is this the beginning of the crypto currency bubble implosion?

Here are the two questions the news agency asked me to answer:

1) Why did Bitcoin fell 45% comparing to December 2017? (if you look closely at graphics there’s a definite connection between Chinese New Year in January and bitcoin’s fall for at least last four years.)

2) Is bitcoin a bubble? Please give a short argument on your answer.

Here’s my explanation for the bubble, the current correction, and what’s driving bitcoin and crypto currencies. It’s an economic analysis, in contrast to the many simplistic historical correlations that purport to pass as explanations.

To address your specific questions 1 and 2:

The reason bitcoin fell 45% is the reversal, or anticipated reversal, of the same forces in 2017 that drove its price from around $1k to almost $20k. The escalation of its price was due to intensifying demand while supply was held more or less controlled by the initial offerings. Demand forces included the prospect in 2017 that bitcoin would remain unregulated and untaxed. That enabled investor ‘pumping and dumping’. Another demand factor was the emerging legitimation of bitcoin by the launching of futures trading by the US commodity exchanges, CME and CBOE at year end. Another was the stagnant price of gold futures, and money flowing from gold price speculation to crypto currencies (a substitution effect). Another was the general ‘risk on’ speculative investing psychology of the year. Another was the spread of companies trying to raise equity funding by proclaiming they were a ‘blockchain’ developer, whether they were or not. Another was the proliferation of other initial altcoin offerings, as their prices rose a complimentary price effect boosted bitcoin (and vice versa). All these factors played a role in driving bitcoin demand, while its supply did not rise in tandem.

Nearly all these forces reversed after the end of 2017 and prices collapsed for bitcoin and other altcoins. Profit taking by large initial investors played a role, as they sold their coins (thereby increasing the supply on the market that also depressed prices as falling demand did so as well). Talk of regulation grew by governments and central banks. China, Korea and other countries announced they banned or would intervene, especially with the manipulation of new companies raising equity funding by renaming themselves with some reference to ‘blockchain’. Central banks globally planned to meet to discuss what to do, as well as regulatory institutions. (Should central banks issue their own digital currencies, which they eventually will do, that will sharply depress altcoin prices by boosting supply). Sellers in general flooded the market for coins, as they dumped their holdings. With the possibility of more regulation comes the likelihood of some kind of taxation as well, a big factor in price speculation. Money flowed back from bitcoin to gold futures speculation—the substitute commodity speculative play. Spillover effects from bitcoin price declines impacted other altcoins, and vice-versa.

All these are ‘causal’ explanations. In contrast, to argue simply that it is Chinese new year correlation effects is nonsense. Most of the bitcoin buying is in Asia, but not in China where it is banned and where the central bank and government are now cracking down on speculators in general. 40% of bitcoin buying was located in late 2017 in Japan—the origin of the market by Nakamoto—and much of it a ‘retail buyer’ herd frenzy.

This may not be as short an answer as you like, but the truth is seldom ‘short’.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Bitcoin’s Fallen by Half

US Cuts Half Its Aid for Palestinian Refugees

January 19th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Economic conditions in Occupied Palestine already “scream.” The Trump administration, in cahoots with Israel, just made things tougher by cutting half of US aid to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA).

It goes for healthcare, education and other social services – vital for around five million Palestinian refugees and their descendants in Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan – victims of Israeli aggression in 1948 and 1967.

UNWRA defines a Palestinian refugee as “persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict” – along with others affected the same way during Israel’s Six Day War of aggression.

For starters, theTrump administration is withholding $65 million of a $125 million payment to UNWRA due this month – maybe all aid to be frozen or ended later, an act of collective punishment, a US and Israeli specialty, flagrantly violating international law.

On January 2, Trump disgracefully tweeted:

“(W)e pay the Palestinians HUNDRED OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS a year and get no appreciation or respect.”

“They don’t even want to negotiate a long overdue peace treaty with Israel…(W)ith the Palestinians no longer willing to talk peace, why should we make any of these massive future payments to them?”

Washington and Israel want unconditional Palestinian surrender, subjugation under Tel Aviv’s repressive boot, not peace both countries abhor.

An unnamed US official said

“(t)here is a need to undertake a fundamental reexamination of UNRWA, both in the way it operates and the way it is funded.”

The PA responded to Trump’s move, accusing Washington of “complicity with the Israeli occupation by attempting to remove another permanent status issue off the table.”

US administrations have always been complicit with the Jewish state since its 1948 creation, disdainful of Palestinian rights and welfare.

PLO executive committee member Hanan Ashrawi blasted the Trump administration’s aid freeze, saying

it’s “following Netanyahu’s instructions to gradually dismantle the one agency that was established by the international community to protect the rights of the Palestinian refugees and provide them with essential services.”

“It is also creating conditions that will generate further instability throughout the region and will demonstrate that it has no compunction in targeting the innocent. Once again the US Administration proves its complicity with the Israeli occupation.”

Netanyahu wants UNWRA eliminated, discussed in a previous article.

Aid cuts will grievously harm “the most vulnerable segment of the Palestinian people, (depriving them) of the right to education, health, shelter and a dignified life,” Ashwari explained.

Washington provides over $350 million annually to UNWRA, about one-third of its budget. Neocon Nikki Haley called for a total freeze unless Palestinians bow to the will of Washington and Israel.

Cutting aid to UNWRA inflicts enormous harm on long-suffering Palestinian refugees, deepening a humanitarian crisis in Gazan and other refugee camps.

UNWRA head Pierre Krahenbuhl said cutting aid by Washington threatens “the dignity and human security of millions” of Palestinians, along with threatening regional security.

He called for a global fundraising effort to make up the shortfall caused by Washington’s despicable action, adding:

“At stake is the access of 525,000 boys and girls in 700 UNRWA schools, and their future.”

“At stake is the dignity and human security of millions of Palestine refugees, in need of emergency food assistance and other support in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”

“At stake is the access of refugees to primary health care, including pre-natal care and other life-saving services. At stake are the rights and dignity of an entire community.”

Israel’s Ziofascist UN envoy Danny Danon praised Washington’s move, disgracefully saying

“(i)t’s time for this absurdity to end…”

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres issued a weak-kneed statement, saying

“I am very concerned, and I strongly hope that in the end it will be possible for the United States to maintain the funding of UNRWA in which the US has a very important share” – instead of blasting Washington’s despicable move.

A State Department letter explaining it said additional US funding depends on major UNWRA changes demanded by Washington and Israel.

Both countries are using long-suffering Palestinian refugees as pawns to get PA officials to bow to their will – pressuring them to sacrifice the rights and welfare of their most vulnerable people.

*

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

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

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

After Donald Trump called Haiti and African nations “shithole countries” and exclaimed, “We should have more people from Norway,” Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) noted that being a racist “must be in his DNA, in his makeup.” Trump’s offensive characterization of Haitians and the entire continent of Africa, the latest in his pattern and practice of racist epithets, imperils legal protection for the 800,000 “Dreamers” who have been able to remain in the United States under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

On September 5, 2017, Trump rescinded the DACA program, effective March 5, 2018. Attorney General Jeff Sessions incorrectly declared that Barack Obama had overstepped his legal authority when he established DACA, as I explained previously.

Indeed, US District Judge William Alsup disagreed with Sessions and ordered the Trump administration to shield existing DACA enrollees from deportation until the courts could rule on the legal challenges to the program. Alsup concluded that plaintiffs contesting the rescission of DACA would likely prevail on the merits of their constitutional and statutory claims.

Ironically, Trump’s habit of spewing racist bile has come back to bite him. In his ruling, Alsup wrote there is “a plausible inference that racial animus towards Mexicans and Latinos was a motivating factor in the decision to end DACA.” Alsup cited Trump’s rhetoric against Mexicans and Latinos during the presidential campaign, specifically calling Mexicans “rapists” and referring to migrants crossing the border as “animals.”

After rescinding DACA, Trump reacted to the overwhelming opposition to his decision by tossing the ball to Congress, tweeting, “Congress has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama administration was unable to do). If they can’t I will revisit this issue!”

Two days later, Trump tweeted,

“For all of those (DACA) that are concerned about your status during the six month period, you have nothing to worry about — No action!”

The president’s “shithole” words were uttered in a meeting called to save the Dreamers. It appeared there was a bipartisan consensus to reinstitute DACA with a path to citizenship for Dreamers; allocate “border security” funding, including money for Trump’s “beautiful wall”; prevent Dreamers from sponsoring their parents for legal immigration status; and end the diversity visa lottery system.

Trump sought “a bipartisan bill of love,” pledging to sign any bill that came to his desk as long as it contained money for “the wall.”

But pressure from right-wing hardliners, who Trump considers his base, scuttled the deal in the volatile meeting in which he made the grotesque remarks. Trump also stated, “Why do we need more Haitians? Take them out,” indicating an intention to remove Haitians from the United States.

The initial reaction from the White House was revealing. One official told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins:

The President’s “shithole” remark is being received much differently inside of the White House than it is outside of it. Though this might enrage Washington, staffers predict the comment will resonate with his base, much like his attacks on NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem did not alienate it.

But after the firestorm erupted in response to his outrageous comments, Trump denied uttering the words “shithole countries” or “take them out,” insisting, “I am not a racist.”

Astoundingly, although several attendees at the meeting confirmed Trump’s “shithole” comments, Sens. David Perdue (R-Georgia) and Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) said Trump had not used that language. According to the Washington Post,

“[t]hree White House officials said Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard ‘shithouse’ rather than ‘shithole,’ allowing them to deny the president’s comments on television over the weekend. The two men initially said publicly that they could not recall what the president said.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), who was present in the meeting, confirmed that Trump used the phrase “shithole countries” several times. But whether Trump said “shithole” or “shithouse” to refer to other nations is insignificant. Both are equally insulting.

Trump’s Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen also tried to shield the president, testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I did not hear that word.”

Earlier in the week, Trump had ended temporary protected status for 200,000 people from El Salvador, effective September 2019; many of them have been in the United States for 20 years. In November, Trump had halted temporary protected status for 59,000 Haitians, who are still reeling from the earthquake and cholera epidemic that have devastated that country.

Trump’s use of racist language in regard to immigrants — including those from Haiti — is, of course, nothing new. The New York Times reported Trump’s comments during a meeting in June 2017:

Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They ‘all have AIDS,’ [Trump] grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there. Forty thousand had come from Nigeria, Mr. Trump added. Once they had seen the United States, they would never ‘go back to their huts’ in Africa, recalled two officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive conversation in the Oval Office.

Democrats insist that reaching a deal to protect the Dreamers is a prerequisite to securing their votes to continue funding the government. Trump blames the Democrats for the impending government shutdown, tweeting, “DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don’t really want it, they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our military.”

But Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) told the New York Times,

“To believe that you can successfully blame Democrats for a shutdown over the DACA debate is naïve.”

Graham, who also attended the controversial meeting, confirmed to Sen. Tim Scott (R-South Carolina) that Trump said “shithole countries.” Graham said he had confronted Trump about the president’s words during the meeting.

The deadline to fund the government is Friday, January 19. Trump’s racist tantrum has put not only DACA, but also the entire government, in jeopardy.

Trump has appealed Alsup’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen whether the appellate courts or Congress will ultimately save DACA.

*

Copyright, Truthout. Reprinted with permission.

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, and an advisory board member of Veterans for Peace. She is co-author (with Kathleen Gilberd) of Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent. The second, updated edition of her book, Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues, was published in November. Visit her website: MarjorieCohn.com. Follow her on Twitter: @MarjorieCohn.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Deportation of Mexicans and Latinos: We Cannot Expect a President with Racism “in His DNA” to Save DACA
  • Tags:

As Noam Chomsky has often remarked:

‘liberal bias is extremely important in a sophisticated system of propaganda.’ One major news outlet that Chomsky had in mind was the New York Times, but the same applies in the UK. As a senior British intelligence official noted of the 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan: ‘It is always helpful for governments who want to get the Guardian readers of the world on board to have a humanitarian logic.’

This suggests that respected liberal media like the New York Times and Guardian are key battlegrounds in the relentless elite efforts to control public opinion.

On January 15, the Guardian was relaunched as a tabloid with a ‘new look’. Katharine Viner, the paper’s editor, proclaimed in all seriousness:

‘we have a special relationship with our readers. This relationship is not just about the news; it’s about a shared sense of purpose and a commitment to understand and illuminate our times. We feel a deep sense of duty and responsibility to our readers to honour the trust you place in us.’

Those words – ‘shared sense of purpose and commitment’, ‘duty’, ‘responsibility’, ‘honour’, ‘trust’ – imply an openness to readers’ comments, even to criticism; an important point to which we return below.

Viner continued:

‘We have grounded our new editions in the qualities readers value most in Guardian journalism: clarity, in a world where facts should be sacred but are too often overlooked; imagination, in an age in which people yearn for new ideas and fresh alternatives to the way things are.’

The grand declaration to honour the yearning of its readers ‘for new ideas and fresh alternatives to the way things are’ rings hollow. This, after all, is a paper that fought tooth-and-nail against Jeremy Corbyn. As Rob Newton pointed out via Twitter, linking to a lengthy series of screenshots featuring negative Guardian coverage:

‘The “left liberal” Guardian’s campaign against @JeremyCorbyn was as relentless as the right-wing Daily Mail & The SunHere’s the proof

Vacuous phrases continued to pour forth from the editor on the ‘new look’ paper:

‘Guardian journalism itself will remain what it has always been: thoughtful, progressive, fiercely independent and challenging; and also witty, stylish and fun.’

‘Fiercely independent and challenging’?

When the Guardian Media Group is owned by The Scott Trust Limited, a ‘profit-seeking enterprise’? (In other words, it is not a non-profit trust, with many readers still mistakenly holding a romantic vision of benign ownership.)

When the paper is thus owned and run by an elite group of individuals with links to banking, insurance, advertising, multinational consumer goods, telecommunications, information technology, venture investment, corporate media, marketing services and other sectors of the establishment? When the paper remains dependent on advertising revenue from corporate interests, despite the boast that ‘we now receive more income from our readers than we do from advertisers’. When the paper has actually ditched journalists who have been ‘fiercely independent and challenging’?

However, it is certainly true that the Guardian ‘will remain what it has always been’: a liberal pillar of the establishment; a gatekeeper of ‘acceptable’ news and comment. ‘Thus far, and no further’, to use Chomsky’s phrase. But, as mentioned, the Guardian will not go even as far in the political spectrum as Corbyn: a traditional left Labour figure, rather than a radical socialist proclaiming ‘Revolution!’ or an anarchist itching to bring down global capitalism.

Meanwhile, readers can expect the ‘new look’ Guardian to continue its attacks on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, such as the recent smear piece by ex-Guardian journalist James Ball that began scurrilously:

‘According to Debrett’s, the arbiters of etiquette since 1769: “Visitors, like fish, stink in three days.” Given this, it’s difficult to imagine what Ecuador’s London embassy smells like, more than five-and-a-half years after Julian Assange moved himself into the confines of the small flat in Knightsbridge, just across the road from Harrods.’

Ball went on, dripping more poison:

‘Today, most of those who still support Assange are hard-right nationalists – with many seeing him as a supporter of the style of politics of both Trump and Vladimir Putin.’

When we challenged Ball via Twitter for evidence of these foolish claims, he was unable to provide any. His facile response was:

‘The WikiLeaks twitter feed is a pretty good start tbh [to be honest]’

That Katharine Viner’s Guardian would happily publish such crude propaganda in an ostensibly ‘serious’ column speaks volumes about the paper’s tumbling credibility as well as conformity to power.

No doubt, too, this liberal ‘newspaper’ will continue to boost Tony Blair, the war criminal whose hands are indelibly stained with the blood of over one million people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. But, for the Guardian, he will forever be a flawed hero, someone they have worked hard to rehabilitate in recent years, constantly seeking out his views and pushing him as a respectable elder statesman whose voice the public still needs to hear.

The essence of the Guardian was summed up by satirical comedian reporter Jonathan Pie on the day of the relaunch:

‘New design. Same old virtue signalling, identity politics obsessed, champagne socialism (minus the socialism), barely concealed contempt for the working classes bullshit I presume though.’

The Empty Rhetoric Of Seeking ‘Uncomfortable’ Views

One of the Guardian stalwarts helping to project an illusion of consistent challenge to authority is long-time columnist George Monbiot. We were once admirers of Monbiot, and we still respect his environmentalist writing, particularly on the imminent dangers of climate disruption…up to a point (for instance, he never properly addresses the key issue of the corporate media, including the role of his own paper).

But well over a decade ago, we first started challenging Monbiot on his serious blind spots and establishment-friendly ignorance when it came to foreign policy. In more recent years, we have even been smeared by him, in a pitiful manner akin to that of Oliver Kamm of Murdoch’s Times, an inveterate supporter of Western ‘interventions’, on whom Monbiot often seems to rely for his slurs.

A recent piece by Jonathan Cook, once a Middle East Guardian reporter, is a skillful skewering of Monbiot’s stance. Monbiot has repeatedly attacked those who dare question Washington-approved narratives on Syria, Rwanda and the Balkan Wars. Anyone who challenges Western government propaganda claims about Syria, for example, is condemned as an Assadist or conspiracy theorist. His targets have included Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, John Pilger, university professors Tim Hayward and Piers Robinson, and Media Lens.

On Twitter last month, Monbiot alleged that Hayward and Robinson ‘have disgraced themselves over Syria’. But when has Monbiot ever excoriated Guardian columnists Jonathan Freedland and Natalie Nougayrède, Nick Cohen of the Observer, David Aaronovitch of The Times and John Rentoul of the Independent, all of whom have ‘disgraced themselves’ over US-UK wars of aggression?

And why is Monbiot’s focus so skewed to ‘their’ war crimes rather than ‘our’ war crimes? The editor of the Interventions Watch blog searched Monbiot’s Twitter timeline in December 2017 and found he had mentioned ‘Syria’ in 91 tweets and ‘Yemen’ in just three tweets. With rare exceptions, virtually the entire UK political and media system has disgraced itself over Yemen – currently the world’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe. This should be a key central concern for any honest dissident commentator today.

Cook writes of Monbiot:

‘Turning a blind eye to his behaviour, or worse excusing it, as too often happens, has only encouraged him to intensify his attacks on dissident writers, those who – whether right or wrong on any specific issue – are slowly helping us all to develop more critical perspectives on western foreign policy goals than has been possible ever before.’

He adds that the many leftists:

‘who defend Monbiot, or turn a blind eye to his hypocrisy, largely do so because of his record on the environment. But in practice they are enabling not only his increasingly overt incitement against critical thinkers, but also undermining the very cause his supporters believe he champions.’

Cook sums up:

‘All indications are that Monbiot lacks the experience, knowledge and skills to unravel the deceptions being perpetrated in the west’s proxy and not-so-proxy wars overseas. That is fair enough. What is not reasonable is that he should use his platforms to smear precisely those who can speak with a degree of authority and independence – and then conspire in denying them a platform to respond. That is the behaviour not only of a hypocrite, but of a bully too.’

We will return later to that point of dissidents being denied a platform to reply. Meanwhile, Monbiot has not responded to Cook, as far as we are aware.

Ironically, of course, the Guardian sells itself as a fearless supporter of ‘open’ journalism, delivering ‘the independent journalism the world needs’. But, once again, there are always safe limits. Tim Hayward, mentioned above, is Professor of Environmental Political Theory at Edinburgh University. He recently recounted what happened after the Guardian published a long piece by Olivia Solon, a senior technology reporter for Guardian US in San Francisco. Solon argued that critical discussion of the White Helmets in Syria had been ‘propagated online by a network of anti-imperialist activists, conspiracy theorists and trolls with the support of the Russian government’.

After publishing this hit piece, the Guardian essentially shut down all discussion, refusing even to grant a right of reply to those who had been maligned, including independent journalists. Hayward described what happened after publication:

‘What the Guardian did next:
• quickly closed its comments section;
• did not allow a right of reply to those journalists singled out for denigration in the piece;
• did not allow publication of the considered response from a group of concerned academics;
• did not respond to the group’s subsequent letter, or a follow up email to it;
• prevaricated in response to telephone inquiries as to whether a decision against publishing either communication from the group had or had not been taken;
• failed to respond to a message to its Readers’ Editor from Vanessa Beeley, one of the journalists criticised in the article.’

George Monbiot played his part too, says Hayward:

‘tweeting smears against critics and suggesting they read up about “the Russian-backed disinformation campaign against Syria’s heroic rescue workers”.’

This was disreputable behaviour from a ‘progressive’ journalist who claims that:

‘I believe that a healthy media organisation, like a healthy university, should admit a diversity of opinion.’

The Guardian journalist added that newspapers, including his own, ‘should also seek opposing views and publish them too, however uncomfortable this might be.’ Monbiot’s own behaviour exposes these words as empty rhetoric.

Guardian Looks Beyond Corbyn To The Next ‘Centrist’ Candidate

Meanwhile, the Guardian is looking beyond the time when Corbyn is Labour leader. A recent article by Ian Sinclair in the Morning Star argues that the Guardian is putting its weight behind Emily Thornberry, Corbyn’s shadow foreign secretary. A Guardian interview with her was, unusually, advertised well over a week in advance of publication. It was a major feature in which she was described as ‘a key architect of Labour’s comeback, and widely tipped to be the party’s next leader’. But there was very little in the piece about the policies she espouses, not least foreign policy issues.

One such issue is the Middle East, which was wholly absent from the Guardian interview. Last November, Sinclair observes, Thornberry proclaimed that Israel ‘stands out as a beacon of freedom, equality and democracy’. And, in a December speech to Labour Friends of Israel, she described former Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres as ‘a hero of the left, of the state of Israel and of the cause of peace.’

Sinclair points out:

‘In contrast, in 2005, US dissident Noam Chomsky called Peres “an iconic mass murderer,” presumably for his role in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians that led to the creation of Israel and for being head of government when Israel shelled a United Nations compound in Lebanon in 1996, killing over 100 civilians.’

Thornberry’s comments on Israel, says Sinclair, ‘are a cause for concern for those who want to see an anti-imperialist, humane attitude towards international affairs’. He continues:

‘Thornberry is the perfect candidate for Guardian “centrist” types who would like to neuter Corbynism — someone who can gain the backing of significant numbers of Corbyn supporters while at the same time diluting the movement’s relative radicalism by returning the Labour Party to safer, Establishment-friendly ground.’

The indications are that the ‘new look’ Guardian will be happy to promote a potential Labour leader who soft-pedals Israel’s crimes. This is part of a bigger picture of the paper offering little more than token criticism of elite Western power. We should not be surprised. No amount of redesign can gloss over the structural issues that ensure the Guardian remains very firmly a liberal pillar of the establishment and essentially a guardian of the power-friendly status quo.

*

Featured image is from Media Lens.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Liberal Pillar of the Establishment – ‘New Look’ Guardian, Old-Style Orthodoxy